Eureka council hears ad hoc report on shelter options including prefab units and 'Konosoga' huts

Council Member Contus Delo presented findings from the city’s emergency shelter ad hoc committee, summarizing site tours, model types and options for interim housing in Eureka.

The presentation reviewed three broad approaches: factory-manufactured 'lit' units designed for seismic and fire safety, workforce-built wood units produced in partnership with tribal manufacturers, and a lower-cost weatherized shelter known in Oregon as a Konosoga hut. Contus Delo said staff and partners had toured several demonstration sites and that each model carries trade-offs in cost, longevity and proximity to services.

Why it matters: council members pressed staff for specifics on sites, partners, management structures and funding. Without a committed operator and clear site agreements, temporary shelters may not address the most visible homelessness impacts downtown.

What council heard: staff identified Second and A Street as the most-developed candidate site and described a financing scenario the council has discussed informally: a $600,000 grant request for site preparation plus a potential private donation of about $2.4 million that could include units and prep. Jeff Davis described the layout planned for that site and said "potentially 40 units right now" could be accommodated if funding and partnerships align.

On shelter models, the committee highlighted these details: smaller 'G-series' units provide minimal shelter; 'A-series' and wet units include bathroom and kitchen facilities and are more suitable for families or ADA needs. Dignity Village–style self-governed communities were described as having strong community elements but often sit far from services. The committee also noted workforce-training opportunities at a Hoopa-based manufacturer that can build units to house standards; staff said a single manufactured wet unit can cost roughly $20,000, while Konosoga huts were described as approximately $4,500 assembled or $2,500 as a kit (figures described in presentation as approximate).

Council discussion centered on management and operations. Several members said operations and partner commitments are critical before purchasing or installing structures. Council Member Castellano asked about numbers of potential partners and sites; staff said a private donor and other parties had engaged in early discussions but nothing was signed. Several councilors emphasized proximity to bus routes and services and the need for clear management protocols so that interim shelter does not create new public-safety or nuisance problems.

Public comments and service-provider perspective: members of the public and care workers praised the city’s existing rapid rehousing and prevention programs. A North Coast Rape Crisis Team representative, speaking during the proclamation portion of the meeting, said the agency assisted 554 survivors last year and urged advocacy against state budget cuts.

Next steps: the council did not adopt a policy tonight; staff were directed to continue negotiations with potential donors and partners, to provide more site-specific cost and management proposals, and to return with recommended next steps and agreements. The ad hoc committee’s report will remain the basis for those follow-ups.