Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Planning & Development Services
|
TO: |
David L. Corliss, City Manager
|
|
FROM: |
Danelle Dresslar, Management Analyst
|
|
CC: |
Scott McCullough, Director Margene Swarts, Assistant Director
|
|
Date: |
April 17, 2009
|
|
RE: |
Homeless Camping Proposal
|
Please place this memo and the attachments on the May 5th City Commission agenda if appropriate.
Below is a history of the camping discussions that have taken place both with the City Commission and the Community Commission on Homelessness.
October 2008 – City posts and clears illegal campsite north of the Amtrak station and east of the Riverfront Mall.
November 11, 2008 – City Commission regular agenda item “Receive public comment and City Commission direction concerning homeless camping”. Loring Henderson asked the City Commission to refer this item to the CCH and they “would do what they needed to do to come back with a proposal”.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to refer the item of camping on city property to the Community Commission on Homelessness. Motion carried unanimously.
December 9, 2008 – CCH agenda item regarding discussion of camping (see attached minutes).
January 13, 2009 – CCH agenda item regarding discussion of camping. Mark Hecker and Mitch Young from Parks and Recreation attended the meeting to give the LPR point of view on camping and illegal campsites. The following motions were placed on the table:
Motioned by Henderson to recommend the City Commission approve a regulated campsite, provisional for one year, equipped with porta-potties and a dumpster, and the services of the outreach workers; seconded by Dahlberg. The motion failed 3-5-2.
Motioned by Martin-Smith to recommend to the City Commission that they continue to move forward with the Housing Vision; seconded by Knoche.
The motion passed 7-3.
The CCH sent the attached letter to the City Commission regarding their deliberations on homeless camping. The item was placed on the City Commission’s regular agenda for February 10, 2009.
February 10, 2009 – CCH receives public comment about recommendation to City Commission regarding camping. There was another motion proposed based on public comment.
Henderson moved to approve camping in certain places provisionally for one year’s time; seconded by Collier.
Motion failed 3-5-2
February 10, 2009 – The City Commission receives letter from the CCH. After discussion, including public comment, the following motion passed:
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Highberger, to receive minutes and concur with the recommendation of the Community Commission on Homelessness and asked David Tucker, Homeless Outreach Coordinator, to make a recommendation to the Community Commission on Homelessness.
Motion passed unanimously.
April 14, 2009 – CCH receives David Tucker’s campsite proposal and staff’s memo on other cities’ efforts related to camping. The following motion passed:
Collier moved that the CCH recommend the campsite proposal be sent to the City Commission for further review; seconded by Collinsworth.
The Motion passed 4-3-1.
Attached:
Planning and Development Services Staff memorandum
CCH Letter to the City Commission regarding camping (01/26/2009)
CCH minutes 12/09/2008
CCH minutes 01/13/2009
CCH minutes 02/10/2009
CCH minutes 04/14/2009 (includes attachment of Tucker’s camping proposal)
Memorandum
City of Lawrence
Planning & Development Services
|
TO: |
Community Commission on Homelessness (CCH)
|
|
FROM: |
Danelle Dresslar, Management Analyst Margene Swarts, Assistant Director, Development Services
|
|
CC: |
David L. Corliss, City Manager Scott McCullough, Director, Planning and Development Services
|
|
Date: |
April 7, 2009
|
|
RE: |
Homeless Camping
|
Staff compiled information on several communities where City-sanctioned camping has been utilized. The communities researched included:
1. Ontario CA (City Sanctioned homeless campground, began mid-2007)
2. Reno NV (City Sanctioned homeless campsite, ran from 6/08 – 10/08)
3. Seattle WA (City approved Tent City operational on private property since 2000)
4. Portland OR (City recognized non-profit establishment, Dignity Village)
5. Santa Barbara CA (City Sanctioned Safe Parking project)
There is not a large selection of City-sanctioned campgrounds to research because it is not a very common occurrence in other cities. The research shows that sanctioned Tent Cities exist in predominately warmer weather climates, including California, Nevada, and the Pacific Northwest. The City-sanctioned campgrounds that have proven to be the most successful share all or some of the following traits:
Some problems/obstacles that the City-sanctioned campgrounds reported via phone conversations and email correspondence:
1. Influx of residents inhabiting the camps from word of mouth. (Ontario, CA began with 20 campers and built to effectively handle 140 residents. This number ballooned to 400+ residents within months, 250-300 residents of which had no ties to Ontario.)
2. Drug, alcohol, and crime issues.
3. Very costly to operate from the City’s standpoint.
4. Population that stays there the longest are not interested in services or shelter. They do not look at the camp as a stepping stone to housing. They look at it as their home. This is consistent in Reno and Ontario.
5. Lack of mental/behavioral health services have proven to be an obstacle for helping a sector of the population that are not able/willing to utilize most shelter situations.
6. Neighborhood concerns in some locations.
7. Large population of chronically homeless.
8. Staffing concerns (Reno).
Budget Concerns:
|
Location |
Cost to City (yr) |
Estimated Cost Breakdown |
|
Ontario, CA |
$200,000-$300,000*
-Additionally spent $200,000 for fencing, fire pits, and identical tents for location. |
$90,000 to Non-Profit administrators $100,000 to Daytime Security provider -Possible funding allocation of $100,000 to Nighttime Security provider if approved by City Council. *Does not include trash collection, staffing costs, water charges, and porta-potty service. |
|
Reno, NV |
$36,149 (4 Months) * |
$1,289.00 for fencing $3,003.00 for sani-huts (porta-potty service) $7,540.00 for awnings $23,346.04 for security $611.16 for misc. supplies $358.50 for a drinking fountain *Does not include staffing costs, exterior lighting costs, daytime shelter, or cost to provide access to showers for women and laundry to campers. |
|
Seattle, WA |
No City/County funds given directly to Tent City. Tent City does receive support from the City Bus subsidy program. |
No funding from City of Seattle or King County. Funds utilized are from private fundraising efforts of SHARE/WHEEL (non-profits), and the host sites provide majority of resources, both in-kind and cash. City of Seattle does provide $174,000 per year to SHARE/WHEEL for their shelter operations. |
Code Enforcement at the City of Ontario estimates that the cost to the City for their “Temporary Homeless Service Center” will run anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000 per year. This includes approximately $90,000 paid to the non-profit that administers the program for the City, and $100,000 for daytime security to keep drug dealers and other criminal activity out of the camp. The additional funds are to provide nighttime security as well. The City additionally spent $200,000 to construct a fence around the site, build fire pits, and purchase identical tents for the campers. Although not included in the estimates above, the City also contracts Porta-Potty service to the area (10 units), and provides water and two cold water showers. The camp is set up on City owned property near the LA/Ontario Airport.
The City of Ontario additionally opted to provide one way bus tickets and train fare for the campers who were evicted from the camp after the Reduction Phase. This process was utilized for the 250–300 people who were not able to prove they had ties to the City of Ontario, and were therefore not able to obtain a permit to stay at the facility.
The City of Reno expended $36,000 to keep the “Temporary Emergency Overflow Area” facility open. The emergency overflow area was located adjacent to the Men’s shelter, which closes every spring for the summer. The site was officially open from June 9 to October 5. The above figure does not account for the staff cost, or for the utility costs for exterior safety lighting, the cost to allow women access to showers and laundry or for campers to escape the elements regularly for some part of the day. Staff estimated that 30 City workers were involved with the temporary site while it was operational. There were two staff members that were primarily in charge, and they each monitored the site seven days a week during both the days and the evenings. The staff members averaged 60 hour work weeks supervising the camping community. The City did not provide anything to campers besides basic services such as bathrooms, showers, and the place to sleep. Blankets, tents, personal hygiene products, and clothes were largely donated.
In Seattle, the majority of the funding is handled by the “host” of Tent City. The “host” is the private property owner who invites Tent City to locate on its grounds. The non-profit administrators of the Tent City, the Seattle Housing and Resource Efforts (SHARE) program and the Women’s Housing, Equality, and Enhancement League (WHEEL), do private fundraising to secure funding, and the host sites are usually the entities that provide the most resources, both in-kind and cash. The City of Seattle does provide funding in the amount of $174,000 to the SHARE/WHEEL agencies for operating their 11 shelters in the City. The Tent Cities do also receive support from the City bus subsidy program.
Feedback from Communities
The Temporary Emergency Overflow Area in Reno has been highly regarded as a successful Tent City venture by the media. While this did create a temporary solution to the issue at the time, according to staff, this was not the most ideal situation for the City to undertake. There were neighborhood concerns and it dominated staffing resources while it was open. A staff member in Reno stated that “If you don’t have strict control over it, it will become a pile of filth, a crime haven, and a place where people can just hang out and not be accountable for their behaviors.” They also indicated that when they started Tent City, they thought the clientele would be those who were suffering from the effects of the economy but they found that in the end it was primarily the chronically homeless who utilized the site. This specific population is the same population that is still accessing shelter and other resources in the Reno area. The staff member also indicated that without two dedicated staff members, Tent City would not have been possible because although they tried assigning chores (and enforcing them) to residents that were staying there, there was not much accountability among the campers. Residents were given a list of rules, and each individual had to register for the site. Campers had to re-register for the site every Monday, and they had to show proof that they were working towards employment, income, housing or other mechanisms to get off the street. If they could not show proof they were asked to leave.
In Ontario, they had to undertake the Reduction Phase of the camp, which was essentially the installation of permit requirements to those utilizing the site. As mentioned above, Ontario ended up with 250-300 out-of-town campers that had gotten word about the site and traveled there with the intention of staying at the site. The City of Ontario had to enforce the permit rule, and the campers now have to meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless, as well as prove one of the following three requirements: 1) Educated in Ontario, 2) Family in Ontario, and 3) Former owner/renter of property in Ontario. The camp now has approximately 80 residents.
The City of Ontario has worked very closely with city staff in the Legal and Risk Management departments to devise specific language on the permits and the campsite signage that releases the City from any liability issues. Staff does not have an estimate as to how long the temporary facility will be open, but it has survived the first two rounds of budget cuts in the current fiscal year. There is no set of rules that prohibit alcohol from the camp, but with the police and code enforcement presence in the camp, if an illegal activity is viewed, appropriate legal action is taken. They are reviewing the possibility of stricter ordinances in the City regarding the homeless that are not utilizing the campground, and they are also looking at a requirement for the permit process that works harder to encourage participation in housing or services; if they are offered services and do not accept them it may be grounds for non-renewal of their occupancy permit.
Tent City in Seattle receives a permit from the City of Seattle, however it has to relocate every 90 days, and it cannot reside in the same location more than once in a rolling 12 month period. The sites can only be on private property, so there is mostly utilization of religious sites and private University sites. There is a strict list of requirements that need to be met by the host sites per their agreement with the City of Seattle and King County, including a community notification and meeting, maximum occupancy limits, buffer requirements, parking requirements, health regulations, fire safety regulations, and enforcement of the code of conduct. Most of the residents of this particular Tent City have jobs, either full time or part time, or they are students. The Tent Cities in Seattle are self-managed, meaning that the residents organize themselves for clean-up, security patrol, etc. Although there are two legal Tent Cities in Seattle, there are still several that operate illegally within the City limits. The list above of successful traits of Tent Cities is compiled information that has been utilized by Seattle in their project. This project works primarily from donations from private entities and the host sites. Information received from King County as well as the City of Seattle shows a favorable experience with the Tent Cities that are located on private property when they also are accompanied by a strong non-profit organization that is accountable for the administration and funding of the project. King County also reports that there is no statistical evidence of an increase of crime in the neighborhoods where the Tent Cities are located on the private property grounds.
Staff Recommendation
Locally, Staff continues to recommend the City Commission not pursue the avenue of a legalized temporary campground. The cost estimates require funding sources that are not currently included in the City of Lawrence budget, nor is there anticipated additional funding for the near future. Additionally, the staffing requirement to operate a temporary homeless camp facility is not something that any City Department is currently able to effectively undertake. The Homeless Outreach Workers have a full workload as it stands currently, so it is unknown how the demands of supervising a campsite would affect the effectiveness of their program. Further, this is not currently part of the agreement between the City and the Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center with regard to case manager job responsibilities.
A second issue to camping in this area is weather related. The original emergency shelter in the City operated by The Salvation Army was only open November through April because it was acknowledged that the winter months were the most problematic for homeless individuals in terms of shelter needs. As noted previously, the communities that have year round camps are located in temperate climate zones. Finally, although some of the cities have had success in gathering their homeless population and isolating them in a campsite, all staff contacted agreed this arrangement is not the desired solution to the homeless problem in their community.
January 26, 2009
Dear City Commissioners,
A vote by the Community Commission on Homelessness to revoke or alter ordinances regarding illegal camping (Illegal Camping 14-417 and Illegal Camping Ordinance Amendments 7893 and 79) failed at our January meeting.
This vote occurred after two lengthy CCH meetings devoted to discussing the subject. City Parks and Recreation officials presented their views on camping ordinances, City funded homeless outreach workers were interviewed regarding their experiences. Members of the public spoke at both meetings and City staff collected information for our study regarding how other communities nationally and locally handle the issue.
No voice on our Commission speaks in favor of encouraging camping by homeless individuals. However, it is significant to note that those on the front lines of serving our homeless population, both Salvation Army shelter director Wes Dahlberg and Lawrence Community Shelter director Loring Henderson voted to drop or alter the ordinance. All of the homeless outreach workers expressed a desire to change the ordinance, as well.
Our nationwide lack of adequate mental health facilities and our community’s lack of adequate shelter render camping by some individuals a necessary “evil”. The truth is, say Dahlberg and Henderson, camping has always occurred and will likely continue to occur, even after adequate shelter is available. Outreach workers told us that enforcement of these ordinances only serves to scatter and further isolate already disturbed and isolated, many times severely mentally ill, individuals. This is especially true when our community simply has no where else to offer these individuals shelter.
It is our understanding that the policy of the police department is to actively patrol and post 24-hour warnings to those who camp in the C-3 zoning district as well as the Central Business District. Beyond those areas, especially on publicly owned land in the wilderness areas along the river banks and secluded park land north of the Kaw, City-funded Homeless Outreach Workers continually work to seek out and monitor homeless individuals unwilling to access traditional shelters and services. Their charge is to engage and coax those often alienated individuals toward stability and access of services they need. In those areas, although some patrolling occurs by police, enforcement of illegal camping ordinances has been rare and when it occurs it is largely complaint driven.
Recently there seems to have been a rather vague policy of benign neglect of enforcement of these ordinances as written unless complaints arise regarding a specific site in areas beyond the Central Business District and frequently traveled parkland. Parks and Rec officials said that if the ordinances were removed the City would have “do it right” to avoid liability problems, meaning installing toilets, providing for trash disposal and adequate policing and supervision. Our Commission members expressed an unwillingness to redirect scarce funds and energy from implementing elements of our accepted Housing Vision to fund such a campsite.
Certainly this issue, as well as the frigid temperatures and recent snowfall, highlight our community’s critical need to immediately move forward in bringing forth our vision for offering decent shelter to all the needy in our community. It’s a real and cruel irony that we are discussing enforcing and/or strengthening ordinances requiring individuals to seek indoor shelter when existing shelters are full.
Members of the CCH thank the City Commission for being engaged in issues of homelessness and working toward:
Sincerely,
Katherine Dinsdale
Co-Chair
Community Commission on Homelessness
City of Lawrence, Kansas
December 9, 2008 Minutes (Lawrence City Commission Room)
Members present: Hubbard Collinsworth, Wes Dahlberg, Katherine Dinsdale, Loring Henderson, Charlotte Knoche, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Monroe, Jeanette Collier,
Members absent: Shannon Murphy, Jane Faubion, Phil Hemphill, Robert Mosely
Staff present: Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts
Public present: Hilda Enoch, Sara Taliaferro, Saunny Scott
ITEM NO. 1 INTRODUCTIONS
Dinsdale called the meeting to order at 8:32. There were no introductions.
ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Martin-Smith seconded by Dahlberg to approve the November 11, 2008 minutes.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0
ITEM NO. 3 CCC UPDATE – SARA TALIAFERRO
Katherine introduced Sara. Sara said that she is going to come back in January to give the CCC annual report, so she did not have much in the way of official business for this meeting. She wants the groups to be able to work together and for the CCC to assist with facilitation for issues such as the Camping ordinance. She said the CCC is putting together a facilitation guidebook. She wants to get together with the City Commission in a Study Session to show roles and to show how everyone can work together in the most effective way.
She said her input on the Camping and the CCC role was this: She indicated that Katherine came to her and said that the CCH might need to focus more on the Housing Vision and its role in the camping issue. She said that the housing issues are important and both the issue itself and the people involved deserve attention and deserve to be part of the process. Positive contact with those living along the river helps law enforcement keep the peace and can help the situation come to a compromise or solution.
She indicated that what the CCC does is involve all stakeholders in the issue. They believe to come to an effective resolution to an issue you have to bring in everyone involved, from the Outreach workers to the City to homeless individuals themselves. She said that where the CCC can help in the issue is to facilitate those interviews with the stakeholders. She indicated that she had not read through the City Commission report yet, however she wanted to clarify that the City was reviewing options. This was confirmed.
She indicated that she had spoken to a representative of the campsite that was torn down. She indicated that he made some points that they had all worked hard and collaborated together to form the campsite. He told her that there were rules there and the two men who died in the area did not have contact with their camp. He explained that self governance was in effect, and that there was a sense of goodwill and stewardship with what they were doing. She pointed out that this is not necessarily her recommendation, but that she just wants to make sure that all the facts are gathered and this is an example of involving all the stakeholders.
She reiterated that the CCC can contact and facilitate interviews with stakeholders.
Katherine asked if Sara could outline how the CCC can provide these services.
Sara said yes.
ITEM NO. 4 CCH DISCUSSION REGARDING CAMPING
Dinsdale introduced the topic. She asked the group for clarification that everyone had the notes that were sent out.
Dinsdale indicated in talking to David Tucker, that she has really had her eyes opened to this issue. She indicated that she thought originally that there was a side that she favored, however after working with this and seeing that as long as there is not an opportunity to offer them housing then there may need to be a campsite. She brought up three factors behind her thought process.
1. There is no mental health facility. There is nowhere for some homeless to stay because of mental health issues.
2. The shelters are full. Loring had indicated to her that LCS is turning away 15 people per night. The City just does not have spaces to offer people.
3. The importance of human contact and case workers to keep tabs on people. It is good to have an idea of where people are and how they are. With the campsites the Outreach workers knew where to find people and were building rapport and relationships with them.
The current ordinance sates now that 24 hours notice is required before eliminating a campsite and camping is illegal in city limits. She stated that the Housing Vision that was created has no place for camping, nor was it ever discussed to include it. She said that in all the years of the CCH there has not been a serious conversation on camping. She feels that it cannot be that easily dismissed.
Dinsdale asked Mike Monroe for the Police Department perspective.
Monroe said that he did some research as requested for citations for illegal camping since April. While the initial number is not broken down in to actual “camping” calls because they are all categorized under nuisance calls, he was able to find 55 citations for illegal camping. He indicated that the vast majority were in the Downtown area. He said that they were mostly for sleeping on the sidewalks Downtown. He indicated that it was a little misleading if you look at the total because it is an enforcement issue. Monroe said that the roll of the Police with regard to the campsites by the river was that they assisted Parks and Recreation with posting notices to campsites and giving them an opportunity to gather their belongings prior to the end of the 24 hour window that they are given to vacate. He said that they were not there to cite anyone, just to facilitate the removal. He clarified that posting a campsite meant that they are issuing a warning to the campers that they have 24 hours to vacate the property before the site will be removed. He reiterated that they were not there to necessarily cite anyone and that for the most part they have had no issues with people camping. He noted that usually they are gone by the next morning, and mostly they are isolated tents in isolated areas. He said occasionally you will come across ones with bedding, magazines, food, clothing and other items, but most are not as nice.
Dinsdale inquired about data on crimes or calls related to campsites.
Monroe said not too many, the most calls are those incidents that are downtown or assaults under the bridge. Occasionally it is a transient.
Dinsdale asked for clarification that they are not necessarily calls related to the campsites.
Monroe said not normally.
Dinsdale inquired about any known hygiene issues that are predominant in the campsites.
Monroe said that he is sure that there is to some level, but they do not normally get specific complaints from the campsites regarding that issue.
Martin-Smith asked if the event that brought this campsite issue to the forefront was the particular situation with the two men that died by the river?
Henderson said that it definitely brought it to the forefront.
Martin-Smith asked for an answer as to how this particular campsite had been able to grow to the size it was. She said that every city with bridges and rivers have these camping issues, but she wants to know how the residents of the campsite were able to bring about as sophisticated of a layout as they did.
Monroe said it was possibly “out of sight, out of mind”.
Martin-Smith clarified that it was not actually causing any problems on its own.
Monroe said not really, that the main problems that they deal with are under the bridge and downtown.
Martin-Smith said that there basically was not anything new that has not been happening since the original Task Force.
Monroe explained that the process has been accelerated since then, but the sites had still been cleared in the past. He said generally the ones close to downtown were the ones that have been really pursued.
Dahlberg asked what exactly the ordinance said.
Henderson said that there was a downtown ordinance and a camping ordinance. He said that when the ordinance for downtown was passed he remembers the City Commission talking about the other ordinance. He indicated that they said that they were going to try to leave it as it was and manage it accordingly.
Dinsdale read portions of the December 2005 memo regarding the camping ordinance.
Monroe stated that this defined what we would control. A few citations from the above number are possibly multiple but not many.
Dinsdale asked if the CCH could say that the Police do not think that this is a problem.
Martin-Smith said that she did not think the CCH should necessarily say that. She said that this arose because of an unfortunate set of circumstances. She said that she does not believe it belongs in the Housing Vision. She noted that we agreed as a community not to go with a Housing First Model, however we are very close to a Housing First model with the Housing Vision. She said that the CCH needs to move this Housing Vision forward. She said that this happens by working with City Commission as well as the shelters, LDCHA and others to make the Vision work. She said that we have a bunch of families with kids and people who need housing. That should be our focus.
Dahlberg asked what the thought process of the people around the CCH was. Was this a reaction to the deaths? If they had not been found dead would this even be taking place?
Dinsdale agreed and the point of the conversation is that they are doing something illegal but they have no choice in the matter
Dahlberg said that at the Tuesday meeting some campers indicated they would camp no matter what and that effectively does make it a choice for them.
Dinsdale said that the Outreach workers would tell you that some cannot make rational decisions because of mental illness, but they are making a decision that this is how they choose to live. She said that some simply will not come to shelters.
Dinsdale also said that it is important to review the argument that the Outreach workers are providing the okay for camping. She said the City is paying Outreach workers to help campers as they camp. She said that they cannot tell the campers there are other options because there are none.
Dahlberg reiterated that there are options; some just do not take the options provided. He indicated that there are several he knows that are completely happy to camp as opposed to coming to the shelters.
Collier indicated that she is currently assisting a person sleeping in a park. She said that he refuses to go to shelter. She said there are always going to be those who refuse no matter what options are provided. She said that she agrees on shelter and staying true to the Housing Vision.
Dinsdale said that her hope is that the statement from to CCH to the City Commission includes the fact that the shelters are turning people away and that there is not room for everyone. She said that if we are going to tell them that there is not an allowable camping alternative then we need to offer them something.
Monroe added that there are people who purposely get arrested as opposed to going to shelter.
Dinsdale said that the fact that there is not an alternative to camping should be the CCH stance. She said if we cannot offer them a bed then maybe it is wrong to tell them they cannot camp.
Martin-Smith said that regardless of what the final recommendation is that it must include the Housing Vision.
Dinsdale said that she was completely happy illegalizing camping when we have alternatives to offer.
Monroe said there will still be those who camp.
Collinsworth said that regardless of visions and services camping isn’t going to stop. His objection to clearing camps was to determine who dropped the ball that they were able to build the structures that they had there. How did it get that sophisticated? He said that it had to be built over time. He agreed that the CCH needs to push forward the Housing Vision. He said that everyone agreed on it, and he want to know where the CCH stands on it.
Henderson added that this was a confusing issue even for him. He is starting at the end point. He said that camping is always going to go on. He mentioned that Kansas City has Uplift where people who are camping are taken food from local services. He said that he does not like the word “choice”, and that in most cases they are not making a rational choice. He pointed to the comments provided from Outreach workers. He said that camping has been an issue for years, and that the CCH has been asked by the City Commission to make a recommendation. He said that the Housing Vision is appropriate, but the CCH needs to come up with something of a resolution because we were asked to. He suggested the “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, all while urging to get along with the Housing Vision. He said that although camping is not going to stop there are still those who do come in when it gets really, really cold. He suggested letting it go on under the current camping regulations for outside the business district and move forward with Housing Vision.
Dahlberg said as long as campers are camped and the Outreach workers know where to find them they can at least work with them and provide service to them, which is more than they would be getting on their own. He said that when we knock everything down they scatter and Outreach work is lost.
Henderson said that can be part of response to the City Commission. He said that a lot of the campers were working with the Outreach workers on a case management plan to get them into housing. He said that not everyone there was resisting the Outreach worker’s help. He said they weren’t enabling them; they were working to get them out of the camp.
Martin-Smith asked again how the structured campsite got on so long? She said ordinances where in place, and the Outreach workers were trying to bringing in those people who wanted help. She said she understand the dilemma of the deaths, and the dilemma about loosing contact with the campers, but we should not allow those types of camps to start and grow in the first place.
Dahlberg asked Martin-Smith for her rationale.
Martin-Smith said that it is illegal to camp and that the intent is warning the campers and giving them 24 hours, then returning at that time to follow through.
Monroe said that they do not patrol that area. He said their camping focus is under the bridge and in city parks. He said if they discover them we will take the initiative to post the site and remove the site after 24 hours. He said that they just do not have the resources to get down there.
Martin-Smith said that the Outreach workers had the resources to get down there. She said that while she was not questioning the Police force at all, if she was a City Commissioner, she would want to know how the Outreach workers got there and why the police did not know that.
Dahlberg asked Martin-Smith if she is suggesting that the Outreach workers police.
Martin-Smith answered no, that it not what she is suggesting. She is still just trying to figure out how it got to this point.
Henderson said the tone was set earlier when this was before the City Commission about the Downtown ordinance instead of the camping ordinance. He said that perhaps that there has been a realization by the City that this is a dilemma but since it has not been a real problem, they would not aggressively monitor it. However, if there is a reason to then they will. He said that there is no solution here, and if there is no problem you let it go for awhile, if there is you work with it.
He said that for the recommendation to the City Commission, we have unique option of Outreach workers. He asked why the CCH cannot say that instead of posting and evicting that the Police can just patrol it. As a community, we do not want the camps because of issues around violence and hygiene, among other things. He asked if we worried that it will lead to crime or unhealthy situation.
Dahlberg said that we need to as a community to make sure that people are aware of the dangers in camping.
Dinsdale asked about a proposed recommendation. She said that the CCH could recommend that it actively continue the ordinance in the Downtown business district, and beyond that the CCH would like the City to continue to work with the Outreach workers and work with the police department to answer to criminal activity.
Monroe cautioned that we do not want a policy that we cannot patrol an area. We cannot limit patrolling.
Martin-Smith asked if the CCH can draft what to say to the commission. She said that another message that the CCH needs to give the City Commission should be the importance of the Housing Vision. She said that this is based on the fact that there is “No room in the inn”. She stressed the Importance of linking the two together.
Dinsdale said she would work on a draft.
Public Comment:
Enoch said that they were criminalizing homelessness and mental illness. She said that this was the CCH and that their stance should be to help these people. She said that the two men that died were not homeless. She said that she did not understand why the City couldn’t approve legalized camping like the Portland Oregon Model of Dignity Village. She said the representative from the campsite by the River stated that they basically had their own village. She said that the City is paying for the Outreach workers to help the homeless. She asked why the City will not help them. She said that all the City has done is break down the trust that was gained that the City tax money paid for. She said that she was very disappointed in the CCH if that is their stance. She asked what is so bad about a campground? They have access to outreach and they feel safe.
Scott added that these people were trying to develop a community. She asked how did Lawrence start? She said that camping is part of America and that the CCH needs to do something. She said the City needs to provide amenities such as trash cans or dumpsters, restrooms and benches. She said that eventually someone will die there and that is part of this community. She recalled that years ago some people got beaten and that they did not call police because the police would destroy their community. She said that we need a situation where people can call the police.
Enoch added that this plan does not cost anything. She said what the CCH needed to do is go before the City Commission and tell them that they need the amenities and a legalized campground.
Henderson asked to speak to the fact that the CCH was not criminalizing homelessness. He said that he did not think that anyone means to make it criminal. He said that these people want to be left alone, either because there is no room or they are there by choice. He said that is their decision to be left alone, and that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not criminalizing them. He said that the CCH is suggesting that the campers should be allowed to continue with police and Outreach workers, not criminalizing.
Enoch clarified that the ordinance is criminal, not the CCH.
Dahlberg asked if this is what the CCH is suggesting.
Dinsdale asked Monroe if the Police have razed camps in the area along the river.
Monroe said yes. He said the Downtown camps are not usually campsites, they are individuals. He said that they are mostly being warned, not cited. He said that they do not initiate the warnings by the river, those are called into them. He added that it is not necessarily a matter of room at the shelter for some, some will always camp. It is what we do with the others that is the issue.
Collier asked do we know how many campers have had contact with Outreach workers.
Henderson said that not all camps are broken up. He said that Outreach people can work with sometimes 15 at a time.
Dahlberg asked about the language that the CCH is suggesting, and is there any place where we are suggesting that the City Commission makes camping legal. He asked how much of a step would it be to change the language to make t legal. He asked if the CCH is really just suggesting that we make it legal outside the business district and not bother the others unless they are doing something that is criminal.
Monroe asked for clarification on exactly what the City Commission wanted the CCH to do. He asked if the City Commission wanted the CCH to determine if it is legal to camp or not, because if that is the case there is not much middle ground.
Dinsdale clarified that the City Commission asked for a recommendation regarding legal homeless campsites.
Dahlberg agreed that there cannot be a gray area. He said it is either legal or it is not.
Dinsdale asked if the CCH can propose an ordinance in area C-3 detailing that camping is illegal and enforced, but beyond that it isn’t illegal.
Collier asked if the CCH does say it is legal, what will be suggested to the City about their responsibility.
Henderson said that City would not be responsible for anything more than for any other citizen. He said that the City would be responsible for crimes and violations.
Monroe inquired about if the City allows someone to build a structure on a legal campsite and it falls and no one from the City had inspected it and it is on city property then who is liable.
Martin-Smith asked what the research on other communities in Kansas showed.
Dresslar said that no research had been done on Kansas communities.
Martin-Smith said that that was something she would be interested in looking at to see where other communities in Kansas stood on this issue as a reference point.
Enoch said the CCH can suggest to the City to designate and name a legal campground. She said that the City has wonderful Outreach workers and if they can retain their trust they can have their own policing. She said if there is community contact this will build the kind of trust that is needed. She said that it should not make a difference what Topeka or Wichita does.
Martin-Smith responded that she understood, but it is her wish to see the information.
Dinsdale commented that the CCH has gone from working with a gray area to a question of the camps being legal or illegal. She asked if there was support from the CCH to remove current ordinance language, or to strengthen some parts and loosen other parts.
Monroe said that can be used as a starting point for a compromise. He said that there can be no camping in City parks, and he wanted to be clear that he was not suggesting that, however this information can be used for research and discussion. He said he was not comfortable making a recommendation without further discussion with City staff.
Dinsdale said that City staff is looking into the legal aspects.
Dinsdale asked Monroe if the land in question was all City land, or if there is some County land in there as well.
Monroe said that there is some City land, and some County land.
Dinsdale said that sounds like a good compromise. She said the CCH would be supporting law in this area, and changing the ordinance outside of area.
Monroe said that although he was personally not opposed, in his line of work there are other factors to consider.
Enoch asked what was done with other campgrounds, such as Clinton Lake.
Monroe answered that they do not patrol Clinton Lake, but that he knows that they have limitations on camping there.
Collier said that all campsites have rules. She said that you have to pay; you have to pay utilities if you are connected to them, and if you are there you have time limits you can be there. She said that she was not comfortable with legalizing camping.
Knoche added that she was also not comfortable suggesting changing the ordinance without more study.
Dinsdale said that she knew that the conversation needed to continue but that the CCH needed to make sure that they are moving forward toward a recommendation.
Monroe said that the CCH needed to check on other jurisdictions are doing and that a conversation needed to happen with legal staff.
Dinsdale said that she can write a note to the City Commission to let them know that the CCH is having discussions on the issue and are working towards a recommendation.
ITEM NO. 5 FAMILY PROMISE UPDATE - KATHERINE DINSDALE
Dinsdale reported that they are open for business. She said that they had one family initially participate, however they have dropped out. She said they are open and actively seeking families.
Enoch asked where all the families are.
Dinsdale said she was not sure. She mentioned that there are strict rules to follow and that may be deterring some, but other than that she did not know.
ITEM NO. 6 2009 PIT HOMELESS COUNT –MARGENE SWARTS
Swarts said that they are underway with the planning for the Douglas County PIT count for 2009. She said they are in the early planning stages and that right now the focus is figuring the logistics of the project. She said that the count is scheduled for January 28, 2009 from 8am to 8pm. She said that if anyone wanted to volunteer or if they knew of anyone that wanted to volunteer she will send out the information because all volunteers need to be registered with Survey Monkey and she will provide the link to the CCH via email. She said there is an estimate that we will need 60 volunteers for the County this year. There is a meeting scheduled for later this month for further planning, and even more information will be coming out in early January. She reiterated that this year is a county-wide count, however she expects it to be a very good information resource because the Survey itself is a good document, and the Lawrence information will be extrapolated from the County information so we will have a good representation of our numbers. She said that the coordination this year is with the United Way of Douglas County, so the United Way headquarters in Lawrence will be the County headquarters for the day of the count. She said that currently the big project is dividing out the county, and Erika Dvorske from the United Way is working with Douglas County officials to aid in that task. Erika is also working on a list of ‘hot spots’ within the County to assist in conducting the survey. She said that this year the theme for the count is “Everybody Counts!”, and we really need to get as accurate of view as we can. She mentioned that there will be outreach to the community so they are aware of the count and the Outreach workers will be doing what they can to let the homeless know that the count will take place. She note4d this is not a negative thing, it is a positive thing to help locate resources and develop resources to help the homeless.
Henderson said that he noticed on one of the emails that there are two trainings out of town that are being offered. He asked if volunteers needed to attend one of these trainings.
Swarts said that we are going to offer training locally and there is a possibility that there will be several from which to choose.
ITEM NO. 7 OTHER BUSINESS
Dinsdale asked Henderson about the situation of housing and the crisis shelter.
Henderson said he was working with LINK to be able to use their facility on the nights where it falls below 32 degrees. He said that if that fails to work out then they will find somewhere else.
Dinsdale asked if Dahlberg could present at the January meeting. Dahlberg said yes.
Henderson wanted to ask Knoche if the Housing Connector was for families only.
Knoche said that they were working on that for clarification.
Dinsdale said that too, could be added as an agenda item for January.
Henderson mentioned that he would be at the City Commission meeting this evening to speak against the changes to the panhandling ordinance. He said that he was concerned about some of the legal language in the proposed changes because it could affect things such as the “Change of Heart” newsletter. He said that changing the ordinance is just dealing with fear and that is not the real issue. He added that enforcing the aggressive behavior as stated in the current ordinance should be sufficient.
ITEM NO. 8 MISCELLANEOUS/CALENDAR
There were no additions.
ADJOURN
Motioned by Dahlberg seconded by Henderson to adjourn the meeting at 10:30am.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0
City of Lawrence, Kansas
January 13, 2009 Minutes (Lawrence City Commission Room)
Members present: Jeanette Collier, Hubbard Collinsworth, Wes Dahlberg, Katherine Dinsdale, Loring Henderson, Charlotte Knoche, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Monroe, Robert Mosely, Shannon Murphy
Members absent: Jane Faubion
Staff present: Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts, Mark Hecker, Mitch Young, Scott McCullough, David Corliss
Public present: Hilda Enoch, Sara Taliaferro, David Tucker
ITEM NO. 1 INTRODUCTIONS
Dinsdale called the meeting to order at 8:30 am. Commission members introduced themselves.
ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES
Dinsdale noted a correction on the December 9, 2008 minutes.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Martin-Smith; seconded by Henderson to approve the December 9, 2008 minutes with corrections.
Motion carried unanimously 8-0
ITEM NO. 3 CCH Discussion regarding camping.
Mark Hecker and Mitch Young were in attendance to present for Lawrence Parks and Recreation (LPR) Department.
Hecker handed out a brochure and wanted to emphasize the portion on park rules. He indicated that with camping there are issues including fires and littering. He pointed out that this was not specific to homeless camping, but camping in all parks in the City. Hecker said that LPR tries to stay consistent with laws no matter what part of town they are in. He said that there is not camping allowed no matter what the group, whether it be the Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, or the homeless. He indicated that a big problem with camping in city parks is that you have camping occurring next to sites such as wading pools for children, the locomotive in Buford Watson Park, and the South Park gazebo, as examples. It is an issue for the public. He said that there is also an issue with the showering situation at the community building. The main concern for these issues is the problem of public intoxication and the fact that it impacts the use of the facilities.
Hecker said that they do what they can to be consistent, but often get called out as being the “bad guy”. He said that occasionally they let the camps go too long which is what happened to the camp by the river that was cleared. LPR was in their summer months and the activities that go along with that and they did not stay consistent on checking the campsites and posting them. He said that they are now going through known campsites every month and will continue to do a better job going forward of posting the camps and not letting them go on for so long. He said he knows that this is not fixing the problem, it just moves everyone around. He indicated that LPR is addressing the situation the best way that they know how.
Dinsdale thanked Hecker and asked for his opinion on how the problem can be addressed.
Hecker indicated that consistency of enforcement is the key issue. He also added that a legal campsite cannot be created without adequate facilities.
Dinsdale asked if the posting of campsites is primarily complaint driven or if staff is instructed to post them as they see them.
Hecker said that it ebbs and flows. During particular activity seasons or busy times, it is more complaint driven.
Henderson asked for clarification that both sides of the river are Parks and Recreation/City land.
Hecker said basically that is correct. He indicated that there was a very small amount of land along the river that is private property.
Henderson asked to verify that there is no public property that is not under control of LPR.
Hecker said none of which he was aware.
Collinsworth asked how many man hours and how much City funds are being used to patrol these areas.
Young said that in the summer is it is a little more difficult and time consuming to patrol because of the growth of plants and grasses in the summer. He estimated about four hours a month. He said that winter is a lot easier because sites are easier and quicker to see. Average cleanup of the sites pulls in equipment, trucks, and usually about three workers. This usually takes a couple of hours to clean up.
Hecker added it also depended on the site. He said that usually on postings they go in and post and most folks pick up what they need and what they want to take with them such as their tent and sleeping bags. The cleanup is what they leave behind.
Dinsdale asked Monroe if the Lawrence Police were patrolling and posting in areas extending beyond Parks and Recreation land.
Monroe said that when they assist LPR it is a request from LPR. He said that the Lawrence Police rely on LPR to notify them when there is illegal camping. If they come upon it in other areas they take actions themselves.
Hecker added that they have also seen camping around the softball diamonds as well, but they usually are homeless just passing through town so they are gone quickly after a posting and they do not move to another camp in town typically.
Dinsdale asked the Commission for any additional comments before public comment. She said that one of the points that bothered her was that it seems like last month the CCH spoke of questions with enforcement. Talk of the ordinance was that it was mostly complaint driven. She indicated that what she was hearing now was that we needed to enforce better and more consistently. She said that we need enforcement so the CCH can either stand behind adapting the ordinance or feel more comfortable recommending continued enforcement of it as is. She said that the letter she wrote offered as a choice leaving it as it is and making enforcement complaint driven. She said she feels that this is not a consistent way to resolve the issue.
Dinsdale opened it up for public comment.
David Tucker, Homeless Outreach staff at Bert Nash, said that he felt that a regulated camping ground or reversal of the ordinance is appropriate in this case. He said that the recent event shows this. He said the main argument is that Lawrence has calculated by Point in Time counts that the Homeless population is over 300 people. He said that he feels that this number may be highly underestimated. He said that the only thing in the way of emergency shelter that Lawrence has is a 35 bed shelter, which will eventually move to 100 beds, however it is still a major gap.
Tucker added that that still leaves a minimum of a couple of hundred people still out there. He said we are basically calling these people illegal because they have nowhere to stay by outlawing camping and not providing them a camping area.
He stated that legalized camping will assist the outreach workers in helping the homeless utilize services, be it doctor appointments, food, or services among others. It will help because they will not be constantly moving around from site to site because of a fear of being found. As Hecker stated earlier, the way we are doing things now is not solving the problem. It is just moving people around and disrupting their lives. He suggested that the CCH recommend to remove the ordinance, and as an alternative allow for camping.
Hilda Enoch said that she would like to state this campground is what the community could and should do. She said that there needs to be amenities at the parks such as running water, garbage collection, and for it to be able to be acknowledged as a community park. She added that if we cannot have adequate shelter here then we need to be the next best thing which is a campground. She said that this needs to happen so the homeless are not harassed but are treated as real human beings.
Janie Burgess commented on how when she read of the bulldozing that she cried because this is not how people in a civilized community treat people. She said that she also believed that there should be a place set aside for a park for legal camping.
There was no other public comment.
Dinsdale brought the discussion back to the Commission.
Mosely said that he felt as if the Commission was losing their focus. He said that the Commission started out by trying to find a place for these people to live outside of being in the park.
Dinsdale asked what we do in the meanwhile.
Mosely said that the City has enough wealth that we should be finding these people somewhere to live instead of having a conversation about legalizing camping.
Henderson said that was complicated. He said he wanted conversation to be around what is being done for the homeless people. He asked how can we work on this issue that is practically universal, and has been present for a very long time in this community. He said that moving camps does not solve the problem for anyone. He indicated that he took exception to the draft letter to the City Commission because it did not seem like they were doing what they were asked to by the City Commission, the CCH was just turning the issue back to them. He said that he sees that there could be a camp. He suggested that the camp be allowed on a year by year basis until more shelter is available. He said that it would not be a lot of investment and that the homeless are creative and are able to survive on few resources. He recommended that there be an approved site because of outreach and lack of shelter available.
Dinsdale said that some CCH members have said that we need to stick to the Housing Vision. She said that if we do recommend a campsite the goal needs to be to move everyone into shelter. She said that is it very important that the CCH stick to the Housing Vision. She added that having a campground prevents those from having permanent shelter. She said that she agreed with Henderson that we are not fixing the problem. She said that allowing camping a year at a time and to focus on shelter size and additional permanent shelter would work in the meantime.
Dahlberg said that he agreed with Henderson. He said most importantly the outreach workers should have access to the campers and know where they can find the campers. He said that if they do not have access then they can not help to provide services. He said what we are not getting to is the reason that they are choosing to be a camper instead of seeking shelter. He said that the Salvation Army has not turned anyone away over the last couple of weeks. He said that there are some that are not taking advantage of this for various reasons. He urged that we need to help these people access services.
Dinsdale asked Hecker for the Lawrence Parks and Recreation response to this idea of a campsite.
Hecker said that if you are going to recommend this that it can not be done halfway. He said that it needs to have proper restroom facilities. He said that for a restroom there is a cost of around $60,000. He said that there is also a liability issue. Since this is Kansas you have to ask if it is a safe place to camp. He posed the question what if there is a tornado. Is there a storm shelter and what are you looking at for the cost of that storm shelter. He said also you have to see if it causes issues within the adjacent neighborhoods. He indicated that you also have to manage trash cleanup, restroom cleanup and maintenance and things like that. He said a legalized campground would not be an easy process. He also mentioned that some places such as those along the Kansas River have many tree hazards. There are some parks that have these tree hazards yet there are still people sleeping under them, especially in the preservation area. He again urged the CCH that if they are going to recommend this it can not be done halfway. He asked them to consider in this economy where they want to put their money because this won’t be an inexpensive project.
Dinsdale asked Henderson how many people they are turning away at night.
Henderson said no one now in this weather, but in warmer weather they are turning away 15 to 20 people a night.
Murphy asked Henderson to clarify which population they are turning away.
Henderson said that those that are coming in on cold nights are not the hard core campers. He said that those people are a population that differ from what the Housing Vision defines. He added that a big part of Bert Nash outreach is the stability they offer the campers.
Knoche said that doing a campsite halfway would be a disaster. She said that if the CCH is going to advocate for a campsite that it needs to be done right. She also added that the community would know where the campsite was as well.
Dinsdale said the CCH needs to have strong support for investing in a campsite and doing it right if they are going to recommend this to the City Commission. She reiterated that this is a very difficult issue. She said that upon thinking about it for three months that she is no closer to advising to move the Housing Vision to account for camping. She said that the allocation of funds for the project may also derail the campsite recommendation.
Collier asked Tucker how many campers would be willing to go to a legal campsite.
Tucker said that 30 to 40 people are moving through the campsites locally. He said that any one campsite may have up to 15 tents. He said it is a significant number. He added that those who would use the legal campsite would be a minimum of 10 people there on a regular basis. He said that it also would depend on if they could find the people currently camping in the area. He said that it is difficult to estimate those numbers because there is camping spread out thinly throughout the entire area. He added that it is quite possible that a lot of campers would utilize it.
Collier asked if that number included Clinton Lake. She also asked Tucker to define the population camping.
Tucker said that most of the campers are chronically homeless by HUD’s definition. He said a large majority have mental illness that keeps them from desiring shelter. He said that there are cases of schizophrenia and personality disorders. He stated that these people usually prefer to camp on their own. He added that they are a very creative population. He said that a lot of the campers are camping and trying to find homes as well, however they feel that society is throwing them away. He said that every time they make a home someone chases them off again. He said it would be much easier to reintegrate people if it looks as if the City is trying to help them.
Dahlberg said that a solution would be that we offer more permanent supportive housing. He said that there are people who would like to have housing but have barriers that prevent them from doing so. He said that they are still a better fit in any type of housing as opposed to camping. He said they do not fit in at the shelter and they need their own place.
Knoche said that this would not be a discussion if the Community had enough beds to offer.
Tucker said that it would still be an issue because there are still those who will not take supportive housing if given the chance. He said there will always be those who will not.
Dinsdale asked about dropping the ordinance without providing amenities.
Murphy said that then you run into liability issues.
Martin-Smith said that the homeless count was close to 300 two years ago. The Housing Vision was built on that count. She said that after the last meeting she felt that there was a strong agreement about leaving the ordinance. She said that there has been discussion today about resources and the reality is that there is not any money. She said that if the CCH really believes in the Housing Vision that they need to move forward with it. She said that she does not think that it is the CCH responsibility to change the ordinance. She said the City does not have the money to change the ordinance. She reiterated that it all comes back to the Housing Vision. She added that we can not help 100% of those camping, but there is a significant number that that they can help. She recalled that the outreach case managers were requested by the initial Task Force. She said that at that time if the City Commission could not fund a homeless shelter then they would provide outreach case managers. They said that the reason for the outreach workers is that they would work with all agencies and services instead of focusing most of their time on the campsites. She said the agreement was that we are serving this population by providing the best Housing Vision that we can.
Knoche said the Housing Vision was meant to move people into permanent housing. She said efforts have been made to move those into being housed, not to being maintained in a campsite. She said the Housing Vision needs to be our vision and we need to look at how to get them housed. It is not LPR’s issue to fix.
Collier asked if the ordinance criminalized camping and if other court cases in the US such as the one in San Francisco had any effect on the City. She asked if it is only criminalization if they are arrested.
Dave Corliss, City Manager, said that staff had looked at other court findings and that the City does not find their enforcement of Lawrence Parks and Recreation policies as illegal. He said the issue here is if the CCH wants to recommend another policy to the City Commission. He acknowledged that it is a tough task and a hard decision for everyone involved.
Tucker added that the other cases were in Florida and Washington State. He said that Seattle deregulated camping on public land and they do not provide amenities. The cases are usually that of private vs. public land.
Henderson said it is important to stick to the main task, but there is no other body or group to speak up for this population. He said that issues will com up from time to time that aren’t in the Housing Vision, but still apply to the population.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Henderson to recommend the City Commission approve a regulated campsite, provisional for one year, equipped with porta-potties and a dumpster, and the services of the outreach workers; seconded by Dahlberg. The motion failed 3-5-2.
Dinsdale said that the City Commission requested the CCH provide direction for them in reference to the homeless campsite.
Corliss explained that the majority of the group can have a prepared statement as well.
There was CCH discussion on wording of a majority statement to the City Commission and the place of the Housing Connector and permanent supportive housing in the Housing Vision.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Martin-Smith to recommend to the City Commission that they continue to move forward with the Housing Vision; seconded by Knoche.
Dinsdale asked for CCH comments.
Henderson said that he did not understand how this was providing guidance to the City Commission. He said that all the CCH is saying is that they are sticking with the Housing Vision.
Dinsdale said that in saying this they are saying that the CCH is recommending that the City Commission stays with the current ordinance.
Henderson said that that needs to be clear to the City Commission when the CCH is responding to the camping issues. He said also the Housing Vision should include problems that deal with the homeless. He said that we need to be able to address them. He said that permanent supportive housing is the most expensive part of the Housing Vision.
Knoche said that this is a Housing Vision. She said that Mosely started off the conversation by saying that we are straying off from our Housing Vision. The campsites is not a housing problem, it is an emergency situation.
Murphy added that this is another population that we are working with. She said that this population needs to be part of our vision.
Knoche said that all of the Commission members represent agencies that deal with other issues as well. She said that the way she saw it, camping was not a housing issue. She said the fact that we have a limited amount of permanent supportive housing is where we need to be looking, not finding a way to make it easier for them to camp. She added that the CCH needs to stay to the Housing Vision. It is very hard to do permanent supportive housing.
Collinsworth read from the Housing Vision that said “Emergency Temporary Housing is a parallel alternative to the shelter, where people can obtain immediate housing while awaiting a spot in TH or other longer-term housing, working to address housing barriers”. He asked if there was a way to adjust the Emergency Temporary Housing summary to add the campers.
Swarts said that the Emergency Temporary Housing is for that population who were not going to be comfortable in the shelter for whatever reason. She said that in the Housing Vision they would be able to go somewhere. She said that this population likely has mental instability and substance abuse problems, and they are more targeted to permanent supportive housing. The Housing Vision acknowledged that it would be a little harder to work with this population. The Emergency Shelter component is more for families and individuals who are a paycheck away from being homeless, and is a fairly easy population to get back into housing.
The motion passed 7-3.
Dinsdale noted that she would draft a letter to the City Commission. The letter would be an addendum to the motion and would be a strong statement to move forward with all components of the Housing Vision, and to continue with the current ordinance as written. Dinsdale also requested that the draft minutes from this meeting be submitted to them as well.
Henderson wanted the record to show that his vote did not mean that he does not believe in moving forward with the Housing Vision.
ITEM NO. 4 RECEIVE ANNUAL CCC REPORT – SARA TALIAFERRO
Taliaferro presented the 2008 Annual report for the CCC. She asked if she could present the annual report today and then come back next month and report on 2009 goals.
The report can be found here.
Henderson asked if Taliaferro can talk about their facilitating vision.
Taliaferro said at this point that the CCC needs to be proactive in working with groups. She said that they would like to do an informational presentation to LAN and invite them to work with the CCC on a vision. She said that they want to identify concerns and move them into a position to have positive interactions concerning issues, such as ways they can be involved in decisions concerning shelters in their neighborhoods. She wants for the CCC to be a proactive partner with organizations like LAN.
Dinsdale said that now that the CCC has the organization and training of the facilitation project under their belts they are ready to run with it. She asked if the CCC and the CCH can have meetings to see how they move forward.
Taliaferro said absolutely and that the CCC also has a mentor working with them to ensure that they are successful.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Martin-Smith to extend the meeting to 10:15 am; seconded by Henderson. The motion passed.
ITEM NO. 5 FRIENDS OF RECOVERY REINTEGRATION HOUSE UPDATE – SHANNON MURPHY
Murphy said about 9 months ago they looked at a need for a men’s detox facility. They then decided that it was actually a reintegration process that was in demand.
She said that grants and other applications are now being looked at to move the program forward. She said that it is in the planning stages but they have made very good ground in developing processes and moving forward.
Knoche asked how many beds they are looking at.
Murphy answered between 5 and 10.
Knoche asked if the target population was the recently incarcerated.
Murphy said it is transitional middle ground for those coming out of treatment and out of incarceration. She said that supportive services should be available before hit independent living. She said a lot is in house and then transitions to out of house programs.
Dinsdale asked if they had a timeline.
Murphy said not at this time.
Monroe left the meeting at 10:00 am.
ITEM NO. 6 E-HOUSING CONNECTOR UPDATE – CHARLOTTE KNOCHE
Knoche introduced Heather Hoy to present on the E-Housing Connector update.
Hoy said that she has been in the process of interviewing landlords and came up with a list of landlords that they felt may be sympathetic to the cause. She asked all of the landlords 13 questions. She also added that she felt that the CCC facilitation would work great with these types of interviews. She reported that currently no landlords have indicated that they have facilities or finances to do this project. She said, although this is what they all said, each one she spoke with has already been helping someone in some capacity. She indicated that most have willingness to hear the situations, and if they have a place most indicated that they would do what they could to help. She said that she is working on a confidentiality agreement to work with these families. She also added that they have to adjust the Connector. The landlords said that they would want the first month’s rent and a security deposit. She said that they feel like they are already case managing, and the element of the case mangers was of real interest to them. They want to have a very open relationship with the case managers. She said that there are a lot of managers that do month to month leases, but no one could do it for free. She said that she hopes to have the interviews done by the end of January.
Martin-Smith asked Hoy if she could provide a summary after she completes the interviews.
Hoy said yes. She added that they are also working on additional grants to obtain vouchers. She said that that will open up more opportunities for housing vouchers.
Martin-Smith said that some of the obstacles that Hoy encountered are things that this commission can work on to make recommendations.
Knoche checked with the CCH to ensure that they still have their support even if they have to adapt the Connector to what the landlords will be willing to do.
Dinsdale said that she thought that what they were saying today still meets the same goal.
Knoche said that what they were finding is that they need to adjust the proposal. She said that instead of the database of properties we have a list of landlords. She said it is a case of contacting the landlords with a needs summary.
Dinsdale authorized LDCHA to pursue and work on a model that will do that. She asked if it was only for families.
Knoche said that a family can be defined as one or more people. She said what they did not envision the E-Housing Connector doing is working with the chronically homeless.
Henderson asked if a landlord is willing to hear about a family in need where does that money come from.
Martin-Smith told him that it is up to the CCH.
Hoy said that there is a chance that some landlords might make a situational decision based on the need for a security deposit and first months rent. She said that it is a business that they are running and they have to weigh those types of things in.
Dinsdale told Hoy that the CCH will plan on seeing her back next month.
Hoy added that Family Promise is coming to their meeting next week on the 20th at 9 am.
Collier said that it will take creative funding. She offered to give Hoy a list of landlords that she has worked with in the past.
ITEM NO. 7 SALVATION ARMY UPDATE – WES DAHLBERG
Report is postponed until February meeting.
ITEM NO. 8 FAMILY PROMISE UPDATE – KATHERINE DINSDALE
Dinsdale said that there was nothing new on Family Promise this month except that they were at full capacity and everything is operating well.
ITEM NO.9 2009 PIT HOMELESS COUNT – MARGENE SWARTS
Swarts reminded everyone that the count was on January 28 and it was from 8 am to 8 pm. She said that the United Way of Douglas County was going to be the home base and there are plenty of volunteer opportunities available. She reminded everyone that the volunteer link is on Survey Monkey and you must register and attend a volunteer training session if you are interested. She said that there will be a county count and a city count and that every part of the county has been mapped out.
Dinsdale mentioned that she registered and that she felt it was important for all the commission to volunteer.
ITEM NO.10 OTHER BUSINESS
There was none.
ITEM NO. 11 MISCELLANEOUS/CALENDAR
Dinsdale informed the committee that Jane Faubion has resigned her position.
Swarts told the CCH if they know of anyone interested to let her know and she would forward the information.
ITEM NO. 12 ADJOURN
ACTION TAKEN
Moved by Murphy, seconded by Martin-Smith to adjourn. The motion passed.
City of Lawrence, Kansas
February 10, 2009 Minutes (Lawrence City Commission Room)
Members present: Jeanette Collier, Hubbard Collinsworth, Wes Dahlberg, Katherine Dinsdale, Loring Henderson, Charlotte Knoche, Mike Monroe, Robert Mosely, Shannon Murphy, Sandra Winn Tutwiler
Members absent: Shirley Martin-Smith
Staff present: Danelle Dresslar, Margene Swarts,
Public present: Hilda Enoch, Sara Taliaferro, Janney Burgess
ITEM NO. 1 INTRODUCTIONS
Dinsdale called the meeting to order at 8:30 am. Commission members introduced themselves and welcomed Sandra Winn Tutwiler, newest appointee of the Community Commission on Homelessness.
ITEM NO. 2 Approval of the Agenda and the January 13, 2009 Minutes
Upon introduction of this item, Dinsdale also asked for the Commission’s approval to write three letters on behalf of the Community Commission on Homelessness. The first letter will be a letter to the Kansas State Representatives and the Kansas Senate area contingency in support of the letter sent to them by Lawrence Mayor Mike Dever regarding City budget issues. Dinsdale also requested permission to write a letter supporting the funding of the Lawrence Community Shelter renovation/relocation project to U.S. Senator Sam Brownback and U.S. Representative Dennis Moore. The third letter she requested permission to have the CCH write, although not by her, a letter in support of Family Promise and urging the City to work cooperatively with Family Promise.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mosely; seconded by Collinsworth to approve the February 10, 2009 agenda, and the January 13, 2009 minutes.
Motion carried unanimously 10-0
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Dahlberg; seconded by Mosely to approve the CCH to write the three letters proposed by Chair Dinsdale.
Motion carried 9-0-1
ITEM NO. 3a CONTINUE CCC REPORT.
In the absence of Sara Taliaferro, Chair Dinsdale moved on to item 4 on the agenda, stating Taliaferro will be able to give her report when she arrives.
ITEM NO. 4 SALVATION ARMY UPDATE
Dahlberg reported on the Salvation Army’s project, “Project Able”. The project started in 2004 and is funded by HUD. It gives support services for persons in transitional housing. The Salvation Army has applied for a grant from HUD to expand so that they will be able to provide the transitional housing themselves. Currently they are awaiting HUD’s response at this time, but they hope to hear by the end of the month that they have received funding. He indicated that it would provide eight housing units for families of varying sizes and seven individual units. He added that they also have a Plan B in mind, which would be to move ahead and provide transitional housing for four to five units with current funds.
Dinsdale asked about the current status of the Salvation Army Emergency Shelter.
According to Dahlberg, currently there are 45-50 people utilizing the shelter including women and children. This has been surpassed in the extreme cold weather. They are continuing to operate as usual at this time.
Murphy asked about “Project Able” and if it included continuing assistance with those in transitional housing.
Dahlberg said yes, it does include that.
Henderson asked if the Pelathe apartments are still available and if so are these still considered transitional housing.
Dahlberg said that yes, there are still people living there, but they are associated with the State and are not considered transitional.
Collier added that they are available on the open rental market.
Henderson asked if The Salvation Army transitional housing adds to the pool or if it counts Pelathe.
Dahlberg said that Pelathe is a different entity. He added that The Salvation Army is hoping for the funding request to be granted for Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority as well.
Dinsdale asked about long term plans with the shelter.
Dahlberg said that there is no time line right now, and that The Salvation Army Advisory Board is weighing their options right now. At some point it will close, but that point has not been determined as of yet.
Collinsworth asked how much notification will be given when the decision is made to close the shelter.
Dahlberg said that it would probably be in the neighborhood of 60-90 days.
Dinsdale asked about the emergency shelter in the extreme cold for those who do not pass the breathalyzer test.
Dahlberg answered on very cold nights the staff if being asked to use their common sense on that topic, and if the individual(s) do not appear to be causing a problem then the shelter will take them. They have been utilizing mats for the overflow on extreme cold evenings.
Collier asked about the status of the property that they had previously purchased.
Dahlberg said that they still own the property, and that the board feels at this time with the economy that they do not want to move forward with fundraising at this time. They are looking at many options so that the property can be utilized and hopefully they will be able to use it to replace their current facility.
There were no further questions.
ITEM NO. 5 E-HOUSING CONNECTOR UPDATE
Hoy passed out a summary of the landlord interview results. It can be found here. She indicated that she interviewed 15 landlords and worked also with the CCC to determine ways to collaborate, especially for providing information and outreach to landlords and neighborhoods.
Hoy said that upon interviewing the landlords, it was apparent that there needed to be resources available for helping families with factors such as security deposits, utility deposits, and first month’s rent. Without front end resources it is hard to get the families and individuals housed, as well as getting the landlords on board with helping. The Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority is requesting their Board of Commissioners to approve an amendment to the utilization of their current HOME funds that are currently marked for Tenant Based Rental Assistance. Upon approval from their Board, they will dedicate $10,000 to this project.
Hoy went over the summary with the CCH and pointed out that they have been able to house their first family. LDCHA was contacted by the employer of the family and the information was recorded. The next day, a landlord contacted Dinsdale regarding a vacant property that they had and Dinsdale put them in touch with the LDCHA. LDCHA made a site visit and determined that the family would be able to utilize the unit. The Resident Services Office (RSO) agreed to provide services as a one time test case to see how the Connection would work and met with the family. The RSO met with the family and had the family sign a confidentiality waiver for communication with the landlord, and the RSO staff contacted the landlord regarding the family. The family signed a service agreement with the RSO and they went together to the property to meet the landlord and survey the property. The landlord agreed to the first month rent free, to a significantly reduced rent, a month-to-month lease agreement, and the utilities would remain in the landlord’s name. An amendment to the lease signed by all three parties requires that the family must maintain their service agreement as part of their lease agreement. The landlord made it clear that the family will be working toward a goal of paying market rent for the property. RSO staff reported that the family moved into the property two days later. The family is now on the Transitional Housing waiting list. The RSO will provide on-going case management for this family until they receive permanent housing.
At the next meeting in March LDCHA hopes to report that they have funds available for security deposit grants and they will report in broad terms on the family that is currently housed.
Collinsworth asked for clarification that the $10,000 in funds they are asking for are for funds they already have.
Knoche explained that the $10,000 are funds that they already have and that they are currently utilized as Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). Security deposits are an allowed activity in the TBRA program. The Board does still have to approve the amendment, though.
Dinsdale added that it was very exciting and wonderful that everything is moving forward. She asked about plan with the varying landlords and properties and how they can be reached.
Hoy said that the LDCHA is sending out a mass mailer to all of their landlords as well as utilizing a list serve.
Knoche added that Bert Nash said that their Outreach workers will stay with the transitionally housed family through the duration, not 90 days as the agreement has been in the past.
Hoy said that lease agreements will all have an addendum that will outline the terms of the service provider agreements, and that they will not change the leases as they are currently written.
Dinsdale said that with this we are asking more of the Outreach case workers and with the possible budget cuts it may be a case load that will be difficult to handle.
Hoy said that it depended on what agency that they are with. Bert Nash, for example, might not necessarily be the agency working with certain families so the case load will not be subjected to one agency. Also mentioned was the fact that a common thread that the landlords had was that they did not want to personally be responsible for case management of their tenants.
Henderson asked if there was a potential that the family currently utilizing the Connector could be permanently housed where they are at now.
Hoy said that yes, that there is that potential. The landlord in this particular case was very helpful and replaced the flooring, the washer, the dryer and the refrigerator before the tenant moved in.
Dinsdale clarified that the message will continue to get out to landlords via mailings, meetings, and the list serve; as well as the fact that the HOME funds may be approved for security deposits. Was there anything else that they needed?
Hoy said in talking to some families other services such as bus passes, furniture, daycare, etc. are needed. This all comes back to the case management element of the Connector. LDCHA can get them housed; it is just finding the funding to keep them there.
Dinsdale asked about plans for publicity for the program.
Hoy said that LDCHA would like to get through the first test case a little bit before there is a large amount of attention and publicity brought into the matter. The success of Family Promise in communities is really a huge help as well.
Dinsdale said that this was something that the CCH really can celebrate, and that she hopes that this will eventually become a highly publicized success.
Murphy added that you hear a lot about partnerships and collaboration in making successful projects, and this is a perfect example of that.
From public comment, Enoch agreed with Murphy and added that the security deposit has been the sticking point for so long and it is good to see that element working towards implementation in this project.
ITEM NO. 3b CONTINUED ANNUAL CCC REPORT – SARA TALIAFERRO
Taliaferro arrived at the meeting and began her item discussion.
Taliaferro said that the CCC had some ongoing projects that are in process in 2009. One is providing facilitation and support for the E-Housing Connector. The CCC plans to start out as an observer and may not convene in a formal facilitation process in the beginning, but there are a lot of ways that they can assist.
Dinsdale asked about publicity and outreach for the Connector and how the CCC can help.
Taliaferro said that they are poised to jump in where helpful.
Hoy added that it will be helpful when an issue comes up between any of the parties the CCC can mediate. They function as a neutral observer who can work with landlords, tenants, and case managers.
Taliaferro said that on Saturday they had their last role simulation exercise and they used the Connector scenario as their focus of one exercise. They got some really good ideas at the simulation and she will meet with Hoy to discuss those ideas further.
Taliaferro added that she and Dinsdale met with Jane Pennington of Downtown Lawrence, Inc. to discuss several issues including panhandling. They determined a creative process where it can start slowly with informational interviews with those panhandling as well as discussions with individual business owners to come up with a creative solution. They will talk to the Coalition for Homeless Concerns as well as the Outreach workers and will have roving discussions with those that are on the streets and are experts. Somewhere down the road there may be a formal setting for the mediation.
Taliaferro said that the CCC would also like to participate in a visioning project with Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods. It would take them through the visioning process of what a shelter would look like in their neighborhoods. The idea is to shift the conversations from the negative side of the issue to beyond that and how they can become a part of it and support it.
Taliaferro added that the CCC is also working on a homeless service information base, and this is being done through ongoing interviews. The information will be utilized to show how the services in Lawrence connect and work. The CCC will provide public outreach and education and the goal is to paint a good picture of the services available.
There are many services out there that people do not know about. Additionally, there will be explanation of how funds are used in the Community and an effort to make that information more transparent.
Taliaferro offered to report on these projects monthly and noted they will continue to be ongoing.
Dinsdale said that she and Taliaferro were excited about the meeting with Downtown Lawrence, Inc. and the probable education outreach and facilitation dialogue. It is important that both the CCC and the CCH work to both be part of the solution, and this includes outreach meetings to hear the homeless individuals and their perspective on the issues.
ITEM NO. 6 2009 KANSAS POINT IN TIME COUNT – MARGENE SWARTS
Swarts reported that Lawrence and Douglas County had a good volunteer turnout locally including the Bert Nash case managers. She said that she was stationed at Home Base for the duration of the day. It was a nice day out so the volunteers had a good environment to work in. There is no indication of the numbers or the responses yet; these are expected in April.
Swarts added that the State Emergency Shelter Grant application is due on March 20, and we hope to have some numbers by then to supply to the State. She said that we are hopeful it is a good count, and based on the volunteer effort it was enough to get done what we needed to. It was interesting for some who did the count in that they encountered people who had the appearance of homelessness but were not homeless.
Murphy asked if there was a sense of where the numbers might fall since it was a County-wide count.
Swarts said that there have been no preliminary numbers released.
Collinsworth said that he heard from several sources that the way some of the people conducting the survey sometimes changed the questions.
Swarts said that all volunteers had the same form and all when through a training to work through the survey interview process.
Dresslar added that sometimes the answer of one question will send the interviewer down a different path of questions based on the outcome. This may have accounted for why there seemed to be different versions of the survey. In actuality, the survey path was determined by specific answers, but it was the exact same survey format for all interviewers.
Collinsworth asked if the United Way developed the questionnaire. He heard that some neighboring counties did not use the same questionnaire.
Swarts said that it may have been due to the option for participating counties to include county-specific questions to the original version of the survey. Douglas County decided not to include additional questions in their survey. The surrounding counties may have decided to utilize the additional questions in their survey.
ITEM NO. 7 PUBLIC COMMENT
Janney Burgess, a community member, reported that she had been on the LINK board for 10 years. A few weeks ago she was in South Park and she encountered a group of people there. She went up to them and they indicated that they were having a memorial service for the man who died of the overdose. A woman came up to her and thanked her for coming, and it was the man’s mother.
Burgess said that her daughter is a social worker for Franklin County and told her about a man that was brought into jail by a member of the Douglas County Sheriff’s department for loitering in front of Weavers. He placed himself intentionally to be arrested so he would have somewhere warm to sleep.
Burgess added that last Sunday there was a program about homelessness sponsored by the Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Church. It was brought up in this meeting that the tent city by the river was bulldozed and around 50 people were staying there. When she heard this information at the time she was appalled. She came to the CCH meeting last month and the vote for recommendation of upholding the ordinance was upsetting. She asked the CCH to reconsider what was done last month in the meeting with the vote. She has talked at length to David Tucker about this issue, and the citizens of the tent city kept it clean and took care of it. It will get worse. She suggested that the ordinance change so it will allow this population a place to be. They can take care of it and it would give them a sense of community and a place to go at night, meaning they would frequent downtown less. She asked that the CCH reconsider and change their thinking from last month’s meeting and recommend that the ordinance be amended to include legal camping.
Dinsdale reminded the public that the CCH has passed that vote so the next step for the recommendation is the agenda item at the City Commission meeting later tonight.
Hilda Enoch, community member, told the CCH that it feels to her that it is possible to reverse this decision. Since they are the Community Commission on Homelessness, they cannot leave a fraction of the homeless community out. David Tucker has said that this population does have special problems and if the CCH just says they are focused on housing then this leaves this group of people out. She urged the CCH to reverse their decision on the recommendation and join the others that will be in attendance at the City Commission meeting to plead their case for a legalized campground. These people need to be brought back to this community. The outreach workers were making a difference and that the CCH cannot turn their back on those who truly need their support.
Dinsdale indicated that she was speaking at the City Commission meeting as well, and that this is a very difficult issue. The CCH has discussed it at three different meetings and there has not been adequate support to recommend changing the ordinance. There are different ways of moving ahead. The CCH voted that changing the ordinance is not the way to deal with this issue. Moving them into a campsite is moving backwards when the goal is to move them towards housing.
Dinsdale asked if there was support from the CCH for reopening the issue.
Henderson and Collinsworth agreed that there was support from them to reopen the issue.
Henderson said that the decision has not rested well with him at all since the meeting in January. He feels that having a campsite on a provisional basis is an adequate solution, and he was disappointed in the result because the CCH is the body that the City Commission turns to for guidance on this issue. He agrees with the Housing Vision, but the vision overlooks those who camp. He is speaking at the City Commission meeting in favor of not making camping illegal, and that he still suggests it can be a temporary solution since there are not enough beds in Lawrence to shelter everyone. Henderson added that David Tucker has agreed to be personally responsible for overseeing the campsite, and that it could truly work on a temporary basis. He would rather not go there tonight and give the City Commission the impression that the CCH is fussing within itself over the issue. He is committed to the Housing Vision as well, but there is still a camping sector that is not accounted for in the vision. It is not resolved and the entire CCH is restless about the issue. He brought up the fact that if funding is cut to the outreach workers this would be a huge blow, and although David Tucker is not funded by the grant a cut in staffing would affect his caseload.
Henderson moved to approve camping in certain places provisionally for one year’s time; seconded by Collier.
Murphy said that there is an importance on the continuum of services to provide individuals for their success in housing. The vision statements that have been developed are from the Task Force in 2005. This is an area that the CCH needs to look at updating on paper. This needs to be addressed as a board. Now the vision is focusing on the emergency temporary housing. This is where the discussion should be.
Collier added that we will run into a large problem with case management and making camping illegal does not seem like a humane response to the issue. This population is very disconnected at this point.
Burgess said that having it in one area would be more readily available and accessible to outreach workers. Housing to accommodate this population is probably still two years down the road.
Collinsworth said that he is the Chair of the Coalition for Homeless Concerns. He has tried and tried to go to these people who said that the campsite was destroyed and he encouraged them to come forward and attend all the meetings that they could or to contact a CCH member one on one. He has gotten no response from anyone involved, and he even got some negative responses as well. He began in favor of the campsite, and then found that no one wanted to come forward to speak in support of it. He has been asking for this support even before the deaths occurred, as well as trying to get new blood into the Coalition for Homeless Concerns. He added that there needs to be a consensus as to if these people really want help or if they do not want help. He has spent too much of his time trying to carry a dialogue with those impacted.
Dinsdale said that she is concerned with granting a certain population the ability to camp when it is not available to everyone else in the same manner. She strongly agrees that the community needs to do a better job of bringing people to services. When the Parks and Recreation Department speaks of what it would take for the community to allow camping on public land, it is a lot. Dinsdale added that Murphy was right in that the CCH needs to better facilitate the work of the outreach workers and loudly lobby for them to maintain funding, but she does not see that allowing camping is a step forward, she sees it still as a step backwards from the Housing Vision.
Dinsdale asked for additional public comment.
Hillary Bowker, community member and social services employee, commented that she understands where Collinsworth is coming from with the lack of those who have approached him and come forward, but that it is not necessarily that they do not need help. The ordinance should be reversed because the need for temporary help is too great.
Tutwiler asked if there could be a friendly amendment to the motion to revisit the issue.
This was not accepted.
Dinsdale reminded the CCH that there has been consistent division on this topic within the committee, and that was clearly stated in the letter that was drafted for submittal to the City Commission.
Enoch asked where the CCH thought they would lose their credibility in regards to that particular population. This population needs a campsite. That is the goal of the CHC and David Tucker has made the first step towards that resolution by offering to oversee the site.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion failed 3-5-2
Knoche asked the CCH to develop a way to address and expand emergency non-housing services for homeless persons that do not fit into the housing vision. It could be a list of methods and policies to engage the population of homeless that do not fit into the Housing Vision. She asked if there has been any movement for outreach workers and case managers to work in conjunction with Lawrence Parks and Recreation and the Lawrence Police Department to make an official connection where the camping laws can be forced, but still keep a line of communication open for all parties.
Swarts said that her understanding of the local agencies that the case managers and outreach workers do meet occasionally, but that there is no regularity to them.
Collier said that it has gotten more consistent as of late, but law enforcement and Parks and Recreation have not been included.
Monroe said it was possible that they could all be on the same page and that law enforcement could work to notify the outreach workers or case managers when a site was pending posting for eviction.
Henderson agreed and said that is one way to help the case managers and outreach workers to keep track of their clients. He liked the direction that Knoche was taking and suggested that the CCH do some thinking and before the next meeting have some ideas to come back to the CCH with wording to determine how to deal with that population of the homeless. He likes the idea of a liaison with Lawrence Parks and Recreation and the Lawrence Police Department and having those two entities involved could be helpful.
Monroe added that the Lawrence Police have not cited anyone that he can recall at a campground after posting it, so the notices are working and people are not getting arrested for camping at the posted sites. The outreach workers would probably be able to make contact with these people. He said that citing a person is not their priority, but that the property is.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Henderson, seconded by Murphy to allow Dinsdale and Knoche to organize a subcmmittee of the CCH members to explore new wording to deal with the population of homeless that the Housing Vision does not address.
Motion passed unanimously.
Knoche added that this was a much more complex and deep issue than it seems on the surface.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Dinsdale, seconded by Knoche to extend the meeting to 10:20 am.
Motion passed unanimously.
Henderson said that the issue that is being brought up is not the camping component.
Knoche agreed and said that it was a different area of the issue.
Murphy asked to be included in the sub committee with Dinsdale and Knoche.
Collinsworth volunteered as well for the sub committee.
Collier commented that a former homeless outreach worker from Lawrence was nationally recognized for her work with a tent city in Reno. Reno adapted the tent city because they did not have enough shelter space. Their tent city closed when two brand new shelters were opened.
Murphy said that this particular homeless population of campers is not included in the Housing Vision. The Housing Vision concentrates on roofs only.
Knoche said that the CCH needs to move toward more housing. This has been and still is the main task.
Collier agreed, but added that there are those who lose housing and those people need to be supported as well.
Murphy said that it just needed to be on paper and that was an important element.
Enoch commented that she acknowledges that the CCH is working to broaden their vision in terms of this homeless population. The vision does not encompass all those people, and reminded the CCH that they should plead on behalf of the homeless outreach workers. It would be tragic if funding for these positions was cut by the City. She added that if David Tucker was asked to assist in the destruction of a campground in terms of working with Parks and Recreation and law enforcement to aid in advanced warning of postings, he would never do that.
ITEM NO. 7 PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no further public comment.
ITEM NO. 8 MISCELLANEOUS/CALENDAR
Dinsdale reminded the CCH that their next meeting was scheduled for March 10, 2009. She asked for the homeless outreach workers to be on the agenda for March with an update on their work activities.
Collinsworth asked that an agenda item be added to address where we stand on HMIS. He wondered if the information from HMIS could be used to help Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority with their Connector. He explained that we are now approaching a more serious critical mass of homeless and that there needed to be some serious dialogue regarding that fact, as well as with Shannon on what was going on at the jail.
Collier asked to invite the Lawrence Public Schools homeless coordinator to have a discussion with them regarding the seemingly different methods and means for counting homeless between the schools and the regular population. She wants to make sure that all funding possibilities have been explored and to make sure that the children have access to services.
Knoche said that the transitional housing providers have quarterly meetings and she could report on that next time as well.
ITEM NO.9 ADJOURN
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Collinsworth, seconded by Collier to adjourn the meeting at 10:20am.
Motion passed unanimously.
City of Lawrence, Kansas
April 14, 2009 Minutes (Lawrence City Commission Room)
Members present: Jeanette Collier, Hubbard Collinsworth, Katherine Dinsdale, Loring Henderson, Charlotte Knoche, Mike Monroe, Sandra Winn Tutwiler
Members absent: Wes Dalberg, Robert Mosely, Shannon Murphy
Staff present: Danelle Dresslar, Scott McCullough, Margene Swarts,
Public present: Janey Burgess, Carla Helm, Heather Hoy, Forrest Swall, David Tucker, Brad Cook, Scott Mulyran, Matthew Faulk, Jacob McKee, Hilda Enoch, Michael Tanner
ITEM NO. 1 INTRODUCTIONS
Dinsdale called the meeting to order at 8:30am. Members of the Community Commission on Homelessness introduced themselves.
ITEM NO. 2 Approval of the Agenda and the March 10, 2009 Minutes
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Monroe, seconded by Knoche to approve the March 10, 2009 minutes.
Motion passed unanimously.
ITEM NO.3 HOMELESS OUTREACH REPORT – HOMELESS OUTREACH CASE MANAGERS
Carla Helm, Bert Nash Homeless Outreach Supervisor, presented the report for the first quarter of 2009. She indicated that the number of clients who received outreach services has increased during this quarter by 30% compared to the fourth quarter of 2008.
Collier asked the outreach team why children are not being counted.
Scott Mulryan, homeless outreach worker, said that the count of the children is not specifically indicated by demographic information. Although not broken down, the count of children is included in the first page with the information on “persons served”. Most of the report is done on an individual or head of household basis.
Dinsdale asked how the numbers are presented on the report in that there are two numbers shown separated by a hash mark.
Matthew Faulk, homeless outreach worker, said that the criteria is that someone is considered enrolled if they have been seen three or more times. The first number that you see is the number of those who have been seen three or more times, the second number is an individual who has been seen less than three times.
Mulryan added that the count for children is something that could be added to the report.
Faulk said that the report can be updated to show additional information.
Knoche asked if this meant that 103 individuals or head of households were contacted this quarter.
Brad Cook, homeless outreach worker, said yes.
Dinsdale asked the outreach team to provide the CCH with a breakdown of their roles for Bert Nash.
Cook said that he is placed at Lawrence Community Shelter, Faulk is placed at the Salvation Army, Mulryan is placed at ECKAN, Tucker is the PATH worker, and McKee is a half time staff member.
Dinsdale asked about the billing practices at Bert Nash and if this has become part of their job description.
Faulk said that out of budgetary issues they have had to utilize the billing system as outreach workers. The program costs Bert Nash more than what the grant funding allocation is from the City. The case managers need to make up the difference in the funding. The half-time worker was partially paid from Bert Nash, so they have to work with billing. Now, because of budgetary concerns, the workers are billing out clients who are receiving case management services. When the grant was first created, the agreement stated that outreach workers were different than case managers. The outreach team provides the same services, although there are some significant differences. Case management is a Medicaid term. It provides a definition of services for which one can be billed. Medicaid specifically defines what can be billed. Case management is not a blanket term for all services. In order for case management to apply you need to have an individual who is severely and persistently mentally ill and there needs to be an insurance policy of some sort present.
Faulk explained that outreach does not require billing. The basis for the outreach team billing is due to the budget issues at Bert Nash. In the capacity that the outreach team is billing, they are providing case management. Technically, as outreach workers they should only be dealing with clients who qualify as homeless. Case managers work with a population that is primarily housed. They are helping them to maintain their symptoms, receive services, and find employment. While the outreach team is providing billing for services, they are only working with those who are homeless. The need is increasing because of the budget. In time, the dynamics of the outreach team will change because of the budget. A certain set of hours of outreach may be set within the population. This all goes back to the budget. Agencies are looking for ways to come up with the differences.
Knoche asked if the outreach team can only serve billable clients.
Cook said not at this time, but they may need to in response to the proposed budget cuts. Bert Nash’s response is that they need to make up money. There will be a budgetary amount that they will be required to bring in per month. If there is a budget constraint then they have to make up the money somewhere.
Knoche asked if they are asked to serve billable clients first.
Faulk said not specifically, but that is something that will become more of an issue because of the lack in funding. They are being told that they need to work with those who are billable but not specifically before other clients.
Knoche said she had concerns regarding job performance because of this billing issue and budget constraints leading to the billable standard.
Faulk said that two workers have already had billable standards set in place. No one tells them that you have to work with the billable client first, but there are billing standards in place. It is one thing to say no, you are the homeless outreach worker, but in it another to say that if you can bill someone, go ahead. There are billable standards, so there is conflicting instruction on billing.
Cook said that the billable standard is not a horribly stressful number. At the end of the month it does weigh on your mind. Bert Nash is on a pay raise freeze, so although they cannot get raises, the ability to obtain the billable standard does impact their performance reviews.
Faulk said that they have heard that there are some concerns about the job that they are doing and what exactly it is that they do. He began reading from the original Task Force grant for the program. There was discussion about several of the topics on the grant, and Faulk said that there are a few items that need to be reworded in the grant upon renewal. The third item on the grant refers to a thorough needs assessment for their clients. The outreach team does a Needs Assessment on all their clients. In order for Bert Nash to do a thorough Needs Assessment there would need to be basis for the client to require mental health services. His interpretation of the grant is that he did not think it was an intention for Bert Nash to do a Needs Assessment on every homeless person. Primarily, these Needs Assessments are being done on the basis of mental health needs. The outreach team asks the questions they need to in order to provide services to the individuals. That is their Needs Assessment.
Dinsdale agreed that the grant should be reviewed each time before it is renewed. She suggested that it was important for the outreach team to have input in the process.
Faulk agreed that there should be discussion on that when the time arises.
Dinsdale said that she understands that some changes will have to be made. She asked Faulk for the sake of saving time, if instead of going through the grant item by item, could he briefly explain the remaining items.
Faulk said that the concern of the outreach team is that they will have to start telling clients no because of the increasing demand and corresponding budget issues. As Helm mentioned earlier, there is a 30% increase in this quarter alone. The need is not becoming less. He does not think there will be a need for more team members, but there will be a need for funding to better manage their case load that they do have.
Mulryan added that he works with a lot of families and children. He said that they are asking him to take them to Kansas City or Olathe because they are more able to find housing and resources there as opposed to Lawrence. He said that the comment has been that people have been nicer outside of Lawrence and this is causing people to retreat.
Dinsdale commented that the outreach team has hit a wall because they do not have the resources to effectively move the homeless anywhere.
Faulk said the lack of resources is affecting the team in relation to the goal originally set forth by the Task Force. Bert Nash has to make up funding. They have a need to focus on traditional mental health as opposed to homelessness.
Cook said that the outreach team seems to be the only piece of the original Task Force recommendations that has been implemented.
Collier said that the outreach workers need to service a specific population. It is so overwhelming that there is not enough staff to handle it.
Dinsdale thanked the outreach workers for the jobs that they do. She has heard nothing but good things about their efforts. She said that the program has been a huge success and that the CCH wants to help in any way they can to sustain and expand the program.
Knoche said that the outreach team was one of the first items from the Task Force that was implemented. The group strongly felt that it would make a difference in getting people out of homelessness and into housing. Once they were in housing they would be able to stay out of homelessness. That is why the case management element was so crucial. The CCH needs to support the outreach team and improve on what they are able to do. The Task Force said that case management would make a positive difference.
Dinsdale said that Faulk opened the presentation by saying that there were some concerns about their performance. She said that she has not heard of any and that the CCH does not have any concern about how they perform their jobs. Many of the members of the CCH were part of the original Task Force. That group fought hard to get the outreach team in place and now the CCH wants to do everything it can to assist them. She knows it is very frustrating for them that they cannot offer the homeless a place to stay.
Dinsdale went on to say that in light of the upcoming budget this program is on the cutting block. She said the CCH will do everything they can to see that this program remains funded.
Hilda Enoch told the CCH that they are in a position where they can make recommendations to the City Commission and make actions happen. The CCH sees that the outreach workers cannot do what they need to do with the resources they are given. The CCH can urge the City Commission to cut the budget somewhere else.
Henderson added that the outreach team does a fantastic job. The community would be in real trouble if they were not there. This program works in many ways. His only concern is the report that they complete quarterly. This raises concern because the numbers are interesting enough because he understands that Bert Nash needs to tell the City what is going on, but it is not necessarily helpful information to other agencies. The information should be integrated with what other agencies are doing. This report has limited value in the community. The value is between Bert Nash and the City.
Cook said that the report is modeled after the PATH report. There were a series of adjustments made, and it has stayed in this same form for quite some time. This is so there can be accurate comparisons of information quarterly.
Martin-Smith asked when the next grant renewal will be for the program.
Swarts said that it is on a calendar year basis and it is an annual renewal, so it will be the end of the year.
Martin-Smith asked when the grant renews, will aspects be rewritten?
Swarts said that there is an upcoming meeting between her, McCullough, and members of Bert Nash staff to consider some concerns, both with what Cook brought up as well as some that staff has heard. They will talk through where we are and what the budget impact may be.
Martin-Smith told the outreach team that she does not understand this report, but she puts trust in the fact that the report is doing what it is supposed to do. She has a lot of confidence in the staff to catch what is needed to make the program successful. What she thinks is the most important part of this issue to the community is the real stories about real people. This is what brings the point home to the taxpayers. A lot of time in the past five years has been spent on this issue, and those types of stories are the ones that really make the tax payers understand. They are of big value. It puts a face on the real things that we are trying to do and the things that the outreach team is accomplishing. There were several members of the Task Force that asked to be appointed to the CCH to see the recommendations through. When they went to the City Commission as a Task Force, they were met with complications because the paper ran a story that there would be a four million dollar price tag on all the Task Force recommendations. This destroyed the credibility of the group for a short while. When they got before the City Commission, the City Commission said that the recommendations were a great idea, but there was no money to fund them. This group has come a very long way, but prior to them, nothing was done about the issue. There were many years that went by that nothing was done about homelessness. The Task Force enlisted Bert Nash and the LDCHA among others to determine priorities. They found that they needed outreach workers most of all. Every other recommendation can continue to be worked on, but the outreach was the major focus. It sets a good, firm foundation for the rest of the recommendations. As time passes the needs change. Today the CCH has a Housing Vision, and she thinks that now everyone is on the same page. The CCH is here to educate the City Commission and the tax payers and as everyone continues to do good things then she is confident that there will still be support.
Collinsworth asked Swarts if the original funding amount for the outreach team has stayed the same throughout the duration of the program, or if the amounts have fluctuated.
Swarts said that she believed that it has stayed the same through each renewal. There was a case last year where there was a proposed decrease in order to fund the E-Housing Connection, but in the end the funding was not decreased to Bert Nash. This is the third year of the program and it has not increased in funding at any time either.
Michael Tanner mentioned concerns about the idea of providing housing and keeping housing for everyone. He said that he has evidence that the Housing Authority does not do this. He said that he had sacrificed his day to be there and that he was led to believe by an announcement at the Drop In Shelter that the Mayor would be attending the meeting.
Dinsdale explained that the Mayor has appointed this body to work as the CCH. She told Tanner she valued what he had to say, but public comment was to be limited to the agenda item that is being discussed, and the Housing Authority was not what the agenda item was referring to.
ITEM NO. 4 HOMELESS CAMPING PROPOSAL – DAVID TUCKER, BERT NASH PATH CASE MANAGER.
The camping proposal submitted by David Tucker was provided to the CCH and is attached to the minutes.
After reading through the proposal, Tucker handed out a letter of support from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty for the campsite. The letter is attached to the minutes. .
Knoche asked Tucker to detail the yearly cost of $2500.
Tucker said that $700-$800 will be for the portable toilets. The dealer that he spoke with said that they would be able to give the City a good deal. The rest of the cost is trash service. The larger dumpster size is what the price quote was for. Any additional costs would be associated with the purchase of tents and other goods. The outreach team will fund this if City funding cannot be utilized. The cost is very low in relation to other social service projects. He has spoken to churches and private organizations, and outside of minor monetary assistance there were not many other offers made. Everyone is stretched to their limit with regard to housing people with the other programs that are functioning in the community.
Tutwiler asked about other cities like Lawrence where you have a situation where the homeless population outweighs the amount of shelter beds available. Where do the extra people go in these communities?
Tucker said that locally, people are sleeping in parks, on heater vents, or in cars, among other places. Many of these people are getting fined for sleeping outside. The arrest logs show that the number of arrests for camping is low, but this is a deceptively low number. Only 11 individuals were arrested for camping this year. Often a different type of charge is the factor, such as an open container violation. This makes the camping number of arrests lower than it truly is.
Henderson asked if the arrests may be lower because of the 24 hour posting of the sites. He asked if the 24 hour time period was enough time for the campers.
Tucker said that the problem is the harassment of the homeless from people moving from spot to spot. The homes that they have made and the time investment is gone. Their material items are lost. The City gives them 24 hours. The camping solution is one that no one is happy with. People do not want this to be a solution. This is not the solution; this is the first step to the solution. This will give the homeless a chance to hold down a job because they know where they are going to sleep that night. The outreach team has agreed that they will be present in the camp at least once a day, every day. At least once a month someone needs to work with and check on the campers. Cook is currently located at Lawrence Community Shelter. He goes there every day and helps the people there and it makes a difference. These people currently do not have the luxury of having these services offered to them every day.
Tucker added that as far as sites go, the site in November when the tent city was bulldozed is a good site. There is another location off of Burcham Park beyond the new boathouse. There is a service road that goes back there. This makes for easier access of trash removal, toilet maintenance, and police patrol. All the patrol will not need to be done on foot. Chief Olin indicated that there would not normally be a regular patrol, but the Police Department will do what the City Commission directs them to do.
Henderson asked about the estimated number of campers they are looking to accommodate.
Tucker said that early estimations are approximately 70 people. The Salvation Army closing is subtracting 40 beds from the shelter space in the community. The Salvation Army is doing an admirable job of finding their clients housing in the interim. A lot of the time they are placing the people with their parents. This will give them an alternative and will tackle the problem of the shelter being closed.
Tutwiler asked if the proposal mentioned how those who are let in will be monitored.
Tucker said that there will be monitoring in terms of conduct, and the City will be released from all liability. The rules will include no drugs or alcohol. The outreach team cannot be there 24 hours a day, but this aspect needs to be understood by all that stay there. Temporary bans may be in order if rules are broken. The truth is that in order for it to be accepted by people there needs to be rules.
Dinsdale asked about allowing children in. Most camps have a rule about a person having to be 18 or older.
Tucker agreed that it would not necessarily be the best environment for a child because there will be no real supervision. In his proposal all residents must be 18 or older.
Dinsdale asked about limiting the number of nights a camper can stay there.
Tucker said that there are no limits in the proposal. There is nowhere for them to go after their limited stay is over.
Tutwiler said that many may fear that this may turn into a long term strategy.
Tucker agreed and said that in this case there will be a case management element that is going to have to be present to keep that from happening. A person needs the supports to get out of homelessness. Case management needs to be there a minimum amount. Every first step in action plans to end homelessness count having a stable place to sleep at night as the first step.
Tanner said that the campsite would come at the cost of losing freedom.
Henderson asked Tucker if he had a sense of how many homeless would say that they are losing their freedom with a campsite.
Tucker said that his original goal was to overturn the camping ordinance. The City Commission did not favor that. This is the next best solution, and it does come with restrictions because it has to.
Henderson asked who in the homeless population will utilize this camp.
Tucker said that not all chronically homeless will be there. If they cannot abide by the rules they will continue their way. He said he tried to change those rules and he could not. This is what he can offer. Large amounts of the chronically homeless population will avoid this. That will not keep him from going out under the bridges to look for them to offer assistance.
Janey Burgess asked if there would be a water source, and also what would the campers do in the very cold months.
Tucker said that water is difficult because the water service requires a water line. If a source can be found then he will approach the City to ask for that. Water is not provided at this point. Every camper has their own method of finding water. In extreme weather LCS will be able to open their shelter as they are currently doing. They will still be considered homeless.
Due to numerous interruptions, McCullough reminded the pubic to make comments directly to the chairperson. The dialogue now is between the speaker and the CCH.
Tucker said that right now people are surviving the cold weather and it is extreme. Camping by a heater is a far cry from being by a fire pit or inside a tent. They have the full cooperation of Lawrence Community Shelter.
Knoche asked if the outreach team had an idea about how this would impact their case load. This seems like a lot of additional responsibility.
Tucker agreed that it is a lot. He said that the outreach team does not think that there will be that many new people that they do not already have an awareness of. They will be able to better assist them in a camp setting. If he had a place like this he could find around 60-70% of the clients he needed to locate. Being able to find the population at the Lawrence Community Shelter is easy also.
Knoche said that the proposal says that the outreach team would be supervising the campsite.
Tucker said that they are supervising the creation, but after that they would be there in an advisory role.
Knoche asked if they knew how many people that would be utilizing the camp would already be in their case load.
Tucker said that almost all of them. He said that there may be a few others that come out of the woodwork also, but mostly all the campers will have familiarity with them and the services that they provide.
Forrest Swall spoke and said that from his observation this seems like a reasonable and modest proposal. The answers to the questions that the CCH are asking really cannot be answered until the outreach team gets into the project and has the experience. He appreciates the praise that the CCH is giving the outreach team for their work in the community. The homeless have the same kinds of needs and aspirations that everyone else has. He has learned a lot about tent cities. He has discovered that there is a self governing capacity for these folks. Outreach workers will be able to enhance this aspect for the campers. The question has come up how many will use the camp. The answer is that one will not know that until the resource is available. From his observation this is an important step. This proposal says what is possible now. It is a modest proposal.
Tucker said that primarily in his talks with other campsite representatives the self governing method is the one that is utilized most often. Local case managers are usually there in an advisory role.
Dinsdale said the CCH needs to make the recommendation if this needs to be moved forward to the City Commission. This was discussed in depth three months ago. The City Commission asked for this proposal to come before the CCH. This is a very important issue. People differ greatly on this issue. The CCH needs to decide if there will be a motion on the floor.
ACTION TAKEN
Collier moved that the CCH recommend the campsite proposal be sent to the City Commission for further review. Collier said that she works with several individuals and families that are camping. Their dream is to be in housing. Until the community has shelter and adequate housing this is much needed.
Collinsworth seconded the motion. He said that while there are still questions that overall he greatly appreciates what Tucker has done.
Dinsdale reminded the CCH and the public that this motion is to recommend that the proposal go on to the City Commission. It would still need to pass them to be enacted.
Swarts clarified that when Chief Olin said that there would be irregular police patrols, due to staffing it might not even be once a day.
Tucker agreed and said that it would be treated as any other place in the city, especially since it would partially need to take place on foot.
Discussion on the motion followed.
Dinsdale said that she has sat with this issue for a long time. She has dreaded this day because it is such a difficult issue. The memorandum from the City staff lists pros and cons of a campsite. She said she voted in the beginning against it and she will vote against it again because she still does not think it is in the best interest of the community. She said that she does not agree with two sets of laws for people – those who camp and those who do not. She feels very strongly that there is a moral obligation to move toward housing. She understands that in the idea of camping that the outreach team feels like they are doing that, but she still disagrees at this time with the proposal. She said the community needs to get together to get housing going. The 300 homeless number is misleading. The number that cannot get into housing is much smaller than that. It is a tragic thing. The mental health situation is tragic. This is not a solution she can support. As Chair, if this passes the CCH she will do what she can in putting it in front of the City Commission to support the group and the vote.
Tucker clarified that anyone can stay at the campsite, not only the homeless.
Tanner wished to make a comment and Chair Dinsdale asked the comment to stay to around two minutes.
Tanner said that he had a comment about housing. He said that Dinsdale commented that the CCH is more interested in getting people in housing. People at LDCHA do not enforce rules to make that happen. Landlords do not follow rules and City Code enforcement does not follow rules in that City codes are not enforced. Homelessness is going to continue until the LDCHA follows the rules.
The CCH asked Mr. Tanner to stay on topic and that they will be accepting comments on the campsite proposal only.
Tanner said that he was on topic as the issue of housing has come up in this conversation.
Tanner became very upset and irate and left the meeting.
Enoch said that the vision that this commission has needs to encompass all of the homeless people in the community. They cannot start where they think it is the safest. Everyone has their right to some form of shelter and decent permanent housing, so the CCH cannot turn their back on this population of people who have nowhere to go.
Ted Boyle, President of the North Lawrence Improvement Association spoke to the CCH. He is a member of LAN, and mentioned that they spoke pretty intensely at their last meeting regarding this topic. The comment was made earlier in the proposal that LAN supported this idea. The true endorsement from LAN was that they thought that a tent city was not good enough. There are plenty of buildings around Lawrence that you can utilize. There are two types of homeless he sees. There are those who are momentarily down on their luck regarding their financial stability and those who are professional campers. They do not have many campers on the north side of the river because they have them removed. There is a need for a large shelter. The professional transient camper wants nothing to do with a campsite. A tent city is the wrong way to go. If they want to do that then the City needs to find a building and convert it into a shelter. There was a meeting of the NLIA last night and there was 100% agreement that this is a great liability to the City and will take away police, fire and medical efforts from other parts of the community.
With consensus from the CCH, Dinsdale extended the meeting until 10:15 am.
Dinsdale closed public comment.
Henderson said that he appreciated Tucker’s presentation. The tone was right. It is a terribly complicated decision. There are currently people camping. They frequently get ticketed or their camp gets destroyed. They all of a sudden become criminals. There is not a place for them to go. The camp proposal is an effort to being supportive and to add control to that situation. It would be a credit to the community to have something as compassionate and structured responsive to the ongoing situation. The problem will always be there. This does not solve anything. There will be some who will camp, and this will be a step in the right direction. He supports the proposal.
Dinsdale called for a vote on the motion.
The Motion passed 4-3-1.
Dinsdale thanked Tucker and told him that she appreciates his proposal. She wants to make sure that it does not deter the plans for Lawrence Community Shelter’s new building.
ITEM NO. 5 PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ITEM NO. 6 MISCELLANEOUS/CALENDAR
Heather Hoy, Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority, handed out a summary of the progress of the e-Housing Connection. It is attached to the minutes.
Scott McCullough, Director, Planning and Development Services told the CCH that the City Commission has tentatively scheduled to hear the Homeless Shelter Text Amendment on April 21, 2009, and the portion related to shelters as accessory uses to religious assembly uses is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at their April 22, 2009 meeting. The revised language will be available one week prior to the Planning Commission’s meeting date.
Henderson added the Lawrence Community Shelter is in support of the Homeless Shelter Text Amendment.
Monroe wished to say that he abstained from the vote on the camping proposal recommendation to the City Commission because of his employment with the City. He did wish to add that he did think that it would create some problems in staffing and servicing the area.
Knoche said that she had serious concerns about reallocation of the outreach worker’s time. She does not think there is the capacity to do it, and it will have an impact on the Transitional Housing wait lists also.
ITEM NO. 7 ADJOURN
ACTION TAKEN
Motion by Martin-Smith, seconded by Dinsdale to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 am.
Motion passed unanimously.