The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 08/25/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC) Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann City Attorney City Manager City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. City Council Work Session August 25, 2015 6:00 PM  CALL TO ORDER. 1. Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects. (staff: Ginny Sawyer, Darin Atteberry; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to discuss and confirm project timing for projects approved in April 2015 as part of the ¼-cent Community Improvement Program (BOB 2.0). The Program includes 17 funds and projects to be implemented between 2016 and 2025. 2. Update on Homelessness Action Items. (staff: Beth Sowder, Vanessa Fenley, Director of Homeward 2020; 20 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to focus primarily on local action items to address homelessness in Fort Collins and provide a larger context with a brief overview of national, state, and regional trends of homelessness issues and practices. 3. Strategies to Address Disruptive Behaviors Downtown. (staff: Jeff Mihelich; 30 minute staff presentation; 60 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to bring forth four options for consideration in light of opinions, complaints, and feedback received regarding disruptive behaviors in downtown. Any or all of the options could be initiated as pilot programs. 1. Authorize and deploy a Street Outreach Program, whose team will proactively build relationships with vulnerable populations, provide options for help and other resources, and inform about City ordinances. City of Fort Collins Page 2 2. Expand and enhance the use of location diversion as a sentencing alternative which includes plea bargains where perpetrators of disruptive behaviors agree to avoid Downtown in lieu of fines and other penalties. 3. Continued exploration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) methods to create safer public spaces. 4. The initiation of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance, which would regulate sitting or lying in the public right-of-way in downtown.  OTHER BUSINESS.  ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: August 25, 2015 Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager Darin Atteberry, City Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to discuss and confirm project timing for projects approved in April 2015 as part of the ¼-cent Community Improvement Program (BOB 2.0). The Program includes 17 funds and projects to be implemented between 2016 and 2025. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council support one of the two timing scenarios provided? (A or B) 2. If not, what adjustments would Council like see? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION After an 18-month community conversation and ballot referral by Council, in April 2015 voters approved a 10- year, ¼-cent sales tax for specific community improvements (Attachments 1 and 2). All projects/funds are very specifically identified in the ballot language and in the associated ordinance. However, the timing of the projects is not defined. Staff has worked on numerous timing scenarios taking into account community needs and desires, project readiness, leveraging opportunities, and program effectiveness. This work and associated discussions have led to the two scenarios presented (Attachment 3). Scenario Similarities The following Project/Funds are identical in each scenario:  Affordable Housing Fund  Arterial Intersection Improvements  Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements  Bike/Ped Grad Separated Crossing Fund  Bus Stop Improvements  Carnegie Renovations  City Park Train  Club Tico Renovations  Lincoln Avenue Bridge  Linden Street Renovation  Nature in the City  Pedestrian Sidewalk/ADA Compliance  Southeast Community Center  Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement  Willow Street Improvements 1 Packet Pg. 3 August 25, 2015 Page 2 The timing and amounts for the Projects/Funds above were determined based on known funding and grant cycles and efforts to maintain consistent and predictable programs. Staff involved in these projects were consulted in developing these scenarios. Scenario Differences Both scenarios have the Lincoln Bridge funded in the first two years (2016-2017). Scenario A achieves this by funding the Downtown Poudre River Enhancements in year 3 (2018). Scenario B achieves Lincoln Bridge in the first two years and also funds the Downtown River Enhancements in year two (2017). Scenario B is accomplished by utilizing Building Community Choices (BCC) funds to cover the $1.3 M shortfall created by doing both projects in the first two years. If Council chooses to repay these funds in full from the Community Improvement quarter- cent the pay back can be complete in year four (2019). The other difference in scenarios is the timing of the Visitors’ Center at the Gardens on Spring Creek. In scenario A this project is scheduled in year two (2017). In scenario B it occurs in year three (2018). Other Considerations Staff tried numerous scenarios before finalizing the two presented. Considerations and findings include:  The Southeast Community Center is difficult to get any earlier due to the cost. A previous scenario was able to fund this in 2021-2022 although it required putting the Lincoln Bridge in year ten.  Earlier scenarios also attempted to get more projects by adjusting funds. These scenarios had funds very heavily weighted in the out years, which was problematic from both a programmatic stand point as well as a capacity standpoint.  Staff considered advancing the full cost of the Lincoln Bridge and repaying through 2025. This scenario did not move the Community Center although it did allow Willow to move into year 2017, versus years 2018/19 as represented in Scenarios A and B. The interest on this payback is over $1M. ATTACHMENTS 1. Projects and Amounts (PDF) 2. Resolution 2015-019 (PDF) 3. Scenarios A and B (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 4 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS AND COSTS Project Project Cost 1 Affordable Housing Fund $ 4M 2 Arterial Intersection Improvements $ 6M 3 Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements $ 5M 4 Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossing Fund $ 6M 5 Bus Stop Improvements $ 1M 6 Carnegie Bldg Renovation $ 1M 7 City Park Train $ 350 K 8 Club Tico Renovation $ 250 K 9 Downtown Poudre River Enhancements – Whitewater Park $ 4M 10 Lincoln Ave. Bridge $ 5.3M 11 Linden St. Renovation $ 3M 12 Nature in the City $ 3M 13 Pedestrian Sidewalk / ADA-Compliance $ 14M 14 SE Community Center w. Pool $ 14M 15 Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor's Center $ 2M 16 Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement $ 2M 17 Willow Street Improvements $ 3.5M ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Projects and Amounts (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) ATTACHMENT 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) 1.2 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Resolution 2015-019 (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) KϮ͘Ϭ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ ŶŶƵĂů/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶZĂƚĞ ϯ͘ϬϬй Ͳ/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶĂĚĚĞĚƚŽWƌŽũĞĐƚ ^ĂůĞƐdĂǆ'ƌŽǁƚŚZĂƚĞ Ϯ͘ϲϬй WƌŽũĞĐƚ ϮϬϭϱ WƌŽũĞĐƚ ŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϭ ϮϬϮϮ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϰ ϮϬϮϱ ϭͲĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϮͲƌƚĞƌŝĂů/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϴϬϬ ϴϱϬ ϭ͕ϭϱϬ ϯͲŝĐǇĐůĞ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϳϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϰͲŝŬĞͬWĞĚ'ƌĂĚĞ^ĞƉĞƌĂƚĞĚƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϰϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϲϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϱͲƵƐ^ƚŽƉ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϲͲĂƌŶĞŐŝĞůĚŐZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϭ͕ϳϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϵϲϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϳͲŝƚǇWĂƌŬdƌĂŝŶ Ψ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϴͲůƵďdŝĐŽZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϵͲŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWŽƵĚƌĞZŝǀĞƌŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐͲ <ĂǇĂŬ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬ ϰ͕ϯϲϳϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϬͲ'ĂƌĚĞŶƐŽŶ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬsŝƐŝƚŽƌΖƐĞŶƚĞƌ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϯ͕ϭϮϮϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϭͲ>ŝŶĐŽůŶǀĞ͘ƌŝĚŐĞ Ψ ϱ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϳϯϬ Ϯ͕ϴϭϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭϮͲ>ŝŶĚĞŶ^ƚ͘ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϲϭ Ϯ͕ϴϴϰ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϭϯͲEĂƚƵƌĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϳϱϬ ϭϰͲWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͬͲŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϮϬϬ ϭ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬ ϭϱͲ^ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞŶƚĞƌǁŝƚŚWŽŽů Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϯ͕ϰϵϯ ϭϱ͕ϯϮϲ Ϭ ϭϲͲdƌĂŶƐĨŽƌƚƵƐ&ůĞĞƚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϳͲtŝůůŽǁ^ƚƌĞĞƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϳϮϭ ϯ͕ϵϮϵ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ĚũƵƐƚĂďůĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞƐ 6FHQDULR$+LJKOLJKWV /LQFROQ%ULGJHLVLQ\HDUVDQGWR FRLQFLGHZLWKWKHRWKHUZRUNRQ/LQFROQ $YHQXH 7KH5LYHUSURMHFWLVKDVEHHQPRYHGWR \HDU 7KH9LVLWRU V&HQWHULVLQ\HDU ATTACHMENT 3 1.3 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Scenarios A and B (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) KϮ͘Ϭ^ĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ ŶŶƵĂů/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶZĂƚĞ ϯ͘ϬϬй Ͳ/ŶĨůĂƚŝŽŶĂĚĚĞĚƚŽWƌŽũĞĐƚ ^ĂůĞƐdĂǆ'ƌŽǁƚŚZĂƚĞ Ϯ͘ϲϬй WƌŽũĞĐƚ ϮϬϭϱWƌŽũĞĐƚ ŽƐƚ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϭ ϮϬϮϮ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϰ ϮϬϮϱ ϭͲĨĨŽƌĚĂďůĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϮͲƌƚĞƌŝĂů/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϴϬϬ ϴϱϬ ϭ͕ϭϱϬ ϯͲŝĐǇĐůĞ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϱ͕ϬϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϱϬϬ ϳϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϰͲŝŬĞͬWĞĚ'ƌĂĚĞ^ĞƉĞƌĂƚĞĚƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ&ƵŶĚ Ψ ϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϰϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϲϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϱͲƵƐ^ƚŽƉ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϭϬϬ ϲͲĂƌŶĞŐŝĞůĚŐZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϭ͕ϳϬϬ ϬϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϵϲϭϬϬϬϬϬ ϳͲŝƚǇWĂƌŬdƌĂŝŶ Ψ ϯϱϬ ϯϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϴͲůƵďdŝĐŽZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϮϱϬ ϮϱϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϵͲŽǁŶƚŽǁŶWŽƵĚƌĞZŝǀĞƌŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐͲ <ĂǇĂŬ Ψ ϰ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ ϰ͕Ϯϰϰ ϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϬͲ'ĂƌĚĞŶƐŽŶ^ƉƌŝŶŐƌĞĞŬsŝƐŝƚŽƌΖƐĞŶƚĞƌ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬ Ϯ͕ϭϴϰϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϭͲ>ŝŶĐŽůŶǀĞ͘ƌŝĚŐĞ Ψ ϱ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϳϯϬ Ϯ͕ϴϭϭϬϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϮͲ>ŝŶĚĞŶ^ƚ͘ZĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬϬ ϱϲϭ Ϯ͕ϴϴϰϬϬϬϬϬ ϭϯͲEĂƚƵƌĞŝŶƚŚĞŝƚǇ Ψ ϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϬϬ ϮϱϬ ϯϬϬ ϯϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϳϱϬ ϭϰͲWĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶ^ŝĚĞǁĂůŬͬͲŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞ Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϭϬϬ ϭ͕ϮϬϬ ϭ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϮϬϬ ϭϱͲ^ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĞŶƚĞƌǁŝƚŚWŽŽů Ψ ϭϰ͕ϬϬϬ ϬϬϬϬϬϬϬ Ϯ͕ϰϵϯ ϭϱ͕ϯϮϲϬ ϭϲͲdƌĂŶƐĨŽƌƚƵƐ&ůĞĞƚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ Ψ Ϯ͕ϬϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ Ϭ ϱϬϬ Ϭ Ϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϳͲtŝůůŽǁ^ƚƌĞĞƚ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐ Ψ ϯ͕ϱϬϬ ϬϬ ϳϮϭ ϯ͕ϵϮϵϬϬϬϬϬϬ ϭ͕Ϯϵϯ ĚũƵƐƚĂďůĞsĂƌŝĂďůĞƐ 6FHQDULR%+LJKOLJKWV 7KH/LQFROQ%ULGJHLVLQ\HDUVDQGWR FRLQFLGHZLWKWKHRWKHUZRUNRQ/LQFROQ $YHQXH 7KH5LYHUSURMHFWLVLQ\HDU 7KH9LVLWRU V&HQWHUDWWKH*DUGHQVKDVEHHQ PRYHGWR\HDU 7KHUHLV0VKRUWIDOOLQWKDWQHHGV WREHUHFRQFLOHG 1.3 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Scenarios A and B (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0) Council Work Session August 25, 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 1.4 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Question  Does Council support one of the two timing scenarios provided? (A or B)  If not, what adjustments would Council like see? 1.4 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Capital Improvement-Background  80.53% Voter Approval in April  Dedicated tax is method Fort Collins has historically used to fund capital  Estimate ¼ -cent revenue at $83M  Target project dollar amount: $75.1 M  5 years of O&M for select projects: $2.6M  3% inflation on non-fund projects: $5.3 M 1.4 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0))  Affordable Housing Fund- $4M  Arterial Intersection Improvements Fund - $6M  Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements - $5M  Bike/Ped Grade-Separated Crossings Fund - $6M  Bus Stop Improvements - $1M  Carnegie Building Renovation - $1.7M  City Park Train - $350K  Club Tico Renovation - $250K Capital Improvement-Projects 1.4 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0))  Downtown Poudre River Enhancements- $4M  Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor’s Center - $2M  Lincoln Ave Bridge Improvements - $5.8M  Linden Street Renovations Walnut to Jefferson - $3M  Nature in the City - $3M  Pedestrian Sidewalk/ ADA Compliance - $14M  Southeast Community Center/Outdoor Pool - $14M  Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement - $2M  Willow Street Improvements – $3.5 M T Capital Improvement-Projects 1.4 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Timing Rationale  Provide citizens tangible projects as early as possible  Leverage available funds and opportunities  Provide even and predictable funding for Funds throughout the 10-year term  Work with known grant cycles 6 1.4 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Timing Options 7 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Lincoln Ave Bridge City Park Train Club Tico Renovations Willow Street Linden Street Carnegie Renovation Southeast Community Center Scenario A Poudre River Enhancement Scenario A Visitor’s Center Scenario B Poudre River Enhancement Scenario B Visitor’s Center 1.4 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Scenarios A and B Affordable Housing Fund Arterial Intersection Improvement Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements Bike/Ped Grade Separated Crossing Fund Bus Stop Improvements Nature in the City Pedestrian Sidewalk/ADA Compliance Transfort Bus Fleet Replacement Willow Street Improvements (2018-19) 8 The following Funds and Projects have identical funding in each scenario: 1.4 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Scenario A Highlights:  Downtown Poudre River Enhancements – 2018  Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor's Center - 2017 9 1.4 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Scenario B Highlights:  Downtown Poudre River Enhancements – 2017  Gardens on Spring Creek Visitor's Center – 2018  $1.3 M shortage in 2017 Options to reconcile:  BCC Funds  Adjust other funds and projects 10 1.4 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) Question  Does Council support one of the two timing scenarios provided? (A or B)  If not, what adjustments would Council like see? 1.4 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3415 : Timing of Community Improvement Program Projects (BOB 2.0)) DATE: STAFF: August 25, 2015 Beth Sowder, Director of Social Sustainability Vanessa Fenley, Director of Homeward 2020 WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Update on Homelessness Action Items. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to focus primarily on local action items to address homelessness in Fort Collins and provide a larger context with a brief overview of national, state, and regional trends of homelessness issues and practices. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have any specific questions about the local action items? 2. Does Council have any specific questions about national, state, and regional trends of homelessness issues? 3. Is there anything else that Council would like staff and Homeward 2020 to consider as we move forward? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Homelessness is occurring all over the country (and the world) in communities of all sizes A t the federal, state, and local level, various programs and campaigns have been tried in an effort to reduce both homelessness and the negative impacts of homelessness on the community. This item will provide a brief overview of national, state, and regional trends, and it will focus primarily on actions that are already occurring or that are in the planning stages here in Fort Collins. The goal of this suite of actions is to make homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. The City of Fort Collins is fortunate to have many great service providers who are collaborating on solutions to end homelessness. Other communities have been looked at such as Houston and Salt Lake City who have experienced great success in reducing their homeless population. There are also National best practices which have been studied and researched by visiting and talking to key players involved. Multi-agency teams have attended national conferences hosted by the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Housing First, and the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The solutions and strategies bringing success to other communities are the concepts being focused on implementing in Fort Collins. The agencies work together and know the homeless population in Fort Collins. Once a month, an interagency team with over 25 different service providers meets to discuss the most frequent utilizers of emergency services. The issues of mental health and addiction which plague that subsection of homeless are severe and the necessary services to treat such as detox are in short supply or nonexistent. National Trends Nationally, there is currently a push at the federal level to end veteran homelessness in 2015 and chronic homelessness in 2017. Additionally, there is an emphasis on better data collection and increased understanding of what works for youth and families experiencing homelessness. The primary system for data collection is the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), and this system in conjunction with coordinated entry among service providers are prioritized in the Continuum of Care applications. 2 Packet Pg. 28 August 25, 2015 Page 2 Best practices that are emphasized by federal funders include those that provide access to permanent or long- term housing for individuals experiencing homeless, specifically through a housing first approach:  Permanent supportive housing (to provide time-unlimited housing and supportive services for those who are disabled and/or chronically homeless)  Rapid re-housing (to quickly re-house an individual or family to either end their homeless episode or provide a bridge to accessing a more permanent subsidy)  Supportive services (to provide the support needed for people to retain housing)  Prevention and shelter diversion (to prevent people from falling into homelessness and to more efficiently utilize limited shelter beds)  Coordinated entry (to more efficiently and effectively utilize limited housing resources)  Outreach (to meet people where they are at currently, providing access to the housing and service system for some of the most vulnerable individuals) National Data for Chronically Homeless Coordinated entry (also known as coordinated assessment or coordinated intake), paves the way for more efficient homeless assistance systems by:  Helping people move through the system faster by reducing the amount of time people spend moving from program to program before finding the right match;  Reducing new entries into homelessness by consistently offering prevention and diversion resources upfront, reducing the number of people entering the system unnecessarily; and  Improving data collection and quality and providing accurate information on what kind of assistance people need. See Attachment 2 for coordinated entry system graphic. State Trends in Colorado In Colorado, the “supportive housing toolkit” was developed to increase capacity of local communities to develop supportive housing with a focus specifically on vulnerable homeless populations. 2 Packet Pg. 29 August 25, 2015 Page 3 There is a push to encourage communities to participate in the Mayor’s Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness, as well as convening Coming Home Colorado, an effort to increase housing placements for veterans and ultimately end veteran homelessness in Colorado. Additionally, Medicaid Crosswalk is a program to assist agencies better understand how Medicaid coverage can be used to serve people in permanent supportive housing for reimbursement of supportive services and case management. Information and feedback from participation was also taken to state agencies, including Healthcare Policy and Financing (HCPF), to assure the Medicaid system functioned in a way that allowed for these costs to be reimbursed. Regional Trends The Continuum of Care program is designed by HUD to promote communitywide commitment of the goal of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, and State and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused; promote access to and effect utilization of mainstream programs by homeless; and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Colorado has three Continuums of Care which include: 1. Denver metro area, 2. Colorado Springs, and 3. the Balance of State (includes the remaining counties in Colorado). The Northern Front Range Continuum of Care (NFRCC) is one of 11 planning regions within Colorado’s Balance of State which is comprised of Larimer and Weld counties. The Balance of State Continuum of Care is moving towards coordinated entry by: 1. Northern Colorado (Larimer and Weld counties) will be a pilot site 2. Tapping into HUD-approved technical assistance to help with establishing processes for coordinated entry In addition to coordinated entry, the NFRCC is discussing opportunities to engage landlords in the following ways: 1. Utilizing a training provided by Brothers Redevelopment on effective landlord outreach (they were effective in Denver with this training) 2. Examining other incentive programs used in other communities Local Action Items Strategies aligned with the 10 Year Plan to Make Homelessness Rare, Short-Lived, and Non-Recurring have been implemented since the plan was launched in 2010. The Community Conversation provided an opportunity to bolster efforts around select action items deemed critical by the community. The brief timeline below provides information on major strategies implemented through 2014, action items for 2015, and anticipated strategies for 2016 and on. 2010 - 2014: Overview of Activities and Progress in the Community  Improved data collection efforts through administering a Registry Week, conducting regular Point-in-Time Counts, and beginning to collect quarterly output data from service providers  Increased permanent supportive housing supply through acquiring additional VASH vouchers (for veterans) and developing Redtail Ponds (efforts led by the Fort Collins Housing Authority)  Increased rapid re-housing supply by launching One Village One Family (a program of Homeless Gear)  Increased access to supportive services, specifically mental health services provided by SummitStone Health Partners  Initiated a cold weather emergency shelter program  Implemented a volunteer-run street outreach program (a program of Homeless Gear)  Increased community awareness of homelessness and the solutions needed to make it rare, short-lived, and non-recurring 2 Packet Pg. 30 August 25, 2015 Page 4 2015 Action Items Priority action items for 2015 include the following items. More detailed information on each item is below.  Enhance data collection by improving the functioning and usage of a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)  Initiate planning for future permanent supportive housing  Develop strategies to specifically make veteran homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring  Engage landlords to increase housing opportunities for people who are currently homeless  Implement a street outreach program  Enhance communication and engagement with the Fort Collins community around the issue of homelessness, including a definition matrix (Attachment 1) Activities and Strategies for 2016 and on  Complete development of additional permanent supportive housing; use data to regularly assess the need for additional units  Develop additional rapid re-housing opportunities for those needing temporary assistance or assistance until they are able to access a more permanent housing option  Implement a coordinated entry process  Expand access to and usage of HMIS, further improving the community’s ability to assess the current status of homelessness and evaluate the effectiveness of implemented programs and strategies  Establish robust prevention and shelter diversion efforts Additional Information on 2015 Action Items As a result of the Community Conversations on Homelessness earlier this year, Homeward 2020 has taken the lead, while continuing to work with the various partners, in coordinating, planning, and implementing several action items here in Fort Collins. Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) National trends have demonstrated the need for having an integrated HMIS system which will provide more accurate, timely assessment of the status of homelessness in Fort Collins, as compared to current measures like the Point-in-Time count. The benefits of this system include:  more consistent evaluation of services at the program, agency, and community levels  help compare apples to apples when assessing how well people are being served  can be the technology used for coordinated entry The next steps identified are: 1. Determine/identify community-level reports to pull. 2. Establish processes and agreements for sharing data. 3. Bring on additional non-HUD-funded agencies. By the end of the year, this system will enable Homeward 2020 and the City to have the capability to share basic client information (i.e., demographic and some intake), will provide access for two new agencies (the Murphy Center and Homeless Gear), and will pull the first community-level reports on the effectiveness of a community- wide system for making homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. 2 Packet Pg. 31 August 25, 2015 Page 5 Potential Benefits of HMIS Permanent Supportive Housing Permanent Supportive Housing is a model that aligns with the federal priority of ending chronic homelessness. The Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) opened Redtail Ponds, Fort Collins’ first permanent supportive housing, in March of this year. It provides 40 units to chronic and veteran homeless individuals, and 20 low- income/affordable units. While this project is a huge success for Fort Collins, the need exists for more permanent supportive housing. The FCHA is taking the lead to examine the next permanent supportive housing project. The project stems from conversations started in the Supportive Housing Toolkit the state convened. They are looking at a comparably- sized project to Redtail Ponds. Some of the positive outcomes at Redtail Ponds included:  Residents giving back by volunteering at Homeless Gear  At least two residents have recently obtained employment  Residents supporting each other  Residents receiving medical care and able to have surgeries that were put off due to not have a place to recover  No one has returned to homelessness  Over 25 residents have signed up for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP- ED) nutrition program  Partner agencies providing services on-site include SummitStone Health Partners, Veterans Administration, Catholic Charities, Dedicated Navigators, SNAP-ED, Heart Center Counseling Veterans Homelessness As mentioned above, the Mayor’s Challenge to End Homelessness is a program pushed out at the National and State level. It is intended to be a way to solidify partnerships and secure commitments to end Veteran homelessness from mayors across the country. Specifically, the call to action is for mayors to make a commitment to end Veteran homelessness in their cities in 2015. 2 Packet Pg. 32 August 25, 2015 Page 6 In July, Mayor Troxell agreed to participate in the challenge, and staff is working with Homeward 2020 and the Veterans Administration to examine where the greatest assistance is needed. The Point In Time count identified 32 veterans; the VA uses the multiplier 1.89 to estimate annual veteran population who’s homeless which would be about 60 veterans in Fort Collins over the course of a year. Redtail Ponds have housed about 17 and another was housed with rapid re-housing through the Volunteers of America (VOA). An additional 8 VASH (Veterans Administration Supportive Housing) vouchers have been leased up since January. Landlord Outreach Landlord outreach will begin in an effort to gain more units available to people experiencing homelessness. Local providers will participate in landlord training given by Brothers Redevelopment and hosted by the Northern Front Range Continuum of Care. Brothers Redevelopment were successful in providing training in the Denver area to local landlords which resulted in 200 units available for people experiencing homelessness. Information will also be presented to the Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association including: 1. Current programs looking for partnerships with landlords include One Village One Family (Homeless Gear), Supportive Services for Veteran Families (VOA), and SummitStone Health Partners. 2. Building on Neighbor to Neighbor’s tenant training - looking for landlords to partner in refining the training curriculum or presenting occasionally. Street Outreach Program Staff is submitting a mid-cycle budget offer in order to pilot a Street Outreach Program in Fort Collins. This collaborative program would be based off the best practice model used in Burlington, VT. It would provide an outreach team available 7 days per week to provide a range of services for persons in and around the downtown business areas focusing on assisting people with psychiatric disabilities, individuals dealing with substance abuse, homelessness, and other unmet social service needs including assessment, support, and active referrals to needed services. Specific data/outcomes seen in Burlington and expected in Fort Collins include:  A safe downtown for everybody  Decrease in calls for service to Police  Decrease in call frequency for high-use individuals  Increased access to travelers and harder-to-reach segment of homeless population  More effective services for people experiencing homelessness; increased access (among homeless population) to mental health supports, other resources and, in the long term, housing  “Cost avoidance” benefits (less Police calls for services, emergency room visits, and jail visits)  Positive impact on other systems like court and corrections  Greater coordination and efficiency  Supports reducing anxiety of merchants, increasing communication, connecting people with services, building relationships, and monitoring status of services (how many shelter beds available, etc.) Staff and partners are planning to use the best practices learned from the Burlington, VT model and modify them to meet the specific needs of Fort Collins. Downtown Response/Merchant Training The Downtown Development Authority (DDA) worked closely with several service providers (including Homeward 2020), businesses, and the City (Police and Social Sustainability) to learn about the behaviors that were problematic downtown. In response, an educational workshop was developed to better understand how businesses may respond to disruptive behaviors that tend to intensify during the busy summer season. There have been three workshops offered to date, and they have been open to anyone. They focus on concerns businesses have shared with the DDA, Downtown Business Association, Police, and Social Sustainability. 2 Packet Pg. 33 August 25, 2015 Page 7 Communications and Stakeholder Engagement  Quarterly Gatherings o In an effort to continue the community conversation on homelessness and respond to the input that more communication is needed, Homeward 2020 is convening quarterly gatherings for the Community Conversation. The quarterly gatherings began in July, and the next one is scheduled for October 8, 6:30-8:00 p.m., at the Old Town Library. o Partnering with Fort Collins Reads to highlight youth homelessness (a theme of Close Your Eyes, Hold Hands). o Welcoming feedback from the community regarding future topics of these meetings and ways to improve the gathering.  The Coloradoan and the United Way are partnering to host a poverty simulation in mid-September, which can then recruit people to participate in Make a Difference Day. Homeward 2020 are also working with the Coloradoan and local and state officials to present an advocacy-focused event specifically for people experiencing homelessness and people living in poverty.  Homeward 2020 is updating the Ten Year Plan to accurately reflect current information. A draft will be ready in September.  Homeward 2020 is updating their website to serve as a community resource for understanding homelessness in Fort Collins and finding opportunities to get engaged.  City of Fort Collins and Homeward 2020 Homelessness Initiatives Agreement is currently being finalized and are working together to put the agreement into action. In conclusion, it is important to understand that homelessness is a complex issue and it takes all partners working together as a community to ensure that homelessness is rare, short-lived, and non-recurring. The strategies outlined are based on best practices and align in a way that has been proven in other communities to reduce homelessness. The faces of homelessness are as varied as the number of individuals experiencing homelessness. There is no one solution which is effective in all cases. All solutions take thoughtful planning and resources. Other communities experiencing success have used a combination of: 1. Best practice solutions 2. Targeted resources to solutions that achieved the best results 3. A commitment of local funds While there is still a lot of work to be done, it is important to acknowledge the successes seen in the past six months or so since the Community Conversation on Homelessness. Over 40 people are off the streets and living in their own apartment now, thanks to Redtail Ponds. Five families are no longer homeless because of One Village One Family, which is one of Homeless Gear’s programs. The focus on long-term, evidence-based solutions are providing successes, and the need to continue to work together to do more still exists. ATTACHMENTS 1. Typology of Homelessness (PDF) 2. Coordinated Entry System Graphic (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 34 What can we do to talk more effectively about homelessness? Use People-First, Respectful Language • Use language that recognizes the person first, followed by a description of a characteristic or experience • For example, use “people experiencing homelessness” rather than “homeless people” or “the homeless” • Terms commonly viewed as being inappropriate, demeaning, or derogatory to use when describing people experiencing homelessness include “bum,” “hobo,” or “vagrant” • The term “transient” may also cause confusion as some equate “homeless” and “transient,” while others reserve the term “transient” for individuals who travel and do not consider Fort Collins to be their home Use Common Definitions A common typology for defining different experiences of homelessness is needed for several of the following reasons: • Breaks the population into manageable, identifiable groups to better identify the specific housing assistance needs of each • Ensures when homelessness is discussed in the community, there is a consistent understanding of what exactly that experience looks like • Reduces the use of inappropriate or outdated terms Our Fort Collins typology uses two overlapping frameworks. The first framework describes the length of time homeless, including those at risk of becoming homeless. For this framework, the word “homeless” describes situations where people are staying in shelters or on the streets. Typically, the longer someone has been homeless, the more intensive are their housing needs. The second framework describes other critical characteristics, like family status or veteran status. These are important to understand as the needs of individuals versus families, youth versus adults, etc. will differ. The visual on the following page depicts our Fort Collins typology, layering the length of time homeless, and other identifying characteristics. The appropriate housing solutions based on these factors are also included. While the resources outlined depict those services and housing needed to help someone with those characteristics move out homelessness, those may not be the only services needed. For example, emergency shelter is needed to provide a temporary stay while housing is being located. In addition, some people may not seek or readily accept services that can aid them in moving out of homelessness. In those cases, communities often rely on outreach staff to develop relationships with those individuals to understand their service needs and continuously work to connect them with other resources, as well as to help mitigate any issues that arise from individuals staying and living in public spaces. ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Typology of Homelessness (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) FIVE KEY DEFINITIONS EPISODICALLY HOMELESS Cycles infrequently in and out of homelessness Nationally, 10% of literal homelessness PRECARIOUSLY / TEMPORARILY HOUSED Involuntarily doubled up Couch surfing Staying at motels AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS Rents/owns own home with unsustainable housing costs TRANSITIONALLY HOMELESS Homeless for a short time (e.g., a few weeks), and usually only once Nationally, 80% of literal homelessness CHRONICALLY HOMELESS Homeless for a year or more or cycles frequently in and out of homelessness Has a disabling condition Nationally, 10% of literal homelessness Who? Most Often: Individual adults, including veterans Sometimes: Families Rarely: Youth; Unaccompanied children Who? Most Often: Individual adults, including veterans; Families; Youth Sometimes/Rarely: Unaccompanied children Primary Housing Solution Rapid Re-Housing Permanent Supportive Housing if barriers to housing are severe Who? Most Often: Individual adults, including veterans; Families; Youth; Unaccompanied children Primary Housing Solution Rapid Re-Housing Some situations resolved with no financial assistance Who? Most Often: Individual Coordinated Entry System (CES) Graphic ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Coordinated Entry System Graphic (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Homelessness Action Items Vanessa Fenley & Beth Sowder ATTACHMENT 3 2.3 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Direction Sought 1. Does Council have questions about local action items? 2. Does Council have questions about national, state, and regional trends? 3. Is there anything missing that Council would like staff and Homeward 2020 to consider? 2 2.3 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Presentation Agenda • National Trends • State Trends • Regional Trends • Local Action Items § 2010 – 2014: Overview of Activities & Progress § 2015 Action Items § 2016 & beyond Activities & Strategies • Successes and Conclusion 3 2.3 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Background 4 • Homelessness occurring in communities of all sizes • Various programs and campaigns • Coordination among service providers • Mental health and addiction services needed • Goal – to make homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring 2.3 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) National Trends Nationally: • Push to end veteran homelessness in 2015 • Push to end chronic homelessness in 2017 • Emphasis on better data collection • Homeless Management Information System • Coordinated Entry among service providers 5 2.3 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) National Best Practices Housing First approach to long-term housing: • Permanent Supportive Housing (Redtail Ponds) • Rapid Re-housing (Services for Veteran Families) • Supportive Services (SummitStone Health Partners) • Prevention and shelter diversion • Coordinated Entry • Outreach (proposed Street Outreach Program) 6 2.3 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Housing First Example Housing First approach: • Provide housing quick • Then provide services as needed • Benefit of being consistent with needs ØNew Orleans has reached functional zero for chronic homelessness 7 2.3 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) National Data – Chronic Homeless 8 2.3 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Coordinated Entry System A Simpler, More Effective Way 9 2.3 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Colorado Trends • Supportive Housing Toolkit • Mayor’s Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness • Coming Home Colorado • Medicaid Crosswalk 10 2.3 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Regional Trends • Continuum of Care – promote communitywide commitment – Denver Metro, Colorado Springs, and Balance of State – Northern Front Range Continuum of Care – Coordinated Entry: • Northern Colorado will be a pilot site • HUD-approved technical assistance – Landlord Engagement 11 2.3 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Local Action Items 2010 – 2014: Overview of Activities & Progress • Improved data collection • Increase permanent supportive housing VASH vouchers and Redtail Ponds • Increased rapid re-housing supply • Increased access to supportive services • Cold weather emergency shelter program • Volunteer street outreach • Increased community awareness 12 2.3 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Local Action Items 2015 Action Items • Enhance data collection (HMIS) • Planning for next permanent supportive housing • Strategies to make veteran homelessness rare, short- lived, and non-recurring • Landlord engagement/engagement • Street Outreach Program • Downtown Merchant Workshops • Enhance communication and engagement 13 2.3 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Definitions/Shared Language Chronically Homeless – homeless for a year or more or cycles frequently in and out of homelessness Episodically Homeless – Cycles infrequently in and out of homelessness Transitionally Homeless – Homeless for a short time and usually only once Temporarily Housed – involuntarily doubled up, couch surfing, or staying at motels At risk of homelessness – unsustainable housing costs 14 2.3 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) HMIS Benefits 15 2.3 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Permanent Supportive Housing • Redtail Ponds opened in March – 40 units to disabled and veteran homeless – 20 low-income/affordable units • Positive Outcomes include: – Residents giving back by volunteering – Obtaining employment – Supporting each other – Accessing medical care and nutrition – Partner agencies providing services on-site – No one has returned to homelessness 16 2.3 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Redtail Ponds 17 2.3 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Veteran Homelessness • Mayor’s Challenge to End Veteran Homelessness – National and State program – Solidify partnerships and secure commitments – Mayor Troxell agreed – Staff and Homeward 2020 examining greatest need • Fort Collins Data: – PIT 32 veterans – Redtail Ponds housed 18 – Rapid rehousing housed 4 – Additional 8 VASH vouchers leased 18 2.3 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Landlord Engagement • To gain more housing for people experiencing homelessness • Landlord training hosted by Northern Front Range Continuum of Care • Success in Denver area – 200 housing units • Information will be provided to Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association: – Current programs looking for partners – Neighbor to Neighbor’s tenant training 19 2.3 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Street Outreach Program • Pilot a New Street Outreach Program in Fort Collins • Collaborative based on best practice model • Professional/trained staff • Proactive AND responsive to multiple clients • Available 7 days per week to provide relationship building and services 20 2.3 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Burlington, VT 21 2.3 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Expected Outcomes • Expected outcomes: – Safe, livable place for all – Increase access to travelers and hard to reach – Decrease calls to Police – Greater coordination and efficiency 22 2.3 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Downtown Merchant Workshops • Downtown Development Authority, service providers, Homeward 2020, City (Police and Social Sustainability) • Educational workshop developed • Focus on business concerns, processes and protocols, and appropriate responses • Approx. 40 businesses represented, conversations, and creative problem solving ideas 23 2.3 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Communication & Engagement • Quarterly Gatherings • Poverty Simulation • Updating 10 Year Plan • Updating Website • City of Fort Collins & Homeward 2020 Homelessness Initiatives Agreement 24 2.3 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Local Action Items Activities and Strategies for 2016 and beyond • Additional permanent supportive housing development • Additional rapid re-housing opportunities • Implement coordinated entry process • Expand access and usage of HMIS • Establish robust prevention and shelter diversion 25 2.3 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Successes • In the past several months since the Community Conversation on Homelessness: Ø Over 40 people are off the street – Redtail Ponds Ø Five families are no longer homeless – One Village One Family (Homeless Gear) Ø 3 people moved into Single Room Occupancy Ø 2-3 families per quarter leave Faith Family Hospitality Program into permanent housing 26 2.3 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Conclusion • Our approach to making homelessness rare, short- lived, and non-recurring relies on: – Extensive collaboration – Utilizing best practices – Providing access to permanent housing for all 27 2.3 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) Direction Sought 1. Does Council have questions about local action items? 2. Does Council have questions about national, state, and regional trends? 3. Is there anything missing that Council would like staff and Homeward 2020 to consider? 28 2.3 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items) DATE: STAFF: August 25, 2015 Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Strategies to Address Disruptive Behaviors Downtown. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to bring forth four options for consideration in light of opinions, complaints, and feedback received regarding disruptive behaviors in downtown. Any or all of the options could be initiated as pilot programs. 1. Authorize and deploy a Street Outreach Program, whose team will proactively build relationships with vulnerable populations, provide options for help and other resources, and inform about City ordinances. 2. Expand and enhance the use of location diversion as a sentencing alternative which includes plea bargains where perpetrators of disruptive behaviors agree to avoid Downtown in lieu of fines and other penalties. 3. Continued exploration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) methods to create safer public spaces. 4. The initiation of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance, which would regulate sitting or lying in the public right-of-way in downtown. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Staff is seeking Council’s direction on whether or not to move forward with any or all of these four strategies: 1. Street Outreach Program 2. Expansion of Location Diversion 3. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 4. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Downtown Fort Collins has long served an important role in enhancing the City’s economic and cultural health. Recent survey results and steady numbers of complaints and concerns lodged by downtown business owners, residents, and visitors indicate that there are disruptive behaviors occurring in the downtown area which are impacting the desire of citizens to make trips to the area. The disruptive behaviors noted as problematic include:  Panhandling  Smoking  Intoxicated or drug-impaired behavior  Groups or individuals hanging out on benches  Littering  Groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks  Public deposit of bodily waste  Profane or rude behavior 3 Packet Pg. 66 August 25, 2015 Page 2  Inadequate/unsanitary personal hygiene  Aggressive/intimidating behavior A. Results of Public Outreach A detailed description of the public outreach process undertaken is listed in the “Public Outreach” section. A summary of the survey results from both the online survey, which had 1340 responses, and the community conversation, which had approximately 110 attendees, is outlined below. Survey information regarding specific strategies to address behaviors is listed with each respective strategy.  Of the people, both online and in person, who took the survey: o 130 own a business downtown o 250 live downtown o 490 work downtown o 851 answered none of the above  The vast majority of respondents frequent downtown either daily or weekly: o 633 frequent downtown weekly o 626 frequent downtown daily o 148 frequent downtown monthly o 103 occasionally frequent downtown o 45 rarely frequent downtown  A majority of online survey respondents indicated there are ongoing disruptive behaviors that keep them from visiting downtown: o 673 indicated yes o 498 indicated there were not disruptive behaviors that keep them from visiting downtown o 270 indicated yes, but only at night  When asked which behaviors they found the most disruptive downtown, online and in person survey respondents voted this way: o 839 selected panhandling o 698 selected groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks o 595 selected aggressive/intimidating behavior o 483 selected intoxication or drug-impaired behavior o 411 selected profane or rude behavior o 357 selected groups or individuals hanging out on benches o 264 selected smoking o 185 selected public deposit of bodily waste o 172 selected inadequate/unsanitary personal hygiene o 150 selected other o 82 selected none of the above o 24 selected street performers  89% of respondents indicated that these behaviors are always or occasionally a problem: o 47% indicated they are always a problem o 42% indicated they are occasionally a problem o 11% indicated they are rarely a problem  Online participants were asked how these disruptive behaviors impact their downtown experience: 3 Packet Pg. 67 August 25, 2015 Page 3 o 584 answered they influence my perception, but don’t cause me to avoid the area o 532 answered they influence me to go downtown less often o 355 answered they influence me to avoid downtown during the night o 170 answered they influence me to avoid downtown whenever possible o 168 answered they do not diminish my downtown experience o 63 answered they influence me to avoid downtown during the day  When asked which behaviors diminish their downtown experience, online and in person voters selected the following behaviors: o 1052 selected panhandling o 932 selected groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks o 904 selected aggressive/intimidating behavior o 825 selected intoxication or drug-impaired behavior o 806 selected profane or rude behavior o 587 selected groups or individuals hanging out on benches o 551 selected inadequate/unsanitary personal hygiene o 528 selected smoking o 525 selected public deposit of bodily waste o 151 selected other o 100 selected none of the above o 71 selected street performers  Common “other” responses from the online survey included: o “Rolling coal”/cruising down College Avenue o Sign twirlers and solicitation o Concerns with college age people. Attendees of the community conversation were asked which two strategies (explained below) they most supported and if there were any they did not support. The following major points were discerned from the approximately 110 member audience:  48 attendees supported a combination of the strategies  48 also supported the Street Outreach Program  45 members of the audience did not support a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance  32 did not support the enhancement of location diversion  41 attendees were not opposed to any of the presented strategies B. Strategies for Addressing Disruptive Behaviors In light of the survey results and the notion that most people do believe there are disruptive behaviors downtown and that it influences people’s decision to come downtown, staff is bringing forward four different strategies to address and reduce the disruptive behaviors. 1. STREET OUTREACH PROGRAM Pilot Program Description A Street Outreach Program has been used in many other jurisdictions to provide services to those in need while effectively decreasing the issues and concerns in downtown business areas. The program works in the following ways:  The team is available to respond to concerns as they are occurring as well as proactively being present and engaging with people on a daily basis.  The team is available 7 days per week (hours to be determined). 3 Packet Pg. 68 August 25, 2015 Page 4  The team would be a mix of trained social workers and highly skilled volunteers.  Provides a range of services for persons in and around the downtown area.  Delivers street-based support to individuals experiencing homelessness and/or individuals with psychiatric disabilities, substance abuse disorders, and other unmet social service needs.  The team acts as a liaison between social service providers, the Police Department, businesses, people experiencing homelessness and other stakeholders in the downtown area.  Team members build trust and are known by merchants, police officers, and service providers.  The services provided by the team are understood, used, and highly valued by clients as well as merchants, service providers, and police officers.  The program is funded by several community partners which is important to keep it collaborative in nature (such as the mental health provider, community foundation, municipality, downtown authority and business association, and others). The ultimate vision of the Street Outreach Program is to achieve the following three things: 1. A proactive, solution-oriented and collaborative approach to reduce incidents in downtown by referring people to available and appropriate services 2. A safe downtown for everyone 3. Health and welfare of individuals and community Information From Other Jurisdictions City staff has focused specifically on Burlington, Vermont’s Street Outreach Program when examining this option, due to their similarities in demographics, community atmosphere, and other aspects with Fort Collins. Burlington has seen the following outcomes which are expected in Fort Collins as well:  Decrease in calls for service to police  Decrease in call frequency for high-use individuals  Decrease in new charges for top users  Increased access to travelers and harder-to-reach segment of homeless population  More effective services for people experiencing homelessness; increased access (among homeless population) to mental health supports, other resources and—in the long term—housing  "Cost-avoidance" benefits (less police calls for services, emergency room visits, and jail visits)  Positive impact on other systems like court and corrections  Greater coordination and efficiency  Additionally, the program directly supports: reducing anxiety of merchants, increasing communication, connecting people with services, building relationships, and monitoring status of services (how many beds available at the shelters, etc.) Public Input When asked about the use of a Street Outreach Program, the attendees present at the community conversation voted the following way when asked if they support such a program:  66% voted yes  11% voted no  27% voted maybe  6% voted I don’t know. 2. EXPANDED USE OF LOCATION DIVERSION Location Diversion is an alternate sentencing technique already used in Fort Collins that allows for the issuance of an order as part of a plea bargain prohibiting a person who has been convicted of a crime from returning to a specified location for a specified period of time. Defendants agree, pursuant to a plea agreement, to refrain from returning to that specific location or area as a condition of having some portion of the sentence suspended. Plea 3 Packet Pg. 69 August 25, 2015 Page 5 bargains are part of the adjudication process for criminal violations and are subject to the approval of the Municipal Court judge on an individual basis.  They have been used by other jurisdictions in conjunction with their Street Outreach Programs. This technique has been used in Fort Collins for specific locations such as a particular bar for similar offenses. Depending on the code violation and number of offenses, a plea bargain may be offered that prohibits the defendant from returning to the Old Town area or a specific location. If the defendant agrees and the Municipal Judge approves, defendants would be prohibited from returning to a specific area for a specified period of time, rather than only a specific location. . Public Input When asked about the use of expanded use of location diversion, the attendees present at the community conversation voted the following way when asked if they support such efforts:  51% voted yes  22% voted no  18% voted maybe  8% voted I don’t know 3. CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN Pilot Program Description Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) utilizes land use planning techniques and other aspects of the built environment to influence behaviors and make safer public spaces.  Some small pilot efforts undertaken by the Downtown Development Authority have been considered successful.  Common efforts that fall under CPTED include the strategic placement of flower pots, benches, trash receptacles, and other artifacts already located within an area. These placements can create “safe zones” and encourage more pedestrian traffic depending on a situation. Public Input When asked about the use of CPTED, the attendees present at the community conversation voted the following way when asked if they support such efforts  61% voted yes\  10% voted no  18% voted maybe  10% voted I don’t know 4. SHARED PUBLIC SPACES ORDINANCE Pilot Program Description A Shared Public Spaces Ordinance aims to improve the accessibility, walkability and appearance of shared public spaces in downtown. This Ordinance regulates lying or sitting on any public right of way in the downtown area. It also regulates the space individuals may occupy on a bench or other designated seating area and regulates the time in which they can occupy the seating areas.  Public right-of-way includes sidewalks, plazas, curbs, and other objects placed on the sidewalk such as trash cans or blankets.  Exemptions provided for medical situations, young children at play, and other reasonable situations. 3 Packet Pg. 70 August 25, 2015 Page 6  No person may occupy more than reasonable space for one person on a bench; this includes personal belongings.  No person may occupy a bench for longer than one hour.  If implemented, this ordinance could be a pilot ordinance, to be evaluated and reviewed at the end of one year. Staff would collect data to examine the success or effect of the ordinance throughout the time period. Information From Other Jurisdictions Other jurisdictions have had mixed success with similar Sit/Lie or Shared Public Spaces Ordinances. Denver  Prohibits sitting or lying on sidewalks downtown between 7 am and 9 pm.  Cited purpose during adoption was to get people to move along or get them help if needed  Zero (0) arrests or citations under ordinance between 2008 and 2012. San Francisco  Prohibits sitting or lying on sidewalks citywide between 7 am and 11 pm. Officer must issue a warning before issuing a citation  In the area that sparked the controversy that led to ordinance’s adoption, 152 citations issues over 8- month span in 2011.  Over 90% of these citations were issued to repeat offenders (City Fellows Report)  Survey of merchants in area of controversy shows that 58% of businesses cited no change or an increase in number of individuals sitting in front of businesses  Those violating the ordinance were not consistently offered tangible alternatives Seattle  Adopted ordinance in 1993 that bans sitting or lying on the sidewalk from 7 am to 9 pm  Downtown is safer since the law passed, but disagreement on whether or not ordinance played a role (San Francisco Chronical). o Critics state the problem has just relocated itself to different parts of the city. o Citations aren’t issued often, mostly just warnings which do encourage folks to move along.  This is criticized as making problems less visible without solving them  Very low response rate to citations – most end up in default o 250 citations issued from 2009-2013 o Recently have started filing charges to chronic offenders with unpaid citations and have seen some success in this area (Seattle Weekly News). Honolulu  Prohibits sitting or lying on sidewalks from 5 am to 11 pm in multiple business districts around the city – recently expanded to include more districts. o Started with Waikiki area and now in upwards of 15 business districts around the city  Considered by some to have been successful in Waikiki, which was used for justification of expansion o Legal questions on whether or not the new, widespread expansion is constitutional.  Many concerns about the displacement of individuals into other districts where the ordinance did not apply o Populations have largely moved into less visible areas, such as under highway overpasses, etc. (University of Hawaii) o UH Study said that this displacement from urban core limits employment and mobility opportunities o Study has shown that enforcement of the ordinance influences homeless to use shelters less (1/3 of those surveyed) 3 Packet Pg. 71 August 25, 2015 Page 7 Public Input When asked about the implementation of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance, the attendees present at the community conversation voted the following way when asked if they support such an ordinance:  42% voted yes  35% voted no  13% voted maybe  6% voted I don’t know When asked specifically to express support for one variation of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance, the attendees voted the following way:  41% voted yes, for sidewalks, plazas, curbs, and benches.  39% voted no, not for any variation listed.  16% voted yes, for sidewalks, plazas, and curbs – no benches.  4% voted yes, for benches. When asked which unintended consequences of a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance concern them the most, attendees voted the following way (allowed to vote as many times as desired, approximately 110 in attendance):  52 people voted enforcement challenges  41 people voted that it criminalizes those with nowhere to go  33 people voted that it creates an unfriendly environment  32 people voted that it would push problems into surrounding neighborhoods  24 people voted that despite potential consequences, I still support an ordinance CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS  The Street Outreach Program may yield additional one-time and ongoing costs to the City. The estimated starting cost of a pilot Street Outreach Program is $80,000 for two paid outreach workers. While growth in the program is expected as it gains momentum, partner funding is expected to bolster this “seed” money required for startup.  Neither an expansion of Location Diversion nor a Shared Public Spaces ordinance is expected to result in addition costs to the City.  Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design would be implemented with City partners, such as the Downtown Development Authority. No costs to the City are anticipated. PUBLIC OUTREACH As a result of complaints and concerns lodged by business owners, visitors, and other residents, staff engaged in a public outreach process to gather community input on perceptions of disruptive behaviors downtown. An online survey was launched on Friday, August 7 and closed on Monday August 17. The online survey received over 1340 responses. In addition, staff held a community conversation on Thursday, August 13, and collected survey results and comments regarding behaviors and strategies to address them. Over 100 individuals attended the community conversation. The survey results were outlined above in the “Background” section. Social media, press release, and website were all used to encourage participation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Homeward20/20 regarding a sit/lie ordinance (PDF) 2. Public Engagement Plan (PDF) 3. Comments collected at the August 13 Community Conversation Event (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 72 August 5, 2015 To City Council and the City Leadership Team: In the August 4 Homeward 2020 board meeting, members had a vigorous discussion on the proposed sit and lie ordinance. The board recognizes there are issues with problematic behaviors downtown that should be addressed, and are committed to working collaboratively to identify the best solutions. Based on the board discussion, the recommendation from the Homeward 2020 board at this time is to look at best practices and bring back more information from Burlington, Vermont, a community that utilizes a street outreach program to address downtown concerns and connect people experiencing homelessness to resources. A team from Fort Collins has been examining this program for several months and have been planning this trip since mid-summer. Homeward 2020 sees this a potential long-term, sustainable solution to issues downtown, rather than a reactive attempt to deal with these concerns. The following people will be traveling to Burlington to examine this program: Beth Sowder (Office of Social Sustainability), Derek Getto (Downtown Development Authority), Jeremy Yonce (Fort Collins Police Services), Stephanie Madsen- Pixler (SummitStone Health Partners), David Rout (Homeless Gear), and Vanessa Fenley (Homeward 2020). Initial discussion from the Homeward 2020 board yielded the following points: • Sit and lie ordinances do not align with best practices for making homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring • Displacement of individuals is not a solution, and may result in unintended consequences in other areas • The speed at which this proposed ordinance has come about is counter to Fort Collins' standards for community processes • A sit and lie ordinance stands in contrast to other policies and missions around creating a space in downtown for people to gather • Creating a policy that could increase ticketing and further tax the jail system is not an efficient use of resources • This can damage the relationships built and strengthened in the community around these issues since last summer -- with people experiencing homelessness, with businesses, with non-profit providers, and with other community stakeholders • This is not a policy that would be well-received by or helpful to people experiencing homelessness; there may, however, be an opportunity to engage those experiencing homelessness to involve them as part of the solution for addressing problematic behaviors Please let me know if you have any questions about this discussion or the points outlined here. Sincerely, Vanessa M. Fenley Director, Homeward 2020 ATTACHMENT 1 3.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Letter from Homeward20/20 regarding a sit/lie ordinance (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Current members of the Homeward 2020 board: Christine Kneeland, Community Member and Chair of the Homeward 2020 board Dave Edwards, Community Member Julie Brewen, Fort Collins Housing Authority Beth Sowder, City of Fort Collins – Office of Social Sustainability Bill Kneeland, Kneeland Law Bryan Tribby, Community Member, with the experience of being homeless Cheryl Zimlich, Bohemian Foundation Diane Jones, Community Member Gordan Thibedeau, United Way of Larimer County Guy Mendt, Catholic Charities Joe Frank, Community Member John Hutto, City of Fort Collins – Police Services Ken John, Homeless Gear Marcia Davis, Community Member Matt Robenalt, Downtown Development Authority Mike Walker, Serve 6.8 Randy Ratliff, SummitStone Health Partners 3.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Letter from Homeward20/20 regarding a sit/lie ordinance (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: DOWNTOWN DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIORS OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Inform/Consult BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Do stakeholders – general public, businesses and visitors Downtown and service providers – support the direction of Council to address disruptive behaviors Downtown? KEY STAKEHOLDERS: Downtown business owners; property owners; downtown residents and adjacent residential neighbors; employees; local patrons; out-of-town visitors; non-profit organizations; Downtown Development Authority (DDA); Downtown Business Association (DBA); Visit Fort Collins; major employers including Woodward Governor, Odell Brewing, New Belgium Brewing; CSU students, faculty, staff, and parents; City Boards and Commissions – Affordable Housing, Human Relations Commission, Economic Advisory Commission, Senior Board, Commission on Disability; City Council; City of Fort Collins departments; and other interested organizations and members of the public. OBJECTIVES:  After Council direction August 25, explain project goals, scope, process, and purpose  Provide information regarding existing conditions, policies, and new topics/issues PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES & TOOLS:  A broad range of approaches and techniques will be used to engage members of the public and key stakeholder groups, including working with the Downtown Plan planning group – including public events, small-group meetings, online and mobile engagement, participation in community events, and broadcast notification and outreach. We are committed to engaging a diverse range of stakeholders in the planning process, including those with limited English proficiency or who speak Spanish as a primary language as well as additional underserved populations. TIMELINE: Timeframe: Fall 2015  Explain the project goals, planning process, and relation to other previous and current planning efforts.  Seek to understand current and potential future opportunities, issues, and needs.  Keep people updated on the process. ATTACHMENT 2 3.2 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Key Messages:  Business, visitors and residents who frequent Downtown have asked the City to address some problem behaviors Downtown. No specific group is being targeted as part of these efforts.  Any proposed City action Downtown will be in alignment with other plans Downtown including the Downtown Plan and the City’s Strategic Plan. Tools and Techniques:  Press releases  Fact sheet(s)  Presentations to boards and commissions, other interested community partners  Social media/IdeaLab/Nextdoor.com  Cable 14 video and bulletin  Website updates 3.2 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Public Engagement Plan (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) 1 Street Outreach Program  The only firm yes!  There would have to be a lot of them.  This would draw more people of compassion to intervene – just concerned about what we’re defining as disruptive/unlawful behavior. Could we hear city staff give a presentation on what they learned? –D. Hesser  There are inadequate services to refer people to, so this isn’t a comprehensive approach.  Please check out the work that White Bird does in Eugene, OR. I support it because of the thorough and compassionate understanding they show about homelessness in their model. They are more-so advocates and protectors for the homeless than they are authoritarian/policing agents.  The most promising aspect of this is how powerful it can be to say “You matter.” “I care.” “Let’s problem solve this.” But especially – just reaching out. Let’s be our best, not our worst.  There are many ways to outreach. Some are respectful, helpful, and effective. Others are paternalistic, disrespectful, and ineffective. I have a very hard time trusting an outreach program run by the same people who just got sued by the ACLU etc. for the panhandling ordinance and who may also be making it illegal to sit for a while on a bench. If you’re talking about what people who are sitting on a bench might need… somewhere to rest might be on their list…  Let diverse people volunteer. Offer to pay people to get diversity. Get people who have previously been “problematic.”  Nobody addresses the underlying root issues.  What services are they going to refer them to? Services are limited and aren’t available.  What is the definition of “help?” What kind of “help” are we offering?  This is a systematic problem?  Mental Health First Aid Training  Is there an ability for police to page this team, or for this team to respond with police?I see more success this way. (Similar to DART or VAT). General Comments  We still need to create affordable housing  Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and communicate.  Spend money on housing and assistive programs, NOT policing and diversion.  There are hundreds of residents- people living within your boundaries! The live with ALL of this 24/7/365!! INCLUDE them in your discussions.  What is disruptive about hanging out on benches? ATTACHMENT 3 3.3 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Comments collected at the August 13 Community Conversation Event (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) 2  If each person can choose two answers EXCEPT those who choose “None of the above,” then those who choose to answer “None of the above” are under-represented in the poll results.  ^Amen  ^^I agree. Your survey research skills need some improvement. The process thus far is extremely problematic. Biased survey questions, a one hour “forum” that doesn’t allow for healthy public discourse.  People who think hanging out on benches is disruptive should never sit on benches.  Put a stop to “rolling coal.”  While housing becomes unaffordable why do we as a city need to exacerbate the problem by excluding those without housing from our downtown area???  What about the Greenpeace and other solicitor fundraiser folks? Root causes? Lack of low income housing, lack of mental health treatments available, poverty wages, etc.  My credit card info was breached due to Greenpeace. Greenpeace can be very aggressive.  Where are the people on the benches supposed to go? And if they have all their belongings would one think they may be homeless?  Detox center need in Fort Collins!  Expand the border of map across Jefferson onto Linden. Distinction between homeless and transient. Some businesses and their clients are much more affected than others. Homeless does not have to equal rude, aggressive and dangerous. Jefferson Park is a public space that taxpayers should be able to use. The park is only used by this population because thy trash and overwhelm the space.  We must stop doing nothing. No need to distinguish bench/sidewalk, for passersby, the effect is the same.  We need to find out why these disruptors do what they do besides being around  The police need to not be so buddy-buddy with the problem people downtown. And they need to spread out not hang together.  Very concerned about the uses of the survey, which was described as a “non-scientific questionnaire designed to gauge public opinion.” How can a poorly-designed, biased survey with admittedly no scientific value be used to measure anything? How can it be the basis for sound public policy?  I worry many of these policy solutions do not represent sustainable solutions to the issues at play.  What law is being broken by panhandling? I have a civil liberty and a religious right to tithe or give to whomever I feel needs help. In crime prevention via environmental design, what crimes are being prevented? How about providing more places for people to rest or sleep in their cars? Churches? Church parking lots? 3.3 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Comments collected at the August 13 Community Conversation Event (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) 3  We build unaffordable housing in Old Town and simultaneously kick the most vulnerable people who cannot afford to live in housing? Panhandling is a constitutional right. Is sitting on a bench any worse? Shared Public Spaces Ordinance  ORWELLIAN. This is a violation of our civil rights to sit on a sidewalk or bench to rest. Could this be based on what we look like or smell like?  Please do not do this. People take naps in the park. Elderly sit on benches, people with back problems. This is offensive and will change the character of our people and our places.  If there are not enough benches, install more!  ^Yes!  Population increases in cities and bench space becomes harder to come by- unless there are more benches. Do we not have enough in our city budget to install enough benches for our growing population?  Let’s ban New West Fest, Tour de Fat, and Brew Fest. Too many people of affluence sitting on benches, taking over sidewalks, and STREETS, for crying out loud.  NO. Sitting and lying down are human needs. If it makes you uncomfortable, may do a little thinking and work on the fact that it bothers you.  Sit/lie is a problematic approach to a systematic problem. Resting should not be illegal.  How many cities have similar ordinances been deemed unconstitutional? We cannot distinguish between homelessness and disruptive behaviors. An ordinance that affects those laying in a public space is one that only targets those who are forced to be in a public space; it does not target the college-age individuals/others long-term.  I believe this is a bandaid approach to the real issue at hand. It’s asking for discrimination against a targeted population.  I’m worried a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance begs for discrimination, since it will likely only be enforced against certain people that are “aesthetically displeasing.”  Why can we not share space with everyone?  “This is not connected to homelessness,” it addresses aggressive behaviors downtown. Is it aggressive to sleep on a curb? Is it aggressive to smell like you haven’t had a place to take a shower? Is it aggressive to carry all of your belonging with you because there’s no safe place to store them? Saying an ordinance like this does not incriminate homelessness, and therefore intentionally doesn’t use any verbage related to homelessness, makes it ten times more oppressive, because all the disruptive behaviors addressed are ones that homeless individuals largely cannot avoid.  What is more important to us, downtown image or people’s survival? 3.3 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Comments collected at the August 13 Community Conversation Event (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) 4 Location Diversion  We need affordable housing!!!  Positively ORWELLIAN. Could I be taken “outside” for supporting someone who appears to need help? For praying for them even?  If we had affordable housing we wouldn’t have people living on the streets of Old Town. This gives police another reason to harass those with no place to go.  It’s not okay to move poverty out of downtown.  More than a little archaic.  Plea agreements are not great. People are not treated fairly by the legal system. People take crummy plea deals for things they didn’t do all the time. Also, this is not okay even it that magically isn’t an issue here.  How will this impact college students, who are vital to downtown businesses?  I think everyone should be held to the same standard of behavior. And should suffer some consequences if not.  This is crazy!  Kick CSU students out of Old Town. They drink, use drugs, sit on benches, are loud, and many of them don’t shower.  What if someone needs to get to a shelter or other service and they are banned? That doesn’t help anyone.  Don’t put spikes on benches, ledges, or anywhere really.  How does this work if someone gets diversion and they work in downtown?  Not addressing issue just pushes it to other parts of town!  Once person is excluded from downtown area, who will actually ensure they are not returning? Typically if the person finds themselves in from of a judge, that is an indicator that they aren’t a good rule follower.  Without affordable housing people will congregate in cities. Downtown areas belong to all of us – not just business owners!  Alternative sentence – restorative justice.  Some of us closely border (opposite side of street) the official “downtown area.” Are you going to just divert – pushing the undividable outward – or at greater distances?  Will people displaced be charged with a crime? How will program be paid for?  Good idea! I like the sound of it… Seems like enforcement might be difficult. Comment Cards  Thank you for addressing this issue!  I have a couple of concerns, for now. The primary concern is that downtown is turning more and more into a bubble for the wealthy, similar to a gated neighborhood. Somewhere where people that are seemingly financially comfortable can spend their time 3.3 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Comments collected at the August 13 Community Conversation Event (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) 5 without being disrupted by the challenges and suffering present in the world and this community. Two, if my experience downtown is ever disrupted it is by the actions and presence of car cruisers, but primarily people in and outside of the bars and their carelessness as well as the presence, actions and carelessness of the police.  Problems have increased since Denver Rescue Mission came on board. Know for a fact they bus people up from Denver, increasing transient population. It could be as simple as just communicating with them and asking them to stop.  Location diversion is an interesting idea but related to activity at Jefferson Park, the movement has gone to Library Park. Thus, inside culture of the library has greatly changed as well. Our police are annoying in relation to all of these issues.  I don’t think the 103 people in this room and the 650+ people who voted online are representative of the 150,000 people living in Fort Collins. How would the enhancement of location diversion be enforced? That seems to be a difficult task to monitor everyone who enters the downtown area.  I think a shower facility would be great. The ruckus comes from local breweries.  Great ideas! Thanks for your work to be proactive. Will the Street Outreach Teams go anywhere? Or based around Old Town area? Jeff Park, Library Park, and nearby places could use the service too!  I believe this meeting was just retaliation for being sued by the ACLU. I believe that people have the right to be treated as human beings not a lab rat with your meeting tonight. There have always been homeless people since the beginning of time and always will be. Refugees from other countries get treated better than our own countrymen. Many homeless are vets! Like I was and there is no help! 3.3 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Comments collected at the August 13 Community Conversation Event (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Addressing Disruptive Behaviors Downtown 8-13-15 ATTACHMENT 4 3.4 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Direction Sought from Council Seeking Council’s direction on whether or not to move forward with any or all of these four pilot strategies 1. Street Outreach Program 2. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance 3. Expansion of Location Diversion 4. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 2 3.4 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Background Complaints regarding disruptive behaviors from business, visitors, and residents: • Panhandling •Smoking • Intoxicated or drug-impaired behavior • Groups or individuals hanging out on benches • Littering • Groups or individuals sitting or lying on sidewalks • Public deposit of bodily waste 3 3.4 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Community Outreach • Online questionnaire ran from August 7-17 • 1340 responses • Community conversation on August 13 • Approximately 110 attendees 4 3.4 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Survey Responses 5 Do you: 3.4 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) 6 How Often Do You Frequent Downtown? 3.4 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) 7 Online Only: Are there Ongoing Disruptive Behaviors that Keep you From Visiting Downtown? 3.4 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Which behaviors do you find the most disruptive Downtown? 8 3.4 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Of the Problems Selected, Are They: 9 3.4 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Online Only: How do these disruptive behaviors impact your Downtown experience? 10 3.4 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Which of the following diminish your Downtown experience? 11 3.4 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Common “Other” Responses • Cars cruising/diesel smoke • Sign twirlers/solicitation • Concerns with college-age people 12 3.4 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Strategies There are multiple pilot strategies that may help address the disruptive behaviors Downtown 1. Street Outreach Program 2. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance 3. Enhancement of Location Diversion 4. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) 5. Combination of the above 13 3.4 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Street Outreach Program • Business and Residents able to reach out to team when there is an identified disruptive behavior • Reduces the burden on police officers • Team provides a frequent, proactive presence Downtown • Builds on efforts of DDA business education • Team acts as liaison between social service providers, Police Services, businesses, vulnerable populations, and other stakeholders 14 3.4 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Street Outreach Program • Used to provide services to those in need • Case management • Resource referral • Crisis intervention • Successful models include: • Burlington, VT (est. 2000); Portland, OR • Collaborative: multiple funding partners and stakeholders • Builds trusting relationships 15 3.4 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) In Person Survey Results 16 Do you support a Street Outreach Program? 3.4 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Shared Public Spaces Ordinance • Pilot program would regulate sitting or lying in the public right of way (sidewalks/plazas/curbs/benches) in Downtown • Would also regulate the manner and duration in which people can occupy benches and other seating • Pilot would last for one year • Enforcement area same as smoking ordinance (Downtown) 17 3.4 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Downtown Boundaries 18 3.4 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Shared Public Spaces Ordinance • Mixed results from other jurisdictions with ordinance • Seattle, WA • Viewed as successful in improving downtown image/safety • San Francisco, CA • Majority of merchants cited no major change in behaviors • Honolulu, HI • Some success in Waikiki district, concerns about expansion and displacement 19 3.4 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) In Person Survey Results 20 Do you support a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance? 3.4 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Do you support a Shared Public Spaces Ordinance? 21 3.4 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) What potential unintended consequences concern you the most? 22 3.4 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Enhancement of Location Diversion • Plea deals for citations would include agreement to not be present downtown for set time period • Length of time for agreement based on specific behavior and prior violations • Already used in Fort Collins for specific locations 23 3.4 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Enhancement of Location Diversion • Alternative sentencing technique for disruptive behaviors (to reduce potential for recidivism) • Could be used for appropriate violations such as: • Assault • Criminal mischief • Trespass • Damage to public property • Disturbing the peace • Disorderly conduct • Harassment • Subject to Municipal Court approval on a case-by- case basis 24 3.4 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Do you support the expansion of Location Diversion? 25 3.4 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Environmental Design 26 • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 3.4 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Do you support the use of CPTED? 27 3.4 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Which strategies do you most support? 28 3.4 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Any strategies you do not support? 29 3.4 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) Direction Sought from Council Seeking Council’s direction on whether or not to move forward with any or all of these four pilot strategies 1. Street Outreach Program 2. Shared Public Spaces Ordinance 3. Expansion of Location Diversion 4. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 30 3.4 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3484 : Disruptive Behaviors Downtown) adults, including veterans; Families; Youth; Unaccompanied children Primary Housing Solution Prevention/Rapid Re- Housing/Shelter Diversion Some situations resolved with no financial assistance Who? Most Often: Individual adults, including veterans; Families; Youth; Rarely: Unaccompanied Children Primary Housing Solution Prevention Some situations resolved or sustained with no financial assistance Descriptions of who experiences homelessness Individual adults: Any single adult, over the age of 24 Veteran: Any person having served in the armed forces Youth: Any person between the ages of 18 and 24 Child: Any person under the age of 18; may be in a family or on their own (unaccompanied) Families: A group with at least one person over the age of 18 and one person under the age of 18 Descriptions of primary permanent housing solutions Permanent supportive housing: Long-term (i.e., no time limits) housing assistance, with supportive services Rapid re-housing: Short- to medium-term (from one month up to two years) rental assistance, with supportive services if needed Prevention: Rental assistance to help retain housing “Literally Homeless” according to the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; includes only individuals staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or in unsheltered areas “Literally Homeless” according to the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; includes only individuals staying in emergency shelters, transitional housing, or in unsheltered areas “Homeless” according to the Department of Education; some “At Risk of Homelessness” may also qualify, if eviction is imminent Primary Housing Solution Permanent Supportive Housing Residents and People Who Travel Residents are those who have the intention of staying in this area (unless access to housing, employment, reconnecting with family, etc., prompts a move). People who travel are those whose stays in the area are intentionally short in duration; increases in this population are reported in warmer months 2.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Typology of Homelessness (3472 : Update on Homelessness Action Items)