ALAMOSA — A conversation during city council took an unexpected turn during Wednesday night’s meeting when half of the council expressed willingness to, in partnership with La Puente, consider building a year-round second shelter in Alamosa that would provide a place for people to sleep.
People would have to be in the shelter by a certain time each night and, at some pre-determined time each morning, all individuals would be required to leave.
The topic came about from a change in an agreement made with La Puente last year.
Moving the soup kitchen out of its current location in a residential neighborhood on the south side has been a long-time priority of residents in the area and a long-term goal of the city. La Puente, who owns and operates the kitchen, was reluctant.
The city had also recognized the need for an established emergency shelter for nights when there is an unexpected snowstorm or temperatures are dangerously cold. Currently, the city relies on churches and other organizations to open their doors, but something constructed and equipped for such a purpose was needed.
In 2023, an agreement was reached with La Puente where, in exchange for moving the soup kitchen and agreeing to staff an emergency shelter only opened during winter months, the city would obtain funding and build such a facility that would also have showers available.
At that time, La Puente agreed.
Design and engineering will cost $240,000 – $145,000 of which the city received in several grants over a year ago. The total cost of the shelter is estimated to be $2 million. If council decides not to move forward, the grant funds need to be returned soon.
As City Manager Heather Sanchez then informed council, La Puente believes operating a shelter only open during the winter months would be difficult to staff. It is also counter to their philosophy that support should be available year-round.
La Puente will now only agree to moving and operating the soup kitchen if the cold weather shelter is, instead, a “low barrier” year-round shelter, meaning certain behaviors that prohibit a person from living at La Puente’s shelter on State – for example, being under the influence, refusing to engage in services – would be allowed at the emergency shelter.
Sanchez then reminded council of the public concerns expressed in the meeting where the future of St. Benedict was discussed. Those concerns, voiced by people who wanted to close the camp, related to St. Benedict’s impact on the surrounding neighborhood and proximity to the Recreation Center plus concerns that the camp served as an attraction to people outside the Valley.
Sanchez said she saw how council struggled with the decision and how those concerns resonated with them.
“Those concerns would apply to this [shelter], as well,” she said. “It’s in the same location [as St. Benedict]. And, if St. Benedict was an attraction, I would argue that an overnight shelter would attract people even more. So, it depends upon how much those concerns resonated with you.”
Councilor Michael Carson said he was not opposed to the shelter operating year-round.
“Originally, I thought it was going to be a year-round shelter anyway. I’m more than happy with that change,” he said.
When asked for clarification, Judy McNeilsmith of La Puente explained, “This shelter is more of an urban model. If somebody comes in at 9:00, you’re going to get a cot, you’re going to spend the night and you’re going to get up and leave in the morning. It’s to provide that basic security.”
Mayor Ty Coleman said, “This is a complete deviation from our intentions before. This will take this to a year-round low barrier shelter. That means every day the people who are not able to be housed in the current housing at La Puente will be occupying that location. This is not what the people asked for. This is not what they agreed to. This is not what we talked about. It’s unfortunate that La Puente has put the line in the sand in this manner. But a year-round shelter is not what the people agreed to, and with the public sentiment expressed over the last year, we need to make sure that everyone is being listened to.”
Coleman recommended returning the grant funding and taking the time to consider.
Councilor Jan Vigil asked, “If the shelter was built, what would happen to St. Benedict?”
Sanchez said it is uncertain because the people at St. Benedict would not be able to take their possessions with them, but there would still be a need for St. Benedict for people in transition.
Councilor Jan Vigil agreed with the mayor – this was not what was agreed to – and a work session should be held for the council to work this through.
Councilor Liz Hensley said, “If this shelter is built, the shelter on State will still be there. I have huge concerns to have this by the Rec Center with our kids being right by this. At this point, I’m not supportive of changing it from a cold weather shelter.”
Carson said, “My conversations with Lance were that the shelter on State would be turned into a family center but the soup kitchen would be moved. I know it’s uncomfortable to have the Rec Center but there are needles in alleys and kids are already in danger.”
Councilor Jamie Dominguez said, “This was before my time so my perspective might be different. Looking at the blueprint, I can’t help but think this will solve the St. Benedict problem. I agree with Councilor Carson that kids are in danger everywhere.
“If it’s closer to services, it just makes sense. If the issue is where they go during the day, this building looks big enough – why would you let it sit empty for two or three hours when they’re going to come back for lunch and the same thing for dinner? I’m sure they can come up with some clever things to do with these people.”
Hensley reiterated her opposition to opening another shelter because La Puente does not have enough people at the shelter on State Avenue who are willing to follow the rules.
Dominguez said his mind is still not decided but “people have to learn to follow the rules.” Carson agreed.
Mayor Coleman “piggybacked” on what Dominguez said.
“When we decide on programs, we need to make sure we’re serving people who want to follow the rules. ‘Low barrier’ means people who don’t follow the rules. I don’t think we should be rewarding that. That’s why I’m adamant about thinking about these things through,” Coleman said.
City staff did not weigh in on the matter and made no recommendations. The final decision – agreed to by all – was for council to discuss the situation at a work session on Oct. 23.
