Full Text
i Redmond Community Homelessness Task Force Task Force Report August 2015 Executive Summary After a very strong showing of concern about homelessness in a Redmond community meeting held in March 2015, the Redmond Community Homelessness Task Force was created by Mayor John Marchione in late April of 2015. The Task Force was composed of 14 members representing a broad cross section of the City, including businesspeople, residents, members of the faith community, and staff from major nonprofit service agencies in Redmond. The mission of the Task Force was to “…seek to better understand the scope and causes of homelessness in Redmond, the systems in place to address homelessness, …consider the range of concerns and potential solutions identified by the community… [and] identify and recommend a set of short- and longer-term actions that our community can undertake to address these issues.” The Task Force met six times, from April through August, 2015. Task Force meetings were open to public observation and public comment was taken online. The Task Force heard briefings on homelessness in Redmond and King County, the systems in place to address the needs of homeless families and individuals, and current City practices. The Task Force reviewed the concerns of the community as expressed in the March community meeting, and received additional input from two sets of local business owners in Redmond. Task Force members also heard from staff at The Landing, a shelter for young adults located in downtown Redmond. Task Force members all participated in at least one site visit of a facility in Redmond providing either services or housing to homeless individuals. In addition, focus groups with five different sets of homeless individuals (4 groups in Redmond, 1 in Bellevue) were conducted and transcribed for the Task Force. The Task Force believes that the Redmond community is a caring community that wants to address homelessness. City residents, business owners, nonprofit service organizations, the faith community, and those in City Hall have all observed an increase in street level issues and homelessness in the past three years. The impacts are most notable in downtown Redmond, but are occurring in other areas of the City, as well as throughout the entire Eastside and all of King County. Residents observe more loitering, panhandling, and people sleeping outdoors in commercial areas and parks. The City has also experienced an increase in property crimes in the last three years, which may or may not be directly attributable to the increased homeless population. ---PAGE BREAK--- ii While these impacts are felt locally, Redmond and its service agencies are part of a larger countywide system that has been established to address homelessness, as well as poverty, mental illness and addiction. That system does not focus on city borders. It will take the work of all in our region - as well as state and national efforts - to solve these problems. This report identifies 17 separate action items that the Task Force believes the larger Redmond community should pursue to address homelessness here in our City. Overall, the Task Force believes a balanced approach is needed: Redmond should be both a safe community and a compassionate community. We note that it is important to identify and deploy upstream strategies addressing the underlying causes of homelessness, but many of these were beyond our capacity in this time-condensed Task Force effort. The Task Force recommendations range from public safety measures, to work to increase services and housing available to homeless families and individuals, to advocacy. The recommendations will require the participation of all parts of the community – not just City Hall. Our consensus recommendations to the community are as follows: • Increase police bike patrols in downtown, by retail properties and on trails. • Implement a community awareness campaign and include posting signs that encourage donations to helping organizations instead of giving directly to panhandlers. • Create additional day center resources on the Eastside to meet regional needs. • Partner with King County Housing Authority (KCHA) to provide housing opportunities for lower income households not currently benefitting from the City’s incentive zoning program. A general approach would involve KCHA providing subsidies to families at 30% of Average Median Income (AMI) in order to allow them to afford units currently priced at 50% or 80% AMI. • Create a City “Flexible Funding Pool” that can help people stay in their homes with emergency loans, grants. • Expand funds to help those living in shelters to secure first and last month’s rent and security deposits in order to move into permanent private housing. • Develop printed literature/public education program for Redmond residents to identify how to help the homeless, and who to call for various issues. • Engage significant advocacy at the state and national levels to restore funding for a robust mental health system. • Convene an ongoing commission of all Redmond stakeholders to meet at least quarterly to review progress and discuss ongoing issues. ---PAGE BREAK--- iii The Task Force defines success in response to the challenge of homelessness in Redmond to include: • An improved sense of public safety. • A reduction in loitering, trespassing and other similar incidents in the City. • Greater understanding by residents and businesses of the complexity of homelessness, and greater engagement by residents and businesses to constructively respond to this challenge. • Better outcomes for homeless individuals: they are able to connect to the services and housing they need. • Enhanced capacity for the City, local service providers and faith community to help homeless individuals in a variety of ways. • Redmond City Hall promoting collective action by Eastside cities to address the challenge of homelessness. Elimination of homeless individuals from our City is not the goal. Redmond can and should continue to be a safe and compassionate community. The Task Force believes the recommendations outlined in this report can move the community forward on this path. ---PAGE BREAK--- Redmond Community Homelessness Task Force Task Force Report August 2015 Introduction Task Force Mission The Redmond Community Homelessness Task Force was created by Mayor John Marchione in late April of 2015. The creation of the Task Force came after a very strong community showing of concern about homelessness in a Redmond, at a community meeting sponsored by the City on March 12, 2015. Over 100 residents and business owners registered a wide array of concerns and ideas to address those concerns. We were charged by Mayor Marchione with the following mission: The Task Force will seek to better understand the scope and causes of homelessness in Redmond, the systems in place to address homelessness, and will consider the range of concerns and potential solutions identified by the community. The Task Force will identify and recommend a set of short- and longer-term actions that our community can undertake to address these issues. Task Force Membership The Task Force consists of fourteen (14) members, representing a diversity of resident, business, service provider and faith community interests in Redmond. The members of the Task Force and our affiliations are identified at Attachment A. Our Process The Task Force met six times, from April 29 through August 12. Each meeting lasted two and a half to three hours. We were supported by a team of City staff including the Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development, the Police Chief, and the Deputy City Administrator. The City also secured an independent facilitator to help shape our work plan and facilitate our meetings. The Task Force meetings were open to the public and all the agendas and materials reviewed by the Task Force were posted on the City’s website, as were summaries of our meetings. We did not take oral comments at our meetings but encouraged written comments via the City website; a few comments were received and copies were provided to us. We were also ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 provided with a summary of all the comments from the March 12 community meeting (see Attachment B) and had access to the full meeting notes as posted on the City’s website. At the beginning of our deliberations, we adopted a charter to guide our decision making process. We spent most of our first three meetings learning about homelessness in Redmond. We began by hearing from lead staff for the King County Committee to End Homelessness, detailing the nature of homelessness across the County. We heard from staff about the City’s mission and vision with respect to homelessness. City staff developed materials mapping the locations of homeless shelters and facilities across East King County. We heard from the Police Chief about how the Department approaches homelessness, and the cost of traditional arrest-book-prosecute-jail approaches. We heard about the City’s existing outreach efforts to connect homeless individuals with services, and how the City is working with peer cities on the Eastside to compare different approaches to addressing homelessness. We heard a presentation from some downtown business owners who have been challenged with aggressive panhandling and trespass issues. Several task force members have experienced similar problems and also contributed to this discussion. City staff also conducted a focus group with some Redmond businesspeople from other parts of town about their concerns and experiences dealing with homeless individuals, and we were provided a transcript of that session. We also were able to hear from and ask questions of staff from Friends of Youth about how The Landing, a shelter for young adults aged 18-24 located in downtown Redmond, is operated. City staff kept a running list of all our information requests and we were presented responses to all these questions. Between meetings, we completed “homework” about our issues of concern and perceptions of the underlying causes. In addition, a series of site visits were arranged for us at local shelters and similar facilities, including: • Congregations for the Homeless Day Center • The Landing Shelter (Operated by Friends of Youth) • Camp Unity • Avondale Park Shelter/Transitional Housing (Operated by Hopelink and Friends of Youth) • The Sophia Way Shelter • Open Kitchen Meal Program (Operated by Redmond United Methodist Church) All Task Force members attended at least one site visit. We had the opportunity to share our perspectives and reactions to these visits at a later Task Force meeting. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 We wanted to ensure that we heard the perspectives of homeless individuals. For this purpose, City staff, with help of some Task Force members, arranged five meetings with several small groups of individuals experiencing homelessness. The groups were quite varied—from mothers with children, living in the Avondale Housing project operated by Hopelink in Redmond, to young adults staying at The Landing, to men living on the streets and in City parks. The purpose of these meetings was to ask these individuals to share in their own words how they become homeless, what they feel they need to get out of homelessness, and what they would like others to know about them and their situation. The meetings were recorded and transcribed for us - over 150 pages of conversation - that provided a wealth of insight into the complexity of homelessness in our city, and the underlying causes of homelessness. Their words helped shape the recommendations in this report. We spent our last three meetings approving criteria for our recommendations and then developing, reviewing and revising potential recommendations, arranged into six categories: 1. Improving public safety and reducing crime 2. Expanding and improving services to sheltered and unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness 3. Expanding, improving and mitigating impacts of shelter and housing options for the people experiencing homelessness, people with barriers to market housing 4. Improving public (business, residents) understanding/ability to assist 5. Advocacy 6. Other All Task Force members proposed recommendations, and staff offered a few as well. City staff developed an estimate for each item as to cost and time to implement. Staff and Task Force members together identified who the probable “lead” was for each item, and who would be necessary partners. Over two meetings, we worked to get all the ideas on the table, clarify what each meant, eliminate items not within the scope of our mission and adopted criteria, and consolidate items where appropriate. We ended up with 54 separate items. We individually rated each idea by completing a “ballot.” Results were tabulated and presented at the last meeting. Per our charter, items supported by at least 80% of the Task Force members voting were considered to be “consensus” items; items supported by at least 60% but less than 80% were considered to be “recommended” items. At our last meeting, we discussed and amended some of the voting results, and we reviewed this report in draft form as prepared by our facilitator, offered edits, and agreed to a process for finalizing the report. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 The Challenge The Task Force approved the following “problem statement” and definition of “what success looks like” Problem Statement The Redmond community is a caring community that wants to address homelessness. City residents, business owners, nonprofit service organizations, the faith community, and those in City Hall have all observed an increase in street level issues and homelessness in the past three years. The impacts are most notable in downtown Redmond, but are occurring in other areas of the city, as well as throughout the entire Eastside and all of King County. Residents observe more loitering, panhandling, and people sleeping outdoors in commercial areas and parks. The City has also experienced an increase in property crimes in the last three years, which may or may not be directly attributable to the increased homeless population. The homeless are not a monolithic population. Homelessness affects families with children, teens, young adults, middle-aged and senior adults. There are many reasons why individuals become homeless. What it will take to help each individual become stably housed is similarly varied. Redmond is not an island in its experience. While impacts are being felt locally, Redmond and its service agencies are part of a larger countywide system that has been established to address homelessness, as well as poverty, mental illness and addiction. That system does not focus on city borders. Impacts we feel in Redmond are also felt in other cities across King County; it will take the work of all in our region - as well as state and national efforts - to solve these problems. The Task Force understands that the following issues and conditions are of concern to the community: • Problem behaviors including loitering, trespassing in private buildings to use restrooms, get clean and sleep; drug deals taking place on streets, alleys, parks and trail areas • Property damage including breaking of locks on buildings to gain access to private buildings • Visible street homelessness • Mental illness and addiction issues suffered by some of the homeless • Panhandling • The hardships of homeless families and individuals ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Concerns arising from these issues and conditions include: • Redmond becoming less safe for residents and visitors • Businesses experiencing more aggressive behavior from individuals experiencing homelessness • Redmond becoming a less attractive place for business and visitors • Residents afraid to use the library due to groups of young, apparently homeless, adults loitering in the vicinity • Landlords losing tenants, employers losing employees, and increased labor costs in response to frightening interactions with the homeless • Residents afraid to use public trails and parks due to groups of apparently homeless individuals living or loitering in these areas • Landlords and property owners suffering property damage, having to expend funds to repair damage and prevent future damage • Concern for the human suffering experienced by families and individuals living on the streets, parks and open spaces of our city Constraints and obstacles to addressing these concerns and issues include: Lack of places for homeless individuals to be • Lack of sufficient shelter to house individuals experiencing homelessness • Lack of affordable housing • Lack of day centers where individuals experiencing homelessness can be during the day • Lack of hygiene centers where individuals experiencing homelessness can get clean, take care of basic bodily needs • A regionalized system for homelessness that has only one shelter for young adults (18-24) in all of East King County, and that shelter –the Landing – is located in downtown Redmond Difficult for individuals experiencing homelessness to help themselves • An increasingly mobile society, with less family support available to people who fall on hard times • Lack of transit passes to help homeless people get to their jobs and needed services • Lack of job opportunities, particularly lack of jobs that will pay enough to afford housing in the city/Eastside • Difficulty in saving enough money to afford first, last month’s rent and security deposit in order to move out of shelters ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 • Lack of knowledge on the part of both individuals experiencing homelessness and the general public about resources available to assist individuals experiencing homelessness • Lack of services, including mental health care, job training, addiction services • Lack of outreach services to connect homeless to services they need • Lack of places for the homeless to securely store their belongings • Difficulty in finding and permitting sites for homeless encampments • Lack of an effective coordinated regional process to identify sites where homeless facilities can locate Hard for supportive agencies to help individuals and families experiencing homelessness • Lack of public understanding of the complexity of homelessness • Some experiencing homelessness opt out of staying in shelters or using services available to them • Growing poverty in the region, increasingly generational poverty • Growing population means more people with challenges • Lack of adequate resources to address the challenges • Multiple government agency regulations and grant requirements create a burden on agency operations. Our task is to find actionable recommendations that the Redmond community can take to address these issues in the near term. We believe our recommendations will result in meaningful improvement in the problems and challenges we observe. What does success look like? Success for us in response to the challenge of homelessness in Redmond will take several forms: • Improved sense of public safety. • A reduction in loitering, trespassing and other similar incidents in the city. • Greater understanding by residents and businesses of the complexity of homelessness, and greater engagement by residents and businesses to constructively respond to this challenge. • Better outcomes for homeless individuals: they are able to connect to the services and housing they need. • Enhanced capacity for our city, local service providers and faith community to help homeless individuals in a variety of ways. • Redmond City Hall promoting collective action by Eastside cities to address the challenge of homelessness. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Elimination of homeless individuals from our city is not the goal. Redmond can and should continue to be a safe and compassionate community. Criteria for Task Force Recommendations Our mission statement includes consideration of all homeless populations within the city. The Mayor specifically requested recommendations that the City – the government, residents, businesses, faith community – could act on to address the concerns and issues we identified and that we heard from the community. We chose to focus on items that could be meaningfully addressed within at most five years. To help focus our recommendations to respond to the Task Force’s mission, we adopted the following criteria screen for recommendations. Recommendations would be included for consideration by the Task Force if they meet all these criteria: • Actionable – it is feasible to implement this recommendation as a community (stakeholders needed are part of Redmond community and have means to take action necessary to accomplish the change sought). Include consideration of financial feasibility (without setting a specific dollar threshold for what is feasible). • Financially Willing Sponsors – if the action involves public or private funding, the Task Force member sponsoring the idea must be willing to advocate for the raising of the money (from private or public sector, as appropriate). • Consistent with federal law – could involve a recommended change in state law • Short-Term or Near Term Timeline – can be implemented within 1-5 years • Positive Community Impact – It is reasonable to expect that implementation of the recommendation will result in overall positive community impact, and respond to the community’s concerns Recommendations General Observations The complexity of the issue of homelessness, and the issues and challenges faced by individuals and families experiencing homelessness, means that there is no “silver bullet.” It will take a wide variety of strategies, and partners, to respond to the many issues facing this community. Moreover, as noted above, homelessness is an issue that is not constrained by city boundaries. The systems set up to address homelessness are regional - by which we mean countywide - and statewide. This doesn’t mean that our community cannot or should not take action. But we need to be mindful about the larger systems context in which our actions occur. The Task Force is a diverse group. We want to note that in terms of barriers to progress, there is a division of opinion among our members on whether expanding the quantity of resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 available to serve individuals experiencing homelessness in Redmond will simply attract more people and make the overall situation in the city worse, rather than better - some members believe this to be true, others disagree. Recommendations Table 1 presents our recommendations by the six categories as described below. 1. Improving public safety and reducing crime 2. Expanding and improving services to sheltered and unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness 3. Expanding, improving and mitigating impacts of shelter and housing options for the people experiencing homelessness, people with barriers to market housing 4. Improving public (business, residents) understanding/ability to assist 5. Advocacy 6. Other Why did we pick these six categories? We think it is important to provide general context on this question. Overall, the categories reflect our major areas of discussion in Task Force meetings, and reflect the complexity of homelessness. Specifically, we note: 1. Improving public safety and reducing crime: Several members of the Task Force and others from the community shared personal experiences of scary and/or criminal activity on or near their properties that they have reason to believe are directly related to the increased numbers of homeless individuals in the City. The Task Force feels strongly that a balanced approach is necessary to respond to these concerns: Redmond should be both a safe community, and a compassionate community. At the March 2015 community meeting, public safety concerns were mentioned more frequently than any other category of issue. We must be responsive to these very real concerns and issues. 2. Expanding and improving services to sheltered and unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness: We heard from many people - both speakers and Task Force members - that there are insufficient services to meet the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in Redmond, the Eastside, and the County. Service needs range from outreach (connecting people to housing and services), to basic hygiene facilities, to health care, to life skills training. A major discussion point for us was the lack of a full-time day center in Redmond, and lack of day center capacity throughout East King County. 3. Expanding, improving and mitigating impacts of shelter and housing options for the people experiencing homelessness, people with barriers to market housing: At the most basic level, people will remain homeless if there is no housing or shelter for them. And it is ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 very hard for many individuals and families experiencing homelessness to save enough money to be able to put down first and last month’s rent and a security deposit. While there is a recognition that services need to be sited somewhere, the Task Force encourages provider agencies to focus more effort on mitigating actual and potential impacts to surrounding areas. 4. Improving public (business, residents) understanding/ability to assist: We observe that there is a general lack of understanding about the complexity of homelessness and a lack of knowledge about resources available in our community to help people experiencing homelessness. Additionally, there are many potential skills and resources available to assist with these issues in the business and residential community - not to mention that City efforts need community support. The faith community has effectively channeled support from businesses and residents for years, and has long been a major player in providing services and housing to homeless individuals in Redmond. In sum, the community cannot expect or assume that City Hall can just make the issue of homelessness disappear. We must find ways to engage all parts of our community if we are to succeed. 5. Advocacy: Because homelessness is a regional, statewide and national issue, we must engage partners outside city boundaries to help make the systemic changes necessary. 6. Other: There are other actions we recommend that did not fall neatly into one of the categories above. As noted, we tiered our recommendations into two levels: consensus items receiving support of at least 80% of Task Force members voting, and recommendation items, receiving support of at least 60% but less than 80% of Task Force members voting. Table A indicates below which tier each item falls into, as well as the expected cost of implementing the item (roughly - if it can be estimated at this time), the estimated time frame for implementation (short-term, near- term, long-term) and who we anticipate the lead would be, and who would be necessary partners. In some cases we offer additional comments about the recommendations. For a complete list of all the items on which we voted, and the voting results, see Attachment C. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Table 1: Matrix of Task Force Recommendations KEY: Task Force Rating: R = Recommendation Item (60-79% support) C = Consensus Item (80%+ support) Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement ST = Short Term 1-2yrs. NT = Near Term 2-5 yrs. LT = Long Term > 5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed Item # Description Task Force Rating Estimated Cost Timeframe to Implement Additional Notes/Comments Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals Category A: Improving public safety and reducing crime 1 Increase police bike patrols in downtown, by retail properties and on trails. C ST/NT Addresses public safety concerns raised by downtown businesses. This also responds directly to safety concerns expressed in the March 2015 community meeting. L ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Item # Description Task Force Rating Estimated Cost Timeframe to Implement Additional Notes/Comments Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals 2 Implement a community awareness campaign and include posting signs that encourage donations to helping organizations instead of giving directly to panhandlers. C $ ST We feel a broad community awareness program is the best approach to addressing the challenge of panhandling. L Category B: Expand, Improve services to homeless/sheltered individuals 3 Provide job training and positions for homeless individuals in the community. Explore partnership with DSHS or Workforce Development Council to create public works projects to employ and train homeless individuals. R ST-LT Many of the homeless individuals interviewed noted their desire to work. P P P L 4 Increase the number of transit passes available to the homeless. R ST Many of the homeless individuals interviewed noted the challenge of a lack of access to transit. P P P L ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Item # Description Task Force Rating Estimated Cost Timeframe to Implement Additional Notes/Comments Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals 5 Create additional day center resources on the Eastside to meet regional needs/ open a regional day center. C per center ST-NT due to costs This will have a greater benefit than simply focusing on additional day center resources in Redmond. P L Category C: Expand, Improve and Mitigate Impacts of shelter and housing options for the homeless, people with barriers to market housing 6 Partner with King County Housing Authority to provide housing opportunities for lower income households not currently benefitting from the incentive zoning program. General approach would involve KCHA providing subsidies to families at 30% AMI in order to allow them to afford currently units priced at 50% or 80% AMI. C $--staff time only ST This idea is based on an offer by the KCHA. It will directly help lower income families and individuals within the City at little or no cost to the City or developers. L P ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Item # Description Task Force Rating Estimated Cost Timeframe to Implement Additional Notes/Comments Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals 7 Extend City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance to require some units affordable to households making 50% or less of Average Median Income (down from current 80% AMI). R Eighty percent of AMI is very close to market, so doesn’t offer lower income people access to housing in Redmond. P P L P P P 8 Create storage lockers for homeless individuals. R ST Many service providers don’t have this capacity and most homeless individuals have belongings P P L L 9 Increase affordable housing options. R Lack of affordable housing is a fundamental underlying causes of homelessness. We do not have specific recommendations within the broad range of options available to expand affordable housing, other than items 6 and 7 above. P P L ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Item # Description Task Force Rating Estimated Cost Timeframe to Implement Additional Notes/Comments Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals 10 Create a City “Flexible Funding Pool” that can help people stay in their homes with emergency loans, grants. C ST-NT This responds to an issue that came up frequently in the interviews of homeless individuals and is a relatively low cost solution to preventing homelessness. L P P 11 Expand funds to help those living in shelters to secure first & last month’s rent, security deposits, in order to move into permanent private housing. C ST-NT This also came up in the interviews of homeless individuals – saving this amount of money can be a major barrier for people trying to move out of shelters into permanent housing. P P P L P Category D: Improve public (business, residents) understanding / ability to assist 12 Develop printable literature/public education program for Redmond residents to identify how to help the homeless, who to call for various issues. C ST This goes hand in hand with our support for Item 2 above: help the community become aware of how best to help homeless individuals. L P P P P P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Item # Description Task Force Rating Estimated Cost Timeframe to Implement Additional Notes/Comments Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals 13 Create/Support a periodic “day of caring” in the City where service providers (City, library, nonprofits, etc.) private businesses and residents can come together and provide services to the homeless (haircuts, job search, healthcare, etc. based on Bothell model) R $ ST There are many people who are one step away from homelessness that could be helped by this, as well as those who are already homeless. It would also be an effective event at which to launch the community literature referenced in Item 12. The Redmond Library is taking lead on starting such an event this September. P P P P L L Category E: Advocacy 14 Support the County’s Best Starts for Kids Levy. R Immediate If approved by the voters of King County this fall, this levy will provide substantial funding to enhance services for homeless youth and homeless families with children. P P L P P P P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Item # Description Task Force Rating Estimated Cost Timeframe to Implement Additional Notes/Comments Stakeholder Groups That Should Participate in Implementation L = Lead P = Other partner needed City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals 15 Engage significant advocacy at the state and national level to restore funding for a robust mental health system. C ST-NT-LT Mental illness is a major underlying cause of homelessness. P P L P P P P 16 Advocate with the state to make it easier to access and distribute Community Housing Grant (CHG) and Housing Support Program (HSP) funds. R ST-NT These funds are available directly to those at imminent risk of homelessness. However, current regulations make it difficult for such individuals to access the funding. P P P P L P P P Category F: Other 17 Convene an ongoing commission of Redmond stakeholders to meet at least quarterly to review progress & discuss ongoing issues C $ ST We see this as an important follow up step to the Task Force process. We anticipate this group would include both Task Force and other members. L P P P P P P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Conclusions and Next Steps Redmond should be a safe and compassionate community. We are fortunate in Redmond to have the benefit of City support, as well as excellent nonprofit service organization and faith community programs for homeless families and individuals. Still, there is more we can do as a community, and we offer our recommendations in the hope that we can continue to expand upon the good work to date. That said, there is no silver bullet, and we cannot solve this problem by acting solely within the city borders: broader regional engagement is needed. We thank the Mayor for creating this Task Force and hope that our recommendations will help shape the community’s response to the serious challenges of homelessness in Redmond—and encourage the broader regional discussion and engagement that we believe needs to occur. We anticipate and encourage the creation of an “implementation committee” to work towards accomplishing our recommendations. And, we encourage the City to identify metric of success, building off our definition of success as set forth in our report. We ask to be reconvened in six months to hear about progress being made in response to our recommendations. Finally, we wish to extend our particular thanks to the City staff team for their excellent work on our behalf. We are grateful for their professionalism, responsiveness, advice and input throughout this project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Attachment A Redmond Community Homelessness Task Force Members & Support Team Name Affiliation Task Force Members Meghan Altimore* Hopelink Lara Bolger Redmond United Methodist Church Steve Daschle Human Services Commission Chris Falco Downtown business owner Andrew Koeppen Public Safety Commission/Realtor/ Business owner Marian LaBeck Library Andrea Liggett Downtown Resident Pam Mauk Together Center Carolyn Mansfield* Human Services Commission Al Rosenthal Downtown Property/ Business Owner Tim Short* Downtown Business Owner Gary Smith St. Jude’s Derek Wentorf Friends of Youth Tasha Witherspoon Downtown Apartment Manager Support Team Colleen Kelly Asst. Director, Comm. Planning Services Brooke Buckingham Sr. Planner, Human Services Chief Ron Gibson Police Chief Commander Charlie Gorman Police Dept. Jane Christenson Deputy City Administrator Karen Reed Karen Reed Consulting, LLC, Facilitator *Steering Committee Members appointed by Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Attachment B Community Meeting on Homelessness March 12, 2015 Summary of Concerns and Ideas* * Task Force Members were able to review the write-up of all the individual comments offered at the community meeting. CONCERNS Safety/Crime (60 Comments) Key concern is safety, primarily for community members but also for homeless individuals. Major areas of concern include the library, trails and parks. Specific behaviors noted include loitering, drug use, assault, and vandalism. People feel concern, worry and fear. Some recognition that homeless people need access to services. Communication/Outreach/Resources/Programs (39 comments) There is general sense that many people are not educated about the issue of homelessness nor what the city is currently doing to address it; not enough communication/access to information. Many comments expressed concern about insufficient resources. One comment indicated a belief that current services provided in Redmond are attracting more homeless people to the city. Housing and Housing Prices (22 comments) Most common concern mentioned is lack of sufficient affordable housing. Additional comments regarding high cost of rent—especially for those on fixed incomes. Insufficient shelter was also noted along with concerns about whether the community would be open to siting additional facilities. Need to treat homeless people with humanity, respect, understanding, intention, not broad-brush (21 comments) Consistent comments about negative stereotypes, judging and blaming rather than an understanding about why people are homeless. Concern was expressed regarding broad generalizations being applied when every person or family’s circumstance is unique. One comment stated that homelessness and panhandling are not the same issue. Treatment and services for drugs/alcohol and mental health needs (14 comments) Virtually all comments related to concerns regarding insufficient treatment services for those with mental illness and/or drug/alcohol addiction. About half mentioned the increased challenge of locating appropriate housing for these individuals. Need for available places in the Daytime for homeless people (13 comments) ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 The two themes in this area focused on the group at the library and the need for a place where homeless individuals can go in the day time to be able to address personal hygiene as well as to access services. City Laws/Permitting/Codes (8 comments) The basic theme here is that there are city codes and requirements that create barriers to encampments and other efforts to provide shelter. Not enough shelter space (7 comments) Self-explanatory IDEAS Need for Affordable Housing (21 comments) Outreach/Community Engagement (20 comments) Outreach to the homeless/for the homeless Outreach and Education to the Community as a whole Need for Day Centers/Urban Rest Centers (19 comments) Showers, laundry facilities, lockers, computers, resources, etc. Support for Tent Encampments (12 comments) Permit process & fees Resource Accessibility (10 comments) Resources in one place Regional Collaboration (7 comments) Redmond can’t do it alone ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Attachment C to Redmond Community Homelessness Task Force Report: Adjusted Ballot Results This document presents the adjusted voting results from the Task Force, based on individual ballots completed by each Task Force member and subsequent group discussion of the tabulated results and re-voting of some items at the last Task Force meeting (Meeting Note that the Item Numbers in this attachment differ from the Item numbers in Table 1 in the body of the report. The Task Force members developed and/or nominated the “action items” on the ballot. City staff developed the preliminary assessment of the implementation for each action item, in terms of estimated cost, timeline to implement, lead agency and necessary partners. Task Force members were asked to indicate their support for each of the 54 items by rating each item from 1 through 5. Rating Key: 5 = I strongly support; 4 = I support; 3 = I neither support nor oppose; 2 = I oppose; 1 = I strongly oppose. Items that were re-voted at Meeting 6 are noted with an asterisk and the votes shown are as re- voted at Meeting 6. Per the Task Force Charter, Items supported (e.g. rated a 4 or 5) by at least 80% of the Task Force members voting are considered “Consensus Items”—noted in the “Results” column with a Items supported by at least 60% but less than 80% of the Task Force members voting are considered “Recommendation Items”—noted with an CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals A. Improving public safety and reducing crime A.1 Increase police bike patrols in downtown, by retail properties and on trails. 93% 7% 0% C ST/NT L A.2 Adopt panhandling ordinance or other effective approaches to regulating panhandling 57% 29% 14% $ ST L P P P P P A.3 Require panhandlers to get a license 29% 21% 50% $ ST L A.4 Implement a community awareness campaign and include posting signs that encourage donations to helping organizations instead of 86% 7% 7% C $ ST L ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals giving directly to panhandlers. A.5 Post signs City has developed to discourage panhandling 43% 29% 29% $ ST L A.6 Additional neighborhood resource officers 57% 36% 7% $$$per officer ST/NT L B. Expand, Improve services to homeless/sheltered individuals B.1 Triple the City’s Human Services funding pool – and target the money to fund upstream interventions to prevent homelessness 50% 36% 14% NT-LT P L L L P B.2 Launch a local transportation service to help homeless individuals get to and from needed services, shelters and jobs. Could involve Metro Transit, City, Nonprofits, and/or Faith Community. 50% 36% 14% $90-$100/hr. = driver/ins./ gas/maint., plus cost of vehicle ST-NT L P P L B.3 Create day center(s) in Redmond that can serve women and families, men and young adults, providing hygiene facilities, transit connections, job search assistance, service information. 57% 21% 21% NT-LT P P L B.4 Increase funding for outreach workers 43% 36% 21% ST-NT L L B.5 Provide job training and positions for homeless individuals in the community. Explore partnership with DSHS or Workforce 71% 21% 7% R ST-LT P P P L ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals Development Council to create public works projects to employ and train homeless individuals. B.6 Increase the number of transit passes available to the homeless 64% 7% 29% R ST P P P L B.7* Create additional day center resources on the Eastside to meet regional needs/ open a regional day center 83% 16% C center ST-NT due to costs P L B.8 Encourage local service providers to give people who get services such as shelter, subsidized housing, welfare, community services, etc., a receipt showing how much that service cost. This is to remind the person receiving the service/shelter that the community paid for the service they received, and that the service wasn’t free. Then create a system where that bill can be paid back. 14% 7% 79% L B.9 Shower program for the homeless. Organizations with shower facilities would allow volunteers to coordinate showers for homeless people on certain times and days 57% 21% 21% $ ST P P L L C. Ex pa C.1 City and faith communities should engage to identify homeless encampment locations on 50% 36% 14% $ ST L / L/ P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals the Eastside P C.2 Partner with King County Housing Authority to provide housing opportunities for lower income households not currently benefitting from the incentive zoning program. General approach would involve KCHA providing subsidies to families at 30% AMI in order to allow them to afford currently units priced at 50% or 80% AMI under. 86% 7% 7% C $--staff time only ST L P C.3 Extend City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance to require some units affordable to households making 50% or less of average median income (down from current 80%) 64% 21% 14% R P P L P P P C.4 Create a City-owned car camping site, where people could pay to stay for up to 1 month. 43% 7% 50% ST/NT L P P P P C.5 Create a City-owned rest stop (require payment for use) 21% 36% 43% NT-LT L C.6 Reduce the cost of securing temporary use permits for tent cities 43% 29% 29% $ ST L C.7 Expand capacity at The Landing 36% 14% 50% ST-NT-LT P L C.8 Create storage lockers for homeless individuals 64% 14% 21% R ST P P L L ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals C.9 Increase affordable housing options 71% 21% 7% R P P L C.10 Study feasibility of relocating community services from present place of business to one with less impact on downtown businesses, residents. 21% 29% 50% ST P P P P L C.11 Create a City “Flexible Funding Pool” that can help people stay in their homes with emergency loans, grants. 86% 7% 7% C ST-NT L P P C.12 * Expand funds to help those living in shelters to secure first & last month’s rent, security deposits, in order to move into permanent private housing. 92% 0% 8% C ST-NT P P P L P C.13 Change City code to require that if a shelter doesn’t screen out residents for drug use that it requires any drug use occur on premises and individuals arrested offsite for drug use will be evicted from the shelter. 21% 14% 64% NT-LT P L L/P C.14 Long term (>30 days, perhaps less than 6 months) tent/camping area that is served by public transit. Camping area would have showers, lockers, picnic tables, etc. would be regularly patrolled by police, and have strict 29% 29% 43% NT-LT P P L P ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals quite times, open drug/alcohol use. It would be open to anyone-- not just the homeless. C.15 Identify/Create permanent sites for Camp Unity and Tent City 4 so they do not have to move every 90 days. 43% 21% 36% ST-NT P/ L P/ L P P D. Improve public (business, residents) understanding / ability to assist D.1* Develop printable literature/public education program for Redmond residents to identify how to help the homeless, who to call for various issues. 100 % 0% 0% C ST L P P P P P P D.2 The City should create an independent outreach position not tied to any particular organization to continually assess the make- up, needs and travel patterns of the local homeless population. This person would also distribute information on available services. 36% 36% 29% ST-NT L P P P D.3 Create a staff position focused on creating volunteer opportunities for community members to positively impact homelessness. 21% 43% 36% ST-NT L/ P P P P L/P P D.4 Offer entry level positions (grounds-keeping, exterior painting, cart return) to homeless 36% 43% 21% $ ST P L P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals individuals D.5 Create/Support a periodic “day of caring” in the City where service providers (city, library, nonprofits, etc.) private businesses and residents can come together and provide services to the homeless (haircuts, job search, healthcare, etc. based on Bothell model) 64% 14% 21% R $ ST P P P P L L D. 6 Coordinate a “Redmond Reads” Initiative encouraging “everyone” in Redmond to read the same book on homelessness and then participate in community conversations about it. 29% 43% 29% $ ST P P P P P P L P D.7 Develop a “sponsorship” program; housed person or family A “adopts/sponsors” homeless person or family B. This could range from just developing a relationship to providing up to a set amount of financial support to becoming a host home 29% 21% 50% ST-NT P P P P L P E. Adv ocac E.1 Support the County’s Best Starts for Kids Levy 71% 14% 14% R Immediate P P L P P P P P E.2 Engage significant advocacy at the state and 86% 7% 7% C ST-NT-LT P P L P P P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals national level to restore funding for a robust mental health system E.3 Advocate with the state to make it easier to access and distribute Community Housing Grant (CHG) and Housing Support Program (HSP) funds 71% 21% 7% R ST-NT P P P P L P P P E.4 Advocate for local District High Schools to teach budgeting, long term planning, consequences of single parenthood, work ethics, responsibility for one’s action, and self-reliance. 29% 36% 36% ST-NT P P L P P P P P E.5 Advocate for a change in State Constitution and city code not to raise property taxes on the owner of the property until the property is sold. Raising taxes on marginal people makes their homes unaffordable, raising taxes on owners who rent out homes forces them to raise rents. 14% 7% 79% ST-NT P P L P P P P P E.6 Advocate for changes to state law and local code that would prevent homeless persons with illegal drugs or drug paraphernalia from receiving any assistance from the local community for some period of time. (subject 21% 7% 71% ST-NT P P L P P P P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals to federal law limitations) E.7 Advocate for changes to state law and City code so that a person getting a trespass citation is not be eligible to stay in local shelters (subject to federal law limitations). 29% 7% 64% ST-NT P P L P P P P P E.8 Advocate for a change in state law/constitution that would allow the City to pay up to 50% of a down payment on a home. If the home appreciates, when it sells the city would receive 50% of the increase. 29% 29% 43% NT-LT L P L P P P P P E.9 Advocate for a new shelter in East King County to serve homeless individuals suffering from addiction. 43% 43% 14% ST P L P P P E.10 Advocate to consolidate the number of government agencies serving the homeless to streamline operations and reduce overlapping and conflicting services. 29% 43% 29% ST P L P P F. Other F.1 Create an Eastside coalition of community stakeholders (cities, businesses, residents, faith community, service providers) to address homelessness in the Eastside 54% 23% 23% $ ST L P P P P P P P F.2 Adopt legislation barring major residential rent hikes from going into effect in less than 36% 21% 43% ST-NT P P L P P P P P ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 CATEGORY Item # Action Items Proposed By Task Force Members Combined Rating of Task Force Members Results Estimated Cost $ = <$25K $25-50K $50-100K = $100 – 500K = > $500K Timeframe to Implement Short Term ST = 1-2yrs. Near Term NT= 2-5 yrs. Long Term LT = >5 yrs. Stakeholder Groups – Which should lead implementation? Who are necessary partners? Lead = L Other partners needed = P 4 and 5 3 2 and 1 City Business Community Residents Faith Community Nonprofit Service /Shelter Providers Low Income Housing Providers Other Cities, local gov't agencies, County Homeless Individuals 60-90 days. F.3* Convene an ongoing commission of all Redmond stakeholders to meet at least quarterly to review progress & discuss ongoing issues 92% 0% 8% C $ ST L P P P P P P P F.4 Close The Landing 7% 0% 93% ST-NT-LT L F.5 Take additional action to ensure the Redmond Library is not used as a hang-out by homeless individuals 29% 36% 36% F.6 Reduce the amount of government money spent on homelessness. Fewer government services may be better than more, as fewer services will require people to help family and each other. 7% 7% 86% $ ST-NT L F.7 Reduce the regulatory/tax burden on new small businesses so that it is easier for homeless individuals to start their own business 29% 29% 43% ST-NT P L P