Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ab 1708 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Revised AB 1708 draft narrows scope but adds local encampment policy test that alarms some providers
Summary
Committee members reviewed recent revisions to AB 1708: application of the bill was narrowed to a hypothetical HHAP round 8 and a prior cities-over-nonprofits priority removed; new transparency requirements and a local encampment policy condition raised concerns and prompted mention of an opposition letter from the National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Humboldt County service providers on the HHHC Executive Committee reviewed changes to the draft AB 1708 that members said could affect the ability of jurisdictions to apply for certain homeless services funding.
The April 22 discussion reported that AB 1708’s scope was narrowed to apply only to a hypothetical HHAP round 8 and removed an element that would have required prioritizing cities over nonprofit applicants. New provisions were added that would require outreach describing small-jurisdiction programs and an analysis of funding around identified needs, and would require a transparent, publicly available HHAP application process — a change the committee said the CoC already follows. Committee members flagged a new and difficult-to-comply-with element: a requirement that a city adopt a local encampment policy consistent with administration guidance in order to be eligible for funding. Members described that requirement as contentious and said it could make it harder for some cities to apply.
Why it matters: If enacted as described, the encampment-policy requirement could limit which local governments can receive HHAP funds unless they adopt measures aligned with the administration’s guidance. Local officials and providers may have limited ability to comply with a statewide template, and several national advocacy groups are circulating guidance and response options.
Details: The National Alliance to End Homelessness is circulating an opposition letter in response to the revised draft; Committee members discussed possibly supporting that letter at a future meeting. The Committee noted the legislation also added applicant elements such as outreach and needs analysis for small jurisdictions and transparency requirements for the application process. No formal position was recorded at the April 22 meeting.
Next steps: The Executive Committee may consider taking a position or supporting external advocacy (for example, the National Alliance letter) at a future meeting.
