Alameda County staff lay out $1.83 billion Measure W framework as mayors and community groups press for homelessness funding

Alameda County staff on July 21 presented a framework for spending roughly $1.83 billion in Measure W sales‑tax proceeds to the Board of Supervisors, prompting hours of public comment from elected officials and service providers who urged the county to direct most — many asked for 90% or more — of the money to homelessness and housing.

The board’s county administrator and department directors told supervisors the measure’s accrued receipts total about $810 million and projected receipts over the remaining life of the tax (to June 2031) are a little more than $1 billion, for a combined estimate of $1,830,000,000. Staff recommended creating two program funds — a Home Together Fund to carry out the county’s homelessness plan and an Essential County Services Fund for broader safety‑net needs — and setting a $170,000,000 prudent reserve from the accrued funds.

Why the framework matters: the county is coping with federal and state funding uncertainty, a $700 million long‑range capital shortfall and service gaps that officials say must be addressed without eroding accountability or results. Staff emphasized an equity lens and a mix of annual programmatic investments (prevention, shelter operations, housing subsidies, coordinated entry) plus a limited one‑time capital bucket for acquisition or gap financing of ‘shovel‑ready’ projects.

"Voters chose to support Measure W because they wanted real solutions to the very real problems they see in their communities," Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee told supervisors during public comment, urging that "the vast majority, if not the entirety of Measure W be devoted toward homeless housing and services." Lee cited local data, saying Oakland accounts for 58% of the county’s unhoused population and 74% of its Black unhoused population.

County health officials framed the Home Together investment strategy around four priorities: prevent more people from becoming unhoused; increase access to shelter and services; expand housing options; and improve system access and coordination. "We propose to leverage Measure W to make meaningful progress on homelessness," Anika Choudhary, interim director of Alameda County Health, said during the presentation, outlining prevention tools such as emergency rental assistance and a flexible housing subsidy pool.

Jonathan Russell, the county’s director of homeless, housing and homelessness services, described programmatic components staff would prioritize: prevention (rental assistance and problem‑solving), shelter (navigation centers, medical respite, shelter stabilization), permanent housing subsidies and a one‑time capital fund for acquisition/rehab of projects that can open quickly. He said staff modeled multiple scenarios showing how different splits between homelessness and essential services would affect prevention capacity and one‑time capital.

Public comment was largely unified in asking for most of the funding to serve unhoused Alameda County residents, with dozens of organizations and people with lived experience urging at least 90% for homelessness solutions and asking to center racial equity, seniors, immigrants, LGBTQ residents and people with disabilities. Nonprofits also made specific requests, such as a $15 million ask from Spectrum Community Services for LIHEAP and senior energy assistance and a separate request for emergency stabilization support for nonprofit housing providers.

Supervisors probed staff on details: how regional allocations would be apportioned (staff proposed five subregions, using point‑in‑time counts and HMIS data), whether operating subsidies and backfill for expiring federal vouchers were covered, what ‘shovel‑ready’ capital would mean (entitled projects with site control or small‑scale conversions), and how people with lived experience would be engaged and compensated. Several supervisors said they favored maintaining a prudent reserve given fiscal uncertainty; suggested splits debated included 90/10, 85/15 and 80/20 between Home Together and Essential Services.

County counsel also briefed the Board on litigation risk related to COVID‑era eviction moratoria; counsel said an early motion to dismiss in the county’s cases was decided in the county’s favor but plaintiffs were allowed to amend and further hearings and potential appeals remain, and that constitutional takings claims in the suits currently lack insurance coverage.

No final allocation was adopted at the work study. Instead, supervisors asked staff to return quickly with more specific options and criteria — especially around the reserve, urgent requests at risk of service gaps, and implementation/oversight mechanisms. The Board scheduled a follow‑up work session for July 30 to consider next steps and asked staff to recommend immediate, high‑priority allocations that would avert gaps in critical services.

What’s next: staff will bring back refined allocation scenarios, reserve‑use options and recommendations on near‑term urgent requests (for example, the LIHEAP request and emergency stabilization funding proposals). The Board emphasized it wants measurable progress and stronger reporting and oversight tied to outcomes before committing multi‑year operating subsidies.

(Reporting: County staff presentation and the Board’s public comment and deliberations; no formal vote or appropriation was taken at this meeting.)