Okay, so good morning.

I call the health committee order for Monday, July 13th.

Supervisor TAM.

Present.

Supervisor Miley.

We have a quorum.

Okay.

Any instructions you need to provide?

For in-person participation, the meeting site is open to the public.

If you'd like to speak on an item, please fill out the speaker's card in the front of the room for remote participation.

Follow the teleconferencing guidelines.

Post it at www.acgov.org and use the raise your hand function.

Okay.

So we have one item this morning.

Continuum of care 2026 notice of funding opportunity update.

All righty.

Good morning, Supervisors.

Jonathan Russell, director for Alabama County Health's Housing and Homelessness Services.

Thank you for having me here this morning to provide a timely update on the majority funding source we have for federal funding for homelessness.

This year we are currently in the process of completing the notice of funding opportunity local ranking review process.

So excited to give you an update on all the relevant factors and changes and potential implications.

And I believe the PowerPoint should be coming.

Thank you.

Oops, looks like it has the me versus a presentation.

So in terms of overview, as I said, we'll briefly run through uh the COC funding process.

Uh give you some detail on the implications for the 2026 NOFO, and then talk a little bit about our current state local rank and review process and end with some uh timelines for next steps.

Next slide.

So beginning with the funding process, uh just starting with as always in our field, uh just refreshing on some frequently used acronyms here.

When we say COC, we mean the Continuum of Care, which is that federally designated body that receives the funding in our county.

Uh the local Alameda County continuum of care is contiguous with our county borders.

Uh HUD, of course, is the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development who funds uh the Continuum of Care program.

And then the NOFO, as we say for short, is the notice of funding opportunity.

It's a term used for a lot of different programs, but for today, we mean specifically that notice for the continuum of care funding that happens each year.

Next slide.

So what is the NOFO?

As I said, it's an annual competitive grant process from the federal department of housing and urban development.

Distributes uh billions of dollars in federal funding.

I believe this year the federal, the annual total is 4.3 billion dollars to local organizations and governments to address homelessness.

We apply through the regional continuum of care, as I said in our case, contiguous with Alameda County.

And then the COC then evaluates and ranks and submits a consolidated application for the entire region.

In our continuum of care, the leadership board of the COC appoints people for a specific committee, the NOFO committee that does that evaluation and ranking process.

So essentially, there's two stages to the process.

There's a local process to rank and review applications, and then of course there's a federal uh process where we submit it and then uh the feds review it.

Next slide.

So the local COC competition process, this is required.

We have to we have to distribute the funds annually.

So in that sense, funds can't be banked.

They need to be accrued and spent within the year.

So each COC has to run a local process, as I said, to decide how to allocate its funding between either renewal projects or new grants to fund new services.

HUD establishes each year the overarching rules for each continuum of care and what they must follow in designing that local application process.

In a typical cycle, so in previous years, up through last year, which I had shared an update, there was some intended changes last year.

In a typical process, COCs have been historically incentivized to renew existing projects, unless there were significant performance issues.

So essentially, as I've shared in the past, though it is an annual competition, we have been renewing grants some for 15-20 years as a really stable funding source for ongoing existing projects to sustain their services.

However, in this year, in fiscal year 20, the 2026 NOFO, COCs are strongly incentivized to create new projects and renew significantly fewer projects.

Next slide.

So here are the kind of relevant roles to this local process.

Again, there's the Continuum of Care Leadership Board that approves the strategic direction for the local competition, and then it ultimately approves the final project priority list.

That is the final list of applications that goes as a part of the consolidated application to HUD.

The leadership board also seats the NOFO response team, the NRT and the NOVO committee.

The NOFO response team is really that smaller body that really develops and implements the strategic response to the NOFO with close input from the NOFO committee.

This is a newer body that we created starting last year because there were so many implications and changes in the NOFO that we needed to have a really strategic intensive process to pivot and adjust to respond to the NOFO.

And then the NOFO committee, that is the body that ranks and reviews, scores the applications, and then develops the project priority list in collaboration with the response team.

And then there's what HUD calls the collaborative applicant.

In our community, that is Alameda County's housing and homelessness services, who is responsible for compiling and submitting that consolidated application to HUD.

And then we also have the help of two technical assistants, both Home Base and our NOFO consultant, Kate Bristol, who are supporting all of the steps of the process from a technical guidance perspective, as there are many nuts and bolts and technical guidance related issues.

Next slide.

So what is the collaborative applicant?

Well, we are the collaborative applicant and lead entity for the COC.

We're responsible as the organization to submit the annual consolidated application on behalf of the COC.

Key responsibilities include submitting the complete application for funding, managing all of our continuum of care planning, our homelessness management information system administration funding.

We also help through the system coordination, managing the continuum of care operations, strategic planning and point-and-time count.

The COC provides oversight of the collaborative applicant.

So the leadership board and the relevant committees provide that oversight and direction.

And then home base, as we said, our technical assistance provider helps with the administrative support on staffing all of the committees, doing annual evaluations, monitoring, and other technical assistance.

Next slide.

So a brief summary here of what the COC pays for in Alameda County.

It has, as I shared, mostly gone toward ongoing investments in housing programs for people experiencing homelessness.

So permanent supportive housing for people with disabling conditions, rapid rehousing, which is medium-term rental assistance for subsidies for individuals and families, and then also transitional housing, which is time-limited interim short-term, shorter-term programs where people are supported both in individual and family settings.

A small portion of the annual grant amount, which we'll show on the next slide, goes towards street outreach and housing navigation and coordinated entry and HMIS, but the majority goes towards these ongoing housing programs.

CO COC grants are annually renewable.

So they're not one-time funding, for example, like our state HAP funding, for example, where it comes out as a single round.

This is an annually renewable process, which is why it has been such an important bedrock of our ongoing homelessness response system.

As you know, as I've shared many times, we have very few ongoing and during sources.

And traditionally, this continuum of care funding has been one of those.

What it doesn't fund is emergency shelter.

We fund the majority of that with local and state dollars.

It doesn't fund homelessness prevention.

So these are not eligible things to fund with COC funding based on the federal regulations.

And it also does not fund services or housing for people who are not experiencing homelessness.

Next slide.

So you can see the total there.

It's about 64 and a half million dollars of funding for this year's NOFO renewal.

Some of these grants receive annual increases, for example, COLAs or when the changes in the fair market rate for those that provide rental assistance.

So this creeps up a little bit each year, but it's a total of 47 distinct grants that complete a total of about 45 and a half million dollars.

You can see that more than 86% of that 64.5 million is permanent housing projects.

So 41 million, 41 and a half million for permanent supportive housing, a little over 8 million for rapid rehousing, and then skipping the transitional, which is technically not permanent housing, what is called joint transitional to rapid rehousing, that 5.6 million, the fourth line down, is also permanent housing.

So it funds a variety of things, but the vast majority of that goes toward permanent housing projects.

And you can see, lastly, on the far right column, the amount of beds served.

So more than 2,100 units in the second to the furthest to the right column are served by these grants, and more than 3,200 beds or people.

So it's a large proportion of people served.

More than more than 2,600 in just permanent housing projects alone.

Next slide.

So how does the process work?

So HUD releases the annual NOFO.

Each COC develops as we shared and manages a local application process to invite, to rank and review, and then submit for funding.

The COC submits a consolidated application to HUD, that's the collaborative applicants responsibility, in this case H, including all the local applications in an organized priority listing, and then HUD responds by awarding grants directly to individual applicants.

And in that sense, some of those will go directly to individual grantees, some of those will pass through the county, but whoever is the actual applicant will receive direct grant agreements.

Next slide.

Okay.

So there's two types of applications as I mentioned.

There's renewal projects that are funded in prior year NOFO competitions that reapply.

So this is projects that have historically received funding.

Important to note that each year through this competitive process, even renewal projects have to reapply, they have to submit their performance standards and re and have those projects reprioritized according to the local process.

So though they've been funded for many years, they resubmit that each year.

So it's a bit unique in that way in terms of the federal process.

And then of course, there are also new projects that have not applied before or at least have not been funded before that are applying for the first time.

This can be brand new projects that have not been funded by the COC or existing projects that do not have COC funding.

Those, of course, must be aligned with federal supplementation requirements.

And then the application for that for new applications is more involved.

So there's well more to do if you're submitting a new project as can be understood versus a renewal project, which is looking to roll over from previous years.

Next slide.

As a part of the rating and ranking process, there are two tiers.

So those are broken out between tier one, which is those projects that are higher scoring.

So tier one essentially is projects that are all but guaranteed to receive funding.

So if in our local process, for example, project is scored highly in tier one, that is the most secure place in the federal application where we can all but expect that that would be guaranteed to be funded by HUD.

And then there are lower scoring projects that are put in tier two.

Those are projects that are not guaranteed but still competitive and will be determined whether they're funded when the application is submitted to the federal government.

So that project priority list is all of the projects placed between those two tiers that are included in the final application.

The components of the application organizations apply for either renewal or new funding must be submitted through the local application to the COC in order to be scored and ranked.

So all applications under consideration have to go through the local process.

That local process determines whether the application will be included in that project priority list and sent along to HUD.

Applications must also complete a HUD project application, that is through HUD's online portal, which is called eSnaps, and then that eSNAPS application and the local application have similar elements but aren't identical.

So after we complete the local process, for example, and local projects are prioritized, they still need to complete the consolidated application or what uh the HUD application that goes a part of the consolidated submittal to the feds.

Next slide.

Okay, jumping here to the meat of the implications for our community in terms of the changes for this year.

HUD released the NOFO on June 1st.

The deadline for our response to the federal government is August 26.

So about three months.

It is similar but not identical to the 2025 NOFO, which I shared with you much more than a year ago now, or no, about six to eight months ago now.

When that was released, that was ultimately enjoined.

There was a lawsuit against it, so we did not have to proceed with the significant changes that were proposed last year.

But there has also been a new lawsuit that was filed for the 2026 NOFO, seeking to block its implementation.

I should also note here the date says June 22nd.

The lawsuit was originally filed as a supplement to their 2025 lawsuit that had not been closed yet.

However, shortly after they're submitting that supplemental lawsuit on June 2022, the federal judge did issue their final ruling on the 2025 NOFO, which was siding with the plaintiffs, which is the local communities, and disallowed HUD from applying it, which subsequently meant that the litigants needed to reapply.

So they submitted a new standalone lawsuit against the 2026 NOFO on July 2nd.

So that is still under review.

We have not heard any anything from the federal governments, but that is an outstanding factor that could have implications for our local process.

Next slide.

So the major elements, this is the meat of what is changing and what throughout the rest of the when I talk about the implications for our local community, all derive from these changes.

So HUD has limited only 60% of existing projects can be protected, i.e., placed in that tier one.

In previous years, we could have more than 90% or about 90% of our projects in that tier one guaranteed category.

So right off the bat, what that means at best, only 60% of that 64.5 million can be placed in that protected tier one category.

So 40% is up for grabs in tier two.

They've also created 1.3 billion dollar set aside, which is roughly a third of the funding, just for new transitional housing and supportive services only programs in tier two.

What this means is by setting aside that large amount of funding, they are limiting essentially what we can submit in tier two.

That set aside takes up most of the available funding for tier two.

So we are not eligible to submit any renewal projects as a part of tier two.

So anything beyond that 60% needs to be submitted as a new, either transitional housing or supportive services only program.

So as I said in the very first slide, what they are prioritizing here is limits on how many of our existing projects we can renew in order to press for new projects, which means, of course, existing projects would need to be defunded or funded with other resources because they're ineligible to be submitted to HUD.

Next slide.

Some more detail here.

Strong incentive, as we said, to place new transitional and supportive services projects in tier two.

Transitional housing, just for as a definition, is time limited, transitional housing for individuals that support stays up to 24 months with lots of services, a service participation requirements is what one of the things that HUD expects, and then a focus on treatment and recovery.

And then supportive services only projects is really any kind of general service project for people that are not connected to housing.

So that can be employment services, street outreach, case management, navigation, services in emergency shelter, but not the emergency shelter itself.

Other changes, we could summarize these as HUD policy priority changes.

There's a strong prioritization for treatment and recovery, a shift away from the longstanding federal policy around housing first, which includes voluntary services as an oppressed towards mandatory services, and then really a focus on what they call quote unquote self-sufficiency, defined as being independent of all public and private assistance.

Additionally, this is important to note HUD reserves broad discretionary authority to reject applications or grantees based on their discretion, that those applicants or applications are not in alignment with federal priorities or local communities due practices that are not in alignment with the various executive orders, particularly those around homelessness and others that have come out.

So there is a real opportunity for their moving funding away from communities altogether.

Next slide.

So the impacts on Alameda County.

RCOC, as I said, receives about 64 million in COC funding annually.

Only 38 million of that 68 million is going to fit, so to speak, in that protected tier one category, which means by the math, we have to identify 26 million in otherwise renewed projects that will be funded with other sources or close.

We can use that available 26 million in tier two to also apply for new transitional housing and supportive services projects.

Next slide.

Just wanted to briefly zoom out and try to provide some context on where the COC funding fits and the broader funding landscape across our system.

So this is just a pie chart showing the fiscal year 2425 system-wide funding.

For context, this includes all funding sources, not just funding sources that go to the county or our department, for example, it's all entities.

So all 14 jurisdictions, all of that funding is aggregated here.

You can see the federal proportion, a little over 25% at about just under 100 million dollars is the yellow part of the pie chart.

And of that, 60% of that 99 is the COC funding.

So it's the vast majority of the federal funding that goes toward homelessness across our community each year.

And then it's 17% of our system-wide funding.

So while not the largest proportion, again, it represents one of the stable enduring proportions of funding that has long funded thousands of our permanent housing units in the community.

Next slide.

As I said, there is significant uncertainty in this year's process.

We still do not have from HUD the detailed instructions of what the application is going to look like or the online portal is not yet open.

All we know is from the NOFO itself, which details the process and expectations and policy changes.

There is also, as I said, active litigation challenging the NOFO.

However, we must continue, of course, with our local process as if we would need to submit on August 26th and cannot change any of our local planning around the NOFO based on whatever happens or doesn't happen with that litigation.

And that needs to be completed, i.e., the local process quickly in order to meet our August submittal deadlines.

Next slide.

So last section here, just going through the local rank and review process.

This is all on the Continuum of Care website, the 2026 ranking and reviewing document.

It sets out the policies and what governing that govern the local application process.

The policies enter an integrate strategic direction from the Continuum of Care Leadership Board.

They also are in close alignment, I should say, with the home together priorities to ensure that we're focusing on and prioritizing the needs of the community as identified in our community-wide strategic planning.

They also align, of course, with the 2026 NOFO requirements from HUD.

So we had to set policy priorities that fit the federal priorities, but also aligned with our local needs.

So two slides here just summarizing the process for uh the priorities when it comes to or how the ranking will be done for first renewal applications and then second for new applications.

All renewal projects are invited to apply for funding.

So as I said, while we only know 60% of our total renewal applications can be submitted to HUD, all of those projects are invited to apply.

Tier one will be reserved for the renewal projects.

So we will put whatever 60% are the highest ranking projects for renewal in tier one.

The prioritize for that will be based on objective factors.

So all the renewals will not be based on narratives, nothing subjective in terms of summarizing priorities, but really the annual performance data and the actual facts of the type of program offered will determine uh those uh score priorities.

Also, from a policy perspective, the community, the NOFO response team, and ultimately the leadership board have decided to prioritize for those renewals our permanent supportive housing projects that include rental assistance or leasing funds.

This represents roughly 38 million dollars of our total grant renewal, and those that do not fall within that cutoff.

So those renewal projects that are not prioritized cannot be placed in tier two.

Again, tier two by the set aside has been renewed only for new projects.

So renewing projects that do not fall within tier one, that cutoff will need alternative funding sources to continue their operations starting in 2027, calendar year 2027.

Next slide.

I promise I'm close to done here.

Okay, shifting briefly to the scoring and ranking policies for new projects.

So think of this as the tier two bundle of dollars.

So tier two, up to 26 million dollars is reserved exclusively for new transitional housing or supportive services projects.

Priorities are of course for new projects that align with the home together priorities.

All new projects will be scored by the NOFO committee and placed in a rank order within tier two.

Projects closer to the top of tier two are more likely to be funded by HUD, but again, there's broad discretion.

We are we have uh we cannot have a lot of expectations for what happens with tier two.

There's a lot of unknowns.

Tier two projects uh can include existing housing projects that elect to transition to transitional housing, and then those transition projects will actually be placed at the top of tier two.

Next slide.

So just briefly summarizing here some uh potential impact scenarios before we move to discussion.

Tier one renewals, so kind of scenario one could be all of our tier one renewals at 38 million that we put at the top priority, and tier two projects are funded in full.

So everything we submit gets funded at 64.5 million dollars.

Um I don't think this is probably the most likely outcome given the circumstances.

Second option is the tier two renewal, the tier one renewals, rather, is funded in full.

So we get the full tier one, that guaranteed amount, and then tier two projects, the stuff we put that is new gets funded in part.

So some of that 26 million to make up our 64 and a half million gets funded.

I think candidly, this is probably the most likely scenario, number two.

Um, the third scenario is that both tier one and tier two both get funded in part, so just part of each of those, and then lastly, um potentially no projects could get funded again.

Uh the fourth scenario would really be HUD using that broad discretionary authority to say this community is not in alignment with our priorities and therefore no funding.

Um again, I think the second scenario is probably the most likely where we receive our priority tier one project funding, and we see we receive some part of that 26 million, but that still leaves a considerable gap in terms of total losses.

In all scenarios, I should note a minimum of 26 million is required annually outside of HUD funding to preserve existing housing and services that will not be included in the renewal application.

Next slide.

This is the last slide, just summarizing the key dates in the process.

So, as I said, the NOFO came out on uh June 1st, our leadership boarding uh leadership board for the continuum of care set the strategic direction less than three weeks later on June 18th.

We kicked off the local competition, again, having to significantly re-engineer the process for new years just five days later on the 23rd.

That local process closes at the end of this week on the 17th.

All of these, mind you, are dates that are set and required for us to meet thresholds by HUD.

So we have to kind of race to get through this in three months.

Those applications are due by 5 p.m.

on the 17th, which I believe is Friday.

August 4th, uh August 4th, the applicants will receive the results.

There'll be a special meeting of the COC leadership board on the 11th to approve that priority list and the application submission and then H working in the background through all of this will submit the application by the August 26th deadline, hopefully a couple days before.

And as we are told now, the notices from HUD are supposed to be out on December 1st.

That is of course subject to change.

So in that intervening time, there's a lot of decisions while we wait for the application that we will need to make around that um important 26 million that will no longer be eligible to be included.

And with that, I'm done done.

Right.

Thank you for a very detailed presentation.

Grace to summarize it all for me later on.

So why don't we start with Supervisor Jam?

I know I've got some questions and comments, but we'll start with Supervisor Tim first.

Um thank you, Chair Miley, and thank you for that presentation.

I know you had um given us sort of prior previews at our work session about the potential loss of HUD funding because we have uh built into our programming diversity equity and inclusion and gender affirming care.

It this seems like sort of a war weird workaround that the federal government is looking at by just basically funding new projects but not renewing existing projects.

And uh I know I know it's this reminiscing of like Prop One where they're trying to move more of the funding toward treatment and um recovery.

So it in terms of um the impacts to the county, um, we talked about in all of our discussions about measure W, that we don't want to lose beds.

Uh and so, how many beds do you think would be at risk from the non-renewal, just the 26 million dollar minimum that you set out of the 64 million that we need.

Yeah.

It's a great question.

Thank you for it.

Um, I don't have the exact number, most of the permanent supportive housing beds that receive either rental assistance that we say in a project-based way.

So that's dollars that go to existing physical units or as rental assistance to those tenants that are housed on the private market.

Um, most of that funding would be protected in our tier one strategy, again, provided that the local process uh ends up prioritizing those applications.

Uh, most of the funding that would go in tier two is for transit existing, and this is a bit where it's ironic.

Some of our transitional housing projects that are existing transitional housing, because they're not prioritized in tier one, they actually are ineligible for tier two.

So they want new transitional housing, but that has actually required that we defund or come up with alternate sources for existing transitional housing.

So there are at least uh several hundred beds in that transitional or permanent housing supportive services that would lose funding.

Um, but there's a lot of other services that are losing funding, so not necessarily the majority of the beds themselves, which is part of what HUD funds, but a lot of the services and other areas.

So, for example, we are deprioritizing things like coordinated entry and the homeless management information system, which is a pretty strange thing, is those are required by HUD to not use the federal funding to fund that data system, for example, or coordinated entry.

That policy priority was set because that rental assistance of people that are actively in housing, right?

If their rental assistance was cut off from the federal government, they would fall out of housing.

Because that's such a priority.

We have elected to pull off or deprioritize, rather, a good amount of these system infrastructure components in order to save those precious rental assistance units and beds.

So it's not a ton of beds that it would be falling off, but it's a lot of services that need to be funded that help keep people in housing and fund the rest of our system.

So those are the likely tier two 26 million.

Again, some of those are transitional housing.

Some of those are youth rapid rehousing beds, for example.

So really precious stuff, but it's kind of a broader array of system components than just beds.

You're right.

It doesn't make sense for them to defund our coordinated entry system, which basically tracks where people are going and where the needs are and how to get them the placements they need.

So the part that I think concerns me a little when you talked about the use of the broad authority on the tier two funding, you're basically that means that they could still like deprioritize projects that are trying to make sure our most vulnerable are being served.

Correct.

There's a couple elements to the tier two, which again we can think of that as essentially the 40% that is open, wide open for new projects, and also crucial to note what tier two really is, is it's a way not just, we can think of tier one as projects that are only in competition with each other in the local process.

So tier one is about how do you score and what we decide within Alameda County.

That gets you in tier one.

That is supposed to, according to the NOFO, settle the settle tier one determinations.

They just look at they take our criteria and they support tier one projects according to that.

Tier two, we set a priority list for those and say, hey, we think these are good projects and this is the order, but they are judging those tier two projects against a nationwide competition.

So historically it was kind of 90% safe, 10% give or take.

Maybe you get it funded, maybe you don't.

They've significantly expanded that to 40% to create a lot more discretion to say we can move funding around here, right?

We could fund your 40%, or we could say no, we're gonna fund this.

So it's so it's putting those tier two projects, not just um for discretion for HUD to review, but also for them to review against other communities, for example.

Now, there are thresholds in terms of the amount that can be given to a community, right?

So we have 64 and a half million total cap and plus some potential bonus funding, which I didn't include here.

It's kind of some technical you can apply for additions.

So it's not like they can move hundreds of millions out of one community and into another because there are caps in those communities, but they definitely could fund less of communities like ours.

So there's both that discretion, but there is that broader discretion, which is for lack of a better term, the ideological test.

Is this community aligned with us?

Do we look on other things and see that they practice other things, and therefore we could say not for this.

So I don't want to, you know, I it's important to name that because there is that broad discretionary authority that is also noted in the NOFO itself.

I'm kind of not postulating there, just saying that they will withhold that review.

I don't know how likely that is, but I certainly think the likelihood of they're just saying no to a good portion of even those new projects that do check the boxes.

They could just say no because they don't, you know, pass muster compared to other communities or what have it's hard to hard to see exactly what the decision point will be for that.

Okay.

I so I see this presentation basically as a heads up saying uh we may not get the full 64 million dollars, and at a minimum, we need to look at backfilling 26 million dollars, and so I am going to assume that that's going to be part of the budgeting process with Measure W and trying to backfill uh some of these needs, and we won't know this until the end of this year at the very least, right?

That's correct.

Well, we won't know whether the new ideas, the new 26 million get funded, but we do know essentially today already or when the application closes on this after the 17th.

We do know that there are 26 million dollars of current operational services that we need to start a plan for now to have a process in place to continue funding those by January, February of 2027.

So we can start that process while we wait for the new app the new applications to be reviewed.

Our hope strategically is that we can give it a good college try and apply for 26 million dollars of new projects that can save us money on other things that we plan to have local investments, right?

We know we need to we want to expand substance use services for folks experiencing homelessness and other kinds of transitional housing.

So if we do get some portion of that 26 million in new awards, that might save local investments we were going to make because we're going to, or at least the proposal H and H plans to bring is to propose to make sure we ensure those existing projects are funded with local resources so that they don't shutter or close.

Um, yeah.

Can you just um this is the last question?

Just highlight some of the efforts uh your department's undertaking, especially with the nonprofit housing providers that depend on HUD funding with a lot of the community-based organizations that rely and provide the services.

Uh, how um how are we outreaching to make sure that they're aware and that uh we're we're on top of this?

Yeah, yeah.

So we have been in constant communication, obviously putting out all the noticing, certainly for the local process uh on our various listservs that go out to you know, thousands of individuals and all the agencies shortly after the NOFO was released and the leadership board processed it and set strategic direction.

We met with or I met uh with our leadership team with an H and H with all 47 grantees.

So the executive leadership of all 47 of those uh different grantees, different grants to detail a very similar earlier version of this, which is here's what we know about the policy changes, here's what the impacts will be, right?

There is very likely this 26 million that will that will not be prioritized and not funded, and then here are our action steps to move forward, one to complete the local process and encourage them that they still submit their applications, and two, frankly, that we were going to be coming to the board to present more around our strategic priorities to preserve that, but that would be determined at a future date.

So we've been in regular communication on for all of those impacted renewal projects, and they're of course, you know, waited on bated breath, very engaged and also understanding.

For better or worse, we had the same kind of fire drill last year when the 2025 NOFO came out, and as we shared, I think late in the evening on a on a on a work session sometime in November, um, the potential impacts then, right?

So we had to mobilize, though the litigation ultimately has stopped it.

Like we had to mobilize for a very similar rushed process that was a little quicker than this one.

So we've got a little more time.

So, you know, they're kind of, you know, re-engaging some of that and and hearing as well.

The other side is for new applicants.

So simultaneously, while we're wrestling to try to preserve, we have to really mobilize to create a wide open call for new applicants because the strain situation of having 26 million defunded, we have to simultaneously, in order to even ask for our 64 and a half million, bring a bunch of new projects in to complete applications to submit by August.

So there's a there's a two-pronged communication, talking to existing grantees and then talking to the wider community to say, hey, we're kicking off a process that started a week or so ago to seek new applications.

And so that also communication is going widely, and all of this is of course included in public and uh meetings at the continual care leadership board as well.

So I think I think the communication channels are there.

Thankfully, this is I don't know, the 30th year of the NOFO process, so we have a pretty our existing system and the communication channels and all the materials are shared pretty widely.

Thank you.

Okay.

So have comments and questions, and yeah, it's gonna not be in any particular order.

First of all, you appreciate this overview.

Um, it's got my mind, you know, spinning.

Yeah, and uh let me just first of all follow up on something Supervisor Jam was asking.

So she said, um she assumes that we're preparing for the worst case scenario.

So what are we doing to prepare for the worst case scenario?

Yeah.

Well, as I said, there's four scenarios.

Right.

Worst case is zero, zero, exactly.

Zero dollars.

Exactly.

They may say, Alameda County, no does.

Ethically, yeah, morally, yeah, spiritually, we don't like you.

Yeah.

I mean, thank you for raising it.

It's it's not an impossible scenario.

Uh that would essentially call for, you know, essentially a threefold expansion of our current plan, which is to pivot and identify local resources, bring a proposal to the board to in an emergency way fund those 26 million dollars of services, right?

Um, we would essentially have to expand that and say, okay, we have to re-engineer this thing and bring a proposal to fund 64 and a half million dollars of services and find a way, you know, to get into contract with 47 grantees and the necessary timeline to keep those projects going starting, you know, because um the grants all start essentially during the calendar year of 2027.

Most don't start in January, they start at some point, you know, in the first second quarter, third quarter onward.

So we would have a little bit of time, but it would be essentially just a magnification of the current strategy, which is come to you between now and December with a proposal to preserve what we know doesn't get to apply.

We would have to then add and say, okay, here's what did apply, and we need to add 38 million dollars to that strategy.

Those projects, um, to your point, Supervisor Miley, that would be rejected from Tier One would be the most urgent because those are people right now, many of them older adults with disabling conditions, permanently disabled that are in housing with that rental assistance providing their their housing every month.

So we would have to very rapidly ensure continuity with those grantees, because unlike, well, no provider likes to have delays in getting reimbursed for their shelter services, you know, costs for the month of June.

It's very different when that is funding not just going to a provider that we need to make sure we can keep open, but to, for example, private landlords that that provider is paying that funding to every month, right?

So you could have one month of arrears if we can't get so we would really have to administratively um rush to keep those going.

So that would be that would be the plan.

Again, I think there is a good amount of hope that tier one gets gets renewed, but but the discretion remains the discretion.

And again, the other piece is the lawsuit, which we don't know if there will be even any preliminary steps in this new lawsuit.

Again, the new lawsuit was just refiled on July 2nd.

Our application is due the 26th of August, so it's not clear whether any steps in that initial process that last year was relatively quick.

There was a relatively quick preliminary injunction on the 2025 NOFO.

That as you remember, I I brought the kind of the sky is falling.

I think you said Supervisor Miley presentation in November, and then shortly after that, there was an injunction.

We can't count on a similar thing, but if it happens, that would sort of freeze the process.

So while the NOFO wouldn't proceed, we would still have that problem of waiting for are they going to renew the 2026 grants?

Will we have to do bridge funding to keep those open while we wait for the court case to settle?

There's a lot of unknowns, but but that would be uh another factor that would impact having to even complete uh the application if it happens quickly.

Yeah.

Like they say, you know, hope is not a strategy.

I was gonna say, I hope we don't have the worst case scenario, but we have to prepare for that.

And you know, I'm just uh county supervisor, jack of all trades.

You know, I know a little bit about a little bit of things, but it would be depending on your team, you know, Anika, my former chief of staff over there, Eileen and Aaron and others, you know, yeah, Supervisors Tams folks to kind of give us a roadmap with the different possibilities.

If the Trump administration screws us, I hope that like I said, people tell me hope is not a strategy, but I hope that doesn't occur.

Uh and if it doesn't occur, like you said, we still need to come up 26 million.

Um, are you looking to get that out of measure W?

Yes, okay.

We budgeted a portion of that as we shared with you from the very beginning.

Our expectation, um, as I've shared with uh, you know, your your staff and others and with you all, you know, as a part of the kind of seven-year plan for Measure W from the very beginning, we suspected there would be that federal backfill.

I was looking, I think we noted that going all the way back to the July 22nd and 31st presentations of last year when the Measure W uh decision funding decisions were made.

We noted that, and we've budgeted a portion of funding, about 20 million per year to cover federal backfill.

So if things are worse than that, we would have to shift our budget to absorb more.

Um, but we've already set a sum aside to support that, so it will it will require um our coming up with the way that we can most uh quickly do the backfill process or you know adjustment.

Thankfully, I will say, and I'm not the procurement expert on this, but we would need to work.

You know, what are the what are the necessary mechanisms?

Thankfully, all of the projects that would need that backfill and that 26 million will have submitted to the local process and not been selected for funding.

So there will have been a process that identified what those are through a local process.

The question is, um, what is the process and mechanism to efficiently bring those in-house?

I will say I would be remiss if not mentioning this on my team's behalf.

Well, on my behalf as well, even just absorbing those 26 million dollars of local projects, which is 19 new non-county grants to administer locally will be a huge undertaking for our existing teams that are, as you know, trying to quickly launch a lot of new new procurements, right?

So it will have a staffing impact on just becoming a local funder of a lot broader range of things because a lot of those grants are directly to those grantees.

Some of them pass to the county of that 26 million to be candid.

Some of it are our own projects that will be defunded that fund to CBOs as subcontractors, but a lot of them are direct grantees.

So even absorbing those in a matter of six months will be a big administrative impact, and it'll affect our um measure w staffing plan, just to be clear in terms of needing to like scale up to hold those new services.

So you must be inside my head because I was trying to thank you and your team for the work you're doing because it's a hargelian effort, and you know, just looking at you the the details you went through, you know, the the application, submitting the proposal that HUD gets to you got to submit something uh through their portal, and I mean it's you know, it's like really really um challenging and difficult, but I know it's something we need to do, but we have to do.

So I commend you and your staff for the work you're doing.

But what what what is your staffing look like?

Because are you fully staffed?

Do you project to be fully staffed by the end of the year?

What's that look like?

Yeah, I mean, I'd be happy to bring it an update back to you all.

Um we are in process with the 40 some positions we'd originally projected the need for.

I think we have um 20 some processes uh positions in recruitment um and and some coming online, those are a mix of of permanent and project positions, so we'll have to see how the recruitment goes in terms of uh the effectiveness or getting people online, but it it's it's a slow process.

Uh, our teams to be candid.

I think under the current under the current aggressive plan to launch a ton of procurements just in this next calendar year with Measure W, assuming let's set HUD aside.

It was already a Herculean task to kind of get as much money as we want to get out starting next year, but doing it accountably, doing it, you know, in a way that is rigorous and um we have implications like the SB uh 339, I believe.

Uh says state state law that requires us to do noticing uh uh in advance of procurements to local labor that is going to add significant time for local procurement.

So um the short answer is we are rapidly trying to bring those staff on, and um people are operating at the sort of top of their I'm imagining the car engine were already in the red, and so even folks that are coming out are just helping.

So we will we will really need to continue to prioritize that and um this this HUD absorption of grants.

I um if not for an additional infusion to be candid of of resources uh dedicated to staffing, um, it will not be sustainable quickly.

Okay.

So I just want to just express uh my gratitude to you and your folks because I know you're you're working extremely hard and this adds even more pressure.

Um, and I know I'm feeling the pressure because you know, we've got to deal with this, but we also have to deal with Prop One and the bridge money we're providing to those folks and how we're gonna deal with that.

We've got to deal with Alameda health systems and the whole health ecosystem and housing is a piece of that.

But I mean, these complications keep yeah, I kept saying, I just thought at this point in my career, things would be easier.

It's just not easier, it's incredible.

Um, the other thing I just want to ask about is what is the um the nature of the litigation.

Yeah, great question.

Um, so the nature of the 2025, looking at our county council to make sure I get this right.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm gonna do a very lay person summary in my understanding.

The 2025 litigation that was that just had a final ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, so it um disallowed HUD from using that NOFO, was primarily centered on the harm caused under the Administrative Procedures Act by their failing to align with the Federal Administrative Procedures Act in making such substantive changes to a NOFO process and the harm that it would cause to local communities.

So most of the case was around can't make changes like this in this short of time.

This is how many people, I think it was 170,000 people would be forced out of their housing by those changes.

Um so it was an it was an argument from harm caused um and that those big changes failed.

There was no public note, you know, there was no rule change noticing and all the rest.

It was just kind of policy changes in a matter of two months, I think, that would have had sweeping changes.

I believe this new litigation is a species of the same argument, which is under the administrative procedures act.

These changes with little to no runway would have these detrimental harms to local communities, um, and um essentially that that set aside is functionally a carve out, which I think I think the argument is is that that's not legal.

Of course, Congress had not directed that in their appropriation, and so it's saying that that's um not legal, I believe.

Okay.

Well, I'm not gonna hold my breath on the on the litigation.

Um, it seems I'm glad they're suing, but I don't know if if it's gonna be correct sustained.

The um the car value of 1.3 billion.

What do they want to use that for?

Two types of projects.

Um, they have long uh it's a in many ways it's taking the same strategic priorities that they tried to launch in 2025, um, and coming at them by different means.

If you'll recall in 2025, there was two 30% caps that they put.

They actually were trying to limit, and then this is the presentation we shared with you in November.

The initial NOFO for 2025 tried to put a 30% cap on tier one.

So it made it an even smaller amount than the 60%.

Mind you, the reason that it's 60% this year is because Congress, in their appropriation for this year, said tier one has to be 60%.

So the collective advocacy helped to put some boundaries on what they were trying to limit.

So they tried to put that down to 30%, which would make 70% in play, but they also had a very consequential, which is what I had shared, 30% cap on permanent housing.

So they had tried to cap permanent housing by for the same reason to prioritize non-permanent transitional housing.

Um now I share this also because um HUD had some local, they've been doing round tables around the nation with local leaders to share their priorities and direction and changes.

The first one was in San Francisco several months ago.

I was invited to it.

Um, but their priority is to fund less permanent housing and to not use housing first, which prioritizes getting people in housing and providing treatment in well for people in housing, but to move toward what they see as a pre-2013 priority for HUD, where it's really pre-2008, which is when the Hearth Act, I believe, was passed, 2008-2009, that had a significant portion of that annual funding going toward transitional housing.

So that's the short answer.

They want to rebalance their word not mine, the system to have a portion of this going to permanent housing.

Across the nation, almost 90% of this goes toward permanent housing currently.

So the program from previous administrations based on the evidence has really prioritized this permanent housing portfolio.

They're trying to say we need to go back to a more part of it is transitional, part of it is permanent, and to do that, the set-aside is trying to pull new projects that fit their goals.

Treatment and services, I think there's a very crit critical question there.

We agree that people need more treatment and resources, but I will say it's very strange that we would have the Department of Housing and Urban Development, but the little bit of money that it spends trying to put that toward things like treatment and health care services versus SAMHSA or other federal bodies, you know, taking that responsibility.

So it's an interesting kind of it's an it's uh appropriate priority treatment, but it's a strange mechanism.

This tiny bucket of homelessness funding to move that toward things that traditionally you would think other, you know, health and human services uh agency would be the lead on.

So heavy focus on transitional service mandates and transitional housing.

Um to not have people receive permanent rental assistance.

That is that is an express depriority for them.

I think you said 33.8 billion was going towards um the NOVA nationally.

Was that the figure?

So 4.3 billion, I believe, is the national across the nation.

4.3 billion, 1.3 billion is this national set aside.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay, but even because what I was gonna say is 4.3 billion nationally is puny.

Peanuts, it's peanut.

It's a tiny amount.

Historically, I think there was more money for capital or yeah, um, if you look at the um uh what the dollar would buy you historically back then compared now, 4.3 is just I mean, that is disgraceful.

Well, if you look at our if our system and the amount of work that we do for this to your point, we had I think 350 some million total in fiscal year 24-25.

Our year four report will be coming out and do a presentation for you on the home together year four report.

All sources included in our community.

There was four 352.

Someone will correct me, million of awards, federal, state, and local.

Only 60 some of that is this federal funding from HUD, right?

So we're unique in California where there are so many other sources, but it takes a lot of administrative work to draw down that 60 million dollars, and it it has long funded all of these sources.

I mean, we talk about HAP, and you all have done great work through PAL and others sending advocacy letters to continue to get the HAP funding renewed at the state.

Because these one-time sources that have no guarantees in the future, even though HUD is a smaller amount, it's been that stable backbone where we have used that to fund some of our most enduring programs, rental assistance that keeps people housed for 20 years.

So to destabilize that, though it's a smaller amount, it has kind of served as the backbone where other all these one-time things come and go.

It the it is the it's it's it's I should say it's more than just the $60 million destabilization.

It's picking the thing that has been most secure in the past as compared to you know, it was heap, and then it was HAP, and all these one time things come and go.

So it's it's it's uh fiddling with the foundation as well, which is what makes it hard.

Yeah, so um, because I have the opportunity to use the bully pulpit.

I just want to say this is a teachable moment so folks understand elections have consequences, and if you look at the consequences, 4.3 billion dollars to deal with housing nationally, is disgraceful.

It is utterly positively unequivocally disgraceful.

Um, and we as a country should be ashamed of ourselves.

It is disgraceful.

Um, I want to just thank the voters in Alameda County for giving us Measure W.

Uh, and we'll try to backfill and do what we can do with measure W and hopefully if we have to try to get it reauthorized, we'll be successful.

But clearly, the problem is bigger than just what Alameda County can do.

It's bigger than what we can do.

People have got to understand the complications and the consequences of who we send to the White House, to Congress to represent us, etc.

etc.

etc.

And I'm not lobbying for any of that because I like my job as Supervisor Halbert always say I like my job at a local level, but the point is, people have got to understand this.

Yeah, because we could do be doing a lot more, not just in the county, but nationally, if the federal government would get behind some of the things that would uplift, you know, um the um safety net for folks.

100%.

Thank you for saying I'm off my bully pulpit.

I don't know if Supervisor Tam has anything else.

Otherwise, we'll go to public speakers.

I have no speakers for this item.

No speakers.

Okay.

So what's our next step?

This is just informational today.

Just informational today.

As I said, the local process, uh, local application process closes this Friday.

We will uh know what the uh ranking and review process has selected by early August.

Uh we will be rapidly working uh day and night to complete the application and submit it once it's open.

Again, we don't even, HUD has not even created the the federal portal application yet, um, working with grantees to complete that by the 26th.

Um, my plan uh pending direction from agency director, you all and county leadership is to uh quickly identify once we have those 26 million dollars of impacted uh projects to quickly uh work to bring uh whatever process we need to bring forward to um ensure that we have funding commitments um in place and ultimately in contract to continue those services by um by January, February, March of 2027.

So we'll need to move quickly while we wait for the application renewal to do that.

So I more to come on that soon.

Okay, as I said, appreciate you and your folks, your team, and um, it's heavy lift, it's a lot of work with the federal government.

Give it, they take it away, and makes it even more challenging to apply for funding for the federal government, but it's important, even though it's a little bit of money, um, it's still important.

And I'm just looking at um you and once again, you know, Aaron and Eileen and Anika and Survivor Tam staff and others to try to figure out, you know, the worst case scenario.

Um, because yeah, we've got we've got challenges, and hope is not a strategy.

Yeah.

That's what I keep people keep telling me.

Hope it's not a strategy.

So it's a good motive for one though.

Okay, thank you.

So let's see, do we have any public comment on non agendized items today?

I have no speakers for public comment.

All right.

So we're adjourned.

Thank you.