Merced County supervisors back ‘help‑first’ encampment ordinance rollout and review homelessness program progress

Merced County supervisors on Monday heard staff describe a “help‑first” approach to encampment enforcement and an update on homelessness programs that county leaders said have markedly expanded shelter capacity since 2017.

The proposal presented by county staff would require two readings of an ordinance designed to emphasize offering supportive services before moving to penalties for people living in encampments; staff recommended returning the ordinance for introduction on March 11 and for a second reading on March 25, provided there are no substantive changes after the first reading.

Why it matters: Supervisors framed the ordinance as part of a broader effort to connect people experiencing homelessness with services and housing. Speakers highlighted measurable program outcomes (including housing placements from the county’s navigation center), identified persistent gaps in outreach and inflow prevention, and flagged project delays and potential gap financing needs for state-funded housing projects.

John Checkley, a county HSA staff member overseeing homelessness programs, told the board the navigation center — now approaching three years of operation — has produced about 109 housing placements. "I can speak to the navigation center operational now coming up on 3 years about 109 housing placements through that," Checkley said.

Checkley and supervisors discussed shelter‑bed capacity growth. Board members said Merced County had approximately 80 beds for people experiencing homelessness in 2017, about 430 beds now, and about 220 additional beds pending, for a potential total near 650 beds if all projects move forward. Checkley cautioned that the inflow of people into services remains a challenge and that outreach can be time‑intensive when staff explore why an individual declines offers of shelter or services.

Supervisors also reviewed timelines and financing status for several state programs and projects. Checkley said Homekey 3 remains in early planning and could take roughly 18 months from current acceptance of a standard agreement. Mercy Village, backed in part by a No Place Like Home award of $10 million, could require up to 24 months if gap financing is secured. A previously expected Homekey 2.01 opening has been delayed by model, construction and financing issues; staff estimated remaining work on that site could extend the timeline and that some projects are between six and 24 months from opening depending on funding and contractor schedules.

Board members and staff pointed to state initiatives and Medicaid managed‑care efforts as potential avenues to reach people earlier. Checkley referenced CalAIM and Enhanced Care Management Community Supports as mechanisms to identify populations of focus — including people discharging from institutions, those with serious mental illness or substance use disorder, and foster youth — in hopes of reducing inflow to homelessness and high emergency‑department use.

Several supervisors praised county staff coordination and the role of behavioral health services. "Nothing is missing," Supervisor Pereira said, recounting the county’s efforts to account for funds and expand services. "Every dollar we've been given has been put to great use, and we could do an audit and go back and show where every dollar went." Supervisor Silvera said the county’s approach has shifted from a distant 10‑year plan toward more concrete, immediate steps, and emphasized frustration with interagency delays that raise costs and slow project delivery.

Staff also noted an ongoing practice documented in a county letter of authority that authorizes Merced County supportive‑service providers, community‑based organizations and some sheriff’s office personnel to access private property to offer services. Checkley said that practice has been in place for years and that the ordinance amendment would not curtail it and could enhance it.

The board opened public comment on CEO item 22. Gloria Sandoval, representing a community organization and a participant in the regional continuum of care, urged more prevention work — including eviction interventions — arguing that causes of homelessness extend beyond rent shortfalls and noting the importance of prevention in addition to outreach and enforcement.

The board did not take a final vote on the ordinance at the meeting; staff presented the proposed schedule for two readings and adoption if no substantive changes are made following the first reading.

What’s next: Staff asked the board to return the ordinance for introduction on March 11 and for adoption consideration on March 25. Supervisors said they expect continued public comment and further details on project timelines and financing during follow‑up meetings.