Council approves $10,000 bridge funding for Opportunity Center, extends service agreements to Jan. 15, 2026

The Half Moon Bay City Council voted unanimously on Sept. 16 to authorize the city manager to fund utilities and janitorial services at the Opportunity Center of the Coastside through Jan. 15, 2026, for an amount not to exceed $10,000, and to extend professional services agreements for on-site providers through the same date.

City staff described the Opportunity Center as a county-funded, city-operated pilot job and business-services hub supported by a $2.5 million San Mateo County grant that is scheduled to sunset Sept. 30. Economic and community vitality manager Karen Decker briefed the council on outreach to philanthropic and county funders and said a modest city contribution could ‘‘keep the lights on’’ while other funding opportunities are pursued.

Chamber of Commerce chief executive Chrislyn Geet told the council the chamber would continue to pay rent and its share of internet and electricity but that the center’s contracted service providers will lose the county grant on Sept. 30: “Ever since January, we have been told time and time again that we are not considered a part of the OCC and we are not considered a part of the funding,” Geet said, explaining the chamber faces a roughly $14,000‑per‑month gap in lost county support and is reviewing staffing and operations.

The motion approved by the council directed staff to fund the $10,000 for utilities and janitorial services and to extend contracts with JobTrain, Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, the Coastside Chamber of Commerce, and American Energy Society until Jan. 15, 2026. Councilmember [motion text read at the meeting] moved to authorize funding and contract extensions, and the motion specified the $10,000 would come from the city’s technical assistance funding (CSFA) rather than the general fund or affordable housing fund.

Council discussion focused on three points: the value of maintaining the center while fundraising continues; the chamber’s independent rent and staffing obligations; and whether the city should use affordable housing funds, general fund, or technical assistance funds. Several councilmembers said they opposed using the affordable housing fund and favored the technical assistance funding option presented by staff.

Council action and vote: the motion was seconded and carried in a roll-call vote with all five councilmembers voting yes.

Ending: staff will use the short runway to continue philanthropic and county discussions and to plan for either longer-term funding, relocation of services, or a structured wind-down if sustainable funding does not materialize.