Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridge Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates short‑term ‘bridge’ housing plan for people leaving jail and post‑overdose patients
Summary
Medical Ministries proposed a small, short‑term bridge housing program (9–10 rotating beds) to transition residents in medication‑assisted treatment into long‑term recovery; commissioners questioned scope, cost and whether the program should serve people off the street as well as those exiting custody.
Medical Ministries returned to the Davidson County Board of Commissioners on April 2 with a refined cost breakdown for a proposed short‑term “bridge” housing facility intended to move people already in medication‑assisted treatment (MAT) or those rescued by EMS after overdose into a supervised, drug‑free setting while staff work to place them in longer‑term treatment.
Denise Hurley and Janice of Medical Ministries said the program would provide 30–90 day safe‑transitional stays, certified peer support and assistance obtaining documents, benefits and placement in longer‑term programs. At the Second Street site discussed in the meeting, they estimated capacity of about nine to ten rotating residents.
Medical Ministries presented two cost scenarios: an operating cost profile (leasing or leased/upfit) that could run roughly $725,000 annually once a facility was available, and a higher first‑year cost near $1.2 million if the county purchased and upfitted an existing house (the Thomasville property they had explored was no longer available). The presenters noted their per‑participant cost is below comparable short‑term programs elsewhere and emphasized the program is intended to build on the county’s existing MAT successes.
Commissioners pressed several issues: whether the program should serve only people coming out of custody and already engaged in MAT or whether it should also accept people off the street who need detox and more clinical staffing; whether the county should buy a 9–10 bedroom house (and the regulatory change‑of‑use/upfit costs that would entail) or pursue leasing/donations; and whether opioid settlement funds could pay staffing and operations.
Several commissioners urged a broader, multi‑pronged approach that would include detox capacity, transitional housing and wraparound services rather than one small facility alone. One commissioner asked the opioid consultant (CCR) to examine whether a larger, phased facility that combined post‑overdose intake, short‑term stabilization and longer‑term placements would be feasible and cost‑effective.
What’s next: The board asked staff to work with Medical Ministries and the opioid consultant to inventory potential properties, refine cost estimates and explore whether a donated building or a larger facility could meet multiple needs. The opioid committee will continue vetting and make recommendations to the board.
Why it matters: Commissioners noted the county’s overdose rate is above the state average and said short‑term bridge housing could reduce recidivism and help people transition to long‑term recovery. At the same time, they emphasized the need to avoid piecemeal spending and to align facility capacity and clinical staffing with broader system gaps (detox, housing vouchers, transportation).
