Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Work Session Discussion of a Proposal to Expand the Springfield Homeless Overnight Parking Program AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/2/2012 Meeting Type:Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Jim Donovan Staff Phone No: 726-3660 Estimated Time: 20 minutes S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Preserve Hometown Feel, Livability, and Environmental Quality ITEM TITLE: WORK SESSION DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THE SPRINGFIELD HOMELESS OVERNIGHT PARKING PROGRAM. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss a proposal from the Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance (SSRA) homeless advocacy group to expand the existing overnight parking program and direct staff on the preparation of an ordinance to codify any changes to the existing standards contained in the Municipal Code. ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff has reviewed the attached expansion proposal with SSRA and is recommending Council authorize staff to prepare code amendments adopting portions of the proposal. Council may agree in part or in whole or disagree with the staff recommendation. Staff will prepare additional information and an adopting ordinance for whatever changes the Council deems appropriate. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Proposal From Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance Attachment 2: Staff Report DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: In July 2009 Council adopted Ordinance 6244 allowing overnight parking for homeless families in church parking lots under supervision of the St. Vincent DePaul Overnight Parking Program. SSRA now proposes extending the program to: 1) permit camping by homeless singles and couples on approved sites, and 2) expand the list of approved sites to include public institutions, industrial properties and construction sites in addition to participating church properties. Staff is recommending preparation and adoption of code amendments allowing expansion of the existing program to serve homeless singles and couples as requested and to expand the list of approvable sites to include industrial properties with the proposed referral system. The attached staff memo outlines the proposal and staff recommendations. The existing budget authorization of $7000 per year will be sufficient to cover the costs of expansion in the first year and fund approximately 25-75 sites total, depending upon length of stay. There are no new financial impacts at this time. Future work session discussions will include specific financial impacts based upon Council direction for the program. Attachment 1-1 Attachment 1-2 STAFF REPORT SPRINGFIELD PWDSD DEPARTMENT DATE: March 27, 2012 TO: Springfield City Council FROM: Gino Grimaldi, City Manager Jim Donovan, Urban Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: OVERNIGHT HOMELESS PARKING PROGRAM INTRODUCTION This staff report is intended to inform and discuss an amendment to Springfield’s Overnight Homeless Parking Program proposed by the Springfield Shelter Rights Alliance with City Council. The format presents the key concepts of the new proposal, outlines staff’s support for certain aspects of the proposal and provides options for Council direction on the preparation of more detailed information, public hearing schedules and an ordinance codifying changes to the program. BACKGROUND At its July 20, 2009 Regular Session the City Council adopted Ordinance 6244 allowing overnight parking for homeless families with children in certain church parking lots under the authority of the City and the supervision of the St. Vincent DePaul Overnight Parking Program. In July 2010 the sunset clause was removed and the program was extended until such time as Council directs otherwise. Funding has remained adequate on relatively light use of the program by homeless families with children. To date, Springfield’s Homeless Overnight Parking Program has provided shelter opportunities to Springfield families under the supervision of the St. Vincent DePaul First Place Family program without complication or incident since its inception. CURRENT PROPOSAL The implementation experience indicates that in addition to families with children, there is an ongoing need to shelter homeless singles and couples. SSRA now proposes extending the program to serve these additional segments of Springfield’s homeless population by: 1) Permitting camping by homeless singles and couples through a referral and monitoring system similar to the current program, and, 2) Extending overnight parking to other sites in addition to participating church properties. Attachment 2-1 CONCEPTS OF THE PROPOSAL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff acknowledges the additional needs described by SSRA, supports the concept of expansion and requests Council feedback on specific expansion areas, funding and timing of the proposed code amendments necessary to codify any expansion supported by City Council. The following options and recommendations are presented for Council consideration. 1. Permitting camping by homeless singles and couples through a referral and monitoring system similar to the current program. SSRA advises there continues to be a growing number of homeless Springfield singles and couples as the full impact of the economic depression and mortgage crisis come to fruition. In order to extend and manage services to this demographic in a manner similar to the existing family program, SSRA proposes the following features: • Referral process through other established Springfield service providers to maintain a reliable connection with Springfield residents. • Application and permitting procedures through established SVDP procedures. • Permits are valid for 30 days with the possibility of renewal, 90 days maximum. • Monitoring of sites and first response by SVDP similar to the family program. • Providing priority service for military veterans. Similar features are in place and being successfully implemented by SVDP as part of a larger program in Eugene. The existing SVDP staff and local service providers can extend the same services to Springfield residents using the referral form included in Attachment 1 of this packet. The referral form will be filled out by Springfield service providers to demonstrate an applicant’s Springfield connection. Due to limited funding and locations, residents with Springfield ties and military veterans will receive priority placement in the program. The costs of providing services to an expanded program remain at approximately $1000 per year, per site assuming continuous use and including sanitary facilities, trash pick up and some start up costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the program be implemented with the process and procedures for singles and couples suggested by SSRA. Staff can prepare more detailed information on the referral, screening, permitting and monitoring features of the existing program and any changes necessary to serve the expansion during adoption procedures. The existing budget can be maintained or increased to cover the expansion of services. Attachment 2-2 2. Overnight parking on public and industrial properties or construction sites. SSRA and SVDP advise that the Eugene program is successfully utilizing a multi- prong approach utilizing on-street parking and private properties in areas with industrial zoning and the parking areas of some public institutions. The current request is for Springfield to consider some, or all of the approach. Each approach has obvious advantages and disadvantages; staff will prepare additional information and refine the proposal based upon Council feedback. The following table highlights discussion/feedback topics related to the various concepts: Type of Parking Site Pluses+ Minuses- Policy Issues Code Amendments Public Institutions Additional Sites, Proximity to Services Limited Size, Equity, Liability, Aesthetics, Competing Use Use of the “public square”. Complicated Analysis and Codification Industrial Zoned Properties Size, Low Impact to Neighbors, Permission, Relationship, Security Education of Neighbors Public/Private Partnerships Minor Municipal Code Amendments Construction Sites (C,I,R)* Eyes On, Proximity to Services, Size Duration, Safety, Convenience Residential Conflicts Minor Municipal Code Amendments Public ROW in Industrial Districts Additional Sites Remote Locations, Liability, Enforcement Legal Issues Complicated Analysis, Codification and Enforcement *(Commercial, Industrial, Residential) The above table visually indicates the relative advantages and disadvantages of the possible expansion areas. On balance, the advantages of private industrial properties and construction sites exceed potential disadvantages and can be accomplished with minor municipal code amendments. The “disadvantages” of using public rights of way or public institutions are not insurmountable, but rather involve considerable more time and research to prepare a discussion of policy and legal ramifications. Attachment 2-3 4 Staff ranks private industrial areas as the most logical expansion area because the practical advantages for the property owners and clients, coupled with the current program’s successful public education, recruitment and implementation record provide the simplest and most direct path to adoption and successful implementation. Additional program details, a relatively simple municipal code amendment and implementation schedule can be brought forward by staff for a combined work session review and adoption procedures at Council’s earliest convenience. Construction sites rank second, and can be included for Council consideration with additional information including, but not limited to size constraints, limited duration and constant change of location, proximity to residential and commercial districts, client safety and convenience and the advantages and disadvantages of a passive “night watchman” presence. Adding additional detail to the discussion and ordinance preparation will add additional time to the work session and adoption process for potentially limited benefit considering the impacts of the issues cited above. Staff Recommendation and Requested Action Staff recommends expansion of the existing program to include private industrial properties at this time. Adding industrial sites to the existing list of participating churches will provide additional opportunities to serve a wider demographic of Springfield’s homeless population. The existing budget authorization of $7000 per year will be sufficient to cover the costs of expansion and fund approximately 25-75 sites total depending upon length of stay. At Council’s direction, staff will prepare additional information and an implementation ordinance for adoption. Attachment 2-4