Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 9/15/2020 - Memorandum From Delynn Coldiron Re: Leadership Planning Team Meeting Minutes For September 14, 2020 City Clerk 300 LaPorte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221-6295 - fax fcgov.com/cityclerk MEMORANDUM DATE: September 14, 2020 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Delynn Coldiron, City Clerk RE: Leadership Planning Team (LPT) Meeting Mayor Wade Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Stephens, City Manager Darin Atteberry, Deputy City Manager Kelly DiMartino, City Attorney Carrie Daggett and City Clerk Delynn Coldiron (all by video-conference call) met on Monday, September 14, and the following summarizes the discussions that began at 7:35 a.m. 9-15-2020 Regular Meeting: The September 15 agenda items were reviewed. • There was brief discussion about meeting logistics. All Councilmembers are anticipated to be present in person in Council Chambers. Public participation will be available in four ways: in-person, by phone, online through Zoom, and by email. Staff will continue to provide reports, present, and answer questions remotely. • Second Reading of Ordinance 109, 2020 related to election and campaign finance changes – Minor revisions were made to the Ordinance to provide clarity to the factors the City Attorney will consider when determining if a respondent has substantially complied with their legal obligations under the Code. This was done in response to feedback received from those involved in the prosecution and enforcement functions. • A staff report is being added regarding pending water restrictions due to the timely nature of this topic. • The City Manager plans to move to discussion item #15, the authorization for remote hearing for a historic preservation appeal to the Landmark Preservation Commission, since this calls for a specific Council motion. The City Manager will suggest this move as part of his agenda review. This will become the first item under discussion items. • A fair amount of public comment is expected at the budget public hearing. • Concerns about Friday’s event at City Park are anticipated to come up under general public comment. Some clarification was provided about Friday’s event, including: o The organizer of the event did contact the City about the need for a permit.  Generally, for an event this size a permit is required to coordinate the various details including road closures, etc. Leadership Planning Team Meeting September 14, 2020 Page 2 of 5  Due to COVID, organizers currently pursuing permits are required to start with the County Health Department to get its approval and then move forward with the City process. o A special events permit was not required for this event based on the way the City Code exempts demonstrations from permitting requirements.  Due to this, no permit was applied for and, therefore, nothing was denied by the City. o Lack of masks and social distancing were of concern.  Enforcement related to this is the purview of the County.  It was suggested that the memo previously sent out related to off-campus student gatherings be reviewed in context of other events that occur in the community. o Noise was also listed as a concern.  The event was done by 8:00 p.m. which is when more restrictive limitations on noise begin. o Having a stage was another concern.  This created the impression that the City must have approved the event. Staff is looking into what, if any follow-up is needed, to respond to reports that retail sales were done as part of the event. It was noted that onlookers observed a blatant disregard of state and local health orders at this event and this was unfortunate because the churches and other event organizers within the community have been working hard to do things right and to pay attention to all COVID-related restrictions. It was also noted that the churches who are meeting in the parks for their worship services have gone through the County variance process and have all appropriate permits. Staff will be ready to answer questions that may come up as part of public comment. 6-Month Calendar: • September 22 o The entire night will be dedicated to budget. Neighborhood Livability, Safe Community and High Performing Government are the outcome areas that will be reviewed. • September 24 o Urban Renewal Authority meeting is scheduled. • October 6 o Everything is on track for the appeal for 613 S. Meldrum Street. Leadership Planning Team Meeting September 14, 2020 Page 3 of 5 City Clerk Coldiron: • Noted the deadline for submitting signatures on the Hughes petition is November 3. • Noted that Gerry Horak has filed a candidate affidavit for Mayor. Deputy City Manager DiMartino: • Noted that the video for the 2020 State of the City Address – A Day in the Life of Fort Collins received a first-place award from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA)! • Noted that City of Fort Collins/Operations Services received the top award for having the #1 green fleet in the nation! City Attorney Daggett:  Noted that the deadline is Wednesday to get items to the Colorado Municipal League (CML) for consideration in the CML legislative policy process.  Noted that a Denver District Court issued a decision last week reversing the previous dismissal of a Denver camping prosecution case and that her office will follow up further on this as appropriate. City Manager Atteberry: • Noted that the City received an additional HUD allocation of over $760K. This brings the total of CDBG COVID allocations to well over $1M; great news! • Attended former Mayor John Knezovich’s memorial service on Saturday; many people spoke about his role as former mayor and councilmember. It was an important part of his life. • Noted a work session will be scheduled related to the fire and resulting watershed impacts, including water supply and quality. • Noted the North Fort Collins Citizen Advisory Group has requested a liaison assignment of a Councilmember and a planning staff member who will attend their meetings. Further review of this group and whether it is affiliated with the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) is needed. • Noted Governor Polis sent an email to all mayors encouraging cities to continue to work on safe outdoor dining. A copy of the email is attached. • Noted we are getting great feedback on the business assistance program that was recently implemented. To date 116 applications have been started in the system (English – 112 and Spanish – 4) of which 56 have been completed and submitted. The program is accepting applications through September 23. Leadership Planning Team Meeting September 14, 2020 Page 4 of 5 • Noted a memo will be provided in Thursday packets regarding School Resource Officers (SROs). Since schools are not meeting in person, the Poudre School District has reduced their funding to 25% (was 50%). Although schools are not meeting in person, the SROs continue to work on related matters. • David May announced his retirement from the Chamber of Commerce. A formal search will be conducted for his replacement. • Mennonite Fellowship Pastor Steve Ramer has reached out to staff regarding operating hours for the Oak Street bathrooms. He was hoping to see an extension. No changes are planned due to the operations and maintenance costs required to do this. • Noted the memo provided in Thursday packets related to the legal defense fund. Staff will be providing response to questions from Councilmember Gorgol. • Noted the Homeless Services Committee held their final meeting. An executive summary and report of their recommendations is attached. Staff will schedule a work session during the 4th quarter of 2020 with any follow up items moving to Council during the 1st quarter of 2021. Mayor Pro Tem Stephens: • Noted that Councilmember Pignataro had called her attention to the fact that October is Domestic Violence month. Staff will ensure a proclamation is scheduled for this. • Noted that she and the Mayor toured various Old Town businesses with Congressman Neguse on Friday. The Mayor asked him about the FAST Act that is set to expire at the end of September and about funding for local municipalities. They noted appreciation for the support he has given to local governments. • Noted the Sierra Club has reached out to her and noted their interest in providing the City with an award for our electric vehicle participation. Staff is asked to follow up. • Noted a formal request has been received from the Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) group for office space. She plans to continue as an informal liaison for this group. Staff is asked to follow up on the office space request. • Noted applications are due on September 22 for Councilmembers interested in leading a National League of Cities committee. There will be opportunities to apply to be a committee member as well. She stated this is a great opportunity to get involved at the national level. Mayor Troxell: • Noted he will be participating on a call with Senator Gardner tomorrow as part of Colorado Municipal League efforts. Leadership Planning Team Meeting September 14, 2020 Page 5 of 5 • Noted he attended a birthday celebration for Holocaust survivor Joe Rubenstein and his immediate family; he turned 100! The Mayor had a proclamation for him. Mr. Rubenstein was inspiring in so many ways. • Noted he was still participating in state-wide COVID calls. • Noted the Futures Committee meeting that will be held this afternoon. The Committee will hear from a speaker and then discuss digital equity. • Thanked staff for the memo that was provided in Thursday packets on electric system undergrounding. The memo was informative and demonstrates the great work that has been done in this regard. He encouraged additional efforts related to underground transmission lines. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. 136 State Capitol, Denver, CO 80203 | P 303.866.6390 | www.colorado.gov/governor Dear Colorado Mayors, On behalf of the State of Colorado, thank you for your continued commitment protecting the health and safety of your communities. Together, our leadership has saved lives, connected individuals to financial assistance, and stabilized our economy. Because o f our efforts to ensure social distancing, we have begun to slowly re-open our restaurants, stores, offices, and services that Coloradans rely on each and every day. But, there is more work that can be done together to assist families and businesses. Municipalities have employed successful solutions at the local level-- including the facilitation of expanded outdoor dining-- making a significant difference for Colorado restaurants across our state. We have continued our executive orders for temporary modifications to premises, and our state Liquor Enforcement Division (LED) has stood ready to assist restaurants with their questions and applications including approval within 24 hours for non-contiguous or contiguous outdoor liquor licenses. As we prepare for Winter operations, we are faced with new challenges to maintain social distancing and mitigate negative impacts to our economy. The fact that outdoor spaces are abundantly safer than indoor spaces will not change through the colder months of winter, pr esenting a significant challenge that we must be creative to overcome. In the spirit of our partnership, I would like to ask for your help in continuing expanded, safe outdoor dining through this Winter. The State, local communities, and the restaurant in dustry must work together to find creative ways to maintain expanded outdoor dining despite colder weather such as municipally operated fire pits, space heaters, and tenting. I’d like your partnership in distinguishing Colorado as a state that deploys creative solutions to help keep Coloradans outdoors, and support a valued and important industry. I ask that you continue to collaborate with restaurants in your communities to help address the challenges we will face this winter, including the use of grant programs, which can help cover the costs of maintaining expanded outdoor dining through the winter. These include the Coronavirus Relief Fund (www.cdola.colorado.gov/cvrf) through the Department of Local Affairs and various grant opportunities through the Office of Economic Development and International Trade (www.choosecolorado.com/covid19). Please let my office know how the State can be a more active partner in removing barriers that your communities and restaurants face in overcoming these challenges. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jared Polis Governor Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Executive Summary  In November 2019, the Fort Collins City Manager convened an Advisory Committee of diverse members  representing service providers and community members with and without lived experience with  homelessness to explore and surface recommendations and considerations around expanding emergency  shelter capability within Fort Collins. The committee began this work in support of our community’s goals of  making homelessness rare, short-lived, and non-recurring.  The committee learned about the current situation facing community members experiencing homelessness  through reviewing data, panel discussions with providers and responders, conversations with each other, and  visiting current shelters. They surfaced current gaps in services for different populations and trends in data.  Despite being interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, most committee members continued participating  after a multi-month break in active meetings to assemble this report.  The committee recommends a 24/7 shelter model to serve basic needs, built for current and future capacity  and uses, fully accessible for the population(s) served, and able to assess the needs of the whole person.  The committee differed on structure, oversight, and amount of services, and how population(s) would be  best served - including how much medical, trauma-informed services, and outdoor space use would be ideal.  Considering a campus or co-located model, the committee recommends: achieving clarity around who is  being served; shared governance model, roles, responsibilities, and non-duplication of services amongst  providers; ensuring basic services can be provided; and locating shelter near public transportation. The  committee agrees serving multiple populations safely may be challenging. Opportunities of co-location  include efficiency in service delivery and helping the community understand the real need for services.   Points of difference and tradeoffs around a campus or co-located model include: whether to locate services  on a large campus or throughout the community, cost increases with enhanced services, unduly burdening  one part of our community versus spreading our shelters, and inclusion of permanent supportive housing  with the shelter. Concerns of a campus model include increased cost for a larger parcel of land, increased  cost for security and safety for those accessing services and the surrounding areas, and risks of undesirable  or illegal activity.  Criteria for site feasibility include recommendations to ensure: services needed by the population(s) served  are available through co-location or are nearby; not overburdening any part of our community;  understanding of affordability and needed infrastructure now and into the future; and early and effective  engagement with potential neighbors. Considerations include design of the facility for mental health and  wellness, efforts to combat isolation and foster positive connection with the broader community.  Strategies to address and mitigate challenges focused on several concerns, namely, how to: prevent  restricting poverty to one part of town; resource upfront and ongoing costs of new shelter; ​both​ safe shelter  and​ more affordable housing are needed yet are seen as competing for resources; dealing with the current  pandemic and what comes next; and how to continue community and neighborhood dialogue.  Unresolved questions are listed at the end of this report for future reference and use in this process.  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Introduction - Committee Process  Like other cities in the United States, Fort Collins is a place where individuals and families experience  homelessness. Our community has adopted the goal of making homelessness rare, short-lived, and  non-recurring. Yet our existing shelter facilities are strained by the extent of the need.   The City Manager convened an Advisory Committee in the fall of 2019 to “enhance the overall community  engagement process with in-depth, joint exploration and recommendations regarding the potential  development of...homeless service options in Fort Collins.”  Members’ roles were to “Advise City Manager on key considerations and varying perspectives” and  “Represent community interests to identify opportunities and concerns related to concepts and potential  sites, if applicable.”  Meetings topics included awareness and understanding of the homeless challenge and gaps, effective  response models, concerns and opportunities around a campus model, mitigation strategies, siting criteria,  potential locations, and recommendation and mitigation strategies. While the original charter indicated  “affordable housing” would be covered, the committee quickly honed in on emergency shelter as its primary  focus within the housing continuum. Members of the committee visited current shelters to understand  current conditions and needs first hand.  The diverse group of committee members selected included service providers, business owners, faith-based  groups, nonprofits, housing and health specialists, and those with lived experience. In an effort to include  more perspectives, the committee voted to add three additional perspectives to include regional shelter  leaders and County representatives.   The group’s work took place in two phases:  1.Awareness and Understanding of Current Situation.​ From November 2019 to February 2020, the  committee learned about response models, current community situations, and gaps in current  services from community members and service providers. The COVID-19 public health crisis caused  the group to pause for four months.  2.Developing Specific Recommendations and Considerations​. The group reconvened virtually starting  in June 2020, drawing upon lessons learned from the COVID-19 response setting up and operating a  24/7 emergency shelter at Northside Aztlan Community Center. Between June and September the  committee began developing specific recommendations and considerations, based on previous  dialogue and new learnings.  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Awareness and Understanding of Current  Situation   The first half of the committee’s work focused on building an understanding of current conditions, learning  about different response models, hearing directly from affected community members, and identifying gaps  throughout the system of services and facilities for people experiencing homelessness.  Service providers in Fort Collins use the Housing First Model and operate with the philosophy that providing  services is more effective if people get housing first. While adopted by the City and required by the State of  Colorado and HUD for emergency shelter funding access, not all Committee members agree with this  approach.   Lack of livable wage, affordable housing, high child care costs, and unreliable transportation influence the  ability to maintain housing. Abuse, trauma, chemical dependency and crises significantly compound to  create the need for complex, individualized plans for recovery. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates these  challenges.   There is a difference in need and response for those chronically homeless and the short-lived situations.  Stereotypes and stigma often focus public perception to a single male experiencing homelessness. Yet lived  experiences are diverse and categories of labeling overlap. Fort Collins currently lacks the differentiation of  shelter options for different populations and the committee recognizes unique needs for the following  groups: non-family couples, families with school-aged children, unaccompanied youth, disabled  people/seniors/those with ADA needs, sober/in-recovery, those coming out of jail, LGBTQIA+, and people  with pets.   Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final     *This data is of people experiencing homelessness of 6 months or longer, and only those who utilized  services. Graphic produced by Housing First Initiative - homeward2020.org  According to our service providers, individual case-management and affordable housing help people  self-resolve.   As of February 24, 2020, individuals and families experiencing homelessness could seek services at The  Murphy Center, Fort Collins Rescue Mission, Catholic Charities, Crossroads Safehouse, and Family Housing  Network. On average, these sites serve 275 individuals at a time: 220 bed + 4 family rooms + niche sites.   Both the Fort Collins Rescue Mission and Catholic Charities shelters are over capacity and regularly overflow  with mats on the floor in multi-purpose rooms. The committee learned in our community, shelters are de  facto housing for about 300 - 400 people at any given time.   Service providers agree existing space and shelter are inadequate for our community’s current and  anticipated needs.  Panel presentations from nonprofit and county service providers, Fort Collins police, and business owners  helped the group identify gaps in these areas:   ●Services  ●Locations  ●Populations Not Well-Served  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ●Space Needs  Additionally, members of the business community feel responsibility for caring for people experiencing  homelessness is falling disproportionately on one segment of the community. These members expressed  continued frustration at unsafe and threatening activities like loitering, exposure to needles, and trash in  the areas near existing shelters.  The unexpected COVID-19 pandemic and resulting rapid, collaborative response to the crisis helped  providers realize benefits of a 24/7 shelter model. In three months of emergency services, the Murphy  Center served 20% more people than they planned to serve in a whole year. Currently (August 2020),  requests for rent assistance continue to increase, and with the moratorium on evictions coming to an end in  September 2020, service providers anticipate an increased need for emergency shelter and rehousing  assistance for individuals and families.   Specific Recommendations and Considerations  These are in four sections, roughly corresponding to the charter of this committee:  ●Effective Response and Priority Services  ●Opportunities and Tradeoffs of a Campus / Co-located Model  ●Determining Criteria for Site Feasibility (and Considering Potential Locations)  ●Strategies to Address and Mitigate Challenges  Additionally, the committee felt it important to include a section on Unresolved Questions where further  exploration could benefit the overall approach to emergency shelter.   Effective Response and Priority Services  Each section of this report covers Recommendations / Areas of Agreement where the committee  recommends actions and/or is in agreement about factors and conditions which should influence City  decisions when supporting the community’s emergency shelters.   This section covers responses and services supporting the different populations of people experiencing  homelessness in our community.  Recommendations / Areas of Agreement   The committee identified the following gaps regarding effective response - space capacity for day shelter,  fluctuation of demand, access to transportation, and accessibility of site.  The committee understands the complexity of effective response and agrees on the following:  ●A 24/7 model is needed and possible as demonstrated by a successful, collaborative COVID-19  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final response by our current service providers.  ●Effective shelter provides basic needs including showers and laundry, toiletry supplies, meals, lockers  and locations to store belongings.   ●To meet the needs of today and tomorrow, build in future capacity with a forward focus on scale,  size, and flexible use space. This includes not only adequate space for basics, but also flexible  convertible space to respond to on-going and changing needs.   ●The facility must be built to be accessible to different kinds of people and their needs (non-family  couples, families with school-aged children, unaccompanied youth, disabled people/seniors/those  with ADA needs, sober/in-recovery, those coming out of jail, LGBTQIA+, and people with pets) so  that retrofitting is not necessary later and therefore more expensive.  ●The more robust the services provided the higher the costs will be.   ●Staff running this facility must be highly trained and be kind, friendly and accepting.   ●To monitor performance and deliver the right services to shelter users, utilize a collaborative system  for robust data collection across providers.  ●Provide assistance and guidance to accessing options for housing (Permanent Supportive Housing,  Bridge or other) and housing navigation. Members of the business community also recommend  including “For Sale” options - not just rentals.  ●The ability for full assessment of the needs of the whole person - medical, mental health, food,  community support, etc. was another agreed upon priority to occur within this facility. Coordinated  Assessment and Housing Placement System (process that matches housing resources with people who  need them) and VI-SPDAT (assessment that helps with this process) were mentioned, and more detail  and expertise is required to get the full scope of how tools could be implemented.  Considerations / Points of Difference   Committee conversations and learnings lead to the following considerations around effective response and  priority services:  ●Many in the committee are still unclear regarding structure, oversight, and what service  organizations should operate out of the chosen response and therefore what range of services are  offered. Solutions differ depending on the chosen demographic group and scope of project. Each  choice brings different considerations for funding and structure.  ●The committee was not clear, nor agreed, how much housing, navigation, case management or  mental health support should be offered on-site​. Some support exists for an approach of providing as  many co-located services as possible, while others support providing basic needs in-facility and  emphasize the need for a location in close proximity to other resources.  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ●Trauma-informed care was highlighted as a central guiding principle by a large majority of  committee members, though with variation about how in-depth the practice should be implemented.  Specifying exactly how trauma-informed practices are utilized for architecture/structural issues,  staff training, and daily operations will require more detail, thought, and expertise.   ●Some believe full scale medical care is not realistic, while others believe pop-up medical services are  a viable and necessary option. Some members advocate for a preventative healthcare model for cost  avoidance down the road. However, ​mental health providers are concerned about the inclusion of  actual medical services at this site. The complexity and regulations around opening such a site could  be time prohibitive.  ●The use and function of outdoor space is another area of disagreement with some desiring several  levels of architectural space for different levels of engagement in shelter (i.e. an enclosed outdoor  area for camping or outside courtyard) and others supporting a traditional indoor shelter space only.  Opportunities and Tradeoffs of a Campus /  Co-located Model  This section covers the potential opportunities and tradeoffs around a co-located or campus model with  multiple services available in a single location.  Recommendations / Areas of Agreement   The committee identified the following gaps around co-location - economy of scale, transportation access,  and avoiding concentration of poverty.   The committee understands the complexity of a campus / co-located model and agrees on the following  opportunities:  ●A co-located model can provide efficiency in service delivery, staffing, building operations expense,  and avoids duplication of services.  ●Nearly unanimous agreement of the importance of a shared governance model well-defined before  construction begins. With clarity of roles and responsibilities around intentional structure, providers  hope to create and embed a culture of shared best practices and resources.   ●Service providers must work together to avoid duplication of services. The COVID-19 response proves  this is possible.  ●Many on the committee expressed they do not support simply relocating community shelter without  securing both 1) adequate facility accommodations for basic needs services (beds, showers, meals,  storage, case conferencing, etc.), and 2) full staffing ratios for intake, assessments, data collection,  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final diversions, coordination and case management (best practices). There was little enthusiasm to  simply move to a new location without clear commitment for adequate resourcing of a strong model.  ●Difficult to meet the needs of different groups to be served - men, families, veterans, etc. Questions  remain if a large campus can accommodate both behavior-based and breathalyzer-enforced models.  Several committee members recommended drawing upon learnings from other communities, such as  Boulder where joint services are provided.  ●Having the shelter located near public transportation was agreed by most.  ●The community should understand the real need for services, the cost of not doing something, and  the overall benefit for the entire community - which will require a good marketing campaign to  discuss the need for services. Neighborhood buy-in will be difficult.  Considerations / Points of Difference   The committee identified the following differences and tradeoffs of a campus model:   ●Some members desire a clear definition of the services that need to be co-located and why before  any project begins.   ●Members differ whether to locate all services on a large campus or throughout the community. Some  members favor adding capacity to serve people experiencing homelessness at mainstream community  services sites rather than a ‘service rich’ model at a shelter facility. These members believe this is  key to solving a community problem with a community solution (rather than overburdening any single  location in the community).  ●Services costs may increase in an enhanced shelter model, yet these can reduce costs to other  systems such as criminal justice, hospitals, 911, police and crisis response.  ●Concerns of a campus model include: a larger piece of land could cost more; increased cost for  security and safety for those accessing services and the surrounding areas; and risks of undesirable or  illegal activity.  ●Inclusion of permanent supportive housing - Some say this model has worked in other parts of the  country. Others believe supportive housing located away from emergency shelter provides better  outcomes for the clients served.  Determining Criteria for Site Feasibility (and  Considering Potential Locations)   Due to the differing perspectives on co-location, specific sites were not reviewed. Instead, the committee  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final identified overall criteria for site feasibility, and noted the following gaps regarding site locations: north  versus southeast, serving regional/Greeley/Denver/Boulder residents, land availability, and zoning and  planning requirements.  Recommendations / Areas of Agreement   The committee understands the complexity of site feasibility and agrees upon the following:  ●If “form follows function” then co-location of services must be addressed before the site is selected.  In addition, the population(s) to be served by the shelter must be determined before identifying the  appropriate site.   ●If the final design is for little or no co-location of services, then the facility needs to be located  nearby other essential services for people experiencing homelessness and not isolated in one corner  of the community.   ●Location must not over-burden any part of our community already experiencing a high degree of  poverty.   ●Understanding affordability, ensuring proper infrastructure, determining how many square feet are  wanted/needed, as well as incorporating a certain degree of flexibility, will be useful in order to  address needs as they evolve in the future. We must consider future changes in the community 10-20  years out, not only in terms of capacity, but also changes that may occur in the vicinity.   ●It will be critical to engage with potential neighbors in advance so they can participate in planning  conversations, provide their inputs, and ensure they can positively interface with the facility as their  neighbor. While industrial locations tend to generate less controversy, they are difficult to locate in  Fort Collins.  Considerations / Points of Difference   Committee conversations and learnings lead to the following considerations around site feasibility:  ●Some members noted our mental health and wellness are affected by our physical space, so we must  be mindful of the design of the facility so healthy recreation, pets, and different kinds of helpful  therapies might be included.   ●Some members picture the facility used for activities that attract other community members to help  diminish isolation people experiencing homelessness often feel. For example, the facility could host  classes, club or group meetings, concerts or social gatherings, and incorporate opportunities for  employment, skills development, entrepreneurship and the creation of small businesses.  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ●Some members want to ensure sites serve people experiencing homelessness fully to prevent  panhandling and other undesirable behaviors.  Strategies to Address and Mitigate Challenges  This section covers concerns and challenges along with ideas of how those might be addressed and  mitigated.   Concern: Restricting poverty to one part of town  ●Utilizing walkability factors and our public transportation system wisely, we can prevent restricting  poverty to just one part of town and expecting one neighborhood to bear Fort Collins’ total  responsibility to address homelessness, rather than the whole community sharing the responsibility of  caring.  Concern: Resourcing upfront and ongoing costs of new shelter  ●Resource limits need to be recognized. Better outcomes might be achieved when focusing  comprehensive services on a smaller population than spreading limited resources over a larger  population, such as serving only local residents. This approach has been adopted in other  communities.  ●Contributions from philanthropy, business, private and faith-based sources could be realized if the  shelter model concept can demonstrate benefits to the community and funders’ varied interests.  ●A financial model should include both upfront acquisition and development costs, as well as ongoing  operating and maintenance costs.  ●Concern about this effort impacting the on-going challenge of our service providers to fundraise  every year for their services and the importance of sustainable funding.  ●Other communities, such as Denver, use a Social Impact Bond program to help fund services.  Concern: ​Both​ safe shelter ​and​ more affordable housing are needed yet are seen as competing for  resources  ●Investments in emergency shelter should not take away or supplant investments in affordable housing  solutions.  ●Rigorous collaboration between housing and shelter providers can create smooth transitions between  shelter and housing.  Concern: Continuing to use shelter beds for de facto housing  Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final ●Rental assistance is an immediate solution. Employed persons could benefit from rental assistance so  they can exit shelter, and may come at the same cost, or less, as delivering emergency shelter  services. The cost of utilizing emergency shelter beds as de facto housing for non-emergencies could  be transferred to rental assistance subsidies.   ●Considerations to reduce emergency shelter bed use, and therefore need for shelter bed resources,  include low cost ‘pay to stay’ housing for low wage workers, seasonal workers and travelers currently  utilizing shelter as ​de facto​ housing and cheap accommodation.  Concern: Dealing with the ongoing and/or next pandemic  ●The crisis highlighted and affirmed there is not enough capacity in current shelter facilities to  accommodate need, especially with necessary health and safety distancing protocols.  ●Familiarity of relationships helped homelessness and health service providers come together quickly.  ●Planning for any new facility needs to consider how to rapidly move people out of congregate shelter  spaces and avoid crowding and accumulation in shelter.   ●Increased staffing and cleaning is needed to prevent spread and reduce viral loads.  ●The ongoing pandemic will likely increase homelessness due to declining economic situations – how to  proactively address and provide services and help people navigate.   Concern: How to continue community and neighborhood dialogue  ●Some mitigation: Camping ordinance can be applied without legal challenges when there are  sufficient shelter beds   Recommendations and Considerations for Homeless Shelters in Fort Collins - 9/14/20 Final Unresolved Questions  The committee raised these questions during the creation of these recommendations and considerations,  and the answers may inform some of the next steps in the process of enhancing emergency shelter in our  community.  ●Who will own the shelter - a not-for-profit, City and/or County owned, or a combination?   ●What structure, oversight, and service organizations should operate out of the chosen emergency  shelter response and therefore what range of services are offered?  ●How much housing, navigation, case management or mental health support should be offered on-site  at an emergency shelter? How much will the County’s new behavioral health campus provide support  for our community and vulnerable populations?  ●How much will trauma-informed practices be utilized and influence the design and operation of an  emergency shelter?  ●If we build it, will they come? (Did Northside Aztlan Community Center COVID-19 shelter clients come  from mostly Fort Collins, or from Weld County, Loveland, Longmont, and Boulder?)  ●To what extent must shelter users be Fort Collins residents? How will this be verified (noted as very  difficult yet done elsewhere)?  ●Will regional interests develop necessary permanent housing or only Fort Collins? Will our community  bear the brunt of a regional housing development issue?  ●Does inclusion of permanent supportive housing with a shelter or does locating supportive housing  away from emergency shelter provide better outcomes for the clients served?  ●How much can our community include ownership housing in the mix of affordable housing offered to  create wealth and break the cycle of dependence?  ●Do the costs of services increase in an enhanced shelter model, or do these offset cost reductions to  other systems such as criminal justice, hospitals, 911, police and crisis response?  ●Can a large campus accommodate populations under both behavior-based and breathalyzer-enforced  models? Several committee members recommended drawing upon learnings from other communities,  such as Boulder where joint services are provided.  ●Would a centralized service center respond better and be more cost- and resource-efficient,  especially in a pandemic?  ●Would better outcomes be achieved by focusing comprehensive services on a smaller population than  spreading limited resources over a larger population - e.g. Fort Collins residents only?