Council approves purchase of 35 additional tiny homes for Roseville Road campus amid public criticism
Loading...
Summary
Council authorized purchase of 35 more tiny homes for the Roseville Road campus using Encampment Resolution Fund dollars; city staff cited occupancy and exit‑rate data while one public commenter accused the operator of misconduct and others pressed for funding and service clarifications.
The City Council approved a contract to buy 35 additional tiny homes for the Roseville Road North Campus, using state Encampment Resolution Fund (ERF) dollars, after staff described program outcomes and council members pressed for fiscal and service details.
City staff said the Roseville Road micro‑community program has moved hundreds of people through services. The presenter noted that in the south side of the campus 71 units were occupied by 89 people and that, over the last year, the site sheltered 303 individuals and recorded 166 total exits; of those exits 64 were to permanent housing and 9 to recuperative or skilled‑nursing care, which staff described as a higher exit rate than other congregate shelters. "71 of the units are filled already, with 89 people," the presenter said when summarizing current occupancy.
The purchase would be executed under a Boss Cubes agreement used for earlier procurement; staff said negotiation on earlier purchases produced savings that enabled the expansion without exceeding project limits. Funding from ERF was described as obligated through February and fully expended by February '28; staff said the program is intended to provide on‑site case management, three meals a day and housing navigation for residents of the micro‑communities.
A public commenter sharply criticized a program manager and alleged financial misconduct, saying "Mister Pedro is a liar," and accused officials of improper use of funds; council members acknowledged the complaint but did not take disciplinary action in the hearing. Council members asked detailed questions about costs per participant, the duration of ERF funds, the differences between micro‑community service models and the Gathering Inn on‑site operator model, and whether the gathering in would operate the tiny homes. Staff clarified that the micro‑community model relies on on‑site services but differs in some operational aspects from congregate shelters.
Council approved the contract after the discussion. Several council members noted the Roseville Road program's positive outcomes and emphasized that ERF funds do not come from the general fund. One council member said they would vote no because of concerns about blanket delegation of contract authority and requested a separate committee review; the motion passed with the majority voting yes and one recorded no and an absence noted.
