Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Placer County supervisors direct staff to renegotiate shelter contracts, seek regional homeless solutions
Loading...
Summary
After a detailed briefing on county and state homelessness funding and outcomes, the Board directed staff to negotiate amendments with the current Mid-Placer shelter provider and to continue participation in regional siting and housing efforts.
The Placer County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday directed county staff to begin negotiations for revised contracts with the current Mid-Placer shelter provider and to continue participating in regional efforts to site additional housing and shelter.
County Chief Executive Office staff and Health and Human Services (HHS) officials told the board that county general fund spending on homelessness-focused programs totals roughly $5.7 million annually, while state and federal programs with a strong nexus to housing account for about $12.9 million. Health and Human Services Director Rob Oldham and CEO staff member Jeff Merriman outlined program-by-program funding and outcomes and emphasized that permanent supportive housing shows the strongest long-term housing stability among interventions.
Why it matters: Supervisors said they want clearer performance metrics and residency requirements at the Mid-Placer shelters and wanted the county to remain active in regional planning so that shelter and housing decisions are coordinated across member cities and counties. Supervisors also expressed interest in pay-for-performance metrics for future housing procurements.
HHS presented a history of county homelessness efforts that included the 2015 Marbut study, the county’s Regional Homelessness Response Project and the expansion of state-funded programs such as Homekey. Oldham and assistant HHS director Raul Martinez summarized how state and federal funding is used for permanent supportive housing, prevention programs (for example, several CalWORKs programs administered by the California Department of Social Services), and a range of vouchers and specialized programs. HHS said statewide and managed-care changes have moved some intensive case management into Medi-Cal managed care rather than county-operated programs.
HHS staff also reviewed local operations: the Homeless Liaison Team (HLT), a multi-agency outreach unit funded in the county general fund; shelter admission and exit data for Mid-Placer congregate and mobile temporary shelters; and the county’s role in contract oversight. The county’s Mid-Placer shelters, staff said, have high utilization but many guests remain “housing-ready” with no housing options available, driving longer lengths of stay. Staff pointed to comparatively strong outcomes in permanent supportive housing programs, where roughly 85% of participants remain housed after two years.
Public comment included a mix of praise and criticism. The Gathering Inn (TGI) — the nonprofit that currently operates Mid-Placer shelters and related programs — drew support from civic groups, Rotary, and volunteer-led meal providers, who described program outcomes and volunteer efforts. Other speakers pressed for: independent audits of county-funded contracts and grant paperwork, more stringent residency or admission criteria for shelters, and clearer transparency on contract selection and grant applications. Several Lincoln residents and other speakers raised concerns about a separate proposal in Lincoln (a respite center) and asked the board to proceed with caution.
Board action and direction: Supervisor Gustafson moved and Supervisor DeMe tte seconded a motion directing staff to (1) initiate negotiations with the current Mid-Placer shelter contractor to amend contracts to strengthen admission/exit criteria and program requirements and (2) participate in regional efforts to identify sites for additional shelter and permanent supportive housing. The motions passed by voice vote. The board did not vote to award new contracts at the meeting; staff will return with negotiated contract language and recommended performance measures.
What supervisors asked staff to do next: Board members asked staff to prepare detailed, comparable performance metrics (including pay-for-performance options), to document funding flows across county/state/federal programs, and to provide more city-level and regional comparisons so the board can evaluate the county’s return on public investment. Several supervisors requested periodic public updates and copies of data used in the presentation.
Ending: County staff said they will continue to work on homelessness planning with regional partners, will begin the contract negotiations directed by the board, and will return with the revised contract language and additional financial and performance information in follow-up reports.
