Antioch City Council to Move Forward with RFP for Bridge Housing for Homeless

On Tuesday, the Antioch city Council received an update on its Unhoused Residents strategies which the council had been working on over the past two years. It also agreed to move forward with an RFP for Bridge Housing.

 The report was provided by Jazmin Ridley, unhoused resident coordinator presented the item which outlined a timeline which include:

• October 2018 – Shelter Crisis declared pursuant to CA SB 850
• March 2019 – Council Hosted Homeless Encampment Taskforce Panel
• April 2019 – Homeless Encampment Ad-hoc Committee Formed
• August 2019 – City Council recommends Unhoused Resident Coordinator Position
• September 2019 – Unhoused Resident coordinator Position Classification Created
• February 2020 – Focus Strategies began work as Unhoused Resident Coordinator Consultant
• April 2020 – Transitional Housing Ad-hoc Committee formed
• May 2020 – Project Roomkey Program at Motel 6 opened
• May 2020 – RV Housing Opportunity Program (RP Released/no contract awarded)
• October 2020 – Motel Occupancy Agreement Program to Shelter Unhoused  Residents (RFP Released)
• October 2020 – Focus Strategies Study
• November 2020 – CDBG-CV3 Fund Recommendations and Substantial Agreement
• December 2020 – Unhoused Resident Coordinator Hired

Number of Unsheltered People identified in Antioch:

• 2016 – 164
• 2017 – 137
• 2018 – 350
• 2019 – 226
• 2020 – 238
• 2021 – Point in Time Count Cancelled

According to Ridley she highlighted a series of goals created by Antioch. This includes the following:

• Decriminalize homelessness and adopt strategic encampment resolution policies focused on linking unhoused people to shelter, housing and services
• Invest in temporary housing and shelter that provides a pathway to housing
• Participate in and leverage Contra Costa County homeless response System (H3)
• Build partnerships with community partners and community-based efforts that complement city-funded and regional strategies
• Engage in data-informed planning and investments.

Kate Bristol, Director of Consulting at Focus Strategies, they performed a feasibility study with a temporary shelter program. This included options as to if the city would create an emergency shelter, Bridge Housing (or Housing-Focused Shelter) or Bridge Housing with Additional Trailers on site.  at a leased motel site which included a 30-bed year-round program.  They looked at a study operating 30-bed year round program the model would be with the city administration the program/community based organization operated.

Bristol stated the cost of each program would be:

• $450k – emergency shelter
• $745k – Bridge Housing
• $858 – Bridge Housing in motel with trailers on site for expanded capacity.

According to Bristol, the recommended model was bridge housing in non-congregate setting with strong recommendation to closely coordinate with the County’s homelessness response team and affordable, subsidized and public housing options.

City Council Discussion

Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson stated they needed wrap-around services that gets connected to food, housing, medical.

Bristol stated while the county does have services, they were hard to access because there was not a one size-fits all solution. She noted in East Contra Costa County its hard to get into the services with everything being in central county.

“There is a whole array of different pathways that people can find out of homelessness and into housing,” stated Bristol who said there could be housing subsidies or could be something different like moving in with a family member or friend. “The key is to have the services there to help them.

Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker stated tonight they were not voting on a hotel or trailers, but voting on the budget and recommendation for services.

Thorpe corrected her, stating if council decided to move forward, they would perform a Request for Proposal for the homeless service provider for the hotel. They would be providing staff with direction and look for opportunities such as the State Homekey program.

Torres-Walker stated she wanted to be clear about the hotel.

“I did talk to Mr. Bernal about the whole hotel model and it’s my understanding that’s on hold and could take several months before anything can move on that front. Because the Executive Inn is in my district and right up the street from my home. I just wanted to raise up that although I would love for these projects to move forward and in full support of these projects, when I first moved to Antioch, I was notified by Officer Summers.. that Cavallo and E 18^th and Sycamore area presented the most problems when it came to crime and incidents. Living here has not been a walk in the park and understanding that there is a lot of work that needs to be done  around this motel and we no longer have a grocery store as well that raises a lot of concern for me.”

She urged the council to consider as they are spending time getting this up and running that they also spend time and resources making the community safe.

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock pointed out all of the hotels are in District, so if this program goes forward it would be in District 1.

Ogorchock asked about the lease for the Hotel and if Ms. Bristol had the cost for the lease of the motel because it wasn’t included.

Thorpe interjected stated they were talking about the “bridge housing concept.”

Ogorchock argued that her question pertains to part of the cost noting the staff report had three different costs. She said they would still not know the final cost because it doesn’t include the lease or what it would be.

“You are absolutely correct because we are not here to discuss the final cost,” stated Thorpe. “The final costs will come once we have a service provider. These are estimates. These are not real costs.”

Thorpe then attempted to explain the potential RFP process to give them final numbers.

That did not appease Ogorchock stating she knew the process, but stated if they were looking at a budge to budget this out they needed to know the cost of the lease to see the total cost.

Thorpe countered they haven’t budgeted anything because they have not done an RFP yet and wouldn’t know the number since there has been no proposal for a cost estimate to bring back with the hotel and services as a final number.

Ogorchock again pressed Thorpe on the numbers as stated in the state report asking if the positions were with benefits or not.

Thorpe stated these were not “real numbers” in that no one has a responded to a request for proposal with actual cost of services. But rather, the staff report was estimates of what they think it may look like.

“I understand, but if we are asking for these projects even with an RFP, we are using public funds for this. I would think we would be able to tell them what the cost would be,” stated Ogorchock.

Thorpe again stated they would know the cost once an RFP had a submission outlining the costs and called this a “concept”.

Ogorchock then asked Bristol to explain the best practices she has seen.

Bristol explained that if you identify the right provider that know what they are doing they will bring their best practices which would be embedded in the way services would be provided which is a step up from a community shelter.

Ogorchock asked her to share the benefits versus the cost on a proven model. Bristol stated the first place to look at would be the County Program which would be CARE H3 program.

Ogorchock argued those are county funded, she was asking about a city funded. Bristol did not have one from a city their size but there were larger cities invested in, such as San Francisco and could get them info in the future and results.

“Are we talking about the San Francisco one? Because that one failed I believe with bridge housing,” stated Ogorchock who noted they didn’t have a good intake as they had lots of drugs and alcohol in the program.

Bristol stated she wasn’t sure which one she was talking about as San Francisco has several programs. She did state best practices in California was to move towards a service enriched shelter approach that when you leave you exit to housing.

Ogorchock appreciated the information calling it a difficult conversation but was trying to find the right fit for the city. She was curious on the expected outcomes.

Councilmember Mike Barbanica stated the goal was to reduce the unhoused population as much as possible within the community.

“We can’t do nothing,” stated Barbanica highlighting that the city is already paying each day from fecal material going into the water, urine going into the water, garbage and other items which is costing the community.

Ogorchock stated she didn’t disagree with Barbanica’s comments, but the costs are not going to go away and needed to talk in reality which is 28-individuals going into a hotel.

She highlighted the costs were “astronomical” saying this was not going to stop people from dumping, or the feces or the urine in the river because they were only assisting 28 people, but the question then became having services available to them for mental, drug and alcohol.

“If we are not going to be seeing what they are doing in their rooms, then there is no accountability, what are we changing?” stated Ogorchock who said the goal was to lend them a hand and help them out of a situation.

Thorpe noted they should have prefaced this topic by cities having a choice by being reactive to homelessness by wasting employees time like our police department chasing people from corner to corner or wasting code enforcement time chasing people off private property. Wasting time of abatement team to clean up these things which is what they have been doing.

“Or, we can manage this. We can manage homelessness,” stated Thorpe through bridge housing to help stabilize people’s lives and get them into housing.

Thorpe further highlighted that the challenge in East Contra Costa County is that there are no services in this area.

“It makes it extremely difficult to locate services to go onto the other side of the county to central county when there is nothing here. We literally share a CORE team with all the other cities as an entry point for services that don’t exist in our community,” stated Thorpe. “We can stay reactive and waste taxpayer money latterly or we can come up with a solution and provide interim, bridge housing and then get them into permanent housing.”

Barbanica added that $500k was earmarked to housing services by the previous council with $140k to be spent on housing and none of that has been used.

He continued by explaining by explaining that the former Motel 6 in Pittsburg has 176 rooms which 30% are from Antioch. It’s a 90-120 day program with wrap around services. He further highlighted that the county has received 100 Section 8 vouchers and $3 million for permanent housing.

“The mayor and I have asked Jazmin to use that $140,000 to help get folks off the street and into shelter,” said Barbanica.

He also spoke with Pittbsurg Police Chief Brian Addington who said police calls to the surrounding area have increased. Within the commercial area of the hotel, they are now paying two officers due to the calls for service—I am asking for a hybrid of this.

According to Barbanica, he spoke to Lavonna Martin, Director at the County, and she said the cost for this type of program would be around $2.5 million and suggested using the $140k to pay for Antioch residents at the motel in Pittsburg.

Barbanica asked his council if they want to get people into this type of program in our city or into a program we already know is working in Pittsburg. He encouraged the council not to reinvent the wheel and work with the county.

Torres-Walker stated District 1 has been neglected and overlooked for years and you don’t invest in and provide quality police services, but residents needed to be serviced which includes quality of life for unhoused resident and housed residents.

Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson stated they also needed to focus on surrounding areas and appreciated comments and ideas by Barbanica. She wanted to hear more about the Motel 6 idea in the future.

At that point, Thorpe stated they needed to give direction on bridge housing and request for proposals moving forward.

Direction was provided in a 3-2 vote with Barbanica and Ogorchock dissenting on moving forward with an RFP for bridge housing which will come back before council.

Thorpe confirmed with City Manager Ron Bernal that the city will pursue an RFP on a bridge housing type model with wrap around services while looking for grant funding opportunities.

Thorpe also stated he would bring back Barbanica’s idea on the Motel 6 concept to the council noting they could do both or one or the other but wanted to get information and make a determination.

“I absolutely know that there is frustration around us having set aside $500,000 in homeless services and I heard comments that we have wasted money,” stated Thorpe. “We haven’t wasted money because we haven’t spent the money. Jazmin is going to get going on hotel vouchers and other plans, showers, parking lot ideas.”

Thorpe applauded his fellow council member who have been out at the encampments and working on a solution and being committed to get people on the right path and get them into housing while thanking advocated for holding a “fire” under their feet.