December 12, 2006 Minutes (City Commission Room, City Hall)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Katherine Dinsdale, Kim Gouge, Phil Hemphill, Rick Marquez, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Monroe, Robert Mosely |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Jane Faubion, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley Rigney and Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Jeannette Collier, Hubbard Collinsworth, Norm Scraper, Charlotte Knoche, Wes Dalberg |
Martin-Smith called the meeting to order at 8:37 am.
Introductions
Members and guests introduced themselves. Martin-Smith said it was significant that Knoche, Collier and Dalberg were present and at the table. The CCH appreciates them coming and being able to work with the group. She anticipates they would like to have them at the meetings for the next three or four months – it will require the group staying focused so as not to impose on guests for longer than that amount of time. She asked if they all have access to the member list and CCH information. Staff said they would forward the links. She thanked Hartnett (absent) for arranging the November meeting with Michael Stoops.
Approval of the agenda and the October 10, 2006 minutes
Martin-Smith wished to add an item to the agenda prior to adjourning. She would like to spend a few minutes reviewing action items noted in the October 10, 2006 minutes.
Dinsdale moved to approve the amended agenda. Mosely seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Mosely moved to approve the October 10, 2006 minutes. Marquez seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Procedural changes regarding public comment
Martin-Smith said members discussed possible changes regarding public comment at the retreat and agreed to model their actions after the way the City Commission handles public comment. In the future, when the CCH is discussing a voting or action item, the public may speak to that item prior to the decision-making. Some agenda items will be marked as public input items (bolded), the topic will be introduced, the Chair will ask for public comment (three minutes will be allowed per person and comments must be related to the agenda item), discussion will come back to the CCH and action will take place if appropriate. There will be an explanation to the public on the January agenda as to how the new changes will work.
Dinsdale moved to adopt the new public comment procedure as described by Martin-Smith. Hemphill seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Receive retreat summary and add any missing action items
Martin-Smith asked the group to take a minute to look through the summary and suggested the group receive the summary and add any missing action items.
Collier asked about the definition listed of permanent housing – if it could potentially have a service component.
Martin-Smith said yes – these are examples of terms to define in order to arrive at a common language. She said it was important for everyone to be talking about the same thing. One of the action items is to aim for an RFP-like product. No one person owns what the CCH is going to discuss – it is a community discussion and there may be things that will require RFP’s.
Marquez said they chose the word “RFP-like” because it is a way to organize the shelter concept into a cohesive document. The CCH needs to make it clear that they will not necessarily be issuing an RFP at the end of this process.
Swarts noted that this group has utilized “RFP’s” in the past.
Martin-Smith said regarding the last action item (budget), Hartnett told the Mayor she would work on that throughout the budget process and she has agreed to start doing that. It is one of the first things the CCH will want to move forward on behalf of the Mayor. This group needs to reach out to the Mayor and let him know we are ready to take on this project. Hartnett and others will need to look at the total amount of funding going out to agencies serving homeless.
Dinsdale asked if the group would be spending time today outlining an action plan for developing the vision. She clarified that for the next six months our job is to describe the vision for a 24/7 shelter and programming – and to also outline budget steps for funding and identify potential players.
Martin-Smith said the goal is to develop the vision of what a 24/7 would look like. Simultaneously Hartnett will look at the funding and work with the Mayor and staff in terms of identifying those resources already being spent on delivering homeless services. Ultimately we will have a document that will be RFP-like that we could take to the CC and it could be issued to the community. Our resolution does state that the CCH needs to assist with identifying funding sources – we can be creative and maybe Hartnett working with staff and the Mayor can bring some new ideas.
Marquez said if the group is going to put something in there such as “this is what the community would like to see”? When it is issued it would be better to say “this is what we want” and “who can give it to us.” What we want should not be based on what is already available in the community. The group does not want to be thinking about who can address which part.
Knoche asked if they would be looking at a service matrix.
Martin-Smith said part of the challenge of serving on this commission is that services, needs, etc. change every day so once there is a vision – she is hoping that CCH discussions will all coalesce in one place. She asked if there was anything else in the action items that needed clarification.
Collier asked what the group meant by “big box”.
Dinsdale said a large and comprehensive site.
Martin-Smith said the goal is to achieve something and not set the group up for rejection. It was unanimous at the retreat that this was the issue the group needed to tackle first. She drew the group’s attention to the Good Neighbor Agreement – it looks like a part of shelter planning and it is, but it may be a stand alone issue as well.
Swarts clarified that there was agreement at the retreat that there needs to be a standard set of components for any good neighbor agreement but that each particular agreement would look a bit different and therefore be more specific for each site.
Knoche clarified that it was so everyone comes into the project knowing there is an expectation of having this agreement in place.
Martin-Smith said yes.
Dinsdale said in the TF Plan the TF developed a shelter facilities plan for 24/7 wrap around services – what is the difference between what was done then and what is being done now?
Martin-Smith said this discussion is not happening outside of the Plan. There is a sense that some of the TF recommendations would fall into place but that the group has to have a start and the shelter discussion is that start. The group needs to get that on the table and talk about a 24/7 and what will it looks like in the community.
Dinsdale clarified that we are not starting from scratch.
Martin-Smith said if members read the establishing resolution it clearly states that the CCH is to implement the Plan with the understanding that if there are better things going on now – they can be considered as well. Sections 4 and 10 of the resolution are important to remember and she assured the group that they are heading in the right direction.
Marquez moved to adopt the retreat summary. Gouge seconded the motion, which passed.
Timeline Development
The group arrived at the following timeline.
January 9, 2007
February 13, 2007
March 13, 2007
April 10, 2007
May 8, 2007
June 12, 2007
Knoche said no matter what the CCH decides we will still have to be using the definitions that are tied to funding packages.
Martin-Smith said she wants to look at the community holistically.
Swarts suggested the group identify who they want to help and what that help will look like in a perfect world. There are a couple different ways to go about grant funding – one is to see what is available and then try to find a solution that fits, the other is to figure out the need first and then go figure ways to fund the need. The second option is harder but it will likely get the community closer to a holistic and realistic, solution.
Collier said it will be helpful to look at different homeless populations – Swarts’ second idea is really where we need to go.
Marquez wants the CCH to drive it rather than allowing outside partners or funding sources to do that.
Hemphill said a good example of a program that is already working is the Topeka Rescue Mission – they have a lot of partners that come into the mission to provide services. Why not take one or two examples that are already in operation and ask the question does this fit in Lawrence and how do we tweak it?
Martin-Smith said the TF studied a lot of different models but there tends to be a sense that we would like to be like the Topeka Rescue Mission (TRB).
Dalberg asked why we would want to be like Topeka.
Martin-Smith said we do not have the base of financial support to support something like the mission. But the model of having service providers come to a central place is what has been considered and what is considered to work for a lot of communities.
Hemphill said it isn’t going to need to be as large so maybe we won’t need the large amount of corporate sponsorship. Plus, it has never been proposed to the public to have something like the TRM. Who knows what they might support.
Martin-Smith said that is the goal – to present something to the community that everyone can support.
The group agreed to review the ES part of the TF Plan and the ES Subcommittee’s document.
Collier said that she would work with Steve Ozark to do a survey of churches. The Interfaith project is desperate to provide something along the lines of housing.
Marquez moved to extend the meeting for 15 minutes. Mosely seconded the motion, which passed.
Martin-Smith said it would help if the CCH would talk about money and what is being done and spent by churches. The faith community is anxious and they do a lot in this community – a church might see our plan/vision and say they could support a piece of it. She asked for permission to address the CC in December to talk about the timeline, vision, etc. She wants the group to be in front of the CC in June with the document.
Dinsdale said she is not getting it-she wants to be firm in sticking to the Plan. She sees “all in need in the community” – we need Jeanette’s numbers for that. She doesn’t want to draw another picture.
Martin-Smith said this group is trying to come up with the big picture.
Dalberg said there is a homeless problem and if there is already a solution then there would be no reason for this group to be meeting. He said it will help shelter providers to know what exactly the community wants to do to address homelessness.
Martin-Smith said this Plan doesn’t have legs yet.
Collier said it isn’t concrete.
Knoche said that is right – we need to take generalities and flesh them out.
Mosely said we need to go in and say “this is the solution” – not “this is what we want.”
Martin-Smith said she would talk about the October minutes action items with staff; it was not necessary for the group to discuss it now.
Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 am.