Council hears debate over donations, naming policy and procurement for supportive-housing project

City staff presented a discussion of items that could be supplied by donors and a draft citywide commemorative naming and donations policy during the Dec. 9 Ojai City Council meeting, and several members of the public raised procurement and cost concerns about the project's operator selection.

What staff presented: Lucas Seibert, the city’s community development director, walked council through an attachment listing fixtures, furnishings and equipment (FF&E) that are commonly part of supportive-housing projects and which could be candidates for sponsorship or donation. Seibert said city documents distinguish between contract-covered construction items and smaller FF&E that community groups often provide; the city intends to reserve some contract elements (conduit, capacity) for the construction contract while enabling an operator to select and accept donated items such as linens, appliances or furniture.

Public concerns about procurement and costs: One public commenter, identified as Clay Creasy, argued the project’s selection process lacked competition, alleged the operator (Dignity Moves) was treated as a sole provider without appropriate bidding and said Ojai’s per-unit cost in the grant application far exceeded peer cities. “Our units are almost 5 times as expensive as everybody else,” the commenter said, citing figures presented in public comment and urging the council to revisit contracting and bid practices.

Policy and process questions: Councilmembers and staff discussed whether the naming/donation policy should be handled separately from the project-specific donor list. Staff and the city attorney said the draft policy is intended as a general framework to cover commemorative plaques, facility naming and other contributions and that significant gifts or restricted funds would come to council for approval. Staff asked for council feedback and suggested the draft could be refined before adoption.

Budget and technical clarifications: Staff confirmed that major utility and connection fees (sanitary sewer and capacity charges) had been included in the project budget and that the building would be designated “solar ready” but panels were not included in the construction contract. Staff said final decisions about large-ticket items and IT/security equipment are typically made with input from the operator once one is selected.

Council action and next steps: Council did not adopt the policy or take procurement action at the meeting; staff characterized the agenda item as a public discussion and asked for feedback. Councilmembers suggested separating the general naming/donations policy from negotiations tied to any particular operator, and several asked that the draft policy better specify that contributions and recognition levels be set before active fundraising.

What remains unresolved: The procurement allegations and per-unit cost comparisons raised in public comment were not adjudicated at the meeting; council requested further information and encouraged staff to continue public engagement on the policy and project-specific donor arrangements.

The council scheduled no vote on procurement or naming at the meeting; staff will return with revised policy language and additional project details as appropriate.