Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional Housing Council unveils tiered contingency framework for homeless services
Summary
On June 10, 2026 the Regional Housing Council reviewed a draft strategic funding framework that sorts homeless response activities into three tiers and five service categories, seeks to protect tier-one services amid anticipated HUD cuts and asks whether to establish a reserve fund. Staff will return in July with options.
On June 10, 2026 the Regional Housing Council heard a presentation on a draft strategic funding framework aimed at prioritizing local support for the homeless response system as federal and state revenues shift.
Tom Webster, presenting the draft, said the RC has already provided about $3 million for operations this year, including $440,000 for Clint Street operations through June and $773,000 for street operations from July 2026 through June 2027, plus $132,000 to backfill a loss of ERP funding for Union Commons. "We provided $440,000 of funding for Clint Street operations through June of this year," Webster said as he laid out the recent local commitments and the objectives of the framework.
The draft divides the homeless response system into five activity categories—shelter operations, rent assistance, services, supportive-housing operations, and HRS infrastructure—and asks staff and members to classify projects into three tiers. Tier one captures activities required by funding sources or needed as match for federal grants; tier two covers critical system functions not mandated by funders; tier three covers important but lower-priority activities. Webster said the immediate priority is "ensuring full funding for all those tier one projects to maintain 2026 service level impact," followed by tier two and then tier three.
The proposal sets a decision rule for cuts: if money is insufficient, staff would first reduce or eliminate tier-three projects, then move to tier two as needed. Webster also described an approach for new money: first use sustained funds to create permanent housing options, then add shelter beds or services as appropriate. He noted the framework will need local decisions about whether to treat "projects" or "activity types" as the unit of prioritization.
The council focused much of its discussion on whether to create a reserve or "rainy day" fund. Some members opposed reducing current services to seed such a fund because people are in need now. Others argued contingency planning is prudent in light of likely federal cuts. A staff speaker summarized federal risk: "Our community receives approximately $5 million in federal funding," the speaker said, adding that HUD's notice indicates about 60% of projects are likely to renew and that state leaders set aside $15 million to help backfill potential federal shortfalls.
Members also pressed for better use of performance data and said staff already collect metrics through the Homeless Management Information System; they asked staff to share or summarize those metrics so the council can direct funding toward programs demonstrating outcomes. Several speakers recommended an inventory of programs that rely on outside (federal) funding so the RHC can assess downstream risk; staff agreed to reach out to agencies and to return in July with options and a possible risk inventory.
Speakers debated whether the RHC should prioritize funding projects that receive blended funding (local plus federal) if they lose outside dollars. Several members also discussed the Opportunity Fund, noting its original purpose was to respond quickly to urgent, place-based risks—such as preventing the displacement of many residents from a mobile home park—and suggested clarifying its parameters so it can be used more actively for high-priority interventions.
The council did not take a final vote on the framework. Members asked staff and the technical team to return in July with two to three options for a reserve approach, a proposed process and timeline for cataloging and assigning tiers to the roughly 50 projects the system funds, and an implementation schedule tied to the RFP calendar. Staff noted RFP work would proceed this fall and that HUD application decisions are expected in December, with local RFPs and allocation work continuing into January.
Next steps: staff will refine the framework and present concrete reserve options and a program inventory in July. The council also agreed to continue prioritizing tier-one services while building consensus on any reserve design.
