[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6628740,"mediaKeyId","2714639-08e497a143e0c1a66f06dc151256f4d2","parentId",2714639,"title","Vista committee reviews $7.8 million ERF‑3 award, debates landlord incentives and rental‑assistance design","audioSeconds",4828,"startMs",214000,"endMs",5042000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2714639-08e497a143e0c1a66f06dc151256f4d2&start=214&end=5042","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2714639-08e497a143e0c1a66f06dc151256f4d2/thumbnail_214000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6628740/Vista/San-Diego-County/California/Vista-committee-reviews-78-million-ERF3-award-debates-landlord-incentives-and-rentalassistance-design","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628740-bb2f44fc44ef2b0e0b884b2d14bf4ed8/orig.mp4?Expires=1774917394&Signature=H~lmpKOXMKasjteXAPIXIjYcGVhaq78Z2wsORSs368MbOuK8sscgOIXdL5vVJxKb-Vg7INe-eE5Zm2fg2gir~okU~JHEMywQe6rxhJjzWp3~gwMfYJvsJa4mIVexm4fV8TEcYAyjainr8jXe-M2rTrt23dkI-NLxpLC32bvFceM-Is924cwKIHZqzgDMM0MWEwVag8zOJZgFiErc0YTdRp8V1pmrXi7xkoE4cghrRHEwjUpk66utWNCAaafJIgXUJAx-GK6Sr2J0QTJkEaPPrD0XTO2rsx4nbdVEhhUsfzWbaBc5xb1MapOXtgU7Xg1TfmMQ5svX4wnZZwxC6v41nQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Vista","date","2025-03-20T18:19:41.75Z","article","Vista’s standing committee on homelessness reviewed the city’s awarded Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF‑3) grant and debated how to program $2.5 million in rapid‑rehousing funds and smaller landlord incentives.

“This item provides an overview of the city's approved encampment resolution funding round 3 or ERF 3 grant program,” staff member Jonathan told the committee, walking members through the application history and award timeline.

The city applied for ERF‑3 on June 25, 2024, with a total project cost in the application of $7,800,942.09. The California Interagency Council on Homelessness announced availability of ERF‑3 funds in late 2023 and Vista’s proposal scored second highest among 57 awarded proposals. The city received formal notice of award on Dec. 23, 2024, and city council later authorized the city manager to sign grant documents on Feb. 11, 2025. The council accepted and appropriated the funds on March 11, 2025.

Why it matters: the ERF‑3 award expands Vista’s homeless‑services budget for staff, outreach, rapid rehousing and pilot programs tied to a roughly 10‑mile corridor along State Route 78. Committee members said they will use their oversight role to press staff for program design that serves the greatest number of people and avoids what one member called “money up in smoke.”

What the award pays for
- Staffing and administrative costs: The grant covers $925,053.08 in internal costs, including funding for existing homeless‑services positions through Dec. 31, 2026, and a limited‑term housing specialist position budgeted at $386,641 (anticipated for two years, July 1, 2025–June 30, 2027). Indirect administrative costs of $371,473 were also included.
- Outreach and contracts: The ERF‑3 outreach RFP drew five proposals. San Diego Rescue Mission (SDRM) received the top score; staff said final contract award is contingent on a four‑month review of SDRM’s current agreement and a council action scheduled for March 25, 2025.
- Operating and program costs: The staff presentation listed $4,180,889.01 in operating costs for strategic plan activities funded by ERF‑3, and $2,671,345 approved for operating costs tied to the outreach program procurement.
- Housing and client assistance: Staff said the ERF‑3 budget includes $2,695,000 for housing and client assistance. That packet includes a $2,500,000 rapid‑rehousing allocation (budgeted to serve up to 125 households in the grant spreadsheet) and smaller items such as family‑reunification funds and workforce development ($5,000 listed).
- Safe parking and navigation center reserves: The grant continues existing safe‑parking and navigation center reserves; staff reported $1,121,132 for the VISTA safe‑parking program and $388,412 for operating reserves for the Buena Creek Navigation Center (BCNC) through the program’s life.

Landlord incentives and a correction to the slides
Committee members extensively questioned the $200 landlord incentive shown on the slide. Multiple speakers criticized that amount as unlikely to change a landlord’s decision to rent to someone with housing‑instability flags.

Jonathan corrected a slide during the meeting: “One error on this slide and I apologize for it's $200 per individual and not per household.” He and other staff explained that the $200 payment is one part of a broader package that also includes direct rental assistance and security‑deposit funds.

Program design issues the committee raised
Committee members asked staff to return with clearer program rules and recommended changes before the council adopts contracts. Common themes:
- Require case management: Committee members asked that housing assistance be administered only when a client is engaged with case management; staff said awardees would be enrolled through outreach case managers.
- Prioritize below‑market and shared/programmed housing: Members recommended prioritizing lower‑cost options (shared rooms, programmatic housing with onsite support) rather than market‑rate one‑bedroom units.
- Set clearer ceilings and stepped-down assistance: Members urged limits on per‑participant awards and suggested tiered or stepped‑down rental assistance rather than a fixed $20,000 cap in every case. Staff said $20,000 was a budgeting metric and not an automatic award; staff currently expect to make assistance flexible and case‑by‑case.
- Monitoring and benchmarks: The committee requested program benchmarks to measure housing specialist outcomes and to require quarterly reporting on unspent reserves and program impacts.
- Outreach to landlords: Members recommended allocating some housing‑specialist time or a small marketing budget to recruit and educate landlords about program safeguards and direct payments to housing providers.

Staff framing and legal limits
Staff repeatedly noted that some features are constrained by grant award language and state procedures but said many implementation details—eligibility criteria, ceilings, and prioritization—are still within the city's discretion and can be shaped before contracts are final.

Actions and next steps
- Historical/recorded council actions referenced in the presentation: City council approved the ERF‑3 application (June 25, 2024), authorized the city manager to sign ERF‑3 documents (Feb. 11, 2025), and accepted and appropriated ERF‑3 funds (March 11, 2025). These are recorded actions by the council; the committee meeting discussed implementation rather than taking a formal vote to change the award.
- Outreach contract: Staff reported SDRM scored highest on the ERF‑3 outreach RFP; a conditional award and contract are pending a four‑month review and upcoming council action (March 25, 2025).
- Committee direction: The committee provided program guidance—case management requirement, prioritization of below‑market and shared housing, marketing for landlord recruitment—and asked staff to return with draft program guidelines and contract language prior to final council action.

What remains unresolved
The committee did not adopt binding changes at the meeting. Several open items remain for council or staff to resolve: the final contract recommendation for the outreach provider, exact per‑client award ceilings, AMI (area‑median income) thresholds for rental‑assistance eligibility and the amount to set aside for landlord outreach and marketing.

Ending
The committee asked staff to bring more detailed program guidelines and implementation materials back to the standing committee and to the full council for review before finalizing contracts and disbursing the majority of ERF‑3 housing assistance funds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Standing Committee on Homelessness Meeting, March 20th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Vista’s standing committee on homelessness reviewed the city’s awarded Encampment Resolution Funding Round 3 (ERF‑3) grant and debated how to program $2.5 million in rapid‑rehousing funds and smaller landlord incentives.","taxTitle","Vista, San Diego County, California","taxId",2844,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6628736,"Committee weighs modular interim housing and 200 Michigan site; mayor urges larger purchase near jobs",850,6578000,7428000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2714639-08e497a143e0c1a66f06dc151256f4d2&start=6578&end=7428","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2714639-08e497a143e0c1a66f06dc151256f4d2/thumbnail_6578000.jpg","/articles/6628736/Vista/San-Diego-County/California/Committee-weighs-modular-interim-housing-and-200-Michigan-site-mayor-urges-larger-purchase-near-jobs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6628736-5349ec29352e5e7f0804e5cb7b0829b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1774917394&Signature=bt1bdI0ilwlLZbPUtecKZAM2bAV3nsUw2nYPmuJrOXZwZvL0JIoSMuwsnKnyjQIpPbNYeDoMmZH5lWtZK1sOAoiRUWbAvr9Eq-1ZblN8~AHxPD~XzkFHTKoWrHgKQk-kOIIGumfElaMDbIKdivpLgVvdfM3eWlTjM~5Hbdj62u~7trCnhodH2v7~8YeAc1wHTtDAuuYGprDT0wiYYZS-oLp8o~7pHGCC7To5Sp39h4r10KWlc1cu9OhahuedOHQilKQ3t-iwi-23mOCsGQPZQfBdoxidRQCyIm7mbzKY7h1dOs-Yl3F46wVi4B9hmr16BqlSV7GgeNg787F4ZhN0xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff returned to the standing committee with a review of modular interim housing options, site choices and preliminary cost estimates for a permanent city‑owned interim housing facility.

“After reviewing other proposals for adaptive reuse of established buildings, staff recommends the utilization of a city owned property at 200 Michigan Ave for partial demolition, reconstruction, and renovation,” Daniel Stearman, the city management analyst, told the committee as he summarized site work and construction estimates.

Why it matters: Vista has allocated capital toward a permanent interim housing facility and must decide whether to adapt the Lifeline‑operated city parcel at 200 Michigan Avenue, build modular units on other city land or pursue purchase/rehabilitation of a larger commercial property in the business park. Committee members balanced faster modular deployment against long‑term property ownership and cost.

What staff presented
- Field visits: Staff and elected officials visited two existing modular projects: Victorville Wellness Center (Connect Homes prefab modules; a Homekey Round 2 project reported at roughly $28 million total, including $23 million for construction) and the Azusa Resource Center (LifeArc/Leichvarck model; reported construction ~$1.95 million).
- Unit costs and proposals: Staff shared rough orders of magnitude for three modular approaches for Vista’s site: a stick‑built mobile modular estimate of about $3.6 million (~$75,000 per bed), a LifeArc recycled‑plastic modular proposal ~ $3.8 million (~$79,000 per bed), and a broader ShelterPro/Infinite Structures steel‑frame modular estimate (very preliminary) of $5.5 million–$8 million.
- Site recommendation: Staff proposed reusing the city‑owned two‑acre parcel at 200 Michigan Ave (current Lifeline operations) and demolishing some older buildings to make space for modular shelter buildings, administrative space and a kitchen/dining building already present on the site.

Committee debate and alternatives
Some committee members supported modular units as a rapid way to provide dignified, non‑congregate sleeping rooms and services; others urged a broader look at buying and renovating a larger commercial building in the city’s business park to house shelter, job‑training space and consolidated nonprofit offices.

Mayor (commenting on alternatives) suggested a larger strategy: “What if we bought a 30,000 square foot facility for between 7 and $10,000,000?” He argued a larger purchase near the Business Park could colocate services and connect residents to 27,000 local jobs. Several members pushed back that available properties in the business park carry high purchase prices and noted time constraints; staff said purchase prices and sale listings had been reviewed but many options were cost prohibitive.

Staff noted tradeoffs
- Time vs. permanence: Modular units can be sited and activated faster and can be placed on temporary or permanent foundations; stick‑built modular and recycled‑plastic units were presented as options with different lifespans and installation profiles.
- Kitchens and services: The 200 Michigan parcel already contains a kitchen and meeting/dining space, a feature several committee members said is important for nutrition and program operations.
- Cost/financing constraints: Committee members reviewed city capital already allocated ($4.5 million previous allocation and other state grants noted by staff) and acknowledged that larger purchases would require assembling additional funding from state grants and partners.

Next steps and staff request
Staff said proposals and rough orders of magnitude will be presented to council (the item was scheduled for April 8) and asked for committee direction on whether to: move forward with modular construction on the city parcel, pursue purchase and rehab of an external property, or return with more detailed cost comparisons and funding scenarios. Several members asked staff to present a clearer side‑by‑side cost comparison (purchase + rehab versus modular build) and to identify possible additional funding sources and timelines.

Ending
The committee did not select a single approach at the meeting. Staff will refine construction cost estimates, clarify funding sources and return with more detailed comparisons and schedule options for the full council.","City staff summarized visits to modular interim housing projects and recommended using city‑owned 200 Michigan Ave for a modular interim shelter, while some members urged exploring a larger purchase near jobs in the business park.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Vista committee reviews $7.8 million ERF‑3 award, debates landlord incentives and rental‑assistance design

Committee weighs modular interim housing and 200 Michigan site; mayor urges larger purchase near jobs