March 26, 2009 Minutes (City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Marci Francisco, Curtis Harris, Quinn Miller, Julie Mitchell, Vern Norwood, Brenda Nunez, Aimee Polson, Roberta Suenram Patti Welty |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
KT Walsh, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association; Loring Henderson, Lawrence Community Shelter; Wes Dalberg, The Salvation Army |
Welty called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
1. Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves. Roberta Suenram was introduced as the newest member of the CDAC.
2. Approval of the March 12, 2009 minutes.
Polson moved to approve the March 12, 2009 minutes. Mitchell seconded the motion, which passed 9-0.
3. Emergency Shelter Discussion – The Salvation Army.
Wes Dalberg of the Salvation Army presented to the CDAC regarding the plans of the agency going forward with the announcement of the closing of their emergency shelter. Dalberg indicated that the changes were being looked at internally, but they were not in place yet when this funding application was submitted.
Welty asked since there had been changes in the agency’s housing direction, what will the requested funds be going toward?
Dalberg indicated that the Salvation Army would still be working with their feeding program so the funds would be partially used to address that. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday the feeding program feeds 85-100 individuals. The other days of the week are days when LINK is in operation. The plan going forward for the Salvation Army is to continue to house people, just not in the way they had done in the past with the emergency shelter component. It will no longer be a dormitory situation. The transitional housing program will have a maximum amount of time per individual of two years, and it would take families and individuals and place them in an individual living situation. The families or individuals would have ongoing, intensive case management and will be required to meet with their case manager on a regular basis outside of the home as well, ensuring that steps are being taken towards employment and permanent housing. It is an effort with the end result being stabilization of the homeless individual or family. The expected result is to end the homelessness cycle for the residents.
Miller asked where the residents would go after the two year commitment is up.
Dalberg said that by the time they have cycled through the program they should be ready to obtain and keep permanent housing. The transitional housing program is being run through private landlord units, so the ideal hope is that the client can continue the relationship with the landlord after the program has run its course for that individual or family.
Miller asked Dalberg about what type of responsibility is being undertaken by the client in this proposal.
Dalberg said that the program stresses responsibility and accountability on the part of the client. Not everyone has the skills when they walk into the program on day one that they will need to succeed in transitional housing. There are some that will take the full two years, and some that will only need a few months to get reestablished. The average stay will be 14-15 months; it just depends where they are in their individual situations.
Suenram asked if the Salvation Army would be subsidizing the rent.
Dalberg said that they would be subsidizing the rent, and that they were hoping originally to have help from HUD on that aspect of the program. There were no agencies in the State of Kansas Balance of State Continuum of Care that were granted money for new projects this year. The Salvation Army will be counting on the community as well as funds that they had already set aside for sheltering. This will help to start to place people in this housing program. Without the HUD grant, the project will be smaller than originally envisioned. Although it will be a smaller number of people that are able to utilize the program, it will still be working to help those individuals.
Harris said that there was some surprise with the change of service for the Salvation Army. He asked what went into the plan for closing the emergency shelter and working towards the transitional housing program.
Dalberg said that the original Housing Vision was put into place by the Community Commission on Homelessness (CCH) and that particular plan calls for there to be a single emergency shelter in Lawrence. The Salvation Army and the Lawrence Community Shelter thought that it was very important for their two agencies to work together on this aspect. At that point in time, Lawrence Community Shelter was better suited to operate the shelter as opposed to other areas of the Housing Vision, so it was assumed that Lawrence Community Shelter would take that responsibility. The Salvation Army determined that they could have a good fit in the transitional housing niche. The CCH Housing Vision plan calls for one shelter and then additional temporary, transitional, and permanent supportive housing that Lawrence does not have. The original Salvation Army plan called to add 15 families/individuals to the transitional housing program, but with the reduced funding they are realistically looking at four or five. As far as the timing of the emergency shelter closing date of May 1, 2009, the decision was made that May 1 would be a warmer time of the year and it is historically the least busy time for their emergency shelter. They tend to have the fewest number of people sheltered at that time. This was determined to be the time that they wanted to move forward with the transitional housing program.
Mitchell asked Dalberg how this program differs from the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority TBRA program.
Dalberg said that the two programs differ in that the guidelines for the TBRA program have stricter limitations than the Salvation Army program will. There are some guidelines that the two programs will agree upon such as drug history, certain criminal history, and sexual offense history. The obligation that the Salvation Army has is to keep people safe that live near their clients as they will be housed in normal rental housing environments. Some aspects of the program guidelines may be a little different.
Swarts added that there is also a strict case management element attached to the Salvation Army’s program. Although the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority encourages case management as part of the TBRA program, they cannot require it.
Francisco said that on the Salvation Army application it shows that $27,000 will go to salaries for administration of the transitional housing program. It does not show any money allocated for rental assistance. Where is the rental assistance coming from?
Dalberg said that the Salvation Army is now looking at their own budget to find the funds for rental assistance, as that was the intention for the HUD grant that they did not receive. Because of the funding, the Salvation Army may need to look at something different staffing-wise. The supportive services program Project Able is already in progress at the Salvation Army. Project Able provides case management services to individuals in transitional housing programs. This part of the new program is already functional. The thought process is that the new program and Project Able can fold their services together to support both entities. The real funding need is to subsidize the housing. The housing alone will cost around $32,000 per year for five units.
Nunez asked if the Salvation Army already had landlords on board with the program.
Dalberg said that they were not at that stage yet, but they have been approached by several private landlords who read the newspaper article about the program and want to help.
Nunez asked what happens to the program if there is not response from the landlord community.
Dalberg said that it was inconceivable to him that landlords would not be on board. It does not make sense to him that a landlord would rather leave a property vacant then receive fair market rent for it. This program is operating successfully in Kansas City and other Midwestern cities. The program does not ask the landlord for anything for free, so it is hard to see why a landlord would not want to work with the program.
Francisco asked if Dalberg could submit another budget for the agency program reflecting the redirection of the funding for the housing element. She asked what the fair market rents are in Lawrence and are these numbers for apartments or houses.
Dalberg said that he did not have a corrected budget with him to submit. The HUD fair market rent values in Lawrence are $531 for a one bedroom, $683 for a two bedroom, and $997 for a three bedroom. These values are based on bedroom size only, not family size and are for apartments or houses.
Harris said that this might be a new program to Lawrence, but it is an existing program somewhere else. He asked Dalberg if the Salvation Army had considered working with other agencies for resources on down the road. If the Salvation Army were to partner with Habitat for Humanity or Tenants to Homeowners to build transitional housing units, that might be a good community collaboration.
Dalberg said that the idea of agency collaboration was not one that they have looked at yet, but it is a very good idea. The Salvation Army is more than happy to collaborate whenever it is possible. They believe that it is extremely important to have those partner relationships with other community agencies such as the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Polson asked if Pelathe was still managing low income rental units.
Swarts said that the units were still in operation, but she did not know if Pelathe was still managing the units.
Nunez said that they are still low income qualified units, but it is unknown who the agency is that is managing them.
Welty commented that based on the CDAC calendar, if the Salvation Army was to resubmit a budget how would that fit into the time frame they have to work with for deliberations.
Swarts said that at the next meeting on April 9, 2009 they would have an agenda that would include review of the Investment Summary and review of the Annual Update. It would be a meeting to prepare for the public hearing on April 23, 2009.
Francisco said that instead of requiring an additional budget from the Salvation Army she would ask that Dalberg explain to the CDAC what makes the Salvation Army the right program to receive the CDBG funds that they have requested, and what sets the transitional housing program apart from other programs.
Dalberg said that the money granted to the Salvation Army will still be used for housing issues in the community. To the Salvation Army, the outcome of a transitional housing program is a much greater value to the community than simply warehousing individuals as they have done for the past 23 years. The Salvation Army is committed to doing this program and before this year is up they intend to find the money to fund this program. They are committed to doing this because they have made that decision to get out of the business of mass housing in an emergency situation and it is of utmost importance to the community that this program succeed. It is important for the community to say that transitional housing gives us what we need to have in order to combat the issue of homelessness in Lawrence.
Welty asked if the funds would go to the feeding program or to the housing program.
Harris added to that comment in asking if the CDAC could dictate where the funds were spent.
Swarts said that is an option if that is how the Committee wants to move forward with the request.
Dalberg said that it would be presented as either one or a combination of the two programs. If a choice had to be made they would choose the transitional housing program for allocation of the funds.
Suenram asked if the program would be running by May 1, 2009 when the Salvation Army emergency shelter closes.
Dalberg said that it would not. The Salvation Army has made a point to work with the clients that frequently utilize the emergency shelter to find them a housing solution by May 1. They have been able to secure a housing or shelter source for 30 people so far, which is 71% of their normal clientele. They still need to assist with housing for 12 individuals before the close date. He added that although they have been able to place 30 people so far in alternative housing, there will still be a trickle of first time visitors up to the close date. These people may be here short term or for an extended stay. They have committed to helping the regulars find a place for the overflow, but they are committed to helping them find housing in a non-shelter capacity. They do not want to overwhelm the Lawrence Community Shelter with a heavy overflow as they are already at capacity as well.
Polson asked how much of the current Salvation Army building is being used for shelter sleeping space, and will there be money saved by closing the emergency shelter?
Dalberg said that the gym is used for the shelter space and the dining area is used by the food program. The gym will revert back to an activity area when the emergency shelter closes and the dining room will remain open for the food program. He said that the money saved by closing the shelter comes in the place of the part time employees that work at the emergency shelter. They have all been told that they will not have a job after May 1. The building currently is in operations for approximately 23 hours a day and it has been this way for 23 years. He indicated that the upkeep on a building with such heavy use is very tough.
Polson asked Harris if, being a Salvation Army board member, he was aware of the closing of the emergency shelter before it was released to the local media.
Harris said that the Board has been a part of the community wide discussions and the Board was kept abreast of the decision as it circulated through the CCH as well as the Salvation Army organization. The Salvation Army typically gets its requirements and decisions handed down from their headquarters so the Board is not necessarily the body that makes these decisions. The Board knew that it was coming at some point in time, but they did not know about the date of time frame until the morning of the press release.
Dalberg said that Salvation Army headquarters is usually where this type of decision is determined, but the recommendation did come locally for this program change. The Board was very involved in every step of the way, and it was not an easy decision for anyone involved because the operation had been intact for 23 years. This was a program that the local Salvation Army had to sell their headquarters on to show the benefit and the need.
Welty asked Henderson if he had any updates from the Lawrence Community Shelter.
Henderson said that the really did not have anything specific to report, but he has been working diligently the last two weeks to find an interim building for the overflow shelter after May 1. He feels very good about the possibility of having a place that can house up to 50 people a night.
Polson asked Dalberg if 50 was the number that the Salvation Army provided shelter to on a nightly basis.
Dalberg said that the number of individuals served at the Salvation Army holds steady at 42 people. They used to only provide mats on the floor of the gym, so the numbers sometimes varied. They came to realize that it was not safe nor a good idea, to have an open ended occupancy limit. They wanted to have a firm capacity number for safety purposes. They will occasionally have more visitors than the 42 limit on bitterly cold nights as they put people wherever they can because of the weather. This is the only exception to the occupancy limit.
Henderson added that they sleep 31 a night and the Salvation Army sleeps 42. The minimum number of beds they can look at in an overflow capacity is 75.
Welty thanked both Dalberg and Henderson for coming and she introduced the next agenda item.
4. Continue Deliberations – CDBG Public Service.
Welty introduced the item and told the CDAC that they have $78,763 to work with, and five applications to consider, including: Housing and Credit Counseling, The Salvation Army, Lawrence Community Shelter, the Ballard Community Center (ESC), and the City of Lawrence Voluntary Clearance Program.
Polson moved to zero fund 18f, the City of Lawrence Community Development Division Voluntary Clearance Program. The motion was seconded by Welty.
Discussion followed:
Norwood asked Swarts about the impact to the program if this item is zero funded. She asked what exactly is done with the funds in this program.
Swarts explained that the program is a collaborative effort with the City’s Community Development Division and the Code Enforcement Division. It provides funding for removal of trees and such to help clean up environmental blight for low-moderate income homeowners. It is very expensive to have a tree taken down, and in cases where you have an individual who has a tree on their property that dies or is damaged, it is their responsibility to remove it if required. A big tree that has been damaged can do a lot of damage to an adjacent structure. The main purpose of the program is to help with the affordability of the removal of environmental blight.
Welty called for a vote on the motion to zero fund 18f, the City of Lawrence Community Development Division Voluntary Clearance Program.
The motion passed 6-3.
Welty moved to fully fund 9a, Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc Tenant-Landlord Counseling and Education Programs for $25,000. Welty explained that the funding of this request was especially important because of the state of the economy and there will be an increasing demand for their services. The motion was seconded by Francisco.
Discussion followed:
Harris said the CDAC should consider if they fully fund Housing and Credit Counseling (HCCI) to consider the rest of the agencies as one unit. He said if the CDAC fully funds HCCI, this will shrink the amount of funds available for the other three groups. If the committee goes forward with this there needs to be a group discussion about handling the remaining allocation.
Welty added that if HCCI is fully funded it will leave $53,763 to work with.
Harris said that fully funding HCCI is 33% of the remaining unallocated CDBG funds, yet only accounts for 2% of the agency’s budget.
Francisco said that the application may say that it is 2% of the agency’s budget, but that the 2% in question may be very heavily weighted with Lawrence money. HCCI does not only operate in Lawrence so that may account for the 2% number of the program budget. HCCI receives other funds from credit card companies that pay money when HCCI helps them to negotiate payoffs with consumers. The card companies also take a reduction in interest. That 2% of the budget is an important part of the counseling services in Lawrence.
Welty called for a vote on the motion to fully fund 9a, Housing and Credit Counseling, Inc. Tenant-Landlord Counseling and Education Programs in the amount of $25,000.
The motion passed 6-3.
Francisco moved to reduce funding for 2a, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association in the amount of $316. The reduction is to account for funds requested for stand up recycling containers, tiller and mower maintenance, and LAN dues. Francisco said that she had discussion with neighbors in East Lawrence and they are pleased about the funding this year, and therefore will be able to cover this cost in other ways. The motion was seconded by Norwood.
The motion passed unanimously.
Swarts told the committee that the remaining fund total is $54,079.
Harris said that because of time constraints the remaining requests need to be discussed.
Francisco said that the CDAC needs to seriously look at fully funding Lawrence Community Shelter and then look at the other two agencies and review the allocations to the other groups to see if there is any place that the committee can find more money. This is important at a time when the open shelter will be taking on additional overflow from the closing of the Salvation Army. Francisco moved to fully fund 10a, The Lawrence Community Shelter for Operations in the amount of $36,500. The motion was seconded by Nunez.
Discussion followed:
Harris said that he felt if the Salvation Army was not transitioning to transitional housing that the CDAC would look at this funding allocation a different way.
Francisco agreed with Harris on that point, but in looking at the Housing Vision chart Lawrence has a shelter and the community needs to manage that. The request is from a group that had been taking on part of the shelter needs in the community and they are now being asked to take on all the shelter needs. The Lawrence Community Shelter is actively doing this without waiting on funding. She added that she would like to see about capital expenses as well. It seems awkward to her to fund another start up program like Family Promise, which is a great program, when the shelter need is in demand.
Harris asked if he could add a friendly amendment to the motion to fund the feeding program portion of the Salvation Army request, 11a, in the amount of $11,250.
Harris said by not seeking a balance among the agencies, the Committee is saying to the Ballard Community Center that sheltering is more important than their program.
Welty agreed and said that that might be what the Committee is saying this year.
Polson said that in looking at the Ballard Center’s application, a lesser allocation might not be that hard for them to work with since the funds are individually disbursed for the program.
Francisco agreed to the friendly amendment to the motion as did the second, Nunez. The motion is to fully fund 10a, the Lawrence Community Shelter for Operations in the amount of $36,500; and 11a, the Salvation Army Feeding Program in the amount of $11,250.
The motion passed unanimously.
Swarts told the Committee that the remaining unallocated funds total $6,329.
Polson moved to fund 6a, the Ballard Community Center Emergency Assistance Program, $6,329. The motion was seconded by Norwood.
The motion passed unanimously.
5. Public Comment.
There was no public comment.
6. Miscellaneous/Calendar Items.
Francisco said that upon receiving the funding allocation from the Stimulus, she proposes that staff draft a letter to the agencies that did not receive full funding for the projects letting them know that there may be an opportunity for additional funding for a capital improvement project. For instance, if there was a situation where the Ballard Community Center needed building upkeep they could apply for capital improvement funding, which may free up funding in another location that could be used toward the program that the public service allocation could not cover. The same could be true for The Salvation Army. This may be a good time to fund some capital improvements that may be important to their building space as they transition. She asked if staff could put together a draft letter.
Swarts said that staff could do that and it could be ready to review at the next meeting.
Harris said that a letter may pigeonhole the group in that they may miss out on a unique and creative project that can also be done.
Francisco said that she assumed there would be a public notice for the additional funds, but this would just be a letter sent specifically to these particular agencies.
8. Adjourn.
There being no further business, Polson moved to adjourn the March 26, 2009 meeting. Mitchell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Attendance Record
|
Members |
01/08 |
01/22 |
02/10 Study Session |
02/12 |
02/26 |
03/12 |
03/26 |
04/9 |
05/23 |
05/14 |
|
Marci Francisco |
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Curtis Harris |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Quinn Miller |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
E |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Julie Mitchell |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Vern Norwood |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Brenda Nunez |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
|
+ |
|
|
|
|
Aimee Polson |
+ |
+ |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Patti Welty |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
|
|
|
Roberta Suenram |
|
|
|
|
* E |
E |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* designates first meeting after appointment.