September 2015 Newsletter

Download a PDF to read the full newsletter. Or read our featured article below.

History of Samaritan Inn

30 years ago, in October 1985, Samaritan Inn began in the house pictured on the left. Old newsletters report the reason for opening a homeless shelter for women and children was domestic violence, the same social problem we continue to address today. In the first few months of operation, there were one or two women per night. A year later, the average was five. Four years after opening, eight women and children found safe shelter each night.

The house was a duplex with two separate entries and addresses. There was an apartment on the second floor and one on the first floor that included a basement. In 1996, the house was remodeled to accommodate its new use. As the roofing contractor was finishing the roof in January 1997, the blow torch he used to warm the roof started a fire that caused extensive damage. It was remodeled again, adding more bedrooms over the porch, significantly increasing the bed capacity. In 1999, the three bedroom house next door on the right was purchased. At that point there were 34 beds. Then in 2009 the two bedroom house next door on the left was added. After more beds were added to each house, the capacity stood at 50 beds. Still, we overflowed, having to use couches and mats on the floors, as well as, turn some people away. The picture on the right shows the three houses of Samaritan Inn that were traded for the new facility. The two story house in the middle is the same one in the picture on the left.

By 2011, it was clear that the need was continuing to increase and that adding more houses was not the most efficient way to address the situation. We prayed and explored options. Four years of perseverance later, we moved into a larger facility. In August of 2011, we received a phone call from a person wanting to donate land and building, if we used it for homeless women and children. The property was an old mill site in Oakland, OR. We turned it down after a great deal of investigation and discussion. We were concerned about environmental issues. The owner then tried giving the property to a church.

In December of 2011, we contacted three marketing companies. We wanted to know if Douglas County could support a capital campaign to raise an estimated $3 to $3.5 million to build a new facility. They pointed to our demographics. Considering our county’s population, median income and unemployment, the conclusion was a resounding “no”; it was not a realistic expectation. The very factors causing the increase in homelessness are the same preventing the purchase of a new facility. The next best option was to find an existing building that could easily be remodeled. We found the Umpqua Medical Center. It had been 12 medical-dental condominiums. Ten were owned by Harvard Medical Park; the other two were owned by a bank that received them in a foreclosure.

In April of 2012, the City approved the new location for zoning and use. Maximum occupancy would be 119 based on the size of the lot. Remodel plans would be designed to accommodate that many, if it ever became necessary; however, 80 clients would be the expected optimum operating capacity. Also in April, our Board of Directors voted to pursue the property, conditioned on financing. In May, our Board walked through the property and prayed over it. That month, the old mill site was back in the mix, because the church had concerns about it too. Harvard Medical refused an offer to trade for the mill site, but accepted an offer to trade for the three houses of Samaritan Inn. The bank said that they would be creative in financing, but refused an offer to trade eight years of parking on another Mission property, which they were already leasing from us, for their two units. The bank expressed an interest in the mill site and requested an environmental study in June. By July they withdrew their interest in the mill site and in August counteroffered for a portion of our downtown property. We refused. In the meantime, foundations were interviewed to match the elements of this project with their objectives, and we began to draw remodeling plans. In September, the bank denied ever agreeing to a long escrow to wait for financing. In November the two units were auctioned off to a California real estate investor. Undaunted, we offered to trade the mill site with the new owner. He flew up here, walked the property and verbally agreed to the trade.

In February of 2013, negotiations broke off, between the investor and donor, over concerns of taxation on an unequal property exchange. That same month, we signed a contract with Harvard Medical, after at least a dozen versions of an agreement. And we signed a contract with the investor to purchase his units, at a profit to him. We had control of the whole property. We met with city and county planning departments and were cleared for utilities, zoning, parking and traffic congestion. But then the remodeling cost came in far above our original estimates. With having to purchase the two units and higher remodeling estimates, the ratio of donations to grants needed was lopsided. It would have to be made up by a capital campaign that was an unrealistic expectation. We cancelled both contracts for a lack of funding.

Not giving up, in July of 2013, we had discovered a way to make the property exchange without liability to the Mission, and a way to satisfy the investor’s concern over taxation. By that time, the donor had introduced a realtor into the mix of negotiations. In August, our Board approved an agreement, and we closed escrow on the two units, numbers 105 and 106. In September, the project cost estimate was $1.4 million. In November, Harvard signed a new contract, and applications were made to the foundations. In December, a freeze burst water pipes in units 205 and 206, above the Mission’s units, destroying everything- ceilings, walls, flooring, heating. The whole interior had to be removed to stop mold from forming. Our insurance covered our loss, but the other owner’s insurance did not cover them. We received very little reduction in the offer already made for those other damaged units.

In February of 2014, a very prominent foundation, that had supported previous projects, denied our grant request specifically because we are a Christian organization. We scrambled to find another foundation that could supply a significant amount of money without denying us for our faith. In March, we applied to another foundation and were approved a couple months later. It was only at the point of grants being secured in September of 2014, that we made a public announcement of this project. On December 30, 2014 escrow closed on the other ten units. Remodeling began the next day. Our architect, Rex Price, put the construction drawings out to three local contractors. Two declined to bid because of their schedules and the complexity of the remodel. The third contactor’s bid was so far over estimates, it would have caused another reevaluation of the project. A fourth, an alternate contractor, was the low bidder. General Interiors Construction was awarded the contract. The total projected cost at that time was $1.6 million. Because of unforeseen problems in a facility that had been unoccupied for four years and certain code issues, the total project cost ended up at $1.7 million, still half the cost of new construction. We began moving clients to the new place in August 2015, three months behind schedule. Finally, a project that had defied completion was over, the battle won!

Our hope for the foreseeable future is that adding staff and programs will keep us from needing a still larger facility.