Orange County supervisors debate urgent letter to HUD as federal CoC grants face timing risk

Orange County supervisors spent the better part of their Dec. 16 meeting weighing whether to ask federal officials to renew expiring Continuum of Care (CoC) grants for 12 months, after HUD pulled a funding notice and litigation put the application timetable in flux.

Supervisor Sergio Sarmiento, relaying an advisory request from the Commission to Address Homelessness, urged the board to “direct staff to transmit a letter from the board to HUD and the Orange County congressional delegation, requesting a one‑year renewal for all continuum of care grant programs” so local programs would not be interrupted. The commission’s letter, Sarmiento said, raised particular concern about grants that will expire in the first half of 2026.

Doug Beck, director of the county Office of Care Coordination, told supervisors the issue is technical but urgent. He said Orange County applied for 22 CoC grants in 2024 covering roughly $33 million and that while most awards cover two years, HUD’s recent actions require a renewal process that could leave gaps. Beck summarized staff estimates: one grantee’s award expires in December, one in January, one in February, then more across spring and early summer, with 324 households served by grants expiring in the first half of 2026 and about 1,100 households served across all grants. “The urgency around this letter,” Beck said, “is to ask HUD to honor the two‑year NOFO and renew all of the existing grants for 12 more months,” giving local providers time to plan while any court or administrative changes are resolved.

Several board members supported an immediate advocacy step. Vice Chair Katrina Foley said she had already sent a letter and urged the board to join advocacy efforts. “We’re asking our congressional delegation to help fight for us because we have millions of dollars and 1,100 households at risk,” she said.

Other supervisors urged caution and more information. Supervisor Do not identify first name Nguyen (transcript identifies only as “Supervisor Nguyen”) and Supervisor Wagner asked for the draft letter and a schedule of expirations before committing the board to a position. Wagner and Nguyen worried that a court ruling expected the week after the meeting could change the legal landscape and that sending a broad letter prematurely might be counterproductive.

Chair and other board members suggested the item be agendized for the next regular meeting (Jan. 13) so the board could review a draft letter, a precise schedule of expiring grants, and any court developments. CEO Frances Aguirre offered to provide a draft for the board to review after closed session. Staff emphasized the request from the commission was non‑adversarial: it asked HUD and members of Congress to consider short‑term renewals to avoid service interruptions, not to dispute HUD’s policy direction.

The discussion ended without a single, final board‑wide letter approved on the dais. Several supervisors said they would sign onto a letter once they had a chance to see the draft and verify the numbers; the board left staff and legislative affairs to prepare materials and to return with more detail. In the meantime, individual supervisors indicated they would continue advocacy with members of Congress and HUD as appropriate.

What happens next: staff said they would share the draft letter and a schedule of grant expirations with supervisors ahead of the Jan. 13 meeting. A federal court hearing on the NOFO was scheduled the week after the board meeting; supervisors said they would watch closely but preferred the January agenda for formal board action.

Provenance: Discussion and testimony appear in the transcript beginning with Supervisor Sarmiento presenting the commission letter and Doug Beck’s briefing (topicintro SEG 1707; topfinish SEG 2463).