December 13, 2005 City Commission Minutes
Consider approving the following, subject to conditions, UPR-09-06-05: A request to extend the Use Permitted Upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter; 944 Kentucky/214 West 10th Street [supercedes Lawrence Open Shelter (UPR-01-01-03) and Community Drop-In Center (UPR-10-11-99)].
Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the Lawrence Community Shelter was located at the northeast corner of Kentucky and 10th Street. The property was zoned RO-1 (Residence Office District) and RO-1 zoning also existed to the north, south, and west and those properties included residences, offices uses, and religious institutions. She said C-3 (Central Commercial District) was located to the east and included a public parking lot.
The UPR request was seeking to combine the sites of existing UPR’s which were for the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Community Drop-In Shelter. The UPR was also seeking to create a patio area to the east of the building, between the building and the existing parking spaces. In addition, it also was seeking to increase the shelter’s overnight capacity from 28 to 31 guests.
One key point related to this application was that on November 30, 2004, the City Commission approved the expansion of the shelter to accommodate a total capacity of 30 overnight persons (28 guests + 2 staff). The City had not received formal complaints regarding the Shelter in its four years of operation and UPR’s were subject to review at any time through Section 20-1613 of the zoning regulations which established criteria and process for amendment, suspension, or revocation of approved UPR’s.
She said staff had recommended approval of the UPR. On November 16, 2005, the Planning Commission also recommended approval with by a 9-1 vote, subject to the revised conditions. The Planning Commission recommended that the UPR be permitted for one year and expire December 2006, and also added conditions which established criteria to be met within a one year time period. A valid protest petition had been submitted for the UPR in which a super majority vote was required to pass the application.
Helen Hartnett, Co-chair, Community Commission on Homelessness, said their Commission was established for this very reason to be able to make recommendations to the City and County Commissions on issues related to implementing the Task Force plan and dealing with issues related, in Lawrence, to homeless services and agency concerns. For this reason, she was asking on behalf of the Community Commission on Homelessness, that the City Commission table this decision and allow the Commission on Homelessness to do its work allowing them to gather data to make informed decisions and provide the City Commission with the necessary information.
Mayor Highberger asked if either of the current UPR’s expiration dates were imminent.
Pool said one of the UPR’s expiration dates was imminent.
Hartnett asked for a temporary extension to go along with the request to table the decision.
Brandy Sutton, downtown business owner, said in 1999 the Community Drop-In Shelter, a predecessor to the Lawrence Community Shelter (LCS) received a UPR to use the facility at 944 Kentucky also known as 214 West 10th for daytime social service provisions to the homeless of Lawrence. LCS assured staff that all activities would be contained within that building in order to avoid problems with loitering and littering accumulation. In the review process, City staff recommended that conditions be applied to the UPR to mitigate and monitor potential spillover affects such as loitering, littering, and alcohol consumption off-premises.
In 2003, the Lawrence Open Shelter, also a predecessor to LCS, was granted a UPR to use an additional portion of that same building for a homeless shelter, administrative activities, and eventually providing structured programs for guests, such as counseling, medical consultations, and vocational training.
If the operation was not adequately monitored and loitering was permitted to occur, City staff noted that nearby property owners and residences might perceive that as a negative impact.
LCS, in this request, indicated that no weapons, illegal substances, or alcohol consumption would be permitted in the shelter environs and loitering would not be allowed. She said City staff stated: “It will be imperative that the LCS operators were diligent in implementing the operating procedures identified in the application to minimize potential negative impacts to nearby residences and property owners.” Again, at that time, it was stated that this should not impact or affect adjacent property owners as the activities would be contained indoors and there would be strict oversight of the operation policies.
She said LCS had not complied with those promises to the City. This year the police had investigated a death, dealt with suicidal incidences, served warrants, and investigated crimes such as battery, sexual battery, aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, trespassing, theft, criminal damage to property, public consumption of alcohol, and urinating in public, all at the LCS facility. She informed the City Commission about the statistic concerning the Police and Fire/Medical Departments and those statistics did not include surrounding areas. In addition, LCS neighbors were dissatisfied with the situation as it currently existed. This was evident by the letters submitted to the City Commission, as well as the protest petition which required 4 of the City Commissioners to allow that problem to continue to exist unfettered for the next 5 years.
LCS was back again to extend their UPR for additional 5 years and expand their facility to allow additional overnight occupants who engage in alcohol and substance abuse. When LCS was asked about those problems at the Planning Commission, LCS stated that they had operating policies which were designated and designed to minimize the impact on surrounding neighbors. Obviously, those procedures were not being enforced and LCS staff was not monitoring their guests.
She said if the UPR had been granted to any business, this City Commission and the City would have revoked that UPR by now. Unfortunately, homelessness was a problem in this community, but the City needed to determine whether or not they wanted to jeopardize the safety and well being of their children and neighborhoods in order to assist a handful of individuals who had chosen drugs and alcohol as a way of life.
She said LCS should not be permitted to expand, at this time, and should not be granted five years to get the situation under control at the expense of the citizens of this community. She suggested that LCS be given a 6 month extension on its current UPR to continue operations as it currently was and allow the City’s newly formed Homeless Services Commission, the new case managers that would be starting at the first of this year and LCS, to work on a plan to correct those problems.
Herman Leon, Lawrence, said he is a neighbor of the Open Shelter and a volunteer in an organization that lived across the street. He said no one coming from a well organized atmosphere would like to come upon something that symbolically manifested chaos in such a concentrated form and people were repelled by that chaos.
He said one particular Sunday he was struck by the loitering at the Open Shelter because there were a number of children under the age of 12 years old, along with women. He said he assumed that the women and children were being supervised by some professional organization. He said what those kids, fathers, and mothers were being called besides loiters, might help solve this very painful problem that was causing a lot of trouble.
He said their organization served 150 people by volunteers who, at times, brought their children along so their children could learn about people who were having trouble. Also, some of those volunteers brought their children to implement their religious convictions to serve those in need. He said loiterers were human beings. He said those children and adults had the right to have a place where they could call their own to meet.
Loring Henderson, Director Lawrence Community Shelter, said what they were asking for was to add three more sleeping spaces, a five year UPR, and the removal of a site plan condition regarding the responsibility for the loitering within 150 feet of the Shelter. He said in discussions with the Police and the City’s Planning Department staff who checked with the City’s attorney, this was not an enforceable condition because 150 feet included other persons’ private homes, public parking spaces, and two churches.
He said he would like the City Commission and the community at-large to understand the number of successes and programs that went on at the Lawrence Community Shelter. He said it was not a place of where there was no accountability and not a place for people to come part time. He said concerning case managers, they had a graduate student from the K.U. School of Social Welfare and four night time monitors and one of those monitors was a licensed, masters degree, social worker. He said during the night time they had a lot of successes with folks who were concerned with alcohol and substance abuse and need to go to a detoxification facility in Kansas City or Topeka.
In the first eleven months of 2005, the Shelter had served 363 different people though the Lawrence Community Shelter, Day and Night Programs. He said 23 people found a job through their Back to Work Program which was a job coaching program that they did on a consulting bases with Cottonwood. That consultant worked with those people, defining jobs, writing resumes, training for interviews, and finding jobs. He said 31 people had moved into housing, 21 people had entered into detoxification or rehabilitation, and 39 people received medical (including mental health) and dental care.
He said LOS recently received a significant grant from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. He said that grant was entrepreneurial small business grant which was $10,000 for planning and $50,000 a year for three years, to work with homeless and low income people to develop jobs and small businesses. The LOS was also very active with coalitions and collaborations with other service providers. Also, there was a database in the pike for better data collection called the Homeless Management Information System which they were the lead and coordinating agency for ten agencies in this City.
Beginning in January 1st, the City was funding four new case managers and the Shelter was participating in how those case managers would be used in the City.
Henderson said since the building and the location was the focus of this discussion, one area he would like to focus on was the inadequacy of the building. Because so much was going on, the lack of space was harsh on the Shelter. He said they shared desks for staff people; the handicapped accessibility met codes for the first floors, but there were meeting rooms down below that they could not utilize for handicap accessibility; and they had to go outside to get inside because there was no connection inside. He said the building was just too small and it was on the edge of a neighborhood. This was not a place where he had said he wanted the Shelter to stay forever. In the past, they had looked at 51 different sites in Lawrence before they found the current site.
He said when the Lawrence Open Shelter was started, which he was initially involved with, they did make an agreement to keep the Kentucky Street side clear and that had been done. There was a wood fence that was not in good condition and they were replacing that fence with the patio that was on the site plan. They had placed lights in the alley that went between the Shelter’s building and the house to the north.
The examples that were given for some of the instances of egregious violation of some sort at the Shelter were old examples and he discussed those complaints. He said when there were instances of this sort the Shelter had not been contacted by the neighbors except for Hemphill, one of the neighbors. He suggested that everyone be vigilant together when something happens and instantly make a phone call if something happened.
He said they had supervised breaks for smoking for the evening shelter and perimeter checks in which they had done from the very beginning.
In addition, there was a newspaper for the homeless called “Change of Heart” and in the next addition, he was going to write the front page article which would be a public education effort to educate the homeless community on courtesies and loitering.
He said there was a small wall next to the shelter that was a congregating spot and was the location that the police went to on many occasions. He said he had discussed with Parks and Recreation, the idea of tearing that wall down and in view of all the concerns that was an idea he would continue to ask to be dealt with in some way.
He said he could not deny that the number of police calls had dramatically increased, but to some degree there was an explanation that the program had grown significantly and was now a 24/7 operation. One of the reasons people were coming to the Shelter was because of their programs such as job assistance, housing, transportation, and medical care.
He said they had a meeting with the police to discuss the number of police calls and the police saw no problem because the police were appreciative that the Shelter made those calls. He said he was not saying that it was not serious that there were significant number of calls to the police, but that was an attempt on the Shelter’s part to deal with situations quickly.
In addition, if someone was criminally trespassing, the first call would be a warning, and those trespassing would not be arrested. Every time they wanted to get someone off a property and they had been previously warned, they would need to make a second call on that individual.
Again, he said the additional sleeping spaces, the five year UPR, and the deletion of the 150 foot condition were what the Shelter was asking for. He said he would like to move to a better Shelter someday.
Kent Hayes, Homeless Outreach Specialist with Bert Nash, said he spent as much time at the Community Shelter as at Bert Nash. He said his job primarily was to work with the severely, emotionally disturbed individuals who were also homeless to try and get those individuals in for services, housings, jobs, and support system. At this point, he estimated that 70% of the people who were homeless had some form of mental illness. About 40% of that total population had severe mental illness, known as SPMI. He said severe emotionally disturbed individuals were people who 30 years ago would have been in hospitals, nursing care centers, or group care home, but today they were on the street. Part of the concern was finding places for those individuals. The concern that the neighbors and businesses in the area had was the same concerns that the staff at the Lawrence Community Shelter and Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center had, were all the same. He said he would guess that 80% of the problems were caused by people who were severely and emotionally disturbed. No matter how hard people in the community wanted that to stop and how hard Henderson and his staff worked, they could not keep control of those individuals who were in need of care. The crime from his perspective was that they had that many homeless people who were emotionally disturbed. He said what amazed him was that the Lawrence Community Shelter’s work they did with those types of individuals, in spite of those individuals handicaps. He said he worked with the LOS with those individuals in housing issues, but the process took anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to get those individuals housed. He said what was needed was more group home or boarding type of environments where the mental health community could provide attendant care workers. Severe, persistent, mentally ill people were as handicapped as paraplegics.
He said the four new case managers that the City was going to provide would make a tremendous difference. He said the case managers at LOS and Salvation Army worked hard and they worked together as a team to try to find placement for those people. He said finding places for those individuals would solve many problems.
Cari Honguton, Plymouth Congregational Church, embraced the Community Shelter as a neighbor. She said as part of their mission to address the homelessness issue in this community, they made a conscious decision to remain centrally located, downtown and create an effective downtown ministry. Clearly downtown had a high concentration of resources for people in need of the Community Shelter and they wanted to continue to be one of those easily accessible resources. She said they had made regular financial contributions, provided holiday gifts, cleaned the shelter, funded identification papers for people looking for work, and had provided a washer and dryer for the Shelter. Most importantly they were next door offering ministry and guidance. She said Plymouth wanted to continue to strengthen that relationship and make a long term commitment to the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Peter Zacharias, downtown business owner, speaking on behalf of Downtown Lawrence Incorporated (DLI), said this issue came to his attention when his daughter, who lived in the 10th and Ohio area, started having problems with the people who hung out at the Homeless Shelter. He said twice they had to call the police to have individuals removed from his daughter’s apartment. Personally, at his business, he had a fire set at the back of his building by the homeless, people relieving themselves, and camping out on his roof.
He said DLI had a vested interest in providing a clean and safe environment for civic and commercial activities in downtown Lawrence. He said he was present to speak about the request for the renewal of the UPR for the Lawrence Community Shelter. The DLI had been investigating solutions to problems related to homelessness for the last couple of years. Although they were disappointed that the downtown retail business community was not represented, they were pleased that the City had taken a step to form a Commission to address those issues. One only needed to take a stroll through downtown Lawrence to see the negative effect that homelessness had on the community center. The City as well as private business owners have heavily invested in downtown and as merchants, they were quite concerned that their investments continued to provide jobs and benefit for those that live and work in Lawrence.
In 2003 the Lawrence Community Shelter opened and the Shelter promised no weapons, no illegal substances, no loitering, and no alcohol consumption would be permitted on their shelter environs. Further, they promised to minimize the effect on surrounding neighbors by containing the activities indoors and only allowing smoking on the east side courtyard. The Shelter had broken their word to the City and the citizens of Lawrence. LCS has become the problem which the City of Lawrence, the neighborhood and planning staff had feared. LCS had allowed excessive loitering, criminal activity to take, and a center of disruption for the neighborhood and downtown. On any given day there were numerous individuals loitering the City’s street, parking lots, and surrounding grounds.
He said the LCS stated that they were working with the Police, but he had a concern about the costs associated with those Police calls. He said LCS could not monitor the individuals that were currently using their services and could not and were not enforcing the rules. LCS had failed to comply with their current UPR’s and should not be allowed to continue those violations, disruptions to the neighborhood, or excessive use of City resources.
He said they were asking that the LCS not be permitted to expand at this time and not be granted the 5 year extension to bring the situation under control at the expense of the citizens of this community. He suggested that LCS be given a 6 month extension on its current UPR to continue operations and allow the Homeless Commission’s newly formed commission, new case managers, and the LCS to work on a plan to correct those massive problems.
James Dunn, speaking on behalf of the Oread Neighborhood Association, read a prepared letter:
“On behalf of the Oread Neighborhood Association’s Board, I have been directed to convey, by a majority vote of the Directors of the Board, a request that the Commission grant a one (1) year extension of the Use Permitted Upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter.
In the Board’s discussion of the Use Permitted Upon Review request, the following concerns were presented:
1. The City Commission’s designation overnight occupancy limit appears to over extend the building’s capacity to serve;
2. The unavailability of property monitors between 5 p.m., when the day facility closes, and 8 p.m., when the overnight shelter opens;
3. It is anticipated Community Commission on Homelessness, within a year, will develop a long-range plan to address homelessness in Lawrence; and
4. Minimization of the congregation of guests on south front porch area and maximization of the patio area use on the north side of the property.”
Bob Everhart, Lawrence, said from his personal experience he has not had any negative experience with the homeless people from the Shelter.
Randy Dyke, Lawrence, said he was there to defend the Lawrence Community Shelter because they have done wonderful work with the homeless. He said Henderson and his staff and the LCS had their hands full trying to keep control.
Laura Green supported the request for the extension. She said there was some hysteria going on that really was not warranted.
Richard Hagerman said he wanted to present a point of view of a person who has been homeless for about a year and a half. He said there was a generalization about the homeless community. He said in his experience at the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Drop-In Center people who were trying to get out of their situation had to put up with bullying drunks and other types of aggression. He said not all homeless were the same. There were also good people along with people who needed help. He said the issue of the really aggressive predatory type people had not been addressed except as a reaction to pressure from the outside and he did not think there was any interest in addressing that issue from the people who ran those shelters.
Bethany Roberts, Attorney for Kansas Legal Services and Secretary of the Coalition for Homeless Concerns, said they were pleased to work with the LCS and they had a grant from the Social Security Administration called the Kansas Homeless Outreach Project and Evaluation. This grant provided for a variety of things and they had received very favorable response from the community shelter. The grant’s goal was to help remove some of the legal barriers to homelessness by providing disability benefits or some of the other legal problems that might face homeless persons and to get them into stable housing. The project goal also required an intense case management approach which they had continued success with through the Lawrence Community Shelter. When they first received the grant for Douglas County, they contacted several area agencies in order to collaborate with those agencies so they could help to provide the outreach they needed to give to the homeless persons in the area. No agency was as willing to cooperate as the Lawrence Community Shelter.
She said they meet with clients regularly at LCS and transported those clients to social security hearings and doctor’s appointments and they had never felt threatened or uncomfortable at LCS. She said she was disappointed to hear from some fellow residents the assumption that everyone that was homeless was either on drugs or alcohol because that was disrespectful to the homeless population and not a very accurate depiction of the type of people they dealt with. She said they were hopeful that the UPR would be approved and that they would be able to continue to outreach that very deserving and needy population through their affiliation with the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Lynn Dawson, Paralegal, Kansas Legal Services, said the case managers at the Shelter went above and beyond trying to solve problems for the homeless. She thought the clients at the Shelter were very well under control and they would like to support that imitative.
Bob Harwood, Lawrence, said he had been a volunteer at the shelter for about a year. He said it had been his observation that the general perception from the public was that most of the people at the Shelter were substance abusers, but that was not the case. He said there had been allegations that the Shelter’s clients were going outside to drink in the evening, but in his observation, when it was 10:00 pm, anyone who went outside was accompanied by a staff member at all times. They made regular checks around the building and the grounds. If anyone was caught drinking on the property, they would receive a two week ban and that amount of time went up as people were caught drinking.
Many of the police calls were not because of fights, but for someone who had been banned from the property and it was not the Shelters place to take the law into their own hands and take them off the property. There were a number of people who they did not have room for and those were the people that might be seen after 10:00 pm. If the shelter had greater capacity there might be fewer of those people out. Denying those people a place to stay would only exacerbate the problem and perhaps make it worse. He said the City Commission could deny the extension on the Shelter’s permit, but that did not make the problem go away.
Phil Bentzinger, Cottonwood Services, said they had been in a partnership over the last 6 months to help guests of the LCS to find jobs in the community. He said they had traditionally served people with developmental disabilities, but branched out and expanded their service delivery a few years ago working with people in non custodial parent programs and various other partnerships. He said taking advantage of their network of employers they had more that 200 people working in the Lawrence area. He said Henderson and his staff screen the applicants to their program and they were working with some of the folks that were more job ready and they had been able to find quite a few jobs in the community and also found housing for some of those people. He said they supported the Shelter’s initiative in extending the UPR.
Carol Pilant, Lawrence, said she did not work in the shelter as much as Henderson, but was there more often than not. She said some of the clients felt that the Shelter was their home. She requested the Commission renew the UPR for five years.
Phil Hemphill, Lawrence, said, as neighbors, all they had asked was that the Shelter live up to the promises that they made when the UPR was initially approved. He said it begged the question of why wasn’t the City Commission asking the hard questions of the LCS and why, after three years, did this situation seem to be out of control.
He said speaking as a new member of the Community Commission on Homelessness, he said he hoped to make a difference in that position.
Hilda Enoch, Lawrence, said she had been following homeless issues for more that 20 years. She said Henderson had made a remarkable contribution to this community. She thought they should be discussing how to build a better shelter and other issues. To shut down the only shelter or limit it in anyway would not help the community’s issues. She said she had been waiting 20 years for the community to take the responsibility of building an adequate shelter or adding room and supplementing that with transitional housing that was needed in this community both for people with mental issues and people with drinking problems. She said they also needed a detoxification center so that the community did not need to ship people out who were the community’s problems. She said she appreciated that at least this City Commission had established guidelines along with a Commission on Homelessness to look into what could be done about this issue.
Don Huggins, Lawrence Community Shelter, member of the KU Faculty, said part of what made Lawrence a good community to live and work in was that it was a progressive and compassionate community of people who cared for people. He had been a volunteer with the former Lawrence Open Shelter and the Drop-In Center and now Lawrence Community Shelter, for approximately 2 years. He was active in drug and alcohol addiction programs for over 10 years both as someone in recovery and as a supporter of recovery efforts within this community. His experience as a volunteer at the Community Shelter had allowed him to help people who were experiencing homelessness, addictions and mental illness. The LCS and its staff worked hard and long to provide the many services that they were called upon to provide and the Shelter provided those services on a budget that was sparse to say the least. The LCS depended on community volunteers with many backgrounds to accomplish its mission. He said he was especially proud of the many KU students that spent some of their evenings assisting the night monitor with the supervision and oversight that was necessary in making the Shelter a safe home for their guests. The students and guests learn a lot about each other and about circumstances and what circumstances could bring to a person’s life.
During the two years he had spent volunteering at the night Shelter and the day portion of the LCS, he had seen the shelter become safer and a more program orientated facility. It was not in the business of warehousing people, but in the business of getting people back into the productive and responsible citizenry of this community and he was proud to be a small part of that.
Nancy Odle, NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness), informed the City Commission on issues concerning mental illness and homelessness. She said there were no places to place those types of individuals, but there was a place called the Shelter where they could begin to help those individuals with case management and mental health intervention. Mental Health outreach for the homeless was not simple. A compassionate, responsive community was necessary and loss of community exacerbated mental illness. She said first and foremost for those individuals was a shelter, a warm place to stay and someone to talk to. Preventing recurrent homelessness by providing access to community services was the most effective answer for this community.
Reverend Joe Alford, Founder, Director, and Chaplin of the Jubilee Café, said they fed breakfast to the homeless and needy persons on Tuesday’s and Friday’s. He said he felt a particular kinship with LINK, LOS, LCS, Salvation Army, and many other agencies that served the homeless population in Lawrence. He said one of the things they did when asking people to volunteer their services was to treat their guests with dignity and respect. He supported the Lawrence Community Shelter and its application for a five year extension.
Lew Hinshaw, Board of Directors of the Lawrence Community Shelter, said he had witnessed the melding of two Boards that formerly operated independently, the Board of the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Board of the Community Drop-In Center. One of the steps in melding those two boards was a Board planning and training retreat and was one of the experiences he had that taught him that the Board of the Lawrence Community Shelters was composed of people who really had a heart for homeless people and were invested in the issue of homelessness. He said those people were interested in learning whatever they could to do the job of a Board of Director’s and that job was to see that the work of the Shelter was done effectively and correctly. He hoped that the City Commission would grant a five year extension of the UPR for the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Bob Schumm, downtown business owner, said he agreed with everything he had heard. He said one side was suggesting all the goodness that the Shelter was doing for everyone and that was a wonderful opportunity for people and the beneficiaries were receiving very fine service. On the other hand, there were property owners and neighbors who were asking for management and to follow through on the promises that had been made. He said what was before the City Commission was a land use issue, a Use Permitted Upon Review, and did not have too much to do with the social cause of things. He said by the admission of the Shelter itself, they were becoming so successful that they were outgrowing their facility. That begged the question of why would someone want a 5 year extension when the Shelter was suggesting that they were out of room right now and they needed a larger facility that the City needed to sponsor. On the other hand, if there were legitimate complaints by the neighbors, business owners, and by the people who had to occupy the same space downtown, why would the City give up its right and opportunity to properly manage the situation? If this was any other use, that was causing comments and concerns, he doubted the City Commission would extend a UPR to a lengthy period of five years. He said it seemed reasonable that the City Commission would want to keep the extension at a reasonably short period of time, such as one year, especially with regard to this issue at hand. He said the same level of service was going to be offered to the clients that enjoy the service right now. If the Shelter was managed properly in a year it would be extended again. He said in the meantime maybe this was the wake up call the City needed to say they needed to get going on an appropriate facility that worked for everyone. He said what he was hearing was this was not working. He encouraged the Commission to extend the UPR, but only for one year.
Mark Cline, Lawrence, said the Lawrence Community Shelter had problems, but he thought they were losing perspective in being portrayed as harshly as it was because they were evaluating it by an unfair set of criteria. People raised complaints about its location, but they should look at the new location of the proposed Salvation Army Shelter because it was more than a mile from the downtown bus system hub.
Helen Hartnett, Co-Chair of the Community Commission on Homelessness, reiterated that they were asking the City Commission to table this vote and place the decision, at least for now, in the hands of the Commission on Homelessness to do some studying and make recommendations to the City Commission.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked Linda Finger, Director of Planning, if the City Commission concurred with the Planning Commission’s recommendation or made any changes that they were to make to the conditions would those changes need to go back to the Planning Commission.
Finger said it depended on if the changes were substantial then yes. If the changes were more fine tuning and the intent was still there, but were making clarifying revisions then no, but because of the petition that was filed, the City Commission needed a 4-1 vote to take any action.
Vice Mayor Amyx said because of the permit deadline, he asked if the City Commission was going to ask the Planning Commission to look at this issue, specifically to look at condition no. 4, and he asked about the length of time the Planning Commission needed to look at this issue.
Finger said when looking at past history, she thought it would be 6 to 9 months and still be a reasonable timeframe.
Commissioner Rundle said he was thinking about a much shorter time frame and he had an indication that they could come back in 2 months.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he thought a specific task needed to be considered under that UPR and it seemed that the 6 items listed under Condition No. 4 were items that needed to be addressed to take care of the problems of the neighborhood and the land use issue of the UPR. He said if the City Commission could work out those details, 90% of the problem would be taken care of.
Mayor Highberger said he concurred. He said he was supportive of the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the Oread Neighborhood’s suggestion. He said he would support an extension of the UPR with current conditions and table the new proposed conditions made by the Lawrence Community Shelter and ask that the Commission on Homelessness draft a report to the City Commission in three months.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the comments that people had concerning the work that the Shelter provided. She said she was excited about the opportunities for the four new case managers because it would help a great deal. She also appreciated the concerns of the neighbors and adjoining business owners and hoped that everyone involved could work together as a team to make sure both sides were being addressed.
Commissioner Schauner said he could not help but think of the story of Solomon and splitting the baby as people spoke on this issue. He said in many ways, he thought the City Commission was being asked to make a decision which probably did not have a right or wrong answer. Ultimately what the City Commission would be put in the position of doing was trying to make a decision based on balancing what appeared to be competing interests. He suspected there was more in common with this issue than what some of the conversation might have suggested. He said he would echo Commissioner Hack’s comments that this was a compassionate community and City Commission. At the same time, this Commission and this community had an expectation that no one’s rights were absolute. The key was how to find a short-term or long-term solution that honored the rights of the community land owners, neighbors, and business operators and the rights and needs of those who were mentally ill or suffer from addictions or other difficulties. Unfortunately, that was a decision that the State’s Legislature, a few years ago, decided to abandoned when they put this whole mental illness, and homelessness problem into the communities and now the communities were dealing with the aftershock of the legislature’s indefensible decision making in attempt to balance the State’s budget.
He said he was very supportive of the Mayor’s suggestion to table the decision for now, allow the Commission on Homelessness three months to bring back a report to the City Commission as to how it might ask the Community Shelter make whatever changes were appropriate in order to satisfy those four conditions, and continue the existing UPR under the current conditions.
Commissioner Rundle said he was sorry they were not discussing a solution that would demonstrate to Hemphill, Hartnett and others who had been waiting patiently much of the time and at times understandably frustrated and impatiently for some long-term solution. He said he wanted to echo people’s comments that spoke to the mischaracterization of clients of the shelter and placing the blame solely on the Shelter. He said they needed a partnership in the community and needed to expect responsibility on the part of everyone. He said when they were looking into this issue they tried to get a complete set of costs attributed to the homelessness, but they were unable to get sufficient accounting numbers because the data was not there. In every other community money spent on an effective solution was always less than the money they spent on an unplanned way. He said he was confident that if they could get carefully crafted programs fully funded that would bring solutions that everybody would be able to notice.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to extend UPR 10-11-99 and UPR 01-01-03 for three months, to table the decision on UPR-09-06-05, and to refer the matter to the Commission on Homelessness Concerns for a report with special emphasis on the special conditions of UPR 09-06-05, Condition No. 4 (a-f). Motion carried unanimously. (9)