Lenexa council rejects Johnson County homeless shelter plan, putting project in limbo
Despite a looming legal threat, the Lenexa City Council rejected a crucial permit for Johnson County to finally establish a permanent homeless shelter, effectively killing the project as it stands now.
After 1 a.m. Wednesday, in a packed, six-hour-long meeting, the council voted 5-2 to deny the request for a special use permit to operate a year-round homeless shelter at the La Quinta Inn and Suites and a nearby shuttered restaurant off of Interstate 35 and 95th Street.
It is a major loss for Johnson County officials, who have spent the past year evaluating the site and preparing to close on the purchase of the property — the closest the county has gotten to starting a shelter for single adults experiencing homelessness.
In rejecting the permit, council members said the shelter would be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and strain law enforcement, placing an “undue burden” on the city. The council decision, which came after roughly 50 residents spoke both for and against the shelter, was in line with a 9-0 vote by the planning commission to deny the permit.
The special use permit was required for reStart, the Kansas City-based homeless services organization, to operate the shelter and also for officials to close on the sale of the property. Now that it is denied, the same application cannot be resubmitted for one year.
Councilman Craig Denny said he is “sympathetic to the homelessness issue,” but does not feel the hotel is the right location for a shelter.
He disagreed with taking the business — which city staff said was the fifth highest generator of transient guest tax — off the tax rolls “and substitute a nonprofit organization that does not contribute to that tax base, and in addition requires a city to spend more of our resources.
“I think it puts an additional, and I think unwarranted, burden on the city.”
City staff believe the shelter would result in more police calls for service, estimating Lenexa would need to hire three additional officers and a co-responder, a cost of more than $450,000. Police Chief Dawn Layman said she would expect more welfare checks and medical calls, explaining that: “We’re not saying people that utilize those facilities are criminals, and actually a lot of times people in homeless situations actually are victims of crimes, not suspects of crimes.”
Stephanie Boyer, CEO of reStart, said based on the organization’s other Kansas City facilities, she does not expect an increase in 911 calls, saying that more issues are resolved by shelter staff when residents are able to access care and case managers.
Plans called for a 50-bed shelter, with private rooms and bathrooms. Another part of the project would include 25 transitional housing units, to help residents move into permanent homes. Officials intended to provide residents with several resources, including access to health care, job opportunities and more.
Opposing council members also argued that reStart’s management plan was inadequate and pushed forward too quickly, leaving open questions about its sustainability and operations.
Councilwoman Chelsea Williamson suggested the county slow down the process and reopen its request for proposals for operators of the site.
“This, I feel, is not going to be the full, supportive, preventative services that we really need to help the homeless,” she said. “I feel like this is more of a diversion Band-Aid that shelters them for a few months. I just don’t feel like we’re going to offer enough to really help them. I want more.
“I think that this proposal is going to fail.”
Councilwomen Melanie Arroyo and Courtney Eiterich voted in favor of approving the permit. Arroyo argued that her fellow council member’s concerns were rooted in a misunderstanding of how such a shelter would operate, and that some of city staff’s recommendations illustrated stereotypes about people experiencing homelessness.
“I strongly believe the moment to address homelessness in Johnson County is now,” she said. “We have the funding in place, and the resources to do so. ... What will the increase in homelessness be when we find the next opportunity years from now? This is our responsibility we have been dodging for decades. The moment is now.”
Rejection of the permit puts into question whether the county can get the project done elsewhere, as a timeline to use federal funding runs out. If officials remain committed to pushing the idea forward, the decision at least brings county officials back to the drawing board, with the difficult task of looking for a new location and a city that might approve a shelter.
But the fight might not be over yet. Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, reStart sent a letter to the city threatening legal action following the permit being denied.
The letter read: “We feel that some of the alleged concerns identified are not legitimate, not based on any actual information or evidence, and/or are exaggerated or could be readily accommodated by the City and reStart.
“As such, we are concerned that, if the City Council follows City staff’s and the Planning Commission’s inappropriate and arguably discriminatory suggestions, the City’s actions could be in violation of the Fair Housing Act and/or reStart’s constitutional rights and could result in a legal dispute.”
At the top of Tuesday evening’s public discussion, council members convened in closed session to discuss the legal threat.
A years-long effort
For years, advocates have pleaded for city and county officials to establish a shelter.
Johnson County, which is seeing a rise in homelessness, has some beds for families and women, but no permanent shelter for adults without children. Previous attempts to start a shelter have all stalled or failed, while sparking heated debate and neighborhood opposition.
Officials have hoped the project would now finally happen, with the majority of commissioners and more city officials supportive of the initiative. Johnson County Chairman Mike Kelly last week called it a “stars-aligned” moment, as the county can pay for the shelter with one-time federal COVID funding. And the county has found what officials call an ideal piece of property, in a commercial area, off the highway with public transportation access, and with an owner willing to sell.
For proponents, Lenexa also appeared to be the right location. Lenexa City Councilman Joe Karlin, who unsuccessfully ran for mayor this past election and was absent from Tuesday’s discussion, was instrumental in conducting a feasibility study for the shelter. And the city already houses the nonprofit Project 1020’s winter shelter, which operates from December through March.
Lenexa city officials about five years ago denied Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church’s request to host the shelter, but the church sued and won. Afterward, Lenexa officials added a homeless shelter as a use under its city code, laying out regulations and guidelines for someone to seek a special use permit to operate one.
Most Johnson County cities lack any written rules stating when or where a shelter is permissible, which has led to tense debates, both between advocates and neighbors, and in court.
But after Johnson County officials spent months planning for a shelter at the Lenexa hotel, city staff recommended the special use permit be denied. Staff argued the use is inconsistent with the neighborhood, which they call a key redevelopment corridor. And it disagrees with converting the hotel into a use that would be tax-exempt, pointing out that it sits in a tax increment financing district established in 2007, that staff say has led to much private and public investment.
Because of its proximity to the temporary winter shelter, staff said the city would be inundated with a “concentration of negative external impacts” that would harm nearby properties. City staff also worry that its law enforcement resources are not adequate to serve the shelter.
Ahead of the council vote, Mayor Julie Sayers said the hotel is the wrong location for a shelter. She said she hopes other cities in Johnson County will adopt city codes that add regulations for homeless shelters, so more locations that could be appropriate for the project become available.
The mayor said “we welcome the opportunity to share what we’ve learned” through the process, and would aim to “apply that to a countywide approach” to addressing the rise in homelessness. She said the city would be willing to sit at the table for further discussions “for a broader countywide solution.”
In a letter to the city, Johnson County commissioners said officials would work with the city to provide additional service by the sheriff’s office, including deputies and mental health co-responders, to respond to calls. It also says officials will explore programs and funding, such as housing vouchers, to help off-set any overflow at the winter shelter.
Opposing council members argued that they needed a stronger commitment for law enforcement support, saying that the county is poised to get a new sheriff next year following the election and it is unclear whether there would be support in the office to do so.
Boyer, of reStart, promised to work with the city to address its concerns, arguing that the organization has the staffing, security and plan in place to safely operate the shelter and help solve the issue of homelessness.
She said the shelter would have added security cameras, lighting, a controlled entry system, bag searches and trained staff. And responding to concerns, Boyer emphasized the shelter would not be set up to have a line out the door. Residents would be referred to the shelter after accessing the county’s mental health center or other resources within the county network.
Eiterich, who voted in favor of the permit, said she agreed with concerns about the management plan, but that issues could be fixed. She said now is the time to finally establish a shelter in Johnson County.
In its letter, reStart argued many of the city’s concerns are based on stereotypes about the homeless population, threatening that blocking the shelter could be a form of housing discrimination that’s against federal law.
“Currently, people are living on the street in JoCo including Lenexa; this causes issues of loitering, trespassing, encampments, unsanitary conditions, and problems at businesses,” reStart wrote. “These types of issues arise because people do not have access to appropriate spaces, restrooms and resources; the HSC (homeless services center) will alleviate these issues.”
Heated debate over shelter
Over two hours of public comments, Chester Bell, who said he previously was homeless, urged the council to approve the shelter.
“The program works with people together to make them whole again. It gives them a chance they wouldn’t otherwise get and wouldn’t have on the streets,” Bell said, adding that denying the permit is “cheating your community and hurting your own reputation in the long-run. A vote ‘no’ will be a lasting legacy you won’t want.”
Before the council meeting, the Good Faith Network, an interfaith justice network in Johnson County, held a prayer vigil and pleaded for officials to support the project. And 54 members of Christian, Muslim and Jewish clergy signed a letter in support of the shelter.
Residents who oppose the project have cited concerns about an increase in crime and a negative effect on nearby properties. Some also worry that the county has pushed the project forward too quickly, questioning its sustainability once it opens.
Officials estimated it would cost about $1.7 million a year to operate the shelter, which would be funded through grants and private donations. Leaders also had asked the county and its cities to help fund $500,000 of the annual operating cost.
Council members pointed out that Johnson County’s three largest cities have yet to agree to pitch in funding for the shelter, suggesting there was not a solid enough plan for sustaining it. Officials also were concerned by “inconsistencies” in reStart’s plan, saying some aspects had changed, such as whether there would be a fence around the entire perimeter and how the shelter would handle people who walk up to it, rather than enter through the referral system.
Boyer argued those items can be adjusted in the plan, and that any inconsistencies were the result of reStart amending its proposal over time as city officials have raised concerns.
In rejecting the plan, Williamson said it was one of the “hardest, most tasking decisions” she has faced. She argued Johnson County can still come together to get the project done, but should not move forward with the current proposal.
What happens now?
It will now be up to Johnson County commissioners to decide whether to keep pursuing the project, which would mean finding a new location.
That would be no easy task, as officials have said there are few sites that are far enough away from residential neighborhoods, close to public transportation and also are easy to convert into a shelter. And it will be challenging to find a city that might approve a shelter, as many don’t have the use added to their city codes.
The council’s rejection of the special use permit also means federal funding dedicated to the project will be used for other projects.
The county had committed roughly $10.5 million in COVID relief funding toward establishing the shelter and renovating the hotel. The county has so far spent $200,000 in earnest money payments related to the purchase agreement, as well as $279,477 toward due diligence costs, according to spokeswoman Jody Hanson.
Unable to close on the sale of the hotel, Johnson County is expected to reallocate the more than $6 million in federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds — money that had been dedicated to purchasing the hotel site — to other programs. Under the federal program, those dollars must be obligated and under contract by the end of the year, and spent by the end of 2026.
The commission also has dedicated $3.7 million in countywide support funds to provide reStart to renovate the hotel. Of that, 10% would go toward early operating costs and capacity building.
The countywide support funds also came from federal COVID-19 relief dollars, that allowed the county to calculate revenue lost due to the pandemic. Those funds do not have the same timeline restrictions as the other federal dollars.
County staff said the $3.7 million will also be reallocated.
This story was originally published September 18, 2024 at 8:43 AM.
