Thank you. Recording in progress. Good morning and welcome to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors special joint meeting of the social service and health committee. Meeting may have roll call please. Supervisor Miley excused. Supervisor Tam. Present. Supervisor Fortinato Bass. Supervisor Marquez excused. Supervisor Halbert excused. Thank you. We will take public comments after the presentations on one and two because they're related and then in each of the items we will take public comments as well. So let's start with the first item, which is an action item on the Housing Innovation Program report from our Housing Director. Good morning. This is a San Diego Vera Community Development Agency Director. We just in commemoration of affordable housing month, there's three presentations on your agenda today. And it highlights our coordinated effort to housing and homelessness. And so we have our HCD, as you just mentioned, supervisor Tam, that HCD has two action items and those two action items are on innovation as well as the 10-year housing plan. And that's followed by our housing and homelessness services, their update on the together plan and as well as system-wide needs for shelters. And there are social services agency will close with the discussion of the consideration of updating the bed night rate for county supported sites. And so with that you'll see a thread intersection between all these items. You see the progression from the broader discussion of affordable housing to the more detailed discussion of the shelters. And with that, our three agencies are committed to continue our collaboration for coordinated plans with shared outcomes. And, you know, as well, we may progress in some areas, but the need still remains high. And so with creativity, our agencies will continue to collaborate and with resources and we can better serve our community. Thank you for that time and I'm gonna hand it off to Michelle Starrer, Housing Director. Thank you very much supervisors for allowing us to present this morning. We greatly appreciate it. I'm Michelle Starrer at the Housing Director. And as Sandy mentioned, we're gonna have three total of four presentations, but all of them really focused on a great need that we have here. One of the comments that has come up from the board is how are we being innovative, and so I wanted to do a presentation on all of the accomplishments we've made in our innovative housing programs, but also we have our final innovations program that we would like to get the green light to move ahead with an RFP, and we generally bring those things to the health committee before we go ahead and launch an RFP. So next slide. Our innovations programs are really centered on four things, capacity building, a pre-development loan program, the tax defaulted properties and accessory dwelling units, and then again today we're going to be launching that fifth program. The capacity building programs that we've been running since 2018 are four different things. The list program was probably the largest and that was the first one that we launched. And it was really a hand holding cohort in which a lot of folks actually got some in-depth training to learn how to decide whether they wanted to build affordable housing on the land that they owned. It had about 75 to 80 percent of them were faith-based organizations and the other 15 to 20 percent were social service organizations. Again that owned their land and wanted to figure out if they were going to be moving forward. The back-boke program, very similar, but it was focused on faith-based organizations. We did another affordable housing development capacity building that ended just last year. And then we have an ongoing quarterly meeting with young emerging developers, many of whom have participated in these programs that we've essentially been mentoring to try and get them through learning new things. We also launched a pre-development loan program this last fall. This was a big deal because one of the things that we've identified is that being able to deliver pre-development funding to folks that have less experience in the affordable housing world is very difficult. So we went ahead issued an RFP. We have 11 projects that were awarded between $400, $425,750,000. And those will help move their projects forward. So that was an exciting project. And each of those contracts will be coming back to the full board for approval. Our tax defaulted properties program is something that we've been working hand in hand with our tax assessor and tax collector and essentially we've launched a technical assistance program. It's a very complicated process of going through a chapter eight acquisition and so we have someone providing technical assistance and helping folks through. And then we're also providing loans so that they can actually hold that property for that first year, which is a requirement without any kind of of prop tidal insurance. So you have to hold on to it for a year before you can actually get tidal insurance. And so there's really no other loans that will help them with that. The last technical assistance, the last innovative program is our accessory dwelling unit. We've had a really good time presenting that to you all. This project, the technical assistance pilot, was really focused on the NNNC, but there were actually some assistance that we gave countywide. But essentially, 491 applications submitted to various cities in the counties for accessory dwelling units. We spent about 650 to help folks, and we helped them get through sort of, is this feasible? How would I apply for it? So we're very excited about that. The ADU Resource Center, it's a website, it still exists. We have about 650 monthly visits. On that site, the floor plans and the cost tools are the most popular and it's a very clear collaboration with our cities because it stays completely up to date with all of the information that each of the cities need to get through the ADU and those jurisdictions. So we've learned some lesson and some of the key barriers to small scale affordable housing is really the limited access to public funding. The tax credit is the largest source of funding for affordable housing and when you're're working on a small project, that's not a resource you can access. So there's a lot of procedural complexity as well and then uncertainty about feasibility. And so those are the some of the things that with our new program shift we're trying to address. So in this first phase, it's only $75,000. We're looking to work with a design and architectural advisor who can help us come up with a set of plans that are pre-permitted and essentially off the shelf and we will take them through the Unincorporated County's Planning Department and then we will then turn around and talk to each of the cities about getting these small sites, design options available for every city in the county. The idea here is that when you are working on a small lot, that architectural cost and that permitting cost is really a barrier. And so if we can have designs that are already pre-approved and designs that are open source and available for emerging developers or even homeowners that might want to put a second unit on their back lot, we're in much better shape. So the recommendation is that you accept the progress report but then you also allow us to move forward with the innovative shift programs so that we can issue an RFP. Rather than taking questions right now, shall I move right into the second report? Thank you so much. All right. We have been working with your board on the housing plan for literally the last 22 months. Your health committee heard this report last July about the housing plan and then it went to a work session in December or January. I think it was actually January. The housing plan has had a very in-depth community outreach program. We held public meetings and every in all of the jurisdictions and in each of the board districts. It also takes into consideration the unincorporated County Housing Element, all of the city housing elements, the Home Together 2026 plan and its refresh. It looks at the CARES First Jail's last task force. And it essentially wraps everything up into one housing plan that the whole county can work towards in order to solve the homeless crisis, but also to address the housing needs of all of our communities. Again, we brought it to the health committee last July. In April, we presented to the health committee on funding strategies, and today is the last health committee presentation, and it's really around our program priorities. our goals. course, that's always foremost in our mind. We want to expand affordable rental and homeownership opportunities. We want to preserve existing affordable housing. We want to address homelessness with both interim and permanent solutions. We want to foster innovation in housing development and we want to strengthen tenant protections and housing services There are four main programs the first is the rental development program It is basically very similar to what we considered the measure a one rental development program The difference there is that under measure a one Each city was allowed to spend a certain amount of the money that they had on emergency or interim housing. But we have seen that our need in Alameda County is much greater for emergency or interim housing. And so our goal in this moment is to raise that up and say we really need new beds in the emergency system. So we want to preserve existing beds, but we need new beds. And then there is, of course, the multifamily rental program, which has a permanent supportive housing and then affordable housing and then preservation of existing housing. This is what we would consider our rental development program. And the multifamily rental is really the one that would be working directly with the low income housing tax credit program, which leverages our sources so dramatically. The second program is innovation and small development. What we really learned under measure A1 is that small scale and non-traditional housing products are actually very difficult to build because they don't generally qualify for tax credits. And so having a separate source of funding that allows us to focus on these types of things, board and care, independent living facilities, mobile home parks, accessory dwelling units, small lot development. These are all of the things that, quite frankly, we weren't able to do as much of undermeasure A1 as we wanted. So this is a separate standalone program under our new housing plan. Home ownership programs remain a real priority as well, but we have two really strong programs that we would want to continue. The Down Payment Assistance Loan Program and the Home Owner Rehab Program. These programs helped to build equity in our low income communities and we really see those as critical for changing households equity situation. And then the final program undermeasure in A1, we were not able to do housing services. The type of funding restricted us from being able to spend funding on these types of things. But housing services and homeless prevention continues to be a super high priority. And if in the future there is new money available, we would want to see some of these services funded. And so that includes our one stop, housing application portal, capacity building, as I mentioned earlier, tenant protections, emergency rental assistance programs, fair housing and tenant landlord relations, including things like the landlord resource center that we've recently stood up with one time funding, housing subsidies, home sharing programs, and rental inspection programs. So these are all things that a general obligation bond cannot pay for. And so these have been receiving dribs and drabs of our dollars whenever we've had the ability to take them. So the recommendation here, take public input on the proposed programs, finalize our priority programs, and then bring the full plan to the Board of Supervisors for adoption once we take any feedback from your committees. And our goal here is to get this plan adopted this summer. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for that presentation. Let me start with questions from Surphisor 14 out of ass. Thank you so much, Chair Tam. Just stepping back for a minute, it's rare that we have a full house or close to full house in these chambers. And so I want to thank everyone for being here. And I think it's also a sign of how timely this conversation is around homelessness and housing and appreciate the the work that the staff has been doing throughout the years to work towards solutions. I do have a few clarifying questions and certainly want to hear public comment. So in terms of the first report, just a couple of logistical questions, do we know where the current projects are located? I assume they're across the county, but I am also curious if there's any sort of concentration towards any parts of the counties. So these are all different programs and so they're all over the county, but under the capacity building programs, most of those programs are located in Oakland. In the emerging developer program, we have some things in East County, South County, and Mid County as well as Oakland. The tax-defaulted properties program, almost exclusively in Oakland. There's very, there's fewer tax-defaulted properties in other parts of the county, although we are starting to see some in the unincorporated areas. The accessory dwelling unit program, the technical assistance was focused on the unincorporated county, but we did assist with some things in Livermore, something in Hayward and something in San Leandro. But the ADU Resource Center is a county wide resource center. Thank you. And then I wanted to just underscore the pre-development work. I think that work has been very under-resourced and it's great to see the county investing in that regard. When I was still at the Oakland City Council, we also invested in pre-development and I think that's really critical. In terms of supporting developers, especially emerging developers through the pre-development phase, the report raises the structural barriers they face in terms of securing funding and construction. Do you have specific recommendations to support these emerging developers from moving from the pre-development stage to the development stage? Yeah, so the money is the critical piece and so being able to provide those resources because most banks are not willing to step into that role. That is really the best recommendation. However, one of the things that's also happening is a lot of these folks want to do small development, which is why we are moving forward with the shift program. They want to go look at a single lot and put four units on it because the state of California now says that you can. But the burden of the design work and the burden of the getting the plans approved is time consuming, which of course costs money. So that's why we are moving forward with the shift program. It is in a direct relationship to the difficulties that emerging developers have been faced with. So once we launch that program, we feel that there'll be a lot more movement in that small development world. Thank you. And in regards to the shift program, given the cost of construction, is there a particular way that that program might be looking at modular construction and other more innovative ways of creating affordable housing? Yeah, so I think what we're looking to do is create plans that can be done in a modular situation, but also sort of a cookie cutter approach in which you can add one unit or you can add two or you can add three to the back of a single family home lot. And, you know, we would need to then look to a modular construction company to be willing to build these for us. But the first step is really to get the plans done. In the future, should more resources become available, our next step would be to subsidize these units with a flat amount and allow us to really get in and hit that sort of 80% of AMI, the missing middle, we call it, without public subsidies available, the 80 to 120 is something that we really just can't hit. And most of the federal programs don't allow us to serve that population. And so this program would be focused on that income group. Okay, thank you. And then lastly in regards to the county's tenure housing plan and program priorities, really appreciate this coming forward and it looks like this is incredibly comprehensive in terms of looking at other documents planning happening across the county. I am interested in hearing two things one you know to what extent are these priorities and programs in alignment with some of the current thinking in the December board direction around measure W. And then secondly, how are these plans also looking at coordination with our cities, especially the cities that are very impacted by having large renegoles or large homeless populations? Yes, thank you, that's a great question. So when you think about the action the board took in December, the rental development program and that first item, the emergency interim housing, that is really the focus of what the largest portion of those funds we're gonna be looking at, both the acquisition and rehabilitation of units that could become interim housing as well as operating subsidy primarily, but also some permanent supportive housing that 15 to 30% AMI under multi-family rental. So that is really what the board was saying they were willing to spend some money on in December and so those are really the top two things under the housing plan, emergency interim housing, and then that permanent supportive housing under multi-family rental. Permanent supportive housing can leverage tax credits, whereas emergency housing cannot. It's not an eligible use right now of the California tax credit. So therefore, the only way to build emergency or interim housing is either with a local source or a state program that's focused on it like Homekey. Okay, thank you. I will hold my questions until after public comment. Thank you, Chair Tam. Thank you very much for your presentation because it summarizes in a very concise way you know, all the work that we've been doing for the last 24 months in the hopes of at that time getting the Bafa bond when the county board had declared housing and homelessness a crisis in the county and, you know, keeping with the themes or preservation, protection and production, I think that's consistent with all the things that you talked about and trying to get ADU's out and rental inspections, trying to get emergency interim housing. There is something that I've been thinking about with respect to the emergency interim housing because that is, as you said, one of the priorities of the board in light of the issues that we're facing in the county, but primarily in Oakland. We typically don't, as a county, buy hotels, right? It's usually the cities that buy hotels or get matches from the state. But in this situation, we bought two hotels out near the Coliseum with home key funding. And that was for Oakland. Because I wasn't here on the board before we decided to purchase that. What was the thinking back then on buying hotels versus like building something where there's tiny homes or whatnot immediately? Thank you. So, that's actually a wonderful question and it opens up sort of the bigger picture conversation around emergency shelters or interim housing. The last really true emergency shelter that we built here in Alameda County was crossroads on International Boulevard in Oakland. And that was about a $20 million project. The County, both the healthcare agency and the community development agency put funding into it as well as did the city of Oakland. But new emergency shelter construction brand, new construction is really, really rare. And so when the pandemic started, the state of California came up with the Home Key program. It did not exist prior to basically July of 2020. And so there was a mad dash to go out and get access to those resources. And those funds were originally part of the very first COVID funding that came through. The state said, hey, we have this much COVID funding. Let's prioritize buying some of these dilapidated or older hotels, which are not being used right now, because the pandemic has shut everything down. It was a really innovative idea and we have those two properties under lease. We submitted five applications to the state of California for properties that the county had control over, one in Berkeley, one in Alameda, and three in Oakland. And these are the two that the state selected. So under a competitive process, because it wasn't a guarantee that we were gonna get the money, we ended up with those two. The city of Oakland has also submitted, I think, been successful, and I think 11 home key applications, but for the most part, they're partnering with nonprofits, and they don't actually own the buildings. There's one that they, I know that they own, but and Jonathan can come up and correct me. But mostly when we do things like emergency shelters, we are working hand in hand with a nonprofit mission driven nonprofit that actually owns the real estate. And it was our goal that we transfer these properties to a nonprofit who would own and operate it. And we have done that at this point. We're working directly with a bowed on one of them and on five keys. Thank you. Five keys on the other one and they will own an operated for the first 20 years and so it's not normal that the county owns housing. It's not normal that a city owns housing either, but this home key program was different and it put us in the position of being the owner. And so that was unusual. I appreciate that background because we have 14 cities in the county and recently you may have heard what's been happening with the city of Fremont and the encampment issues there. They wanted to know if they were perhaps to purchase a hotel to provide immediate interim emergency housing. What other resources would be available because as you mentioned they typically don't get access to the type of funding that the city of Oakland for example gets. Right. I think that's a really good point. The city of Fremont is part of our home consortium which covers all of the cities in the county except for Berkeley and Oakland received their own grants. And under the COVID funding that came in under ARPA, the home program received a very large chunk of money, almost two and a half times our annual award. And the city of Fremont received two awards from us under that COVID funding from the home ARPA money. And they did use it on homeless housing. Alameda also received some of that money, Newark received some of that money, and San Leandro and Hayward received some of that money. And so, you know, we try and take the limited resources that we have and share it where there are projects that are ready to go and eligible for the use of those funds. And we've really prioritized home key because we believed that that was a innovative but also a one time, time limited opportunity to build new shelters or new homeless housing in our community. And so between us and Oakland and Berkeley with those home ARPA fundings, we've really leveraged quite a few new homeless units through the HomeKey program. But we do fund Fremont with great regularity through the home program. They receive funding from us directly every year with the federal budget. I don't know what that home grant is gonna look like next year. But- Understood. Thank you very much. Supervisor Miley, who chairs the Health Committee, has now joined us. So we have gone through the presentations on item one and item two, and we have opened it up for health community board members comments or questions before opening enough for public comments on item one and two Well, thank you. I was in another meeting for the Transportation Commission for the County so Thank you for Moving ahead without me. I don't have any questions at the moment I'll wait here from the audience because I I'm pretty much on top of these matters. But yes, thank you. Thank you very much for that presentation. So at this point, I will open up the public comments on items one and two and turn the chair back to supervisor Miley. We'll alternate between online and in-person speakers, first in-person speaker, Michael Piotag. Janet Z from Ibalsee. I just said hello. I'm Janet and she would like to make some public comments today. She and her husband has been living on Ebalt Sea's affordable housing units for approximately 15 years. The housing has given her and her husband her family a sense of stability and a sense of joy. There is a table here, and we have a lot of joy. The support of staff has given them a lot of community engagement and a sense of community building and they've been very happy living there. So all the residents living there feel very happy. So, thank are very grateful towards Ebalt Sea and the affordable housing that exists, and they're also very grateful towards the government for supporting the organization. And I'm here to ask for the county continue to support Ebalt C and the housing that they they provide which in turn support residents like Janet and her neighbors so that the community continue to thrive and the city will continue to thrive. Atos y acover lindo. Thank you for the leadership. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes, John. Good morning. This is John Lindsay Poland of the American France Service Committee. I really appreciate you holding this hearing hearing. I wanna urge the board to move ahead with a funding plan that aligns with the original intent of measure W to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. The American Friends Service Committee is part of the Care First Community Coalition and we've been actively participating in the Care First ad hoc Committee of the Mental Health Advisory Board that will be presenting to the Joint Public Health and Public Protection and Health Committees next week. And we have seen that there's a lot of alignment between the Home Together 2020-26 plan and the plan for use of Measure W funds that's been presented by your county staff, HHS, and CDA staff with the objectives of the care first recommendations. We know that people who are facing serious mental health, illness, substance use disorders, people who are coming back into the community from having been incarcerated, that housing is the primary thing. Every different CBO and department that we talk to talk about how central the need for housing is and to retain housing, to be able to get some subsidies for housing is central to being able to remain stable, to remain healthy, to reduce recidivism. And so we would strongly urge you to ensure that the Measure W Funds, which we know you'll be discussing in July are dedicated towards the use of housing presented today. Thanks so much. Kathy Everhart? Good morning, everyone. My name is Kathy Everhart. I'm a resident of Oakland for over 20 years. When I was 40, I became disabled and was homeless for over 18 months, living in transitional housing and homeless shelters. It was through some community services. 18 months, living in transitional housing and homeless shelters. It was through some community services. It was through some community services. It was through some community services. It was through some community services. It was through some community services. It was through some community services. It was through some community services. It was through some community services. Ebalsey provides that I learned about Ebalsey and immediately I was added to the wait list. In 2017, I moved into Noble Tower, one of Ebalsey's properties in Oakland where I currently reside. Embossy helps strengthen our community fabrics so people can connect with each other and grow together. They partner with residents, citizens, and local leaders to co-create neighborhood solutions so everyone plays a role in shaping our future. I humbly request the board to direct measure WFUNs to board supporting affordable housing providers like Abazi. I cannot begin to tell you how Abazi was a god sent to me. I didn't have to go through the lottery processes of trying to get housing and once I became a resident of Imbalsy I have done nothing but thrive. I am now a boarded director of East Bay Housing Organization which is the goal is to produce, preserve, and protect housing. I am also a board of directors for housing California. I would encourage you to please include a body because not only are they getting housing for the poverty-stricken residents of our community. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Angela. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Good morning. My name is Angela Abshal. And I am the COO for site housing and board secretary for East Bay Housing organizations, actually known as Epoil. And I'm here to voice my support for the Board to move ahead with the funding plan that aligns with the original intent of Measure W, which is to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. Insight Housing, formerly Berkeley Food and Housing Project, has provided essential services and support for our unhoused and food insecure neighbors for over 55 years. And as an emerging affordable housing developer, with an intent focus on permanent support of housing, we understand how critical funding and resources are to ensure services are available for the most vulnerable. Measure W is a unique opportunity to fund real solutions and make serious progress towards ending unsheltered homelessness in Alameda County. We all know that homelessness and housing crises has gotten worse since Measure W was first put before the voters in 2020. That said, the decrease in homelessness we observed in the 2024 point in time count demonstrates that our community's investments in evidence-based supportive services and housing solutions are working. We know what it takes to solve this crisis and we need to ensure there is adequate funding and resources allocated to do so. One of our affordable housing sites, the Hope Center and downtown Berkeley, offers 53 units of permanent supportive housing and 44 emergency and interim housing beds, three meals daily to all 97 residents in the building, as well as a hot meal for anyone in the community who is food insecure five days a week. We are excited that Measure W can reinvest, reinvest, and services and operating subsidies at existing permanent support housing properties such as the HOPE Center and to strengthen our current response system and ensure its longevity. Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to ensuring that Measure W funds are used for homeless and housing. Beth Rosales. Good morning. Thanks for allowing me to speak. I'm Beth Rosales and I am a 73-year-old senior citizen on limited income and I live in the Avalon Senior Housing, which is Evolcise property in Emeryville. But before I speak, I know that there's a lot of affordable housing residents here, because some of my friends are here, but I'd like for the Ebaltie residents to stand up, please. There are about three or four rows in the back. So thank you so much. Yeah, so these are residents of Ebaltze, and I'm one of them. I've been a resident at Avalon Senior Housing for almost 10 years now, and I've lived in the East Bay for about 50 years. And I'm also a member of the steering committee of our tenants association at Avalon, called Avalon tenants advocates. I also now serve on the Commission and are aging in the city of Emerville. And what I'd like to share with you is that I had a robust and successful career in the field of philanthropy working at foundations like the Macrike Casey foundation, Tides foundation andbons foundation funding marginalized communities all over the Bay Area But I contracted interstitial disease in the mid 20s and 200s and it became disabled and subsequently lost my job and cushy pay and here I am at Avalon and and Ebalcy has prevented me from being homeless. I'm speaking to you today to convince you and hopefully you will maintain your support of funding measure WFUNs through the nonprofit agencies, the inner county and the services that provide services for housing. I before. Thank you. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Kathy. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. OK. So my name is Catherine Ralph. And I am here to as a resident of and voter in San Leandro and I'm a retired professional social worker and social worker educator. I'm a member of the St. Vincent de Paul Oakland diocese and a member of a grassroots organization called East Bay Hombrege Connect in San Leandro. I'm speaking to you as a request and insistence on measure W funds being used exclusively as they were intended for homelessness, prevention and housing services. People with lived experience must be a part of this planning for ongoing housing development in our county and they have to be involved in the planning, operations and governance of these housing developments. As you've heard from some of the previous speakers, they are very capable. And we are certainly familiar with others in our outreach efforts, who once they get housed, could step into such roles as well. We believe that the county must use the Measure W funds strategically to transform how we're dealing with homelessness in our county. And we insist on standards and accountability being enforced in the organizations to whom you give contracts because we have seen violations of resident civil rights and dignity that must be addressed and not continue to give contracts to people who are organizations that continue mistreatment of formerly homeless people being treated as criminals. So we are very certain that you will continue to focus on the intent and the voter's vote. Nancy Nadel. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Nancy Nadal and co-chair of West Oakland neighbors. I'm a homeowner and a business owner in West Oakland. I want to talk about two kinds of facilities that are really needed in my community. One is a nurturant, non-voluntary residential facility for people with severe mental health and substance use in our unhoused community. And the other is a mobile home park. I saw you have that on the list as something important. We don't have to land for it in Oakland, but we have hundreds and hundreds of mobile homes in our particular neighborhood, even. They need electricity, plumbing, water, hookups, and garbage pickup. And we should require a fee for it. Many of our mobile home residents are able-bodied. Some of them have a little business. They're working, they could pay for such a facility. Regarding the first, I know the thinking is that people have to go into a facility voluntarily. But we're allowing people to die in our neighborhood. We've had four deaths in my little neighborhood. To burn alive in their RV's cooking meth, another woman OD'd and pushed out of her tent to die in the street, a fourth found wrapped up in a garbage pile. We call macro, macro comes in on one services. It's not humane to either the housed or the unhoused community to allow people to kill themselves in our neighborhoods or arrest them. We need a compulsory, nurturant residential program. Regarding the second, we have hundreds of RVs in our neighborhood with no garbage pickup, nowhere for human waste, rats running rampant. I've called back to control. They say they can't do anything about it because we have to do something about the source. These are folks who are able-bodied and could manage in a mobile home park. So I hope you do consider that as an option and pay for all these things with measure WMoney. Thanks so much. Suzy you're on the line you have two minutes. Suzy Goldmacher, unmute your mic. Oh, hi, sorry, I didn't know I would get to be on. Thank you so much. I live in Mickey Vass' district. I'm calling also to support Measure W. I don't really understand. I have lived in Oakland a long time, and I don't understand why we can't fix this problem. The problem is not just in Oakland. It's cities all over the country. There have to be cities that have figured this out, and have done a better job than we have. So I was wondering if we could study that perhaps, and I haven't feeling it's probably already been looked into. And that's all I have to say. Thank you so much for having this hearing. Janet Acevedo. Good morning, Port of Supervisor. My name is Janet Svido. Can you hear me okay? My name is Janet Svido and I am with Eden Halsey and I'm their Director of Property Operations and Quality Management and I'm here with the Coalition and Nonprofits with you here today. Eden Halsey owns and manages approximately 10,000 units this state, and about 4,000 of those units are in this county alone. We are deeply rooted in this community, providing housing opportunities to a wide range of diverse individuals, families, and special needs residents such as veterans and seniors, persons with disabilities homeless and more. This group shares a common goal to provide affordable homes to individuals and families that help build thriving communities. However, the nonprofit housing providers are grappling with substantial difficulties due to unpaid rent from the COVID era. And this issues could be escalated even more if the economic landscape continues to show signs of distress. Combined, we have suffered millions of dollars in losses during the pandemic, 1.5 million dollars of which belongs to Eden properties just in this county county alone and that is net of Iraq money. So we are in support of using or of requesting this one time investment and a coalition to sustain our vital mission. We support, we understand that the measure funds could be used for other things, but housing is a priority. And we want to make sure that we continue to offer housing opportunities to persons in this county in need. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Unmute your microphone. Star six. Carla Guerra. I am the policy and advocacy senior manager at the Unity Council. The Unity Council is an anchor 60-year-old community development corporation that has successfully built or preserved over 600 affordable apartments with an additional 550 units currently in various stages of development, reflecting our commitment to housing. We respectfully urge the board to move ahead with the funding plan that aligns with the original intent of measure dov view voters to address homelessness and housing services. We are here as a coalition of nonprofit organizations, we send your board a letter with over 50 signatures. We thank the board for exploring measure dov, as a potential resource to sustain a critical component of the affordable housing ecosystem. And one of them is addressing rent arrears that developers have continued to face system pandemic and the moratorium at stake as the stability of thousands of households we currently serve and the longevity or coalition our leaders into production and management of quality affordable housing in Alameda County and including our insight will be prudent for optimal implementation of this cares resource. Thank you so much. Color you're on the line. You have two minutes, Eric. Hi, good morning, Chair and Board. My name is Eric Vasquez, and I represent EAA Chousing as their education advocacy and government affairs associate. We respectfully urge the board to move ahead with a funding plan that aligns with the original intent of Measure W to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. If you're nearly six decades, EAH Housing has remained one of the most reputable and well-known nonprofit affordable housing developers on the west coast, serving over 25,000 residents in California and the state of Hawaii. Measure W is a unique opportunity to fund real solutions and make serious progress towards ending un sheltered homelessness in Alameda County. We all know that the homelessness in housing crisis has gotten worse since Measure W was put before voters in 2020. That said, the decrease in homelessness we observed in the 2024 point in time count demonstrates that our communities' investments in evidence-based supportive services and housing solutions are working. More investment is needed in order to substantially address the challenge at scale, especially when significant threats to homelessness funding are being considered at the federal level. For EAA Chousing, Measure W will allow us to continue to expand our impact in the region, properties such as Pimentel Place and Mission Paradise located in Hayward, and are set to finish leasing up later this year. Our examples of how our county can continue to play a crucial role in creating long-term community development investments. Measure WFUNs must be used for homelessness and housing services in accordance with the will of the voters not to fill the budget other budget gaps. We respectfully urge you to consider our recommendation today. Thank you. Tiffany? Tiffany from the Unity Council? Hello, good morning. Good morning, my name is Tiffany Rose Napigiloxato. I'm the Chief Program Officer at the Unity Council. Measure W is a unique opportunity to fund real solutions and make serious progress towards ending and sheltered homelessness in Alameda County. We all know that the homelessness and housing crisis has only gotten worse since Measure W was put before voters in 2020. We are excited that Measure W can reinvest in services, operating subsidies, and to address rent arrears that nonprofit affordable housing developers are facing since COVID-19 to strengthen our current response system and ensure its longevity. MeasureW funds must be used for homelessness and housing services, especially affordable housing in accordance with the will of the voters, not to fill other budget gaps. We appreciate your leadership and believe that our coalition of affordable housing providers should have an opportunity to providing our insights for implementation of this critical measure. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. Nathaniel, you have two minutes. Thank you very much. My name is Nate Hansen, I'm a resident of Oakland. I'm also the manager of real estate development and government affairs of related California. Related California is one of the most prolific developers of affordable housing in the state of California and in the Bay Area. I'm advocating today to keep measure W for housing and homelessness services and accordance with the will of the voters who pass the measure. I'd also like to advocate that the county coordinate with cities who have developed a pipeline of projects that could be eligible for measure you or measure W. I'm sorry. And also to ensure that measure W be used to at least impart fun new construction of affordable housing, particularly housing that includes permanent supportive units for some of our most vulnerable residents. I'd also like to thank the Housing and Community Development Department staff who have been excellent in gathering together their action plan and really doing the work that's required to understand the housing problem in our county. I also want to reiterate that local funds like Measure W are critical to our ability as affordable housing developers to compete and leverage local funds for state funds, which ultimately bring projects to completion. Finally, I'd also like to echo support for a Baltic who is a trusted partner of Related California and has worked with us on numerous projects, and we believe that their work in Alameda County is of the utmost importance. Thank you. Sophia DeWett. I serve as Chief Program Officer at East Bay Housing Organizations. Our office is located in District 3. I also am a resident of District 3. And I'm here today to request that the a move forward with a funding plan that prioritizes measure W funds for housing and homelessness services as was intended by the voters when the voters passed the measure in 2020. We all know that the housing crisis has continued to get worse since that time, but we also know that the decreases in homelessness that we have begun to see across the county show that our investments in preventative services have begun to bear fruit. And we need more significant investment, more sustained investment in those services in order to continue to make progress. And so we respectfully ask the board that the Measure W Funds be prioritized in those ways and not used to fill other budget gaps. We know that county is in a significant financial situation of difficulty as are many cities in the county, but we also know that with the uncertainty of federal funding, prioritizing this measure W funding in this way is extremely critical. So thank you very much and we look forward to continuing to work with the county and your wonderful HCD staff on these. Alex here on the line you have two minutes. Hi, my name is Alex Ragala and I'm a policy manager at mid-Pen housing. I'm a policy manager at mid-Pen housing. I'm a policy manager at mid-Pen housing. I'm a policy manager at mid-Pen housing. I'm a policy manager at mid-Pen housing. I'm a policy manager at mid-Pen housing. Mid-Pen is a regional affordable housing developer, manager and service provider active across the greater Bay Area. We urge the board to move ahead with a funding plan that's aligned with the original intent of Measure W to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. As a nonprofit long-term provider of permanent supportive housing, we are aware of the importance of funding the county's PSH pipeline of new developments as well as adequately resourcing those in operations. Both pieces are critical to making affordable housing communities help achieve lifelong long long term outcomes for residents. We at midpen have approximately 200 units across two properties in our Alameda County pipeline that are poised to advance with measure W support, but they face significant financing hurdles absent this local source. We are hopeful about the opportunities presented by BHSA funding starting in 2026, but there's a gap that exists now in our housing finance system. Between dwindling funds at the state level and uncertainties with project based section eight at the federal level, we need local partnerships that can help fill the gap in operating and services funding. Measure W.S. Poise to help fill that gap and ensure we are able to create homes for hundreds of county residents and serve them best they can thrive. Thank you for your time. Sharon Corne. Good morning supervisors. We're going to follow Sofia Duits. Thank you for your time. Sharon Corne. Good morning supervisors. We're going to follow Sophia Dewitz lead and stand together. Thank you supervisor Myley, supervisor Bass, supervisor Tam for the time this morning. In hosting a joint meeting of the social services and health committees, you have unified the homeless services providers and the affordable housing providers. And so this topic right now is item two, which is priorities under the plan for housing and community development. I want to acknowledge the leadership of our seniors at St. Mary's Center of K-Wine, of Ms. Sheila, and Larry, and all of the seniors who spent so much time last year speaking before the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority so that they would prioritize people in greatest need, people at 15% of area median income, which is about $1,000 a month, which is our SSI seniors, the fastest growing population of the unhoused. And while that effort was not successful, we are so thrilled to see in the plan from HCD under item number two this morning, the inclusion of 15% AMI. We want to give a big shout out, I said, yes, I'm going to give a big shout out, I said yes, I want to give a big shout out to HCD for including that acutely low income level, a new level created by new state legislation in California. What you're hearing this morning is the intersection of housing and homelessness and the need for both. And we look forward to working closely with the county to ensure that there are adequate resources to make a dent in the number one priority for people in communities across the county. We applaud the inclusion of 15% AMI in HCD's plan and look forward to coming before you again in a few minutes on Measure W. Thank you. Amita, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Hi, my name is Amita Chavez and I represent Lisk Bay Area. I respectfully urge the board to move forward and with a planning plan that aligns with the original intent of Measure W to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. Since 1981, Liske Bay Area has helped low income communities of color creates a scene of both thriving neighborhoods by connecting communities to capital technical assistance and key partnerships, Lisk supports families, entrepreneurs, churches, and local leaders in building wealth, owning homes, and businesses, and preserving their neighborhoods. As with the lending and a capacity building organization, we know that funding for permanent supportive services are critically important and currently under-resourced. Measure W is a unique opportunity to fund real solutions and make serious progress towards ending and sheltered homelessness in Alameda County. We know that Alameda County is home together. 2026 plan already lays out a roadmap for making the most impactful investments towards homelessness and housing services and the homelessness and housing crisis has only gotten worse since 2020. Measure W funds must be used for homeless and housing services in accordance with the the will and of the voters not to fill other budget caps. Thank you. Ali Gaylord. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Allie Gaylord. I'm the deputy director for housing for Oakland. Good morning, Allie Gaylord. I'm the deputy director for housing for Oakland HCD. I wanted to note that Oakland supports the county's housing plan and thank you to the housing HCD staff for recognizing the needs of the continuum of housing solutions. We'd like to underscore the need for permanent affordable housing within the county for placement for residents after the interim shelter options, particularly in cities that have permanent affordable housing pipelines so that new affordable housing units can be quickly constructed. Oakland currently has a pipeline of over 1800 permanent affordable homes that are ready to move forward but for lack of funding. It will be extremely important to use the Measured W funding for permanent affordable housing to address the homelessness crisis. Oakland voters passed bond measure U in 2022 that included $350 million for affordable housing. Of that, 68 million has already been issued and allocated to get for affordable housing developments under construction. Her the City Administrators report at the Oakland City Council meeting on April 14th, the City of Oakland is preparing to sell the second tranche of measure U by the fall of this year. The coordination between the county and the cities for funding housing development will be essential to move these many new units of affordable housing forward, particularly when competing for low-income housing tax credits in the coming year. The ability for the city and county funds to leverage each other, as well as leveraging the state funding will provide the largest impact of the voter-approved dollars for homelessness and affordable housing. We look forward to working with the county to ensure our affordable housing goals and funding are aligned. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Kim. Hi, this is Kim Vanderhiden from Brated Bridge and Home Bridge Connect. I'm also with St. Vincent of Paul in Pax, Christy. I'm a homeowner in Castro Valley, a business owner in Oakland and a founder of a nonprofit active throughout Alameda County. People's lives on the street are being threatened on a daily basis, often by government actors who conduct sweeps, and approach homelessness as a law enforcement concern, not a humanitarian need or matter of justice. We have a chance with Measure W to take a different approach. In my work, I've witnessed horror that should never be happening in our neighborhoods. Due to unavailable resources, I've seen people being ejected from transitional housing while using a hospital bed and in need of surgery. Who belonged in hospice and were about to die, and who had hip replacement surgery and were released from the hospital to their tent. People undergoing chemo being hustled awake from the shelter at 5.30 a.m. and out the door to the street. I have seen a family with a disabled child looking for a legal place for their RV where their child could stay in their school program where they were doing well but law enforcement intervened to say they didn't deserve help because they'd already been given info at a local shelter and didn't take it a shelter that cannot accept children. What's happening on the streets is in no way acceptable and it's not primarily a law enforcement problem, but this is where the money is continually spent. Absolutely all measure W money must be spent on addressing this crisis in appropriate humanitarian manner and planning must have people with lived experience of homelessness in decision making roles. Thank you. Sasha Housewalk. Good morning. Thank you for having me. I'm Sasha Housewald, Chief Housing Policy Officer for the City of Oakland. It's a pleasure to be here. I wanted to speak in support of the County Housing Plan. We have had a wonderful collaboration with County HCD from the City of Oakland Perspective. joint funding and many properties and we know that that team can deploy resources for deep affordability and for people who are exiting homelessness. And in that line of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. We are now in the city of Oakland. and we cannot solve this problem alone, we must do it together. We look forward to collaborating with the county, housing and homelessness department and housing and community development department to make sure that we are leveraging our measure U funds like my colleague, Ali Gaylor had mentioned, making sure to spread measure W and measure U to the most efficient and most productive means possible so that our unhoused families and individuals can move indoors as soon as possible. We have a pipeline of over 2,000 units and over 800 units of homeless housing coming online in Oakland and measure W will fill a critical gap not only in capital, but in ensuring that those families have services and that the building is kind of operate with higher quality into the future. Thank you very much. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Sydney Nielsen, unmute your microphone. Hi, my name is Sina Nielsen and I am the founder of Town Business. It's a small nonprofit serving people directly on cement and mostly West Oakland. We spend every day trying to save lives. I rarely do something like this right now. I have a man who is paralyzed and was discharged from respite because the funding ran out. The insurance coverage ran out. He's about to hit the cement because my small pool of dollars is gone. and at the motel, when he drops food on the floor, because he's paralyzed and can't hold it, he has to drop down to the floor to eat the food with his mouth. And he's about to be discharged from the motel because I'm running out of money. So I am pleading that the measure W funds be used as they were originally tended by the will of the voters, that the 500 million that's been collected towards that end be used to help solve this human rights crisis. I also have a man whose leg was cut off due to frostbite in Oakland after having his tent destroyed. Further, I would like to ask and I don't know if this is the appropriate time I rarely attend such meetings or make comments that the county filled a full sheltered bedrate. There are a few other sources of funding and they're getting less because of what's happening right now. Please also consider increasing the youth bed rate in parity to the adult daily bed rate. Thank you and thank you for hearing me out. So we have 16 more speakers on items one and two. Some of you have been speaking on item three. So when we call up item three, those have spoken on Measure W already. We won't be taking your testimony again. So if you've spoken already on Measure W, which is item three, we won't be hearing from you again, but we will hear from the remaining 16 speakers who have signed up items one and two. And then she just spoke on the shelter which is item four. So if people keep their remarks to the specific gen item, 16 speakers, then that's it. Courtney, Courtney Powell and I'm with resources for community development or RCD as we're known in the field. We're a nonprofit developer with over 3,000 homes across the Bay area. More than half of those are in Alameda County. And I'm here today, along with many of the folks in the audience who respectfully urge the board to move ahead with the funding plan that aligns with the original intent of Measure W to provide housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. Measure W is a unique opportunity to fund real solutions and make serious progress towards ending unsheltered homelessness in Alameda County. The Home Together Plan and the 10-year housing plan lay out a roadmap for making the most impactful investments towards housing services. And now is the time for the county to equip their staff and community-based organizations with the funds that are needed to put these well thought plans into action. Measure W funds can transform and scale our homelessness and housing ecosystem. We all know there is a great need and you've already heard from staff and from the community today. We need to preserve and protect our current affordable housing stock by investing in community-based nonprofit organizations that are hurting due to their efforts to keep tenant stably housed during the pandemic. We need to provide deeper subsidies to permanently lower rents for tenants with extremely low or no income. And we need to expand emergency interim housing to get people off the streets and into a stabilized environment where they can focus on rebuilding their lives. There is great need and with MeasureW there is great promise. There is tremendous opportunity to make significant progress towards ending homelessness. If we use MeasureW funds for homelessness and housing services, so please prioritize the funds for these services. Thank you. Color, you're on the line, you have two minutes. Unmute your microphone. Star six. Caller, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Sandra. Hello. Thank you very much. Honorable supervisors of Alameda County. My name is Sandra Moore. I'm with three months for everyone. I'm a resident in Alameda County, free-mots since 1970, my constituent of District 1. I strongly request that you use the measure W funds to be allocated to the purpose of which we as a voters voted on and to align the goals of Alameda County with the purpose of ending homelessness and prevention of humbleness and to invest in the tools which we know that work housing ends homelessness. Please find easier ways for people to apply for housing by reducing income requirements for entry into housing. Please expand housing models to include, lead to use, tiny houses, and continue to support the tax regulated housing for low income and very low income housing. Housing is homelessness. Thank you. Liu Esplanade. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. I'm not going to be able to answer your questions. I'm going to be able to answer your questions. I'm going to be able to answer your questions. I'm going to be able to answer your questions. I'm going to be able to answer your questions. I'm going to be able to answer your questions. I'm going to be by unincorporated area residents in District 3 and 4 in support of two items today. We really welcome the county's housing plan and we welcome forward movement on the mobile home park stabilization, expansion of AC housing secure and moving forward on a pilot for rental inspection for action in chairland. We consider all of these critical homelessness prevention services. With Measure W, we respectfully urge the board to move ahead with the funding plan that aligns with the original intent to provide homeless services and housing. Eviction continues to be the top five cause of homeless in the county. And in addition to the recommendations of our colleagues at EBO, the provides strengthening our housing ecosystem as uncl� residents were concerned. What target investments might be lost in countywide funding for the uncl� area. As we look to HCD as our only municipal housing service. So we have the county look at pass investment models that the former all inin committee has taken during the pandemic for ARPA to bring together an explicitly target communities most directly impacted from housing and homelessness and ensure equity in all of our investments and decision. So we look forward to continuing these conversations and partnering to address our housing needs in that county. Thank you. Cash, you're on the line, you have two minutes. Hi there, good morning. I'm Tash. I live in Supervisor Miley's district and I work in Supervisor Tams District as executive director of Restore Oakland Inc. I was incarcerated as a youth for a chronic substance use addiction and having access to stable housing and supportive recovery services as a young person, we're really critical to helping me find my way as a young adult. And so I'm calling to data urge you to do two things. One, fund measure W, to be used on homeless and housing services in accordance with the will of the voters. And not fun other budget gaps. We also know that funding upstream services will address very expensive gaps downstream. Number two, measure W provides the board with an opportunity for you to directly fund priorities of the county's care first jails last recommendations, which you have unanimously adopted. And so on that front, we hope that these funds are invested in permanent supportive housing that serves justice involved individuals and folks with serious behavioral health needs. This is an opportunity for the board to show real leadership and fund real solutions that end our counties revolving door not only to homelessness but also to incarceration and hospitalization. Investing in a coordinated continuum of care is life-saving. It's cost-effective and addresses root causes of multiple crises upstream. Thanks. Cecilia, coming in here? Good morning to each and everyone that's here in the space of the Board supervisors district. My name is Mrs. Cecilia Cunningham. I respectfully urge the board to adopt a funding plan for Measure W. That spends the funds for housing and services for people experiencing house homelessness as presented to the voters in 2020. I voted for Major W because I wanted our college to have an equitable and effective homelessness response system that have lived the vases of people with live experience. Alamedic County, home together, 2026 plan already lays out a roadmap for making the most Impactable investment towards homeless and housing services. Measure Dabia is a unique opportunity to fund real solution and make serious progress towards ending un sheltering homelessness, interim shelter, housing navigation support, move in resources and permanent supported housing with services to help people remain housed. Measure WFU's must be used for homeless and housing services in accordance with the will of the voters. Not to feel other budget gaps. Divert, measured W.F.A.S. betrays community, trust, and underwise evidence-based solutions. Thank you. Darren, you're on the line. You have two minutes. I'm your microphone. Thank you very much. Yes, good morning. Supervisors. My name is Darren Lounds. I'm exactly the director of HCB. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. HCB is committed to continuing to create an upgrade. Internal housing and permanent support housing for our fund house neighbors throughout helmet accounting. Our commitment along with the whole of our colleagues in the county. requires local support in order to leverage state and federal services. Funding through measures W is critical. It's a completing mistake in pictures. I will not repeat all the excellent points shared by the other speakers about the original incentive measure W. You've heard all the reasons that measure W needs to move forward to fund the data. I will not repeat all the excellent points shared by the other speakers about the original incentive measure W. You've heard all the reasons that it needs to be forward to fund interventions to address housing and homelessness needs. And I request you follow through this commitment. Thank you very much. The next speakers are in person Damien Scott, Kari Malkey and Sophia Villegas. I'm a case manager with a shade woman. We support survivors of sexual assault trafficking and domestic violence throughout the in the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois, and the state of Illinois,a County, excuse me, each week I sit beside women and young, young people in hospital room shelters and temporary housing, people who are D crisis. Many come with nothing with the clothes on their back, no IDs, no safe place to go, and Karen trauma that words can't describe. A young woman I support recently had a escape through a traffaker and was terrified alone and unsure what happened next. She looked at me and asked where am I supposed to go now. I didn't have an answer for her and at that moment haunts me because there's so many of them just like her. Today, I'm here today because with Measure W, it was passed to help people like her. It was a promise that we as accounting will respond with care and housing and hope, but today that promise remains unfilled. More than 174 million has been collected through measure W yet so many survivors are still sleeping in cars since are returning to the very place they fled. Because of nowhere else to go for them, because they have nowhere else to go. Ginger Bayes violence is one of the most leading calls of homelands for women and people I serve. Many of them black and brown women, LGBTQ plus used and mothers trying to shelter children. This is just not a housing issue as a public health emergency. One in four homeless children have witnessed violence. 90% of homeless women have, excuse me, 90% of homeless women have survived abuse. The numbers are staggering, but the people behind them are real, and I see their faces every day. We the frontline advocates are doing everything we can to afford shelter, healing, and support, but we are stretched then. One provider I work with pays $266 a night for emergency housing and for the public only covers 20% of that. Meanwhile these numbers keep growing and people are not getting the help they need. So I'm just asking that we allocate this money to help these survivors. Thank you. Hi, my name is Sophia with shade movement and I'm a case manager working with survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. Many of them are youth and their families. Right now most of the 30 people on my caseload are either experiencing homelessness, deep in rent debt or living in unstable and unsafe situations. Recently I had an emergency case where I called every shelter in Alameda County. Every single one was full and I had to keep calling neighboring counties until I found space and Sacramento and Southern California. That might not seem far for those with cars or resources, but most of my participants don't have either. They're navigating trauma and crisis with nothing. Yes, some non-profits offer hotel vouchers, but only for a few nights. What happens after that? Where do they go when no permanent or transitional housing available? Many of the youth I serve aren't in school, not because they don't care, but because they feel they have no choice. Their families can't afford rent, so they choose to work to help support them. That puts them at high risk for exploitation, dropping out and becoming vulnerable to trafficking. And I want to ask, how is it still happening in California? We have the third largest economy in the world. And yet we can't guarantee our youth and families a safe place to sleep. Hello, my name is Kari Malki. I'm grateful to be here. I work in Supervisor Tam's district at Restore Oakland Inc. And we live and work in a neighborhood where too many of our neighbors are very low income people facing chronic housing instability or homelessness. We often talk about homelessness as a complex problem, which in some ways it is, but we must also recognize that at its root homelessness is a housing problem. And that is why I'm commenting in support of using Measure W exclusively as it was intended by voters to fund housing and homelessness services for Alameda County residents who need them most. The truth is when all people are able to afford dignified stable housing, the homelessness crisis ends. That's it. I worked as a case manager with unhoused people and very vulnerable low-income people for several years and I saw that the main thing that they needed was permanent stable housing, not just interim and emergency housing. We also know that providing people with stable housing reduces other costly and harmful issues in our community, including mental health crises, substance use, life altering illnesses and hospitalization, like many folks have mentioned, folks on the street dealing with deeply, deeply disturbing illnesses and disorders. It This also housing also reduces interpersonal violence, which our county is struggling with and many residents are fearful of. Our county desperately needs to fund quality permanent housing and homelessness services and specifically needs to support services for people with serious behavioral health needs and those folks coming home from incarceration who are always at risk of being unhoused and face extra economic burdens. I sincerely request the BOS direct funding to affordable housing providers and CBOs like those here today who provide both deeply affordable and accessible units and also the wraparound supportive services for folks with behavioral health needs who need them most. Thank you. Damien Scott, Janelle Chan, and Han Mojir. Good morning supervisors. I'm Janelle Chan. I'm the CEO of E-Baltzi. We are part of a coalition. You've heard from many of our members of Boe, Union Council, Eden and RCD. We provide housing for approximately 2,300 households. You've heard from some of our residents. 75% of those households make under $25,000. So we also have four projects under construction one actually just finished and the average about 40% serving those are the most vulnerable. So we are both operators, providers, as well as service delivery and we work with our service providers through and through all of our projects. We agree to keep the measure W dollars for housing and homelessness. This is all we got. This is all we got right now. I know there's a lot of conversation. We're all working behind the scenes and in the forefront, pushing for more resources, but this is the only money we have right now. So this deliberantist of thinking of what we can do, it's really important. Thank you for this, this is the space for us to come together. And I want to thank the staff, Michelle, and Jonathan for their thoughtfulness. I do agree the housing plans emphasis on preservation and including that in the conversation is really important because preservation and protection of what we have is part of prevention, preventing more homeless, more homeless numbers going up. I know when we first passed this measure, it was about decreasing the numbers. We're all as positioned where we're trying to protect our core. That was up in DC, that is everything. On everyone's mind, how do we protect our current residents? We alone during the pandemic have put $8 million as a nonprofit into our residents, those who couldn't pay during this period of time. And so we are facing these headwinds in front of us without any additional revenues. So please support our nonprofits and our ecosystem as you're considering future measure W. This is the last speaker for items one and two. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Hank Moser. And I'm the community engagement actor at satellite affordable housing associates, also known as Saha. Measure W is a unique opportunity to fund real solution and make serious progress towards ending un shelter homelessness in Alameda County. Measure W should support the continuum of housing solutions from shelter to interim to supportive services to home key style acquisition we have and permanent housing. At the time, the county will need to invest dollars to new construction in affordable housing to ensure that there is a place for people to move. and permanent housing. At the time the county will need to invest dollars to new construction in affordable housing to ensure that there is a place for people to move from interim into permanent housing. We encourage the county to work with the cities that have project pipelines in Oakland, Berkeley, Fremont, etc. to ensure funds are deployed strategically and get people housed quickly. Thank you for your time. All right, one thing. The speakers, and it's my understanding we took item one and two together. That's correct, supervisor Miley. So what we can do is move item one, which is a progress report that staff is asking us to accept and to approve the shift initiative development going forward. And then item two is a draft of the 10 year plan and staff is going to incorporate the comments that they received today on that plan and the prioritization that we've talked about. Obviously the issues around measure W are more centered around housing and homeless system performance, the update that we had asked for from staff and that's item three. So I can move item one. Okay, so item one you're gonna move the staff Recommendation So I can move item one. Okay, so item one, you're going to move the staff recommendation that we accept the information report out and that we directly ATD to receive with development implementation of the shift initiative. That's correct. I'm happy to second. Seconded, okay. Any other comments from staff on this today? No. Okay. All right. Let's take the roll. From Acton on item one, Supervisor Cam. I, Supervisor Fourtonado Bass. I, Supervisor Miley. Yes. Okay. So item two, Gen item two. Just staff want to comment, because we've heard a lot, a lot of us directed at item three. And once again, when we get item three, those have spoken already. We're not going to have them speak again. On item three, we'll take new speakers, shall do you have any other comments. I want to thank everyone for showing up and really appreciate all of the support for the housing plan and all of the different initiatives. I think one of the things that's so critical to understand is that if it was an easy lot to build on, it would have been built on. And what we have left in our very urbanized community are lots that are difficult to build on or small and or owned by faith or community-based organizations. And so as we move forward in building new housing, whether it's for people coming out of jails, people with mental health issues or substance abuse issues, homeless, extremely low income, all of those we really do need to focus on our innovative programs and I appreciate all of the requests both to preserve and support those affordable housing units that are really in dire need as the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and the community and Depending on the size, some of those parking lots are pretty big. We can do tax credit deals on those. And we did do a really good teacher project with the Alameda School District as part of Measure A1. And that is actually a great model moving forward. Supervisor Bansard, any questions or is there a motion? No, I'm comfortable with the staff presentation. Obviously the funding is limited. We're talking about a smaller scale of what we're trying to move forward and we're obviously expanding beyond just the unincorporated areas of the county which requires that strong partnership with the cities because they have their permitting requirements and they have site control over a lot of these lots. So I'm happy to move item two in terms of finalizing the priorities based on the feedback that we got today. So it's a motion that. We've taken public comment and finalized priority programs by reviewing the proposed initiatives. So you're recommending that the board, that we send to the board adoption of the housing plan with these programmatic updates incorporating anything else from the committee. Yes, because this is not measure W. Right, exactly. Surprise and fast, do you want to second that? I do want to share some comments and again I appreciate both the work of the staff as well as the public comment as was stated in the report the housing plan is complementary to a variety of strategies from our unincorporated housing element the housing elements of our cities within the county the home together plan and a number of other things, including care for us, Jail's last. I do think that there are a number of pieces of the housing plan that are very relevant to our homelessness strategy and to the measure W.D.S. discussion, which is why I presume that members of the public were speaking to that, and that includes under rental development, the emergency and interim homelessness housing. I have to underscore how important this is because today, literally today, as we are sitting here, a fourth major homeless encampment is being closed in the city of Oakland and that's the East 12th Street encampment and Supervisor Tams district and my former council, and it really underscores the need for more interim housing solutions as well as permanent exits. And thank you again for noting that we need to have permanent housing at the 15 to 30% AMI level. The housing plan that we're looking at as well also has homelessness prevention, rental assistance. These are all critically important and related to Measure W. And so I wanted to make sure that we have on the record for this particular meeting the fact that Measure W has now cleared the courts. We know that back in April the State state Supreme Court denied the appeal by the Tax Pairs Association, which means those funds are available to spend over 650 million has been collected. And back in December, the sport approved spending 390 million. And so I would like to just take a take the pulse of my colleagues. We had a report back in April in terms of the prior board direction and that 400 I'm sorry, the 390 million. I do think it's important because this is an action item to hear whether I could add to the motion that this board would also or this committee forward with the work that is necessary. And so, Chair Miley, if you will indulge me, I think it's important because this is an action item to hear whether I could add to the motion that this board would also, or this committee would recommend to the full board reaffirming the prior direction from December, which we also heard about in April. Well, staff be speaking to this in item three. And I'm raising it here because this is an action item versus the item three is an informational item. Supervisor, we were happy to answer questions about that component. But it's not necessarily explicit in the presentation. The presentation. This presentation item three. Item three. Okay. All right. Go ahead. Jonathan's going to do that. But somebody wants to answer Supervisor Bass's questions. So your question around the next agenda item is not specifically speaking about the measure W plan as presented in December, but talking about the needs of the system that will dovetail quite well. And I can certainly affirm that the proposal presented in December and in alignment with home together is aligned very closely with the housing plan and the priorities there. So I'm going to trip there was another specific question. I guess my specific question is whether there needs to be an affirmation of that direction from December based on our April 1st discussion, because what happened in between that April discussion and now was that Measure W has cleared the courts. And as it relates to the housing plan and portions of it, which relate to Measure W, to staff need additional direction in order to continue moving forward that board direction from December. Yeah, our understanding, I think think was that the staffing initial component was supported, which was the small initial proportion, but the funding dedicated for near term, interim housing and encampment resolution beds and the longer term acquisition fund were requested for us to slow that process pending board discussion in July. That was our understanding. If I may add so with regard to the interim housing, maybe you can talk a little bit about the RFI that we've put forward. So we've slowed down some of the timing on the proposal, but it's our understanding that that was board direction. So we're kind of moving forward with that. And the 350 million component of that, which was for housing acquisition, et cetera, that would require a RFP that we would be doing with HCD and partnership. And so based on further board conversations and discussions, we're going back and re-evaluating what proportions of spending would go to what components of the need. To my stand, did you have your hand up? Yeah, I wanted to just offer that I was here in December. I supported the allocation of close to $400 million of measure W funds in anticipation of measure W getting resolved through the courts, but at that time obviously because of the litigation we could not be very specific on the allocation without some potential issues. So the housing plan that we're talking about with item two is completely consistent with our December initiative. What we did in April with my understanding is to try to move forward with the staffing to implement what we basically adopted back in December. Otherwise, we're kind of talking in the abstract. So we are trying to move forward on that. And then now that the California Supreme Court has basically denied the review, we have to button up closure and resolution of the litigation and then move forward with the actual disbursement and allocation and We need that assessment under item three to understand that landscape and in order to move that $400 million allocation That's kind of my understanding that staff was directed to move ahead with the first phase of the staffing. County minister Anderson will be working with the agencies. And this is supposed to come back in July, right? That's correct. Yeah, so does that answer your question, supervisor, bass? So we're not taking up how we're going to appropriate measure W money today. That is still in process. They're moving ahead with staffing, but as in terms of the overall allocation of measure W funds, that's still to be determined. So I'll say firstly, I'm happy to second the motion in terms of moving forward this housing plan to the full board for adoption. It's a very strong plan so thank you to the team. Secondly, I'll just register for the record and we can have a fuller discussion with the next item. I am still not supportive of slowing down the measure del B process, especially now that those funds are available. But we can speak to that in the next item. I mean, I don't think slowing down measure del B funding is even contemplated moment, right? That's not how I see it, but it depends on how you interpret what action the board's taken. We're deliberately moving forward. We're not tying much of W with this budget. 2526 budget. We're taking it up as a separate item in July. We've given staff direction. Look at it as in terms of the initial phase. I don't think the board's made any overall determination. We're going to appropriate the funding both. The funding has been collected as well as the ongoing funding. People continue to weigh in and we continue to take all that under advisement. And in July we'll be taking this up as a career you know totally for the public. I don't think it's I wouldn't interpret it slowing me down either but if someone who worked on the housing measures and serve on the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and I'm very eager to see us resolve our funding relative to both housing and homelessness? But I think we were taking this methodically as best we can. So I don't know what, I don't know one more we can do at the moment. I think what we're being asked to do is to prioritize what we have heard from staff in terms of the housing components to address the issues that we've talked about, whether it's homelessness and trying to do prevention and making sure we have the priorities with with permanent supportive housing as well. So the housing plan encompasses all of that. And... to do prevention and making sure we have the priorities with permanent supportive housing as well. So the housing plan encompasses all of that and that's what we're doing now. Staff needs to get staff to implement a lot of these priorities. But what's not going to be clear completely is a lot of the homeless programs that we have at the county are tied to housing whether we provide wraparound services at hotels whether we provide we increase the bed shelter rate. So whether or not that's also coming from measure W, something we need clarified at some point. Well, thank you both for at least making it clear that as I understood it, your supportive of the staff moving forward on the plan that was presented in April on the 390. Coming back in July, I would prefer that came back sooner, but coming back in July is something. So we can move forward with the roll call vote in the next item. Thank you. Right. The plan was to come forward after we know what our budget looks like this week. So do you want to restate the motion? So are we clear what we're voting on? Okay, I will move that we move forward with the draft Alameda County tenure housing plan program priorities and staff will incorporate the feedback that we have received from the community as part of that before moving it to the full board. Can we further that feedback today? Yes. Is that acceptable? Okay, great. Substant movement. Second, local local We're action on item two supervisor Tam. Hi supervisor for tonight. Oh, best I supervisor my leave All right, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you speakers. Let's let's move to item three Because I want to try to see if we can get item four and get through with our committee meeting by one o'clock because I know there's other responsibility born members have after one I know you have a kind of pause here and I think it's really easy to learn the things. Honestly, now we are in the kind of room right away with the computer and then it cannot be embarrassed by the work that you're doing and you're going to go to. I know it's not fun to do, but I have a light and sense of some light and so on. Well, thank you and we'll have the clerk look to that. Thank you. That's comments. Right. And if you haven't spoken yet on item three or four, you'll be able to speak. Okay, Jonathan, let's go with item three. Good morning, supervisors. Thank you for having me. So as requested, we here a housing and homelessness and assistant performance and needs update And as an agenda a lot of this will largely be a preview of some of our year three home together report that is Well, it's not hot off the press. It's in the press now But but drawing on updates to where we're at in terms of shelter and housing inventory, specifically obviously for folks experiencing homelessness, the funding and investments landscape. A deeper look at the new entries and exits from homelessness as we say are inflow and outflow, then shifting to some insights, some key data and disproportionality insights from our most recent point in time count, highlighting the needs, and then some looking forward kind of on some things on the horizon in terms of direction and areas of innovation we're working toward. So first here, just again, we've shared this many times looking at our current home together plan. We're zero in in here a bit as requested somewhat on number two, which was one of our primary focuses on connecting people to shelter and resources. But I've also highlighted here with stars the importance of thinking of that shelter in the context of both prevention and our ongoing permanent housing solutions, which we'll discuss more. Again, as a refresher, a snapshot on the need as identified in our 2026 home together plan called for the addition of more than 24,000 additional housing resources and a variety of programs that would total from an operational cost perspective $2.5 billion over five years. At the time, given the modeling, which we'll talk about more, that projected the need for about $430 million of additional shelter and then a variety of permanent housing inventories. Again, to reiterate, this is just the ramp up cost from an operations and not a capital perspective. And at year five, that topped out at an average budget of about $730 million a year to reach functional zero. We are now in the process of doing a refresh to our plan. So the home together refresh is underway. We've begun the stakeholder process to refresh that plan to hopefully be by the start of, well, not the fiscal year that's just about to start, but the following fiscal year, 2026-27. Really looking at the importance of how much the landscape has changed from a policy and funding perspective since 2020. We have significantly more data from the updated point in time count and our demographics and all of our inventory and system performance measures. We want to incorporate the countywide homelessness prevention framework that has been developed over the course of 2023 and then of course as you just heard, the 10-year housing plan. Working also toward developing a more updated local system modeling tool that will allow for us to be even more geographically specific on identifying needs and concurrent investments. Also wanting to of course increase or continually increase in our alignment with city planning and the wider community efforts. And then also making sure that we're being cognizant and of aligning the plan with changing state requirements and new initiatives such as Proposition 1 and in the other future funding opportunities. Briefly just wanted to go through a glossary of terms. throughout there will be graphs and tables and wanted to really identify according to our home together plan. Here's the first three years of which we have reports. Year one correlates to the fiscal year, 21, 22, year two, fiscal year 22, 23, and year three of which we were diving in today, the last complete fiscal year, fiscal year 2324. Also just wanted to clarify that throughout where we mentioned interim housing, that is really intended to be an umbrella term that includes the different kinds of non-permanent housing resources we have. So emergency congregate shelter, non-congregate shelter, including some of the hotel models you mentioned, community cabins, that would also include safe parking sites, some of our medically focused interim housing, such as medical respite, and also things like transitional housing. So those terms would be used somewhat interchangeably, but we're trying to broaden the category as there is a variety of non-permanent shelter types that we operate. Okay, shifting now to a snapshot of where we're at in terms of the shelter and permanent housing inventory. Since fiscal year 2122, which was year one of the report, our shelter inventory has increased by 16%. At now over 3,800 beds. This includes, as you'll hear more in the next presentation, item four, 645 beds that are funded by the Alameda County Social Services Agency bed night rate. In terms of pipeline, there are now currently about 390 beds as of the end of that fiscal year that were in the pipeline over the next four to five years. I should note also, many of those beds are time-limited funding. So some of those beds are referenced as part of the encampment resolution funding that Supervisor Fort Noto Bass mentioned, and some are permanent. But that is a sense of where we have more shelter beds coming in the pipeline. On the permanent housing side, this is permanent housing dedicated to individuals experiencing homelessness. We've seen a 25% increase since we started the home together plan. Now at over 7,600 permanent housing units with 1,500 units in the pipeline over the next four to five years. Also important to note, this impacts both our shelters and our permanent housing inventory as others have noted. Operational costs continue to increase and as budgets tighten, local municipal and also of course in many ways county budgets. Many more of the shelter projects are facing financial uncertainty as our housing projects. Additionally, 70% of the funding across our system for shelters is one time or non-recurring. So as we present in our annual reports, you see a pendulum of a variety of options where what proportion of our permanent housing funding is one time versus non-recurring. The highest proportion of non-recurring funding that we have in the system is for the shelter programs. So they're particularly vulnerable to lack of clarity and what will fund them going forward. Looking now at a proportional overview of the shelter and housing investments across our system. Total 289 million dollars in year three went towards shelter and housing operations. More than 52% of that was just towards shelter and interim housing. This number in total about 150 million was considerably higher than previous years, going to a one-time infusion of state funding to launch behavioral health bridge housing to support the CareCourt initiative. It's important also to note that this funding through home together tracks when investments are received, not necessarily expended. So this tracks the amount of funding across jurisdictions that was received during that year. For example, that behavioral health bridge housing funding will be spent over the next three fiscal years. Shifting a little bit towards the context of our inventory needs to actual. So again, the plan proposes a system model that talks the need of significant increase in both permanent housing, shelter, and services funding. So as you can see here, this is showing the kind of buckets of the projected need according to the model and then our actuals for the first three years. Technically speaking, in year three, our shelter inventory targets exceeded the original modeling needs but Our housing targets our permanent housing targets fell far short So the heavy air quotes on exceeded is really intended to show that if we had built by year three or added 16,000 total permanent housing units we would have only needed 3,400 shelter beds. But as you can see, we've fallen far short of that. The increased shelter capacity given this remains a clear, near and long term need, and it really must happen in concurrent development and expansion of our permanent housing inventory to really make sure that we're having what we call throughput in our shelter system. So to reference the December proposal that we brought forward, that was intended to align with this current need that we still see with the ability to bring on as many as 750 additional interim housing beds quickly as we're refreshing our modeling through the home together 2020-30 plan. This is now looking more toward the new entries and returns to homelessness and exits from homelessness. This is a line graph that we have shared many times since the beginning of our report. And unfortunately we have seen a downturn this year in performance. What that means is, in 2024, more than 1,100 people more fell into homelessness, that is inflow than gained housing or that was outflow of our system. You can see, in year two of the report, 2023, we were closer than ever. The gap was just 359 more people fell into homelessness than exited. But due to stagnation and funding and program inflow, we've seen a slight down tip in this year of the amount of people that are exiting. That is the blue line to permanent housing and a continued upswing in the inflow to homelessness, which underscores the need for critical investments in new housing and launching a countywide prevention strategy. Continuing on this thread, it's important to put this inflow and outflow in context. So this is zooming out here and this different kind of blue wave is not just showing the inflow and outflow, but it's showing it in the context of people that access homeless services over the course of a year. And you can see that that has grown by 67 percent since 2019, people that touch our system. So on average, each year, since 2023, roughly 18,000 people experiencing homelessness access some kind of service. And on top of that, there's another more than 6,000 people in permanent housing that have exited homelessness that are receiving services with us. So when total, the system is touching and serving more than 24,000 people a year. So it's grown a lot since just over 11,000 in 2020. Continuing, now just the blue line focusing really to try to zero in on what is the cause for this up and down effect and how are our countywide investments correlating with impacts in our homelessness response system? Given the high volume of one time non-recurring, state funding, cyclical rounds of housing capital that comes from the state, and one time programs that are impactful, but one time such as Home Key, this creates what I would call a peaks and valleys effect to our funding landscape. The annual home together funding is the green bars in the table that shows a significant volatility, as you can see between year one and two. And this correlates with effects on housing outcomes, which are delayed but highly impactful. Investments come in, there's a lag, and then the outcomes are shown the next year. So the investment surge in year one, a 576 million, we saw an outcome improvements in year two of more than 1,100 people more gained housing. So a direct correlation there. Zero in and even more specifically on just the subset of new housing capital funding, this graph shows the significant influx and you can see the volatility in the red bars here. This is just the annual funding that is for new production of permanent housing, for example. You can see that there's even more volatility in the differences depending on when funding hits. But in the same way, you see the significant influx of new capital for permanent housing for folks experiencing homelessness. Number two, you can see that increased outcomes of more than 1,100 more people exiting homelessness. homelessness. And then six months later, you can see that our point in time count was reduced by 3% for the first time in more than 1,100 more people exiting homelessness. And then six months later, you can see that our point in time count was reduced by 3% for the first time in more than 10 years. So this 36 month impact cycle really shows one, the delayed effects, but also the very real outcomes of investments. Shifting now briefly to look more closely at who we're serving in the trends we're seeing in our sheltered and unsheltered settings, driven mostly from our point in time count from 2024. So as you'll recall, just to refresh, we had more than 1,500 surveys completed directly from folks in the field on the day of the point in time count, their experience in their context. The short of it is we're seeing longer stays and higher needs in the context of our shelters. On average across the last three point time counts, despite modest shelter inventory increases as I shared 16% increase, more than-thirds of all of those experiencing homelessness do so outside or in vehicles. Though we still see a high proportion of individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness and we've increased shelter, we did see, as I just referenced, that overall 3% reduction in the count and a 19% increase in those who are sheltered. Important to also highlight the key demographic inequities and overrepresentation we see. Across our system, we see that older adults are 25% of the population experiencing homelessness. Thankfully, they're slightly overrepresented in shelter, so 29% of those in shelter are older adults and 23% of those that are unsheltered. People that identify as men or boys are significantly overrepresented at 67% of the total point in time count representation, 69% of the unsheltered population and 61% of the shelter population. And as has been the trend for years, people that identify as Black or African-American are significantly overrepresented in our homeless response system. Roughly 41% of the total point time count, and 52% of the shelter population. As we mentioned, and this point really draws home the need for concurrent investments and flow through our system, 55% of single adults in shelter were chronically homeless as of the point time count. That means that 55% of those people have been homeless for 12 months or more and have one or more disabling conditions. And that was an 11% increase since our last point time count, which really underscores the need for people to get inside that have complex needs and we're thankful for that. And many people are graduating into chronic homelessness as they wait in shelters due to lack of transitions to permanent housing. We're also seeing the significantly higher needs, more than 60% of folks surveyed in the point in time count reported at least one disabled in condition. This was a 20% increase from our last point in time count. And lastly, we did a survey of folks that were unsheltered to get feedback from them on what their barriers were to accessing shelter. And the highest summaries of those, and there's great detail you can read more on this, if you'd like, in the point in time count, 58% of those cited the shelter experience-related reasons foraccessing shelter, and 54% cited various rules and restrictions as the reason that it was not suitable for them. Okay, I'm gonna end on a high note. Looking forward, looking at some of our interim housing goals and planned system improvements. As we mentioned, as a part of the home together, 2030 refresh, we are doing an updated system modeling that really looks at a concurrent investment strategy on prevention, interim and permanent housing. The interlocking ways that we might make these current investments can really determine how much we need of each inventory. For example if we drive up prevention investments for the first time across the county that might drive down our need for certain shelter inventory if we can prevent inflow. We also have a strong need, as others have mentioned here, to preserve our existing interim and permanent housing stock. HAP-6, the funding from the state that we're in the process of jointly applying with the city of Oakland now, actually has a requirement that we demonstrate for every shelter across the county, the funding plan to support its sustainability through fiscal year 2829. Now, ironic or not, HAP is usually one of those funding sources that is used to fund these programs each year. So given the one time funding, there's a lot of unsureness and really able to sustain and expand the inventory. Nevertheless, we know we need to expand that inventory and focus specifically on the urgent need to support dignified, humane evidence-based responses to encampments to help folks get inside and on their way to housing and also really meet the high medical needs of many folks that are experiencing homelessness in our community. We also really want to help standardize the service models to improve outcomes and throughput. Standardizing the models and I might say our payment standards helps to support the increased accountability and outcomes that will save money in the long term. IE, let's pay now for 12 months with robust supports versus having someone in shelter for a thousand days in some cases. Also wanting to really streamline and optimize the way we fund shelter. Administrative simplification both for providers of shelter and for the payers is essential to really increase our outcomes and opportunity. Our providers need less time on budgets and funding streams and more time on programs and outcomes. And lastly as you hear in the next performance looking at an update to the bed night rate a as social services will bring and really making sure that that investment is integrated with the rest of the investments across the county. I want to conclude here with to shine a light on some of the innovations we're working on in the midst of all of this great need. People experiencing homelessness are dying of unintentional drug overdoses as a number that has sharply risen over the years. 39% of the deaths in 2023 of folks experiencing homelessness were directly related to unintended drug overdoses. And people experiencing homelessness are 47.8 times the drug overdose rate than the general population. Because of this, we have really worked through our health care for the homeless program to get new grants, one from SAMHSA, to expand our shelter health services with a specific focus on adding more sites and integrating substance use disorder treatment and harm reduction services into those shelter health services. We funded an SUD team that has a nurse practitioner and two substance use navigators with lived experience to provide access to medically assistant treatment, other SUD treatment and harm reduction services in our medically frail housing, in our respite medical care, in our behavior health bridge housing and the rest of our shelter sites. We're also really working to further the work at the integration of our healthcare systems and our shelters. And healthcare for the homeless team is helped convene our local hospital partners and local shelter programs to really identify gaps and opportunities to improve. The task force right now was working to develop and define a system-wide shelter intake capacity process in partnership with our EMS team. With the vision really defined of workable solution, which we know is one of the really pain points for our healthcare system, to help when people have to discharge someone experiencing homelessness and there's no shelter beds to go to. But we have the near-term goal to really focus on coordinating care transitions between shelters and hospitals for our sheltered patients. Because we know at the end of the day, it's housing that is the health that folks need. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Jonathan, for this information report. Do we have any questions from board members at this point in time? Or comments? I just have a couple of quick questions. You said that in year three, our shelter inventory targets quote exceeded air quotes, right? The original needs that we had anticipated, but we fell short obviously on the permanent housing part of it. What does the transition look like if possible between like interim housing and permanent housing? The transition for individuals experiencing homelessness or maybe turning interim housing sites into permanent housing sites. The second. It varies. Certain projects, for example, you mentioned the two hotels in Oakland that the county acquired through the first round of Home Key at the beginning of the pandemic. Those are good examples of what have been intended all along to transition from a shelter. So interim non-least housing, ultimately in departmental support housing, and they're in the process of doing so right now. So if the project, if the physical plant, so to speak, is ideally designed or can be modified to rehab enough to be suitable for permanent housing, then that transition can be made. That work is of course complex, as we're seeing now, to do renovations with individuals there and transitioning out that are going to stay there long term. But certain projects can be turned from one time shelter to permanent supportive housing. So, you mentioned the renovations that the two hotels are required and then open recently acquired the extended stay or the men's Nella House and they're also doing updates and construction renovations. But in the meantime, they're also providing interim housing for some of the encampments, right? So would that potentially be turned into permanent housing at some point after the renovations? Yes, Mandela House is going to be permanent supportive housing. The current target is for after 12 months of interim use, it would transition to permanent supportive housing. And the county is funding a lot of the operating subsidies for that to be permanent supportive housing after. Okay. It's just that my thinking is that in terms of speed and fast and trying to meet the needs immediately, that seems like a more Expedient way, but you know the other aspect of my question has more to do with the comments that we received today We clearly know that the affordable housing providers whether it's our CD and ball see echo they are a critical part of our ecosystem and providing permanent housing from a lot of residents here. And obviously making sure that they can be sustainable and their finances are stabilized, it's gonna be a critical part of what you talked about in terms of like half funding, getting matches and showing that financial sustainability. What is it that would qualify like, for example, under Measure W, would we be able to help them with their requests? What the, I think, is it $15 million that they had asked for in order to stabilize to provide some of those supportive services. Yeah, I mean, that would be of course, be at the board's discretion. I mean, I could not affirm more that partners, our affordable housing developers are part of the bedrock of what it means to do this work and what we need in our community. Ultimately, homelessness is a housing crisis. Right. And so alleviating and sustaining the current, the needs of our current inventory, I think are critical. We know also that ongoing operational funding commitments to subsidize that housing, specifically on the targets for folks experiencing homelessness is a critical need to sustain the current inventory as well. So I think both in the context of board discretion on the O'Rears question and initially in the home together plan and certainly the refesh is really for the proportion of this funding that would be dedicated toward homelessness to provide those operating commitments to help ensure that units can be subsidized and folks can live there for years going forward. And that also is one of the most core functions to building new projects. Right. We've got to have those operating funding sources to know that we can build this project. So that really be the intention. And I think in an ideal circumstance, the operating funding for units for folks experiencing homelessness through Measure W could correlate with a local bond or otherwise on the capital side to really be that alignment. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation and for the team's work. I wanted to just mention briefly a couple things that I was really enthusiastic, enthusiastically excited to see in the plan, which is that funding be distributed according to need. I think that's really important to recognize both geographic need, need in terms of disparities and the barriers to having stable housing. So that was good to see as well as pointing to the need to increase alignment with our cities. And in that regard, the point and time count from last year does have information in terms of the count of unhoused in each city. Do we have a sense of which cities are experiencing that increase in flow into homelessness that was mentioned? It's a great question. The data talking about inflow and outflow was drawing specifically from the annualized data from our homelessness management information system. So that's the central data system in which folks experiencing homelessness or their experiences are tracked in terms of services and programs. So that is not tracking inflow at the jurisdictional level. That's tracking system might inflow. I know there are programs, ones that I'm happy to know quite well, such as keep people housed in Oakland that specifically doing targeted prevention, really focused on Oaklanders. That has gathered a lot of data since 2018-2019 on the amount of people falling into homelessness or at risk across cities. So I would just say I think the risk is uniform in terms of the high cost of housing, the stagnating insufficient wages for folks and the high needs that are often putting folks at risk, but there are particular iterations and places where those things are more acute, but that inflow outflow data doesn't track it at the city level. Okay, thank you. And I know that Oakland has invested five to six million over the current two-year budget cycle in prevention, and that work has been evaluated, I believe by Stanford as well as you pen, so that might be a place to look in terms of understanding that a little bit better. I also appreciated hearing about some of the innovation in the plan. So working on substance use disorders and making sure that we're addressing that community that has higher need as well as integrating healthcare with homelessness services. And I do have a question in that regard. The point in time count estimated 34.8 of the reported serious mental illness and 28.5 reported substance use disorder. So how is HHS and home together responding to this, especially since such disorders have specific needs in terms of staying in housing, preventing entering homelessness, and also support while being unhoused. Yeah. Great question. Big question. I mean, first and foremost, I think that's continuing to partner very closely with our behavioral health department that leads the the effort to provide substance disorder and services to folks experiencing serious mental illness. So we were very closely with them. I think Proposition 1 and the transitions there through both the bond funding which is going to create access to additional permanent supportive housing and also residential treatment for people experiencing homelessness that have these needs is going to be a great support. I know the behavior health department is really working to expand some of that residential treatment inventory. As well as working more closely, continue to expand our closely working relationship that is currently using mental health services act funding to provide subsidies, specifically for folks with severe mental illness. So pairing folks with service teams in a subsidy is something we've been doing for years. H&H has been partnering with behavioral health. Another example of an innovation that I didn't have time to put on because I know our generally already talked too much when I come up here was one specifically in the unsheltered setting. So we actually were given a grant from HRSA, another federal body, our team had applied for, to create the first mobile pharmacy that we're aware of. Well, we will be able to actually go into encampments with a pharmacist to get people connected to things like medically assistant treatment in the field, right? Because we know the often the barriers of folks getting the medications they need, including things like getting people started on things like long term injectable. So that's the way we're trying to make sure that we have the right to make sure that we have the right to make sure that we have the to our behavioral health system that really manages the network of substance use disorder treatment services. Thank you. And just two more questions. I'm really struck by the potential need for more flexible emergency funding. Does that type of funding currently exist? So for example, with the closure of the East Wall Street encampment, we know that there are more people who need housing than space is available at Mandela House. Is there a funding mechanism that currently exists for that type of sort of emergency flexible funding to sort of add to the system quickly? Yeah. Unfortunately, there is not. I think the strictures around the funding we have and what we can use and what is dedicated towards and or restricted to, particularly with our federal and state sources is often pretty limited. That leaves us really an alert in terms of having funds on hand. So that would be through another dedicated, flexible resource, in most cases would require local investment. It doesn't have those kinds of strings or previous programmatic designation that's been set in place for years. Okay, thank you. And final question, I'm curious in terms of whether, perhaps it's the home together refresh or the work that was just presented to us, whether it's providing some insight into the ratio of funding, especially for measure WU, in terms of investment in prevention versus interim housing versus permanent housing. Yeah, that's the work we're doing right now. And part of what we're excited to do and it's a busy year and it feels like there's a lot going on but we've stayed true to say and that is all the more reason why we need to update our strategic plan is because so much has changed and so much is on the horizon. The biggest difference between our original system model and the one we're doing now is we're intentionally contemplating the prevention investment as part of the plan. So prevention investments were assumed in home together, but not necessarily built into the concurrent investment strategy to model. So we're now actually quantifying what we know based on our Homelessness Prevention Framework, which I'd be happy to share, that estimates the cost per household to do prevention, to really stem the tide on inflow. We're including that direct, those calculations into this concurrent investment strategy. So the system model technical working groups, some of which are represented here today, are underway working with our partners at all home to do that updated investment strategy where we can look at different scenarios. You know, proportions of shelter to interim or interim to prevention, to permanent housing investment and see what the optimal circumstances. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Jonathan. I don't really want to talk a lot because I want to hear from the public. But the info on that flow is something that is long around with other aspects of your presentation that are very concerning to me because I know with our home together, it was a five-year plan to try to end homelessness. And we saw advances in 23 year two. And now we're seeing once again that gap and even the number of homeless is increased to 4700. So I'm not gonna ask you to comment on this just yet. Somebody here from the speakers, but that's kind of what I'm very concerned about, the inflow and the outflow. We have to turn off the trigger of the flow of people becoming homeless, so people stay housed and not become homeless, and then they manage the number who are on the streets, and there are a number of things I want to say about all that. But I'm not going to ask you to comment on it now. I am also very concerned about your last part of your presentation dealing with interim housing system innovations because we know with the fact that we weren't able to put the regional housing bond on the ballot in 2024 and the fact that we probably won't at least in the region get to something until 2028, hopefully we'll do some type of, you know, I'm more in line with thinking we're going to going to do a citizens' initiative, and that's something the county won't be pushing. The citizens have to push an initiative so we can have more housing. That's going to help if that passes. So that's one aspect of this, but that's the thing that's challenging. To diminish and increase the amount of housing stock available to turn off that spicket. And then the fact that I am a Miss mischievous presentation, but I'm sure she mentioned the fact with the federal government thinking about eliminating a community problem at Block Grant, continuing with care and other things. That's going to, once again, that could increase our number of folks that are in need and homeless that would be another factor that would send that that number skyrocketing. So those are some of the variables that I'm struggling with. You don't have to respond just yet. share from the public, but those are things that I'm really struggling with at the moment. So thank you. Appreciate those comments. Let's have the public. And how many speakers do we have? If you want to speak on the sign and please sign up. Right now we have 26, 3 online and 23 person. Okay, we have another item that I need to have us get to by before 1 o'clock. So we're going to get the speakers. I apologize. Only one minute to speak so we can get to the shelter bed item as well. So if you spoke on item three when you're speaking on item one and two, please don't speak again. So let's call the speakers First in person Kate Amon Good morning our now. Supervisors and committee. I am Kate Amon from Freemont for everyone. I ask that you respect the intentions of the voters. The voters want measure W's fun spent on homeless and housing services. We also ask that you directly involve people with lived experience in the planning operations and governance and governance of services, use Mojure W to strategically transform how the county and cities address homelessness, enforce standards, and maintain accountability for homeless services, and provide us with the money as well spent. Thank you. Allison, you're on the line. You have one minute. Hello, Alison Monroe here from FASME. Like many other speakers, I'm hoping that the money from measure W can be spent on housing and homelessness as was envisioned when people voted for it. I really appreciate the efforts by HHS to scope out the numbers of people they want to help by when with how much money it's in contrast I think to the efforts of behavioral health care services for example. I appreciate the clarity and the quantitative nature of their analysis. I am hoping that we can break out. I appreciate the clarity and the quantitative nature of their analysis. I am hoping that we can break out money for board and cares, a special type of housing for the most seriously mentally ill. I believe supervisor boss may have been referring to these type of people. An apartment with outreach is not secure and I've not supportive enough for the very sick as the people. Thank you very much. Layla Dignity. I just wanted to hold up my sign. from a Vallejo event because they were sweeping people and killing people with the sweeps. So stop abandoning our elderly and disabled to the streets and anyone to the streets. And actually an important thing is nothing about us or nothing about them without them. Even this idea of shelters, we need different approaches, different, we think outside the box. I'm a disabled person. And even 211 has become somewhat of a joke joke like it's hard to even get help when you need it and You should be able to go I even tried to get help from roots one time with a friend who got her section 8, but then Didn't have up-round services is now suffering worse. So we need solutions like like like tiny homes, homefulness, listen to other people that are out there and wish you had more time. But we need more solutions and listen to the people. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have one minute. David? David David Bonacorci, unmute your microphone. Good afternoon, my name is David Bonacorci. I'm with Freeman for everyone leadership team. The board of supervisors needs to continue to commit to funding measure W for affordable housing solutions. There's a very simple political reason for that because if any time the county goes to the voters and has a general bond that they want the voters to support, there will be a truth in advertising component that there will never be the level of trust that the board is actually going to honor what it's asking the voters to support. And now we have to follow up with Supervisor Marley was mentioning the external factors at the federal government. We're living through the criminalization of homelessness and freemont. We're battle scarred with that. And now today the governor is announcing, criminalizing homeless has the state level. That's why it's even more important to recommit measure W fundsUNs to actually solving the problem with evidence-based solutions. Thank you Liz Verella Good morning supervisors. I'm Liz Verella and I'm the executive director of building futures And we are a homeless domestic violence and housing agency and I'm here to Advocate for the time is now not only do we need all of measure W to go to hovelness and housing, but we need it now I my shelter some of my shelters in housing were funded in the 90s and that's when I started I spent my whole career trying to to make sure those programs stay funded. And measure W is the only funding source that will ensure that we are to keep these shelters open. I have run three of them for women and children and housing for survivors, chronically homeless survivors of domestic violence. We as an agency in a board are thinking about, are we going to close this year? We need measure W funding now. It's not in six months, not in a year. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have one minute, Aaron. Hello, my name is Aaron Horner and I am the owner of AMA services and I have experienced working with several organizations, nonprofit shelters, resource centers, transitional housing programs in four of the five districts of Downingham County. Thank you to the directors for holding this time for us to speak. Recently the community advisory board that is made up of individuals with lived experience in Elimide County developed principles for us to follow the utilizing this funding. I would ask that the supervisors directed county staff to implement these principles immediately in every aspect of our funding towards housing. That funds must be used for homelessness and housing services and accordance with the will of the voters. That people with lived experience must be directly involved in planning operations and governance. And the standards of accountability must be enforced. Recently, the city of San Leandro contracted rise, which is an organization founded by an individual who lived experience and more than 60% of that budget went directly to people that are unhoused through their payroll. This is an implementable plan that I would ask that we, in this case. James van. James van co founder of Ocontinus union and homeless advocacy working group. Three recommendations. We have a unique opportunity here and I hope we don't lose it. We have a 10-year housing plan, community driven and to address homelessness but we have no money to fund it. We have Measure W passed by the voters to do that and we ought to find a way to one-link measure W, to the 10-year housing plan. Second recommendation, there's a lot to be worked out. We need to create a task force to consider all the problems, the allocation, formulas, how we address mental illness, abuse issues, the third recommendation, the county needs to make a definite commitment to fund, at let's do this together, 5% for the county and the rest to measure W and the tenure housing plan. Thank you. Armando, you're on the line. You have one minute. Thank you. There's not enough interim housing for the unhoused or permanent supportive housing for them to transition to. Measure W could make a big difference. The entirety of Measure W funds must be used what it was intended for, what the voters voted for, to spend it on homelessness solutions. So, the people with lived experience who have valuable expertise in what works and what doesn't work in homeless services. They must be included in the design governance and operation of these programs. There are all kinds of problems with interim housing conditions. We need the county to enforce higher standards, implement oversight and institute, community driven solutions. Please see the guidance published by the homeless advocacy working group on self-governed sanctuary communities. This model has the support of grassroots advocacy organizations and reduces administrative overhead costs. It's a solution that can be scaled to meet the need. We need robust services onsite and interim housing and from the support of housing programs. People need health care. They are being warehouse, hidden from public view, excluded from public life. The health governance access to health care. Julia from transform. Good afternoon, members of the board and all the incredible advocates and staff and allies in the room. My name is Julia Gerstmanco. I'm the housing and parking policy manager at transform. where envision vibrant neighborhoods transformed by excellent sustainable mobility options and affordable housing where those historically impacted by racist disinvestment now have power and voice. Ebalt C has been key to making this vision a reality in the East Bay for 50 years not just by providing material infrastructure to house those most in need but also the social infrastructure that allows for communities to thrive. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Ibalzi upheld the county's eviction moratorium, ensuring that vulnerable residents remain housed. This came in resulted in over 12 million in loss rental revenue threatening the sustainability of their housing portfolio. So we're asking you to allocate 15 million to stabilize this coalition of nonprofit affordable housing providers. Thank you. Omar you have one minute. Good afternoon Supervisor. My name is Omar I'm a developer with a Balcy. A regarding Measure W in the County's Herving Plan, please note that building additional permanent supportive and affordable housing is incredibly important in addressing the county of the region's housing crisis. As one of the largest developers of permanently affordable housing in Alameda County, he respectfully suggests that of course the Measure W funds be devoted as a capital source for new construction projects to be leveraged with existing local funding like Oakland's Measure U. It's put into projects that are shovel ready, help meet our affordable housing needs and can be sustainably operated, be prioritized. Thank you. Lori Flores. Good morning, Board of Supervisors and members of the public. I'm here representing the city of Fremont. I'm the homeless services manager. I'm here in support. The city of Fremont is in support of Alameda County Health staff's proposal for Measure W funds in alignment with the home together plan, which also aligns with Fremont's homelessness response plan. We need the measure W funds to materialize these plans. As the city with the third highest rate of homelessness and second highest rate of unsheltered homelessness, we appreciate you, Madam supervisors, for bringing that up and we are ready and willing to work with the county on an equitable plan to distribute funding geographically and just want to emphasize that the health and safety of our communities increases when everyone can reside indoors and the recent successes of revealed by the 2020 for point-and-time count means we know what works so invest in and scale up in the programs that work. Thank you. Sharon you're on the line you have one minute. Thank you. Good morning supervisors. I'm just here to echo the speakers to support permanent supportive housing and services funding for currently unhoused residents. My name is Sharon Christen with Mercy Housing, California. We are a statewide nonprofit affordable housing provider. We are partnering with Alameda Point Collaborative and Lifelong Medical Care to build 1, 2, 4, 5, McKay Avenue, 107 units of permanent supportive housing for older adults, 62 years and older, within a wellness campus that will be developed by Alameda Point Collaborative and to be operated by lifelong. We believe that we have the capital sources identified for one, two, four, five, McKay Avenue with the city and county of Alameda funds committed to start construction by fall, 2026. We support the board to move forward with the original plan to fund home with services and capital funds Per permanent sport of housing with proper W funds Services and housing like the Alameda Wellness Campus are the types of resources we need our community to end homelessness for older adults. Thank Next three in-person speakers Vivian one Archimedes, Caldera and Michael Piotr. Good afternoon now. I'm Vivian Juan. I'm the CEO of a Boad Services. We provide homeless and housing services throughout Alameda County, serving about 5,000 people every single year. And we do it all. We do outreach, we do shelter, we do permanent supportive housing, we build and we manage. So you can imagine our mission is to end homelessness. It's not to move homelessness around. It's not just shuffle people. And we are at a perfect storm right now. The federal government is decreasing any meager safety net we have. The state is doubling down with new sims criminalization and cities are just trying to push people out of their communities offering nothing because there is nothing to offer unless you change the discourse unless you put the resources forward that the voters wanted to be put towards housing and homelessness. The time is now. We have the opportunity. There's lots of gaps but I can tell you we're gonna have to close doors and it's gonna get worse if you don't invest in what is here now. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Adam Kimi Descaldera. I'm the Human Services Director for the City of Fremont. As Measure W is implemented, please support successful existing services. It is going to be critical to do that. In Fremont, That looks like the Keep Freemont House program where we provide rent and a rears and perspective rent. It means street outreach and case management where we meet clients where they are. It means the Housing Resource Center access points run by the city of Freemont as well as our partner of both services. It means interim housing solutions like our winter relief program, safe parking, and the Housing Navigation Center in Fremont. It also means to sunrise village shelter run by a boat. It also means your continued support for the housing community supports program. Thank you so much. Supervisors. My name is Michael Piotak. I've lived in Oakland now for 47 years. I've opened my own architects office 40 years ago specifically to address the needs of affordable housing. Was at the time when Ronald Reagan was in office, you remember back then, Nate? We suddenly got three million people homeless on the streets because of the way he slashed the budget of HUD. That was child's play compared to what has just happened in Washington, DC. You're going to see another title wave within 12 months, double the number of people living on the streets of Alameda County. So we've got to do something. I think you're going to regret that it's only $390 million and not the full full 600 million for measure W being spent on these issues. I signed up for another one and I waived at a moment ago, so I'm going to have a few more seconds. Two other points I want to make. I know of five parcels owned by the state in Oakland, totaling about seven acres of land that could become affordable housing, about 900 units of housing, could be built those lots. For them are on Mandela Parkway, they've been vacant for 30 years. One of them is a whole city block in District 2 of Oakland that has one little one story building owned by the state and a huge parking lot that's empty most of the time. That could be 300 units of housing right there. Something's gotta be done done about those state parcels and get them in the final point I want to make. I've learned more in the last three years working directly with unhoused people, specifically the folks of Wood Street, than I did in 55 years as an architect doing affordable housing. People who are unhoused or who are formally unhoused must be part of the solution. Anything that you look at for the future, that money from Measure W must be hiring people who have that experience. They know how to bridge the gap. The social service providers can only do so much as college educated social service providers. You need people with the lived experience from the streets to help bridge that gap. I've learned more in those three years working with them about how to solve these problems than I did in the previous 55 years. May I, John Genosco, Arlene Hibb? I can't Michael a little bit more time since he, uh, when did I run on Reagan? And I do apologize we can't give speakers more time, but come on. But thank you. Thank you. Thank you. John, I'll go from the witsery comments. Thank you so much, Mike. What Mike just said is we have been working together for the last three years, basically working on better solutions for shelter programs in term housing. I just came from the East 12th eviction this morning, homophonous and witchery comments in the Oakland Homeless Union Held press conference. I want to say this really quick that at the beginning of the hotel being, I guess, allocated for people to go, there were three encampments, major encampments that were promised housing there, and were down to maybe 5% of each one of those encampments of people being able to access that are being let into that. It shows right there there is a great need for more interim housing also just the show of people that showed up today is just overwhelmingly amazing It shows right there there is a great need for more interim housing also just the show of people that showed up today is just overwhelmingly Amazing and everybody is on the same page with what needs to happen So I just want to say thank you guys for allocating hopefully in the future all the six hundred and fifty million dollars to the Alameda Housing plan and everybody else's plan out here. Thank you. Good afternoon. Board supervisors and community. My name is O'Lean Hippen. I'm a resident of Oakland. I'm here today to urge the use of Measure W Funds as intended with voters over one I'm really supported this measure. Measure W was passed to provide critical resources for both house and unhoused residents, ensuring that our community has access to stable housing, mental health, and essential support systems. The lays will only impact vulnerable individuals without the assistance they desperately need. The principles have measured W clearly state that the funds should be must be directed to what housing and homelessness services. I really believe Alameda County, this is a moral point that we really need to focus on. Without the passing of grants passed last year and also with Governor Newsom, just outlawing in campments. I really think that we need to pay attention to this and that we need to include those who have lived experiences in oversight, grievances, and a better model. Thank you. May I? Larry, Kay, and Sheila from St. Mary's. Thank you. Sheila Gay. I'm here with St. Mary's Center, and I do have some titles there, but my most important title this morning happened at eight o'clock, real time. A young lady decided to sit in the middle of San Pablo Avenue and start to disrupt. Everybody stopped. They were trying to decide what the action they should take. So what I did I went over and I said if you would allow me to try to talk her down and get her out of the street. So what I was able to do, I got her out of the street. What it showed was she had several problems. She was unhoused, she had a drug abuse problem, and she had an episode that occurred this morning. If this does not accrive for help and the use of measure does be a learning I don't know what is we've got to look at our unhoused and our extremely low income individuals as people who need services. Hello, how you doing? My name is Larry Davis and the Vice President Council is over at St. the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to the council. I'm going to go to homeless people and they homeless rate went up to 35% With the outreach that they have with just St. Mary's so with the measure W kicking in I know a glock more can be done So I just want to say big ups to St. Mary's over there because they've been moving and grooving and a bossy and everybody so Let's let's get this thing going y'all. Good morning everyone. My name is Kay Wine and I'm the president of the Council of Elders at St Mary's Center. So could you imagine getting off work today going home and finding four tents in front of your house. And the main green leaders happen to be family members of yours who become homeless in Alameda County. So if this could happen to you, it could happen to any of us. That's why it's so important for you to come together and release the money from Medjah W to help the homeless and seniors in Alameda County. But don't do it just for the homeless and seniors in Alameda County, take it personal and do it for the seniors in your life in Alameda County. Live it on a fixed income. And until next time, let peace, harmony, and wisdom be the empires of your lives. Thank you. Mo right, Damien Scott, Ray, Ryan? Good afternoon, board of supervisors. My name is Mo right Iien Scott Rae. Riot. Good afternoon board supervisors. My name is Mo right. I'm the co chair of the Alameda County. Oakland Berkeley COC. Commit continue of care. And I am here just to say I'm grateful for you standing up. housing and homelessness department in 2019. It's time to use it. They've really gotten up to speed. It's time to follow their plans. We our organization was part of the starting up measure W and along with former supervisor and deceased Wilma Chan. I would like to say that housing and homelessness and public safety are the major concerns in Alameda County and it's time to use the funds together with Proposition One funds to solve the problem now. So thank you very much. Damien Scott Ray Riyad. Janelle Chan, are you Ray? Oh no. Janelle Chan, Sharon Cornu, Tunisha from Family Violence Law. As a resident of the Class of Maclimin's neighborhood, I'm aware that there's a lot of suspicion about government these days about its credibility, about its effectiveness, about its honesty. Voters pass a measure that said funding will be used for housing and services for those experiencing homelessness. If government representatives later decided to use the funding meant for homelessness for other purposes, then they are just feeding and expanding the toxic suspicion that under undermining our institutions. The funding levels of measure W were intended to have a meaningful effect on the level of homelessness. If those funding levels are reduced in the effect on reducing homelessness could become invisible and suspicions about government effectiveness will be confirmed. To maintain its integrity, the Board of and its credibility, the Board of supervisors needs to affirm that the funding for major W is what the voters intended, for homeless purposes and for homeless housing. Thank you. If you heard your name call please come to the microphone. Janelle Sharon or Tanisha. Are you giving second chances? Go ahead, Sharon. Thank you so much. I think you said you want to speak on Measure W, but you didn't speak on it the last time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Supervisor Miley, for the consideration and for the support of the sport of supervisors in moving measure W forward. I remember the early planning meetings we never anticipated the length of the court battle or the continuing crisis through the pandemic and through the continuing changes in our housing market, which is increasing the number of people that we see on the streets. I was really struck by the presentation about the effectiveness of the system. I know at St. Mary's Center when we had emergency housing vouchers, the number of seniors we placed in permanent housing increased by 50% linear. Because there was a place for people to go, there was more housing built and a subsidy to help people hold onto that housing. As we build a homeless services system, I'm confident that the providers in the real working with people with lived experience can deliver results if there's ongoing funding. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Tunisia Owens. I am the Policy and Advocacy Manager at Family Violence Law Center in Oakland. And I would like to encourage the board to continue with implementing Measure W with the original intent to provide housing and homeless services, including flexible funds for homelessness prevention. Gender-based violence, that includes domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking, is a leading cause of women's homelessness with a significant portion of women citing intimate partner violence and abuse as a factor for them being unhoused. In fact, the American Bar Association has an article that reports that 90% of homeless women have experienced severe physical and sexual abuse in their lifetime. Women and families constitute a significant portion of the invisible unhoused population with women. I'd like to just make sure that I talk about prevention of homelessness and that gender-based violence survivors deserve to be included in this funding. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have one minute, Sandra. Yes, my name is Sandra Moore from Freemont for Everyone. I'm a resident of Freemont, California since 1970 and a constituent of District One. I would like to mirror the comments of Kate Amon and David Bonnacorzi from Freemont for everyone. And yes, we have had the most severe of all camping ordinances put into place. We are dealing with a shortage of beds for our people here. If you change the money or shortness of any money, we are in jeopardy of losing a boat, our Fremont Family Resource Center, which serves non-profits all throughout the Trice City area and beyond. Our Fremont Human Services was here today to speak on behalf. As Aaron Horner has stated, he recommends that we move forward with using 100% of these funds. Thank you very much. Dan Glasser, Helen you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank1, our operators received so many calls from one house people and people at risk of losing their homes. Their experience, they experienced the urgency and despair of these individuals and families and suffer themselves from secondary trauma. Many of our operators are pretty demoralized because we need, we're desperate for resources to provide our callers. At present, 33% of our callers this fiscal year are looking for housing and shelter. We've referred about 5,000 people to housing resource centers, half of which are in Oakland. And we've answered nearly 22,000 calls, texts, emails so far this year from Oakland out of the total of 69,000 calls and texts. So thank you for your consideration. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Helena Yala. I serve as a chief program officer at Reservative Pathways, formerly known as Ruby's Place. We are here to strongly urge that Missouri W Funds remain firmly dedicated to homelessness prevention and intervention. This is not just a policy decision, it is a moral imperative. Homelessness is a crisis in an epidemic in every corner of Alameda County, and we need to act boldly and intentionally to address it. Redirecting or diluting these funds would be a profoundly service to our communities and to those working every day on the front lines of this emergency. Historically, victim service agencies have been overlooked as part of the homeless response system. This is a critical oversight. A hundred percent of the clients will serve our homeless. And they are navigating not only housing stability, but also the repercussions of violence and exploitation. A restorative pathways alone, we operate a facilities across the region, offering rates specifically for homeless victims of violence. If we are serious about addressing homelessness at its root, we must include victim service agencies in this conversation and in this funding. Thank you. Good afternoon. Supervisor Miley, Supervisor Bias, Supervisor Tam.'Malley Fowles, housing director at Telegraph Community Ministry Center, man up from Heaven Breakfast Program, a roof over their heads, emergency to permanent housing. I'm also the former health commissioner for the city of Berkeley, and have also now been made a member of an elder council member of Homfulness of Poor Magazine. That model, the Homfulness model, is the one that everybody has been talking about in terms of bringing the money to the people who have the experience of being homeless so that homeless people can form their own build their own and run their own for their own housing situations. We take that vision as the coordination and the re implementation of Alameda County Social Services, BACS, BOSS, Roots, Clinic, Departments of Public Health, and banks, credit unions unions and lending facilities that do not give landlords any more moratorium than they gave tenants. We think that this is something that needs to be addressed by this particular measure. Thank you very much and look forward to seeing you again. Tesla, Mikara. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Tesla McCarle. I'm Executive Director of Supportive Housing Community Land Alliance and also a member at EBO, a board member at EBO East Bay Housing Organizations. I wanted to keep my conversation or topic brief today just to touch on something that I haven't seen really discussed at length today, which is the importance of licensed boarding cares. These are facilities that provide 24-hour care and support individuals with serious mental illness. And we've seen closures of these facilities all across the county, about 175 closures over the last five years, accounting for about 3,300 beds. We put an average cost of about $150,000 per bed. There's about $450 million in closures, just the value of closures of licensed boarding care. Just putting that to your attention, We're very supportive of Measure W and would like to see the Board of Supervisors support housing and homeless investments. Thanks. I have no additional items. Speakers for item three. All right. Okay. Well, we're going to thank the speakers. Bring them back to the Board members for ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to the public comments, I want to affirm the importance of using public land for housing, the need for safe parking, as well as the need for housing of survivors of gender-based violence. And my question is related to the question from the public about board and care. Are, has the staff identified the number of board and care beds that are needed in our system and is that part of the plan? I will invite Michelle up too as well. It is something we have been contempl that provides support, so patch funding directly from our behavioral health department that H&H administers to support 300 or so units that are specifically providing deeply and enriched funding to help folks experiencing homelessness who need those, access those, and we know we need more. It it's definitely been contemplated. I'll defer to Michelle more looking more the system from the housing plan. Yeah, so what we've identified is last 22 years, 23 years. We've lost almost 7,000 beds of board and care or independent living facilities for people with acute issues. And that's really for two reasons. The first reason has to do with the cost of operating those units and the reimbursement rates. And we're actually jointly submitting a powletter to request an increase in operating funding for those types of units. However, the second reason really has to do with the fact that a lot of these are small mom and pop businesses who essentially leased their buildings from a third party. And as the real estate market went through the roof after the foreclosure crisis, we saw a dramatic number of property owners say, hey, I can make a lot of money. I'm going to sell my building. But because the operating costs were higher in a new building or a new unit, because rent control, especially in places like Berkeley and and Oakland when you went to lease the next building that bed night rate that was available didn't cover the costs and those small mom and pop shut their doors and that was the number one reason. So there is a land trust, Tesla is running it and it is one of the identified sort of small Development opportunities that we think is really critical is the ability for us to acquire single-family homes put additional units on the back of those through things like shift and Basically increase the number of boarding care units license board and care or independent living facilities Either one are critical to our, and It's really what the care first jails last task force identified as one of the number one critical needs within the system Thank you so much to both of you for the presentations in your work and answering those questions I wanted to also just make some brief comments in regards to the public's comments on Measure W. And Jonathan, I don't have any more questions. So feel free to sit down. I do think this is, and thank you, President, my— I'm sorry, I keep doing that. Thank you, supervisor, Miley and supervisor, Tam. Our vice president for doing this joint hearing and allowing me to join. I think it's really important to have these hearings so that members of the we can hear members of the public and also so they can hear where we are in regards to some of the decisions that we will be making. And so in terms of measure, Dolby, you thank you again for everyone who came. I do want to just share for the record that I believe the vast majority of funds should go towards supporting homelessness, which is what the voters understand we will be doing. And I appreciate the documents stating and support the commitment to collaborate with our cities and invest where there is the greatest need. Thank you to the cities who were here today. of our cities have action plans, have their own funding towards prevention, interim housing as well. Thank you to the cities who were here today. Many of our cities have action plans, have their own funding towards prevention, interim housing, as well as permanent housing, and some of our cities even have funding that can be leveraged with Measure W as well as pipelines that we can invest in sooner versus later to see our housing stock increase. I wanted to also say in particular that I think it's important to invest in housing for people with the greatest barriers. And so today we heard about the seriously mentally ill population. We've also talked about justice involved people as well as those with substance use issues. I think that's really important. And then finally, having heard from our affordable housing developers, and some in particular who have a need for longer term sustainability, I do want to share that I'm hoping to exploring what that stabilization looks like because there's a critical role that our affordable housing developers play, not only in creating housing, but in terms of ongoing supportive housing that we need to ensure we have a long-term plan for. I think it's also important to have clear criteria for how some of that funding might be allocated and deployed as well. I want this funding to really maximize addressing homelessness and hope that over the next couple months the board will have more discussions together with our staff for how we do that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Superintendent Bassons. I was just going to have any comments. Yeah, I just want to state that like Mike Mike pointed out, in which I'm very concerned about with what's happening at the federal government level, and obviously people pointed out what Governor Newsom is doing, et cetera. I think we're going to, I mean, we could be in for a tremendous burden. It's going to be a place upon us. Every time I think we're beginning to see a little light through the tunnel, it begins to darken again. And that's just disturbing. So I do think it's extremely important that our staff, and that's why I don't want to get ahead of our staff. I'll measure W, and I don't want to lock myself into any position other than saying I do agree. The vast majority of our funds need to go towards housing for measure W. I've been very consistent on that, but I haven't locked into just what that would look like. I know Jim mentioned, Jim Van, maybe 5% go to other things other than homelessness. We're once gone that locked into anything just yet, but I do think it's fundamentally important that our staff social services housing and homelessness, behavioral health, as well as housing and community development. Look, look at this. We bridge all of this and get them the maximum benefit out of our measure W funding. Because once again, we're trying to deal with the crisis and that crisis could be enhanced based on what's happening presently amongst us. And then, and I've said this before too, Measure W, it sunsets soon. And we have to show results if we do expect voters to reauthorize it in another you know three four or five years or so. So I think those are some of the things that I just need to be taken into the mix. We've heard a lot. Some people say we got the answers. We need to have evidence based obviously. We need folks who have lived experience involved with this. So I'm waiting for our staff to take all this into context and come back to the full board with the County Administrator as well in July. So we can grapple with this and hopefully decide on a direction. But once again, it's not part of our present deliberations around our 2526 budget. This will be a matter that we'll be taking up independent of that budget because we do need to see the implications on the county's budget based on the other challenges we face as well. So I do think this has been healthy today to hear the feedback from all of you. It's been very informative. So thank you. So let's try to go to item four and then we can hopefully finish by hopefully 130 at the latest because I do either two of you available until 130. Okay. Yeah, there's a pal meeting 130. So if we could do this and I know I have another meeting That starts at one, but I'll hold off on that. So let's go to the item 4 Good afternoon my name is Shane Roggy and I'm a program services coordinator with the Alameda County Social Services Agency I Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today on behalf of my agency on the issue and the topic of the Alameda County Emergency Shelter Bednight Rate. Today, thank you. Today I'll be providing you with an overview of the Alameda County Shelter Bednight Rate, an update on the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, Emergency Shelnight rate assessment, and considerations related to the emergency shelter bednight rate. The Alameda County Emergency Shelter Bednight Rate was established as a county-wide effort to stabilize funding for our Alameda County funded emergency shelter beds and to establish emergency shelter standards to ensure a consistent quality of care and service delivery for shelter residents across all Alameda County funded emergency shelters. In 2017, the first set of county-wide emergency shelter standards were adopted by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. And the amount Alameda County Emergency Shelter bed night rate was first submitted to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors with a rate of $34.06 per night. Since 2019, the Alameda County Social Services Agency has been including an updated Alameda County Emergency Shelter bed night rate of $36.42 per night in all agencies emergency shelter contracts. An important note regarding the bednight rate is that it was originally calculated to cover the cost of space and shelters. It was not originally intended to cover the cost of the full scope of all shelter operations and services. As the existing bednight rate of 3642 has been included in contracts for the past six years with no change, Alameda County Social Services Agency-funded emergency shelters have requested increased funding Sided increases in their operational costs. Listening to the requests of the Alameda County Shelter Provide. emergency shelters have requested increased funding, cited increases in their operational costs. Listening to the requests of the Alameda County Shelter Providers and recognizing the need for a reassessment of the Emergency Shelter Bed Night Rate, the Alameda County Social Services Agency submitted the bed night rate to be assessed as part of a UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy graduate student work project, which I'll be sharing an update on in a few minutes. The Alameda County Social Services Agency currently funds 645 year-round emergency shelter beds. For the purposes of today's presentation, we're listing these shelters under four shelter types. Single or adult shelters, which would include transitional age-use shelters that serve those age 18 to 24. Family shelters, domestic violence shelters, and new shelters that serve those age 12 to 17. The Alameda County Social Services Agency is currently in the process of procuring an additional 29 emergency shelter beds through our existing shelter providers. The additional beds are pending submission to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and if approved it will bring our current inventory of social services agency-funded beds to 674. Over the next two slides, my intent is to give you a more detailed picture of the Alameda County Social Services Agency-funded Emergency Shelter Bed and Ventory. The 645 Alameda County Social Services Agency-funded beds are split between 14 Emergency Shelter Provider Contracts. 199 of those contracted beds are specifically available for families. 196 are specifically available for single adult individuals. 92 have been referenced on this slide under family and single adult as some shelter providers provide facilities that can flexibly support serving individuals, they're both single adults or families within their same site. 90 are specifically available for those in need of domestic violence shelter and 68 are single adult transitional age youth slash youth shelter. Our previously funded youth shelter was included under this contract and contracted service provider. Unfortunately, the youth site was closed in June of 2024. This provider is currently in construction on remaining sites, which is currently having an impact on the number of their available beds that they can support with. However, with the addition of 29 beds that will be submitted to the board, we do intend to procure 12 additional youth shelter beds, knowing that we currently have no youth shelter here in Alameda County that's being funded through our agency. This final note on this slide, I would like you to see there are shelters retain very high usage as it's reflected in the percentages showing from our March data reports. It's also important to note that the Alameda County Social Services Agency does not fund all beds and the shelters that we work with. With the pending beds, we will increase our existing inventory to 674 of the 890 beds in the shelters that we fund. The additional beds in these shelters are funded through other funding sources. This slide is intended to give you a simpler view of the last slide, and essentially it shows that with the pending submission, that we will be able to have 12 youth shelter beds serving those ages 12 to 17, 68 single adult transitional age youth shelter beds, 92 beds for those in need of domestic violence shelter, 92 beds flexibly subordinate both single adult and families within the same site, 211 beds for single adults, and 190 beds, 99 beds, specifically for families. As we recognize operational costs, including space costs for our shelter providers, have increased. We acknowledge the need to reestablish an updated bednight rate that's reflective of current space costs. When the original bednight rate was calculated, the rate was determined by assessing the costs of fair market rent for a single room occupancy here in Alameda County, then dividing that cost by an average of 30 nights. This is what resulted in the originally approved bed night rate of $34.6. As a step towards bringing the bed night rate current, the Alameda County Social Services Agency proposes utilizing the same process with the current single room occupancy for fair market rent, which would result in a new bed night rate of $48.43 per night. With this proposal identified and submitted to the board for review, we do ask if you please allow us to provide you with updates from the bed night rate assessment report that's just been completed. The assessment project that was submitted to UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy was accepted by graduate student, Carlin Neri. The project work included a review of the 14 Alameda County Social Services Agency funded year-round emergency shelter providers and their 24 sites. The bed night rate methodologies that have been utilized in major metropolitan locations across the United States, including locations in California and in the Bay Area. Self-reported information received from 12 of our 14 Alameda County Social Services Agency, funded providers that have identified their operating costs and their services provided. And the review of a report titled Efficient Solutions for Emergency Shelter Funding, a strategic framework for Alameda County. This report was completed last year by JB Miles, who was also a UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy graduate student who was performing work for Alameda County Health. In Carlinnery's work, she modeled the assessment for the bed night rate by utilizing a full cost bed night rate calculation methodology that was used in Los Angeles in 2024. Based on the receipt of self-reported operational cost data that had been received from our Alameda County Social Services Agency funded shelter providers, she was able to identify that the average reported costs for domestic violence shelters in Alameda County is approximately $87.47 per night. For family shelters, it's approximately $91.8 per night. For single shelters, it's approximately $97.70 per night. And as we only have a single-use shelter, which we're in the process of procuring, hopefully these additional 12 beds for, she obtained a projected operational cost for the single U shelter, which was identified as $243.27 per night. This shelter provider currently does operate two other shelters within their agency. A one is federally funded and the other is state funded. And both of those exceed the projected cost of 24327. It was reported to Alameda County for servicing the 12 beds at that particular site. When comparing the cost of the bed night rate, funding that is currently being paid by the Alameda County Social Services Agency to the reported cost submitted by the providers, Miss Neri found that existing funding covers approximately 15 to 42% of the provider's current operating costs. And she also identified that the original intent of the Alameda County Social Services Agency funding was not intended to cover the true cost for all shelter operations. Based on her research and assessment, Miss Neri recommended if pursuing a bed night rate increase. Alameda County should establish no less than two distinct bed night rates. At least one for the youth shelter, as that's an outlier to those other shelters that have been identified for the projected costs, and the rest as a general rate for all other shelter types. Oh, I apologize. I jumped ahead by one slide too many. Sorry about that board members. We are presenting both our recommendation for a bed night rate increase as well as the board's consideration for the assessment and work completed by Miss Neary. When considering factors we recognize that it's important to understand many factors including cost. To establish a picture of cost at the current rate of $36.42 per night for the Alameda County Social Services Agency funded year-round emergency shelter beds. The annual cost is $8,959,684. If considering an increase to the updated proposed bed night rate a $48.43, the annual cost would increase to approximately $11 million, $11 million, $914,000, $14,264. If, utilizing a full cost methodology to increase the bed night rate, as was identified in Ms. Neary's work, a high average of the general shelter types set with a rate of $97.70 would result in an annual cost of nearly $25 million. There are many advantages and concern when considering these options. Some being, for the single rate occupancy, fair market rate update that's been proposed by the Alameda County Social Services Agency as a next step, we recognize this is a known process that's been previously utilized. However, we also know this does not fund our shelter providers at their full operational costs and requires them to seek out additional funding to maintain their existing operations. When considering a full cost, bed night rate, it would increase the funding for our shelters and it would limit or remove the needs of our shelter providers to seek out other funding to maintain and ensure sustainability for the shelters in our county. However, it would also establish a much higher cost, which would basically establish a need to maintain a mechanism for county funding to be able to increase those costs for the bed night rate. Most importantly, we ask for your consideration as we recognize increased funding and support is needed from the Alameda County to ensure our county shelters can remain open and able to serve those in need seeking shelter from the streets and places not intended for individuals and families to live. We recognize this requires a balance to maintain fiscal responsibility and to be able to make sustainable funding sources to meet this need. In closing, as a next step, we address the funding needs of our Alameda County Social Services Agency-funded shelter providers. We ask that you consider our proposal to increase the bed night rate to $48.43 per night and support our agency with increased funding to meet this need. Beyond that, we ask that you seriously consider the research completed by the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy students who've assessed the bed night rate and have identified other bed night rate calculation methodologies, such as a full cost methodology. We recognize this may require a more detailed review of these reports, and when available, these reports can be made and given to the board for their review and further assessment. Thank you so much for your time today, and I'm happy to answer any questions for you. I think thank you for the excellent report. So there's a bass with the tab. Any questions comments? I have a couple quick questions and I appreciate the presentation because we had asked for this last year when we suddenly had to come up with one time funding because a lot of shelters would have closed and a lot of these shelters are saying that our bed night rates were outdated and given the cost of expenses that they're facing. So it's good to see that we're adding potentially 29 units are beds from 645 to 674? Correct. And so the questions I had was during the research that you did. You said that shelters don't only depend on the bed night rate, which you're proposing to be around 11.9 million total. What other county funds go into the shelters besides the bed night rate? Well, there are different funding sources that come in. What I can speak to that we've identified and discussing this, and I want to sure I identify too. Miss Niery's report, she did the research herself. I was involved in a lot of the support of assistance so I don't wanna speak completely on her behalf. Miss Niery would have loved to have been here today, but she's actually part of a program called the Capstone Program, and I think some of you board members are aware of. She's actually presenting right now at this exact time on her delivery of this as well. Otherwise, she would have been here to be able to answer and support with some of these questions. With that said, we have found that a lot of the efforts for additional funding can be philanthropic opportunities, a lot of fundraising that's being performed by those shelter providers. There's also other funding that comes from behavioral health. There's also funding that that comes from the Housing and Homelessness Services group. I think that director, yes, and from the probation department. And so there are multiple county sources that are out there, but there's also non-county sources that are being utilized to fund these shelters. Okay, because I'm trying to get a composite view of like the total cost to the county or the shelters because the bed nights only one portion of it, right? That's correct. This is just for a Alameda County social services agency funded sites. This is just what we have for our particular contracts. But we don't have the information at hand on whether the total composite cost, if we translate it to the full service of what $91 is something per night. 9170. And I may need to draw on the support of our directors here that are on location. I, the 9770 that I speak to, that is specific for contracts that we run through Alameda County Social Services. My understanding is, and I don't want to speak incorrectly to this, but using probation as an example, they have separate contracts that I don't believe utilize the bed night rate that's set here in Alameda. Director Russell, I think. Yeah, there are separate funding sources, both through H&H's portions of half will go into, for example, the Fremont Navigation Center probation contracts for about 200 beds directly themselves where they do a full cost rate. So the composite budget would be there's a composite picture of all of the county funding across departments that goes towards shelters, but it doesn't generally overlap with the proportion of funding going into the SSC shelters. So there's separate beds that probation will fund in full. There's projects that we funnel funding through. So there's, you know, much more than the 9 million, but that's the only local local funding, local general fund that goes toward shelter in those proportions. So it's a range of sources across agencies. So can you help me understand what determines the difference in the shelter rates between like family versus youth versus domestic violence? And because it seems like the youth needs a lot more funding. Yeah, what what Miss Nere's work identified is generally speaking, one of the largest components of the cost for those shelters, it really came down to staffing. And one of the factors for the youth shelter, why it's so significantly higher, is because if you have three eight hour shifts that are requiring a person that's doing supervision of the six beds that would be upstairs for that facility, and another person running a shift downstairs for the males that are located for the six beds in that downstairs area, that's two individuals that are on shift for an eight hour shift, multiplying that three times per day, and it's causing six people to need to be there, basically to run that full care seven day, 24 hour operation. And that's just for the person that's specifically there monitoring for them. That's not including the other operational costs that they have at the site. But that is what we saw distinctly and what I believe as well documented her report, which we will certainly be getting to you once it is finalized. But she clearly established that the operational cost was staffing was by far the largest cost. Okay, thank you so much. Yeah, that's all. Thank you for the report. It's very timely given the need for these services. I'll just keep it to one basic question. What is the proposed youth shelter rate? The proposed youth shelter rate, 243, just want to make sure I state it right for that. 243, 27 is the proposed, yes, 243, 27, is the proposed youth shelter rate. If a specific shelter rate was to be identified, and that was, I think you're speaking to Miss Nierry's work where she identified the broken down cost at a full costcost methodology. Is that what you're asking? Or are you asking just as of right now? I am asking so as I understand it, 48.43 is what's being proposed for the updated shelter rate. That's correct. And so that would be inclusive of a youth shelter rate if that is what the board was to go ahead and accept at this point in time. Okay, I thought I misheard that there would be a separate rate for youth. So in Ms. Nierry's work, she actually had done a review and a proposal of a full cost methodology. And that's where she identified the specific rate for domestic violence, for youth, for family, and for adult singles. Currently though, we are not using a full-cost methodology in Alameda County for our bed night rate. We're using the single-rate occupancy fair market rent rate, which was set at 3642, which we all, I believe, know, requires an update. And that's what the presentation, the proposal on behalf of social services as a next step is to at least increase it to the current equivalency of that single rate occupancy fair market rent. Beyond that, we do hope that the board takes in consideration the reports that were completed by the UC Berkeley students that talk about other types of calculation methodologies, such as a full cost rate. We do not want to put that upon you at this point in time without being able to see what the reports would look like. The Alameda County Health Report was completed last year. That is accessible. However, Ms. Nierri's report, as she is just presenting this today, is still with her UC Berkeley advisor being finalized. And so we do not want to be so forward as to make a recommendation on something you've not had a chance to be able to review yourself, shouldn't see what's the report outlines and establishes. I see, thank you for that clarification. I will just say having worked with some of the organizations that serve our transitional age youth, including those who are victims of human trafficking and other, you know, very serious issues. I think that we should have a higher rate for transitional age youth and youth who are are also 12 to 17, so I would like the county to be able to look at that higher rate. Thank you. So right now the stance proposing the $48 in some sense. Yes. As a consideration, this is an informational life. Right. Right. I know it's not action. You're proposing that. Okay. Then, um, when do you expect this committee or joint committee to get the information from the report? Miss Nere's report was given to her advisor at UC Berkeley a week ago and so it's being finalized that review and then I anticipate it should be being published very shortly. I would like to say a few days we have not been given the exact number of days but we expect to be very soon, especially considering she's actually delivering a presentation like I said similar to this herself as we speak. Okay, because I do think this is all general fund money, right? Yeah, that's correct. So if we do go up, I'm looking for that one page. Okay, it's almost $12 million at the 48, 43 ahead. So I, you know, I definitely, I don't want to get another information, but I do think that's prudent. And then, let's super out into the bathroom, saying exploring the youth rate, the shelter rate overall, based on the final conclusions from the report, would be helpful. And I hope those considerations, once again, would be looked at, backing up to what I said earlier with the Social Services Agency to be in every health department housing and homelessness and HCD looking at the whole measure W, you know, configuration because if we do want to use the measure W money towards this, we'd have to factor in, you know, what would be appropriate and the sustainability of that over the course of them, the next five years or so, it'd been what happens after that. So I'm not telling you what to do at the moment. I'm just saying put all that in the mix. Okay, yes sir. And those discussions will take place supervisor in Jonathan's presentation. He did say bed night rape integration with NYSHAW. Exactly. Okay, so we will be revisiting this, but in terms of the fact that you wanna increase the bed night rate to 4843, when will that be an action? I did, it's certainly part of the budget, but when is that coming forward to the full board? I will need to have a follow up conversation with the county administrators office. Okay, right? Okay, thanks. All right, let's hear. Thank you for the floor. Let's hear from the speakers. Can I just ask one more? Yes, you're a really quick question. So some of the shelters that are here on your list, run by different nonprofits, They're not 100% occupied, right? Are they available, for example, for people that are moving out of homeless encampments? So those shelters are not always 100% occupied. That's correct. And sometimes that happens because of the fact since COVID, what we found from some of our shelter operators they they've changed their delivery of service, whereas they previously may have had, for example, four beds in one particular room. During COVID, they went to a reduced occupancy situation where they may have only had a family of three being in there and not increased the, and got to the increased amount of the full four beds because they didn't want to put in another person in that room or maybe four singles. So because of that, we've seen some carryover with some of the providers where they've actually not maximized their space due to COVID restrictions and regulations. And so the numbers that we have under contract is something that we're going to be looking at. And the next tier of contracts we run, the existing contracts, we're actually still run during a COVID time frame. And so we may need to reassess some of those numbers. But ultimately, anyone who is homeless, the recommendation through these shelter providers is that they're utilizing the coordinated entry system to be able to get access into our shelters. And many of them also will do their own direct entry. They'll have hotline numbers, 24 or seven hotline numbers to be able to call to try to also get placement there if there's space available at some of those shelters. Okay, because this is of March of 2025. So it's past COVID now. We're hoping That's correct. Okay, and we are addressing that and have communicated that with them. Thank you. I just want to point out to the Social Services Committee, which I'm no longer on, but it was one of my favorite committees. I served on it. The last time the bed rate was assessed, was 2014, and 2025. So I do think, minimally, the justification to 4843 is there. So, all right. I know they've got another committee meeting. She's got a meeting. She's going to have to chair. I mean, going to have to clerk. So how many speakers do we have? Four. Okay. Four speakers. Five speakers. Okay, well, I'm going to give you a minute. You know, but we're just running out of time. So call our speakers please. Vivian Juan, Liz Verrella, Jennifer Ellis, and Sean Sullivan. I'll try to be super fast. I understand the time. So we're one of those shelter providers last year. You all gave the director of staff to come back and fix this so that we would not lose shelter beds because that gap that's real. There's not fundraising to be had right now. That's a magical thinking. So if you don't want shelter beds in the community, don't fund. But I commend yes, we need the 48th grade. It's not going to solve the problem. That's not enough. That gap is still going to be there. And you're going to lose shelter beds. So you can't spend a lot of time adding. But if you lose what we have, it's just you actually gave staff directive to come back and fix it. They studied it and then said business as usual folks. It's not okay. So I'm letting you know there will be repercussions if it's not fully funded because there's not magical money dropping out of the sky. You say fully funded your time at the 97 dollars? Okay. Okay, got you. Right. Okay. So I'm Liz Verell and executive director of building futures and we run three shelters two for women and children and one for domestic violence survivors. I quickly did back of the envelope this with if we only get a $48 bump. bump, we have a $400,000 gap still. Last week, I got funding cuts of $160,000 from San Leandro and Alameda. We haven't heard from Oakland yet. We anticipate, we're not counting at the 160, we anticipate they probably will cut it. We're waiting for ESG funding from the state, I mean from the county, we don't know we're gonna get it. So we were one of the agencies last year who made a stakeholder report who said if we weren't funded we have to close one of our shelters. Right now with this funding that is still true. $400,000 cut means we have to close, I mean, a $400,000 gap means we have to shut one of our shelters. We really advocate for measure W to fill the gap and that we really do do a $90 bedrate. If you really look at shelter standards, it is outrageous what we're being asked and how little we're being paid. So if we really want shelter standards, we're really gonna have to we're really gonna have to fund it. Thank you. Sean Sullivan representing Covenant House, California. And as of this month, I'm now serving as the interim residential services director for Covenant House Hayward. We will open this summer. I see in the report that those beds are already being counted. I don't understand why because it then is showing. I don't understand the 94% either because 30 of those beds are not operational. They will be operational once Hayward is open. Currently, Oakland is funded for 40 beds and under Supervisor Bass's leadership under the Oakland City Council, flexible funding, one time flexible funding was created in the 2023 budget that Covet House is right now constructing additional 20 beds so Oakland will have 60 and then Hayward will have 30 for 1290 were able to provide. I think that's sorry is that my time. As Supervisor Tam stated at last June's board meeting you did fund, I think, that total was $950,000. And as a previous speaker, it said, if you don't fund the full rate, it's you're allowing for this to have these kind of crises to come every year. For us at Covent House, 50% of our fund it, our government funding has a federal source. As Speaker said earlier, this funding is being cut every day. And so we are all in this precarious situation. So if we're not all fully funded or funded somewhere, the S-48 rate is a great increase. But I would also say any increase that you should do should be tied to a cola for every year. So that we're not coming back here every year asking for money, asking for these increases or waiting at 10 years to do it, but it is tied to an annual increase. So that is counted in your budget and what agencies can anticipate for. Thank you. Chonro fans, chon, chon, chon, so as you rate the 200 so For covenant has, it's a $200 to 13. I don't believe that there what was suggested is that that is for the $200 was for minors, correct? So you're not considering transitioning to youth in that. I think the money that was considered for that would be in the 48. But, you know, we could definitely make the case that similar to the licensing mandates, which I believe you are referencing, that make it so expensive for youth, transitionally, as youth are very much more expensive because of the intensity of services that you're getting. There's no magic that happens when you turn 18 and I think you all know that. Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. My name is Jennifer Ellis, and I'm speaking on behalf of La Familia. As you know, La Familia merged with Fesco, the Fat and Lee Emergency Shelter Coalition, about seven years ago at this point. So we do run family shelter housing. I want to first say that I'm grateful for all of the work that this staff has done. I think that these are good, solid, rigorous folks who care about our people and I'm really grateful to be among them. I want to let you know just a little bit about what we're seeing. Right now we have nine parents in our shelter. Seven of them have some sort of persistent chronic illness that makes sustainable placement troublesome. And so this idea that like, if we invest now, we can move people, we absolutely can, but it's hard at the $30 a night, right? And even at the $48, $48 a night, it's still gonna take a lot of effort. There was this question about how do those gaps get bridged, they get bridged through the nonprofits, patching things together. You know that Lafamilia does lots of services and lots of departments. And usually a department will say, hey, do you want to do a thing? And they put it on RFP and we apply to the RFP and we do the thing and they gave us the money, right? And that's not how it works in housing. In housing, we bridge things together, we patchwork things together literally every day. And so this is really, really important. And I want to just advocate that even the 48, you know, isn't enough when we look at that, when we look at the deficit, some are closer to 65 might be more fair and more real. But the other thing I just want to mention before I sit down is what we're really also talking about is the wages we were able to pay to these staff members who work in these shelters and that that is a big deal, right? These are also our constituents who were trying to make family sustaining wages to live here in Alameda County where we know things are really expensive. So I want to mention Measure W and our support that it is used towards housing in order to cover these gaps and others within the ecosystem and just appreciate the values that you all hold, the values that we all hold in this room. And we get to ask ourselves right now, who do we want to be? And this is part of the answer. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have one minute, Sandra. Yes, thank you. I thank your supervisors and committee members. I'd like to urge you to fully fund the shelters at this time. It's one of the solutions to our homelessness problem while we deal with the real problem which is not enough housing. Part of the other problems are expand affordable housing and hand support services, decriminalize homelessness and receive community engagement. Until we can have all of those elements together, we need our interim shelters. Please consider spending more of our funds to fully engage our unhoused people instead of criminalizing them, or using our jails as mental health facilities. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. You have one minute, Rishma. Yes, hello. I served for a number of years at the Alameda County Budget Work Group when a former supervisor Keith Carson convened them. I understand that the difficult decisions the county has to make, especially under this particular environment that we are in, but I strongly urge you to ensure that there is adequate resources to fund these shelters as well in supportable housing, because we all know that the cost of those people, the cost of the community of for people experiencing homelessness, out in the, basically our urban areas ends up being far more than if we had worked on for everything from prevention or to provide these resources. Thank you. No more speakers? Thank you, thank you. Thank you, speakers. Any other comments or questions from board members? None, okay. All right, well, I appreciate the report, Shane, and I think you kind of get a sense that this joint committee is very interested in moving ahead with your proposal, but we're probably gonna be looking for more when we have the whole discussion around measure W monies. So thank you so very much, because I know pretty sure that board doesn't wanna have us backslide and lose shelter beds. We can't, we can't make progress if we're backsliding. So we've gotta figure out out how to address that. And as I keep saying, we want to make sure we address these things so that the voters continue to want to support reauthorization of measure W in the future. Okay. So this item is complete. Do we have any public comment on non-agentized items? I have no speakers for public comment. I appreciate everybody's patience and indulgence. Been a long joint meeting this morning and not until the afternoon. So the joint meeting Social Services in the Health Care stands adjourned. Thank you.