Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

El Cajon council debates homelessness strategy: staff to return with options for local counts and enhanced enforcement

3533897 · May 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Councilmembers discussed volunteer programs, repackaging homeless outreach videos, expanding the quality-of-life team (staffing vs. overtime options), and concerns about the regional point-in-time count. Staff was asked to return with costed options for local counts and enforcement tiers.

City Manager Graham presented a quarterly update on the City Council Action Plan at the May 27 El Cajon City Council meeting, focusing on five topics that staff said required council guidance: a volunteer program, a homelessness success-story video, quality-of-life team coverage for outreach and encampment cleanup, the city’s response to the point-in-time homeless count, and a citizens academy.

Volunteer program: Staff described challenges in vetting volunteer groups and residents’ needs, the liability exposure that can accompany city matchmaking, and the staff time required to manage such a program. Staff offered two options: defer the program or maintain a low-vetting online resource page listing volunteer organizations and letting residents contact them directly. Councilmembers generally favored deferring the full program but supported a simple resource page.

Homelessness video and success stories: Staff described an earlier video that followed outreach work and said contractors and service providers were reluctant to be filmed for a new, longitudinal success-story production. Councilmembers favored repurposing existing footage into shorter clips for web and social channels rather than commissioning an expensive new documentary.

Quality-of-life team coverage: Staff outlined two paths for increasing outreach and encampment work. A full expansion — which staff said would require hiring a sergeant, six officers, four public-works employees and one parks employee (12 positions in total) — carried an estimated one-time cost of about $1.5 million. The lower-cost alternative proposed was to pay overtime to existing staff for periodically increased enforcement; staff estimated a 10-hour extra operation costs about $20,000 in overtime and that 24 such events a year would total nearly $480,000. Councilmembers asked staff to return with a menu of options at several price points and to consider one-time “full court press” scenarios funded from reserves.

Point-in-time (PIT) count: Staff raised concerns that the regional PIT count included census tracts partially or entirely outside El Cajon city limits and reported a jurisdictional discrepancy. City staff said the regional tally showed 344 people counted but that their review suggests the city’s true number may be closer to 243; staff said they would work with the regional task force to investigate. Several councilmembers supported the idea of the city conducting its own periodic counts (quarterly suggested) to obtain consistent, locally relevant data and to ask additional survey questions useful to city policy.

Other items: Staff reported 13 arrests with bookings under the city’s Prop 36 enforcement approach and suggested reassessing providers and funding priorities; staff recommended shelving a proposed citizens academy pending budget constraints.

Council direction and next steps: Council asked staff to return with a proposal that includes: (1) cost estimates and pros/cons for a city-led PIT count at different frequencies, (2) a tiered menu of options for increased quality-of-life operations (including one-time and recurring costs), (3) options for storage or handling of property left at cleared encampments, and (4) a plan to reassess service-provider contracts and RFP timing. No formal votes were taken on those items at the meeting.