City staff and safe‑parking program partners told council about a plan to add microshelter units at existing safe‑parking sites to provide short‑term, weather‑protected sleeping spaces and to broaden access to operating grants that currently exclude vehicles.

Rick (last name not specified), representing the safe‑parking operator partnership, said the governor's office allocated about $1,100,000 for purchase of microshelter units and necessary site improvements, and that approximately $450,000 remained unspent. "The funding expires June thirtieth of this year," Rick said, urging a timely decision because the pool is one‑time money managed through CHRO and COIC.

Staff described how the funding would be used: up to $20,000 per unit could cover purchase of a pod and site improvements such as temporary electrical connections and gravel pads. Rick said the units arrive on skids, are movable and would be installed temporarily; typical unit footprints discussed were 8-by-12 or 12-by-16 feet with interior wall height about 8 feet and a gable peak of about 9.5 to 10 feet. He also described operational benefits: pods may improve residents' ability to access other funding streams (HUD emergency services grants consider these units eligible when vehicles are not considered shelter), and electrical service at sites stabilizes participants by reducing generator or propane use.

City building staff addressed permitting: Alex (building staff) said electrical permits would still be required but that units would be treated in staff procedures "as though they were permitted" for inspection and recordkeeping even where code did not strictly require a full building permit. Linda (city staff) confirmed staff would produce building specifications and operational rules.

Council questions focused on visibility, site selection, operations and timelines. Councilor Ed (surname not specified) and others asked about aesthetics and whether business neighbors objected; business feedback cited mixed views. Councilors and staff discussed piloting fewer units per site (staff recommended flexibility, suggesting 3–6 pods with a potential maximum of 8), site fencing, site obscuring and monthly inspections modeled after other jurisdictions. Staff recommended a phased pilot with typical operational trial lengths of three to six months and suggested a one‑year pilot period to gather data. John (participant/councilor) and other councilors asked about prioritization: staff reiterated Redmond priority for Redmond residents and that units would be prioritized for those who currently sleep in vehicles and for people exiting RVs.

Why it matters: staff said microshelters could reduce barriers to funding for operations, provide safer, more stable temporary shelter options and help residents move more quickly to permanent housing. Cost issues remain: electrical hookups range widely (staff estimated $4,000 to $20,000 depending on site; one county‑owned site quoted $40,000, which was judged cost‑prohibitive), and ongoing operational staffing is the largest recurring cost.

Next steps and controls: staff proposed a code amendment to permit microshelter units at safe‑parking sites, a public outreach process focused on the most visible Highway 97 sites, written building specifications, limits on site unit counts determined by staff with council parameters and a termination/renewal date in the ordinance so council can evaluate the pilot before making it permanent. Councilors generally supported a public process and a pilot with a termination review.