County Administrator's Office Bill Emlen*

After the county selected option C in February 2021 as the method for Solano County residents to access state and federal emergency rental assistance, the county neglected to sufficiently support that decision with adequate staff and timely resources. Response to Finding 1 The Solano County Administrator partially disagrees with this finding. The County contracted with Catholic Charities of Yolo-Solano ("CCYS") to administer the County's federally funded Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) on the County's behalf. Based on their response to the County-issued Request for Proposals, the County believed it had acquired sufficient resources to ensure proper and timely program implementation. However, CCYS experienced challenges in staffing the program, and the implementation of the partnership with the Family Resource Centers was delayed. As complexities of the program became clearer and the need to augment work being handled by the contractor became evident, the County hired additional temporary staff to assist with administering the program. Ultimately, all federal deadlines for committing Treasury funds were met. <b>Recommendation 1A</b> Before accepting responsibility from the state for a new, time-limited program, the BOS confirm that realistic, adequate and knowledgeable internal and contracted staffing will be provided along with support plans to ensure program success. Response to Recommendation 1A This recommendation has been and will be implemented. The County learned lessons from the roll out of these programs. In the future, the County will ensure that the RFP process will be conducted to bring in a qualified contractor consistent with this recommendation. If an unprecedented program were to come forward in the future, provision of sufficient internal staffing would be a priority from the onset of the program.

During the first six months of Solano County ERAP, two critical county staff transitions occurred without sufficient transfer of legacy information from the exiting employee to the new person. Response to Finding 2 The Solano County Administrator disagrees with this finding. The first critical staff transition outlined in the Report correctly states that the Analyst who worked directly with CCYS on the CARES Rental Assistance Program (RAP) did leave at the transition from the CARES RAP and the beginning of ERAP. It is unclear from the report how this is believed to have impacted ERAP. There were common electronic files in place containing critical information to facilitate the transition. There were also internal meetings with key staff to facilitate the necessary information transfer as the transition took place. The second critical staff transition outlined in the Report also correctly states that the DoIT employee who had worked with the Crowe software contract left before the software went "live." However, there was another DoIT employee working on the project prior to the departure of said employee, and who continued on as the primary contact for both County staff and CCYS throughout the duration of ERAP. Finally, the Report states that the perceived lack of an established DoIT contact person created problems for CCYS and the County. It is unclear from the report what problems resulted from the transition. There were many complexities and challenges in implementing the program, but transfer of responsibilities was not a significant issue from the County's perspective.

Technology continued to be a problem through ERAP implementation, delaying needed assistance. Response to Finding 3 The Solano County Administrator partially agrees with this finding. ERAP was a new program at the time of software acquisition and there were not many ERAP- specific software choices available at the time of implementation. As it was a new product, there were bugs to be worked out. The decision to acquire the Crowe software was not made independently by the County; there was a virtual demonstration of the software, and the Executive Director of CCYS participated in that demonstration (their in-house IT support staff person did not participate). The contractor did not express any concerns about utilizing the Crowe software to administer ERAP and agreed with using it to administer ERAP. The report states that the County selected the Crowe software but should be clarified that it was a mutual decision between the County and CCYS. The County requested clarification regarding the Grand Jury's statement that the program "did not meet the needs of the users, specifically: 1) the applicant requesting assistance; 2) the landlord requesting assistance; 3) the contractor's need to collect documents; or 4) the reporting and data migration needs of the contractor." Specifically, the County requested clarification of numbers one and two and disputed numbers three and four. The report does not state how the software does not meet the needs of applicants or landlords requesting assistance. The statement that the software does not meet the contractor's need to collect documents is not supported by facts. The software allows applicants, whether tenant or landlord, to attach documents directly to their application. CCYS and the Family Resource Centers were contractually obligated to assist all applicants with completing the application process, including submitting documents as needed. This information is not reflected in this Grand Jury report. Regarding the fourth item on the list of how the software did not meet the needs of the users, the statement that the software does not meet the reporting and data migration needs of the contract also needs clarification. The Crowe software does have the capability of producing all reports required of CCYS; however, this information was not acknowledged in the report.

ERAP program materials, including software forms, were not initially translated into Tagalog as mandated by the contract. Response to Finding 4 The Solano County Administrator agrees with this finding. Initially the County was unaware of this problem. It was subsequently rectified.

Solano County's agreement with Catholic Charities about the scope of work changed without mutually acceptable written amendments or modifications. Response to Finding 5 The Solano County Administrator partially agrees with this finding. Changes to the contract were discussed over a number of meetings between CCYS' Executive Director and two members of their Board, including the Chair, and representatives from the County Administrator's Office, as well as County Counsel. The two amendments to the contract were negotiated and required the CCYS team to take the amendments back to their full Board. Due to the emergency nature of ERAP and the urgency to get payments to landlords on behalf of eligible program applicants, time did not allow for the amendments to be fully executed prior to implementing the changes. Additionally, the changes resulted in a reduction of required services and not an increase.

County mistakenly applied regulations and deadlines related to ERAP federal funding. Response to Finding 6 The Solano County Administrator disagrees with this finding. The information in the report is incomplete. The report states that in a response to a notice of default from the County, CCYS stated they disputed the obligation deadline of July 31, 2021 since the federal program had a September 30 obligation deadline. This statement requires clarification. The County did not state that the requirement to obligate 65% of federal ERAP funds was due on any date other than September 30, 2021; however, the MOU between the State and the County clearly states that the County will stop accepting applications after July 31, 2021. In order to know if the full $13.3 million in federal ERAP funds would be expended on the applications received by July 31, 2021, an initial review needed to be conducted of each application to determine if approval seemed likely and if so, the amount to be approved. Otherwise, the County might have had a surplus of funds subject to recapture which would deprive Solano County residents of much needed rental assistance. The County disagrees that there was any mistaken application of regulations and deadlines related to federal ERAP funding by the County.

After being informed by key community stakeholders (Legal Services of Northern California and Common Ground) of the need, county staff did not take a request to the BOS to modify ERAP priorities to allow tenants facing immediate eviction to be prioritized. Response to Finding 7 The Solano County Administrator disagrees with this finding. Federal regulations and guidance for ERAP at that time indicated that prioritization of applications was to be based on specific criteria listed in those regulations and guidelines, and pending eviction was not included. Additionally, the Solano County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance prohibiting evictions based on lack of payment due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These protections are still in place as of the date of this response. The County considered the concerns presented by Legal Services of Northern California and Common Ground. However, no data or specific numbers were provided to support their concerns, only verbal statements, which impacted the County's ability to appropriately analyze the issue. Given the information above, the County Administrator at the time determined that asking the Board of Supervisors to prioritize applications for tenants claiming pending evictions was unwarranted. Data from the Unlawful Detainer Program of the Superior Court showed that the total number of Unlawful Detainer cases filed between September 1, 2021 and March 16, 2022 was 387; not all of these cases are attributable to unpaid rent but may also be due to lease violations, etc., which are still allowable under the County's emergency rental protection ordinance.