DAVIS, CA – In a discussion Tuesday night, the Davis City Council signaled that the city’s homeless respite center — long a point of contention among housed residents, service providers, and unhoused individuals — may undergo a significant restructuring in both purpose and operations.
Councilmembers expressed concerns about data, spending, staffing models, and ultimately whether the facility should remain in its current L Street location.
The discussion followed extensive public comment earlier in the night, with speakers representing a broad cross-section of perspectives: neighbors frustrated with the impacts, unhoused residents who rely on the services, advocates calling for stability and dignity, and service providers highlighting staffing challenges and funding gaps.
Vice Mayor Donna Neville opened the council dialogue by acknowledging the emotional weight and complicated nature of the decision.
“I know what I’d love to do if we had all endless amounts of money and resources,” she said. “We don’t have that. Clearly. We are in a very serious fiscal situation.”
Neville added that while budget realities require scrutiny, the conversation should not be interpreted as an attack on frontline workers. “Please do not think of it as a criticism of your hard, dedicated really good work.”
Councilmember Gloria Partida, who helps lead council work on homelessness, said the city must begin with the most fundamental question: what exactly is the city’s role?
“There’s not a perfect location, there’s not a perfect solution,” she said. “We have to more clearly define what it is that we as a city want to do.”
Partida noted that common measures of success often focus narrowly on the number of people who exit homelessness, but that overlooks critical and sometimes life-saving interim outcomes.
She said, “If we ask ourselves how many people have been brought in out of the cold, how many people have been connected to their driver’s license, how many people have been connected to services and made to feel like they’re cared about? Those are all successes as well.”
Still, she acknowledged growing frustration among residents and policymakers. “We can’t really set priorities and make decisions unless we decide what it is that we want to do.”
Much of the discussion centered on clarity — or lack of it — regarding what the respite center currently is.
Although originally conceived more like a hybrid between a drop-in daytime shelter and a navigation center, the site has operated inconsistently, with fluctuating services depending on contractor capacity, staffing changes, and facility condition.
Neville said council cannot evaluate funding without clear performance information.
“We don’t have good data now that allows us to understand if we’re even being effective and efficient at the respite center,” she said. She noted the city can track showers, laundry use, and daily attendance, but not the long-term outcomes associated with referrals to treatment, housing, or medical care — something earlier service contracts provided.
Councilmember Linda Deos voiced similar concerns.
“I do need metrics. I do need to see how do we know what’s happening there? How do we know what success is?”
As council probed the program’s evolution, Social Services Director Jeanette Bailey explained that earlier phases of the program operated with licensed clinical staff, allowing for more detailed tracking and referrals. That model shifted after the city transitioned to new contractors. Bailey noted, “We don’t provide any direct services at respite.”
The combination of unclear responsibilities, inconsistent referral pathways, and a shifting definition of the program led multiple councilmembers to suggest scaling back to a narrower and clearer mission: respite only — a safe place to be indoors, rest, shower, do laundry, store belongings, access basic needs, and connect with visiting service providers if desired.
Mayor Bapu Vaitla said returning to that core model may be necessary before expanding again.
“To me it feels like we need to get back to basics and provide the services associated with respite. Well, better,” he said. He added later, “The current approach is just, it’s not working very well in terms of returns to investment.”
The cost of staffing emerged as one of the most contentious issues. The city currently employs three homeless outreach workers whose work includes engagement in encampments, responding to resident complaints, and attempting to connect unhoused residents to services. The cost — nearly $500,000 annually — drew scrutiny.
Partida noted the disconnect between the cost and the measurable output. “It doesn’t seem like a lot for the amount of money,” she said.
Deos was direct: “I am not supportive of the proposal to bring in two additional full-time equivalent positions to operate it.”
Councilmember Josh Chapman suggested relocating the outreach team to work primarily from the respite center to maximize staffing efficiency and reduce duplication.
He said, “It feels like they’re already concentrated in these areas,” pointing to outreach data showing most contacts occurring near the respite site. He argued that if staffing dollars are limited, the council must ensure they are attached to a meaningful operational purpose.
Neville acknowledged the tension but said new full-time hires were not her preferred direction. “I have a preference for not… bring[ing] in new additional city employees,” she said.
Discussion then shifted to what many have described as the central problem: the location.
Neville was unequivocal. “I do not believe that the current location is the right place for the respite center.”
Partida agreed, noting that the property has long been a gathering point even before the respite center existed, due to nearby vacant buildings, limited natural oversight, and a liquor store in close proximity. “There have always been challenges at that location even before the respite center was there,” she said.
Vaitla expressed similar concerns, saying he still does not have a “clear story” for why mitigation measures, neighborhood feedback loops, and operational efforts have failed to reduce impacts.
Throughout the discussion, councilmembers recognized the tension between urgency and planning. The city must continue providing basic services, especially as winter approaches, while exploring whether to reduce staffing, relocate the center, redefine its purpose, or pursue a hybrid model.
In the end, council appeared to reach a tentative short-term consensus: maintain current temporary staffing, house the outreach team at the respite center rather than a separate building, and return in March with cost comparisons, proposed staffing structures, operational models, and location feasibility studies.
In the words of Neville: “We’ve just got to make some really hard choices here and figure out where we’re going to spend our money and how we’re going to spend it wisely and help people in the best way we can.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“Neville was unequivocal. ‘I do not believe that the current location is the right place for the respite center.'”
Thank you, Donna.
NOTE: Gloria and Linda also said they now believe it has to be moved.
Bapu and Josh were both for keeping the facility at the current location. Bapu wanted to revisit and implement the “5 promises” the city negotiated with members of Davis Manor. But that was already done by the city in 2019, and no matter how many times we have asked, the city has FAILED. I don’t believe them at all. There is not only ZERO trust, I don’t think the City can make these promises. There is no staff nor police capacity and there never will be.
These promises have been used for the last six years as an excuse/promise by the City as cover to keep the Respite Center where it is. Well, here’s the news, Lucy (City Council): Charlie Brown (Davis Manor, Huntwood Manor, Old East Davis) ain’t charging your d*mn football again! We know the game, and Charlie Brown smeared poop on Lucy’s football and is laughing his arse off.
Here’s the other thing: the City isn’t the one who can control the bad behavior, isn’t the one who needs to make promises to the neighborhood. It’s the bad actors who frequent outside the Respite Center. Now hear me clearly: I’m not saying that all who frequent the Respite Center are bad actors. Not at all. I’m saying the bad actors are the problem. And I don’t believe the City can do anything about that with current attitudes and enforcement policies that I don’t believe they are going to change.
Seems to me that these type of services should not necessarily be a city responsibility. You could probably put a hundred of these facilities in Woodland (the county seat – where more county services are available) without even bothering ANY pre-existing residential neighbors.
There’s a new facility in Woodland right now (off of Road 102, in a rural/semi-industrial area – but within city limits). Nice facility, but one of the residents there (whom I personally know) told me that there sometimes are drug dealers living in the facility. (The living quarters essentially consist of prefabricated duplexes.)
I believe there are transportation and other services which go to that facility, and I noticed that a significant number of residents seem to have cars, regardless.
Another idea (for those who insist upon keeping these type of facilities within Davis itself): Put it in one or more of the soon-to-be-closed-down schools. Rather than a “sprawl for schools” campaign, you could have a “schools for homeless” campaign.
A person who has been homeless testified last night that there are drugs at Paul’s Place. This is what “Harm Reduction” looks like folks — look into it and GET REAL. I know someone who was at Paul’s Place a couple of years ago and was trying to get off drugs and he said he had to leave because of the atmosphere there.
“Councilmembers expressed concerns about data, spending, staffing models, and ultimately whether the facility should remain in its current L Street location.”
Ulitmately??? I think you buried the real ultimate discussed: if it should exist at all.
“Vaitla expressed similar concerns, saying he still does not have a “clear story” for why mitigation measures, neighborhood feedback loops, and operational efforts have failed to reduce impacts.”
Those weren’t similar concerns to what was expressed above. And the reason “mitigation measures, neighborhood feedback loops, and operational efforts have failed to reduce impacts” is because they cannot, and do not, work. We’ve got six years of evidence of that. Because the problem is the bad actors, and the City has no control over that. Again, not everyone is a bad actor, just the bad actors, and they have a huge effect.
When faced with the realization that his decision making had led to hundreds of thousands of wasted dollars he could not admit to his mistakes. Vaitla’s pride and ambition deafens him to the tears and pleas of the neighborhood parents. Davis’ strength and folly lies with smart, energetic individuals thinking they can solve problems they only superficially understand. 3 council members have compassion for the tax paying families of Davis manor. They all seem to be scrambling and embarrassed to have the squandered funds laid bare for all to see. It seems like we have 3 full time staff chasing a dozen street people all over Davis attempting to “warmly”’hand them off to the excellent case managers at turning point to the tune of 500k a year. Disgraceful.
I liked that after one commenter at the meeting put poop on the floor and there was an adjournment to clean it up. The speaker just after the clean-up remarked at how quickly the s—t (feces) was addressed by the mayor, but how slow the council was in addressing such s—t (feces) being deposited in the yards of Davis Manor residents.
I love it. Now I have to checkout the CC meeting video to see who did that.
I have a hunch who it might be,
I just watched the video, my hunch was right.
Well played my friend.
For the record, it was a Reeses Peanut Butter candy — smashed to the tune of the “Singing in the Rain” scene from “Clockwork Orange”, on a cardboard sheet, not the floor. I apologized to the Council for the disruption (not the bit itself), as apparently a recess was called to address crumbs that required a quick sweeping.
Some apparently thought it was real (like the spaceships in War of the Worlds?), but I’m a bit unsure if that was itself theater, as the people yelling “Oh my God, is that real poop!?” spoke against the neighbors expressing concern about the Respite Center’s impact on the neighborhood.