Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness And Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge support for Mission Arvada shelter and warn against broad trespass enforcement in Old Town
Summary
Several speakers at the May 6 Arvada City Council meeting urged the city to continue working with Mission Arvada’s shelter services, described the shelter’s operating costs and client services, and warned that area-wide trespass orders can undermine access to services and carry legal risk.
Multiple residents used the May 6 public-comment periods to urge City Council to continue supporting Mission Arvada’s shelter services and to caution against broad trespass enforcement in Old Town, saying such enforcement can deny unhoused people access to aid and risk legal challenge.
Susan Mueller, a volunteer with Mission Arvada’s Severe Weather Shelter, told the council she favors data-driven decisions and presented operational figures for Mission Arvada. “Mission Arvada operates both a day shelter and an emergency overnight shelter...at just 16% of that projected estimated cost that the navigation center would have cost. That’s only $800,000,” Mueller said, referencing a city-projected $5 million annual cost for a full-time navigation center. She said Mission Arvada served more than 900 unique individuals at its day shelter last year and that the overnight shelter operates on roughly $150,000 a year. Mueller warned that removing Mission Arvada would not remove homelessness and could increase public-health and safety risks, including loss of restroom access and outreach services.
Jonathan Helton, a public commenter, raised legal and policy concerns about how trespassing laws are being used in Old Town. Helton summarized Colorado law on trespass (citing Title 18, Article 4, Part 5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes) and cautioned that issuing area-wide trespass orders that effectively banish people from public areas can impede access to essential services and invite constitutional or civil-rights challenges. He cited Martin v. City of Boise (Ninth Circuit) as a national case courts use to assess whether criminalizing homelessness is constitutionally defensible and warned the city to consider legal exposure and due-process implications.
Other speakers described personal experiences: Sharon Rowland recounted long-term volunteer interactions with one homeless woman and urged compassion and continued support for shelter services; Zion Haber Neffe Manley framed the issue in moral and faith terms and urged the community to respond with care rather than punishment. Council members said they heard concerns from businesses and St. Anne’s school about specific incidents near the shelter, and commenters acknowledged those concerns while arguing that losing Mission Arvada’s services would worsen public-health outcomes.
Why it matters: testimony described Mission Arvada as a low-cost local shelter and case-management provider; commenters said city enforcement choices affect the ability of unhoused people to access services and that legal precedent and state statutes constrain how municipalities may criminalize or restrict homelessness in practice.
Outcome: no council vote or new directive was recorded on the public record during the meeting; staff or council members indicated follow-up could occur through existing channels. Commenters asked the city to continue working with Mission Arvada and community partners to find humane, cost-effective approaches to homelessness that preserve access to services.
