After a Sedona City Council work session on Feb. 11, it looks like the city may get to keep a state grant intended for a car camp at the Sedona Cultural Park for homeless workers after all and redirect it to a more traditional rental assistance program that will pay to put the homeless in apartments.

Former Housing Manager Shannon Boone told council the grant would likely disappear if the car camp wasn’t opened — voters rejected it in the Proposition 483 referendum in the Nov. 5 election.

Housing Manager Jeanne Blum, Boone’s replacement, described the Housing Department’s proposed Rental Assistance Program, which would provide full or partial rental assistance to individuals who were “literally homeless” over a period of six to 12 months, with the objective of establishing them in permanent housing, “as a viable solution to bring to our community in response to public opinion.”

Proposed Use of Grant

The proposal would redirect the $875,638 in grant funding over two years to a contract with Catholic Charities Community Services. Catholic Charities would be responsible under the contract for managing the program, registering the homeless with federal agencies, hiring and training staff, actively searching for program participants and locating housing for participants.

If the program were to move forward, Catholic Charities would pay participating landlords directly and the city would be reimbursed by the Arizona Department of Housing.

Cami Rasband of Catholic Charities said that the organization tries to work with the same landlords repeat edly and has five or six in the area with whom they have previously worked, while two who have participated in the past are no longer willing to do so.

Community Development Director Steve Mertes later said that “having the money go directly to the landlord will ensure that the money gets used for its intended purpose.”

Councilman Derek Pfaff asked why Catholic Charities had been selected.

Blum responded that it was because the nonprofit is responsible for the state’s homeless registry and already run similar programs in eight counties.

Rasband said that “more than 50% [of funding] is going directly to clients,” and later clarified in response to a question from Pfaff that 10% will be paid to the participating landlords. She expected the per-household spending, based on previous experience in Yavapai County, to be around $5,000.

“Can the money be used to move you out of the area as an option?” Councilman Brian Fultz asked.

“Yes,” Rasband said.

Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella suggested the city could use the funding to move homeless people to other locations in the Verde Valley.

Blum and Mertes did not clarify what conditions participants will be required to meet in exchange for receiving assistance under the heading of “case management,” although items discussed during the work session included federal registration and a possible requirement to obtain medical care.

“This rental assistance program will begin to enhance the operation of this coordinated entry approach in our Verde Valley,” Blum said with regard to the federal registry of homeless individuals. “This will begin to collect information that is useful for our purposes.”

“Do you proactively exit people?” Councilman Pete Furman asked.

“They have a lease in their own name, and so they could not be legally exited unless they violated their lease,” Rasband said.

“If you have somebody who is not abiding by your rules, refusing to meet with you, being a pain in the butt to the landlord … would you push them out of the Catholic Charities program?” Pfaff asked.

“Yes, they can be exited early for noncompliance,” Rasband said.

Mayor Scott Jablow asked if Sedona could make an additional rule to exclude alcohol and drug users, because“that’s counterproductive to the kind of people we want here.” Rasband said that ADOH would have to approve such a rule: “That is not a call we could make.”

Blum said the program would target up to 103 households during the two-year run, particularly employed car campers and van lifers, whose numbers she estimated at roughly 40 as of January, students and senior citizens. “Those with a connection to Sedona in some form,” Blum said. “We absolutely can and will prioritize Sedona residents.”

In response to a ques tion from Furman, Blum said that such a “nexus to Sedona” could include employment, a previous address, school enrollment, family members who were residents or membership in a local church, within the last 90 days.

“What I heard was prioritize Sedona residents,” Fultz said. “Can we absolutely, unequivocally say you must have a nexus to Sedona? … How much control do we really have, versus, oh, well, there’s three, four, five, six exceptions?”

“If we are required by law to have anybody who is a protected class … I need to know that we can prevent that,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

“We will definitely look into that,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said.

Jablow said that if access to the program could not be limited, “this program may not move forward.”

Rasband told Jablow that she had no indication there were any homeless people in Sedona who had been displaced by short-term rentals.

Public Comment

“Do something tonight for these seniors,” said Audrey Harris of the Sedona Community Center.

“We’re talking about almost a million dollars to serve 40 people,” Sandra Bocchiechio said. “How much money does your upper management make? … If the program is feder ally funded, cities generally cannot impose strict residency requirements.”

Vice Mayor Holli Ploog later stated that the program funding would be federal money administered by ADOH.

“I stood here a year ago and asked you not to open a homeless park,” said Bill Noonan, who organized the Proposition 483 referendum. “Do you really need any more evidence that the people you’re supposed to represent don’t want you subsidizing homelessness in Sedona? Yet here we are again with the city’s even more disastrous proposal on the table.”

“The fact that Catholic Charities is going to be taking 50% of that amount seems to be extreme,” Dale Casey said.

“It seems the city is obsessed with encouraging a homeless problem,” said Joetta Winter, who called for the city to publish the names of the hotels that have agreed to house homeless individuals under the city’s new voucher program.

“It’s got too many holes in this program and I fear that it might be a magnet,” Rick Brothers said.

“It’s only going forward to get a contract. Let’s do it,” Guy Lamunyon said, adding that he would not want to send $875,000 back to the state.

Council Comments

Pfaff described concerns about Catholic Charities’ overhead as “overblown.”

“I don’t buy this argument that Prop 483 was a mandate from the voting public,” Pfaff said. “I reject that.”

“I am not moved by campaigns that just pit fears against hope,” Furman said. “If there are holes in the program you see, let us know.”

“It starts to seem as though people don’t want the problem addressed,” Kinsella said. “This is absolutely something that needs to be considered.”

“While I want to like this program, I don’t like it yet,” Fultz said, adding that the city should aim to obtain the support of two thirds of residents before moving forward with the program. “We haven’t had conversations, we haven’t had outreach … I’m not comfortable even with taking this to ADOH to apply.”

Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said it was unnecessary to obtain community support for the proposal and that the program should be discussed with residents after the city has an agreement in place with ADOH.

“We are raw from having made a lot of mistakes, in my opinion, from how we proceeded,” Ploog said. “We are going to be right back where we were a few months ago, causing a huge rift.”

“They’re living in Oak Creek already,” Jablow said.

By a 5-1 vote, council directed city staff to proceed with developing a scope of work and contract for the program, with Fultz in opposition and Ploog abstaining.

“This direction that we’re giving is telling the community that we’re moving forward with it,” Fultz commented following the vote.