Council backs competitive grant approach for managed resting site and navigation services; staff to return with draft and public forum

Councilors directed staff to draft a competitive grant program to fund one or more community proposals to provide managed resting sites and navigation services for people experiencing homelessness, a city staff attorney said after a presentation of options.

Stephanie (city attorney) framed the options and legal risks, saying a competitive grant process would minimize city liability compared with purchasing or leasing property directly or giving a single noncompetitive grant. She described elements council would need to decide: the city’s objective (for example, whether the primary goal is to remove people from city property, reduce homelessness overall, or expand services), who may apply (nonprofits, businesses or partnerships), allowed uses of city funds (capital costs, acquisitions, operations), award structure (reimbursement, advance, milestone payments), required performance measures, and timelines. She said the city must set objective measures of success and build recovery provisions in case a provider fails to meet obligations.

Key features discussed by council and staff included: limiting city funding primarily to capital (purchase/lease and infrastructure) rather than open‑ended operational subsidies; requiring applicants to demonstrate a path to long‑term operations and other funding sources; and using milestones and reimbursements to protect public dollars. Staff and the city manager recommended a transparent, competitive process that would invite multiple proposals and weigh experience, partnerships and financial sustainability.

Council action and schedule: Councilor Victoria moved and Councilor Rick seconded a motion directing staff to develop a draft competitive grant program and return to council in a workshop; the motion passed by consensus (Victoria yes; Eric yes; Rick yes; Kathleen yes; Rob yes; Joel yes; Seth yes; Indra yes). Staff said they will prepare a draft for the June 2 workshop, provide the draft to council in advance for comment, then host a public forum about the draft roughly one week after the workshop to collect public feedback before finalizing any program. JC (finance staff) will prepare fiscal scenarios and a memo on likely funding levels and impacts to support the council’s later decisions.

Council members asked staff to include specific matters in the draft: minimum site capacity or range of capacities (council discussed 50 as an example and noted a local judge previously referenced 150 as an “objectively reasonable” number), definitions for terms such as “low‑barrier” and “navigation center,” proof of experience and partnerships, documentation showing how applicants would minimize neighborhood impacts, and performance metrics (for example, transitions to permanent housing, shelter occupancy and outreach outcomes).

Staff emphasized this would be a hypothesis‑driven draft to solicit community feedback and that no grant awards or property acquisitions would occur until council adopts a final program in open session. Stephanie said that even with a well‑designed program there is no guarantee the city will be able to close all unmanaged sites; court guidance remains unsettled. Council members asked that staff include recovery clauses, deed restrictions or other tools to protect public investment if a grantee stops providing the promised services.

Why it matters: The directive launches a public, competitive process to identify local organizations that can operate managed resting sites and navigation services and is intended to reduce unmanaged camping on city property while minimizing city legal and financial exposure.

Next steps: Staff will produce a draft RFP/grant program and circulate it to council for comment, present it at a June 2 workshop, then hold a public forum about the draft approximately one week later; JC will provide fiscal options and a memo on possible funding caps and sources.