McLean County approves Home Sweet Home Ministries non‑congregate shelter after debate over costs and long‑term funding

The McLean County Board on a roll‑call vote approved an award of a request for proposals to Home Sweet Home Ministries to build a non‑congregate shelter village intended to house up to 56 people at a time.

The vote came after extended discussion about construction costs, how ongoing operating expenses would be funded and program design features such as centralized bathrooms and services to move people into permanent housing.

The award authorizes Home Sweet Home Ministries to develop a cluster of private sleeping units the organization says will provide temporary housing and wraparound services. "The capacity for the shelter village at any given time is 56 individuals," Home Sweet Home representative Matt Burgess told the board, adding the facility is expected to serve “far more than 50 individuals over the course of a year's time” as residents move through the program.

Why it matters: County officials and service providers said the non‑congregate model serves people who have not been able to stabilize in traditional congregate shelters because of trauma, behavioral‑health or substance‑use issues. Supporters said the project is a more cost‑efficient, flexible response than constructing a single large shelter building; critics questioned whether the construction budget and the proposed operating funding plan are adequate.

Supporters and design details Home Sweet Home officials told the board the proposal is intended to reduce unsheltered homelessness by offering private sleeping units, on‑site behavioral‑health services and case management aimed at moving residents into permanent housing. Burgess said the organization's existing congregate shelter serves "2 to 300 people every year" and that non‑congregate space can better serve people who struggle in shared settings.

Burgess described the project as fiscally efficient compared with building one large shelter and said the units would use a centralized bathhouse rather than plumbing each sleeping unit. "It would cost considerably more to run plumbing to every unit," Burgess said. He also said he had "made progress in securing approximately $200,000 in operational funding" and described plans to blend local, state, federal and private dollars to meet an estimated annual operating cost the proposal lists at roughly $690,000.

Board concerns and conditions Several board members pushed back on elements of the plan. Member Adam Reeves questioned the construction budget and whether basic fixtures could have been included, asking, "For $2,500,000 can't we get plumbing?" Burgess and others responded that adding individual plumbing would substantially increase construction costs and that centralized facilities are commonly used in similar projects.

Member Ziebarth asked how confident the sponsor was in securing ongoing operating funds beyond the initial local contribution; Burgess said he had secured about $200,000 and expressed a "high degree of confidence" in continuing to assemble a funding mix but acknowledged the need to blend multiple sources and that, without full funding, the program could be limited to seasonal operation.

Questions about demand and prioritization Board members also asked about potential demand from outside the county and how residents would be prioritized. Burgess said the provider's outreach and intake work finds roughly 75% of unsheltered people in the community have lived in the county for a year or more; he added the program will prioritize people by vulnerability, including a focus on veterans.

Other operational details discussed included turnover expectations — Burgess said typical turnover in their existing shelter is about two to three months, and that turnover for this population may be longer — occupancy targets (the provider said it would aim for high utilization, citing a goal near 90 percent after a startup period), and a residential partnership agreement that focuses on safety, service engagement and restrictions such as refraining from panhandling within a one‑mile radius of the site.

Formal action The board motion to award the RFP to Home Sweet Home Ministries was made and seconded during the meeting. The roll‑call record in the transcript shows recorded votes for a subset of members: Mark Klaus (nay); Leah Klein (aye); Alex Duffy (aye); Sean Fagan (aye); Buck Farley (aye); William John Frederick (nay); Eric Hansen (aye); Val Lehman (aye); Adam Reeves (nay); Jim Rogau (yes); Natalie Roseman Mendoza (yes); Jeff Tompkins (yes); Crystal Abel (yes); Beverly Bell (yes). The clerk announced "the ayes have it" and the motion passed.

Next steps and funding source Board members confirmed the capital request and initial local contribution come from shared sales tax funds administered through the local behavioral‑health funding process. Member Tompkins asked for confirmation that the $1,300,000 county contribution identified in board materials would be provided from the shared sales tax mental‑health/public‑safety allocation; officials confirmed the funds are from the shared sales tax and that the project had been vetted by the funding partners.

The provider and county staff said they will continue to pursue additional grants and private dollars to cover ongoing operating costs and return to the board if changes to the funding structure are necessary.

Ending The approved award is intended to create immediate non‑congregate capacity while the county and nonprofit partners work to secure stable operational funding and finalize program agreements. No timetable for construction completion was specified in the board discussion recorded in the transcript.