January 9, 2007 Minutes (City Commission Room, City Hall)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Katherine Dinsdale, Jane Faubion, Kim Gouge, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Rick Marquez, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Monroe, Robert Mosely |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Phil Hemphill |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley Rigney and Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Jeannette Collier, Hubbard Collinsworth, Norm Scraper, Charlotte Knoche, Wes Dalberg |
Martin-Smith called the meeting to order at 8:30 am.
Introductions
Martin-Smith introduced the revised agenda. She said the group has lots of work to do. She introduced Hubbard Collinsworth, new appointee, and welcomed him to the Committee.
Approval of the agenda and the December 12, 2006 minutes
Hartnett moved to approve the December 12, 2006 minutes. Faubion seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Review of definitions for common understanding
Martin-Smith said she doesn’t know if they used the federal definitions for the list of terms. This is our basis for having the ability to communicate. She asked if the group would like to review them one at a time.
Hartnett said the whole point was to look at Section B and she asked if there were any other words needing clarification. She suggested getting a definition for case management.
Martin-Smith said “residential centers” were mentioned and she doesn’t know what that is. She also said HMIS was important to understand and she noted that at some point they would need an update on the status of HMIS.
Collier asked if the Transitional Housing (TH) definition was assuming there was no agreement between tenant and the landlord.
Hartnett said the only definite distinction between (TH) and Permanent Housing (PH) is that in PH, they are only governed by a lease.
Knoche suggested it would be better to talk about these housing options in terms of length of funding.
Hartnett said these would be common definitions for us – specific programmatic definitions will be left to the agencies.
Knoche said that rather than using these terms, maybe you want to use more descriptors of what fits the need – Emergency Shelter, Transitional Housing, Permanent Housing – these all come straight from HUD.
Swarts said the intention for creating definitions was so that everyone could understand what the plan is saying.
Dinsdale suggested that in the definition for rehabilitative model, changing the word “fix” to “designed to help people toward self-sufficiency.”
Henderson and Hartnett agreed that “fixed” is what was meant but it was politically charged then and it is now. He suggested taking “rehabilitative” and defining it as the opposite of letting people sit there and languish.
Dinsdale asked if just the last sentence could be struck in the rehab model definition.
Martin-Smith asked if there were any terms that should be added and it was decided to add case management to the list of terms.
Overview – Part B
Dinsdale asked if it would be a more efficient use of time to go through the shelter subcommittee transcript document first. She stated that her document was supposed to be a status report – when the shelter committee came together it was May and then the last status report was in October and as the group reads it she sees how interrelated all these strategies are. She summarized the main points of the document. She said that the bottom line is that both shelters are being prevented from meeting the community’s needs at the city-level.
Henderson clarified that there are currently two emergency shelters; at which point the Salvation Army moves into a new facility and becomes a TH program the community is looking at the possible displacement of 50+ people.
Dalberg said given the situation with the city and neighbors, Salvation Army is now in a position that they are going to allow the CCH and the community to have input rather than the Salvation Army telling the community what they are planning to do.
Martin-Smith said Dalberg had made that clear at the last meeting and she appreciates it.
Hartnett said it also frees the community up to be more creative.
Dinsdale said it also frees the CCH to actually endorse what Salvation Army is doing and hopefully help with fundraising from a community standpoint.
She continued her presentation and stated that when you read this document it is apparent that these providers are struggling and not seeing many successes. What can we do to support them in their current facilities?
Martin-Smith said it underscores the need to continue on this path to providing a new shelter situation.
Hartnett said the group should talk about the physical space aspects as well – for instance, are people likely to access services if they are sleeping on a mat or if they are uncertain that they will even be able to stay from one night to the next.
Martin-Smith said the concept of SafeHouse (a past shelter facility) was well-received because it had the rehabilitative model but it was closed because the rehabilitative model was not being delivered and there were no services being provided and so it was closed. She believes that if the CCH comes forward with a clear vision including programming and outcomes the community will get behind their effort.
Dinsdale continued with her presentation.
Collinsworth clarified that Pelathe has seven TH units.
Knoche clarified that LDCHA actually has 56 families placed currently in TH. Currently 76 on the wait list but the list is moving much slower than in the past.
Dinsdale finished her presentation.
Martin-Smith thanked her and stated that it really ties what exists to the plan. She asked staff to add “strength-based” to definitions. She asked the public to forward terms to Rigney for inclusion at a future meeting.
Identify future agenda items
Martin-Smith said the February meeting will address programmatic components, review the homeless count and start talking about developing an outreach plan.
Swarts said she was meeting with Taliaferro today and she may want to attend an upcoming meeting.
Hartnett encouraged the group to not solely focus on programmatic components, but to also talk about physical space.
Martin-Smith said that physical space needs to address families, singles, intoxicated, etc.
Hartnett said to specify number of rooms, showers, etc. that a facility would need. This is what will help the City Commission understand the need. The community has to have facilities to provide the services.
Collinsworth agreed and stated he has been trying to talk about this for two years – he is thankful the group is finally talking about physical space.
Swarts said some of that is defined in the building codes.
Henderson asked the CCH to add to the next meeting agenda the UPR for the shelter – he has to submit his paperwork for Planning Commission (PC) and City Commission (CC).
Martin-Smith asked the group what they want to do with the UPR.
Henderson clarified that when the group is talking about a 24/7 shelter, LCS is not a shelter 24 hours; it is a Drop-In Center a large part of the day. There is still a need for such a place but it is more of an uncontrolled or semi-controlled program. The shelter is more controlled – they check in, etc.
Hartnett said that is a great point because nowhere in the plan is a drop-in center mentioned.
Martin-Smith said the CCH doesn’t need to rehash everything again regarding LCS’ UPR. The CCH needs to know how best to support LCS.
Hartnett moved to give Martin-Smith authority to speak on behalf of the group. Dinsdale seconded the motion.
Mosely expressed that he would like to receive any materials or statements prior to her presentation to the PC or CC.
Martin-Smith said the discussion can be had by e-mail and can come back to the group for approval.
The motion passed.
Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 am.