May 8, 2007 Minutes (City Commission Room, City Hall)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Hubbard Collinsworth, Katherine Dinsdale, Jane Faubion, Phil Hemphill, Loring Henderson, Rick Marquez, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Monroe, Robert Mosely |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Kim Gouge, Helen Hartnett |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley Rigney and Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Jeannette Collier, Wes Dalberg, Hilda Enoch, Charlotte Knoche, Steve Ozark, Saunny Scott |
Martin-Smith called the meeting to order at 8:35 am.
Approval of the April 10, 2007 Minutes
Collinsworth moved to approve the April 10, 2007 minutes. Mosely seconded the motion, which passed.
Shelter and Housing Options Discussion
Martin-Smith said the goal of the CCH is to hold a Study Session with the CC in June.
Swarts said she could make a request for a SS after the June CCH meeting.
Martin-Smith said it will not be the end of the group’s work but rather the beginning. She wants to see changes or enhancements to what the city is doing to address homelessness. She suggested looking at the documents so that everyone understands what it is we are going to the public and to the CC with. Keep in mind the homeless count, which has been the guiding force for these last few months. The count was a light bulb moment for a lot of people in this community and she gets the sense that people really do have an interest in addressing the homeless situation. The problem is much broader than everyone suspected. Is there any value in including the list of terms and concepts in the package?
Knoche said it saves a lot of time in the discussion.
It was agreed to include the terms in the package.
Martin-Smith presented the Housing Options Chart – there are a couple of changes that were made at the last work group meeting. The ES capacity was dropped back down to 50. Looking at the homeless count, and taking into account comments from service providers, we determined that we need to stay close to the count if we are going to have any credibility in front of the CC. We have to base it on data. We also said that two things have to happen at the same time. The ES has to stay in place and also there has to run parallel an ETH program, where most people would be served, much like the housing first concept. The other change that came up was that we need to be very clear that this community needs one shelter – but we recognize that we need ETH in order to function with one ES with a capacity of no more than 50. She clarified that the group has not spent time on TH, PH, or PSH, but that is the next step. She asked for comments.
Henderson apologized for missing the last subcommittee meeting. His first reaction is as always, it looks like a really good plan and these are all the pieces. He would still have a higher number for ES, 100 seems high for ETH when in the chart that particular section is the newest, we have the least amount of experience, and it is going to be a lower number until the whole thing gets established. Since Ozark and Dinsdale are present they can speak about church fundraising since we are counting on that to make ETH work. The LCS board doesn’t have a particular number in mind, but it is likely higher than 50 due to the lack of other options and timing. Also, regarding the ES description page, there are many other things that can go on at an ES.
Martin-Smith asked to hold the discussion on ES until they finished discussing numbers. Regarding Henderson’s comment, there will be benchmarks and goals for achieving this. IT won’t happen overnight but we have to lay out the ideal picture for the community so that we can garner the necessary support. Everyone recognizes that we will continue to do what we are doing until we start achieving the other options. She understands the dilemma from Henderson as a provider. But we as a community don’t want to pay for or build a large shelter – we are looking more toward the housing first model.
Henderson is in support of Housing First, but he doesn’t want to be locked in to it.
Martin-Smith said this will be reviewed on a regular basis – we aren’t locked in to it. Things can change. There could be a greater need that comes up and it will have to be revisited.
Dinsdale said drawing this plan is forcing the issue. We have drawn a picture of what we want services to look like in this community and there are going to be some pains. By recommending a smaller shelter, we are forcing the community to come forward with these units. She doesn’t have a grasp on whether these numbers are appropriate for a community of this size.
Martin-Smith said we need to deal with our homeless in our community.
Collinsworth said that would be comparing apples and oranges.
Martin-Smith said she likes Dinsdale’s wording. We see things better for people and that requires the city to partner with the private sector. The city will have to help work through things – such as how do we take care of damages to an apartment. It will force us all to the table in order to make it happen.
Marquez said we talked about a plan for ES. We are addressing emergency sheltering needs in two different ways. He understands more about the approach – we have emergency sheltering options for 150 people. The flexibility is in the ETH section of the plan.
Martin-Smith asked if the definitions provided that understanding adequately.
Marquez said when he looked at it he saw it as steps one through five. With the current financial situation in the city, coming with a responsible and well thought out plan will go much farther with the CC. The conversation will not be cut off.
Henderson said when you are making a plan you plan for the future situation, not just what we have now. Fifty still strikes him as a small number both because of the current situation and because he sees the future. To get 100 ETH units is going to take a long time. The flow is also a concern. Adding 25 doesn’t upset the whole equation.
Marquez said looking at ES and ETH, lets say that CC wants to go forward. They issue an RFP for someone to administer the ES. He asked how long that will take from issuing the RFP to having an operating shelter.
Swarts said it would depend on if it was built or acquired.
Marquez asked if it would be quicker to build a shelter or to line up 100 ETH units.
Dalberg said it will be quicker to build a shelter.
Swarts said it would depend on how aggressively units are pursued, how large a base of support, and if people can see some initial successes – it might work. It will have to be done in tandem.
Knoche asked if there was a way in the presentation, in the chart, to make it clear that we are serving 150 homeless people – 50 in ES and the rest in ETH. The possibility would be that any time at your shelter you might have 150.
Dalberg said the capacity of SA is about 100. The LCS is 31.
Marquez said you could color code it and add a top band.
Henderson said they are thinking of more than 50. He doesn’t want to be seen as undermining what the Committee is doing.
Faubion asked if anyone has figured out the rate of growth in the homeless population. We have no trend data. We need to err on the side of going long.
Dinsdale said that as we consider the rate we have to ask the question – where will homeless best be housed? Even if the number triples maybe we need many more ETH units.
Marquez asked if ES is the best way to serve homeless. The goal is to move people out of shelter and into other options. If the goal is to build the largest ES that we can so we can continue to house people, he sees a problem.
Henderson said moving from 50-75 wouldn’t be making a large shelter. He would like it if the minutes will read that this is a flexible number.
Martin-Smith said the recommendation is what we see the homeless solution – the goal. Will it change?
Henderson said the Journal World is going to pick up the number of 50 and if LCS comes with a shelter for 65, there will be conflict.
Martin-Smith said that if the community won’t rally around this recommendation then we’ll have to build a big box. We have to look to the future – we are saying we have to work toward this goal, understanding that goals have to be modified as time goes on.
Dalberg said what he thinks Henderson’s concern is that in the transition period there is going to need to be a place for homeless while ETH units are coming available.
Dinsdale asked how much it would cost to add 25 units; the flexibility.
Dalberg clarified that we already have shelters in place, however they work today. They will continue to stay in place until the plan comes to fruition. So we continue to operate shelters as we have them until ETH units become available.
Martin-Smith said it puts the burden on the city and the community to get ETH moving along and we have the three-year time frame. The CC will expect us to achieve our goals. The group has to get something out to the public that makes sense. The current status of shelter as we know it today is a three year stay.
Henderson said the goal of LCS is to be out of there by the end of three years.
Martin-Smith said the CCH is not coming out in support of LCS. If what you are doing is in support of the CCH recommendation that is good.
Dinsdale asked if they could restore the ES number served to 75.
Collinsworth asked if there was a way to say these are projected numbers, with both components online. “The ideal numbers…”
Swarts said you could make the ES 50-75, and make ETH 75-100, allowing the flexibility in the numbers and make a note that ideally there will be 50 in the ES and 100 in the ETH.
Dinsdale said one of the most important things is that we have to stick with these numbers. We cannot get into another shelter facility that cannot meet the community’s needs.
Knoche said that the range will dictate capacity – if someone comes forward with a 30-capacity facility, that doesn’t work.
Faubion moved to put ranges on ES (50-75) and ETH (75-100). Mosely seconded the motion. Martin-Smith asked for a friendly amendment when we get down to the definition of ES and ETH she wants to state that ideal numbers are 50 for ES and 100 for ETH. Faubion declined to accept the friendly amendment.
Enoch said it feels that you are already boxing the recommendation in by accepting that we need a new shelter. In the next three years this group can get these people out of the shelter and into housing and that is what the city will support and help with. We don’t want a shelter, and we don’t want a more livable shelter. We have enough vacant units. The SA is taking overflow – we are containing homeless, it isn’t a good arrangement, we need the community to help. People can go to work if they have a start – if you emphasize jobs, training, etc. She doesn’t want the CCH to use these numbers - lets move them all out of ES. The big objection has been to the shelter. People don’t want shelters; they want to see people living like other people are living.
Scott is confused why the number is 151 – it should be over 300. What about WTCS? At LCS there are people who are fighting addiction and need to stay at SA – no one shelter can meet all of the needs.
The motion passed; Marquez and Martin-Smith dissenting.
Marquez moved to add to the recommendation “optimum number based on most current PIT count ES =50; optimum ETH = 100.” Hemphill seconded the motion.
Henderson said there has just been a conversation to add flexibility. Now we are trying to take it away.
The motion failed.
Martin-Smith called attention to ES and ETH details, and read through the documents. She asked for changes – change to state “next PIT count”, add Marquez to attendance, change to say up to 75 in ES.
Dinsdale thinks we are going to unnecessarily confuse the public and dilute the effectiveness if we insist on presenting only the first two columns of the chart. It will enable ES to be small if Homemakers is able to house persistently mentally ill. Multiple-site temporary housing should be the new name for ETH? If we only present this and we have a front page story about Homemakers… it will be confusing.
Martin-Smith asked, if the newspaper was here today, what could we add to clarify?
Dinsdale said to say that those programs are vital to our plan, we haven’t discussed it yet. Leave TH, PSH, PH on the document.
Knoche said to include who is doing the housing option, what they are doing (#wise), and who is working on offering something.
Martin-Smith said the Housing Options Chart is the baseline.
Enoch asked why “temporary” and not permanent.
There was a brief discussion about this.
Martin-Smith asked about a work meeting. There are only a few weeks left. She will work with staff to fine-tune the document and then hold meetings with community members.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m.