Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Measure W topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County supervisors review Measure W spending plan, staff recommends two‑year $34M/year essential‑services strategy
Summary
County staff told the Board of Supervisors that federal and state uncertainty — including expected Medi‑Cal and SNAP changes — require a cautious two‑year Measure W plan: $34 million a year focused on stabilizing the safety net, meeting basic needs, housing stability and one‑time capital. Public commenters urged larger allocations for unincorporated areas and more bridge funding for Prop 1 impacts.
Alameda County officials on March 10 presented a federal, state and county budget update and a proposed two‑year spending strategy for the Measure W Essential County Services Fund, asking supervisors to direct staff to return with detailed allocations in April.
"As you know, our budget is currently balanced. We do have a structural deficit that we attempt to chip away at every year," a county presenter said as staff framed the local financial picture and the risks from federal and state policy changes. The presentation traced how federal proposals and state constraints could reduce county revenues and sharply increase demand for health and human services.
Why it matters: staff said the county can use Measure W revenue to shore up the local safety net while waiting to see how federal and state actions play out. Measure W collections became available in April 2025 after years of escrow and litigation; the board previously set aside major allocations for housing and essential services.
What staff proposed: a two‑year, phased Essential County Services Fund spending plan at $34,000,000 per year. Presentation slides showed the plan breaks down into four priorities: stabilize the safety net ($20,000,000/year), meet basic needs countywide (food, senior supports — $7,000,000/year), housing stability/tenant protections and capacity building ($7,000,000/year), and one‑time capital and major maintenance drawn from carryover.
"We are proposing a 2 year spending strategy at $34,000,000 annually," a health‑department presenter said, explaining that the shorter horizon preserves flexibility given federal uncertainty (including possible Medi‑Cal enrollment changes) and state budget limits.
Public comment and political pressure: about three dozen people in person and online spoke during the meeting’s public‑comment period. Multiple community organizations and county residents urged that the county prioritize unincorporated communities, senior meal programs, immigrant and refugee services, prevention‑oriented mental‑health programs and food security. Several speakers asked the board to guarantee a specific carve‑out for unincorporated areas; the most repeated ask was for a 35% minimum allocation of the Essential Services Fund to those communities.
"Measure W identified the unincorporated county as a priority," said Kimberly Victoria of Eden Power Collective during Zoom public comment, "but the funding decision made in September didn't follow through on that commitment. Our ask is that you allocate a minimum of 35% of the Essential Services Fund to the unincorporated county."
Board reaction and next steps: supervisors debated options: some favored moving more housing‑oriented items into the Home Together Fund (the Measure W housing bucket) and reserving Essential Services dollars for short‑term bridge funding to mitigate immediate cuts from Prop 1 and federal changes. Staff said currently available resources that are not yet committed total approximately $14.78 million in one‑time carryover plus an ongoing projection of $170 million across the life of the measure; staff estimated a roughly $24.6 million shortfall between identified needs and currently uncommitted funds under one scenario.
Supervisor discussion centered on (1) whether to move housing allocations into the Home Together Fund, (2) how much to earmark for unincorporated areas, and (3) how large a bridge fund is needed for Prop 1‑related reductions and Medi‑Cal impacts. Staff asked the board for direction and pledged to return in April with a more detailed expenditure plan, potential RFPs, implementation timelines and a list of contracts that could be augmented.
The meeting did not adopt a final allocation; the board asked staff to refine the plan, provide clearer breakdowns (including carryover and one‑time vs. ongoing commitments), and expand public and committee review before any final commitments.
Ending: staff will return to the board in April with more granular allocations and timelines. Supervisors also asked for dashboards and contract‑level details so the board and public can track who is served, the cost to serve and outcome measures tied to any funded contracts.
