Highlights of the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting 1/25/22

The sole item discussed at the Fort Smith Board of Directors study session meeting held 1-25-22 was the Next Step Homeless Services appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a zoning change that would allow them to build a homeless facility including a “tiny house community” style set of transitional non-congregate housing units on the vacant lot that was once the Malco Twin at 1400 South U Street.

In response to one of the questions asked in the set of questions presented prior to the study session, Next Step’s Sharon Chapman had said that if allowed to relocate to the U Street property, they would close the day shelter and not include that function in the new location. Director Morton asked for clarification on this matter. Chapman clarified that Next Step had listened to concerns from the community and in response to concerns from citizens opposed to the move Next Step would be willing to no longer offer the day shelter that was the core of its original mission and instead shift their mission to focusing on transitional housing. She expressed her view that closing the day shelter would eliminate many of the worries expressed by some neighbors. There would be no walk-in services offered, no more allowing anyone to come and warm up or charge their phones or store their belongings, and no feeding of meals except to those who are residents of the on-site housing. There would be no one on the campus except the people that live there in the transitional housing on the site and no increase in walking traffic.

Director Morton asked Chapman about background checks conducted on the residents and Chapman clarified that there would be background checks and nobody would be allowed to be housed at the facility that was a sex offender or had a violent criminal history. Morton asked Chapman if people would be expected to seek employment and how they would be helped in that by Next Step’s program. Chapman explained that it may take some time for people who are directly off the street to find a job but the goal is to help them get jobs and Next Step has had success through their connections with local employers to help clients become employed. Morton asked what the residents do if they are not at work. Chapman responded that she envisions them spending at least some of that time using Next Step’s supportive services like classes in things like life skills and cooking. Morton asked about families living in the tiny house units. Chapman responded that they are not expecting to house children in that housing at U Street. The units will be for individuals and couples. Next Step’s other transitional housing homes would be more appropriate for families with children.

Morton asked if Next Step would be willing to ask their residents to not use residential areas up the hill as a transportation corridor but instead use buses and Towson avenue. Chapman agreed that they have commitment agreements with their residents and they could add that rule that residents will not go up into that neighborhood.

Director Settle asked Chapman about how many homes are going to be available on the site and how many people are served by Next Step on average currently. Chapman answered that Next Step serves an average of 85 people today and that there will be 30 homes at the U Street location. Settle expressed concern about the what would happen to the overflow and the potential need for a bigger facility. Chapman expressed her view that other organizations would help with the overflow and that 30 would make a large dent for people appropriate for the service. She expressed that the organization feels that to do it right the facility needs to be a certain size rather than larger.

Settle asked Chapman about the choice to relocate to that specific location, what attributes make it preferable. Settle asked why a location farther out of town in South Sebastian County or near Alma, or Van Buren might not be chosen. Chapman mentioned the ease of transit at the location, its closeness to Fort Smith Transit bus routes and to Towson Avenue and destinations that residents may frequently need including the parole office, HUD, Hope Campus, and Drug Court. A location far outside of town would be difficult for transportation. Chapman also mentioned the preference for the U Street location’s nearness to physical barriers like a large hill and it being more private, an “area close enough to services, but not close enough to be bothersome”.

Settle asked about the potential cost to the city for Transit associated with the U Street facility. Transit Director Ken Savage said that the best way to provide the best service to that location would be to add a second route to the existing free shuttle service. The current route is designed for downtown and to make deviations from the fixed route to also serve paratransit service needs for people with disabilities. To just tack on an extension to cover just that stop would limit the flexibility for that service for the disabled and that would fall outside of the ADA guidelines and have an impact on grant funding. Tweaks could be made, but an expanded route would also extend in other directions and add improved shuttle access to some other destinations that have been requested like the Community Dental Clinic and Antioch Food Pantry. Federal grant funds could be used to cover half of the cost of the operations for the second route and up to 80% of the start up cost (that start-up cost being the cost of a new bus). After taking into account the Federal funding, it would result in an estimated cost to the City of Fort Smith of $180,450 for the first year (because of the purchase of the new bus) and $67,500 per year annually thereafter. The total cost to the city for the first 5 years (before any other grants, which could help lower the cost) would be $437,000. Director Rego inquired about just adding the U Street stop. Savage said that while it would require trimming service from another area on the route, it would be done and there are possibilities. Savage also mentioned that 100 tickets per month are provided free to Next Step.

Sharon Chapman added that while the expanded free shuttle route would be helpful, with the change in plans to no longer include a day shelter, the free shuttle would not be necessary enough for concerns about the cost of the Transit expansion to be a barrier to approval of the move. With only serving residents who live on-site, The U Street facility could be served by the existing bus routes.

Director Rego asked Sharon Chapman about the importance of transitional housing and the success rate. Chapman responded that she has seen the transformative effect of suitable housing on a homeless person and that safe and secure housing can “change the trajectory of their life”. Next Step served 88 people last year in their existing transitional housing program and had a 75% success rate in those participants. She mentioned that lots of people are not ready for the type of transitional housing they currently are offering. But because of things like a history of trauma those people are not well-suited for congregate housing either. The non-congregate tiny house community model planned for U Street would offer a suitable in-between step.

View of New Beginnings from the air

Because the facility is modeled after other non-congregate transitional housing facilities in other areas especially New Beginnings Bridge Housing Community in Fayetteville, Arkansas, Kevin Fitzpatrick and Solomon Birchfield from New Beginnings were present to provide input,too. Director Rego asked the representatives from New Beginnings about their facility and their experiences and challenges and how they’ve faced them. Fitzpatrick mentioned that New Beginnings was founded to offer an “on-ramp for people living in the woods and unsheltered to work on issues and off-ramp into more permanent supportive housing”. It is a fenced gated community with access for residents only. There is little traffic in and out. There is 24 hour security and a fire watch and a community policing arrangement with the Fayetteville Police Department. It’s secure, but “not prison-like”. He expressed it being “like any community”.

Director Morton asked how New Beginnings is situated in relation to residential neighborhoods. Fitzpatrick responded that it’s in a “mixed use area” with residential homes a couple of hundred feet away, a steel fabrication plant next door, and large tracts of University of Arkansas property nearby. It is located near other homeless services including a day center and the Salvation Army and is on a bus line and near employers. Morton asked about movement in and out by residents. Birchfield responded that 20 people live there and about 1/2 leave once per day and 1/2 are in and out more frequently. In response to questioning from Morton about security incidents and neighborhood complaints, Birchfield answered that since they opened September 20, 2021, there have been no incidents of violence or police calls so far. The only calls to 911 have been from the residents themselves for health or mental health emergencies. He said it is “no different than any other 20 person community”.

In response to Director Settle’s question about the New Beginnings being built on the site of a former homeless tent encampment site, Fitzpatrick said that it was and that it had been one of the worst high police traffic areas in the city and they “had opportunity to build a community on top of space that was the Wild West two years prior”.

Director Morton asked if New Beginnings got any money from the City of Fayetteville and Fitzpatrick responded that they purposefully did not. They wanted to do the capital development all with private money but that the City of Fayetteville had been a “fantastic partner” by things like waiving fees.

Director Martin asked Planning Director Maggie Rice about a response from Next Step in the questions from the agenda packet about Next Step having been told by the city that they could not move to 605 North 3rd. Rice confirmed that that site was not zoned for a homeless shelter. Sharon Chapman said that they were told that they should not be looking north of Garrison and that the Comprehensive Plan would require all new homeless facilities to be south of Garrison.

Martin asked about property at 815 South 6th that was being considered but the owner decided not to sell and if there could be any additional discussions on that property? Martin expressed that after looking at some of the locations that were considered and not chosen that that one seemed like a perfect location to him. Chapman responded that the property was no longer for sale, the owner had decided to keep it in his family. And with being between train tracks on all sides, while it was being considered highly favorably for relocation of the day shelter, with the new plan focusing on transitional housing, it was less suitable.

Director Martin asked Chapman if Community Rescue Mission offers non-congregate housing. Chapman responded that Community Rescue Mission only serves families, no singles. Next Step will be serving those adult individuals and couples. Also the types of housing offered at Community Rescue Mission are a different style, individual rooms and rooms with bunk beds, not individual free standing units like are proposed for U Street.

Director Settle asked about the plan for shared bathroom facilities and Chapman confirmed that the free-standing housing units would all have access to shared bathroom facilities attached to the main building. Settle questioned if single non-congregate rooms built elsewhere inside a building with a hallway to a shared bathroom would be as suitable. Chapman said no, outside people want/need an alternative to a warehouse style and that an outside community-like setting is preferred. Inside style is not as successful. She assured emphatically that no tents would ever be allowed on the property.

Director Martin called upon Fort Smith resident Neil Cowne and U-Haul Manager Rose Torrence to ask about their opinions of the relocation now that the day shelter would no longer be opened at the new location. Cowne expressed concern that without restrictions placed on it prohibiting the use of the property for a day shelter that Next Step could go ahead and do whatever they want after they get approval and add that service back to their plan. He expressed that he still prefers Next Step find another location and suggested moving onto the Hope Campus. Torrence also expressed concern that Next Step would at some point put the day shelter back into the plan but expressed that the new plan without the day shelter cuts back on the increased problems that she was originally worried about.

Sharon Chapman said that comments that they would add back in the day shelter are “offensive to us an organization” and expressed a willingness to put it into the Planned Zoning District wording that they cannot put the day shelter back into the plan.

Director Rego asked Chapman about the spirit in her organization and feeling about the move. Chapman talked about how difficult it was to make the decision to close the day room that had been the core of their original mission but decided that a housing-centric solution is the future and they had to “get over it” to move forward with the move. She said the organization was excited about the possibilities for the new location and “hopeful”.

Director Rego asked Chapman if any other organizations had been asked to combine with Hope Campus. Chapman answered not now, but in the past she knew of others that had been asked to and had declined.

Director Catsavis asked “ What do we do as a city to address homelessness with a permanent solution?”. He referred to current efforts as “band-aids” and stated they are “never going be a long-term solution to homelessness”. Chapman stated that the housing type proposed for U Street is a type proven effective to move people out of homelessness “not a band-aid”. She said our community is an “incredibly generous community”. She expressed the view that Next Step moving out of supportive services and into focusing on housing services is the best way they can serve to solve the homelessness problem.

Director Settle pointed out that many of the homeless in Fort Smith are from out of town and out of state. He expressed worry that we are servicing people outside of Fort Smith, not Fort Smith citizens, saying “I’m concerned about that.”. Director Martin also expressed concern about the number of homeless people from elsewhere. He said we “have to address that we haven’t solved the Fort Smith homeless problem but have solved other communities’ homeless problem”. He asked “Are we fixing our problem?” and said “I don’t know if we’ve made it better”.

Director Good commented on the homelessness issue saying that we “have to ask “How do we help the situation?”. He expressed that homelessness will always be a problem that we will not solve but rather “have to address”. He expressed his view that Next Step and Hope do not duplicate services, but asked that even if they do “what is wrong with overlapping?”. He pointed out that nobody is expecting churches or fast-food restaurants to consolidate locations. He asked “Is that not government over-reach?”. He questioned if some of the people who had contacted the Board in opposition to the relocation to U Street might feel differently with the change in the plan to not include the day shelter.

Mayor McGill said that “Being homeless is hard, very hard”. and “Fort Smith is known for its kindness and generosity”. He also said that “We’re not like other cities with a massive homeless problem”.

Director Settle asked the Board if they thought people might need more time to consider the new info provided in the answers to the questions in the packet and at the study session and especially the new change to the plan to not include the day shelter. McGill chimed in that he felt that was reasonable and other Directors expressed agreement. Administrator Geffken explained that the procedure for handling that would be that the issue would remain on the schedule for a vote at the 2-1-22 meeting, but could be tabled at the meeting and then would be added to the 2-15-22 meeting for a vote. The Directors seemed to agree that that was the course of action they wanted to take. So while the Next Step zoning issue item is officially still going to be on the 2-1-22 agenda, it will almost certainly be tabled at that time and not actually voted on until the 2-15-22 meeting.