At a workshop convened during the commissioners' meeting, Community House on Broadway, CoreHealth and partners presented three draft proposals asking for county support to expand and sustain homeless and transitional housing services.

Gina James (Health and Human Services) opened the session and invited Community House and CoreHealth to outline needs and funding requests. Presenters said Community House served approximately 751–800 unduplicated people last year and that a high share of households served by TBRA were families — 28 of 35 TBRA-supported households between 2022 and 2025 were families, presenters said.

The three proposals presented were:

- Young adult transitional housing pilot: A proposed master lease of 32 hotel units (18 high‑barrier/abstinence-based beds and 14 low‑barrier beds) to serve 18–25 year olds, including reentry populations. The pilot would require county partnership for operating support combined with billable services through CoreHealth and other revenue sources.

- Operational funding for 'Best Place' (unaccompanied youth shelter): The shelter, licensed by the Department of Children, Youth & Families (DCYF), serves roughly a dozen youth at a time and reported a projected operational shortfall (presenters cited roughly $250,000/year to meet staffing ratios and licensing requirements). Presenters noted DCYF requirements on staffing levels and limits on in‑facility cameras in common areas, an operational constraint they are pursuing with state lawmakers.

- TBRA (tenant-based rental assistance): A request for $33,000 annually for two years to continue a TBRA program that, according to submitted data, supported 35 households from 2022–2025 with roughly $97,000 expended during that span and measurable success rates reported by program staff.

Commissioners and members of the public pressed for metrics and fiscal oversight. Several commissioners said they wanted clearer performance measures and audits where appropriate; presenters indicated openness to reporting requirements and quarterly metrics. Commissioner comments emphasized the county's prior capital contributions (facility funding) and the need to distinguish capital investments from operational subsidies. No funding decision was made at the workshop; staff said they would return with follow-up information and options for using consolidated homeless grants or other funding sources.

Next steps: staff will circle back with the board in the coming weeks with more detailed metrics, funding options and any recommended caveats or reporting requirements tied to county funding.