Board approves RCHAP and HAP application; long debate on new regional homeless-and-housing governance model

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors voted Aug. 19 to adopt an updated Regionally Coordinated Homelessness Action Plan and authorized staff to submit the county's application for $7,548,311 in HAP Round 6 funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The vote (item 52) was unanimous among members present. The adopted RCHAP updates the county's regional homelessness goals while preserving the eight solution areas previously adopted in 2024; it reorganizes implementation priorities into three strategic baskets: prevention, urgent response (outreach and shelter), and resolution (long-term housing solutions).

Why it matters: The state's HAP grants have been a major source of regional funding for homelessness programs. Sacramento has received a large multi‑round allocation historically (HAP rounds 1–5 totaled about $173 million for the region) but the county faces a reduced HAP 6 allocation. County staff told the board that, given the lower HAP 6 award and the need to preserve programs started with earlier rounds, staff recommends prioritizing interim housing operations for the county's local HAP share while continuing youth set‑asides and the administrative allowance.

Governance debate: After the HAP vote, county staff presented a detailed proposal for a new Sacramento Homeless and Housing Board (SHHB) to replace the existing, volunteer-led Continuum of Care (CoC) board structure and to absorb the informal 'Homeless Policy Council' of elected officials. The SHHB would be Brown Act–compliant, include elected officials (a proposed start point: two supervisors, two Sacramento City Council members and one representative from other cities), and seat at least one person with lived experience of homelessness. Staff proposed subcommittees drawn from a broader CoC membership and a formal strategic leadership group of agency executives to execute policy.

The proposal divided opinions at the meeting. Joseph Smith, chair of the COC, urged the board to avoid concentrating voting control among elected officials and to preserve broad community and provider representation, saying "we should aim higher than the minimum." SSF chief Lisa Bates also cautioned that a board dominated by elected officials risks diminishing community voice and asked for clarity on what decision authority the new board would hold. Supporters among supervisors said the new structure would create clearer public accountability and allow elected officials across jurisdictions to adopt shared priorities and act on cross‑jurisdiction issues such as street management and shelter siting. Several supervisors said they favored starting with a smaller elected-led board with robust, representative subcommittees (Option A) rather than enlarging the voting body immediately.

Public input: Community members and service providers endorsed stronger regional coordination but urged safeguards to keep provider and lived‑experience voices central. The Continuum of Care's chair and others asked that any new governance charter ensure subcommittee input is meaningful and that the COC maintain the authority HUD requires.

Action taken: The Board approved the RCHAP and authorized staff to submit the HAP Round 6 application as requested; no formal vote was taken on the governance model during the meeting. Supervisors and staff agreed to pursue additional city-level consultations and to return with an MOU or formation document and implementation timeline, with the goal of convening an initial body in 2026 if jurisdictions agree to participate.

Ending: County staff will brief city councils in the coming weeks, continue stakeholder engagement and draft an implementation plan that includes a recommended MOU and committee charters for board review. The new governance proposal is likely to return to the board for formal consideration after city input and draft legal documents are prepared.