Update: On Jan. 18, 2024, city councilmembers decided not to make a decision about the alternative sheltering space. Instead, they chose to continue discussing the proposal within the context of a broader conversation about homeless solutions and strategy.
The Boulder City Council is scheduled to decide this week whether to turn a vacant city property into a place for homeless people to legally rest and access basic shelter and amenities.
The proposed “alternative sheltering program” is similar to sanctioned campgrounds or safe outdoor spaces created in cities across the country in recent years. It is intended to provide a temporary shelter option for people who would otherwise sleep on the city’s streets or in public parks. These spaces are designed to have fewer barriers to entry compared to shelters like the Boulder Shelter for the Homeless in North Boulder.
The site is expected to accommodate approximately 30 people, likely including shelters such as ice-fishing tents, which are often waterproof and insulated.
In a proposal to the Boulder City Council, city officials said if councilmembers decide to pursue the program, they would suggest including overnight staffing, security, toilets, showers, drinking water, communal spaces and rules designed to “maintain order and safety.” City officials would also recommend incorporating supportive services like case management to help people obtain permanent housing.
City officials estimated the cost for the first year to range from $104,000 to $2 million, depending on the shelter structures and services chosen. This amount excludes the cost of developing the site with water and sewer lines and electricity. The ongoing annual costs for the option with the most extensive services would be about $1.3 million, or about $44,527 per person per year.
City officials have said the city council would have to reduce spending on other programs. This could mean, for instance, delaying or abandoning the opening of a day services center in order to pay for the new program.
Proposed locations for an alternative sheltering space include 2961 30th Street, a city-owned parcel that for years has been earmarked for an affordable housing development. Currently, the land is being used as a staging site for the construction of a new $26 million fire station adjacent to the site.
This is not the first time the city is discussing a safe outdoor space.
In 2021, city officials opposed creating a sanctioned campground like the one being proposed. The cost of accommodating someone in one of these campgrounds was comparable to housing them in an apartment, they said. That year, the Boulder City Council voted against creating a sanctioned campground and instead supported an 18-month encampment removal pilot program. The encampment removal program has since been extended. Last year, councilmembers approved a 2024 budget that allocates $3 million to that program.
This past fall, however, a majority on the city council told city officials they were interested in creating a safe outdoor space in Boulder as soon as this winter. And city officials appear to have become more open to the idea after studying recent examples of safe outdoor spaces in Denver, Portland and Madison. The urgency arose in part due to capacity issues at the main nighttime shelter located in North Boulder. A new council was sworn in in December 2023.
The council’s discussion this week comes on the heels of a cold snap in which the city and county opened a temporary emergency shelter at the East Boulder Community Center. On average, about 50 people slept at the shelter each night over the weekend, according to city officials.
On Feb. 8, the councilmembers are scheduled to hold a study session to discuss the city’s overall homelessness strategy, including the encampment removal program.
I’m all for giving homeless people a place to camp safely so that they’re not doing so along the creek and in our parks, etc., but why will it cost twice as much to shelter one person as it does for me to shelter myself? It makes me think the answer is permanent housing. This is reminiscent of when i lived in New York City & it could cost 10 times more to house someone in a temporary single-room occupancy situation rather than just rent people an apartment.