Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shelter advocates propose supervised managed campground for unsheltered residents
Summary
A speaker representing a local shelter group described a managed campground model during public comment, saying a small, supervised site with screening and participant agreements could reduce costs and improve safety; the speaker cited data on per-person annual costs and letters of local nonprofit support.
During the public-comment period at the March 19 strategic-planning workshop, a community speaker described a managed campground proposal intended to provide a supervised, small-scale night shelter for unsheltered Chico residents.
Charles Withhoun, identified in the transcript as a resident, told the council his “North State shelter team” proposal would accommodate about 12 unsheltered people and be modeled on similar programs elsewhere. He said participants would complete a case manager interview, undergo a background check and sign a participant agreement. Withhoun described the site as a transitional option without residential rights so that eviction could be a rapid administrative process if participants violated program rules.
Withhoun also tied the proposal to public safety and cost considerations. He told the council, “Leaving someone on the street, according to a university survey, costs us about $14,000 a year that we taxpayers pay,” and contrasted that figure with an annual per-person participant cost at Opportunity Village he cited as “about $2,000 a year that the participant pays.” He said the managed campground model has been used in San Diego, Portland, Denver, Culver City and Seattle and that the North State Shelter Team had letters of support from eight local nonprofit organizations.
What was said (details): - Proposed capacity: approximately 12 participants at the managed campground. - Intake and screening: case manager interview, background check, participant agreement; participants would have no residential rights and could be evicted quickly under program rules. - Cost comparisons presented by the speaker: a cited university survey estimate of roughly $14,000 per unsheltered person annually in public costs versus an Opportunity Village figure of about $2,000 per person annually paid by participants. - Local support: the speaker said eight local nonprofits had provided letters of support.
No formal council action or staff response was recorded in the workshop transcript on the proposal. The suggestion was presented as a public comment for council consideration and as relevant input to the council’s strategic discussions of safety, homelessness and budget priorities.
Ending: The proposal is on the record as public comment and will be available to staff and the consultant for consideration as the council develops measurable objectives and budget proposals tied to homelessness and public-safety goals.
