Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Erf5‑applications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tulare County partners weigh ERF5 applications amid mapping, timing and housing shortages
Summary
Task force members reviewed ERF round 5 (ERF5) requirements, competitive pressures and practical barriers: $93 million statewide, 50% earmarked for California right‑of‑way encampments, difficult Caltrans mapping, shovel‑ready construction requirements and short expenditure timelines complicate countywide applications.
Tulare County staff briefed the task force on Encampment Resolution Fund round 5, a competitive state funding round with a $93,000,000 statewide allocation and a requirement that roughly half the funds prioritize encampments on California right‑of‑way managed by Caltrans.
Presenters warned that identifying eligible encampments is operationally difficult: Caltrans maintains multiple shapefiles and the county had to combine sheriff mapping with a Caltrans shapefile to estimate which sites qualify. Because ERF’s application rules favor geographically clustered encampments, staff said the county would likely need to submit multiple separate applications for distinct areas (an estimate of roughly six applications by county staff).
City of Visalia and City of Tulare representatives described prior ERF rounds and planning for ERF5. Visalia said prior awards helped move people off rights‑of‑way but noted limited eligible right‑of‑way areas remain. Tulare staff said past ERF clients (196 reached permanent housing in a prior period) have shown rising recidivism rates; the city plans to include case management, 2‑year short‑term rental assistance vouchers, landlord incentives, and possible rehab or master‑lease interventions to increase housing inventory.
Speakers emphasized ERF’s short expenditure deadlines and that many construction projects must be shovel‑ready to meet state timelines. Task force members also discussed whether ERF5 funds could be used to sustain previously funded ERF clients; the initial HCD guidance said no, though later outreach by staff suggested HCD would check with leadership and provide further clarification.
Participants raised systemic concerns: limited long‑term inventory, high recidivism in some programs (cited locally as over 30%), impending changes to HUD CoC funding (NOFA due June 1) and the July 1 rollout of Behavioral Health Services Act housing interventions that prioritize behavioral‑health populations. Task force members discussed pooling vouchers, leveraging operating subsidies and writing letters of support; county staff said they had already generated a letter for Visalia and were seeking a board letter of support as well.
The meeting concluded with rounds of local updates: Tulare announced a shelter open house for June 5 and expected initial referrals in late June or early July; Visalia outlined transit and housing projects; nonprofit and veteran programs offered to present to the task force in upcoming meetings.
Next steps noted on the record include continued county‑city coordination on ERF5 applications, procurement planning for HAP round 6 funds and ongoing flex‑pool design work to maximize available funding.
