City of Lawrence, Kansas

COMMUNITY COMMISSION ON HOMELESSNESS

November 10, 2009 Minutes (Lawrence City Commission Room)

Members present: Hubbard Collinsworth, Wes Dalberg, Katherine Dinsdale, Loring Henderson, Charlotte Knoche, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Monroe, Robert Mosely

Members absent: Jeanette Collier, Shannon Murphy

Staff present: Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts, Scott McCullough

Public present: Sara Taliaferro, Saunny Scott, David Tucker, Carla Helm,

Chair Dinsdale called the meeting to order at 8:30 am.

ITEM NO. 1 Introductions

The members of the CCH introduced themselves.

ITEM NO. 2 Approval of the Agenda and the October 13, 2009 Minutes

Dinsdale asked to add the following items to the agenda:

- Approval of additional CCC member.

- Discussion of overflow plans for LCS during the winter months.

- HPRP Update.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion by Knoche, seconded by Collinsworth to approve the amended Agenda and to approve the October 13, 2009 Minutes.

Motion passed unanimously.

ITEM NO. 3 CCC Recommendations to the CCH for Communications with neighbors at new LCS Site and discuss Draft Proposal for CCH Conflict Resolution Protocols/Guidelines and approve if appropriate.

In the absence of Taliaferro at the time the item was ready for discussion, Dinsdale suggested the CCH move on to the next agenda item and Agenda Item No. 3 would be revisited later in the meeting when all parties were present.

ITEM NO. 4 Receive Subcommittee Report on Homeless Outreach Workers.

Knoche informed the CCH that she and Henderson were still in the process of gathering information to complete the report. She said that she, Henderson, and Martin-Smith, were looking into holding a meeting with those individuals and agencies who work with the Homeless Outreach Team.

Martin-Smith added that it would be helpful if staff could help coordinate that meeting.

Knoche said that if they could have the meeting with the service providers the week after Thanksgiving that they could have their subcommittee report to present to the CCH in January.

Swarts said staff will coordinate a meeting for the week after Thanksgiving.

The CCH determined that the invitees should consist of Knoche, Henderson, Martin-Smith, Collier, Carla Helm, Jennifer Davis, and Eunice Ruttinger.

Taliaferro entered the meeting on behalf of the CCC.

Dinsdale said that the CCC has asked for the approval of the CCH in appointing a new member of the CCC, Amanda Schwegler. Dinsdale commented that Schwegler’s letter to the CCC was very impressive and that she has a lot of enthusiasm and will be a great addition to the CCC.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion by Dinsdale, seconded by Knoche to approve the addition of Amanda Schwegler to the CCC.

Motion passed unanimously.

Sara Taliaferro, Chair of the CCC, explained that this item was one that was originally presented to the CCH at the October meeting, and the vote to approve was deferred until the November meeting so the CCH members would have ample time to read the documents.

Dinsdale asked Taliaferro if they were the agency involved with facilitation of the meeting between the Lawrence Community Shelter and the neighborhood that was being held on Thursday, November 12.

Taliaferro said that the CCC would be in attendance, but only in a supporting role. The CCC does not have a facilitation role in this upcoming meeting because the neighbors are still exploring their concerns and looking at options to block the shelter from the neighborhood. There will be a neutral individual moderating the discussions. The CCC will not step in unless the neighbors decide to communicate their desire to work with LCS on the proposed shelter site.

Taliaferro explained that the document that the CCH is considering for approval outlines the plan specifically for communication with the neighbors at the proposed LCS site. While there is a general draft proposal for conflict resolution protocols and guidelines, the document slated for approval outlines three specific recommendations the CCC has made to the CCH regarding the proposed site.

Henderson said that part one was helpful assuming that the neighbors will want to communicate. He said that anything LCS can do to reach out to the neighborhood is helpful.

Dinsdale said that part two includes the facilitation element when discussions with the neighbors arise.

Taliaferro said that the CCC, if asked by the CCH, would immediately review whatever the situation that required facilitation was, and subsequently make recommendations in terms of the level of facilitation or mediation required. The CCC can facilitate if that is what is called for, but if it is a case where mediation is in order the mediator will need to be an outside professional in the field of mediation. She explained that sometimes these are situations where conciliation is possible because there has just been a miscommunication along the way. The CCC has the ability to analyze and evaluate the situation.

Dinsdale asked Taliaferro about the Neighborhood Site Council in item three and who would compose that group.

Taliaferro said that the Site Council would be open to any stakeholder from both the residential and business neighborhood surrounding the shelter and shelter staff and Board of Directors, along with any other stakeholder that the CCC can identify to be on the Council.

Henderson asked if Taliaferro saw these appointments to the Neighborhood Site Council as ones with terms.

Taliaferro said yes. There would be a stakeholder meeting in the beginning to set up parameters for the Site Council. All parties should be comfortable with what is set up. The Site Council will also include representatives from the homeless community.

Henderson said that LCS has wording in their Good Neighbor Agreement that there would be two public meetings annually held by the shelter for the neighbors. The first meeting is typically done in January with the annual summit and then again in July or August when the Block Party occurs. He expressed hope that if there will be quarterly Site Council meetings that he would be in favor of blending the two public meetings together. It is very important to keep the communication ongoing.

Knoche asked if the services of the CCC could be incorporated into the Good Neighbor Agreement. She feels that they would be a strong resource to the Good Neighbor Agreement to provide an outlet for facilitation for problems and issues that arise.

Martin-Smith commented that the Management Plan seems to displace the current model and encourage the CCC to take the current model and incorporate it into the proposed location.

Taliaferro explained that this is just shifting the way that the conversation is happening. The CCC facilitates the conversation, but does not drive it. Because this is a new site, one of the first things the CCC might do is facilitate the drafting of the new Good Neighbor Agreement. If the conversation between shelter representatives and neighbors gets stuck the CCC is there to help move it along. She added that as far as the Site Council goes, it may initially be that the group meets on a quarterly basis, but perhaps down the road the Site Council finds that it only needs to meet twice annually. The plan is flexible so a change like that can be made.

Henderson said that the Good Neighbor Agreement is part of the Management Plan and is public record. The Good Neighbor Agreement calls on the shelter to do most of the work and communicate and respond to issues. The part the neighbors play is to let the shelter know what the issues are. He received a comment on the Good Neighbor Agreement that the burdon was on the neighbor. Building up to the opening of the shelter LCS would like to work with the neighbors and the CCC to amend that, if appropriate.

Taliaferro said that some issues will be the same with the new site, and some will not. The shelter is looking to move to an area where people can organize and come together to work on things. There must be a commitment to a process. If asked to facilitate the Good Neighbor Agreement meetings the CCC would try to strive for more balance of responsibilities.

Dinsdale commented that LCS and their Board of Directors would need to approve this plan, and any action item the CCH takes would be dependant on LCS approving these recommendations as well.

Henderson said that it is not likely that the Board of Directors would not adopt this. He sees no reason why the CCH cannot adopt it as a recommendation today, and that he can take it to the Board of Directors for their approval after that.

Taliaferro explained that the CCC is not overhauling the process, they are just making suggestions and looking to facilitate the process where they can to aid and assist both sides.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion by Collinsworth, seconded by Martin-Smith to adopt the Community Cooperation Committee (CCC) Recommendations to the CCH for Communications with Neighbors at the new Lawrence Community Shelter Site.

Motion passed 8-0 with Henderson abstaining.

Martin-Smith suggested that the CCH look at ways to let other entities know of the CCC and what they do. She said that it might be a good idea that the Planning Commission or the City Commission have a good understanding of how communications will be happening and there are a lot of people supporting the type of communication that the CCC participates in. The CCH understands what the CCC does and what their role is, but that might not be clear to others outside of the CCH.

Knoche added that there are other groups and agencies that should know about the CCC and what services they can provide. The community should know that that the CCC has come forward and has done this type of training and that they are available to groups is something that the CCH should make known. It does not necessarily need to be conflict resolution all the time, but also being there at the onset of projects and activities.

Taliaferro said that the CCC can work in a proactive role. She said she is planning to contact Commissioner Cromwell with regard to the panhandling issue and explain to him who the CCC is and that they are willing to run a forum where the audience can discuss all the angles to the ordinance issue. If the City wants to pass an ordinance there needs to be a broad approach and collaborated effort so no one feels singled out. She said she is currently putting together an article for the paper on who panhandles as there is a lot of mixed feelings in the Community on the issue.

Dinsdale commented that she sees value in the idea of the process, but she sees this as a new role that the CCC will have in the Community.

Taliaferro said that this type of thing was listed in the original Task Force report as an item for the CCC. She said that education and outreach were also components in the Task Force report. This particular issue of panhandling may be outside the view of the CCH, but it will likely come to their doorstep if there is not someone addressing it.

Knoche suggested that the CCC be utilized for overflow shelter discussions as well. Those involved should know that they have access to a group that can assist in Community discussions.

Dinsdale asked if there is a plan in place to announce the facilitation options to the neighbors.

Taliaferro said announcing the plan to the neighbors was premature at this point. The neighbors are still trying to block the shelter so they are not ready for this type of facilitated conversation. The CCC or LCS does not want to run the risk of making this appear that the relocation is a done deal.

Henderson agreed and said that the relocation is not a done deal at all. He said that at the public meeting on Thursday, November 12 he plans on telling the neighbors that he wants to work with them to rework the existing Good Neighbor Agreement.

Martin-Smith asked how it would be possible for the CCH to communicate the value of the CCC outside of the CCH meetings and the minutes. She asked how it could be forwarded to the City Commission in some way without working to meet with Commissioners individually.

Swarts suggested an item in the City Manager’s Report. The City Manager’s Report is read at every City Commission meeting and that might be the correct outlet for getting the word out about the CCC. The item can talk the recommendations and how this will be a bigger part of the shelter discussions.

Knoche asked how the availability of the facilitation services can be publicized, as it is available for not only shelter discussions but for other homeless issues as well.

Taliaferro said that between the LCS relocation and the panhandling issue the CCC would like for the CCH to provide additional information to the Community that gives a clear overview of the service agencies and how they work together. The CCC feels that it is important to have as much transparency as possible.

Henderson said that the Community will get to know the CCC by the utilization of the CCC in these issues.

It was agreed by the CCH to authorize Swarts to compose an item about the CCC for the City Manager’s Report for an upcoming City Commission meeting.

ITEM NO. 4 : Discussion of Impact of Drop-In Center on the Downtown Area.

Dinsdale introduced the topic and said it was tabled from last month due to time constraints at the October meeting.

Dinsdale said that she understands that the role of the CCH is to advise the City Commission on homeless issues. The role is not to solve the problems but to advise the City Commission on problems that may exist. She said this is a proactive approach. She said that she thought it would be good to provide the City with a report on what the conditions will be like when the Drop-In Center closes downtown at the current shelter location. She asked if the CCH should form a sub-committee to issue a statement to the City Commission. The CCH should not be expected to solve the problem, but they should acknowledge that there will be a significant change for a certain group of people who will have nowhere to go.

Henderson said that at this time LCS is planning on the new shelter location having a Drop-In Center. The new shelter will have a day room and will serve lunch. He said that the effect of that location change is unknown at this point. The people that utilize the Drop-In Center may not relocate to the new shelter site. LCS is going to try running the day center from the new location and see what happens. Currently, the Drop-In Center is seeing 50-60 people a day.

Swarts added that it was a land use issue. When the shelter relocates the existing SUP for the shelter and drop-in center will expire. Whether or not it is able to come back downtown to that location at a later date will be another SUP issue.

Knoche asked if anything would continue on at the current shelter site when the relocation was complete.

Henderson said no, that LCS would continue to provide day activities but it will be at the new location. He added that the extension of the SUP for the current location is also in the works.

David Tucker asked if anything was going to change for those who are currently banned from the shelter, and if Henderson had spoken to them about their plans when the current location closes.

Henderson said that there would not be any uniform amnesty for those who are currently banned when the shelter relocates. LCS will review individual cases.

Tucker said that currently these banned individuals are not allowed on the shelter property but they can gather in the parking lot next door to LCS. Those people will not move to the new shelter location with LCS.

Henderson said that there will not be the same situation at the new shelter site because there is no adjacent public land. It is all private property and there will be nowhere to gather. If a banned person has a change in circumstances they can meet with a Case Manager at the shelter and see if they can be deemed eligible to receive services again.

Knoche asked if LINK had plans to move as well.

Henderson said that he was meeting with LINK tomorrow, but he hopes that they do move because it will help LCS keep food services within the budget.

Dinsdale said she understood that these are peripheral issues, but the charge of the CCH was to implement the Housing Vision and these are socialization and feeding issues and not necessarily the charge of the CCH. It may be appropriate for another group to consider addressing this.

Martin-Smith said that most of what the CCH addresses should be at the direction of the City Commission. When the City Commission asks for input and recommendations then that is the time the CCH should talk about the issue.

Swarts added that this conversation consisted of speculation at this point, but it acknowledges there may be concerns.

Knoche said that if the City Commission has not asked for input this discussion is not necessarily pertinent right now.

Henderson said that he wanted the record to show that the CCH had discussed it. He does not want this to be a surprise to the community if it becomes an issue.

ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM Discussion of Overflow Shelter Plans for LCS During the Winter Months.

Dinsdale said she met with Henderson and Dalberg and that although thus far LCS has not been at capacity in their shelter space, last winter LCS and the Salvation Army served up to 120 people between the two agencies. LCS cannot allow any more than 75 people in the shelter. Since there were frequently over 100 people in the two shelters last winter this is a reality that is coming and the community needs to respond to it in some way. There has been a precedent set in the past where an emergency overflow shelter was provided. The CCH cannot solve this problem, nor can the City, but perhaps the City can designate staff to work with groups that would be willing to open up for emergency shelter purposes.

Swarts said that the City routinely works with those who approach the City with activities, no matter what the activity is. An emergency overflow shelter would be no different.

Dinsdale asked who groups should contact if they would like to pursue an overflow shelter.

Swarts said they could start by contacting her or the Planning Department. There will be code requirements, and it is not a simple issue. She added that there is not a lot of time left until it turns cold but if there is an agency or person interested in providing emergency overflow shelter services they would need to contact the City as soon as possible.

Collinsworth asked if the emergency overflow shelter would fall under the category of Emergency Management.

Henderson said that he had talked to the Red Cross last winter and although it is an emergency situation, it is not the kind of emergency for which they would provide shelter services.

Dinsdale said that her feeling is that this is an emergency situation in the making and there is no leadership stepping forward to proceed with a solution. Henderson has led this process in the past and he is unable to do that this year. There are people who are accustomed to having cold weather shelter that may not have that this year unless the community is able to determine a solution.

Henderson said that LCS absolutely cannot take anyone else in over their allotted capacity. He said that LCS would be willing to do the outreach to the community to bring prospective locations back to the City for review. He said that the stumbling block will be the code requirements as well as the 90 day SUP process when it is already cold.

Swarts said that if a participant is identified or an activity is identified have them contact her at Development Services or McCullough on the Planning side of the department. The City will be willing to assist a participant with the process but staff cannot speculate what the City can do until there are specifics.

Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services, said that the City’s role in the past has been seen as a review of land use. The City does not own or operate a shelter of any kind. In the past the City has tried to react appropriately to very cold winter months, such as working with temporary shelters in churches or working with LCS. The City does have land use and fire code requirements, and it is crucial that these are followed. He said that the direction of the City has not been to go out and solve the overflow problem, however it is important to keep talking about ways to address it and solve it, as well as helping whoever does step forward to work through the process.

ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM: HPRP Update.

Knoche introduced Alanna Winner, who is the LDCHA Supportive Housing Specialist, and reported Hope House is currently has six residents.

Knoche said that the LDCHA is working to get HPRP up and running. There is a training on Friday, November 13 at 9:00 a.m. for service providers. The guidelines for Rapid Re-Housing and Homelessness Prevention will be available. When the providers know what the steps to the program are then the program will be ready to go. The applications for the service providers and case managers will be available online as well as at the LDCHA offices. The biggest element providing questions currently is the HMIS requirements. HMIS is required for intake and eligibility review with all applications for HPRP assistance.

Collinsworth asked how much money was allocated for HPRP.

Swarts said it was $648,000 for usage over 24 months. There is a potential for reallocated additional funding as well.

ITEM NO. 6 Public Comment.

There was no additional public comment.

ITEM NO. 7 Miscellaneous/Calendar.

Dinsdale asked Henderson to report on the future steps in the proposed LCS relocation.

Henderson said that on November 12 there will be a meeting at 7:30pm at the Boys and Girls Club in Lawrence. Bonnie Lowe will chair the meeting. LCS staff, Board of Directors, the shelter architect and engineer and other members of the public will be there to offer information and be available for questions and discussions. He said Monday, November 16, will be the meeting where the SUP application for the proposed shelter relocation will be discussed at the Planning Commission. That meeting will begin at 6:30pm. The City Commission will consider the same SUP Application on December 1^st at their meeting. He considers the December 1^st meeting as a very high impact date because the City Commission may vote that night to approve the SUP application for the proposed site. The Planning Commission will have its own separate hearing, but the City Commission is not obligated to go with the decision of the Planning Commission. LCS will be presenting to both bodies.

Henderson said he was not sure of any other scheduled neighborhood meetings. The meetings that are scheduled will be attended by LCS and City staff members. LCS is open to additional neighborhood meetings if the neighbors would like to continue talking.

Henderson said that the renewal of the SUP for the current site is about a month behind the relocation SUP in the process.

McCullough reminded the CCH that December 1, as with any future agenda item for the City Commission, is a tentative date. It is often the case that the Mayor and the City Commission will set the date the item will be heard, and it is placed in their upcoming schedule as a guideline. Often times the City Commission does not follow that guideline exactly as written. The Planning Commission date of November 16 is a firm date with an established agenda, however they could receive testimony and defer the item until a later meeting. There is a lot of opportunity for scheduling changes as the SUP goes through the process. The Planning Commission will either vote to recommend the SUP application on November 16 or they will defer it to a later meeting.

ITEM NO. 8 Adjourn.

ACTION TAKEN

Motion by Martin-Smith, seconded by Knoche to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 a.m.

Motion passed unanimously.

Attendance Record

Members

01/09

02/09

03/09

04/09

05/09

06/09

Jun PR

07/09

July PR

08/11/09**

08/18/09

09/15

10/09

11/09

12/09

Jeanette Collier

Hubbard Collinsworth

Wes

Dalberg

Katherine Dinsdale

Loring Henderson

Charlotte Knoche

Shirley Martin-Smith

Mike

Monroe

Robert Mosely

Shannon Murphy

Sandy Winn- Tutwiler

***

* designates first meeting after appointment.

** no meeting; lack of quorum

***resigned prior to meeting