1 MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING (WORKSHOP)
CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
October 28, 2025 Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
The following information comprises the minutes for the special meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Member Cynthia Barrington Mayor Sheri Flynn
Council Member Leroy Miller
Mayor Pro Tem Richard Royce
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
Arturo Vela, Interim City Manager
Vickie Sellers, City Clerk
Sandra Calderon, Acting Administrative City Clerk
1. CALL TO ORDER– 4:14 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT ABSENT
Barrington, Cynthia X
Flynn, Sheri X Miller, Leroy X
Royce, Richard X
Wallace, Colleen X
2. WORKSHOP
2.1 Discussion on Homelessness in the City of Banning
Recommendation: Discussion only.
Interim City Manager, Art Vela presented the staff report and introduced the purpose of the workshop – to provide an open discussion with the City Council and the public regarding homelessness in the City of Banning. He noted that the topic is sensitive and that the workshop was requested by both Council and members of the public to share updates on current efforts and explore next steps.
Art Vela outlined the discussion plan, which included on overview of the legal environment surrounding homelessness, Police Department statistics, homeless encampments, Opportunity Village, and available homeless resources.
2 Mayor Flynn noted expired MOUs with the County related to the prison and suggested revising them for funding, The impact of local social service providers was also discussed, with a recommendation to explore fees to offset community impacts.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Agenda Items Only
Mayor Flynn opened public comments.
Member of the public spoke regarding personal experiences and concerns related to law enforcement and community issues.
Lourdes Aceves expresses gratitude for Opportunity Village, sharing a personal story of escaping a domestic violence situation in Los Angeles County and finding refuge in Riverside County. The speaker emphasizes that Opportunity Village provided not just shelter but a lifeline, enabling them to rebuild their life through the Homeless Assistance Program. She now has a job, income, stability, and a sense of purpose, advocating for others in similar situations. Acknowledges the proximity of everyone to homelessness and appreciates Opportunity Village's non-judgmental support.
Jeffrey Platt urges the Council to reconsider closing the shelter. He argues that it's a vital part of Banning's public safety and health system, connecting people to essential services like case management, medical referrals, and job placement. Closing the shelter will shift the problem to public spaces. He emphasizes that the people served are neighbors who have fallen on hard times due to addiction, mental health issues, job loss, or rising rents. He highlights the shelter's role as a center of coordination for nonprofits and faith-based organizations. Platt suggests exploring shortterm resolutions, regional partnerships, and temporary grants to sustain operations, noting that $50,000 a month could keep the shelter running while a permanent solution is found. He also points out that the grants previously covered services like street outreach and community cleanup, with the city only covering a portion of the utility bills.
Rolberg raises questions about the logistics of closing Opportunity Village. He asks how many beds will be available on February 1st 2026, for current residents, where those beds are located, who will transport them, and who will pay for the transport. He also inquires whether residents will receive the same level of case management. Rolberg questions whether closing Opportunity Village increases the city's risk of litigation related to unlawful camping or sweeps and if the City Attorney has issued an opinion on potential liability.
Juanita Diaz expressed her evolving perspective on the homeless situation in Banning. While initially supportive of Opportunity Village, she now believes the city has become a safe haven for surrounding areas and can no longer sustain the burden. She claims to speak for the majority of long-term Banning residents who are tired of the situation. Diaz states that many homeless individuals are not from Banning and do not want help, preferring to remain on drugs. She highlights the city's limited resources, such as policing and cleanup services, and the negative impact of homelessness on the community's cleanliness and safety. She emphasizes the continuous mess created by the homeless population and their perceived lack of care for the city.
Diaz acknowledges the existence of mental health issues but argues that the city cannot save everyone. She believes the $7 million allocated to address homelessness has been ineffective.
She acknowledges the presence of Faith in Action and other nonprofits but criticizes the lack of follow-through in addressing the trash and waste generated by the homeless. Diaz concludes that Opportunity Village is not working and calls for the Council to listen to the concerns of homeowners and business owners.
Martin Jackson raises a Code Enforcement issue regarding parking regulations at an RV park on Ramsey Street. He complains about visitors blocking the driveway, hindering access for residents and potentially violating fire code regulations. He states that he has contacted Code Enforcement but has not received a response. The chair clarifies that this issue is not related to the homelessness workshop and suggests addressing it during the public comment period for other topics.
Coula Ringold expresses opposition to closing Opportunity Village, arguing that it will exacerbate the existing problems of trash buildup and homelessness. She believes that closing the village will lead to more homeless individuals in parks and commercial areas. Suggests continuing to provide 3 resources to Opportunity Village, highlighting its success in helping people find jobs and move on with their lives.
Merle Nazareth founder of Healing Waters emphasizes the importance of providing dignity to the homeless and acknowledges Opportunity Village's helpfulness. Nazareth suggests a joint plan involving the city and various organizations to address homelessness, focusing on job training, medical care, and other services. She stresses that homelessness is a widespread issue and that a collaborative approach is necessary to help the homeless and keep the city safe.
Bill Hobbs expresses concern about the impact of homelessness on seniors, particularly in the Sun Lakes shopping center near Albertson’s. Notes an increase in homeless individuals with dogs, some of which appear to be pit bulls, making seniors feel unsafe. He acknowledges that the problem is nationwide but emphasizes the negative changes in the community and the fear experienced by residents.
Terri Smith states that the current approach to homelessness in Banning is not working. While acknowledging that Opportunity Village has helped some, she believes many homeless individuals do not want help and have made choices that led to their situation. Smith expresses concern about safety, citing instances where she has had to walk past homeless individuals and their belongings in her neighborhood. She suggests enforcing laws against loitering and tenting, advocating for the arrest of those who violate these laws. Smith proposes a system where individuals are assessed for addiction or other needs, with options for treatment or group homes. However, those who refuse help should face jail time.
Pastor David Kieffer recalls the opening of Opportunity Village and emphasizes that it is just one piece of the solution to homelessness. He clarifies that Opportunity Village was not intended to solve homelessness in the city but rather to provide a resource for addressing illegal camping.
Kiefer acknowledges the concerns of residents but stresses the need to find a collaborative approach involving various organizations and individuals in the community. He highlights the availability of resources like Faith in Action, Carol's Kitchen, and Opportunity Village and calls for a unified effort to create better and cleaner neighborhoods where all people are respected.
Laura Leindecker states that the current homeless issue is not new and is related to changes in laws that occurred in California in the past. She expresses feeling unsafe in her neighborhood due to the presence of homeless individuals setting up tents and loitering. Leindecker acknowledges the good intentions of those speaking but emphasizes the need for solutions to address the broader issue of homelessness, which she believes extends beyond Opportunity Village.
Kathleen Martin argues against the idea of simply jailing the homeless, stating that they are often released quickly with a citation and return to the streets. She draws a parallel to the closure of the animal shelter, which led to negative consequences for animals. Martin believes that closing Opportunity Village without a viable alternative will worsen the situation.
Loue Gregory emphasizes that Opportunity Village isn't a "cure-all" and that homeless individuals need to be actively recruited and convinced to seek help. He draws a comparison to the animal shelter, acknowledging its imperfections but highlighting its value. He also raises concerns about the city's understaffed police department and questions the Interim City Manager's statement about the lack of clarity regarding the city's financial situation. He defends Opportunity Village's 70% success rate and contrasts it with the juvenile detention system's 2% success rate. He mentions the city had grants for the program and had to pay $600,000 in salary, but those numbers are recovered at the end of each year through grants. He suggests that if the state has six and a half billion dollars in grants, it's all tied to the city's ability to provide an infrastructure for those people to go and be housed. He also emphasizes the importance of housing in any successful program.
Carol Albaugh questions the City Council's legacy and urges them to consider the impact of closing Opportunity Village, calling it a "sin" and a "crime." She shares the story of the starfish to illustrate the importance of making a difference, even if it's just for one person. She suggests giving agencies time to work together on a plan, acknowledging that it will require money, time, and energy.
4 Oscar argues that closing Opportunity Village is a "drop in the bucket" and won't solve the complex issue of homelessness. He points out the correlation between increased housing construction and the homeless population, questioning if the city will stop building houses as well.
Mayor Flynn closed public comments.
John Pinkney, City Attorney clarifies that it is not unlawful to be homeless and cities cannot criminalize the status of being homeless, referencing the Grants Pass case and the city's anti- camping ordinance.
Council Discussion:
Decision to close Opportunity Village is not about solving homelessness but about the city's financial inability to sustain it after grant funds expire. Prioritize the city's operational health and financial stability over funding homeless services. Agree that closing Opportunity Village won't solve the problem and suggests activating the homelessness advisory committee.
Mayor Flynn emphasizes the need to enforce existing ordinances and highlights the lack of staffing explains that the city cannot afford to fund Opportunity Village due to the lack of a third grant, which they did not receive due to a 68% rating. She clarifies that the city was paying $600,000 out of the general fund for salaries. She states that the state emphasizes housing, not drug and mental health rehabilitation, which she believes is the root of the problem. She references Proposition 36 and 47 and the rise in drug overdose deaths. She also mentions the lack of accountability in state funding and the decision made in June to close Opportunity Village. She clarifies that the $7 million grant the city turned down was for felons coming out of prison with addiction and mental health issues, which she deemed a disaster for Banning. She states that SWAG wanted Opportunity Village closed and may come back. She questions the 71% success rate of Opportunity Village, citing a 25% success rate and over $3 million spent in the last two years.
Next Steps and Ordinance Review:
Mayor Flynn suggests scheduling a meeting of the homeless advisory committee with staff and community members. Wants to update Ordinance 1603 to align with current laws following the Grant Pass decision.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Royce and seconded by Councilmember Wallace.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:01 p.m.
Minutes prepared by:
Sandra B. Calderon
Acting Administrative City Clerk
These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).
The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/251?view_id=1&redirect=true