The ongoing effort to address homelessness in Grants Pass, has become less about solutions and more about navigating a tangled web of political relationships, procedural violations, and public skepticism. What began as a well-intentioned grant program has devolved into a controversy that underscores systemic problems with transparency and accountability in both city and county leadership.
At the center of the current storm is the City of Grants Pass’s “Addressing Homelessness Grant,” reissued on September 5, 2025. The grant came with strict guidelines: Section 9.F of the city’s Request for Proposals (RFP) prohibited applicants from contacting the mayor, city council, or staff during the open application period. All communication was to be funneled exclusively through City Recorder Karen Frerk. Violations of this rule were clearly described as “improper” and potentially disqualifying. These rules were put in place after the city’s first grant process earlier this year collapsed due to unauthorized communications and misrepresentations of partnerships by applicants.
Despite those safeguards, evidence has emerged that one applicant may have ignored these restrictions — and that city officials may have downplayed the extent of that contact. According to City Attorney Stephanie Nuttall, Mayor Clint Scherf briefly spoke with Jeromy Ford, Director of Pathways to Stability, at a vigil on September 12 during the restricted period. She concluded that this single interaction did not amount to a violation.
However, this account doesn’t tell the full story. Additional records show that Ford emailed the mayor, city council, and city staff on September 16 and September 19 — still within the no-contact window — referencing the very homelessness grant under review. Then, during a Josephine County Commissioners Workshop on October 7, Ford publicly described site-specific conversations with the mayor, including the creation of an “exclusion zone” around a proposed homeless services site at 1798 NE N Street. These statements, recorded around the 40-minute mark of the workshop, suggest detailed planning discussions that go far beyond what the mayor acknowledged.
This discrepancy between Ford’s statements and the mayor’s account is not a minor technicality. It points to a deeper problem: inconsistent reporting, selective review of evidence, and a lack of thorough investigation by city officials. The City Attorney’s determination relied primarily on the mayor’s brief description of events, without fully examining the available public records, emails, or the meeting footage.
The gravity of this situation became more evident as residents and local community leaders began to raise alarm bells. Through public records requests, examination of meeting videos, and direct testimony, concerned citizens pieced together the timeline and nature of these communications. They brought their findings forward, revealing a series of events that, taken together, paint a picture of a grant process that has once again been compromised by backchannel discussions and political relationships.
It is through their diligence that this information has come to light. Community members, particularly those living near the proposed NE N Street site, have expressed severe concern about both the procedural violations and the potential impacts of placing a homeless services facility in a residential area near schools. Residents of Sequoia Village and surrounding neighborhoods have not remained silent. They have analyzed city documents, reviewed council videos, and publicly voiced their concerns at county and city meetings. Their work demonstrates a level of civic engagement that stands in stark contrast to the evasiveness displayed by some officials.
This latest controversy comes against a backdrop of years of dysfunction in how the city and county address homelessness. Grants Pass has faced national scrutiny after its camping ordinances were litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The county has often distanced itself from operational responsibilities, leaving the city to lead on homelessness policy while both entities remain politically divided. This fragmented leadership has created a vacuum where politically connected applicants flourish, and public trust withers.
The amount of funding at stake — more than $1 million — makes transparency and adherence to rules non-negotiable. Even the appearance of preferential treatment undermines the credibility of the entire process. When rules are established and voted on by city officials, the public has every right to expect those same officials to follow them.
Both the Spalding Avenue and N Street properties have become focal points of the debate. Ford’s own recorded comments suggest that discussions about exclusion zones and site planning took place with the mayor during a period when such conversations were strictly prohibited. Meanwhile, the mayor maintains that the interaction was brief and inconsequential. Without a comprehensive, independent review of all communications — including emails, meeting notes, and video evidence — the public is left to navigate conflicting narratives with little assurance of impartiality.
Residents have been clear in their expectations: before any funding is allocated or sites are selected, the city must conduct a full and transparent review. They are calling for City Attorney Stephanie Nuttall to expand her investigation and provide a public summary of findings that accounts for all available evidence, not just self-reported statements from officials.
On October 14, residents intend to bring these concerns to the Josephine County Commissioners during public comment, asking the county to pause any property discussions involving NE N Street until the city’s grant process is properly reviewed. This demand is grounded not in ideology but in the basic principles of good governance — rules must apply equally to everyone, and processes involving public funds must be conducted in the open.
The recurring theme in Grants Pass is that each attempt to address homelessness becomes entangled in the same patterns: political influence, selective transparency, and inconsistent enforcement of established rules. Each time, public trust is further eroded, making future solutions harder to implement. Unless city and county leaders confront these issues directly, the homelessness crisis will remain defined by dysfunction rather than progress.
This situation is about more than one applicant or one conversation. It is about whether the City of Grants Pass and Josephine County are capable of administering public resources fairly and transparently. It is about whether community voices and public records are taken seriously, or dismissed in favor of political convenience.
The evidence is clear: the rules were written, the rules were known, and those rules may have been broken. Residents and community leaders have done their part by uncovering and presenting the facts. Now, the responsibility lies with city leadership to uphold the integrity of the process.
Until the city identifies and empowers a qualified applicant unconnected to political networks and enforces its rules consistently, halting the current process and rethinking the entire approach may be the most responsible course of action. Laws and ethics exist to protect public trust. When they are disregarded, communities lose faith — and Grants Pass cannot afford to lose any more.