Casa Grande staff seek council direction on anti‑camping rules for parks and public property

City staff asked the Casa Grande City Council on Wednesday to give direction to draft ordinances that would restrict camping, sleeping and unattended storage of belongings on parks and other public property and to consult local service providers before returning with formal language.

The request came during a study session in which city attorneys and department directors described complaints from residents, the operational burden on parks and library staff and limits on enforcement after legal rulings. “This is a study session, so there’ll be no official decisions tonight,” said Steven, a city staff member, who opened the presentation and asked the council for feedback and direction.

Why it matters: Councilmembers described daily complaints from businesses, families and seniors, and staff documented recurring health and safety issues — needles, mattresses, abandoned possessions and damage to park facilities — that staff say impede public use of park ramadas and other amenities. At the same time, staff and the city attorney noted legal limits on enforcement and the need to craft any ordinance to withstand potential litigation.

City Attorney Brett Walts summarized recent case law that has reshaped municipal options. “In the Ninth Circuit, Martin v. Boise constrained enforcement when adequate shelter space did not exist,” Walts said, then described the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson that altered that framework. He cautioned the council that the Supreme Court held enforcement can target actions rather than status, but “there are caveats — due process and other constitutional protections remain.” Walts also described Proposition 3.12 (2024), a state ballot measure he said allows property owners to seek refunds of property taxes when a city maintains a nuisance or fails to enforce laws, creating a potential financial exposure for municipalities that adopt policies but do not enforce them.

Department directors outlined operational impacts. Danny Gallegos, Community Services Director, said staff must repeatedly clean ramadas used as day‑use encampments, remove trash, bicycles, tires, needles and mattresses, and sometimes mobilize crews outside normal schedules to prepare reserved facilities for events. “When they are vacated, they’re still left dirty,” Gallegos said, adding that staff keep abandoned property for a holding period of at least 48 hours before disposal.

Paul Tice, Planning and Development Director, said the zoning code already prohibits living in tents and makeshift structures outside properly zoned campgrounds, but the city’s enforcement approach has focused on notifying property owners and seeking trespass letters so police can remove unauthorized occupants. Tice estimated his work group’s costs associated with cleanup and vendor removal run “in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand a year” though he said precise accounting was not available.

Chief of Police Mark McCrory described patrol contacts and enforcement limits. He said police received 850 calls about homelessness in 2023 with 131 contacts, 668 calls in 2024 with 95 contacts, and year‑to‑date 103 calls with 28 contacts. “We have no authority to move obvious encampments from our parks” absent an ordinance, trespass authorization or other legal basis, he said, and described frequent hours lost dealing with abandoned property and repeat noncompliant individuals.

Rob Aldis summarized model ordinance features used in other Arizona cities after the Supreme Court ruling. Options discussed include prohibiting camping, sleeping, erecting shelters or storing belongings on public property without approval; limiting time at ramadas without a reservation; prohibiting camping within a specified distance of schools, daycares and parks; authorizing staff to seize and hold unattended property for a set period; and penalties that could escalate to misdemeanor citations. Aldis said some cities add specific authority for employees to inventory and dispose of abandoned property after a holding period.

Council response and next steps: Several councilmembers voiced support for drafting an ordinance. “I like the model ordinance, just right off the gate, to give the chief some teeth,” Mayor Fitzgibbons said. City staff indicated they will draft ordinance alternatives, involve nonprofit service providers and the courts, and consider resource needs for Fiscal Year 2026 budget planning. Brett Walts said enforceable language should be crafted to respect constitutional limits and suggested a property‑holding period and due‑process safeguards.

No formal motion or vote was taken; the study session was informational and staff said they would return with draft ordinance language and stakeholder input.

Community implications: Staff emphasized this is a complex issue that touches public safety, park access for families and businesses’ concerns, and the needs of people who are unhoused. Directors and the chief said some people accept offered services and help, and some do not; staff recommended pairing any enforcement measures with outreach and referral to local nonprofit partners.