Not so fast.

Santa Barbara City Administrator Kelly McAdoo’s attempt to award a new contract to run the FARO homeless center fell short on Tuesday because it was scheduled for the City Council’s consent calendar, instead of a full public hearing and presentation.

“This clearly is not a consent item,” Councilman Mike Jordan said. “It deserves a presentation.”

He said he had an hour of questions about the topic.

The staff recommendation was to award City Net $600,000 for a 13-month contract. SB ACT currently has the contract.

The center is known as the FARO (Fostering Access, Resilience and Opportunity), which also means “lighthouse” in Spanish, and offers services to those who are homeless. The city partnered with SB ACT on the center in June 2024, but since the opening, neighbors, including Jodi House next door, have claimed mismanagement of the program.

There have been complaints about yelling, public urination, loitering, smoking, trespassing and harassment. Some specific instances cited in a letter from Jodi House included that a man allegedly urinated in front of clients. The Jodi House is a brain injury support center at 625 Chapala St. The FARO Center is next door at 621 Chapala St.

In another instance, an intoxicated woman allegedly tried to enter the Jodi House property. Secondhand smoke from the FARO Center was “polluting the Jodi House property” on several occasions.

At the time, McAdoo immediately gave notice to cancel the contract after SB ACT rejected her request to move to a referral-only program.

The city initially moved to a month-to-month contract and then put out a request for proposals. City Net received a score of 87, and SB ACT received a score of 81, and McAdoo recommended that City Net get the contract.

However, several people showed up during public comment on Tuesday. The city staff did not have a formal presentation ready, and the council opted to wait a month.

Only Mayor Randy Rowse voted to move forward with the contract. He said it was a difficult year for SB ACT and that he received many letters from the public.

“It is important that the neighborhood sanctity is preserved,” Rowse said. “We get the services, that’s great, but you will never, ever bring the public in on your side of homeless services if you ruin the neighborhood you go into to provide those services.”

SB ACT, however, cleaned up many of its problems and showed improvement. Council members did not want to be rushed into a decision.

“We are in a tough spot to do it now, and I would like to pause and bring it back in late January,” Councilman Mike Jordan said.

Councilwoman Wendy Santamaria agreed.

“If we are going to be making this type of decision, we really need to be working with all the information we have,” she said.

Santamaria also checked Rowse’s comments.

“What ruins a neighborhood is not a service provider. It is not a daytime navigation center,” she said. “What ruins a neighborhood is decreasing services, and at a time right now when so many other benefits and services are being cut at the federal level and those effects are trickling down, now more than ever we should be expanding services.”

Councilwoman Kristen Sneddon also preferred slower approach.

“I would love to see the whole picture before we make a decision,” she said.

Sneddon added that she wanted to go with SB ACT because it has improved and it is less expensive.

Councilwoman Meagan Harmon agreed that it wasn’t a consent item and that a decision should be delayed.

“Our level of deep commitment to getting this right would bear out that we give it the hearing that it deserves,” she said. “For both our partners, it really is the most just way.”