City of Lawrence, Kansas

COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON HOMELESSNESS

July 14, 2009 Minutes (Lawrence City Commission Room)

 

Members present:  Jeanette Collier, Wes Dalberg, Katherine Dinsdale, Loring Henderson, Charlotte Knoche, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Monroe, Shannon Murphy, Sandy Winn-Tutwiler

Members absent: Hubbard Collinsworth, Robert Mosely

Staff present: Danelle Dresslar, Scott McCullough, Margene Swarts

Public present:  Carla Helm, Heather Hoy, Saunny Scott, David Tucker

 

ITEM NO. 1   Introductions

 

Dinsdale called the meeting to order at 8:40 am.  Members of the Community Commission on Homelessness introduced themselves.

 

ITEM NO. 2   Approval of the Agenda and the June 9, 2009 Minutes

ACTION TAKEN

 

Motion by Martin-Smith, seconded by Knoche to approve the Agenda and the June 9, 2009 Minutes.

 

Motion passed unanimously.

 

ITEM NO.3   Kansas Point in Time Count Discussion.

 

Swarts handed out a draft copy of the Point in Time Count document.  The CCH had discussed the Point in Time numbers and the method of presentation to the public at their retreat.  The document prepared lists the numbers for Lawrence and Douglas County, as well as explains the new methodology used to handle the count in 2009.  There is also a difference in who was able to be counted this year.  Swarts said that in past years the women at First Step House had been counted and this year they did not qualify as able to be counted based on HUD’s definition and SRS classification of the facility.  Also, there was no one counted who did not complete a survey in its entirety.  In the past if a survey was not completely filled out the homeless individual was probably still counted.  Swarts said that the biggest gap in the count seemed to revolve around the homeless families with children that are in the community.  There was a large gap in what the service providers report as their case load and the actual number of families with children that were counted on January 28.  The survey had to be filled out, so it is possible that these families were getting counted in the past without having to document answers on a survey.  There were also those who declined to be counted as well as those who did not want to be counted or did not know about the count on that day.  This count will be used as a baseline and the methodology will stay the same from this count on, meaning that the count may be up in the future based on the consistency.  The Kansas Housing Resources Corporation, SRS, and United Way of the Plains are in talks to coordinate a yearly count, possibly one in the summer on the off years from the HUD required count.

 

 

Martin-Smith said that it will not be a comparison of apples to apples if the yearly counts are done at different times of the year.

 

Swarts said that it would be consistent from summer to summer and winter to winter, so there could still be effective comparisons made.

 

Collier asked if those in transitional housing were counted.

 

Knoche said that they could only be counted if they were on the list and were at the shelter.

 

Collier suggested in the future that more time be spent preparing families regarding the count so they could make sure and be counted the next time.

 

Swarts agreed with her and said that is something that has been discussed in that there needs to be better outreach to the community to alert them of the count.

 

Martin-Smith suggested the service providers posting the information in their offices with the upcoming count information.

 

Murphy asked for clarification on the ability to count those in transitional housing.

 

Knoche said that they could be counted if they came from the shelter or off of the streets the previous night.

 

Collier asked if families that are doubled up could be counted.

 

Knoche said they could not.

 

Collier said that they are able to be counted through the McKinney Vento act, and they are also able to count the children that way.

 

Swarts said that other counts and other acts say different things and are able to count different people in different situations.  HUD uses the definition that was used for this count, and even HUD is in the process of changing their definition.

 

David Tucker, PATH Outreach Worker, said that a recent survey showed that 30% of homeless families indicated that they were doubled up, so there are a lot of folks not being counted.  

 

Swarts asked the CCH to read the document provided and offer any feedback and guidance.  Staff can add language regarding women and children.

 

Murphy asked to add how the methodology has changed.

 

Tucker said that speaking as a volunteer in the count the survey was a big problem in that it was too large.  Some people would start to fill out the survey and then give up out of frustration.

 

Swarts said that at team leader meetings she had raised the point that if the survey was too long it would not be effective.  There was the option to add county-specific questions and Lawrence/Douglas County declined to do that because of the length of the survey as it was.

 

Dinsdale asked if staff could contrast the declining numbers with the local census.

 

Swarts said that staff could do research on that.

 

Knoche asked how many incomplete surveys there were.

 

Swarts said 38 declined to fill out a survey and six were incomplete.

 

Dalberg asked Swarts if these numbers had been released to the public yet.

 

Swarts told him that the numbers have been released and that the survey results can be found in their entirety on both the KHRC and the United Way websites.

 

Henderson commented that it seemed distressing to him that year after year it feels like the count is not right, but he supports using this count as a baseline.  He asked the CCH to weigh in on how to distance the community from these numbers as they do not appear to be accurate.

 

Martin-Smith said that the CCH got hooked on the homeless population numbers in 2007 as well.  At that time a meeting was set up between service providers and other stakeholders to look at the numbers.  There was a committee who looked at those numbers, and they could account for the count, which was in turn what drove the Housing Vision.  There are those how have not been counted this time, and the key is consistency moving forward.  The important piece to focus on is who has been counted rather than who had been left out.  There are many homeless children, as the CCH has been told by the school district, and there are also domestic violence victims who fall into this category.  It is important that the City Commission understand the CCH supports the consistency of the numbers, however there are providers that will attest to the fact that there are many children not included in this count.  This is the baseline, and it needs to be used to move forward.  The troubling thing to her is that looking at these numbers and then looking at the Housing Vision, what does this change?  It is a circular dilemma.

 

Dalberg asked if the numbers had been interpreted for the community yet.

 

Swarts said that the document that the CCH is discussing is just that.  The City has not posted the results of the count on their website yet because they did not want to without providing an explanation to the community about the numbers.

 

Dinsdale said that consistency is the key in the count when explaining the numbers to the community.  Every time the count is discussed or published there needs to be consistent language in the explanation.  The public is always informed and they know how these numbers were assembled.

 

Swarts said that in discussing the Housing Vision and the relationship to the Point in Time count numbers, at first glance, it appears that the population that has been counted is the chronically homeless and the more accessible population.  What the community count is missing are the families and children.  That is the missing data.

 

Knoche said that in the past the surveys have always been administered by service providers.  She asked if the fact that there were volunteers utilized heavily this year might have had an impact on the numbers.

 

Swarts said that that may be accurate.  The agencies represented and assisted with the count and with affiliations, and the volunteers were gathered in a different manner this time than before.

 

Knoche asked if there may have been a comfort level with the volunteers with the 2009 count.

 

Swarts said possibly that and not counting those who were not directly contacted.

 

Knoche said that those who were counted in the past were not necessarily counted this time.

 

Tutwiler asked the CCH if they thought that this count was not an accurate reflection of the homeless population in Lawrence and Douglas County and the reasoning for the count.

 

Swarts said that this particular count does not appear at first glance to be indicative of the actual numbers in Lawrence.  The odd year count is a mandated count for any Continuum of Care or Balance of State that wants to apply for various homeless grant types.  Lawrence went in with the Balance of State last year because there was a bigger pot of money to apply for.  The count is a requirement, and through the years it has been found to be a good tool to help the community determine its own needs and assist it in determining how to handle those needs.  The count this year has proved to be a little problematic.  It was a very different experience for Lawrence.  Lawrence has always conducted the count one way, and now there is a new methodology.

 

Tutwiler suggested a viewpoint to the community in that we will take these numbers into consideration, but we are also sensitive to the possibility that there are other homeless individuals that will need to be counted as well.

 

Collier asked if the lower number on the 2009 count would result in lower funding.

 

Swarts said that one count will not affect the pot of money for the Balance of State.  If the count stays consistent over a span of years, however, then it may be determined that funding will need to be looked at.  The homeless funding is funding that you submit specific grant requests for in terms of specific projects, and rarely is there a blanket grant request for funds.

 

Dinsdale asked if other Kansas communities had disagreements with their numbers.

 

Swarts said that Douglas County is the only one who was an individual Continuum of Care and is now shifted to the Balance of State, so the count in Douglas County seems very different and it makes it an anomaly.  Wichita has been utilizing United Way of the Plains and this particular methodology for several years so their baseline has already been established. 

 

Dinsdale said that the document and the explanation provided in it is helpful to both the CCH and the community.

 

Swarts told the CCH that staff would add the necessary wording to the document and email them a final draft.

 

Knoche said that they could also add a local agency element to this document as well, indicating the overall state decrease but pointing out that locally we are not seeing that as the case.

 

Dalberg said that there needs to be a definition in the report of who was counted this year and who we could count in the past. 

 

Martin-Smith said that adding service provider input gives the numbers balance without disagreeing with the outcome.

 

ITEM NO. 4   Discussion of Additional Planning Retreat.

 

Dinsdale recapped the Planning Retreat goals and mission statement for those who were not able to attend on June 30.  The goals included reviewing and revising the Housing Vision and then implement the updated Vision, engaging in systematic and regular assessment of community programs, services, and needs surrounding the homeless and providing reports and recommendations to the City Commission and County Commission, and developing a detailed description of the characteristics of and criteria for a successful shelter.  Dinsdale added that there is a need to identify candidates to take the place of those whose terms expire this year, additional reporting mechanisms, and retaining the “proactive” instead of “reactive” mode.

 

Sara Taliaferro, CCC and Planning Retreat co-mediator, explained that the CCH finalized three goals and then made a list of action items to incorporate to achieve those goals.  The next step for the CCH that would make the most sense is to break all of those individual goals down to a series of actions plans, being a very detailed step by step account of how they plan to put it all together, then placing it in an agenda.  This is the next step that will ensure the success of the retreat.  There can either be a subcommittee set up with the CCH and staff or the CCH could have another mini-retreat.  She suggested the mini-retreat because it puts more brainpower together to reach the goals.  Every member of the CCH can take ownership in the result, and they go from overarching goals to goals that are executable.

 

Dinsdale asked if there will be the ability to make a calendar with the goals that were set and the time frame in which they were set in.  The first one would be the reporting mechanism to be in place by the September meeting.

 

Taliaferro said that the goals broken down into steps are easily converted into agenda items.

 

Dinsdale agreed that it is not an overwhelming task.  This agenda item is to see if the CCH wants to schedule another half day or some other alternative to address the remainder of the planning work the CCH has. 

 

Martin-Smith said she had no problem in taking more time to meet.  She said that she wanted to see the report and notes from the last meeting.

 

Taliaferro said that if the CCH wanted to do an additional retreat that it would be preferable to have Kathleen Ames-Oliver and herself facilitate again because they were the facilitators at the first retreat.  The meeting should include the entire CCH and the staff.  Ames-Oliver is willing to work with the CCH again so she will look into dates and work on setting it up if that is the direction the CCH wants to go.

 

Collier said that she felt that the retreat was very effective, but if the whole body does meet then does it become a public meeting.

 

McCullough said that according to City Legal Staff, any time that there is a quorum it is legally considered a public meeting.

 

Collier asked about a requirement of public comment at the meeting.

 

McCullough said that the CCH could decide not to take public comment.  It is not a requirement.

 

Dinsdale asked the CCH if they were in agreement to have Taliaferro assist with a second planning retreat.

 

Henderson said that it was effective and it was well worth it to him.

 

Martin-Smith said that there is a lot of work yet to do.  The biggest concern she has is the loss of the majority of this commission at the end of the year.  If there is not a plan in place and the City Commission is not aware of this change at this critical juncture it will be a problem.  She does not want to blindside the elected officials.

 

Dinsdale said that the CCH needs to review the Housing Vision, revise the Housing Vision, and present it to the City Commission.

 

Taliaferro asked if a morning session worked for the commission and when the planning retreat should be held.

 

Martin-Smith said that the most helpful scenario would be prior to the next CCH meeting.

 

Dinsdale thanked Taliaferro and asked her to look into dates and times for a second planning retreat.

 

Collier asked if written comment could be taken, but left to the CCH to set the plan in motion.

 

Taliaferro said if the public does arrive they can allow for written public comment and work it into the goals.

 

ITEM NO. 5   Discussion of Characteristics and Criteria for New Shelter.

 

Dinsdale introduced the item and reminded the CCH that they did come up with criteria for an emergency shelter in the Housing Vision.

 

Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services, presented information related to the Land Use process in terms of the unannounced new shelter location.  He explained that the assistance that was needed from the CCH was to bridge the gap between the recommending governing bodies on the issue of placement of a new shelter in the community.  The shelter is being discussed today in terms of the Housing Vision and to establish criteria needed to support the shelter site from the CCH to the Planning Commission, then ultimately to the City Commission.  This will entail the Land Use process for moving forward with a Special Use Permit.  Lawrence Community Shelter will choose the site, and more than likely the CCH will be tasked with reviewing the application and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, then the Planning Commission will make the recommendation to the City Commission.  The question for the CCH is what criteria will need to be utilized to make that determination of recommendation or determination of non-recommendation.  McCullough said that he understands that the CCH will support the shelter in any location, but it is wise to start to set up the criteria.  He said that he does not expect the CCH to take action on this item today, but staff and Henderson have provided them with material to look over when considering the item.

 

He continued that several items to consider are from the Land Use criteria.  The permit goes through the Planning Commission.  He would expect the CCH to want to weigh in on this process.  One criterion could be that they will require enough land area to contain all the components of what the community would expect a shelter to entail, such as the night shelter, the day center, and the food program.  These will all impact high traffic pedestrian areas of the community.  Other components of the criteria include if the location is on a bus route, if the location is accessible to medical services, as well as the effect of the shelter on adjacent properties.  The CCH needs to make a prioritization of this list.  Everyone understands that there are downtown challenges for a shelter site, and there are additional challenges in other areas of town.  Some items are site specific things.  This is only an introduction to the topic and McCullough said that he could provide the CCH with more specific information as the time nears for an announcement of a site.

 

Collier thanked McCullough for participating in the planning retreat and suggesting the input of the CCH on the Land Use issue.  She feels that it gives the body credibility and that this is focused on the physical components instead of the programmatic ones.

 

Martin-Smith also said that she was grateful that McCullough attended the retreat and that she appreciated the CCH having the opportunity to address this issue.

 

Dinsdale asked McCullough about the definition in the Code of the day center, and if there is an overall list of definitions.

 

McCullough said that there is often a challenge in looking at the layman’s terms and zoning terms.  The day center discussion points out that if the governing body recognizes impacts to the downtown area and the shelter is encouraged to relocate to a different part of the City, what will still impact downtown and what has been done to reduce the impact as well.  This is not specific only to the overnight shelter, but also the food program and additional social service agencies as well as the day center.  There will be discussion about those issues.  The day center by definition is daytime activity and not overnight sleeping.

 

Dinsdale asked Henderson if Lawrence Community Shelter has made the decision yet regarding what the new shelter will entail in terms of the other programs.

 

Henderson said that he is willing to hear comments as this is an important conversation.  He said that the Day Center/Drop in Center is an issue.  Where the shelter ends up locating may meet one set of demands but will not be convenient or workable for another set of demands.  The Lawrence Community Shelter envisions the new shelter, wherever it is located, having a kitchen and dining area.  The element of the Day Center has not been worked out.  If the shelter is located on the edge of town people will not drop in as they do now.  Boulder, Colorado has their shelter on the edge of town and the drop in center is downtown and administered by churches.  It is open four hours as day.  He reiterated that he appreciates any discussion on the topic.

 

Knoche asked that even if there is no drop in center at the new shelter will there still be office functioning during the day at that location.  She said that it would be the same as having a social service office.  If the shelter was also the location for the drop in center the social service functioning would increase as well.

 

Henderson said that is accurate.  Also he added that LCS has entered into an agreement with the Baker School of Nursing so that a nurse and students will also be at the shelter.  With the bigger building there will be a clinic setting on site.  The community cluster of services is located by the hospital as well as off of Haskell and 19th.  Neither of those sites are good for shelter relocation as they are heavily residential.

 

Martin-Smith said that she was very happy to hear about the partnership between LCS and Baker School of Nursing.  She said that she is reminded often of the Topeka Rescue Mission and how the service providers come to them.  Social services and health services travel to the Rescue mission to provide their services to the clients.  Lawrence needs to think outside of the box.  There is nothing around the hospital that can be looked at, and if partners are brought together that speaks to what you can try to do with a 24/7 shelter.

 

Henderson said that there has been ongoing discussions with agencies that just need room to move to the shelter location.  Right now they do not have that room available.

 

Knoche said that office space and programming space are components that are needed.

 

Henderson agreed and said that it was both for their own case managers as well as other agencies that can represent themselves at that location.

 

Swarts asked that if the facility is large enough, will the 75-100 beds be apt to accommodate those who might currently be utilizing the drop in center but are not able to utilize the sleeping shelter because of bed limitations.  Right now the shelter is not big enough to house everyone that uses the drop in shelter.  Some of the traffic that comes in and out of the location could be mitigated.

 

Henderson agreed with that.

 

Swarts added that having the food program on site will also centralize the population.

 

Henderson said that the Topeka Rescue Mission comes to mind in that they do not have a drop in center downtown, and all the services are located on site or by agencies traveling there.

 

Martin-Smith said that there are several drop in centers scattered around Topeka.

 

Henderson said that a lot of folks camp in Topeka and the Topeka Rescue Mission provides them lunch.  It operates similar to LINK.  The campers cross the levee to eat then go back to their camp.  LCS has not encountered a potential site that is close to those who are camping.  LINK estimates it serves 150 people a day.

 

Swarts asked Tucker how many are camping that would utilize a food program.

 

Tucker answered that the number fluctuates.

 

Tutwiler asked McCullough about the wording in regards to the shelter being compatible with adjacent areas.

 

McCullough said that the term “residential” could also be added to the criteria list.  The governing body recognizes that there are high traffic public places such as downtown.  There is no location that will be compatible with every criterion.  It will be a judgment call.  The CCH is just listing criteria to judge a site by.  Not every site will meet every criterion.  The CCH is being asked to look at a predetermined list and be able to say that the shelter should be substantially removed from consideration or added to consideration. 

 

Tutwiler asked about issues of congestion and other types of issues.

 

McCullough said that there will be impacts to crime and servicing with any potential location and the message will be sent to the City Commission from both businesses downtown as well as consumers.  These are things the governing body has to take into consideration.  In Land Use discussions, the worst case scenario is often the scenario that is looked at.  These will have to be looked at in terms of shelter location as well, such as where the schools are located in proximity to the shelter site.

 

Dinsdale said that this is not just an effect on the land where the shelter will go, but also impacts on the shelter’s establishment on downtown, even if it is not located there.  She added what concerns her is the list of criteria for the emergency shelter in the Housing Vision, and the feeling that she has that the CCH needs to be cautious about asking the shelter to assist in solving problems downtown with their relocation.  It may or may not be the best idea to have the feeding program there, and it may or may not be in the best interest to add the drop in center there as well.  She is wary of trying to solve problems downtown hinged on this shelter location.

 

McCullough said that it is not their intent to do that, but that needs to be part of the discussion.  The shelter has a large impact downtown.  It is not the intent to have people assume that if the shelter relocates away from downtown that all of the problems will go away.

 

Knoche asked about Land Use codes already established for boarding schools and those types of places, and if those could help in this discussion.

 

McCullough said that the courts have laid out the Land Use criteria for those types of places.  They do have a framework that they can offer for a guide.  The intent here is to judge by the criteria, however he can supply more information to the CCH.

 

Collier asked about the day center and what activities are included in the day center under the zoning changes.

 

McCullough said that there is no specified Day Center in the code today.  There is a Special Use Permit for any type of day sheltering, counseling services, and those types of activities.  The current code will be analyzed to see if it needs to be amended.

 

Collier asked if the shelter was to provide services would it then be considered a social service agency.

 

McCullough said that he was not sure but could provide definitions next time.

 

Collier asked it if was possible that the day center could be a completely different agency in a completely different area of town.

 

McCullough said that it could be, and the code now reflects how the shelter is operating currently.  The drop in center could stand alone as well.

 

Knoche asked if there was a template that could be used to review for potential sites.

 

McCullough said that the goal is to provide the Planning Commission with the recommendation based on the fact that the CCH is considered the experts in this area.

 

Henderson said that it is hard to list or name a compatible adjacent area that by definition would be acceptable for a shelter location. 

 

Collier asked if this suggested by locating by KU you would have to consider that impact to the area.

 

McCullough said that the criteria list is places that the shelter should try to have some buffering from, such as schools, City Parks and recreation areas, retail, as well as other similar places.  The question becomes where is the most likely place in the community that can support a shelter.  It could go in residential, industrial or commercial corridors.  The challenge is looking at where things exist in the community and trying to dance around these things, but at the same time be blunt about where the location should be.  This is making determinations to give LCS direction to go on.  Each time a location comes up this is discussed.  This list of criteria outlines what makes the most sense for a location for the shelter.

 

Dinsdale said that she would like to place this back on the agenda for August, as well as take public comment on the issue.

 

Taliaferro told the CCH that speaking from the CCC viewpoint, when the criteria is decided upon and that they feel comfortable with the result, that might be a very good time to look in to public outreach.  This would entail putting a clear vision in the mind of the public as to the unknown shelter site.  That brings in the opinions of those caring about it on a community level as opposed to those reacting about a specific site.

 

Dinsdale said that she supported that.

 

Taliaferro said that there needed to be a special meeting for those who do not attend the CCH meetings.  This meeting can be facilitated by the CCC.

 

Knoche said that it is good to hear comments from the public before it is their own self interest at stake.

 

Martin-Smith said that with each component of the Housing Vision the CCH had minimum expectations.  The public does not necessarily know that the CCH has already done their homework.  When people hear that someone has information, it shows that they have already talked about the basics.  The public meeting can restate that fact, and meeting among this group the minimum criteria may drive the land options that are being discussed.

 

Taliaferro said that the CCC can put together a response of flexible guidelines and conflict resolution topics.

 

Dinsdale said that was a good idea, and she would like to include Henderson’s document as well.

 

Taliaferro said that their facilitation team has already met with Henderson, downtown merchants, LAN, and are working to identify other stakeholders.  This has seemed to bring a clear understanding that most merchants do not believe that moving the shelter will necessarily effect the impacts of having the shelter downtown.  The CCC can work with downtown on those issues, removing it from an issue of homelessness.

 

Collier said that she understands from Krista Lee, former outreach worker in Lawrence, that in the City of Reno approximately 90% of the panhandlers they encounter are not homeless.  She asked if there has been a similar survey in Lawrence to determine the percentage.

 

Tucker said that he is currently working with the CCC on that project now.

 

ACTION TAKEN

 

Motion by Martin-Smith, seconded by Knoche to extend the CCH meeting to 10:10 a.m.

 

Motion passed unanimously.

 

Tucker said that he has concerns with the adjacent area concerns for the shelter site.  He has heard that the shelter should be placed in an industrial area on the edge of town.  It bothers him that those who are at a site in an industrial area will be less apt to leave the shelter.  When the shelter is located close to retail areas then the clients can get jobs easier.  It is an important step to get them into the working world.  He feels that a lot of homeless that are passing through will have a hard time locating a shelter on the edge of town so they will continue to populate other areas in the city.

 

Henderson said that one of the documents that he passed out to the CCH is the list of criteria that the shelter set forth in determining their new location and services.  This was the outline that was presented previously to the CCH.  Henderson said that the only thing that has changed on this document is the bed numbers.  It was 70 and is now 100.

 

Knoche asked if there is a figure on the square footage required per guest.

 

Henderson said that it is 25 square feet per bed, with 25 square feet in between.  LCS hopes to have two levels dealing with intake, recovery, and advancement.  If there is enough money they will have emergency space.  When the shelter guest commits to a program and they are in something working towards a goal there would be a step up offered to them.  It depends on fundraising.  This will be an incentive program to move people up and out of the shelter.

 

Collier asked McCullough about the proposed changes in the bus routes.

 

McCullough said that Transit is still working with KU on the coordination of the routes.  One route may change.

 

Collier said that the hospital held a meeting and it was discovered that a lot of sites in town did not have transportation access.

 

Henderson said that the biggest criterion for the new shelter is the bus route.  If there is no bus route, then there needs to be strong support to install a route there.

 

Collier said that the jail has the same problem.

 

Murphy said that they have been able to hold a forum to try to change the bus route.  There are possible reroutes coming in August.  They worked with the consulting team for the Transit merge project.

 

McCullough said that the City and KU have been working with a team of consultants.  They have been working on coordination efforts and there has been a new administrator hired for the Transit program.  It will be released to the public soon, but there has been some preliminary data put out there already.

 

Saunny Scott suggested that the Transit consultants attend the meeting of the CCH as well.

 

Dinsdale said that her concern is to get this in place as soon as possible.  They need to be ready with this document when LCS announces their site.  If the agenda next month is not soon enough, then is there support from the CCH to put a committee together to work on it before then.

 

Henderson said that it is quite possible that a decision will be announced before the next meeting of the CCH.  They can call a special meeting of the CCH, but they have been this close before and sometimes things happen in the meantime.  It seems quite possible that an announcement will be made before August.

 

Collier said that it was very important to have the criteria in place before that announcement is made.

 

McCullough said that they do not want specific criteria to cloud a site.

 

Henderson said the announcement may come within 30 days.

 

Martin-Smith said that she would be willing to take some time to look at this so that when the CCH is talking to people it is evident that they support it and they are behind it.

 

Dinsdale asked if a meeting could be scheduled with McCullough and staff next week.

 

McCullough said that would work and he wanted to discuss the industrial area because before the CCH is able to make an honest decision they need all the information.

 

Taliaferro suggested that it be combined with the retreat.

 

Dinsdale said that sounded like a good idea.

 

ITEM NO. 6   Public Comment.

 

There was no public comment

 

ITEM NO. 7  Miscellaneous/Calendar.

 

There was no additional information.

 

ITEM NO. 8  Adjourn.

 

ACTION TAKEN

 

Motion by Collier, seconded by Martin-Smith to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 a.m.

 

Motion passed unanimously.

 

Attendance Record

 

 

Members

06/09

07/14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeanette Collier

 

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hubbard Collinsworth

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wes

Dalberg

 

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Katherine Dinsdale

+

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loring Henderson

+

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charlotte Knoche

+

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shirley Martin-Smith

+

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike

Monroe

 

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Robert Mosely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shannon Murphy

+

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sandy Winn- Tutwiler

E

+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* designates first meeting after appointment.