Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout014-O-23 Granting a Special Use Permit for a Rooming House located at 1566 Oak Avenue, in the R6 Residential District02/13/2023 05/08/2023 14-O-23 AN ORDINANCE Granting a Special Use Permit for a Rooming House located at 1566 Oak Avenue, in the R6 Residential District WHEREAS, the City of Evanston is a home-rule municipality pursuant to Article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and WHEREAS, as a home rule unit of government, the City has the authority to adopt legislation and to promulgate rules and regulations that protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, states that the “powers and functions of home rule units shall be construed liberally,” was written “with the intention that home rule unit be given the broadest powers possible” (Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 153 Ill.2d 164, 174-75 (1992)); and WHEREAS, it is a well-established proposition under all applicable case law that the power to regulate land use through zoning regulations is a legitimate means of promoting the public health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, Division 13 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-13-1, et seq.) grants each municipality the power to establish zoning regulations; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and the Illinois Municipal Code, the City has adopted a set of zoning regulations, set forth in Title 6 of the Evanston City Code of 2012, as amended (“the Zoning Ordinance”); and ~1~ Page 1 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 14-O-23 ~2~  WHEREAS, Donna Pugh and Michael Noonan, Foley & Lardner LLP, attorneys representing Connections for the Homeless, “the Applicant”, requests approval of a Special Use Permit for a rooming house in the R6 Residential District, located at the property commonly known as 1566 Oak Avenue, legally described and attached by reference herein as Exhibit A, and located in the R6 Residential District; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 6-8-8-3, a rooming house is an allowed Special Use in the R6 Residential District; and WHEREAS, following due and proper publication of notice in Pioneer North, a suburban publication of the Chicago Tribune, not less than fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior thereto, and following written notice to all property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Property, and following the placement of signs on the Subject Property not less than ten (10) days prior thereto, the Evanston Land Use Commission conducted a public hearing on November 30, 2022, in compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCs 120/1 et seq.) on the application for a Special Use Permit for a rooming house, filed as zoning case no. 22ZMJV-0078; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Commission reopened the public hearing to hear testimony from BCH1555, LLC & their representative based on their continuance request dated November 29, 2022, as required by court order, with no additional testimony from any other member of the public heard, in rebuttal of the application for a Special Use Permit for a rooming house, filed as zoning case no. 22ZMJV-0078; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Commission received extensive testimony, heard public comment, and made findings pursuant to Subsection 6-3-5-10, of the Page 2 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 14-O-23 ~3~  Zoning Ordinance, and by a vote of “three (3) “yays” and three (3) “nays” with three (3) Commissioners absent, made a neutral recommendation to the City Council, pursuant to Land Use Commission Rule Article IX Section 3, for the application for Special Use Permit for a rooming house with the below findings incorporated into the record: 1. Is one of the listed special uses for the zoning district in which the property Lies: Meets the standard as a Rooming House is listed as an eligible special use in the R6 General Residential District which is the closest definition for this project. 2. Complies with the purposes and the policies of the Comprehensive General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance: Plans and ordinances provide direction and guidance. This building fits the proposed activity, the conditions address management issues and so the standard is met. 3. Does not cause a negative cumulative effect in combination with existing special uses or as a category of land use: Disagreement among the Commissioners on whether the location is appropriate and if any potential conditions that would be placed on the management of the facility will lessen the impact on the neighborhood and the creation of a good neighbor declaration or some sort of a policy that is an agreement between the owner and the neighbors will address most of those issues . 4. Does not interfere with or diminish the value of the property in the Neighborhood: Disagreement among the Commissioners whether the use diminishes the value of property in the neighborhood, or if a place where people can be housed and given services that they need may do more for property values than having people living homeless on the streets. 5. Is adequately served by public facilities and services: The infrastructure provided is adequately served and further testimony about police and fire resources will not provide significant additional insight so the standard is met. 6. Does not cause undue traffic congestion: This is not a site that would create traffic as residents are not typically car owners, so the standard is met. 7. Preserves significant historical and architectural resources: It is recommended to have historic preservation staff conduct a non-binding review of the property before any permits are issued for exterior work on the building. If the review does not involve taking it to the Land Use commission and can be done by staff, this standard is met. 8. Preserves significant natural and environmental resources: The building is not being added to and the landscaping will be maintained so the standard is met. 9. Complies with all other applicable regulations: Assumes owner will operate under any required licensing changes and good neighbor declaration or agreement so this standard is met. Page 3 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 14-O-23 ~4~  WHEREAS, at its meetings on May 8, 2023 and May 22, 2023, held in compliance with the Open Meetings Act and the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council received additional public comment, made certain findings, and WHEREAS, it is well-settled law that the legislative judgment of the City Council must be considered presumptively valid (see Glenview State Bank v. Village of Deerfield, 213 Ill. App.3d 747) and is not subject to courtroom fact-finding (see National Paint & Coating Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 45 F.3d 1124). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT: SECTION 1: The foregoing recitals are found as fact and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2: Pursuant to the terms and conditions of this ordinance, the City Council hereby grants the Special Use Permit, as applied for in zoning case no. 22ZMJV-0078, to allow the operation of one (1) rooming house. SECTION 3: Pursuant to Subsection 6-3-5-12 of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council imposes the following conditions on the aforementioned zoning relief granted hereby, being a Special Use Permit for a rooming house as requested under zoning case no. 22ZMJV-0078, which may be amended by future ordinance(s), and violation of any of which shall constitute grounds for penalties or revocation of said Special Use Permit pursuant to Subsections 6-3-10-5 and 6-3-10-6 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The Applicant shall substantially comply with the documents and testimony given by the Applicant on the Record. 2. The Applicant must record the Special Use Permit with the Cook County Page 4 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 14-O-23 ~5~  Recorder of Deeds. 3. Criminal background checks and individualized assessment evaluations are required for every potential resident of the Rooming House to determine if the Margarita Inn is an appropriate and safe housing option for all parties. Individuals actively listed on the Sex Offender Registry shall not be admitted as residents of the facility. 4. Emergency access to the building shall be provided to all first responders via a knox box, key fob, or similar entry means and shall only be used by first responders in extreme emergency situations when the building must be accessed to ensure the safety of the building’s occupants. 5. Access to the building for police personnel shall be reasonably accommodated when called by residents, staff or in mandatory reporting situations that may include additional agencies such as the Department of Child & Family Services (DCFS). 6. The Applicant shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws relating to protected classes, including but not limited to the Homeless Bill of Rights, Cook County Human Rights Ordinance, and City of Evanston Human Rights Ordinance for all residents of the facility. 7. On-site behavioral, mental, and medical healthcare shall be provided by appropriately licensed individuals. Such on-site care is accessory and incidental to the use and is not intended to replace primary and specialized health care for residents of the facility. 8. Any on-site services, including but not limited to employment readiness, financial literacy, therapeutic groups, recreational activities, and substance use disorder support and linkage to treatment, shall be provided for residents of the facility only. 9. The building façade and exterior shall be preserved and appropriately maintained. Exterior changes that are visible from the Oak Avenue right-of- way shall be reviewed by Historic Preservation staff for non-binding Preservation comments and suggestions prior to building permit issuance. 10. The Applicant agrees to use sustainable measures for building operations, including but not limited to recycling and composting if/when the commercial kitchen is used. 11. Litter patrol shall occur at least twice per shift and shall remove any litter on the property and in the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the property and extending 25 feet to the north and south. 12. Residents of the facility shall not loiter or congregate on the public sidewalk in front of the building or in the immediate vicinity. 13. The Applicant shall actively participate in community efforts to address panhandling and other homelessness issues with groups such as the Page 5 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 14-O-23 ~6~  Coalition to End Homelessness. 14. A minimum of two employees trained in de-escalation and mental illness shall staff the facility at all times, 24 hours a day, including at least one employee who is trained in security. A manager and/or supervisor shall be on call at all times. 15. All outstanding Property Maintenance code violations shall be brought into compliance by the Applicant within 6 months of the adoption of this ordinance. Any violations that exist following 6 months shall be addressed in a code violation compliance plan that includes an appropriate timeframe for resolving remaining violations. Failure to follow the code violation compliance plan to actively work towards resolving violations within 12 months may result in the revocation of the special use. 16. The Applicant shall maintain the ten existing on-site parking spaces and shall lease off-site parking if the staff and resident use exceed the existing on-site parking. 17. A bicycle rack shall be installed and maintained at the property. 18. The appropriate City License shall be applied for in full, including any required Operating Agreement details, within 3 months of the adoption of this ordinance. 19. A Good Neighbor Agreement has been completed prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. SECTION 4: When necessary to effectuate the terms, conditions, and purposes of this ordinance, “Applicant” shall be read as “Applicant’s tenants, agents, assignees, and successors in interest.” SECTION 5: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication in the manner provided by law. SECTION 6: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 7: If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is ruled unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be given effect Page 6 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 14-O-23 ~7~  without the invalid application or provision, and each invalid provision or invalid application of this ordinance is severable. SECTION 8: The findings and recitals contained herein are declared to be prima facie evidence of the law of the City and shall be received in evidence as provided by the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the courts of the State of Illinois. Introduced: _________________, 2023 Adopted: ___________________, 2023 Approved: __________________________, 2023 _______________________________ Daniel Biss, Mayor Attest: _______________________________ Stephanie Mendoza, City Clerk Approved as to form: ______________________________ Nicholas E. Cummings, Corporation Counsel May 22 February 13 Page 7 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 May 24 14-O-23 ~8~  EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH 58 1/3 FEET OF LOT 3 AND THE SOUTH 8 1/3 FEET OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 61 OF EVANSTON IN SECTION 18, RANGE 14 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PIN: 11-18-308-009-0000 Page 8 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Findings of Fact for Special Use Standards After conducting a public hearing on November 30, 2022, and on April 26, 2023, the Land Use Commission makes the following findings of fact, reflected in the audio-visual recording of the hearings, based upon the standards for special uses specified in Section 6-3-5-10 of the Zoning Ordinance: Standard Finding (A) It is one of the special uses specifically listed in the zoning ordinance; ___X__Met _____Not Met Vote 6-0 (B) It is in keeping with purposes and policies of the adopted comprehensive general plan and the zoning ordinance as amended from time to time; ___X___Met _____Not Met Vote 6-0 (C) It will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when its effect is considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of various special uses of all types on the immediate neighborhood and the effect of the proposed type of special use upon the city as a whole; ___X___Met __X__Not Met Vote 3-3 (D) It does not interfere with or diminish the value of property in the neighborhood; ___X___Met __X__Not Met Vote 3-3 (E) It can be adequately served by public facilities and services ___X___Met _____Not Met Vote 6-0 Case Number: 22ZMJV-0078 Address: 1566 Oak Avenue Applicant: Donna Pugh & Michael Noonan, Foley & Lardner LLP, attorneys representing Connections for the Homeless Proposed Special Use: Rooming House at the Margarita Inn in the R6 General Residential District Page 9 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 (F) It does not cause undue traffic congestion; ___X___Met _____Not Met Vote 6-0 (G) It preserves significant historical and architectural resources; ___X___Met _____Not Met Vote 6-0 (H) It preserves significant natural and environmental features; and ___X___Met _____Not Met Vote 6-0 (I) It complies with all other applicable regulations of the district in which it is located and other applicable ordinances, except to the extent such regulations have been modified through the planned development process or the grant of a variation. ___X___Met _____Not Met Vote 6-0 and, based upon these findings, and upon a vote __3__ in favor & __3__ against Recommends to the City Council _____ approval without conditions _____ denial of the proposed special use __x__ make no recommendation due to a tie vote Commissioner Attended Vote Aye Vote Nay Myrna Arevalo X X George Halik X X John Hewko X X Brian Johnson Jeanne Lindwall Kiril Mirintchev X X Max Puchtel Matt Rodgers X X Kristine Westerberg X X Page 10 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 2121 Dewey Avenue Evanston, IL 60201 847.475.7070 connect2home.orgEnding homelessness, one person at a time. To: Mayor Daniel Biss City of Evanston Council Members From: Betty A. Bogg, Connections for the Homeless Date: February 1, 2023 Re: Updates on Ongoing Progress Addressing Issues Related to the Margarita Inn It has been several months since Connections for the Homeless submitted a comprehensive description of our operations and plans for the Margarita Inn in the form of our application for a Special Use Permit. We shared this with you back in November, and you will be receiving it again, this time for consideration, in the packet for the upcoming Planning & Development and City Council meetings on February 13 and 27. This is an update on our work since the initial application was prepared. In talking with all of you, as well as with community members, we have listened to the concerns about our application and how we do our work. We remain committed to being good neighbors and have taken direct actions to address the concerns and reservations expressed over the past 11 months. These efforts, and their results, are described below. Increasing Collaboration with the Evanston Police Department On November 25, we sent a letter (attachment I) describing our ongoing progress establishing a working relationship with Chief Stewart and efforts to improve collaboration and deepen the relationship among front-line staff and patrol officers. Part of our strategy was administering a survey to Evanston Police Department (EPD) patrol officers and front-line staff in November. Survey results are compiled and attached (attachment II). Post survey completion, Connections and the EPD conducted four meetings in early December with patrol officers and Connections staff. The meetings are summarized in attachment III, which includes the recommendations that Connections and EPD are currently evaluating and ideas for next steps. Both Connections and the EPD are encouraged by the results and intend to continue with this relationship-building process. Possibility of Other Locations for Shelter After Connections submitted its application for the Special Use Permit, but before the application was considered by the Land Use Commission, some community members and elected officials proposed that Connections consider locations for its shelter other than the Margarita Inn, including locations on Howard Street. Connections’ Board of Directors had already recruited a group of experts in the field of hotel acquisition, commercial development, hotel development and multifamily development to vet the viability of acquiring the Margarita Inn and considering other alternate sites. This team of experts performed an exhaustive search for alternate Page 11 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 connect2home.org Ending homelessness, one person at a time. shelter locations, and the resulting final report prepared by Maple Avenue Real Estate Partners is attached (attachment IV). Additionally, after making the request that we consider moving to Howard Street, we did further analysis. Both efforts showed that there are no more appropriate and functional facilities available—and that, in fact, the Margarita Inn provides a unique and invaluable opportunity. As a result of this analysis, Connections submitted a letter to the City, (attachment V), that outlines the reasons behind our decision to continue in our quest to purchase the Margarita Inn instead of finding another location. Security & Upkeep at the Margarita Inn As Connections has been engaged in due diligence around the purchase of the Margarita Inn, we have been examining the physical and operational changes that can be put in place now and those that need to wait until we take possession of the facility. Not only have we been doing our own assessments, but we have also engaged Officer Brian Rust from EPD to perform a security assessment. As a result of these assessments, Connections has put the following new measures in place already, with additional measures to be put in place once we have full ownership of the facility: New Measures Already in Place • Criminal background checks for all residents • Screening using the sex offender registry • De-escalation and security training for all onsite staff • Minimum staffing requirements • Safety-based learning agreements for participants with behavior issues • Patrols for litter twice per shift Planned • Explore providing IDs for residents to use voluntarily in identifying themselves to the EPD • Display the Margarita Inn’s address more prominently on the exterior of the building • Reduce the size of the hedges around the facility • Provide more lighting outside the building • Install cameras on every floor inside the building • Limit resident access to the floor on which each resident lives and to common areas Good Neighbor Agreement Starting in approximately April of 2022, Connections initiated a process to create a Good Neighbor Agreement (GNA), inviting residents and businesses who are neighbors of the Margarita Inn, as well as the City of Evanston, to participate in creating the GNA as well as to be signatories. The purpose of the GNA was to outline the responsibilities of all stakeholders in the community in addressing needs and concerns around the Margarita Inn as well as around the growing signs of homelessness and poverty in Evanston. Page 12 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 connect2home.org Ending homelessness, one person at a time. We held an initial meeting with stakeholder groups, including single-family homeowners, condo owners, renters, and representatives from neighboring businesses, Connections’ staff, and residents of the Margarita Inn. Each of these stakeholder groups selected one or two delegates who worked together to develop a GNA draft. The draft has gone through several iterations, with two primary points raising the most debate: • One issue was whether the City itself would agree to be a signatory to the GNA. In the GNAs that Connections researched in preparing for this process, mostly in the Pacific Northwest, the local governmental bodies all clearly saw themselves as stakeholders in the success of the homeless shelter or affordable housing development initiating the GNA, and they all were parties to the agreements. Last week, the City determined that it will sign on to the GNA and has provided its input into the wording of the document. • The second issue is that close to 30 stakeholders participated in some way in writing and/or reviewing the GNA. Even though some of them had some serious concerns about the Margarita Inn, those who participated did so willingly and in a very constructive way. However, the participants in the process did not include people who have been outspoken publicly about their opposition to Connections occupying the Margarita Inn, in spite of our repeated efforts to engage them. In fact, some of the neighbors who did participate have felt uneasy about their participation, given the anger with which the very vocal opposition has been speaking out and the unwillingness of the most vocal opponents to engage in discussion. Connections is in the process of preparing the final version of the GNA and arranging for signatures. The GNA will be included in the packet for the City Council meetings in which Connections’ Special Use Permit will be introduced and then voted on. The GNA will include a clear definition of how Connections will react to issues brought to our attention by neighbors and how the GNA will be reviewed and modified as needed over time. Moving Forward We are sharing this information so that you are aware of our extensive efforts to address community concerns. We intend to continue these efforts through the following: • Ongoing relationship-building between Connections and the EPD, including: o Plans to implement recommendations resulting from the Coffees with the Cops and subsequent discussions o Creation of meeting schedules among EPD and Connections front-line staff Page 13 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 connect2home.org Ending homelessness, one person at a time. o Research into the intersection of several law enforcement and homeless services policy areas • Establishment of a Margarita Inn Community Advisory Board that will include delegates from the community and that will meet regularly to address concerns and learn about successes, as well as be conduits between Connections and the community as issues arise. • Continuous monitoring of safety, compliance with all legal requirements, and concerns from neighbors and the broader community. As you can see, Connections has listened carefully and already put many responding measures in place. We consider ourselves an integral part of the community and look forward to maintaining long-term relationships. If you have any questions about anything in this communication, please let me know. Betty A. Bogg Chief Executive Officer bbogg@connect2home.org Page 14 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 connect2home.org Ending homelessness, one person at a time. Attachments Attachment I 11/25/22 letter to Mayor Biss, Council Member Nieuwsma and City Manager: Ongoing relationship building efforts with EPD and Chief Stewart Attachment II Survey between Connections Front- Line Employees and City of Evanston Police Patrol Officers Attachment III Report on Coffee with the Cops Sessions Held December 2022 Attachment IV Maple Avenue Real Estate Report Attachment V 10/20/22 Letter to City Council: Response to Alternate Site Proposals Page 15 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 6 Page 16 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 November25,2022 MayorDanielBiss CouncilmemberJonathanNieuwsma CityManagerLukeStowe CityofEvanston LorraineMortonCivicCenter 2100RidgeAve. Evanston,IL60201 DearMayorBiss,CouncilMemberNieuwsma,andCityManagerStowe: SinceourmeetingattheMargaritaInnonOctober18,inwhichweagaindiscussedtherelationship betweenConnectionsfortheHomelessandtheEvanstonPoliceDepartment,wehavetakenanumber ofstepstoimprovethesituationandbettercollaboratetomaintainthesafetyandwell­beingofthe community.AsweapproachNovember30,thedateofourhearingbeforetheLandUseCommission regardingourapplicationforaSpecialUsePermitfortheMargaritaInn,Iampleasedtoupdateyouon ourprogress. NewRelationshipsattheLeadershipLevel Ihavemetone­on­onewithChiefStewart,andweagreethatwesharegoalstosupportthesafetyand wellbeingofthecommunity.Wearesupportingeffortstoexplorethecurrenttensionsthatexist betweenourorganizationsandtofindwaystoreducethemandincreasecollaboration.ChiefStewart andIwillcommunicateregularlyaboutprogressaswellasanyoperationalorstrategicmattersthat requireourmutualattention. MeetingsofLeaders Connections’DirectorofAdvocacy,SueLoellbach,andSergeantChelseaBrownoftheEvanstonPolice Department’sCommunityPolicingUnitaremeetingregularlytoshareinformationanddiscussthe relationshipsbetweeneachother’sworkforces.Theyhavefoundmanyinterestingpointsofsimilarity amongourworkforces,inwhichweeachhavefront­lineworkerswithverystressfuljobsin organizationsthathaveexperiencedgreatchange. SueandSergeantBrownhaveuncoveredandareabletoarticulatethefeelingsofmutualdistrust betweenstaffinbothorganizations.Connections’socialworkersoftenseethepoliceaslackingthe skillstoworkcompassionatelywithvulnerablepopulationsandworrythatofficersarelikelytocause trauma;patrolofficerstendtoseesocialworkersasdo­goodertypeswhoenablecriminalbehaviorand obstructjustice.Clearlythereisstereotypinghappeningonbothsidesthatimpairseachofour organization’sabilitiestoprovidethebestserviceswecantoourcommunity. Inordertoaddressthismutualtensionanddistrust,SueandSergeantBrownhavecreatedand implementedthesurveydescribedbelowandhaveprovidedideasformeetingsdesignedtobuild relationships,tosharerealinformationabouteachorganization’spoliciesandpracticeswiththeother, andtodevelopcommunicationsprotocolsthatcanbeeffectiveandhelpfultobothorganizationswhen theyneedtointeractonpoliceandshelterbusiness. 7 Page 17 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 FrontLineActionPlan •SurveyofFront-LineWorkers:SueandSergeantBrowndevelopedasurveythathasbeen administeredtopatrolofficerswhomayneedtovisittheMargaritaInn,andtoConnections employeeswhomayneedtointeractwiththepolice.Hereisalinktothesurvey.Asofthedate ofthisletter,wehavereceived13responsesfrompatrolofficersand17responsesfrom Connectionsstaff.Weareintheprocessofcompilingthefeedbackandnotingbothtrending andoutlyingresponses. •“GettoKnowYou”Sessions:BeginninginDecember,Connectionswillhost“GettoKnowYou” sessionsattheMargaritaInn,towhichpatrolofficersandConnections’front­linestaffwillbe invited.Thesessionsarescheduledsothateachshiftofofficerswillhavethechoiceofattending amorningoreveningsession.Connectionswillprovidecoverageforon­dutystafftoattendand willprovidecompensationforoff­dutystaffwhoattend. Atthesessions,afacilitatorwilltakeeachgroupthroughthefollowingagenda: o Introductions o Presentationandacknowledgementofsurveyresults o SharingofConnectionsandEPDpoliciesarounddivulgingpersonalinformation o Brainstormingonhowtoimproveourabilitytocollaborate o Nextsteps Wewillacknowledgethroughoutthediscussionsthefearsandconcernsthateachorganization hasabouttheotherandhowtheycanimpactthenatureofourcommunicationsandabilityto collaborate. •AftertheSessions:Basedonfeedbackfromthesessionsandideasgeneratedaboutnextsteps, SergeantBrownandSuewillworktogether(andwiththeirrespectiveorganizations)tosetupa structureforongoingrelationshipbuilding,informationsharing,andproblemsolving. Ilookforwardtokeepingyouapprisedoftheprogressoftheseefforts.Ifeelconfidentthattheseand otherintentionalactionswillresultinimprovedcollaborationbetweenourrespectiveorganizations. Ifyouhaveanyfeedback,questionsorconcernsaboutourworkinthisarea,pleaseletme,Sergeant Brown,orSueknow. Warmestregards, BettyA.Bogg CEO Cc:ChiefSchenitaStewart,CityofEvanstonPoliceDepartment SergeantChelseaBrown,CityofEvanstonPoliceDepartment Attachment I 8 Page 18 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 9 Page 19 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Results of Survey Connections Front-Line Employees and City of Evanston Police Patrol Officers 1. How would you describe the current working relationship between the Evanston Police Department andConnections for the Homeless?Police Connections Strong Professional and polite. They help us and we assist them when possible. Pretty good My current relationship has been respectful and open. Outside the issues at the Inn, good I believe it is a reasonably good relationship We co exist, but no real implementation plan. I commend EPD for generally trying to handle situations calls without arresting participants. It needs improvement Good Not great GoodNot good when the police are refused to be let into certain building (margarita inn) to investigate crimesThat will be good Not good Positive. I, personally, have never ran into any issues working with them. I also recognize that I'm a white male in a management position, so my experience may be different than others. The only "negative" experience has been when officers are frustrated that we uphold confidentiality and won't provide identifying information about a Ptp they are pursuing in a case. But while frustrated, they've still been respectful. Poor. Several Connections employees I have interacted with have openly told me that it is Connections policy not to cooperate with police unless compelled to do so by warrant or subpoena. I don't have any problems with them. They always come when I need them to, and they are usually very polite and helpful. Nonexistent I’m impartial non-existent Cordial but room for improvement. I’ve had both pleasant and not so pleasant experiences on behalf of staff and participants. Stiff Collaborative at times but room for improvement. There seems to be a deep distrust on the part of the police of CFTH staff and a lack of Attachment II10Page 20 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 1. How would you describe the current working relationship between the Evanston Police Department andConnections for the Homeless?Police Connections understanding of why we are not able to share all of the information that they would like us to in every instance. I have not heard acknowledgement of the good work that CFTH does in the community and the expertise that we bring to the community. There is also a lack of understanding from police that some participants have had negative experiences w/ police in the past which complicates interactions and increases distrust on both sides. I believe it is a bit grey, and generally tense because the police officers in general have a bad reputation among our clients somewhat strained Stressful Unsure. I've not really seen any interactions first hand. 2.What would a better collaborative relationship between the Police Department and Connections looklike?Police Connections Communication No changes needed Better communication between the police department and connections I think we do a good job discussing issues with the police. Our managers do a good job actively being on calls/meetings where we can open discuss clients and/or areas of concern. Maybe clearer communication or accessibility to Connections staff. more communication and trust Monthly or bi-weekly meetings between a designated point of contact for each Increased trust on both sides is needed. Concrete feedback from the police on what CFTH can do to improve the relationship. Increased knowledge of each other's challenges in working w/ each other. Increased understanding on the part of the police of what CFTH does and their expertise in working in working w/ a very hard to serve, vulnerable population. Increased training of 11Page 21 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 2.What would a better collaborative relationship between the Police Department and Connections looklike?Police Connections police around working w/ people w/ severe mental illness. Formal meetings to debrief critical incidents involving the police to evaluate what went well and didn't (on both the part of CFTH and the police). Sometimes officers are treated as unwelcomed guests even in situations when we are called. It makes us wonder why assistance was requested if we immediately become not welcomed. It would be great to just have a mutual understanding and go from there. It would be best if we were more familiar with each other to take off some of the stress of first interactions. Honesty about their residents and our interactions with them. Have set protocols and a point person in both agencies Connections could provide information to aide in investigations and better control the environment they are supporting Understanding the boundaries of being inside our buildings. Connections could be more transparent about providing offender information when a client of Connections is suspected of a crime. Connections could also begin banning violent and dangerous clients from their properties and services to reduce the number of violent criminals in the Evanston area. Both parties being non-judgmental to the participants in the situation/crisis Connections need to held more accountable for the residents that they allow in the program They would always send crisis trained officers to respond to calls from Connections. I think staff should realize if the Evanston PD are there it is because we were called. We don’t want to be there ever. There a is a complete lack of screening of residents and clients when it comes to criminal history, alcohol and drug abuse. When responding to calls, particularly at the Shelter, police would work more collaboratively with Staff - especially when Ptps are escalated. The incident in which one of our Ptps was tasered because they perceived him as a threat, when we knew he wasn't, was 100% avoidable. When they are full or have not beds more assistance with placement outside city Sending officers who have specialized training in mental health and trauma when responding to Connections' calls. Knowing that every officer will treat our participants and staff with respect and as community partners in this work and not enemies. We have experienced officers being rude during emergency situations and psychiatric hospitalizations. Other officers are well trained and are amazing at de-escalating and supporting the participant in crisis. 12Page 22 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 2.What would a better collaborative relationship between the Police Department and Connections looklike?Police Connections dedicated personnel that work with the homeless population --similar to how we have outreach workers maybe we can have one or two officers that we know by name and face that will support at each site (Hilda's, Dewey, and Margarita) Allowing Connections to have Temp placards for PTPs who drive to Dewey to park on the street without bein ticketed for not being an Evanston resident. 3.What information would be helpful to be shared about individuals, where permitted, when Police officersneed to call or come to the Margarita Inn?Police Connections A good point of contact with regular updates I think having a CCM or outreach worker who knows the client be present to help deescelate Substance use, violent tendencies, ways to calm We should share any known information about ptps' mental health. Potential for violence. Participants mental health history. To help the police to understand the situation. Relevant backgroundMaybe the mental state of the resident, triggers, and if they're athreat or not. We need information about the people that call us and the ones they called about I need to know they need to let us know why they’re there Name, DOB, medication/psych history, are they violent basic mental and physical health info Suspect and victim identifying information such as names, dates of birth, phone numbers, and an explanation of what happened. If they have a mental health diagnosis or substance use disorder if this is relevant. The usual Names, DOBs if available, what is going on. They should know who/what their coming for. It doesn’t take 10 police officers. everything I don't know if anything can be shared Find out first "what is permitted." Sometimes we get informationfrom one person that would not be allowed by the next person. There's no consistency. If a participant lets their Case manager know that they havepermission to share their information with the Authorities should they be needed to be contacted. Otherwise continuing to keep Participant's information confidential unless otherwise stated. 13Page 23 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 3.What information would be helpful to be shared about individuals, where permitted, when Police officersneed to call or come to the Margarita Inn?Police Connections Name tags. Connections need to identify their residents if asked A list of information we’re allowed to disclose and not allowed Not sure what this question is asking, what information is Connections willing to provide? None I don't work at Marg, so will let Marg staff answer this 4.What restrictions are you aware of regarding information that Connections staff can or cannot share?Police Connections Unsure Unless officers are responding to a Wellness Check, following up to an Incident that occurred on our site, or have a subpoena, we do not confirm or deny an individual is a Ptp or whether they are onsite. There has been no communication about that Connections cannot confirm or deny if an individual is at the shelter if the police are looking for someone. No idea - there hasn't been any communication with Connections Confidentiality We would love a list in order to keep a unified understanding. we cannot confirm or deny that we know someone Not aware of any generally do not share any info If the person is a resident when asked by the Police Department. Pretty much can't supply them with any information unless they have a warrant for an arrest, even then I usually check in with JFC or Nia. However, due to my connection with EPD as an Outreach worker we occasionally exchange them information regarding clients hang out spots (only to get in contact with said ptp) I am aware that information that is protected by HIPPA cannot be shared. When there has been no call to the police, we are not allowed to divulge whether or not we know any individuals. Full privacy, will not allow us past front desk nor provide even basic information on who is there. we can not verify the identity or if a participant is a part of the programming The last time I went there I was told that no information could be provided about if a person lived there or was there. Is there information and if they’re there or not 14Page 24 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 4.What restrictions are you aware of regarding information that Connections staff can or cannot share?Police Connections They don't share any information with us on scene and it is evident they do not want the police there. We can not share any information with them about participantsIn my experience Connections staff have been uncooperative with police. I was told it is Connections policy not to cooperate or provide information to police. Connections staff cannot give participants information on whether they are receiving services from Connections as that information is considered confidential. Participants must give consent for any information regarding whether or not they are receiving services to be shared with certain parties. Confidentiality Only share what participants want you to share about them. Let the participants speak for themselves, if they can, in the situation. I know I can't verify if a person is staying here or not, and I can't give out any participants name or information. If the person is a participant or not, where they live other personal information Homeless Bill of Rights; Professional Code of Ethics for licensed CFTH staff; CFTH agency confidentiality policy limits what information can be ethically and legally shared. In addition, there might be safety reasons. For example, a DV survivor's abuser might file a missing person's report and sharing information of the survivors' location would jeopardize their safety. Exceptions to confidentiality include mandated reporting situations and risk to harm to others and self. 5.What about when Connections wants information about an individual from the Police? What can andshould be shared about Police interactions and conversations with people?Police Connections 1 no answer 1 What are they doing at the building The same information that can be shared publicly, or with consent of the partymost info can be found on police blotter, but most important is if participant is in custody and when they will be arraigned and/or court date 15Page 25 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 5.What about when Connections wants information about an individual from the Police? What can andshould be shared about Police interactions and conversations with people?Police Connections We can share public information or anything released to them via FOIA Police can share if they have a warrant for someone or are experiencing challenges in the community with a Connections participant. I believe it would only be helpful if EPD provided what information we legally can to Connections in an effort to reduce the number of dangerous and violent clients that enter into Connections services. As stated in the previous answe, due my relationship that I've built over the years EPD and I have shared information regarding where a client hangs out on the street in order to get in contact with them. I've only spoken about ptps that EPD know I'm currently working with. Couldn't share criminal information or non public information. We should be able to inquire about someone we believe to be missing or in danger. We are usually transparent, but if it's not for public knowledge, we most likely won't share personal information, but information about the safety of the public Not really sure when this would be relevant. Or who we would then be sharing that info with outside of our Staff. Yes Nothing Happy to provide anything allowed by law. Whether or not the individual has a history of violent crime or certain offenses that can be construed as safety risks. That way Connectionsstaff can be better prepared to handle certain situations should they arise or ensure safety for not just staff but participants as well. The same information we would provide to any other member of the public. Only what the ptps allows Whatever policy allowsThe wellbeing of the individual, where they are being held, and for how long Relevant background Information only about that specific incident They will need to go through the appropriate channels to get that information. It cannot be provided by a patrol office without prior authorization My one contact there, who I reach out to when we think something might not be going great in a building is transparent about what he can and can't share and is respectful of what we can and can't share as wellConfidentiality Name & Badge number16Page 26 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 6. What questions do you have about the policies and operations of either Connections for the Homeless orthe Police Department?Police Connections 3 N/A’s 8 N/A’s If drug use is permitted in their facility and what they do when it is discovered that one of their residents is the suspect in a crime I would like more information on when Connections staff can reveal information about participants. What expectations of privacy do they have? What information can police share w/ CFTH staff. Do Evanston police receive training in mental health best practices? Why do you allow your residents to bring in guests that cause problems? Understanding why an individual is tasered when they are running away from an officer and posing no immediate threat. I have no questions. When dealing with the staff it is clear many of them do not like the police and do not want to assist us. Even in cases where we are not investigating a crime. Are there any examples of times where Connections and the Police operated together in a form that has benefitted participants? 7. Which ways of building a collaborative relationship between the Police and Connections would be worthtrying out?Police Connections 3 checked “A few initial meetings to get to know each other and answer questions” 14 checked “A few initial meetings to get to know each other and answer questions” 0 checked “Weekly or monthly coffees with no set agenda”11 checked “Weekly or monthly coffees with no set agenda” 7 checked “Regular more formal meetings” 11 checked “Regular more formal meetings” 3 checked “Regular check-ins on Police rounds” 3 checked “Regular check-ins on Police rounds” Other comment: Move Margarita to Howard Street Other comment: Dedicated officers who are familiar with mental health, trauma, & our specific client needs Other comment: Semi-Annual Meeting/Check-in I think we do fairly good keeping in touch with city officials and EPD regarding clients and specific areas. Personally I introduce myself and catch up with all EPD officers I come in contact with. Other comment: I am not sure there can be a spirit of cooperation between the two. 17Page 27 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 8. If you have any other thoughts or experiences to share about the relationship between the PoliceDepartment and Connections, please share them below.Police Connections We need to know where each sides stands on us coming into building asking questions and getting information. There residents have a multitude of issues and cause problems in the neighborhood which they need to take ownership of and assist us with helping out in alleviating the issues. I have concerns regarding the sharing of information of participants with police. I believe that the homeless community is often targeted for heavier policing and further police interaction may serve to only criminalize them more. Connections does a good job of raising funds and advocating for the homeless. They do not do a good job of managing the people they are supporting. I think EPD does a fine job, they often want me to help ptps rather than arrest them unless deemed necessary. Comments have been made from the highest level of the police deptboth in smaller meetings and in public that CFTH doesn't know what we are doing and providing no specifics or concrete examples. It seems to be very one sided w/ no acknowledgement or accountability on the part of the police of what they could do to improve the relationship as well. These comments aren't helpful and increase distrust of CFTH among others including business owners, community members, etc. On one instance I witnessed several emergency responders (I'm not sure what dept they were from b/c when an emergency response team comes it is a combination of police; EMTs; and the fire dept) disparagingly discussing in open a female participant w/ severe mental illness who was experiencing a mental health crisis. On other occasions they have had a tendency to further escalate a ptp in a mental health crisis. On another occasion when police were called by CFTH for assistance w/ a behavioral disturbance, an officer said "You probably won't give me any information but I'll ask anyway". I responded that of course we would provide whatever info they needed as we called them for assistance and the circumstances (threat to harm to self of others) was an exception to confidentiality. That said we have had many more very helpful and collaborative interactions w/ police than not. 18Page 28 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 19Page 29 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Report on “Coffee with the Cops” Sessions at the Margarita Inn To get input from members of the Evanston Police Department and Margarita Inn staff, we have held four meetings for people to talk about the results of the survey that was conducted in November and to generate ideas for solutions and next steps in building a better working relationship. Sergeant Chelsea Brown and Sue Loellbach from Connections for the Homeless planned the sessions, and Sue Loellbach facilitated them. About the Sessions We held four sessions on the following dates and times, to allow for each EPD shift to have opportunities to attend: •Monday, December 5, 8:30 a.m. •Monday, December 5, 8:30 p.m. •Thursday, December 8, 8:30 p.m. •Friday, December 16, 8:30 a.m. Each session lasted slightly over an hour, and approximately 20 officers and 20 Margarita staff attended in total. The agenda for all the sessions was as follows: •Introductions •Review of survey responses •Discussions of ways to work together better •Sharing of policies related to privacy and sharing of information •Ideas for future discussion Areas of Concern Shared General comments that participants in the sessions shared as we were looking at the results of the survey included: •The change to having Connections participants stay at the Margarita Inn in 2020 brought in a lot of people with problems, which is why it became a hot spot. There seemed to be general consensus that things have calmed down a lot over the last year. •Margarita staff would like officers to be nice when they are onsite, to be approachable, and to be open. •Police want Connections’ staff to make them feel more welcome—right now they often do not feel like staff want them at the Inn. Officers in addition had a lot of questions about Connections’ general operations at the Margarita Inn, and staff had questions about some police training and policies. Attachment III20 Page 30 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Summary of Discussions Most of the conversation centered on experiences of officers and staff and on how to make communications more effective. Rules around Privacy Discussion: Since the biggest known area of concern is rules around what information about residents Connections can and cannot share, we spent some time discussing this, and shared Connections’ policy on working with law enforcement personnel. Once we shared the policy, officers likened it to the similar constraints placed on them regarding confidentiality. The focus of the conversation then focused more on how to have as productive a relationship as possible in spite of the mutual limitations on sharing information. Recommendations from Participants in the Groups: •Review both EPD and Connections’ policies on privacy to make sure any ambiguities are resolved as clearly as possible. •Share and discuss both organizations’ policies with all EPD officers and Margarita staff. Handling Calls Discussion: Much of the discussion focused on making the communication between EPD and Connections clearer from the start of any call. •Police commented that what dispatch is told and how they’re told it sets the tone for the rest of the call. While many of the most difficult calls come from the public, it is important for Margarita staff to know what to communicate when they call the police. •It would be good to have a direct line for police to call when they need to get in touch with Connections—so they don’t have to just rely on showing up in person. •The most difficult situation is when Connections’ staff are not aware that the police have been called, particularly when the situation is urgent and the police need immediate entry. •The end of a call is important too—several people from the police and from the Margarita Inn felt that debriefs after incidents could be helpful. Recommendations from Participants in the Groups: •Have one discussion topic for future sessions be about how staff should communicate with dispatch when calling the police. •Connections should provide the “red phone” number to police for direct 24-hour access to staff. Attachment III 21 Page 31 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 •When police get a call from a non-staff member and have to go to the Margarita Inn to investigate, they should notify Connections that they are on their way. •When Connections’ staff know that the police are coming, they should meet them outside the building or somewhere private so that they can share necessary information. Even if it’s an emergency, some information can be shared on the way into the building. •For calls that are non-routine, consider having debrief discussions afterward. 3-Way Interactions Discussion: Session participants discussed some of the complexities around communicating in the shelter setting—and on the street—when police, Connections’ staff, and a citizen are involved. A lot of this conversation had to do with the different relationships that citizens have with the police and with Connections’ staff. •Police have heard residents say that Margarita staff told them not to call the police. All are concerned that this could inhibit residents from calling when it is appropriate for them to do so. •At the same time, staff said that they try not to get police involved in situations that don’t require police intervention. •Police worry about staff inhibiting residents from speaking to officers frankly and possibly hindering police from being able to follow a line of questioning or conversation; however, police are willing to speak to staff before and/or after they talk with residents. Police are concerned about Connections’ policy to have staff present when police are talking with residents. •Many of the people Connections serves are scared of the police and don’t trust that they will get good results if they report being a victim of crime or witnessing a crime. Margarita staff don’t have a lot of luck encouraging residents of the Margarita to come forward for police help. Recommendations from Participants in the Groups: •Review what Connections tells participants about calling police—what constitutes an emergency requiring police presence and what doesn’t. Residents should be instructed to call police for emergencies and to work with Margarita staff on non-emergencies. •Connections should have internal discussions about the policy of staying with police when they are at the Margarita Inn and when it is OK to leave police and residents alone. •When Margarita staff, police, and a resident of the Margarita are together, each party should let the other two have their own conversation as needed. In other words, staff should not interfere in conversations between police and a resident, and police should not interfere in a conversation between a staff member and a resident. Police and staff should take the time to talk to each other when the other conversations are paused or over. Attachment III 22 Page 32 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 •If a participant asks to speak to the police alone, that should be allowed at the Margarita Inn. •A topic for future police/Margarita Inn staff should be crisis intervention for people who are experiencing homelessness. •Margarita staff felt that if they knew a particular officer well and had a strong working relationship, they could more strongly recommend to Margarita residents that they meet with an officer to share information about having been victimized or witnessing a crime. On the Street Session participants agreed that situations inside the Margarita Inn are separate from situations on the street, and that street situations very often have nothing to do with Margarita residents. •Not all officers were aware that Connections has an Outreach Team that is available to work with them in various capacities on the street. •Police felt businesses would benefit from knowing more about Connections’ Outreach Team. •Police felt that the phone-use system that Interfaith Action of Evanston uses to notify people when a bed is available is a problem, because people’s phones are unreliable, and when shelter isn’t available, people on the phone list don’t hang around waiting to see if they made the list. •The police appreciate the services that Trilogy provides, but it’s not clear who should be called when, and response times are often too long to be helpful. •Police seemed eager to learn more about the Outreach Team and to be able to discuss issues with them. Recommendations •Find more ways for officers and the Outreach Team to get to touch base regularly. •Connections should do more outreach to businesses in the downtown area. •Police should provide feedback to Interfaith Action of Evanston on the impact of their phone notification system for shelter beds. •Both Connections and the police strongly agreed that there should be a meeting with them and Trilogy to discuss collaboration. Legal and Policy Issues Several issues related to laws that pertain to the police and/or to Connections came up. It would be good to have both organizations examine these and come to agreement on which laws apply where. Attachment III23 Page 33 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 •People sharing rooms at the Margarita Inn are subject to domestic violence law, and the responsibilities of the police are different in these cases. It would be good to clarify what the differences are and whether legal requirements of Margarita staff are any different for roommates than for other people. •Police asked about laws related to eviction and how they pertain to expulsion from the shelter— what the requirements are for ensuring the safety of people expelled and what our policies are. •With new laws (e.g., the SAFE-T Act), there was some confusion about how petitioning should work moving forward—when police can and cannot be involved. This area should be explored jointly, along with Trilogy, to get a mutual understanding among all three organizations. Follow-Ups After the Coffees with the Cops sessions, Deputy Chief Sacluti and Sergeant Chelsea Brown met with Sue Loellbach to discuss the feedback and decide on follow-ups, some of which have already been completed. These are described below: Revisions to Policies: •Connections will update its policy on what information can be disclosed to police. The EPD does not have a written policy on what information officers can share with agencies they are working with. •Connections will incorporate into its procedures the recommendation that staff meet police outside the building or bring them to a private place to talk when the situation allows for such conversation before police engage with residents. •EPD did not feel it was realistic to require either Dispatch or officers enroute to the Margarita Inn to notify Margarita staff that they were coming to give warning and allow staff to meet them at the door. However, EPD agreed that it is OK for individual officers to notify Margarita staff at their discretion. As part of ongoing relationship-building, both parties will make sure that this is communicated. •Connections will update its staff and resident procedures on working with law enforcement to include more guidance on when to call the police, with elaboration around residents’ rights to call. •Connections will also do some in-service training about the relationship with police and how to facilitate good communications among police, residents, and staff while being able to advocate for clients without getting in the way of police activity, allowing residents to speak to police privately if they want to, etc. •Connections is preparing a communication to EDP with the direct phone line to the Margarita Inn. Attachment III24 Page 34 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Research: •EPD will research domestic violence law and how it pertains to people sharing rooms in a shelter or rooming house facility. •Connections will research laws related to eviction and how they pertain to expulsiogn from the shelter. •Police will clarify their policy on petitioning, given the SAFE-T Act, and will participate in a meeting with Connections and Trilogy to discuss this issue as well as others. Shared Efforts in the Community: •Outreach Team members will attend periodic roll calls, proactively touch base with officers on the street, and host officers for additional coffees to build the relationship and collaborate in solving problems. •Connections has been in touch with Downtown Evanston and is also working with the new Coalition to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County and will be creating materials and supports for community members, including business owners, to use in response to the visible poverty on the streets of Evanston, including panhandling. This campaign will include extensive outreach to the business community and will provide information about Connections’ outreach services. •Because police indicate that they are struggling with having no emergency shelter with openings to which to refer homeless people they encounter on the street, Connections and EPD should both bring this issue up at Coalition meetings. Additionally, both Connections and EPD should provide feedback to Interfaith Action of Evanston for consideration as they plan for the future. The Coalition should engage in planning for additional emergency shelter beds in the community. •Connections will invite EPD and Trilogy representatives to a meeting to talk about shared response goals and how to work together. Ongoing Relationship-Building: EPD officers and Connections staff agreed that additional conversations would be a good idea. Both in the survey responses and in the discussions, it sounds like a combination of approaches may be the way to go: •Roll call is the best way to reach everyone. However, there isn’t a lot of time—discussions, trainings, or problem-solving sessions would probably need to be limited to 15 minutes. Plus, some officers suggested that they might be pre-occupied during roll call, and some night officers said roll call is not a great time. Attachment III 25 Page 35 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 •Meetings like the ones at the Margarita Inn could be very productive. However, police participation will depend on what is going on during the shift, staffing levels, etc. Additionally, only one of four sets of officers could attend any one meeting, so it will be difficult to get everyone involved at the same time. In addition to the topics above, staff at the Margarita Inn and EPD officers were interested in discussing some of the following topics at future meetings, whether they be during roll call or otherwise: •Operations of the Margarita Inn—with the opportunity to tour the facility •Debriefs after police calls to the Margarita-- when/how to have them •What/who is on the radar in the community—hot spots, people having problems •Police Crisis Intervention Training – what’s in it, how is it different from what Connections’ staff get trained on •How to modify CIT for use with people experiencing homelessness •How to work with citizens that have issues and complaints about people in the community who are struggling with mental illness, addiction, and poverty Attachment III26 Page 36 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 27 Page 37 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Evanston Area Facility Search November 10, 2022 Prepared by: Maple Avenue Real Estate Advisors On Behalf of Connections Real Estate Committee/Task Force Attachment IV28 Page 38 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Executive Summary In April 2021, Connections for the Homeless (“Connections”) Board of Directors created a Real Estate Task Force comprised of selected Board members and other volunteers with real estate expertise and specific experience with hotel and multifamily property acquisition and operations. The Task Force was charged with helping Connections evaluate whether the Margarita Inn, which Connections has been leasing since the summer of 2020 to operate a transitional housing facility, is the best location for a permanent operation or whether there are buildings that could be adapted or sites that could feasibly be developed into a new facility, in Evanston or nearby. In addition to identifying alternative locations the Task Force also evaluated the physical condition of the Margarita Inn and necessary capital improvements and modifications required to better fit Connections’ long-term needs. The Task Force has determined that the Margarita Inn is the best choice for Connections. The reasons for this conclusion, more fully detailed later in this report, include the following: 1. The Margarita Inn is the closest match to Connections’ criteria for a permanent transitional housing operation. 2. Existing multifamily apartments are ill-suited for the needs of Connections’ 3. Transitional housing operation. Apartments would require extensive modification to provide a level of utility comparable to the Margarita Inn. For example, removing individual kitchens from apartments, installing a commercial kitchen, and creating dedicated spaces for resident consultations is not financially or, in some cases, physically feasible. 4. Acquisition, renovation, and modification of the Margarita Inn is far more cost-effective than ground-up development. 29 Page 39 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 5. All ground-up development options identified would require some form of zoning approval, a time consuming process, creating a serious risk that Connections services would be interrupted upon expiration of the lease at the Margarita Inn. It is also highly uncertain that a site seller would tolerate a lengthy acquisition timeline to allow for an unpredictable zoning timetable. 6. Ground-up development would require significant time to effectuate. Connections has no viable interim alternative other than the Margarita Inn to provide transitional housing services to existing residents, but it is uncertain whether the current owner of the Margarita Inn would accommodate Connections’ continued use of the property (at least at current rental rates) if an acquisition of the property was not planned. Connections’ Criteria for Transitional Housing Operation 1. Private rooms of varying configurations to accommodate families of various size; adjoining rooms with privacy locks are ideal. 2. No individual kitchens. For the safety of residents and liability protection for Connections, it is preferred that rooms do not have full kitchens where residents can cook for themselves. 3. A commercial kitchen to prepare meals for residents is ideal; otherwise, meals must be prepared offsite and brought to the facility, which is uneconomic and cumbersome operationally. 4. A designated congregate care area to house residents who require enhanced attention/supervision. 5. Designated, private spaces where Connections can provide residents with various social services. 30 Page 40 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 6. Located within walking distance to public transportation and other services, ideally near Connections’ other operations at Hilda’s Place and Dewey Ave. The Facility cannot be within Chicago city limits due to municipal and county funding arrangements. 31 Page 41 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 The Margarita Inn The approximately 22,000 square foot, five-story building is a mix of limestone and brick masonry. The building contains 46 guest rooms, commercial kitchen, library, “grand parlor” conference space for staff, public restrooms, basement, mechanical and electrical rooms, administrative front desk area, and a rooftop deck accessible to guests. The building is in generally fair to good condition. The per night room cost to operate a transitional housing shelter at the Margarita Inn, where Connections continues to rent rooms at increasing rates, significantly surpasses anticipated operational costs if Connections owned the Margarita Inn, and pandemic-era funding for hotel room rentals may not be available indefinitely. Therefore, an extended leasing arrangement for Connections’ indefinite operations is not efficient for Connections even if it were available from the owner and approved by the city, which presently it is not. Since the Margarita Inn is generally well-suited for Connections’ operations, the property is in relatively good physical condition, and the anticipated operating costs of ownership are less than those of continued rental, Connections pursued purchase negotiations with the hotel owner, while carefully evaluating alternative locations. 32 Page 42 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Process for Search for Alternative Facilities and Development Sites The Real Estate Task Force canvassed the market for available properties in transit- oriented areas which fit Connections’ criteria for a transitional housing operation. The Task Force also took into consideration that given financing arrangements, these sites could not be in the city of Chicago. Furthermore, the Task Force looked for acquisition prospects that were roughly 22,000 square feet, the size of the Margarita Inn. These limitations resulted in the task force focusing its search in the townships of Evanston, Skokie, and Niles. The result was three potential acquisitions, two marketed properties, and one possible off- market opportunity. 33 Page 43 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Review of Alternative Properties 824 Emerson Street Evanston, IL Assumed Price: $2,700,000 Lot Size: 17,424 Square Feet Zoning: C1 Existing Property Type: Retail 817 University & 824 Emerson are two lots intended to be sold together. The sites offer a development option to Connections, albeit one that is not straightforward. Under the current zoning (C1) a rooming shelter is not a permitted use. Zoning in this location does however allow for a planned development (PD) under the zoning ordinance. Obtaining an approval for a PD has no definite timetable and there are no guarantees the seller would entertain an offer contingent on the city of Evanston approving a PD for Connections’ intended use. Given the lot size and assuming a 10,000 square foot building footprint rising three levels, horizontal and vertical construction, including hard and soft costs, generates a pro forma cost of this option of $12,700,000 following approximately 18 months of predevelopment time and 18 months of construction. 34 Page 44 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 1715 Church Street Evanston, IL Assumed Price: $3,250,000 Building Size: 20,400 Square Feet Zoning: MXE Existing Property Type: Office The building is 2,000 sf smaller than the Margarita Inn and lacks efficiencies for a transitional shelter use in that it has been designed to suit office tenants of varying sizes. Obtaining a Special Use Permit would take time. Connections might have to incur option costs or an escalating purchase price for the seller to allow the time needed to secure required permits The building is presently leased. There is no assurance that all the current tenants would agree to vacate. In addition, the modification of an office use to shelter use would be especially cumbersome as compared to an apartment conversion. 35 Page 45 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 101 - 111 Clyde Avenue; 565 Howard Street Evanston, IL Assumed Price: TBD Building Size: N/A Zoning: B3 Existing Property Type: Multifamily These buildings could most likely be adapted to meet other Connections’ accommodation needs for permanent housing, but do not meet Connections’ requirements for transitional housing. To alter the space into a suitable configuration would require additional time and capital, and the location of these properties in far South Evanston is not ideal. Neither of the proposed sites are large enough to use as a replacement for the Margarita Inn alone, so both locations would be required with the duplicate staffing expenses significantly increasing costs and creating inefficiencies. 36 Page 46 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Connections Development Site D DESCRIPTION COST SAMPLE NRSF 0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS $237,550 $7.92 GENERAL OVERHEAD 1-100 $125,000 $4.17 SURVEY / CONSTRUCTION STAKING 1-150 $10,000 $0.33 SOIL TESTING 1-120 $10,000 $0.33 PLANS / PRINTING 1-150 $2,000 $0.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES / SOFTWARE 1-200 $750 $0.03 SECURITY 1-540 $5,000 $0.17 TEMP FENCING 1-545 $4,800 $0.16 EROSION CONTROL 1-550 $2,500 $0.08 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1-570 $10,000 $0.33 FIELD TRAILER 1-591 $5,000 $0.17 RENTAL EQUIPMENT 1-640 $2,000 $0.07 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT 1-650 $0 $0.00 PRESSURE WASH 1-700 $2,000 $0.07 SITE MANAGEMENT 1-700 $10,000 $0.33 MAKE READY CLEAN 1-710 $30,000 $1.00 WINDOW CLEAN (EXTERIOR) 1-710 $3,500 $0.12 PUNCHOUT 1-770 $15,000 $0.50 0 SITE CONSTRUCTION $665,000 $22. EXCAVATION 2-100 $200,000 $6.67 DEMO AFTER UTILITIES 2-210 $150,000 $5.00 FINAL GRADE 2-225 $15,000 $0.50 DIRT HAUL OFF 2-300 $12,500 $0.42 TERMITE TREATMENT 2-240 $12,000 $0.40 MONUMENT SIGN 2-270 $8,500 $0.28 TREE REMOVAL 2-300 $0 $0.00 SITE UTILITIES 2-400 $210,000 $7.00 PARKING LOT STRIPING 2-580 $2,000 $0.07 UTILITIES - GAS DISTRIBUTION 2-650 $0 $0.00 UTILITIES - STORM SEWER 2-660 $0 $0.00 UTILITIES - WASTEWATER DISTRIBUTION 2-660 $0 $0.00 UTILITIES - WATER & SPRINKLER DISTRIBUTION 2-660 $0 $0.00 UTILITIES - COMED DISTRIBUTION 2-670 $5,000 $0.17 UTILITIES - TELECOM DISTRIBUTION 2-670 $0 $0.00 SITE PLUMBING 2-700 $0 $0.00 LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 2-810 $50,000 $1.67 GATES 2-820 $0 $0.00 WOOD FENCE 2-830 $0 $0.00 0 CONCRETE $613,750 $20. RETAINING WALL 3-300 $0 $0.00 POST TENSION SLAB ON GRADE 3-311 $300,000 $10.0 CONCRETE SITE 3-320 $75,000 $2.50 PUBLIC PAVING 3-321 $150,000 $5.00 LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE 3-500 $50,000 $1.67 WHEEL STOPS 3-581 $3,750 $0.13 CONCRETE POLISH 3-600 $35,000 $1.17 0 MASONRY $50,000 $1.67 STUCCO 4-010 $0 $0.00 BRICK 4-020 $0 $0.00 CMU - ELEVATOR 4-030 $50,000 $1.67 TRASH BIN 4-400 $0 $0.00 0 METALS $350,000 $11. STEEL STAIRS 5-300 $200,000 $6.67 METAL RAILINGS 5-512 $0 $0.00 STRUCTURAL STEEL 5-513 $150,000 $5.00 STEEL - AWNINGS 5-514 $0 $0.00 0 WOODS AND PLASTICS $1,965,000 $65. Address 824 Emerson Street Budget w/o Contingency Owner Connections for the Homeless Contingency $500,000 Architect TBD Total GC Fee 10.0% PROJECT DETAILS Total Budget GBA 30,000 Per SF GLA 17,424 Per SF w/o Fee BUDGET $10,024,570 $0 $10,024,570 $1,002,457 $11,027,027 $368 $334 37 Page 47 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FRAMING MATERIALS 6- $850,000 $28.33 FRAMING LABOR 6- $500,000 $16.67 TRUSS/BEAMS 6- $450,000 $15.00 TRIM CARPENTRY LABOR 6- $75,000 $2.50 TRIM MATERIAL 6- $75,000 $2.50 STAIRS 6- $0 $0.00 FASTENERS 6- $15,000 $0.50 THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION $497,500 $16.58 INSULATION 7- $200,000 $6.67 ROOF - TPO 7- $250,000 $8.33 GUTTERS / DOWNSPOUTS 7- $0 $0.00 AREA DRAINS/SLEEVING 7- $20,000 $0.67 FLASHING 7- $7,500 $0.25 FIREPROOFING 7- $20,000 $0.67 WATERPROOFING - CAULKING / SEALANTS 7- $0 $0.00 DOORS AND WINDOWS $904,695 $30.16 INTERIOR DOORS 8- $200,000 $6.67 EXTERIOR DOORS 8- $150,000 $5.00 INTERIOR TRIM 8- $75,000 $2.50 GARAGE OVERHEAD DOOR 8- $0 $0.00 WINDOWS - VINYL 8- $300,000 $10.00 REGLAZING 8- $5,000 $0.17 WINDOW - STOREFRONT 8- $0 $0.00 HARDWARE 8- $75,000 $2.50 CONSTRUCTION LOCKS 8- $1,200 $0.04 BIKE RACK 8- $1,995 $0.07 HARDWARE INSTALL 8- $32,500 $1.08 SHOWER DOORS/MIRRORS 8- $64,000 $2.13 FINISHES $1,295,000 $43.17 SHEETROCK 9- $500,000 $16.67 TILE 9- $150,000 $5.00 CARPET 9- $45,000 $1.50 FLOORS 9- $275,000 $9.17 PAINT 9- $325,000 $10.83 SPECIALITIES $103,000 $3.43 SIGNAGE 10- $25,000 $0.83 ACCESS CONTROL 10- $75,000 $2.50 CARPORT 10- $0 $0.00 MAILBOX 10- $0 $0.00 FIRE EXTINGUSHER 10- $3,000 $0.10 EQUIPMENT $196,000 $6.67 APPLIANCES 11- $200,000 $6.67 FURNISHINGS $425,000 $14.17 FURNATURE 12- $100,000 $3.33 WINDOW BLINDS 12- $75,000 $2.50 CABINETS 12- $100,000 $3.33 COUNTERS 12- $150,000 $5.00 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $50,000 $1.67 SPECIAL PURPOSE ROOMS 13- $50,000 $1.67 SWIMMING POOL 13- $0 $0.00 CONVEYING SYSTEMS $100,000 $3.33 ELEVATORS 14- $100,000 $3.33 MECHANICAL $1,577,525 $52.58 FIRE SPRINKLER 15- $400,000 $13.33 FIRE SPRINKLER KNOX BOX 15- $2,525 $0.08 PLUMBING PRIVATE (ALL UNITS) 15- $700,000 $23.33 PLUMBING FIXTURES 15- $125,000 $4.17 WATER SUBMETERING 15- $0 $0.00 HVAC 15- $350,000 $11.67 ELECTRICAL $468,000 $15.60 ELECTRIC 16- $350,000 $11.67 LIGHT FIXTURES 16- $75,000 $2.50 FIRE ALARM 16- $35,000 $1.17 A/V CABELING 16- $8,000 $0.27 MARKUP AND CONTINGANCY $511,550 $17.05 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 17- $1,000 $0.03 BUILDERS RISK INSURANCE 17- $2,500 $0.08 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 17- $2,000 $0.07 GENERAL CONTINGENCY 17- $500,000 $16.67 CONCRETE TESTING/ ENGINEER INSPECTIONS 17- $5,000 $0.17 PERMITS 17- $550 $0.02 ENERGY INSPECTION 17- $500 $0.02 Subtotal: $10,024,5 $334 38 Page 48 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 39 Page 49 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 October 20, 2022 Mayor Daniel Biss Councilmember Jonathan Nieuwsma City of Evanston Lorraine Morton Civic Center 2100 Ridge Ave. Evanston, IL 60201 Dear Mayor Biss and Councilmember Nieuwsma, I am writing to respond to the idea proposed at our meeting on October 10, 2022 of alternative locations for the services that Connection’s is currently providing at the Margarita Inn. While the team raised several objections to these options at the meeting, I thought it important to make sure the ideas were given serious consideration and report back to you our findings. Background The process to determine if the Margarita Inn was the best place for Connections’ operations began in earnest in April 2021, as led by Connections’ Board of Directors. The Board created a task force made of Board members and other volunteers with expertise in hotel acquisition, remodeling and operations of hotels, multifamily properties, and other asset classes in Evanston. This task force included the original developer of Church Street Plaza, a manager of a Real Estate Investment Trust specializing in hotel acquisition, a Vice President of a real estate asset management and development firm, and a co-founder of a privately-held real estate investment, commercial development and advisory company. In addition to evaluating the Margarita Inn, the task force weighed all possible options, including acquiring land and developing a new building, acquiring a different hotel and modifying it, and acquiring a similar building (such as a nursing home) and reconfiguring it. It was through this thorough analysis that the task force determined that the Margarita is, by far, the best facility available. We’re already established there, and, assuming the renewal of our SUP, can finalize ownership in a matter of months. The sheer cost in time and money of these alternate proposals, even with reduced purchase prices, make them unviable. Starting over with a new site would require Connections to duplicate attorney fees for transactional expenses, zoning approvals, and due diligence, additional architecture fees, and to continue to pay rent at our current location until we can move into an alternate space. These costs don’t include the cost of staff and board time that these proposals would take, the wear and tear on staff who are anxious about our future, the cost to our clients of potentially fragmented shelter services across multiple locations, and the goodwill of our supporters who want us to be at the Margarita Inn. Adequacy of the Proposed Sites to Serve as Shelter Of course, with an empty lot, we would have the potential to build a facility fully suited to a shelter use. The apartment buildings proposed could be rehabbed to meet our needs. However, this would require extensive time and reconfiguration to make them useable as non-congregate shelter that also provides the clinical support, including: •Adding bathrooms •Creating office space for staff •Creating common spaces for meetings, eating, events, and recreation 40 Page 50 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Cost to Operate Multiple Shelter Sites None of the proposed sites are large enough to use as a replacement for the Margarita Inn and would require multiple shelter locations. This would require 24-hour staffing solutions across several locations, significantly increasing costs and inefficiencies. Connections has experience operating multiple shelter facilities at once the summer of 2020), and we have deliberately decided to consolidate services in one location, the Margarita Inn. Proximity to Other Shelters Northside Housing & Supportive Services is building a new 72-bed shelter just south of Howard and Clark, within 1,000 feet of one of the proposed alternate sites. Cost of Operations during Development Current operations at the Margarita Inn, where Connections is renting rooms at increasing prices, is more expensive than if we owned our own building. We have been able to sustain operations this way because of emergency funding related to the pandemic. It is now time to move to a permanent solution, which is why we are looking to purchase the Margarita Inn. It has worked well for us operationally, but it will not work well financially until we can stop paying rent that exceeds what occupying the building as an owner would cost. The prospect of a multi- year process to develop one or more new locations is contrary to Connections’ fiduciary duty to our donors and funders. Appropriateness of Placing the Shelter in the Poorest Part of the 8th Ward With the City citing equity as one of its primary goals, it does not make sense to move the shelter from a highly functional and unique location that is ready to use, and happens to be located in a primarily white neighborhood, to a primarily black, high-poverty neighborhood that would be “more receptive” while imposing additional cost to Connections and delaying our programmatic growth. This proposal perpetuates both segregation and inequity in how Evanston serves it residents and where they can live. The suggestion that Connections move Margarita operations and residents - many of whom are members of protected classes under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) - to another location (which is owned by one of our most prominent and public objectors), while a Special Use application is pending before the City, is analogous to Illinois cases where courts have upheld a claim for improper denial of housing due to a disability, under the FHA. Connections is confident that there is no better place in the City of Evanston for its operation than the Margarita Inn. We have submitted a Special Use application to continue operations at the Margarita, which is pending City review. We stand by our assertion that the Margarita is the most suitable location for this use, and are working with City Staff, Elected Officials, neighbors and other stakeholders, like the Police Department to ensure that this project will do the most good while creating the least impact possible. Respectfully, Betty Bogg, Executive Director 41 Page 51 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Page 52 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Page 53 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Page 54 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31 Page 55 of 55 Doc ID: ca37a437e38f566005fb40813af03350f2b28f31