A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Village Collaborative to extend the term and increase funding for Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) sites. Amends a contract with Colorado Village Collaborative by adding $3,900,000 for a new total of $4,799,569 and one year for a new end date of 12-31-22 to provide at least four Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) sites, with amenities and services, citywide (HOST-202161622-2). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-28-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-26-22.
I move that council resolution 72 be adopted. Second think has been moved and we've got the second by Councilmember Hines comments and questions by members of Council on Resolution 72. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam President, we've talked a lot about this. We all want to help people. We just have different opinions on how we should be prioritizing our spending. And so I'm going to be a no tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Swire. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a question about a good neighbor agreement and where exactly that is in the process. I know that with the very first one that was created that was in fact established. I don't know that they've actually had one at every single site that they've been at, but that is an important part of having that interaction between the community and the operators of the safe open space site so that there is that dialog around issues that may come up and and a way to resolve them quickly so that they don't fester. I know this is very much a part of the process. When we changed the zoning to allow for more shelters to exist in our city, and that was very much a clear process outlined in terms of ensuring that there was that interaction with the community and the opportunity to set up a community advisory committee or, you know, whatever you want to call it, so that there is that opportunity to have that dialog back and forth. So I wanted to ask if there is anyone from the host office that might be able to speak to that or someone from the. The Village Collaborative in charge of the S.O.S. site. All right, thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for the question. And we have Derek Woodbury here. Go ahead, Derek. Hello, Councilwoman. Yeah, this is Derek Woodbury from Host. And I believe we have Angie Nelson from our deputy director of Homelessness Resolution on Zoom as well. If she could please be promoted as a panelist. All right, wonderful. We've got Angie in the queue now. Go ahead, Andrej. I think you are council woman. Take it for that question and not to punt to someone else. But I am going to ask I think that we have Jennifer Faucher from Colorado Village Collaborative on the call. I've participated in several of the community engagement meetings related to this, and so I know they've been having those community engagements . But as you know, those good neighbor agreements occur between the nonprofit partner and the neighborhood, not between hosts and the neighborhood. So want to have CBC speak specifically to where they're at and process at those different sites. I just saw that Jennifer jumped on to her to speak to that. All right. Wonderful. Go ahead, Jennifer. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for I. Am Jennifer Faucher. I'm the director of development and communications for CBC, The Good Neighbor Agreement. I think the question is, when does that enter into the process of starting an S.O.S. or trying to launch one? Is that correct, or does that. Will let Council Square? Where is it in the process? Okay. So in my limited experience, I've been working for CBC since. End of October. The process and Jennifer, we've got quicker Montoya in the queue as well. So I'll just real quick say that it launches during and in right after it's a community information meeting. So I guess what I want to know is, does one exist so that, you know, as part of us making this commitment tonight, we want to know that there is, in fact, an agreement in place between the community and the Colorado Village Collaborative. Right. We can have quick to answer that. We have three source sites right now and I believe all. Three. Have an agreement, but quicker can clarify. Okay. I know we've we've heard from people in the Baker neighborhood right where this site is located. And so that's why I'm asking the question, okay, I know that that is in place so that that interaction and addressing issues can happen in a very timely manner and not allow them to fester because we are the ones that will get the phone calls when things are not functioning the way everybody anticipates that they're supposed to. Right. And we do our best to respond to every email and every call that we receive from our neighbors and especially those near the LRT site. But go ahead quick. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself. Unless I click the moratorium, the safe outdoor space program director. You're actually live from an S.O.S. right now. I would like to answer your question, Councilwoman Ortega. We do have a good neighbor and fully executed good neighbor agreement at our Denver house, Native American Inclusive S.O.S., which is our S.O.S., located at 780, a lot of street with the lawn and Lincoln Park neighborhood where we had two two good neighbor committee meetings. So what our mediation created in that neighborhood was a good neighbor committee. So we have a representative, a couple of representatives from the neighborhood alone, the Lincoln Park. We have Steve Charbonneau, our our mediator and Denver House representative. We have a council council representative from District three, and we also have two CBC representatives. So we meet every three weeks at 780 LRT Street, which is near the Baker neighborhood. And then we also have a fully executed good neighbor agreement at our Denver Human Services site with the Clayton R.A. neighborhood. And we did not need one outreach. Just the neighborhood was very welcoming. And so that we didn't enter into any negotiations with that neighborhood. And our previous resources had good neighbor agreements. So five out of six S's have a good neighbor agreement. And that's a very. Just a quick question about the Baker community, your block away from Baker. Is there a reason somebody from Baker is not part of this process, part of the good neighbor agreement? So I was not a part of those negotiations. But the the good neighbor agreement is between Denver Health, Llama, Lincoln Park and CBC. Okay. So you're saying Baker is not part of that, even though they're a block away? They're asking to be included. And I guess I'm just asking whether or not you all are open to Baker being part of that good neighbor agreement as well. We made a few members of the Baker I.R.A. on Saturday. Members. Some of their leadership came to our site at LRT and we talked about the S.O.S. program, and they didn't voice a desire to be in the genie. But we can certainly talk to them about it. Okay. Because we're getting communication otherwise. And so that's why I'm asking these questions. Right. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega and quicker. And Jennifer, we might just want to keep you in the queue here. We've got Councilmember Hines. You're up next. Thank you. Council president and Miss Montoya, I just for what it's worth, before I asked Mr. Montoya the question, there were executed good neighbor agreements at the first two safe outdoor spaces that were in my district. And so as far as I know, that's a pretty standard operating procedure for most states. So it's good to know that you haven't actually executed know for the current location and are willing to reach out to Baker. So the question so Miss Montoya, the question that I have is about police interaction. I know a fair amount of the postmortem from the two associates that were in my district. What sort of police interaction has occurred at the SARS sites? I think you've had seven now in Denver, as I am. I remember the number six. Six. Okay. And what sort of police interaction have you had with the SARS sites? We have not had any crimes against neighborhood property and or people to date. We have made calls for some emergency health services to our sites. But as far as crimes taking place in the neighborhood, we have zero events to report on that. I seem to recall that there were actually two calls for that were either property or victim crime related as opposed to calls for services. But both of those calls were actually external parties attempting to, you know, interact with with the residents as I am. I my remembering that correctly. Are you speaking on the first couple? Councilman Hines? Yes, ma'am. So much has taken place since then. I don't have that that particular data in front of me. But yes, we had to make a couple of calls for crises that happened outside of the fence. So the police did make those calls, but they weren't for residents inside the fence. So is it reasonable to say that actually the crime in the West Side is lower than than the crime for, you know, just the city as a whole? I believe in our first two sites in District six. We actually showed a reduction in crime during the time we were there. And by District six, you mean different police department districts, not. Only Denver Police Department. District six. Sorry, I always forget their. They're not there. They don't go inside. Yeah. Okay. And another question that I have received, I think probably the same email that Councilmember take us talking about is what about registered sex offenders? If there is a resident that that comes on to the site who is a registered sex offender, are they there legally required to register their location? Correct. Correct. And so what. We yes, we encourage all of our residents to take active participation and any of their legal requirements or commitments. Okay. Thank you. And I'd I'd also like to follow that up with the Denver Police Department to tell us that anybody experiencing homelessness can register on any random particular corner in Denver. If they hang out there themselves, they don't have a permanent address. Folks registered to corners and different blocks along Denver. Yeah. And that's actually that's on the secretary of state's website as well. Like as far as voter registration that they're allowed to use the street corner or, you know, some sort of have to have a physical address. It can be a P.O. box, but. Yeah, so that's. Thank you, Colorado and our secretary of state for a very liberal and reasonable voter registration list. So the last question that I have is, is about the number of folks who have been residents of a safe outdoor space that have been moved upward in the spectrum of homelessness or into housing. I think I recall the number at something like 47 or so. So that's correct. Okay. And that number on its own is not wholly meaningful. What about relative to the number of guests that have have been in a safe outdoor space in the six iterations that have been in Denver? Do you do you know the full the number of residents and safe spaces? Yes, I believe we have the total on 42 over the last some 40 sat longer term jumps in options. And currently, we have 20 people connected to housing vouchers that are moving along that continuum as well. And I'd just like to add that it's an affordable housing crisis where some waitlists can be up to 2 to 3 years. So we have been seeing pretty significant progress through timing. Okay. And you said what was the total number, 140? What was the number. 242 to. 42? Okay. So I'm just breaking out Excel. So 20% of the total population has already moved above somewhere else and higher in the spectrum of homelessness. And then you have another 20 in the queue. So that means a total of 28% are moving upward in the spectrum of homelessness. I'm not going to taper. I'm just going make that a statement because I just did the math. And math is math, so. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council president. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. We've got Councilmember Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'm not thrilled to death with safe outdoor spaces. I wish we didn't need them. People deserve dignified housing with a door that shuts and a place to store their stuff. And we all know we don't have enough of that in the city and county of Denver right now. I'm not thrilled to death that there might be drug use in our safe outdoor spaces. And I'm also not thrilled to death that there's a whole lot of drug use going on behind closed doors with our residents that do have permanent places to call home. We don't have enough drug treatment facilities in the city and county of Denver, and we need to put the pedal to the metal and change that. What I did want to ask quicker if we could start putting on my hat as chair of our safety committee, I think as the safe outdoor space program continues and may grow , I'd like to set up perhaps quarterly presentations from the CBC before the safety committee, and I'll ask our staff, Pamela Lapel, to be in touch with you to begin setting that up, if that works for for you folks. I think it's appropriate as we start talking the dollars that we're talking and the scope that we're talking. I think it would be a great venue in which to be able to have a continuing full discussion of the use. We would be happy to participate in that council. Councilman Cashman. Thank you very much. And I want to thank you for the tour you gave me and my staff members a month or so ago. And it is. From everything I've seen, the S.O.S. site. Well, they're not, you know, my wildest dream. They're well managed. And I think they're an alternative that need to be part of our toolkit. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. We're going to go to Councilmember Koinange. Thank you. Council President. I wanted to first ask Quick or Jennifer to tell us the people you have served to date. What does the data show about where they were before they came to the safe outdoor space? If you if you have that handy. Yes. So we we really are focused on people who are not accessing shelter systems. So they're all coming from a place not meant for habitation. And if you're if you're looking for a drop down, even more than that, we don't track that. We just if they've slept outside and are not accessing shelter, that's what we track. Does it I think that in committee we might have heard the figure 98% of people who are served in the S.O.S. spent their last night outside in a place not fit for humans or in a place not fit for human habitation, i.e. not in a shelter. Does that sound like the right figure? Yes, it does. Okay. So if 98% of people were sleeping somewhere not fit for human habitation, i.e. the streets or their car, my guest is is what that really is. It's it's government code for what regular people would be calling the street or a car. Angie, I'd like to ask you, do we have any shelters in the city that serve male female couples? Sum up our COVID response shelter in non congregate settings, but that's pretty limited current. You have to meet the COVID criteria by age. Yes. So we have no general shelter that a couple could go into if they did not have COVID risk. Under the federal guidelines for children in their custody. Okay. Okay. And then do we have any shelters that serve individuals with their pet being able to stay with their pet while they're in the facility? Again, outside the COVID, the standard shelters that we have for people who are not experiencing COVID right are our congregate shelters are for service animals, not pets currently. Okay. And so I just want to ask you, Angie, if this contract and quickly, you can chime in, too, but if this contract were not approved tonight, what would the results be in terms of individuals sleeping unsheltered in our city? It would increase the number of folks sleeping unsheltered in terms of the folks who are currently in safe outdoor space have a safer place to be. Couples are able to stay together, foster, able to be sheltered with their pets. And so we've we've really found this to be a valuable tool to add to to the the spectrum of shelter services to help meet people where they're at and meet those practical needs and help folks to come inside to something that's safer and and keeps them where they're at. So. So I just want to share I'm going to make a comment then before we move on to the voting, which is that, you know, we have some financial analysis. There has been questions about that. But, you know, I will just share some numbers. I wish that everybody in our city who is experiencing homelessness could be placed immediately into housing, a supportive housing environment where you have a physical apartment and services. The cost for construction just for construction, no services, is about $20 million. It's about a three year process to serve about 50 people. Let me be clear. It's a really good investment. That building will last for 60, 70, 90, 100 years. It will serve many people during those years. And it will be cheaper than them being in emergency shelter or in hospitals or in jails. So just to be really clear, it's a really good investment, but it's a long time coming. So the cost per night or per year to shelter an individual in our congregate shelters in that congregate fancy word for everybody sleeps in the same room. That's a fancy word for sharing, breathing, changing of clothes and all of your space with hundreds of other individuals who, before the pandemic, might have been almost touching your shoulder since this pandemic are six feet apart. But that's that's what congregate shelter means. That's our most common kind of emergency shelter. The cost per year at $25,000 per year. Now it's immediate. People can go in. Right now, we don't have the delays we have with housing, but most folks will return to homelessness, stay in homelessness. It is not necessarily a solution. They do provide more services today thanks to city investments and some of the emergency changes we made during COVID. But $25,000 a year for shelter cannot serve. The people with pets cannot serve the male female couples without children cannot serve people who are unable to sleep in a room with hundreds of people near them for their own personal privacy needs or for their own mental health condition. That might be too overwhelming for them. So this model, you know, between 1214 hundred dollars a person a year are significantly less expensive than the shelter option. Significantly less expensive than the supportive housing option. Doesn't mean, like Councilman Cashman said, it's the best option, but it is immediate and it reduces street homelessness. Now, I will just ask if every Denver resident watching this debate tonight asks themselves, would they rather have people sleeping in parks, sidewalks, alleys near their home, or would they rather have folks in a organized environment, a sanitary environment with supervision 24 hours a day from staff and with services to help them on a journey to stability? That's the choice we face today, with probably between one and 2000 people sleeping outside in Denver. That's the choice we have. Where do we want people? I believe that the people of Denver overwhelmingly think that it's better for people to be in a supportive sanitary environment with some services to get on the road to stability than they do having people in unregulated encampments. And so I've heard that from many neighborhood organizations, some of whom testified before public comment tonight, some of whom have written us and joined together. This is a choice about taking immediate action while we continue to invest in those really long term solutions that we know work. But they do not happen overnight, not like these spaces do. And so I will be supporting this tonight enthusiastically. And I encourage all the people of Denver to reflect on why supporting these sites and growing them to meet more of the demand to get more people off the streets is important for our city to get through this crisis. So I thank everybody for the questions and answers, and I look forward to voting yes on this tonight. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Kinney and Angie, would you please introduce yourself for the public record? Yes. Sorry about that. My name is Angie Nelson. I'm the deputy director of Housing Stability and Homelessness Resolution for the Department of Housing Stability. With the city. Wonderful. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move to Council Pro-Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. So one of the things I heard a couple of times tonight and over the past several months was this request for a a universal good neighbor agreement for all SARS sites. And one thing I want to point out is that Colorado Village Collaborative hasn't operated all of the West sites. There are other organizations involved, which may be one of the reasons why a single good neighbor agreement doesn't exist. So far, there have been three providers Colorado Village Collaborative, Earth Links and Saint Francis Center. So I imagine an organization that's party to a good neighbor agreement would want to develop or devise their own and in neighborhoods want different things as well. So there are all of those kind of dynamics at play. I would be very opposed to realizing that wealthy communities with this Southwest site got some protection, that other communities did not what we do, but we don't find that. What we do find is that in the Good Neighbor agreement that was ultimately achieved for Lincoln Park, some residents wanted a five year ban for Colorado Village Collaborative not to open up another southwest site in the eastern half of the neighborhood. So a selective protection for half of the neighborhood for five years, which for me came across as incredibly unreasonable. So there has to be some collaboration and realistic terms that come into play when establishing these good neighbor agreements, but they really are for the benefit of the neighborhood, to stay informed, to hear on a regular basis what's going on, and to get to know who's operating in their neighborhood, on their block, and even who's residing within within the southwest site. I have another R.A. in Lincoln Park who do monthly dinners at at the LRAD site. So it is not a purely contested. So West Side. There have been some incredibly welcoming neighborhood neighbors for that site. I will say that some standards do need to be considered. This isn't a purely a private transaction at a permit level it is. But the city funds this work. And I think there there could be some standard and greater engagement requirements for stakeholders for solution building, whether that's other city departments, council members, neighborhood groups, whatever it might be. I do think there could be some some. Some. A higher bar for some of that. I would point out that the city is daily demanding a solution to homelessness and suicides are. One crucial response to. That. So I for 1 a.m. grateful quicker for Colorado Village Collaborative Earthlings and Saint Francis Center for stepping into the space that nobody else has another solution for Berlin. Like any other vendor, I wouldn't expect them to be socially responsible. Culturally responsible. I expect them to be judicious. And I found them to be exactly that. Like Councilman Kennedy, I can wish all day for everyone to have a home, but we exist in reality. And the reality is that people need emergency housing right now. And it's hard to connect to somebody who doesn't know where they're sleeping tomorrow night and if they're going to be safe. I will also be supporting this tonight and they will also be at the table to help craft those those greater solutions. So thank you. And I look forward to voting yes. Thank you, counsel. Pro Tem Torres. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I will reiterate all that says, and I won't bury the lead either. I am in support of this contract moving forward and like most of the people who wrote us originally, I was skeptical at first to abide about what I did and I would encourage people to do is do their homework by doing the research and speaking to because I went to I went to the one site in District ten and actually spoke to the pastor of the other side of the Baptist Church. And I remember his words as I'm paraphrasing. He says, there's going to be a big hoopla before it opens and then it's going to open and you're going to forget about it. And I remember when there was go site coming to South Park Hill and neighbors were up in arms because they were unaware of what the site actually was and what it was going to do. We went to our worst thoughts about what could possibly happen and then the site opened and there were zero calls for service by Police District two. And I had neighbors who reached out to my office previously about before it opened, who respond afterward and said, I am sorry. This was not what I thought it was and this is really good for the neighborhood. And I'm sorry that that's the way that I behaved. And that happened on numerous occasions. I'm in I'm in support of CBC. I've had conversations. I'm looking for another site in District eight because I believe we all have a responsibility to serve those. And just as Councilwoman Kenney's talked about, yes, we are building where we can, but as timely and as costly, we're doing things such as taking old hotels and converting them into housing like we did in Fusion Studios off of Quebec Street. This is, again, another tool to support those and it has been successful. Thank you, Councilman Hines, for the numbers of the percent that demonstrate that. And I trust that if there is an issue, CBC will be responsive, because they certainly were for District eight not to have any issues with policing. But whenever I had a question, they are very responsive there and I am thankful for that and I wish them well continuing moving forward. So I will be in support. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Mr. Monterrey, for all your work. I have one question for you. It. Did you say that Regis is the only state that doesn't have a good neighbor agreement? One of our current sites that don't have one, correct? We had very limited engagement. The neighborhood people broke up there. Oh, yes. It's one of our current sites that we do not have a DNA on. The neighborhood was very welcoming and it didn't it just didn't ever come to fruition. Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought. And I represent the area in Regis neighborhood that welcome this safe outdoor site. And I will go on record saying that we have not had any calls about it. We have not had any emails about it. What we have had is a registered neighborhood organization who takes food to that site. My council office has taken food. My staff has dropped that food off. I know other people, the sisters of Loretto, who have taken food to other sites, and as my other colleagues have talked about, we there was a fear that this might bring crime in the council district one, especially on a university campus, where there are people walking around at night going to different places and nothing has happened. And so to Councilman Herndon's talk and eloquently said that residents do go to the worst fear. And we have a hotel on the corner of I-70 and federal not far from this site, probably about six blocks maybe as a highway that also was very that people had concerns about. And we have not heard any any issues with that hotel either. And so I fully support this. And I, too, will work with Colorado Village Collaborative to look for another one in Council District one, because I, too, wish we did not have people sleeping outside. I wish we had people sleeping indoors. And I wish we had more social impact on initiatives throughout the city where people were living in apartments and having wraparound services. And until we build those apartment units. I believe that this is the next best step in the process. Thank you, Miss Montague, for all the work that you do. And it it's one job where I do really believe you. Take your work home with you. There are some of us who don't take our work home with us. I bet there's not a night when you don't go home and you don't worry about all of the people that you are representing. And when it was freezing cold last Wednesday, when the rest of the city got to shut down, I don't believe you got to shut down. I believe that you were there making sure that the residents were not cold and that they had what they need. So thank you for your service. Here comes a number of them. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And we have Councilmember Sawyer. You're back in the queue. He's not a president. Just a quick question for the host. Did you pass up an opportunity to invest $500,000 in a motel on East Colfax that would have housed at a minimum of 60 people permanently? Spoiler alert, the answer to that is yes. So I just want to reiterate, I heard a lot of conversation tonight about accounts from council members saying, you know, that there aren't other options, but there are. There have been we've seen it in District five and we've seen hosts pass on those for significantly less money or permanent options. So I again have to say, we all want to help people. There's absolutely no question about that. However, we have different choices in the priorities of how we want to do that and how we want to spend our tax dollars. Again, I'll be a no tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I know, Angie, you seemed like you were looking for your unmute so you could answer. Do you want to to provide any further clarification? I think just to say that we're not passing up opportunities, viable opportunities for housing as we have the resources, as we have the opportunities that come together. We're we're tracking every viable option down. I'm not familiar with what exactly you're speaking to. Councilman Sawyer, maybe we do a briefing offline here. I don't know that this is the space for a back and forth on it, but I, I think we should definitely follow up because we are aggressively tracking every opportunity we can find to help folks get to housing. And we can. Thank you, Angie. Councilmember Sawyer. Or are we just not in agreement. And he's been a president? Yeah, no, I appreciate the opportunity to just chime back in because I don't want it to be I want it to be very clear. For the record, host is aware of this situation. Host knows about the situation. Host has acknowledged that they did not pursue this opportunity for this investment. I want to make it very clear that this happened in District five and that it is not acceptable and that it is not acceptable to. Deflect from the truth for the public. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I'm not seeing anybody else in the queue. I'll go ahead and round out the comments and we'll call the vote. I'm very much in support of these sites. We have been looking in District 11 to try to figure out if we had some properties that we could start to explore this and that the need is immediate and that we're all working on different options. But this is one of those options that we have before us and appreciate the work of the Colorado Village Collaborative. And I will be voting in favor tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 22, dash 007 to please. Sawyer. No. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. All right. Herndon. I think i. Cashner i. Can each I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 1st May 1111 I's Council Resolution 20 2-007 to has been adopted. Council Member Sandoval, will you please put Council Resolution 83 on the floor for adoption? Oh, I think you're muted.