Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Micro Villages topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County hears micro‑village expansion proposal emphasizing community leadership, flexible funding and longer stays
Summary
A community‑led team presented research on expanding a countywide network of micro villages, recommending incentives for community partners, flexible funding, and specialist support positions; commissioners asked for implementation details, zoning clarity and how villages fit into the county shelter strategy.
Multnomah County commissioners on Tuesday heard a presentation on expanding an interconnected network of micro villages — small, self‑governed shelter communities intended to offer safer, dignity‑preserving spaces while residents pursue permanent housing.
Commissioner Myron introduced the briefing as the culmination of years of community engagement. Zora Hess, a project team member, said the research used a community‑based participatory approach that included 120 listening sessions with villagers, 34 interviews with village builders and operators, and input from providers and neighborhood partners. "This project gave not only voice, but also agency to people with lived and living experience of homelessness," Hess said.
Presenters from Dignity Village, Right to Dream 2 and other village leaders described the model’s democratic governance, peer mentorship and peer‑led care. Victory Lafara, data analyst and Village Program Specialist, framed villages as a program model in which self‑governance, leadership development and trauma‑informed supports produce healing outcomes and community stability.
Speakers recommended three areas for county action: incentivize community‑led efforts (for example, property tax abatements to encourage private land partnerships); remove barriers such as zoning restrictions and develop differentiated, flexible grant mechanisms; and provide resources including funding for community organizers and two specialist FTEs per village to assist with administration, leadership development and navigation of social‑service barriers.
Commissioners asked implementation questions about capacity, zoning, duration of stay and which populations villages serve best. Presenters said some supported villages use two‑year stay limits while others (Dignity Village, Hazelnut Grove and R2D2) operate with more flexible terms; villages were described as particularly suitable for older residents on fixed incomes, people preferring communal living, and communities such as queer‑identified people who rely on chosen‑family models.
Commissioners and presenters agreed micro villages can be deployed quickly on small footprints, often with faith institutions and other community property owners; several commissioners urged codifying clearer funding pathways and developing ready‑to‑use plans to speed deployment.
There was no formal board action. Commissioners requested additional, more detailed recommendations to inform upcoming budget and policy conversations and invited the presenters to continue engagement with the incoming commission.
