This post has been updated with information from the mayor's office.

Earlier this week, a city-appointed panel recommended seven potential sites for a permanent homeless encampment to replace the roving Nickelsville encampment. Nickelsville has to move from its current site in the University District by November 15, and members want to relocate to a permanent site before bad weather sets in.

However, as of an email exchange that took place in late August, Mayor Mike McGinn did not intend to fund relocation costs for Nickelsville in his budget for 2011 and 2012; and indeed, funding for a permanent encampment is not included in the budget he submitted to the council late last month.

In the email, addressed to staffers from the city's human services, planning, and transportation departments, budget office staffer Doug Carey wrote that

In making final 2011-2012 budget decisions, the Mayor chose not to set aside funding for the potential relocation and establishment of a semi-permanent encampment.  The decision should not be interpreted as an indicator of what his eventual position will be on the City’s response to the current encampment.  I understand the decision was based on the timing being premature to allocate money in the budget in advance of recommendations from the panel.

Now that the panel has made its recommendations, does McGinn intend to add funding to his budget to pay for Nickelsville to relocate? His spokesman, Aaron Pickus, says the mayor's office is "reviewing the budget implications of their recommendation this week and any decisions will be made in the context of the post-election budget update." The city could lose millions more on top of a $67 million 2011 budget shortfall if state initiatives privatizing liquor sales and repealing taxes on candy, soda, and bottled water pass in November.

Contacted by phone, a Nickelsville resident named Robert said he didn't think moving the encampment would cost much money; during past moves, he said, Nickelsville residents had done all the work themselves. This time, the group has proposed building some permanent wood structures---a prospect that evokes images of Depression-era shantytowns.

However, the mayor's office will have to craft a request for proposals to find an entity that can manage the site (and provide services like electricity and potentially water). And the city may decide, in keeping with existing city policy against providing shelters in the absence of services, to pay for services at the encampment itself.

While the mayor's panel recommended seven sites for further study, some Georgetown residents have expressed concern that "the fix is in" for moving Nickelsville to the site of the old Sunny Jim's peanut-butter factory, which burned down in September. Their evidence: The city has applied for permits to do sewer work on the site, indicating, some believe, that it's being prepared for new occupants. None of the other sites have seen any development activity.

However, according to the city's Department of Planning and Development, which issues permits, there's a simpler explanation: The building, which was partly destroyed, is unsafe and has to be demolished; as part of that demolition, the city capped a sewer line that led to the old building. "There's no new construction or activity" planned for the site, DPD spokesman Bryan Stevens says.

That said, given the city's reluctance to place services or shelters in residential areas, it's safe to assume that the two sites near Georgetown will rise to the top of the city's list.