Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Los Banos Council favors tiny‑shelter village for emergency shelter; staff to seek CDBG funding
Loading...
Summary
After reviewing four options for emergency shelter, the council directed staff to pursue a tiny‑shelter village as the preferred near‑term solution, ask for grant readiness (CDBG), and return in January with siting and funding details.
The Los Banos City Council directed staff Dec. 3 to advance a tiny‑shelter village as its preferred emergency‑shelter strategy, asking staff to prepare grant applications, readiness materials and potential site options for a January return.
Housing Program Manager Christie McCammon presented four options: purchase residential homes to increase shelter capacity, build a tiny‑shelter village under a statewide purchase agreement, acquire and rehabilitate a local motel, or continue the current bridge‑homes and sanctioned encampment approach. McCammon said the city’s homeless point‑in‑time count stands at 114 people and that permanent supportive housing under the 1 Tree project will add 58 units but will not eliminate the immediate shelter gap.
Staff estimated that residential homes large enough for 12 occupants are selling locally for about $450,000–$600,000; operating one such house costs roughly $128,400 per year. By contrast, the tiny‑shelter approach (pallet or modular units) showed an estimated capital cost of about $80,000 per unit, with a 30‑unit village estimated at roughly $2.4 million and annual operations of about $100,000. Staff presented an estimated per‑occupant annual operating cost of about $2,500 and a capital cost of roughly $60,000 per person for the tiny‑shelter option.
McCammon described a 12‑unit pilot in Modesto (Grace Gardens) as an example and noted advantages of a single, city‑owned site: consolidated case management, on‑site laundry and showers, electricity to each unit and scalability. She also warned that motel acquisition carries relocation requirements and rehabilitation cost uncertainty.
Several councilmembers and staff said the tiny‑shelter village best balances near‑term feasibility, per‑person cost and case‑management effectiveness. “For me personally, that’s what I am going to vote for — the tiny homes,” Mayor Pro Tem Deborah Lewis said during deliberations. Councilmembers also asked staff to prepare to apply for the Notice of Funding Availability under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and to assemble stamped plans and procurement readiness to strengthen any application.
Staff noted the current bridge‑home program provides about 20 interim beds and is at or near capacity; renting bridge homes is subject to contract renewal risk, which was one reason staff recommended ownership or a purpose‑built facility. Councilmembers emphasized the need for showers, laundry and secure managed entry as components of any chosen solution.
Direction to staff: the council’s consensus was to pursue the tiny‑shelter village concept as the recommended option, proceed with readiness (including a potential CDBG application and RFQ for developers/contractors), and return in January with site recommendations, funding scenarios and a phased approach if grant funding is not secured.
Next steps: staff will continue work on grant readiness and return to council in January with siting options and an implementation timeline.
