A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless for funding of housing and services for 75 qualified participants. Approves a $2,338,350 contract with The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless through 12-31-20 to expand the existing Social Impact Bond program by providing housing and supportive services to an additional 75 chronically homeless individuals who have been identified as high-cost users of government funded services (201738812). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-30-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
Were missing one no are not is right on. Okay, Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Resolution five, 95, 99 on the floor for adoption? Sure. I move that council resolutions 598 from 99. Both series of 2018 be adopted in block. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Members County Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I call these out because I as in committee, I intend to vote no on them. I just wanted to make note that I believe that these proposed contracts actually are an improvement over what we entered into two years ago with the Social Impact Bond Program. But I also want to point out that these are not bonds in the first place. And in fact, this second round, this expansion doesn't even go through the exercise of of having an outside investors loan money that we then repay with with imputed theoretical savings in city in city spending. I think it is premature to go into an expansion of this of this housing first program when I don't believe we have adequately analyzed the social impacts that are occurring under the initial rollout, as I've explained in committee, and for the members who weren't there and for the audience, the project, the site based project that is in my district has has had a very harsh ripple effect in the community. And I don't believe that the theory of repaying the investors who loaned us the money for the wraparound services for the the chronic and high frequency. Not my term, but the term of the folks who proposed it. The worst of the worst. Homeless who get arrested the most. Who go to detox the most. Go to Denver General Emergency Room. Denver health. Excuse me. Emergency room the most. That we're not capturing all of the new costs because Denver police units from police district four are called to that building two, three, four times a day. And it's having significant impacts on the surrounding businesses. The very first week that tenants moved in, one of the very first tenants went up to the liquor store and committed a a theft. And the police received no cooperation from the operator of the facility. I do have to credit, though, mental health center of Denver, which operates the facility, because because of these problems, they have made the very adjustments that the community asks them to do and a good neighbor agreement, but which was not included. They are, in fact, restricting overnight visitors who have caused significant problems being led in the back door. They have, in fact, done evictions of folks, which is something the community wanted one of them to commit to in the first place, and they would not. So I do want to credit them for having the flexibility to adjust and to try to mitigate the the harmful I call them anti-social impacts that this program is having. So while I believe that this contract with Colorado Coalition for the Homeless is an improvement because it's not site based, it is more it's tenant based. So it's going to be scattered site the way it was explained to us in committee. I believe that's an improvement. I wish that had been the case up front. I think that we should not jump into this expansion until we fully understand the the how to mitigate some of the negative impacts that it does cause. So I wanted to vote no, and I don't I'm not calling on other members to vote no, but I believe that I have to do this because of what experience we've had in my district with it. Thank you. Counsel. MCEACHIN Thank you, Mr. President. This is clearly a larger debate than we can have on the floor with regards this particular contract. But because I think I was somewhat unprepared for some of the concerns you shared in committee, I didn't want us to to close this discussion out without some some comment. And I think that Councilman Flynn has raised several different issues. One is the model of supportive housing, where individuals are living together with similar challenges. And I think that that is a model that I think we as a community, I'm realizing as we go through some discussions in the zoning task force that Councilwoman Ortega and I are on, I think we started with discussions about projects and locations and contracts, and we didn't really, as a community, pause and talk about that model. Overall, there is some value to having folks receiving services together. The idea of having a. Social worker travel from site to site has has some cost impacts to it. It has some impacts for isolation for the individual who's going through an experience and doesn't have a community of of similar folks. And so I don't think it's the case that we can just say, oh, well, it's you know, it doesn't work to have folks living together because there are some important efficiencies from the government funding side and there's some important community benefits for those who are living and going through the process together. And and so in spite of, you know, some of the questions that individuals may have about this supportive housing, I think we need to slow down and talk about this. And so one of the things I'm volunteering to do is doing some research into some community conversations that are added. Let's not talk about it at a site specific or a contract specific level. Let's talk about the model and help folks answer some of the questions that probably your residents went through in the process of a site discussion but didn't have the chance to engage with. And so so stay tuned for that. You know, the second aspect here is, is how how the this this housing approach can integrate with communities and have a good dialog and respond to questions that come up. You know, I think it's a good thing. One of the things we say to folks is it's important. You know, I did some follow up research to to ask about the police calls. Many of them are about folks harassing residents, not so much about residents. So those calls are not all calls against the residents. Many of them are calls by residents because they're at risk from someone from the outside. And so that's that's what we want folks to do. We want them to feel safe. And I think that the question about a call to police for prevention versus what we may have had when folks are unhoused, which is them being victimized and not being able to call the police because they had no phone or because they weren't able to get somewhere safe before they were, you know, victimized. So I think that there is still a comparative case we have to make about the fact that communities are impacted by people living on the streets. Certainly, you know, many of us get the calls about what's happening in alleys, what's happening in parks and what's happening in rivers. So so there is an impact when people are not housed that impacts community as well. And so I just think it's important to have that conversation. And then the last concern that Councilman Flynn has raised is, is how we're paying. And I think that what what I have seen in the data from the Urban Institute. So just to be clear, there is significant data. We have a year of data and an independent evaluator who has found that the majority of individuals have stayed house, have reduced their journeys, have reduced their hospital nights. And so a call to police is not the same cost, right? It calls the police because you're a victim of domestic violence is not the same cost as you being in a jail bed overnight. Right. So one is a protective preventative call, the other is a cost in the jail system. And so I believe the data is there that this is a cost benefit still to the city once you dig into the full cost of each of these these things that have been raised. And so I encourage folks to read the Urban Institute data, and I do think there is sufficient data for this expansion, although I acknowledge the fact that I think we need to have some more conversation about the model and help folks go through it more slowly so they can really ask questions. And in particular, our neighborhoods. I think they haven't been engaged as much in the conversation, perhaps, as we as policymakers. So so I will, you know, see how I can help with that. I'm sure others are interested as well. I'll include our departments, but but for tonight, I'm really pleased to be advancing this contract because I think it is the right direction. It's not an easy direction, but it is the right direction. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa. I have to agree it is the right direction, but I am still going to just chiming in to explain another decision to to not say no, but to abstain from this vote, primarily because I did say no to the original SB, you know, in part because I thought it was the $4 million that we were essentially gambling on this being successful could have and should have gone directly into the project, maybe could have addressed some of this, this stuff sort of more real time. And this this contract is better than that. What we had done previously in a number of ways, but it is still has some of the concerns that I that I had originally on the incentive side. And so so while it is a step in the right direction, it is not not the complete step that I would like to have it in order for me to fully support it. And so I will be abstaining because it is an improvement. But it is not it's it's not there yet. All right, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So, first of all, I appreciate Councilman Flynn pulling. He's too out. He and I were both really vocal about wanting to make sure that when this particular location was identified in his district, not this bill, but the site that he was referring to in southwest Denver, we advocated that the people who were homeless that live right next to the creek be allowed to be prioritized because the concern was if they didn't get a chance to be housed in this development, they potentially would be some of the people hanging out outside who some of the complaints are about, not just the some of the complaints about clients who live there, but some of the people that are still homeless that did not get to be prioritized. And I think that's a policy discussion that we need to have as well, because wherever we have these locations being selected, that that we don't get to weigh in on. It is important to look at what the communities are going to have to be dealing with. And in this case, Councilman Flynn and I were at a community event two weeks ago, and this was a huge topic of conversation. So we do have to have that conversation. Management of these facilities is absolutely key in addressing the issues that are brought to their attention and having the community committees. I don't remember what you referred to it as, but. It's it's important to have that ongoing dialog to be able to address the issues as they come up rather than waiting for them to fester and, you know, have more animosity within the community, between the community and the facilities. And I know District four does a really good job of working with the community. The manager, I understand, of Sanderson has has been very responsive in meeting with some of the adjacent businesses and the neighborhood group, and I think they're moving to be a better neighbor in the community. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, who this particular contract is with, has been the first organization in this city to do the Housing First model, and they've been doing it now for well over eight years and have done a really good job. They include the wraparound services on site and it it makes a difference for the individual because they're getting the services they need where they're at, rather than having to send them offsite to other places where it's sometimes a little more challenging. And so I think these two bills tonight should move forward. But I agree with Councilwoman Kimmich that we need to continue this conversation about some of the key policy issues that are being discussed. You know, we. Purchased a building in southwest Denver in Councilman Clark's district that for whatever reason, did not work out. We then looked at the site in Councilman Lopez's district, and it's my understanding that's on hold. I don't know if the city is still looking to go into that site, but. We know our neighborhoods, so we should be part of the discussions so that decisions aren't being made where we then turn around later and you know, we're trying to figure out are we going to sell this building, are we going to put something else in the building that we purchased in in Councilman Clark's district? Because it did not work out as the site for utilizing social impact bonds and placing some of the individuals who are chronically homeless in our city. It is important that we have these these services and resources available for folks in our community that are struggling to get on their own, on their feet, on their own. So I will be supporting these two bills tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, you back up. There just briefly, Mr. Perez. And I want to thank Councilwoman Kenny for her comments. And it reminded me that I need to point out that last year my office organized a new registered neighborhood organization to represent the Marly and Brentwood and Sharon Park neighborhoods. And they have been very, very active in adopting that good neighbor agreement. And they have had mental health center of Denver come in and give a presentation, the manager of the project, and there's some very good dialog going on. So since the Councilwoman mentioned engagement with the community, I wanted to mention the fact that Marley neighborhood now has a brand new and active neighborhood organization that is taking this by the horns and is getting very involved in it. And I think we'll address some of those issues that the councilwoman brought up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I think there's been a lot of conversation and I think it's been a good conversation. And I appreciate I appreciate it. You know, having the conversation around neighborhoods and count the councilwoman and each bringing up the national data, I think that's that's really important to know that Housing First is a is a best practice. I'm just going to give you some anecdotal data. Two of these sites are in my district. And I got to tell you that there one of the sites had opposition to it. And the other site, there is some neighborhood concern, but not opposition. And the two sites that I'm mentioning is 20, 20, 77, Broadway and 40th in Colorado. And in both cases I've received, this is outside. And then I'm gonna go inside from the neighborhoods. You know, the amazement at how this is actually cleaned up the blocks on those neighborhood, how the blocks are much more active, and they're not seeing the kind of issues that they did because of these developments. And then I met with a group of of color coalition folks who live in the St Francis that I said was, it's not Saint Francis across the street from the new development, but it's it is not a part of this package. And I got to tell you, it was the first time I had met with formerly homeless individuals who are now a part of the leadership of the building and to to hear the vision that they have for their neighborhood and to see what they're trying to implement on their block was one of the most inspiring, empowering things that I've ever seen. And so I am 100% behind this program. I think we need to expand this program because I do believe, number one, that wraparound services and I do believe especially making sure that we are making that connection with those individuals who are incarcerated and not and do not have a home and do not have those services to go in making sure we're making that connection. So I'm so supportive of this and I'll be supportive of it going forward. And I think it's important that as we're thinking about this citywide and going to different neighborhoods, that we live in it. We live in a city. This is not the suburbs. We live in a city of different perspectives, different cultures, different economic backgrounds. We can no longer fight these things. We have to figure out how to live in a neighborhood where we all come together and figure out how all folks can live. And so I'm telling my folks in District nine that this is no longer a conversation about a these folks can't live here. What I'm saying is we're going to find out how to live together and really think about how to create a truly inclusive neighborhood. All right. And with that, Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn. No. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Black I. Clark, I. Espinosa staying. Mr. President, I. Placed those voting results. So I'm going to make sure everyone's in. Ten eyes, one knee, one abstention. All right, it passes out. We're missing somebody. Let's see. No, Sussman is not here. Right. That's good. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, that went on for a little bit. So let me see. We got 59, five, 98, five, 99. Okay, now we're on 694. Councilman Lopez, will you please put 694 on the floor?