Loading...
05.03.17 LC Handouts1 Malone, Maureen From:alicia <amgibb@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 1, 2017 8:11 PM To:BPL-COM; Farnan, David; Phares, Jennifer Subject:Packet Responses May 3rd Hi all,  I won't be in town for this meeting, so Joni will be leading the meeting. Here are my comments on the packet.      Budget, page 9    Great descriptions!  Does this need a favorable recommendation from the Commission?    p. 16    I would be interested if they could tease out the type of business interactions people find conducive / not conducive. Is  it a matter that people don't realize business meetings take place in meeting rooms or at Seeds, or is it particular  business related disruptions, or is it something else?    BCPA Documents, Attachment A    Overall my feeling is these documents focus heavily on the building and landscape, but not at all on the programming  and real day to day costs of running such a space. For example, where will staff costs come from? My concern is that  without proper planning this would fall to the library's already stretched staff and the building wouldn't be programmed  to its full extent.    I'm all for expanding the arts in Boulder, and a performance space, but I think the overall plan needs to be thought out in  greater detail and in conjunction with the Library's Master Plan.    I don't know that the commission need another statement going to the Tax Renewal Team considering the one we sent  as attachment D last month, I'm happy to go with whichever way the commission agrees upon. I am in favor of reaching  out again to BCPA and inviting them to a commission meeting to open a dialogue between the two groups.    Below are a few specific questions, mostly for the BCPA but perhaps David can assist in answering some from the  library's perspective:    p. 18  Of the 35 Million, there isn't a lot of transparency on where that budget would be coming from. Would the library be  responsible for any part of that?    p. 21  The current BCPA talks about passing the baton to complete this proposal. If this passes the Tax Renewal Team, will the  work then fall to the library or will the BCPA be responsible for finishing the proposal? At what point does the library get  involved?    p.29  States the center will provide multiple public spaces, do those include the spaces already situated in the library's north  2 wing? If not, what does BCPA propose happen to those programs and where do they get housed? How will the spaces  referenced in BCPA's document reflect the Master Plan of the library?    The plan references activating the adjacent outdoor spaces, by providing a structure to program them. Where will this  programming, staffing and funding come from? A friendly reminder that a structure does not do the programming and  Build It and They Will Come hasn't always worked well in Boulder.    ‐‐   Cheers,  Alicia Gibb  CEO, Lunchbox Electronics  Executive Director, Open Source Hardware Association  Director, Blow Things Up Lab  Author, Building Open Source Hardware    Please note: I tend to check my email once a day during the hours of 9‐5 and refrain from checking it outside of work  hours and weekends. Thank you for your patience.     1 Malone, Maureen From:Phares, Jennifer Sent:Tuesday, May 2, 2017 4:52 PM To:BPL-COM Subject:For May 3 Meeting: Homelessness Working Group Report and Summer Services Attachments:Summer 2017 Program Summary.docx; New Homeless System Overview.docx Importance:High Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged   Dear Commissioners,    We will request the addition of a discussion item to tomorrow evening’s agenda on the topic of homeless services and  the library. This email contains information that was sent to City Council to outlining the plan for summer homeless  services and a high‐level overview of the Homelessness Working Group’s recommendations. The library is not identified  in either as a service location.    We will provide these documents as handouts at the meeting.    Jennifer    From: Rahn, Karen   Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 2:48 PM  To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov>  Cc: Weideman, Mary Ann <WeidemanM@bouldercolorado.gov>; Beck, Lynnette <BeckL@bouldercolorado.gov>  Subject: Inquiries related to the Homelessness Working Group Report and Summer Services    Council Members,    We have had several inquiries recently related to summer homeless services and the Homelessness Working  Group recommendations and report. The Working Group final report is not completed yet. The Working  Group draft report is still open for review to WG members. We will be working with the consultant,  Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) to finalize the report to provide as part of the May 16 council  packet. Although the plan has not yet been released, some working group members may have distributed a  working draft.  I have attached a high‐level overview of the recommendations that will be discussed in detail in  the report and at the May 16 meeting.  The WG recommendations will require further implementation  planning with partner and service providers over the summer, with the goal of launching core system  components by Oct. 1.    Temporary summer service plans were put in place to adjust for financial and site sustainability issues being  faced by  existing  service providers.  I have attached a more detailed summer program summary that explains  changes for this summer.     Please let me know if you have any additional questions.   2     Karen Rahn  Director, Human Services Department    O: 303‐441‐3161 | M: 720‐289‐1745  RahnK@BoulderColorado.gov 909 Arapahoe | Boulder, CO 80304  BoulderColorado.gov/Human‐Services    Proposed Homeless Service System Overview Boulder Homelessness Working Group Outcomes 1. Underpinnings of new systems framework Coordinated Entry: To create a system that intakes, assesses, and tracks all clients in a standardized way a limited number of community entry points through which all homeless adults seeking services enter. Common Assessment: Everyone seeking any service receives at a basic screening to assess need and more-in-depth assessment for ongoing sheltering services. Every coordinated entry point uses the same screening tools. Prioritize Higher Needs: Community homelessness assets and resources are prioritized for people with moderate to high needs that will be unable to resolve without longer-term help. People stay in shelter, with intensive day supports, until housed. Diversion: Robust diversion programming is implemented to eliminate/reduce time in local homeless services for lower need people that are currently utilizing only a few days of service in before finding other options. This represents approximately 80% of people currently seeking homeless emergency services. Examples of Diversion programming include rental assistance, landlord/family mediation, reunification/transportation, referral to other safety net services. Housing Targets: Identified city and county-wide housing targets to increase homelessness exit options. Real-time integrated data: Data informs system adjustments after launch, replacing current proxy data with system performance data. Transition Plan: Some temporary measures are needed to transition from the current service- provision focused system to a housing/results-oriented system, with some unsustainable services ending. 2. Key Service Changes Current Service/Process Changes In New Plan System Entry • Instead of entering a variety of day and night shelter programs at different locations with inconsistent screening, everyone seeking any services must present at a designated coordinated entry site and be screened and referred. • Screening assessment is conducted through standardized assessment tools used at each site Service Paths • Instead of numerous service paths based on a multitude of individual programs at individual agencies, there will be two primary service paths based on screening/assessment results: o Program-based shelter: Path for people with moderate-high support needs likely to use many nights of emergency services for a lengthy period. Goal is intensive support and consistent shelter until housed. o Diversion: Path for lower-need people currently using 8 days or less in system. More likely to self-resolve. Goal is to eliminate/reduce time in the shelter/system. o Day and night services only available to those in program-based shelter or working on short-term (<7 days) Diversion Plan. Overnight Shelter • BSH becomes year-round program-based shelter for people screened moderate/high needs (160) with day and night supports. People stay until placed in housing. Range of a couple of months to 1-2 years. • BOHO winter overflow shelter discontinues. • 50 beds of short-term, high/mod need overflow and short term (<7 days) shelter for people in Diversion Plans for Year 1 pilot. • Additional extreme weather beds (@20 days per year) at TBD locations Day Services • Current day shelter and some Resource Center services discontinued. • Day services for people at program-based shelter path provided onsite. • Day services for people on diversion path provided at Coordinated Entry sites or Diversion Services site (site TBD). Diversion Programming Diversion is a new service for the community. Example services: • Very-short term rental assistance • Landlord/family mediation • Reunification/transportation with support systems in other communities • Referral to other safety net services (Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, etc.) People are either diverted immediately, or may have a Diversion Plan, which requires less than a week to fully execute. Short-term day and night services only available to working on Diversion Plan. Data All service providers must enter required outcomes and demographic metrics into Boulder County data portal and will have shared access to data for better client navigation 3. Evidence for Success of Proposed Model • Best practice shelter models are housing focused, unlike our current winter sheltering model. Similar communities, such as Napa County, are implementing models similar to that proposed by Working Group. • Focus on moderate-high needs increases overall system capacity. o Local example: BOHO focused on getting their top ten users of day shelter into other programs and housing solutions. The resulted in reduced use by top utilizers (representing 1% of clients) of day shelter usage by approximately 10%. • Focus on moderate/high needs improves individual stability and reduces negative impacts in community. This is based on the Housing First principle, recommended by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, for both emergency shelters and housing. o A 2008 study of 10 Boulder Housing First clients demonstrated a 79% decrease in police contacts and a 67% decrease in visits to medical clinics • Diversion can reduce people entering the system and length of stay in the system. Although Diversion is a relatively new intervention in the homelessness field, some early results are promising. o The Homebase program in New York City reduced average nights in shelter from 233 to 120. Savings offset program costs by $140 per person. o The MASH Shelter Diversion program in Mystic, CT reduced family shelter beds from 83 to 53 after increasing their diversion rate from 50% in 2013 to 79% in 2015 o Our What Works Cities Partner, Harvard Kennedy School is partnering on developing Diversion model. • Local evidence suggests Diversion is needed and can work in Boulder. o The limited data available suggests that at least 16% of shelter users are coming directly from housing and may be able to avoid shelter. In Boulder, this would represent nearly 400 people diverted from shelter beds. This number is higher but most intake data is missing for emergency shelter. o Nearly 80% of shelter users are already resolving and leaving the system on their own in 8 days. At least 25% of Boulder Shelter winter shelter clients are using only 1 day of services. • Rapid Rehousing (RRH) investment is showing returns in other high cost/low vacancy markets. o Mercer County, NJ (vacancy rate 1.55%) decreased length of stay in shelters by 36% after significant TANF investment in rapid rehousing programs. o Alameda County, CA (vacancy rate 1.58%) invested $1.8M in RRH and is experiencing only a 9% return to homelessness for RRH clients versus a 29% return to homelessness for emergency shelter clients. 1. Challenges/Issues Some challenges remain in implementing the new system, which need to be resolved in implementation planning with partners this summer. o Boulder Shelter for the Homeless has not yet agreed to a year-round program-based day and night model as envisioned in the Working Group plan. o A site does not yet exist for the 50 beds of overflow/diversion shelter envisioned by city staff for the transition year. Faith sites may be a possibility. o Not all partners agree that overflow/diversion shelter is needed during the transition year. o Sites for coordinated entry assessment and diversion services have not yet been determined, and there is disagreement about some services at these sites – particularly day shelter and other basic needs services for Diversion Plan participants. o Data available to construct service model estimates was extremely limited, and assumptions and service levels will need to be adjusted as programs begin and real-time integrated data is collected. o Upfront implementation may require significant funding, though the plan is anticipated to improve results and ultimately reduce demand and funding needs. Homeless Emergency Adult Services Summary – Summer 2017 Continuing Programs Program Provider # Served Projected Impact Summer Changes Morning Services – Breakfast, showers, laundry, sack lunch Boulder Shelter for the Homeless 50/day Possible increase in sack lunch demand with day shelter lunch eliminated Community Table – dinners M-F at faith locations Bridge House 60/night None – service continues Transitions Program – clean and sober overnight shelter Boulder Shelter for the Homeless 60/night Increased capacity to 120/night as noted below Ready to Work Program – 44 year-round positions for employment training and transitional shelter Bridge House 44/night Service continues with RTW Intern program expansion for 10 spaces for the summer (described below) Programs Being Added/Increased May 1 Program Provider # Served Projected Impact Summer Changes Outreach Case Management –previously provided at the Resource Center, now provided at potential partner community sites such as Harvest of Hope Bridge House 50/month Replaces some Bridge House Resource Center services. Outreach to engage new clients; better integrate services through co-location at community sites Case Management at Community Table Bridge House 50/month Replaces some Resource Center services. Outreach to engage people using basic meal services Reunification/Transportation Pilot – case management and transportation costs for those with support systems outside the city Bridge House 12 monthly Up to 60 people may be able to re-locate to better situations over summer Transitions Program Expansion – clean and sober transitional living program increased by 60 beds over summer Boulder Shelter Up to 60 nightly At least 60 additional people nightly for summer shelter. (increases from 60 – 120). No wait lists Ready to Work Intern Expansion – expansion of RTW program at OSMP, with day services/case management at RTW house and night shelter at BSH Bridge House/ Boulder Shelter 10 daily An additional 10 spaces daily have productive daytime programming and training, and stable overnight shelter. This is projected to impact approximately 30 people total May-Aug. Homeless Emergency Adult Services Summary – Summer 2017 Discontinued Programs May 1 Program Provider # Served Projected Impact Summer Changes Day Shelter (Mon-Sat., 9:00-2:00) Bridge House/BOHO 100/day Unknown, but likely limited • Many people go for lunch and are in other places throughout city for most of day • Expansion of day shelter hours/days in 2016 has not had significant impact on camping, arrests/citations or public complaints • Library does not report a significant difference between Sunday (no day shelter) and days when day shelter is operational • Service utilization for day shelter has seen a steady decline over past three years. • Summer time – not life safety issue Day Shelter lunch Bridge House @ 100/day Limited • Sack lunches will be available at Boulder Shelter during morning hours • May result in more people in public spaces during lunch hour, as that was the most popular time for day shelter usage Resource Center Bridge House 300/mon th Limited • Most services to be available through Bridge House Outreach at partner sites BOHO Residents’ Shelter – year-round night shelter at faith locations BOHO 35 current Limited • Clients have opportunity to participate at the Boulder Shelter Transitions Program and should qualify 1 Malone, Maureen From:Farnan, David Sent:Wednesday, May 3, 2017 12:12 PM To:BPL-COM Cc:Phares, Jennifer; Malone, Maureen Subject:FW: A letter for the Library Commission Attachments:BCPA Library Commission Letter 2017 5 3.docx Dear Commissioners –    Boulder Center for Performing Arts Board members have requested that we give you this letter for discussion and to  enter into record at tonight’s meeting.  Although BCPA Board members had previously indicated that they would come  and speak at public comment, No BCPA Board members will be in attendance at this evening’s meeting.      David    From: Joseph de Raismes [mailto:jnderaismes@gmail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 11:59 AM  To: Farnan, David <FarnanD@boulderlibrary.org>  Cc: 'Judith Reid' <judith.reid@gmail.com>; 'Margot Brauchli' <margot.brauchli@alum.wellesley.edu>; 'Melinda  Mattingly' <mattinglymelinda@gmail.com>; Millstone, Sacha <sacha.millstone@raymondjames.com>; 'Frank Bruno'  <frankwbruno@gmail.com>  Subject: A letter for the Library Commission    I am sorry that we couldn’t make tonight’s meeting of the Library Commission. Instead, the Boulder Center Board of  Directors has asked that I send this letter for you to distribute to the Commission, explaining our initiative. Thanks,      joe    Joseph N. de Raismes  Vice‐President  544 University Avenue  Boulder, CO 80302  303.808.9468  jnderaismes@gmail.com        Dear David: Since we can’t make tonight’s meeting, we are sending this email to respond to the Library Commission’s concerns, which you were kind enough to convey last week. As you know, we met with two members of the Commission, Joni Teter and Juana Gomez, about a year ago (on May 23, 2016) to discuss our next steps in pursuing the Boulder Center’s goal of reimagining and reconstructing the north wing of the downtown Library. As we said at the time, we realized that Commission members might be annoyed that that we were taking the initiative, seeking to recycle and repurpose the Library auditorium, to which we replied that the Civic Area planning process was what had done that, not us. We emphasized our wish to partner with the Commission now that the Anderson flood study had set the parameters, to make this a win-win process. Juana Gomez took the initiative in stating that the key to determining the appropriate use of the north wing would be to do an architectural options analysis, within the constraints of the Charter (height) and the Flood Control Regulations. Then the Library could determine what desired activities require such expensive space, necessarily in that process rationing the space to best meet the activation goals of the Civic Area Master Plan. We hoped in that process to promote the performance and gathering space that is our raison d’être and that emerged as a high priority in the Civic Area Master Plan and the extensive community conversation that preceded it. We volunteered to partner with the Library Commission, beginning by commissioning the architectural study and inviting Juana’s participation. In the ensuing year, the Boulder Center Board has worked with Ray Kramer to figure out what can realistically be built on the available portion of the site, which we sent out last week. We hope to facilitate a solution that works to use the available “island” in the Boulder Creek floodplain for activation of the Civic Area for a broad array of purposes, including performing arts, innovative Library uses that can work with performing arts uses and for which such expensive space is appropriate, and some role in programming the adjacent outdoor public spaces provided for in the Civic Area Master Plan. A realistic solution must include two bridges for life safety, a sleek, iconic design that will attract private capital for the assembly part of the project, and a plan to ask for the public money that is needed to build out the remainder of a building that will realize the Boulder Center’s potential for activation of the Civic Area. Of course, the City is a long way from authorizing this project, and the City Council, the Library Commission, the Planning Board, and the public will have to be satisfied that there has been an adequate dialogue before any decision can be made. At this point, the Boulder Center’s role is to raise the issue that the north wing of the Library should be floodproofed and transformed into the valuable public asset that it could be, and to create a viable option that can move the discussion forward. We believe that it is time to put this priority on the City’s priority list now, so that the public process can proceed and the Boulder Center’s idea can be given a fair consideration, while encouraging others, like the DBI, which has more ambitious ideas. We believe that the prospect of a public process to endow the Civic Area with a vibrant presence like the one we are proposing could be very attractive to people looking for a transformative initiative to be funded by the next cultural facilities sales tax, and we recognize that the availability of such a funding vehicle is an opportunity that we and the Library Commission must explore. We understand the counter argument that the Library Commission may feel that this is coming too soon, that it has made no decision yet, and thus, that this issue is not ready for the ballot. We freely admit that nothing can be built with this money until after a possibly lengthy City-run process, in which the Library Commission has an integral role. But there is nothing unusual in that. We are just trying to jump start a long-delayed process that is integral to the success of the Civic Area. We have been advocating for 10 years now, and we want to raise the issue to the public now, while the transformation of the Civic Area has salience and now that we have a concrete option to present. Our effort is to set aside some of the possible cultural facilities funds to challenge the community to reimagine a great Civic Area structure, floodproofing and transforming the “west bookend’ – the north wing of the Library. Even though we are only proposing to fund 10% of the likely cost, the availability of $3.5 million is the surest way we can imagine to encourage innovation and fulfill the promise of the Civic Area Master Plan. Although we recognize that it is too soon to ask for the Library Commission’s support, we hope that the Commission will continue to work with us in considering the option that we are presenting for the accomplishment of the goals of the Civic Area Master Plan. Although it goes without saying, we want to assure the Library Commission that we do not intend by asking for funding to alter in any way the Library Commission’s role in approving the future configuration or use of the north wing, or to cut short the public process. We merely intend to move the process forward.