City grants permit for transitional facility

Permit clears way for county to approve group using grant funds to buy it

A conditional use permit request for a proposed transitional housing facility in Medford was unanimously approved Thursday by the city’s Plan Commission.

The facility will be located at 232 S. Fourth St. and operated as the Taylor House by Taylor County Supportive Housing (TCSH). The property has not yet been officially purchased. That process will be the next step after Thursday’s approval.

The conditional use permit approval comes with the stipulation that the TCSH provide a status report on facility operations a year after it opens.

Thursday’s proceedings started with a 25-minute public hearing on the permit request where discussion focused on clarifying people’s questions about the proposed facility. No outright opposition was expressed.

During the official meeting, the commission gave its blessing after about a 15-minute discussion where more questions were answered by TCSH president Jessica Mudgett.

When its doors open, Taylor House will work with homeless individuals and families to transition them into permanent homes. It is expected to house up to 12 individuals for an average of 30-60 days or up to 90 in extreme cases. No registered sex offenders would be permitted.

The three-plex building on the property will need to be renovated before the facility can open. The location is viewed as advantageous because it is within walking distance of many services those staying there would need.

“(Clients) will have specific goals to reach toward,” Mudgett said. “There will be curfews on the building. They won’t be able to go out to the bar and come back to the shelter. That’s not an option. We won’t be having parties. There won’t be visitors. We have just received a grant from AbbyBank Foundation to install security cameras, so we will have that on site as well.

“Part of the goal-setting is going to be connecting to services that they need to succeed, whether it’s connecting for employment counseling, other services within the county, Human Services, different things like that,” she added. “We’ll connect them to those services. We’ll work through setting those goals, attaining those goals. They will be putting money aside for securing housing. If there’s other grant programs they can apply for, we will be working with them on that,” Mudgett said.

City council member Greg Knight was the first to speak during the public hearing, saying he was simply relaying some of the questions he had received from residents in that part of the city, which he represents. He said he’d already had talked with Mudgett and had some questions answered. A couple of additional concerns raised to him recently included would the city be liable for operation of the facility if, for some reason, the nonprofi t organization ran out of funding and would the facility be responsible for street assessments if a project was needed sometime in the future.

“A non-profit organization will be running the facility so it would just be like any other business,” Mudgett said. “If a business were to fail, the business would close. There would be no obligation or ownership on the city’s or the county’s side.”

“In the past, all non-profits, churches, even the federal government had to pay when we did a street project,” city coordinator Joe Harris said.

“One question they had was we would like to know who we contact if we see something or have an issue with residents at the property,” Knight said. “Do we dial 911 or is there somebody to just call, the manager of the facility perhaps or something like that?”

“We would be responsible if somebody has something to report that’s happening at that location,” Mudgett said. “Obviously if a citizen didn’t feel safe they’d probably want to reach out to law enforcement. Any issues with the property if there’s an issue with something they’re seeing, whatever the case might be, we would be the contact. We would have somebody that would answer.”

“If the facility was well-managed, they felt that yes there is a homeless need in the county and their understanding is that it is serving primarily county residents so they were supportive of that,” Knight said. “They just want to make sure that it is a well-managed facility.”

During the official meeting, plan commission member Corey Nazer asked how reliable the funding would be for the proposed facility.

Mudgett said the effort is currently funded by community development block grant funds, local sources like United Way and the Salvation Army and the organization’s own fundraisers. But once the facility opens, new sources of funding should become available to sustain operations. Mudgett said as a board member for the Wisconsin Balance of State Continuum of Care, she is well aware of what is out there for grants and other potential funding sources.

“Until we’re open we can’t apply through the DOA, we can’t apply for the shelter funding,” she said. “I have reached out to them as far as what’s available and there’s a lot of funding available. We’re just not yet in a position where we’d be able to secure that.”

The facility will not be staffed 24 hours, seven days a week initially for financial reasons.

In its permit application, TCSH reported that 154 homeless individuals or families were helped last year in Taylor County with 775 nights assisted with motel vouchers. Commission member Peggy Kraschnewski asked if it’s expected those numbers would decrease with this facility.

“Our hope is that we would be able to serve those clients all within our facility, but, again we won’t have 24-hour staffing,” Mudgett said. “So what happens now if someone presents themselves after hours I’m not available, like last night for instance, we had a homeless individual present themselves to the sheriff’s department. They’re able after hours to issue that voucher. We would still have that service available for after hours situations. We want them to have somewhere safe to sleep. That’s what’s happening now. We’re still going to the motel if they present themselves as homeless after hours. They would still be able to get a voucher in that situation and connect with us the next day and sit down and do the intake process.”

“I hope this doesn’t happen and I don’t think it will happen, but if for some reason the situation becomes untenable there with things going on or disruptions, whatever, like I said, I’m pretty sure it won’t, can we revoke the conditional use permit through the planning commission?” commission member Tim Hansen asked. “Or is it once we issue it is it good for life?”

City planner Bob Christensen said the plan commission can basically put any conditions it wants on the conditional use permit and if those conditions are violated, actions could be taken.

“There’s all sorts of things that as a commission you could put as a condition on that permit,” Christensen said. “I certainly would suggest for the first year that we have at least something that says how it is being used and what kinds of problems have developed there.”

Christensen also noted the commission had 35 days from the time the application was submitted to make a decision. The application was submitted on March 16, so a decision did not have to be made Thursday.

Dave Zimmerman, though, did make the motion to approve the permit with a second from Hansen. Kraschnewski then asked for amendment asking for some kind of review if problems develop.

“Maybe that would be a compromise, rather than trying to list 10 things or just give it to them and say you’re free forever,” mayor Mike Wellner proposed. “Maybe a compromise would be for them to come back and give us a report and a review after a year.”

“We’ll hear if there are problems with law enforcement,” Kraschnewski said. “But if we could have something where we can at least keep in touch.”

“If everything goes well on that first one, then I guess it would be up to the commission if they want to review that again and say we’ll look at it two years from now or five years from now,” Wellner said.

Zimmerman agreed to make the amendment for the one-year review once the facility opens. The motion was then unanimously approved.