Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee accepts substantive Prop C amendments, continues homeless oversight ordinance for more review
Summary
The committee accepted substantive amendments to the ordinance implementing Proposition C that restructure oversight bodies for homelessness services and then continued the item two weeks to Feb. 27 so stakeholders can review changes relating to appointments, reporting, and administrative support.
The Rules Committee on Feb. 13 accepted substantive amendments to an ordinance implementing Proposition C’s homeless oversight structure and voted to continue the item to the Feb. 27 meeting for additional review.
Sponsor Supervisor Asha Safaei and Deputy Director Emily Cohen of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (HSH) explained the amendments are intended to consolidate and clarify oversight to better secure HUD Continuum of Care funding. Cohen said the amendments increase the Local Homeless Coordinating Board (LHCB) from nine to 11 seats, prohibit members from simultaneously serving on multiple oversight bodies, allow LHCB subcommittees focused on Continuum of Care implementation, and clarify appointment and reporting lines among the proposed oversight commission, the shelter monitoring committee, and the shelter grievance advisory committee.
Several callers and oversight‑body members, including Bridal Creech and local shelter monitoring committee participants, raised concerns about moving administrative support for the shelter monitoring committee from the Department of Public Health to HSH. Critics said housing‑agency staffing of the shelter monitoring function could create a perceived conflict of interest and undermine the committee’s independence; they urged further review and consultation with the shelter monitoring committee and the LHCB before finalizing the ordinance.
Supervisor Safaei moved to accept the amendments as read into the record and then moved to continue the matter because the changes were substantive; both motions passed without objection. The continuation gives affected oversight bodies and the public another two weeks to review the amendments before the Board receives a final ordinance recommendation.
