Tag: politics

Sonoma County’s HealthCare Crossroads

Short Summary

A forum on the major threats facing healthcare access for the Latino community in Sonoma County was held on November 14th.

Long Summary

At the Los Cien Health Care Forum, where leaders discussed dire threats to community healthcare. Keynote speaker Francisco J. Silva detailed how federal policies like HR 1 and a state ballot initiative could devastate Medi-Cal and community clinics, disproportionately impacting Latino families. A panel of local health leaders reinforced the urgency, discussing the local impact of these cuts, the rise in uninsured patients, and the strain on services. The core message was a call for unified community action to protect the healthcare safety net.

Membership and Business Support

A membership program has been relaunched after being closed for reimagining. A dedicated email about membership will be sent, including a link to join online. A new non-profit and business directory is being developed to provide a trusted list of services. There is a focus on creating programs to support business owners and professionals inclusively, rather than forming a formal business chamber.

Los Cien Health Care Forum

The event began with a welcome by Herman G. Hernandez, Executive Director of Los Cien. Acknowledgments were given to partners, including the Luther Burbank Center, and the design team volunteers. The BRIDGE alumni program (Building Representation, Inclusion, Diversity, and Governance Excellence) was recognized. A tribute was paid to Rick Nolan, the retired CEO of the Luther Burbank Center, for his decade-long partnership and support of the Latinx community.

Keynote on Threats to California Healthcare

Keynote speaker Francisco J. Silva, CEO of the California Primary Care Association, discussed major challenges facing healthcare.

Impact on Latino Communities:

Cuts to Medi-Cal and community health centers are direct cuts to the Latino community, as they form the largest group of enrollees and patients.

Federal HR 1 Impacts:

This federal law represents a significant rollback of Medicaid access. It imposes work requirements and frequent eligibility hurdles. Nationally, it could cut $1 trillion from Medicaid and strip $32 billion from community health centers. In California, it is estimated that 1-3 million people could lose Medi-Cal coverage.

State-Level Cuts:

State proposals aim to limit Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants by freezing enrollment and introducing a $30 monthly premium. These changes threaten the “Health Care for All” progress made in the state.SEIU UHHW Ballot Initiative. A statewide ballot initiative filed by SEIU UHHW is described as the “most dangerous attack on community health centers in California history.” An independent analysis projects the initiative would: Divert $1.7 billion from patient care into penalties; Push a majority of clinics into financial deficit, with 47% at risk of closure; Force cuts to enabling services like translation, transportation, and community health worker programs. The public is urged to read petitions carefully and understand that this measure could cripple the healthcare safety net.

Local Impact in Sonoma County

One in three residents of Sonoma County (approximately 140,000 people) is on Medi-Cal. Proposed policy changes will double the county’s administrative workload for recertifications while simultaneously cutting its caseload-based funding. The cost of uncompensated care will financially impact everyone, from private employers to public services. Safety-net providers are already seeing an increase in patients, with the Jewish Community Free Clinic reporting a 25% rise in the last 60 days. There is a growing level of fear among patients, with some rationing visits or hesitating to seek care due to immigration concerns.

Community Collaboration and Response

Sonoma County’s healthcare leaders are working together to create solutions for the impending crisis. The community is advised to seek information from trusted sources like 211, OpenDoorsSC.com, and local health organizations to combat misinformation. Health centers affirmed that they do not ask for or share patient immigration status with government agencies. Partnerships are key, with organizations like Kaiser Permanente investing in community health grants and housing projects based on shared needs assessments.

Behavioral Health Crisis

The panel highlighted a severe and worsening crisis in behavioral and mental health. There is a critical shortage of services, clinicians, beds, and facilities for all populations, not just those on Medi-Cal. The county’s behavioral health system currently has a waitlist of over 500 people for its high-need services. This crisis existed before the current policy threats and is expected to be exacerbated by them.

Call to Action

Leaders emphasized that local action is critical, as federal and state support is no longer reliable. The community is called to get involved, advocate, and hold legislators accountable. Local control over funding through measures like Measure O is crucial for sustaining services. Training future healthcare professionals within the community is a key strategy, as many tend to stay and practice where they train.

Gen H Sonoma County State of Housing Presentation at Redwood Credit

Short Summary

A deep dive into Sonoma County’s housing crisis and the community-led policy solutions being proposed to address it.

Long Summary

You listened to a presentation by Generation Housing on the state of the housing crisis in Sonoma County. The discussion highlighted a shortage of over 50,000 homes, which impacts everyone from young families to seniors, leading to school closures and workforce challenges. The event launched the ‘Housing for Healthy Communities’ initiative, focusing on state laws to encourage building more ‘missing middle’ housing and creating starter homes. The central theme was that a broad, community-wide advocacy effort is essential for creating meaningful change.

2025 State of Housing Report

The report focuses on telling a housing story using data to address successes, myths, and the intersectional nature of housing. There is a significant housing shortage at all income levels, particularly for affordable housing. The crisis is defined by the impact of this shortage on education, health, the economy, and the climate. The housing shortage is the result of 75 years of policy, requiring a multi-faceted approach (“silver buckshot”) rather than a single solution.

Housing & Community Impact

A panel of experts shared how the housing crisis affects various sectors of the community. Youth & Families: Sonoma County is losing homegrown talent as young people, including recent graduates and community leaders, are forced to leave due to high living costs. Education System: Teachers and school staff cannot afford to live in the community, leading to high turnover and negatively impacting student success. This has contributed to declining enrollment and school closures.

Workforce & Young Adults: The lack of affordable rental options is a “missing rung on the ladder” to homeownership, causing young adults to delay forming independent households or leave the area.

Seniors & Caregivers: Seniors on fixed incomes, even homeowners, face extreme cost burdens from rising insurance and utility costs. The caregivers they depend on are also priced out of the region, threatening seniors’ ability to age in place with dignity. Immigrant Community: Immigrants and foreign-born residents face immense barriers to housing stability, with homeownership often taking over 25 years to achieve. Housing policy needs to center the humanity of these community members.

Permanent Supportive Housing: This model is the most effective way to end homelessness but is very expensive to operate. Housing Choice Vouchers, which cap a resident’s rent at 30% of their income, are essential for the financial viability of these projects.

Benefits of Affordable Housing: A Napa County study revealed that the greatest benefits of affordable housing were social and economic stability, stress reduction, and the ability for residents to engage in long-term financial planning, such as saving for a home down payment.

Calculating Sonoma County’s Housing Need

The established goal is to build approximately 58,000 new homes by 2030. This number was validated through three independent methods that all produced similar results: Household Formation Deficit: A historical deficit of 38,000 households that should have formed, plus a

future need for 20,000 more. Property Value Method: The number of homes needed to bring the disproportionately high cost of land back to a normal market rate. Vacancy Rate Method: The number of homes needed to achieve a healthy 5% vacancy rate, as Sonoma County currently has one of the lowest per-capita availability rates in the state.

Independent analysis confirms the region has the capacity to build roughly 52,000 new homes within existing urban growth boundaries.

“Housing for Healthy Communities” Initiative

This is a new policy initiative focused on creating “missing middle” housing by encouraging jurisdictions to opt into two state laws.

SB-10: Allows for the creation of up to 10 housing units on a single parcel in transit-oriented or infill areas.

AB-1033: Allows Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be sold separately as condominiums, creating new starter-home opportunities without new construction. The goal is to build gentle density and create more diverse housing options, similar to older, walkable neighborhoods, by reversing decades of exclusionary zoning.

Fiscal Benefits of Infill Housing

Denser, infill housing provides a significant financial benefit to cities facing budget deficits. It maximizes property tax revenue per acre. An apartment building can generate $17M-$35M in taxable value per acre, compared to $9M-$11M for single-family homes. It minimizes long-term liabilities for cities. Delivering and maintaining infrastructure like roads, water, and sewer is significantly cheaper on a per household basis in denser areas.

California Behavioral Health Planning Council Meeting on June 19, 2025, Housing and Homelessness Committee

Item #2 California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) Action Plan for 2025 – 2027 

Cody Zeger, Director of Statewide Policy at the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH), presented an overview of their 2025-2027 Statewide Action Plan to prevent and end homelessness. Cody began with a brief introduction to Cal ICH, which is responsible for overseeing the implementation of Housing First policies, guidelines, and regulations supported by an advisory committee and a lived-experience advisory board. 

Initially launched in 2020, Cal ICH’s Action Plan aims to coordinate state efforts to address homelessness with a vision of building an equitable and just California where homelessness is rare, brief, and a one-time experience. The 2025-2027 Action Plan focuses on the following five key goals: 

• Help more people leave unsheltered homelessness. 

• Help more people move into housing. 

• Ensure people do not experience homelessness again. 

• Prevent more people from experiencing homelessness. 

• Create more housing. 

Cody also presented the plan’s three-year targets: 

• Move 70% of unsheltered individuals into shelters. 

• Place 60% into permanent housing. 

• Create 1.5 million new housing units with 710,000 designated for low-income residents. 

He described key strategies to meet these goals such as interagency coordination, strategic investments, and equity-centered frameworks to address systemic barriers. Cody highlighted core principles that guide the plan, such as prioritizing racial equity, adopting trauma-informed approaches, and elevating the voices of those with lived experience of homelessness. 

Cody concluded his presentation and opened the floor for questions from committee members. Key topics included: 

• A committee member inquired about the size of the lived experience advisory board. Cody shared that Cal-ICH reduced its membership from 30 to approximately 25 members. Each member serves a two-year term. He explained that the board provides subject matter expertise, reviews key documents, and offers recommendations to Cal ICH members before key decisions. 

• A committee member raised concerns about the proposed 44% federal cuts to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), particularly their impact on project-based and tenant-based rental assistance. Cody acknowledged the risk, noting that 15,000 emergency housing vouchers are slated to expire. 

• A committee member asked how the number of homeless individuals aligns with the projected housing units. Cody explained that the 2.5 million planned units, including 1.5 million by 2027 and 710,000 reserved for low-income residents, are part of a broader housing strategy and not specifically designated for the homeless population. 

• A committee member asked how racial equity is reflected in the plan’s goals and data analysis. Cody emphasized Cal ICH’s commitment to disaggregating targets by race, ethnicity, and gender to ensure a more inclusive and equitable approach. 

• When asked about Cal ICH’s leverage in advancing the Action Plan, Cody described their statutory authority and stressed the importance of cross-agency relationships. He noted that their influence stems from formal power and their ability to communicate and coordinate across state departments. 

Public Comment: 

Paula, a member of the public, inquired about current data reflecting progress toward the plan’s three-year goal of a 42% increase in housing placements. Cody directed her to Cal ICH’s website, where quarterly updates provide the latest information. He noted that the most recent data covers the calendar year 2024. 

Barbara Wilson from Los Angeles County raised a question about tracking individuals moving from hospital settings to residential facilities, particularly those with psychosis. She was concerned about how these transitions are captured and whether individuals lose housing access once in licensed facilities. 

Council Member John Black emphasized the importance of early intervention, proposing the use of peer support workers to help individuals who are newly experiencing homelessness before their situation worsens. 

Item #3 Perspectives on Recovery Housing Panel Discussion 

Over the past two quarterly meetings, the Housing and Homelessness Committee engaged in discussions about recovery housing and the Housing First model. The discussions focused on their roles within behavioral health services and highlighted key challenges and best practices. This panel built on those discussions and provided first-hand insights to inform the Committee’s work further. 

The panel featured three distinguished speakers with lived experiences of addiction and homelessness: 

• Elizabeth Colorado, Advocate for the Unhoused Community 

• Claudine Sipili, Lived Experience & Innovation Director, Destination Home 

• Anna Kokanyan, Director of Admissions & Program Director, Conquer Recovery Centers 

Each panelist shared their personal story of how recovery housing played a pivotal role in their journey to stability and long-term recovery. They addressed the barriers often faced during transitions from homelessness and addiction to stable housing, including financial hardship, limited guidance, and systemic obstacles. Their experiences highlighted the need for compassionate, structured environments that foster connection and provide resources without rigid requirements. 

The panelists called for more flexible, trauma-informed approaches that prioritize human dignity, autonomy, and choice. Claudine emphasized the need to advocate for policies that center racial equity and incorporate lived expertise. She also stressed that recovery housing should remain voluntary and not a requirement. Anna emphasized the need to validate individuals’ feelings and provide care in safe and supportive settings. Elizabeth highlighted the need to meet people where they are and guide them through both recovery and permanent housing pathways. 

The panelists expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to share their experiences. The discussion concluded with a Questions-and-Answers session with committee members. Key topics included: 

• A committee member asked Anna about the duration of her program at Conquer Recovery Centers and why participants travel from out of town. Anna explained that many public facilities have waitlists of six to nine months. Her program, which accepts private insurance, provides more immediate access to treatment. 

• A committee member celebrated Anna’s recent acceptance into a college program and shared heartfelt reflections on her journey. They emphasized the value of lived experience, resilience, and personal growth. 

• Another member raised concerns about the decision to offer housing before addressing mental health and substance use needs. The panelists acknowledged the diverse perspectives on the Housing First model and emphasized that services must reflect individual needs and allow each person to guide their own recovery. 

• When asked how they remain strong and grounded in their work, the panelists shared personal wellness practices. Anna spoke about the importance of caring for the mind, body, and spirit through exercise, prayer, meditation, a healthy diet, and therapy. Claudine described her connection with nature through off-road travel as a source of peace, reflection, and spiritual strength. Elizabeth emphasized simple acts of kindness to give back and stay rooted in empathy and purpose. 

• A committee member offered encouragement and shared a personal story about how they helped an individual regain custody of her children. The story affirmed the power of persistence, compassion, and hope. 

Public Comment: 

Barbara Wilson expressed appreciation for the panel discussion and proposed the creation of a safe healing space for individuals with behavioral health challenges. She shared that, in her experience, every unhoused person she had worked with could successfully maintain housing. Barbara also raised concerns about the Housing First model, noting that some individuals struggle with its structure and may feel like failures when they must return to more supported environments. Additionally, she questioned defining success solely in terms of paid employment, emphasizing that mental health conditions can impact a person’s ability to work. 

Anna, a college student, shared how impactful it was to hear directly from individuals with lived experience. While she studied incarceration and homelessness in her coursework, she said the personal stories gave her a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the issues. 

A committee member highlighted the challenges of treating individuals who use substances. She acknowledged the value of harm reduction but emphasized that trauma work remains difficult when a person remains under the influence. 

Item #4 Cal ICH and Recovery Housing Panel Debrief Discussion 

The Committee debriefed on the information presented by Cody Zeger from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH) and the panelists from the Recovery Housing Panel. Committee members also discussed potential next steps. 

A committee member expressed deep appreciation for the lived expertise shared by the panelists. She emphasized the value of hearing from individuals who have experienced addiction and homelessness, are now in recovery, and are helping others through successful programs. She encouraged the inclusion of similar presentations in future meetings. Another committee member outlined the following follow-up items in response to the presentation from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH): 

• Federal Housing Voucher Concerns: Urged follow-up with Cal ICH about federal funding cuts and reduced availability of rental vouchers. She noted that the presentation addressed only Homeless Prevention vouchers, which make up a small portion of the total supply. In Monterey County, she reported that no new Tenant-Based Vouchers appear available, and Project-Based Vouchers remain unavailable, which has stalled progress for individuals on waitlists. 

• Support for Undocumented Populations: Requested information on Cal ICH’s strategy to support undocumented individuals. The committee member shared that 13.5% of her county’s population are undocumented and many in this group experience homelessness. She shared that local shelters have reached capacity and often house undocumented families for extended periods, which forces others in need of emergency shelter to go without. She urged the Committee to seek state-level guidance and data on this growing concern. 

The committee member raised concerns about the long-term effectiveness of six-month rapid rehousing programs. She explained that individuals with serious mental illness who are unemployed often do not meet eligibility requirements for these short-term services. Even among those who do qualify, many are unable to sustain rent payments once the assistance ends. In one local case, 90% of participants became homeless again after the six-month support period. She questioned whether this approach offers a sustainable solution. 

A committee member added that shelters should function as gateways to permanent housing, not long-term temporary accommodations. While acknowledging the value of recovery housing, he stressed that it is just one piece of a broader housing continuum that requires support. 

Another committee member emphasized the importance of homelessness prevention. She referenced research from the University of California, San Francisco, showing that many people become homeless after missing a single rent or mortgage payment. She questioned why state and national investments remain focused on rehousing rather than proactively preventing housing loss. She also acknowledged the efforts of one panelist whose organization is working effectively in the prevention space. 

A committee member described the current moment as a pivotal opportunity to advance the Committee’s advocacy efforts. He noted that, although the presenter outlined several strategic goals, homelessness prevention remained undefined. He emphasized the value this Committee brings, as members provide firsthand insight into effective prevention strategies. The committee member added that the collective effort of this Committee could help influence broader policy decisions and bring hope to individuals at risk of homelessness. 

Public Comment: 

Barbara Wilson expressed appreciation for the Committee’s longstanding work, recalling her early involvement when she raised concerns about the closure of licensed adult residential facilities due to low reimbursement rates. She also highlighted the gap in oversight for sober living homes, which are unlicensed and therefore not subject to consistent standards. Barbara noted she has been in dialogue with her county’s Sober Living Council and referenced similar efforts in Santa Clara County to establish operational guidelines for these homes. 

She emphasized the lack of communication between systems and that many individuals’ experiencing homelessness are unaware of licensed residential options. In contrast, mental health providers often lack insight into the realities of homelessness. Barbara stressed the urgency to break down these silos, particularly due to recent resistance from the substance use community during a Los Angeles County town hall meeting, where concerns were raised about merging mental health and substance use systems. 

Action/Resolution 

Committee staff will follow up with the questions to the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal ICH). 

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – April 2025 

Item #5 Proposition 1 Update 

Council staff, Simon Vue, shared an update on Proposition 1 Bond Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) Round 1: Launch Ready. 

On May 12, 2025, the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) announced Proposition 1 BHCIP Round 1: Launch Ready awards. Eligible organizations applied for funding to construct, acquire, and rehabilitate properties for behavioral health services for Medi-Cal members. The Department awarded 124 projects across 214 behavioral health facilities in California to support: 

• 5,077 new residential/inpatient treatment beds for mental health and substance use disorders. 

• 21,882 new outpatient treatment slots. 

Additionally, the Department is preparing to launch BHCIP Round 2: Unmet Needs in May 2025, which will provide up to $1 billion in competitive funding awards. 

This funding is a vital part of the Department’s Behavioral Health Transformation efforts, which aim to strengthen California’s approach to providing services for mental health and substance use disorders by focusing on community-based care and support. Although the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) is not part of Proposition 1, the measure allocates up to $4.4 billion through the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act (BHIBA), which establishes the program as a key vehicle to expand California’s behavioral health infrastructure. This funding supports the development of treatment facilities, including residential care settings and supportive housing. The Department distributes these funds through competitive grants, focusing on community-based services and regional projects. 

Action/Resolution 

Staff will continue to monitor for the May updates regarding the Bond Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program Round 2: Unmet Needs. 

Responsible for Action-Due Date 

Simon Vue – May 2025 

Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board Meeting on Oct 21st

Short Summary of a presentation at the Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board meeting on 10/21/25

A review of California’s mental health data to address care disparities and improve community access.

Long Summary

The Board heard a presentation on mental health service disparities in California, using a CalMHSA data dashboard. The discussion highlighted challenges with data inconsistencies and access to care in Sonoma County, particularly for Asian, Pacific Islander, and native communities due to stigma and language barriers. The conversation also covered funding strategies, community outreach, and a call for more personal stories to better illustrate how individuals navigate the mental health system.

Data Analysis and Disparities

The California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) created a data dashboard to compare mental health measures across California’s 58 counties. According to 2023 data from the CalMHSA workbook, Sonoma County is performing poorly on the “access to care” measure. The data is based on claims submitted by the county to the state. Disparities in care were identified across different demographic groups and ethnicities. Data for small populations, such as Asian, Pacific Islander, Alaskan Native, and American Indian communities, is sometimes suppressed, making analysis difficult.

Access to Care Challenges

The county’s rate for access to care is below the statewide average, based on 2020-2021 data. Specific groups show very low service penetration rates: Alaskan Natives have a rate of 1.7%. Asian or Pacific Islanders have the lowest rate at 1%. Barriers to accessing care include: Cultural stigma around mental health treatment, especially within Asian Pacific Islander communities. Language barriers, such as a lack of Spanish-speaking staff at service locations.

Strategies and Funding

Best practices to support BIPOC communities are being implemented: Coordinated specialty care for individuals experiencing a first episode of psychosis. Community outreach events to inform residents about available services. Funding to address access to care goals will primarily come from: Behavioral health services and supports.

Full-service partnerships.

State-level funding from Prop 1 is allocated for workforce training and development, and the state is seeking local input on its use. A contractor provides support for staff in crisis situations, such as those on the mobile support team and at the crisis stabilization unit.

Patient Pathways

A request was made for more concrete examples of an individual’s journey through the mental health system. Three primary pathways for accessing care were outlined:  Through an individual’s private insurance. By contacting the county’s access teams, which serve as the “front door” to services. It was suggested that a future meeting could feature individual stories to better illustrate how the system works on a personal level.

Short Summary of Sonoma County Behavioral Health Board Meeting on 10/21/25

The meeting began with a discussion about fixing communication issues.

Long Summary

Significant frustration was expressed regarding poor communication and the difficult onboarding process for new members. The group discussed proposals to improve orientation and to be more involved in vetting new recruits, highlighting a clear disconnect with the appointing authority.

Review of Progress

The Chair’s report was noted as being brief. The board reviewed current vacancies by district:

District 3: One vacancy. District 4: Two vacancies. District 5: Two vacancies.

Key Achievements

The board website has been updated. All new members and the latest minutes are now available on the website.

Challenges and Adjustments Needed

Significant frustration was expressed regarding the lack of communication and support for new board members. New members reported confusion over meeting schedules, specifically regarding a canceled August meeting that was then held. There have been difficulties with basic orientation, such as obtaining name tags and understanding procedures. A systemic issue was identified with the board’s inability to meet with prospective members before their appointment.  The board feels this prevents them from setting clear expectations and providing a proper orientation. There is a conflict with a higher authority regarding the board’s role in the member appointment process, with the board feeling they are being excluded.

Action Items and Accountability for the Week Ahead

A member will contact ISD to correct a website error where a former co-chair is still listed. A motion was made and seconded to take formal action to address the board’s lack of involvement in the member appointment process.  It was suggested that the group co-sign and send a letter to the County Board of Supervisors. The letter would advocate for the board’s involvement in recruiting and orienting prospective members.

Board Communication and Onboarding Issues

Board members expressed significant frustration over systemic communication failures. New members reported not receiving notifications for meetings, leading to confusion and missed sessions.  Onboarding processes are lacking, with members struggling to get name tags or find sign-in sheets.

The board website had outdated information and was missing meeting minutes, though steps are being taken to resolve this with the IT department.  A strong desire was voiced for the board to participate in the recruitment and orientation of new members to set expectations early.  A consensus was reached to communicate again with the Board of Supervisors to assert their role in the appointment process, which is currently a point of contention.

Meeting Logistics and Technology

A discussion was held on whether to hold meetings in a consistent central location or rotate them through different geographical areas to engage local communities. Recurring technology failures, including issues with Wi-Fi and audio during the current meeting, highlighted the need for a reliable setup. A motion passed to adopt a hybrid approach:  Meetings will be held at a consistent, central location with robust technology for a reliable Zoom presence. Presentations will be varied by geographical area to ensure all parts of the county are represented. The November meeting will be held at 1450 Neotomas, a location with superior audiovisual capabilities.

Vice-Chair Election

After a previously nominated candidate resigned, a new election was held for the Vice-Chair position. Alexandra and Angelina were nominated as candidates. Following a vote, Alexandra was officially elected as the new Vice-Chair.

Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Overview

A presentation detailed the transition from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA).  The key difference is that BHSA is broader, officially including substance use disorders alongside mental health.  Under MHSA, funds could not be used to treat someone with only a substance use disorder. The BHSA prioritizes services for the most vulnerable individuals.

BHSA Program and Funding Allocation

Sonoma County expects to receive approximately $38 million in annual BHSA funds for the upcoming three-year plan.  Funding is divided into several main categories:

Housing (30% / $11.4M):  Half of these funds must be dedicated to serving the chronically homeless. Will be used for rental subsidies, vouchers, deposits, and utility bills.

Full-Service Partnerships (FSP) (35%):

Mandated programs for four age groups: children/youth, transitional-aged youth (18-25), adults, and older adults.  Will continue specialty programs like Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT).

Early Intervention & Prevention (51% of population-based funds):

Programs include the Youth Access Team, First Episode Psychosis treatment, Wraparound services for foster youth, and the Suicide Prevention Hotline.

The Integrated Plan

Counties are now required to submit a unified, three-year “integrated plan” for all behavioral health services. The Department of Healthcare Services (DHCS) has created a standardized template that all counties will use for this plan.  The plan must account for all behavioral health funding streams, not just BHSA funds. It must address six state-mandated goals, including improving access to care and reducing homelessness, institutionalization, and justice involvement.  Sonoma County has chosen to add suicide prevention as a seventh local goal due to higher-than-average rates in the area.

California lawmakers reject hundreds of bills in rapid-fire hearings

By Jeanne Kuang and Yue Stella Yu, CalMatters

Tax credits for the parents of young children. A state-funded scientific research institute. Exempting service workers’ tips from state income tax.

Those are among the hundreds of proposals California lawmakers swiftly rejected Friday under the banner of cost savings, as they cited the state’s $12 billion budget deficit — a worsening figure due to the threat of unprecedented federal funding cuts and California’s ballooning spending on health care for low-income residents. 

“We are in (a) very difficult budget environment this year, so consequently many good bills are going to fall by the wayside today,” said Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, before beginning that chamber’s hearing. 

“We are not in a year where we can be expanding programs, developing new offices, new agencies, new departments, and expanding our footprints.”

The Friday procedure is known as the “suspense file” — the state Legislature’s most secretive and fast-paced biannual hearing, where the chairs of the Assembly and Senate Appropriations committees quickly shoot down pricey proposals with little explanation, often acting more aggressively during years of budget woes. 

The suspense files are where the appropriations committees send bills that would cost the state at least $50,000 in the Senate and $150,000 in the Assembly. The process was originally a way for lawmakers to consider policy proposals that cost the state money together by balancing them against each other. 

But the well-accepted open secret in Sacramento is that it’s also an opportunity for lawmakers to quietly kill controversial bills, appease powerful special interests or just winnow down the number of bills they’ll have to debate on the floor. Lawmakers decide ahead of time, in secret, whether to pass the bills to the full Senate or Assembly, or to withhold them. The public hearings are a rapid-fire announcement of the decisions.

On Friday, the Senate Appropriations Committee axed 29% of the 432 bills on its list, although it kept a handful of those alive to work on next year. That’s more aggressive trimming than the committee did last May. 

“The state is facing a significant budget deficit and with that in mind, the committee had to make difficult choices on a number of bills to reduce costs,” said Senate Appropriations Chairperson Anna Caballero, a Merced Democrat, before the hearing. She opened the hearing with a defense of the arcane proceedings, explaining that the results would be posted online, but rushed out to catch a flight after the meeting without discussing her approach with reporters. 

The Assembly Appropriations Committee killed 35% of the 666 measures on its suspense file, similar to last year. Lawmakers had been warned to keep the cost of their proposals down, Wicks said. 

“We stressed heavily to members as they were putting together their legislative package this year to be very mindful of cost,” she told reporters.

The state’s fiscal future is anything but certain: As federal threats loom, Gov. Gavin Newsom earlier this month rolled out a $322 billion spending plan that included significant cuts to Medi-Cal, the state’s health care system for low-income Californians, and a 3% cut to public universities. 

Health care expansions on the chopping block

On Friday, some Assembly measures that would have expanded health care services for Californians met their fate. That includes Wicks’ own proposal seeking federal approval to qualify some housing services as Medi-Cal benefits, a $40 million endeavor that Newsom previously vetoed. The committee also killed a proposal to allow more Medi-Cal enrollees to receive home-based care and another that would have allowed higher-earning immigrants in the country illegally to purchase insurance plans on Covered California, the state-run health care marketplace.

Several lawmakers and state Capitol staff sit behind a two-row dais during a legislative hearing. A large oval image of the California State Assembly seal can be seen hung up on the wall behind them.
Assemblymembers meet during a suspense file hearing at the Capitol Annex Swing Space in Sacramento on May 23, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters

In the Senate, lawmakers shelved a proposal by Sen. Catherine Blakespear to impose campaign contribution limits on candidates for judicial office and school board races, which the influential California Teachers Association opposed. They axed Sen. Henry Stern’s proposal to expand the state’s contentious new mental health program CARE Courts to include defendants with bipolar disorder I, and Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil’s bill to address mountain lion interactions that has pitted rural communities against animal rights and wildlife conservation advocates. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee also killed two Republican tough-on-crime proposals, showing the limits of Democrats’ recent shift slightly rightward on crime. Until Friday, it had been surprisingly smooth sailing this year for Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones’ bill to block sex offenders from being released from prison through the state’s elderly parole program, and Sen. Kelly Seyarto’s bill to increase penalties for selling or giving fentanyl to minors.

The law enforcement-backed bills were opposed by criminal justice reform advocates, who still hold sway with the majority party and often argue it would be too costly for the state to imprison more people. 

In a statement, Jones, a San Diego Republican, called the suspense file process “anti-democratic” and accused Democrats of “silencing the voices of victims and the public.”

Some measures are now postponed until next year. That includes two Assembly measures seeking tighter regulations on ticket sales for sports and musical events, amid fierce opposition from ticketing platforms such as Stubhub and from local chambers of commerce. The measures would restrict when those platforms can resell tickets, strengthen the disclosure of ticket information and require venues to accept proof of purchase as tickets. 

Assm. Isaac Bryan, a Culver City Democrat who authored one of the measures, said Wicks never articulated her concerns with his proposal, even though Wicks told reporters Friday her staff had been in touch with Bryan’s office. “There was never an attempt to discuss the bill,” which led him to believe her concerns had been alleviated, Bryan said in a statement.

Lawmakers also pushed off some issues to be debated further during budget negotiations between the Legislature and Newsom. That process will accelerate in the coming weeks before a mid-June deadline to pass a balanced budget. 

Newsom’s film tax credit pushed to budget talk

They stripped out language in both Assembly and Senate bills to more than double the state’s film tax credit to $750 million. Newsom has pushed hard for the tax credit expansion to help the ailing Los Angeles industry and keep production in state, and he’s included the money in his budget proposals which lawmakers will debate separately. 

Assemblymember Rick Zbur, a Los Angeles Democrat who authored the Assembly version of the measure, said the committee move was merely a technical one to separate budget allocations from policy changes. 

“The increase in the size of the program will happen in the budget,” Zbur said. “I’m not that nervous about it.”

But to others, the move indicated that some lawmakers remain skeptical of spending so much on the program. Sen. Ben Allen, an El Segundo Democrat who sponsored the Senate bill to boost the tax credits, said he was “certainly disappointed.”

“It’s something we are going to push back against as budget negotiations begin to heat up,” he said in a statement.

An ambitious and highly technical proposal by Sen. Scott Wiener reining in the landmark California Environmental Quality Act to make it harder for opponents of development to sue to block housing projects also will be debated in the budget process.

In the Senate Appropriations Committee, lawmakers passed the bill but Caballero said they would continue negotiating it to help the state meet its housing needs “without compromising environmental protections.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Government Transformation

The traditional government financing design is being turned upside down.  No longer can we expect the federal or state governments to advance or reimburse local governments.  And if the uses of federal and state funds are now to give tax breaks to the rich, and to end and reduce deficit spending, then federalism and state solvency are going to be severely tested.

Which brings us to the question addressed at Santa Rosa’s goal-setting workshop yesterday – What are the basic services which should consume the City’s budget?  What do our residents want, and what should our elected representatives provide, from the City?  The Council chose to recognize that its own workforce was exhausted and could not perform well on most of its assigned goals and duties.  Their answers were fewer goals, clearly understood by the public, with longer acknowledged timeframes.  Their very top priority was to “Achieve and Maintain Fiscal Sustainability”.   Though you might have heard that before in tough economic times, I’ve never seen a more worried group of leaders and staff.  The word “transformation” was used many times, and I don’t think many had clear visions of positive outcomes.

In the general questioning of the purposes of all government, this local examination is crucial.  To many, it may be the only chance for citizen impact.  Lately, Sonoma County voters have agreed to tax themselves to provide some vital resources under local control.  A unified and cooperative group of leaders could work together to develop a better funding system.  The County and its cities need to protect each other from simplistic departmental budget slashing, or none of us will be happy with how local governments will be transformed. 

Measure O Annual Update

There is a Dec 10th Report to the Board of Supervisors from the Department of Health Services titled ” Measure O Update for Fiscal Year 2023-2024” which updates them on the progress of Measure O, our sales tax-funded Behavioral Health and Homeless Community Solutions Initiative. 

Executive Summary: The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors requested an update on Measure O during the June 2024 Budget hearings. This update covers fiscal year 2023-2024 expenditures by category; estimated fund balance for fiscal year 2024-2025 and fiscal year 2025-2026; and provides a review of outcomes and numbers served from last fiscal year. Additionally, staff will highlight Measure O successes and discuss the approach for current and future Measure O funding.

Discussion: In November 2020 Sonoma County voters passed Measure O to provide essential funding for mental health and homeless services with 68.07% of the vote. Measure O, a one-quarter cent sales tax, was estimated to generate over $25 million each year for ten years to help protect essential mental health and homelessness services.

The Measure O Sales Tax Ordinance identified five categories of services to be funded with the revenue: 1) Behavioral Health Facilities, 2) Emergency Psychiatric and Crisis Services, 3) Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Outpatient Services, 4) Homeless Behavioral Health and Care Coordination, and 5) Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing. The Measure O Expenditure Plan designates a set percentage of funding for each category.

On December 7, 2021, the Board of Supervisors established a Citizen’s Oversight Committee to monitor the implementation of Measure O. The Citizen’s Oversight reviews expenditures for alignment with the intent of the Measure and does not make or recommend funding decisions.

On October 23, 2024, the committee voted to confirm that the Measure O expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 met the intent of the measure. This past fiscal year was the 3rd full year of Measure O funding. Tax revenues for the year again exceeded the initial projections made when voters considered Measure O. Tax receipts totaled $32 million as opposed to the initially projected $24 million (total revenues including interest and unrealized gains was $34.2 million) The surplus has provided capacity to pursue expanded opportunities within the established categories to support our community.

For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, below are the Measure O funds used/spent by category: · Behavioral Health Facilities: $7,055,539 · Emergency Psychiatric & Crisis Services: $12,425,458 · Mental Health & Substance Use Disorder Outpatient Services: $1,275,496 · Behavioral Health Homeless & Care Coordination: $7,842,652 · Transitional & Permanent Supportive Housing: $3,345,616 The total projected Measure O revenue for FY 2024-2025 is $32,865,501.

In FY 24/25 a total of $66.2M of Measure O resources are available for programming, financed with $33.3 in fund balance and $32.9M of total revenues.  The approved FY24-25 budget includes $37.5 million in expenditures for Measure O.  The Department will be seeking $10.2 in additional appropriation in FY 2024-2025 Q4. Given the total planned expenditures of $47,739,541 for FY 2024-25 budget, the ending fund balance in June is projected to be $18,478,541.

Details of the various expenses by categories with additional information can be found in Attachment A Presentation.

The Mobile Support Team and Crisis Assessment Prevention and Education described below highlight recent updates from the Measure O-funded Mobile Support Team (MST) and Crisis Assessment Prevention & Education (CAPE).

· In December 2022, California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) established a new Medi-Cal benefit providing 24/7/365 community-based mobile crisis intervention services to those experiencing a behavioral health crisis. On April 16, 2024, county staff launched Sonoma County’s 24/7 call center and a revamped Mobile Support Team (MST) to meet this need. The MST is partnering with SAFE (which serves Petaluma, Rohnert Park, Cotati and Sonoma State University) and inRESPONSE (which serves Santa Rosa)) to provide countywide coverage. The Sonoma County 24/7 call center and revamped MST is available to all Sonoma County residents regardless of insurance status. An additional $5M in Measure O funds are being held for contingencies from potential MST expansion based on future county and Regional Model City needs. The actual draw on the fund balance will be recalculated based on Federal Financial Participation action receipts from the Medi-Cal program.

· Crisis Assessment Prevention & Education (CAPE). CAPE provides school-based behavioral health support and interventions to schools in Sonoma County. Four mental health teams are strategically located across the county. CAPE is reinstituting in-person response to students experiencing behavioral health crisis and linking students to substance use disorder treatment services for to youth and young adults.. The program is active and expanding, providing services such as: direct linkage to County Behavioral Health services and navigating other health insurance to connect to treatment; substance use and suicide prevention and early intervention – educational presentations and campaigns, linkage, and referral; and peer support and groups. In the 2024-2025 school year , CAPE will be partnering with these schools: Analy High School and Laguna High School in West County; and  Sonoma Valley High School, Creekside High School, Adele Harrison Middle School, Alta Mira Middle School, and Hanna Boys Center in the Sonoma Valley.

Successful Outcomes from Measure O

The Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) has continued to operate at its full capacity of 16 beds, serving over 150 individuals annually due to Measure O funding.

The Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) served nearly 1,000 individuals and was also able to continue operations at full capacity due to Measure O until the current temporary closure due to facility issues. The Mobile Support Team has expanded into a Regional Collaboration that utilizes exciting new approaches to crisis response.

Measure O has also laid the groundwork for new programs launching this year, including CAPE, additional support for the Valley of the Moon Short Term Residential Treatment facility, and the expansion of Medi-Cal drug service.

This year also saw the finalization of incorporating Homelessness Services into DHS with Measure O providing 100% of funding for the Homeless Encampment Assistance and Resource Team (HEART) and Solving Obstacles for Unsheltered Lives (SOUL) programs, and a significant amount of funding ($4.2M) for George’s Hideaway. The George’s Hideaway project is a Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Project Homekey site near Guerneville. Measure O funds were used to support site renovation (including planning, water/sewer, and demolition work) under oversight of the Community Development Commission (CDC).  This site will provide supportive care including therapy, substance use disorder care, benefit navigation, job training and life skills.

Also, in September of this fiscal year, the funds allowed for the release of the Measure O: Behavioral Health & Homelessness Community Solutions Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in the amount of $5.6 million, including $4.2 of Measure O funding and $1.4 million in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) funding. The NOFA is open to applications from interested parties, community partners and any other local government agencies. The NOFA covers multiple program areas within each Measure O category with a specific focus on areas of identified need including on service navigation, staffing shortages, education/training and upstream approaches, peer support, individual and family counseling, and cultural competence. Additionally, the HHAP portion of the NOFA prioritizes permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing, emergency shelter (congregate and non-congregate), street outreach, capital expenses for permanent supportive housing or enhancing existing emergency shelter projects for privacy, and lastly, operating subsidies for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing.

To determine priorities and opportunities for strategic application of Measure O funding in the future, department leadership plans to conduct a detailed budget and program analysis and identify areas where Measure O funding could be used and where other funding sources could be leveraged. The goal is to separate annual, recurring commitments from the projects where funding could be shifted as they mature and/or become self-sustaining. 

The remaining Measure O funding would be a mix of unallocated fund balance and expected revenues.  Staff plans to release a recurring Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for which Community Based Organizations and local government partners could apply. Through an open application process, a Community Advisory Panel will be selected to help review NOFA proposals and make recommendations to the Board for final approval. Staff will present the outlines of this proposal to the Board for further guidance and direction at the Board meeting.

https://sonoma-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7040199&GUID=50628097-0FF6-49E5-AB44-8607A01F14CB

Sonoma County Secure Families Collaborative Funded

Executive Summary:

Consistent with California Code, Government Code – GOV § 26227 during the budget development process for fiscal year 2024-25, the Board approved Board Budget Request BOS-16, submitted jointly by Supervisors Coursey and Hopkins, which consists of a payment of $300,000 to the Secure Families Collaborative to support the Collaborative’s legal representation of undocumented people in Sonoma County.

CG 26227 allows for the county to appropriate and expend money from the general fund or to fund programs deemed by the Board of Supervisors to be necessary to meet the social needs of the population.

This item authorizes the County Administrator and/or designated staff to execute the agreement between the County and the Collaborative, and operationalizes the payment approved during budget. This action brings the total funding provided by the Board to the Collaborative since 2017-18 to approximately $1.2 million.  

Discussion:

In 2018, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors established the Sonoma County Secure Families Collaborative (the Collaborative, website: https://sonomacountysecurefamilies.org/) to meet the needs of the community due to changes in federal immigration policy and the North Bay wildfires. The Collaborative has been a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization since 2021. The Collaborative’s partners include nonprofit and community-based organizations such as the University of San Francisco Deportation Defense Clinic in Healdsburg, the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa, the Immigration Institute of the Bay Area, Sonoma Immigrant Services, North Bay Organizing Project, Queer Asylum Accompaniment (QAA) Team, and Legal Aid of Sonoma County.

The Collaborative and its partners provide legal assistance with removal defense cases, with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), conduct referrals to wraparound social services, and assist asylum seekers with essential needs such as housing, food, and other services. The Collaborative’s client base and legal work are distinct from County departments like the Public Defender’s Office (PDO) in that the Collaborative represents clients with cases involving the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and affirmative applications for immigration benefits with the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). The Collaborative does not represent clients with a criminal conviction. In contrast, the Public Defender’s Office represents justice-involved individuals charged with a criminal offense and handles defensive applications that seek to prevent deportation. 

The Board has provided financial support in varying amounts and from varying sources to the Collaborative over the past seven years. In 2017, the Board approved a $100,000 donation per year for 3 years to the Collaborative using Graton Tribal Mitigation Funds. In 2020-21, the Board provided a payment of $100,000 to the Collaborative using non-guaranteed Graton Tribal Mitigation Funds. Beginning in 2022-23 and again in 2023-24, the Board approved payments of $200,000 per year using one-time General Fund balance.

For 2024-25, the Board authorized a payment of $300,000 to the Collaborative, again drawing on one-time General Fund balance. The $300,000 payment authorized for 24-25 will cover the cost of a .75 FTE Removal Defense Attorney with the University of San Francisco Deportation Defense Clinic, a .75 FTE Sonoma Immigrant Services Removal Defense Attorney, and a .75 FTE Secure Families Collaborative Executive Director (see attached funding breakdown documentation). Each removal defense attorney carries an open caseload of at least 30 cases per year. Removal defense cases are a complex area of law that can take up to 7 years to resolve, and the Collaborative has a waitlist of approximately 100 cases as of September 2024.

The Collaborative plans to return to the Board during the 25-26 budget process and in the out years with additional requests for continued support of these personnel.  In addition to Board support, for 2024-25, the Collaborative will receive approximately $125,000 in grant funds in partnership with the Economic Development Collaborative as part of the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development Local Immigration Integration and Inclusion Grant. The Collaborative sources the remainder of its funding from a combination of state funds, grants and donors.

Brown Act Violations

Greetings!

About three weeks ago, I raised with your staff member (Michael Gause) my belief that the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board had violated the California Brown Act.  My email to him is below.

Greetings!

The meeting of the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition yesterday violated the California Brown Act by:

  1. Introducing, discussing, and taking action on an item not legally agendized.
  2. Coalition members and staff had received and were discussing a letter at the center of the discussion not made available to the public.
  3. Coalition leadership directed staff to conduct an investigation into the performance of a subcontractor charged in the letter, and report back to the Coalition.

As the Lead Agency to the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition (Continuum of Care), you are responsible for advising the Coalition during any meeting of their variance from the meeting requirements contained in the California Brown Act.  I believe that it was apparent to anyone trained in the Act that the Coalition began to violate the Act requirements toward the end of the meeting when the Chair asked members to discuss a letter they had all received from a member of the public.  I believe that you should have advised them that their actions were beginning to violate the provisions of the Brown Act.   Such actions seriously jeopardize the SCHC’s standing as a recipient of State funding directed to CoCs in good standing, and your use of the administrative cost reimbursements.  In addition, while I am aware that a MOU has still not been signed between the Department and the Coalition, I would assume that continued funding from California HCD to the Department and its subcontractors is dependent on its successful approval.

I have notified the County Executive of my concerns, and asked her to engage the County Counsel to review the meeting video to confirm or deny my conclusions.  I ask you to review all your and Coalition actions at the meeting, and be prepared to respond to the County Executive and County Counsel’s questions.  Also, please consider what actions may be necessary to move forward to remedy the violations.

Gregory Fearon

Michael replied to two of my assertions (below).

Hi Gregory,

I am also including Jennielynn and Una here.  To address your concerns:

  • This was brought up during the “Board Member Questions and Comments” Item on the agenda as a comment from the Board Member, Jackie Elward, thus it was on an agenda item that is reserved for specific comments and questions.  
  • No action was taken, no vote was take that gave direction to staff.

My best,

Michael 

Michael Gause

Ending Homelessness Program Manager

Sonoma County Department of Health Services – Homelessness Services Division

1450 Neotomas Avenue, Suite 115

Santa Rosa, CA 95405

(707) 791-8140 Michael.Gause@sonoma-county.org

The following is being supplied tomorrow to the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board in the monthly staff report (Follow up on SHARE Sonoma County Questions):

5. Follow up on SHARE Sonoma County Questions: The Coalition Board requested clarity on issues related to SHARE Sonoma County at the June Board meeting.  As there is no formal process for an investigation by the Coalition Board in this matter, an investigation is currently underway by the Department of Health Services Compliance Unit for contract and program compliance as the Department of Health Services has an obligation to the Funding Sources and the County of Sonoma. We will report out as appropriate and applicable per Counsel to the Coalition Board as the Department of Health Services serves as the Lead Agency for the Coalition Board. 

I repeat my belief that, as a result of the three independent violations cited in my first email, the discussion in the last part of the June 26th Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board meeting violated the California Brown Act.  I reject your staff member’s assertion that the conversation in the “Board Members Questions and Comments” agenda item meets the test of the public’s perception of that description.  The topic brought up was not discussed in any way prior to the beginning of the agenda item.

Second, and not addressed by your staff member, the letter being discussed was distributed to the Board, but not distributed to the public prior to the discussion.

Finally, this month’s staff followup report confirms that direction was given to staff, and indicates the actions that have been taken (see above text).

I request that the Sonoma County Homeless Coalition Board acknowledge their violations, and takes immediate actions to “cure or correct the challenged actions”.  I will be communicating this challenged behavior officially to the Board at tomorrow’s Board meeting.   As I believe that Board has thirty days to cure or correct the challenged actions, should the Board choose not to, I will be authorized to file suit (alternate writ of mandamus in Sonoma County Superior Court) to void the actions (54960.1).

Gregory Fearon