Allocation (PLHA) Program Draft Guidelines Overview Presented by: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program Draft Guidelines Overview Presented by: Imaez Wahid Senate Bill 2 (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017) Part of a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing Californias housing shortage
Presented by: Imaez Wahid
addressing California’s housing shortage and high housing costs;
transactions;
affordable housing development.
the BHJTF on and after January 1, 2019, be expended for AOWH.
2019, is allocated for the following:
January 1, 2019, is allocated for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program
governments for housing development projects and housing-related programs to assist in addressing the unmet housing needs for their local communities.
Three allocation components of the PLHA program are: – Entitlement formula component per HSC 50470(b)(2)(B)(i)(I); – Non-entitlement competitive grant program component per HSC 50470(b)(2)(B)(i)(I); – Non-entitlement formula component per HSC 50470(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)
70 percent of the moneys collected on and after January 1, 2019 90 percent will be allocated based on the formula used under Federal law to allocate CDBG funds within California. Entitlement formula component per HSC 50470(b)(2)(B)(i)(I) Non-entitlement competitive grant program component per HSC 50470(b)(2)(B)(i)(I); 10 percent of the moneys will be allocated equitably among non-entitlement jurisdictions. Non-entitlement formula component per HSC 50470(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)
70 percent of the moneys collected on and after January 1, 2019, will be allocated to local governments through the following:
Funding for non-entitlement formula component divided by the number of local governments eligible for the non-entitlement formula component Funding allocated in proportion to each non-entitlement jurisdiction’s share of the total worst-case housing need in California’s non- entitlement areas, based upon the most recent HUD CHAS.
TEN PERCENT OF MONEY ALLOCATED EQUITABLY AMONG NON-ENTITLEMENT JURISDICTIONS
Eligible Activities
multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, including necessary Operating subsidies.
workforce earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas.
Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of HSC Section 34176.
new Permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited to, developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Bond Act of 2014.
Eligible Activities
including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.
in HSC Section 50490(a)(1-3) that were awarded CESH program funds for rental assistance to continue assistance to these households.
centers, emergency shelter, and transitional housing activities in a manner consistent with the Housing First practices described in 25 CCR, Section 8409, subdivision (b)(1)-(6). An Applicant allocated funds for the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of Permanent supportive housing must incorporate the core components of Housing First, as provided in WIC Section 8255, subdivision (b).
Eligible Activities
apartments.
payment assistance.
development project in a city within the county, provided that the city has made an equal or greater investment in the project. The county and the city investments must be in the form of grants or low-interest deferred loans to the project.
Affordable to households at or below 60 percent of AMI;
will be Affordable to households at or below 60 percent of AMI, but which is not currently restricted as Affordable housing;
homelessness, including: rapid rehousing; rental assistance, or navigation centers; new construction, rehabilitation, or preservation of permanent or transitional rental housing
Applications for the non-entitlement competitive allocation will be evaluated using the following criteria (100 points)
Priority Points – 25 points
Criteria Description Points Priority Points If the applicant is a County that has a population of 200,000 or less within the unincorporated areas of the County 5 Prior Award If the applicant did not receive an award based on the formula specified in 42 USC, Section 5306 in 2016 5 Assistance for Homeless Persons Applications to assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including but not limited to, through programs providing rapid rehousing, or rental assistance, or operating assistance to navigation centers shall receive all points OR 15 15 Applications for the new construction, rehabilitation, or preservation of permanent or transitional rental housing in which all or a portion of the units are restricted to occupancy by tenants who are homeless or at risk of homelessness shall receive all points 15 Total Points 25
Evaluation Criteria—Maximum of 75 points
Criteria Description Points Community Need Applicants will receive up to a maximum of 30 points based
housing need according to the most recent HUD CHAS dataset in the Applicant Local government. Applicants will receive points in proportion to this percentage 30 Applicant Administrativ e Experience Applicants with prior experience administering local, state or federal affordable housing or community development programs or who partner with an entity with prior experience in the implementation of local, state or federal affordable housing or community development programs 15 Demonstrated Capacity Sponsor experience in affordable housing development and
30 Program Operator experience (for non-development activities) Total Points 75
Like us on Facebook: /CaliforniaHCD Follow us on Twitter: @California_HCD
Follow us on LinkedIn: /company/californiahcd
To find jobs at HCD:
HCD values diversity at all levels of the department and is committed to fostering an environment in which employees from a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and personal experiences are welcomed and can thrive. We believe the diversity of our employees and their unique ideas inspire innovative solutions to complex housing challenges. Join us and help improve the lives of all Californians.
New to state service? Don’t worry.
You can view the step-by-step process on jobs.ca.gov.
Framing Paper for Public Comment: Permanent Local Housing Allocation Senate Bill 2 (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017) Local Government Allocation Funds
Department of Housing and Community Development January 2019
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 1
Background and Purpose
Senate Bill 2 (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017) created a dedicated revenue source for affordable housing and directed the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to allocate 70 percent of the funds in the Building Home and Jobs Trust Fund, collected on and after January 1, 2019, to local governments through the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA). PLHA funds will be available for eligible housing-related projects and programs to assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of local communities. Annual revenue was estimated in the 2018 Budget Act at approximately $250 million, which would make approximately $165 million available for the PLHA program annually. Actual amounts will depend on the number of real estate documents subject to the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund fee recorded in a given calendar year. This framing paper is intended to inform the development of guidelines to implement the PLHA program.
Basic Program Requirements
Threshold Criteria To receive a PLHA award, a local government must meet the following threshold criteria:
address the unmet share of the regional housing needs allocation and increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60 percent annual median income (AMI).
Code (GC) Section 65400. To receive a disbursement of awarded funds, a local government must submit an annual report to HCD that provides ongoing tracking of the uses and expenditures of any allocated funds. Method of Distribution Statute requires HCD to allocate funding to eligible local governments in the following manner: Non-Competitive Components Approximately 83 percent (estimated $138 million) to local governments that received an entitlement allocation per the 2017 Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) formula 10 percent (estimated $16.6 million) to 2017 non-entitlement local governments Competitive Component Approximately 7 percent (per 2017 federal CDBG formula, estimated ~$11.5 million) to 2017 non-entitlement local governments (awarded competitively)
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 2
SB 2 Ongoing Housing Funding Allocations Priority Points/Rating and Ranking Criteria (for Competitive Funds Only):
county
Miscellaneous Requirements If a local government does not submit a complete application, including an HCD approved funding plan, within five years of an allocation, funds revert to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund for the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) or for HCD-administered technical assistance to local governments.
Eligible Uses
Statute requires that local governments use allocations from HCD for one or more of the following ten eligible uses:
multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies.
earning up to 120 percent of AMI, or 150 percent of AMI in high-cost areas.
Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 34176 of the Health and Safety Code.
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 3
supportive housing, including, but not limited to, developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Bond Act of 2014.
providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. This activity may include using PLHA funds for continued assistance to households assisted with California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH) Program funds.
10. Fiscal incentives or matching funds to local agencies that approve new housing for extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households. Two or more local governments that receive an allocation may expend those monies on an eligible joint project. As a result, local governments may have the opportunity to delegate allocations to another local government, such as a county, to administer for eligible activities
A local entity that receives an allocation shall use no more than 5 percent of that allocation for costs related to the administration of the housing program for which the allocation was made.
Opportunities for Public Input
The statute does not provide specific parameters for several aspects of program
these aspects of program implementation in guidelines.
requirement that 20 percent be expended for “Affordable Owner-occupied Workforce Housing” (AOWH). This term, however, is not defined. HCD proposes to define “affordable owner-occupied workforce housing” in guidelines as:
through one or more of the eligible uses of a local government allocation program, that is affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as that term is defined in HSC Section 50093, except in high-cost areas where moderate income shall include households earning up to 150 percent of AMI per HSC Section 50470(b)(2)(D)(ii).
government allocations, is subject to the requirement that 20 percent be
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 4
expended for AOWH. However, the remaining 30 percent of funds collected in CY 2019 and beyond must be spent on uses that do not necessarily meet the definition of AOWH (farmworker housing, mixed income multifamily residential housing, and state incentive programs). Therefore, to meet this requirement, it is likely that approximately 29 percent of the local government allocations must be spent for AOWH. HCD proposes to allow local governments to request funds for AOWH consistent with local
required level in any year, HCD will notify local governments at the time of their award letter. Awarded funds for AOWH activities will exceed requested AOWH funding and decrease funding for all other activities requested so that total awards for AOWH activities do not fall below the required level.
equitably among local governments that are non-entitlement areas pursuant to the 2017 CDBG formula as a non-competitive allocation. However, the program statutes (HSC Section 50470-50471) do not define “equitably.” In defining “equitably” for the purposes of this program, HCD seeks to provide an allocation for each eligible non-entitlement local government, while providing augmented allocations to those local governments where housing need is higher. HCD proposes to allocate 50 percent of the non-competitive funding as an equal allocation to all non-entitlement local governments, with the other 50 percent allocated in proportion to each non-entitlement local government’s share of the total worst-case housing need in California’s non-entitlement areas, based upon the most recent U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data (see pgs. 17-24 of Appendix A for more detail).
competitive sub-component of the program) to local governments that meet the following criteria:
areas of the county;
formula; and
experiencing or at-risk of homelessness. The program statute does not provide any further criteria on which to evaluate applications for the competitive portion of the PLHA. Most grant programs administered by HCD in recent years include scoring criteria related to three factors: community need, applicant experience and preparedness (readiness). HCD proposes to include scoring criteria related to these three factors, in addition to the three criteria required by statute. HCD recommends community need be rated higher than
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 5
readiness, and for readiness to be rated higher than applicant experience, consistent with the state CDBG program. Detailed recommendations regarding scoring criteria, process, and available points appear in the table below: Proposed Criteria Points County has a population of 200,000 or less within the unincorporated areas of the county (local government receives all points) 15 Local government did not receive an award based on the formula specified in section 5306 of Title 42 of the United States Code in 2016 (local government receives all points) 15 Local government pledges to use the money awarded to assist persons experiencing or at-risk of homelessness (local government receives points in proportion to the amount requested for homelessness divided by the total amount requested) 15 Community need (rate of households experiencing most severe housing need according to the most recent HUD CHAS dataset in the applicant local government as a percentage of the rate of households experiencing most severe housing need in the local government with the highest rate of households experiencing most severe housing need in the most recent HUD CHAS dataset) 25 Applicant experience [(prior applicant experience in the implementation of local, state or federal affordable housing or community development projects in the last seven calendar years. (2011 – 2017)]. 10 Applicant readiness (dependent on activity) 20 Total Points Available: 100
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 6
Providing Feedback
We look forward to your feedback on how HCD can best clarify requirements for the PLHA program in the guidelines. Comments may be directed to the PLHA inbox at PLHA@hcd.ca.gov by no later than January 22, 2019. HCD will conduct one informational webinar on the proposed framework. Date and time will be announced via listserv. A preliminary timeline for program implementation appears below. HCD anticipates releasing a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in August of each calendar year on an ongoing basis. PRELIMINARY TIMELINE Date Release Proposed Framework for Public Comment January 2019 Release Draft Guidelines for Public Comment April 2019 Release Final Guidelines July 2019 Release of NOFA August 2019 Award Letters Issued Winter 2019-20 For additional information on the local government allocation program, stakeholder
publications, please see the HCD website at www.hcd.ca.gov.
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 7
Preliminary PLHA Allocations Summary
Estimated Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund (BHJTF) Subject to Change Based on 2019-20 Budget Act $ 250,000,000 5% State Admin. $ 12,500,000 Estimated BHJTF Amount Net Admin. $ 237,500,000 70% of Remaining BHJTF Funds (Funds for PLHA Program) $ 166,250,000
PLHA Program Subcomponents
Subcomponent Estimated Funding Amount Estimated % of PLHA Funds Non-Competitive Allocation for Entitlement Local Governments $ 138,100,279 83% Non-Competitive Allocation for Non-Entitlement Local Governments $ 16,625,000 10% Competitive Allocation for Grants to Non-Entitlement Local Governments $ 11,524,721 7%
Preliminary Formula Allocations for Entitlement Local Governments (Per 2017 CDBG Formula)
*These local governments either: have not submitted a 2017 Housing Element Annual Progress Report or do not have a Housing Element in compliance with the state as of 11/30/2018. If eligibility was determined as of that date, these local governments would be ineligible. ** These local governments were “Currently Qualified Urban Counties” within the CDBG program as of April 12, 2017, per HUD CPD Notice 17-03, and provide a portion of the funds they receive to local governments within their Urban County that do not participate in the state-administered CDBG program for non-entitlement local governments. Urban Counties may provide a portion of their allocations to local governments within their County, provided those local governments meet the threshold criteria of the PLHA program.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%)
Alameda $1,053,123 0.3% $441,520.99 $22,076.05 Alhambra $877,586 0.2% $367,927.24 $18,396.36 Aliso Viejo $224,618 0.1% $94,170.92 $4,708.55 Anaheim $4,062,139 1.1% $1,703,048.57 $85,152.43 Antioch $743,029 0.2% $311,514.32 $15,575.72 Apple Valley $541,977 0.2% $227,223.43 $11,361.17
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 8
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Bakersfield $3,262,290 0.9% $1,367,712.51 $68,385.63 Baldwin Park $920,087 0.3% $385,745.75 $19,287.29 Bellflower $968,046 0.3% $405,852.52 $20,292.63 Berkeley $2,438,062 0.7% $1,022,155.57 $51,107.78 Buena Park $695,924 0.2% $291,765.59 $14,588.28 Burbank $899,361 0.3% $377,056.39 $18,852.82 Camarillo $255,107 0.1% $106,953.41 $5,347.67 Carlsbad $513,746 0.1% $215,387.61 $10,769.38 Carson $781,656 0.2% $327,708.66 $16,385.43 Cathedral City $533,801 0.1% $223,795.65 $11,189.78 Cerritos $205,838 0.1% $86,297.42 $4,314.87 Chico $735,702 0.2% $308,442.48 $15,422.12 Chino $469,987 0.1% $197,041.68 $9,852.08 Chino Hills $334,136 0.1% $140,086.25 $7,004.31 Chula Vista $1,996,844 0.6% $837,175.27 $41,858.76 Citrus Heights $589,469 0.2% $247,134.41 $12,356.72 Clovis City* $689,077 0.2% $288,894.99 $14,444.75 Compton* $1,450,717 0.4% $608,211.96 $30,410.60 Concord $921,231 0.3% $386,225.37 $19,311.27 Corona $1,096,921 0.3% $459,883.26 $22,994.16 Costa Mesa $996,235 0.3% $417,670.74 $20,883.54
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 9
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Cupertino City $311,943 0.1% $130,781.86 $6,539.09 Daly City $964,647 0.3% $404,427.49 $20,221.37 Davis $570,931 0.2% $239,362.37 $11,968.12 Delano City $612,773 0.2% $256,904.60 $12,845.23 Downey $980,589 0.3% $411,111.17 $20,555.56 El Cajon $1,216,373 0.3% $509,963.42 $25,498.17 El Centro $463,642 0.1% $194,381.54 $9,719.08 Elk Grove $828,882 0.2% $347,508.13 $17,375.41 El Monte $1,596,920 0.4% $669,507.45 $33,475.37 Encinitas* $294,102 0.1% $123,302.03 $6,165.10 Escondido $1,588,664 0.4% $666,046.13 $33,302.31 Fairfield $736,762 0.2% $308,886.89 $15,444.34 Fontana $1,849,155 0.5% $775,256.78 $38,762.84 Fountain Valley $272,549 0.1% $114,265.95 $5,713.30 Fremont $1,208,416 0.3% $506,627.46 $25,331.37 Fresno $6,422,423 1.8% $2,692,595.78 $134,629.79 Fullerton $1,297,550 0.4% $543,996.81 $27,199.84 Gardena $621,732 0.2% $260,660.65 $13,033.03 Garden Grove $1,874,072 0.5% $785,703.21 $39,285.16 Gilroy City $460,364 0.1% $193,007.24 $9,650.36 Glendale $1,634,112 0.5% $685,100.17 $34,255.01
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 10
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Glendora City $245,502 0.1% $102,926.52 $5,146.33 Goleta $177,194 0.0% $74,288.44 $3,714.42 Hanford* $556,879 0.2% $233,471.08 $11,673.55 Hawthorne $1,155,001 0.3% $484,233.26 $24,211.66 Hayward $1,228,347 0.3% $514,983.51 $25,749.18 Hemet $758,673 0.2% $318,073.06 $15,903.65 Hesperia $953,256 0.3% $399,651.83 $19,982.59 Huntington Beach* $1,033,767 0.3% $433,406.00 $21,670.30 Huntington Park* $1,228,240 0.3% $514,938.65 $25,746.93 Indio City $859,367 0.2% $360,288.94 $18,014.45 Inglewood $1,386,743 0.4% $581,390.91 $29,069.55 Irvine $1,428,585 0.4% $598,933.14 $29,946.66 Laguna Niguel $289,146 0.1% $121,224.23 $6,061.21 La Habra $732,911 0.2% $307,272.36 $15,363.62 Lake Forest $416,658 0.1% $174,683.54 $8,734.18 Lake Elsinore $468,408 0.1% $196,379.68 $9,818.98 Lakewood $510,476 0.1% $214,016.66 $10,700.83 La Mesa $355,856 0.1% $149,192.35 $7,459.62 Lancaster* $1,309,617 0.4% $549,055.90 $27,452.79 Livermore $393,044 0.1% $164,783.39 $8,239.17 Lodi $633,771 0.2% $265,707.99 $13,285.40
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 11
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Lompoc $427,887 0.1% $179,391.29 $8,969.56 Long Beach $5,516,208 1.5% $2,312,665.86 $115,633.29 Los Angeles $49,416,902 13.8% $20,717,997.21 $1,035,899.86 Lynwood* $1,189,997 0.3% $498,905.30 $24,945.27 Madera $795,959 0.2% $333,705.18 $16,685.26 Menifee $474,207 0.1% $198,810.91 $9,940.55 Merced $977,648 0.3% $409,878.15 $20,493.91 Milpitas City $449,688 0.1% $188,531.34 $9,426.57 Mission Viejo $389,544 0.1% $163,316.01 $8,165.80 Modesto $1,827,715 0.5% $766,268.07 $38,313.40 Montebello* $597,005 0.2% $250,293.88 $12,514.69 Monterey $219,420 0.1% $91,991.66 $4,599.58 Monterey Park $600,988 0.2% $251,963.75 $12,598.19 Moreno Valley $1,940,916 0.5% $813,727.50 $40,686.38 Mountain View $483,532 0.1% $202,720.41 $10,136.02 Napa City $599,742 0.2% $251,441.36 $12,572.07 National City $741,061 0.2% $310,689.24 $15,534.46 Newport Beach $319,676 0.1% $134,023.91 $6,701.20 Norwalk $1,117,199 0.3% $468,384.80 $23,419.24 Oakland $6,981,948 2.0% $2,927,176.20 $146,358.81 Oceanside $1,223,477 0.3% $512,941.77 $25,647.09
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 12
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Ontario $1,733,990 0.5% $726,973.94 $36,348.70 Orange $1,144,944 0.3% $480,016.87 $24,000.84 Oxnard $2,183,330 0.6% $915,359.38 $45,767.97 Palmdale $1,468,328 0.4% $615,595.36 $30,779.77 Palm Desert $322,867 0.1% $135,361.74 $6,768.09 Palm Springs $362,316 0.1% $151,900.70 $7,595.03 Palo Alto $436,309 0.1% $182,922.20 $9,146.11 Paradise $176,404 0.0% $73,957.24 $3,697.86 Paramount City* $825,885 0.2% $346,251.64 $17,312.58 Pasadena $1,764,254 0.5% $739,662.10 $36,983.10 Perris City $879,290 0.2% $368,641.64 $18,432.08 Petaluma $347,465 0.1% $145,674.43 $7,283.72 Pico Rivera* $638,875 0.2% $267,847.84 $13,392.39 Pittsburg $598,748 0.2% $251,024.63 $12,551.23 Placentia $404,792 0.1% $169,708.73 $8,485.44 Pleasanton City $284,763 0.1% $119,386.66 $5,969.33 Pomona* $2,013,735 0.6% $844,256.81 $42,212.84 Porterville $646,000 0.2% $270,834.99 $13,541.75 Rancho Cordova City $537,840 0.2% $225,489.00 $11,274.45 Rancho Cucamonga $849,028 0.2% $355,954.32 $17,797.72 Rancho Santa Margarita $191,106 0.1% $80,121.04 $4,006.05
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 13
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Redding $634,805 0.2% $266,141.50 $13,307.07 Redondo Beach* $246,581 0.1% $103,378.89 $5,168.94 Redwood City $655,358 0.2% $274,758.32 $13,737.92 Rialto* $1,126,668 0.3% $472,354.67 $23,617.73 Riverside $3,057,274 0.9% $1,281,759.71 $64,087.99 Rocklin City $253,758 0.1% $106,387.84 $5,319.39 Rosemead $646,913 0.2% $271,217.77 $13,560.89 Roseville $590,613 0.2% $247,614.03 $12,380.70 Sacramento $4,442,443 1.2% $1,862,490.73 $93,124.54 Salinas $1,897,639 0.5% $795,583.66 $39,779.18 San Bernardino $3,057,089 0.9% $1,281,682.15 $64,084.11 San Clemente $356,291 0.1% $149,374.72 $7,468.74 San Diego $10,912,952 3.1% $4,575,246.52 $228,762.33 San Francisco $16,431,172 4.6% $6,888,755.91 $344,437.80 San Jose $8,196,038 2.3% $3,436,182.47 $171,809.12 San Leandro $659,582 0.2% $276,529.23 $13,826.46 San Marcos City $601,567 0.2% $252,206.49 $12,610.32 San Mateo $644,380 0.2% $270,155.81 $13,507.79 Santa Ana $5,284,239 1.5% $2,215,413.04 $110,770.65 Santa Barbara $853,991 0.2% $358,035.05 $17,901.75 Santa Clara $903,714 0.3% $378,881.38 $18,944.07
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 14
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Santa Clarita $1,108,713 0.3% $464,827.05 $23,241.35 Santa Cruz $498,973 0.1% $209,194.04 $10,459.70 Santa Maria $1,382,399 0.4% $579,569.69 $28,978.48 Santa Monica $1,031,923 0.3% $432,632.90 $21,631.65 Santa Rosa $1,308,618 0.4% $548,637.07 $27,431.85 Santee $253,260 0.1% $106,179.06 $5,308.95 Seaside* $363,989 0.1% $152,602.10 $7,630.11 Simi Valley $547,246 0.2% $229,432.45 $11,471.62 South Gate $1,359,496 0.4% $569,967.63 $28,498.38 South San Francisco $410,836 0.1% $172,242.67 $8,612.13 Stockton $3,225,590 0.9% $1,352,326.07 $67,616.30 Sunnyvale $1,004,607 0.3% $421,180.69 $21,059.03 Temecula $515,274 0.1% $216,028.22 $10,801.41 Thousand Oaks $557,958 0.2% $233,923.45 $11,696.17 Torrance $837,528 0.2% $351,132.95 $17,556.65 Tulare $600,163 0.2% $251,617.86 $12,580.89 Turlock $583,994 0.2% $244,839.02 $12,241.95 Tustin $726,651 0.2% $304,647.86 $15,232.39 Union City $478,601 0.1% $200,653.09 $10,032.65 Upland $523,649 0.1% $219,539.43 $10,976.97 Vacaville $453,279 0.1% $190,036.86 $9,501.84
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 15
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Vallejo $952,486 0.3% $399,329.00 $19,966.45 San Buenaventura $673,678 0.2% $282,438.97 $14,121.95 Victorville* $1,192,603 0.3% $499,997.87 $24,999.89 Visalia $1,188,919 0.3% $498,453.35 $24,922.67 Vista $770,635 0.2% $323,088.12 $16,154.41 Walnut Creek $260,940 0.1% $109,398.89 $5,469.94 Watsonville $683,245 0.2% $286,449.93 $14,322.50 West Covina $732,715 0.2% $307,190.19 $15,359.51 Westminster $962,303 0.3% $403,444.77 $20,172.24 West Sacramento $446,077 0.1% $187,017.43 $9,350.87 Whittier $722,211 0.2% $302,786.39 $15,139.32 Woodland $469,279 0.1% $196,744.85 $9,837.24 Yorba Linda $200,780 0.1% $84,176.86 $4,208.84 Yuba City $586,416 0.2% $245,854.45 $12,292.72 Alameda County** $1,760,088 0.5% $737,915.51 $36,895.78 Contra Costa County** $4,090,208 1.1% $1,714,816.48 $85,740.82 Fresno County** $3,097,273 0.9% $1,298,529.26 $64,926.46 Kern County** $4,071,674 1.1% $1,707,046.12 $85,352.31 Los Angeles County** $20,779,423 5.8% $8,711,756.71 $435,587.84 Marin County** $1,367,509 0.4% $573,327.07 $28,666.35 Monterey County** $1,222,025 0.3% $512,333.02 $25,616.65
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 16
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation % of Total 2017 CA CDBG Funds Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Orange County** $2,397,690 0.7% $1,005,229.64 $50,261.48 Riverside County** $7,531,717 2.1% $3,157,666.42 $157,883.32 Sacramento County** $5,128,032 1.4% $2,149,923.37 $107,496.17 San Bernardino County** $6,519,559 1.8% $2,733,319.97 $136,666.00 San Diego County** $3,731,709 1.0% $1,564,516.06 $78,225.80 San Joaquin County** $2,469,366 0.7% $1,035,279.75 $51,763.99 San Luis Obispo County** $1,644,434 0.5% $689,427.66 $34,471.38 San Mateo County** $2,279,680 0.6% $955,754.04 $47,787.70 Santa Barbara County** $1,073,897 0.3% $450,230.47 $22,511.52 Santa Clara County** $1,388,546 0.4% $582,146.82 $29,107.34 Sonoma County** $1,695,117 0.5% $710,676.47 $35,533.82 Stanislaus County** $2,176,833 0.6% $912,635.52 $45,631.78 Ventura County** $1,620,399 0.5% $679,351.00 $33,967.55 Preliminary Competitive Allocation for Nonentitlement Local Governments LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2017 CDBG Allocation Total 2017 CA CDBG Funding Estimated Allocation From PLHA Formula Allocation Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) California Nonentitlement $27,488,951 7.7% $11,524,721 $576,236
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 17
Preliminary Non-Competitive Allocation for Nonentitlement Local Governments LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Alpine County $51,312 $3,254 $54,566 $2,728 Amador County $51,312 $44,701 $96,012 $4,801 Amador City $51,312 $1,028 $52,339 $2,617 Ione* $51,312 $17,298 $68,610 $3,430 Jackson $51,312 $15,071 $66,383 $3,319 Plymouth $51,312 $2,398 $53,709 $2,685 Sutter Creek $51,312 $10,105 $61,416 $3,071 Butte County $51,312 $220,078 $271,389 $13,569 Biggs* $51,312 $5,481 $56,792 $2,840 Gridley $51,312 $21,751 $73,063 $3,653 Oroville $51,312 $51,037 $102,349 $5,117 Calaveras County $51,312 $114,064 $165,375 $8,269 Angels $51,312 $13,188 $64,499 $3,225 Colusa County $51,312 $17,469 $68,781 $3,439 Colusa* $51,312 $14,900 $66,212 $3,311 Williams* $51,312 $13,188 $64,499 $3,225 Del Norte County $51,312 $61,485 $112,796 $5,640 Crescent City* $51,312 $13,701 $65,013 $3,251 El Dorado County $51,312 $344,760 $396,072 $19,804 Placerville $51,312 $29,972 $81,283 $4,064
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 18
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) South Lake Tahoe $51,312 $83,407 $134,719 $6,736 Coalinga $51,312 $28,259 $79,571 $3,979 Firebaugh $51,312 $24,834 $76,145 $3,807 Fowler* $51,312 $15,928 $67,240 $3,362 Huron* $51,312 $24,491 $75,803 $3,790 Orange Cove* $51,312 $32,198 $83,510 $4,175 Parlier* $51,312 $54,634 $105,946 $5,297 San Joaquin* $51,312 $11,304 $62,615 $3,131 Glenn County $51,312 $32,712 $84,024 $4,201 Orland $51,312 $21,580 $72,891 $3,645 Humboldt County $51,312 $221,619 $272,931 $13,647 Arcata $51,312 $91,114 $142,426 $7,121 Blue Lake* $51,312 $3,083 $54,395 $2,720 Eureka $51,312 $104,987 $156,298 $7,815 Ferndale* $51,312 $5,138 $56,450 $2,822 Fortuna $51,312 $33,740 $85,051 $4,253 Rio Dell* $51,312 $8,906 $60,218 $3,011 Trinidad* $51,312 $1,028 $52,339 $2,617 Imperial County $51,312 $80,495 $131,807 $6,590 Brawley $51,312 $67,822 $119,133 $5,957
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 19
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Calexico $51,312 $108,069 $159,381 $7,969 Calipatria $51,312 $10,276 $61,588 $3,079 El Centro $51,312 $130,163 $181,474 $9,074 Holtville* $51,312 $16,442 $67,753 $3,388 Imperial* $51,312 $26,375 $77,687 $3,884 Westmorland* $51,312 $6,679 $57,991 $2,900 Inyo County $51,312 $35,110 $86,421 $4,321 Bishop $51,312 $15,928 $67,240 $3,362 Maricopa* $51,312 $1,884 $53,196 $2,660 McFarland* $51,312 $33,568 $84,880 $4,244 Taft $51,312 $17,127 $68,438 $3,422 Wasco $51,312 $57,032 $108,344 $5,417 Kings County $51,312 $79,125 $130,437 $6,522 Avenal $51,312 $35,795 $87,106 $4,355 Corcoran* $51,312 $44,529 $95,841 $4,792 Lemoore* $51,312 $56,175 $107,487 $5,374 Lake County* $51,312 $157,223 $208,535 $10,427 Clearlake $51,312 $66,451 $117,763 $5,888 Lakeport $51,312 $14,558 $65,869 $3,293 Lassen County* $51,312 $33,054 $84,366 $4,218
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 20
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Susanville* $51,312 $21,922 $73,234 $3,662 Artesia $51,312 $57,203 $108,515 $5,426 Hidden Hills* $51,312 $4,110 $55,422 $2,771 Industry* $51,312 $651 $51,963 $2,598 Palos Verdes Estates* $51,312 $26,375 $77,687 $3,884 Vernon* $51,312 $137 $51,449 $2,572 Madera County $51,312 $167,156 $218,468 $10,923 Chowchilla* $51,312 $37,336 $88,648 $4,432 Mariposa County $51,312 $42,817 $94,128 $4,706 Mendocino County* $51,312 $209,288 $260,600 $13,030 Fort Bragg* $51,312 $33,568 $84,880 $4,244 Point Arena $51,312 $2,569 $53,881 $2,694 Ukiah $51,312 $51,380 $102,692 $5,135 Willits* $51,312 $20,038 $71,350 $3,567 Merced County $51,312 $194,902 $246,213 $12,311 Atwater* $51,312 $78,611 $129,923 $6,496 Dos Palos* $51,312 $12,845 $64,157 $3,208 Gustine* $51,312 $10,961 $62,273 $3,114 Livingston $51,312 $34,082 $85,394 $4,270 Los Banos $51,312 $98,307 $149,619 $7,481
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 21
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Modoc County* $51,312 $14,729 $66,041 $3,302 Alturas* $51,312 $10,105 $61,416 $3,071 Mono County $51,312 $12,160 $63,472 $3,174 Mammoth Lakes $51,312 $19,867 $71,179 $3,559 Carmel-by-the-Sea* $51,312 $15,414 $66,726 $3,336 Greenfield* $51,312 $56,175 $107,487 $5,374 King City $51,312 $51,723 $103,034 $5,152 Marina* $51,312 $73,302 $124,614 $6,231 Pacific Grove $51,312 $40,590 $91,902 $4,595 Sand City* $51,312 $2,021 $53,333 $2,667 Soledad* $51,312 $41,960 $93,272 $4,664 Napa County $51,312 $61,142 $112,454 $5,623 American Canyon $51,312 $42,645 $93,957 $4,698 Calistoga $51,312 $18,326 $69,637 $3,482
$51,312 $19,867 $71,179 $3,559 Yountville $51,312 $11,304 $62,615 $3,131 Nevada County $51,312 $193,531 $244,843 $12,242 Grass Valley $51,312 $58,059 $109,371 $5,469 Nevada City* $51,312 $12,331 $63,643 $3,182 Truckee $51,312 $42,645 $93,957 $4,698
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 22
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) San Juan Capistrano $51,312 $140,953 $192,264 $9,613 Placer County $51,312 $310,678 $361,990 $18,099 Auburn $51,312 $43,330 $94,642 $4,732 Colfax $51,312 $5,309 $56,621 $2,831 Lincoln $51,312 $111,323 $162,635 $8,132 Loomis $51,312 $12,331 $63,643 $3,182 Plumas County* $51,312 $46,242 $97,554 $4,878 Portola* $51,312 $8,735 $60,046 $3,002 Calimesa $51,312 $19,867 $71,179 $3,559 Indian Wells $51,312 $22,778 $74,090 $3,705 Rancho Mirage $51,312 $80,495 $131,807 $6,590 San Benito County* $51,312 $43,502 $94,813 $4,741 Hollister $51,312 $94,025 $145,337 $7,267 San Juan Bautista* $51,312 $9,077 $60,389 $3,019 Grover Beach $51,312 $41,960 $93,272 $4,664 Pismo Beach* $51,312 $31,513 $82,825 $4,141 Guadalupe* $51,312 $24,834 $76,145 $3,807 Santa Cruz County $51,312 $396,825 $448,137 $22,407 Capitola $51,312 $35,966 $87,278 $4,364 Scotts Valley* $51,312 $29,800 $81,112 $4,056
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 23
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Shasta County* $51,312 $158,593 $209,905 $10,495 Anderson $51,312 $34,596 $85,908 $4,295 Shasta Lake $51,312 $31,513 $82,825 $4,141 Sierra County* $51,312 $3,631 $54,943 $2,747 Loyalton* $51,312 $1,678 $52,990 $2,650 Siskiyou County* $51,312 $65,938 $117,249 $5,862 Dorris $51,312 $1,884 $53,196 $2,660 Dunsmuir* $51,312 $7,536 $58,847 $2,942 Etna $51,312 $2,055 $53,367 $2,668 Fort Jones* $51,312 $3,768 $55,080 $2,754 Montague $51,312 $3,425 $54,737 $2,737 Mount Shasta* $51,312 $16,270 $67,582 $3,379 Tulelake* $51,312 $3,425 $54,737 $2,737 Weed* $51,312 $9,248 $60,560 $3,028 Yreka $51,312 $30,828 $82,140 $4,107 Solano County $51,312 $48,297 $99,609 $4,980 Benicia $51,312 $57,888 $109,200 $5,460 Dixon $51,312 $38,706 $90,018 $4,501 Rio Vista* $51,312 $17,298 $68,610 $3,430 Suisun City $51,312 $71,761 $123,072 $6,154
6/19/2019 Proposed Framework for Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Page 24
LOCAL GOVERNMENT Factor 1 50% Equal Allocation 50% Severe Housing Need Based Factor 2 Equitable Allocation (Factor 1 + Factor 2) Allowable Local Administrative Costs (5%) Riverbank $51,312 $50,181 $101,493 $5,075 Sutter County $51,312 $41,447 $92,758 $4,638 Live Oak $51,312 $20,895 $72,206 $3,610 Tehama County $51,312 $94,573 $145,885 $7,294 Corning* $51,312 $17,469 $68,781 $3,439 Red Bluff $51,312 $46,242 $97,554 $4,878 Tehama $51,312 $822 $52,134 $2,607 Trinity County* $51,312 $41,447 $92,758 $4,638 Tulare County $51,312 $427,311 $478,622 $23,931 Dinuba $51,312 $68,507 $119,818 $5,991 Exeter $51,312 $27,916 $79,228 $3,961 Farmersville $51,312 $29,458 $80,770 $4,038 Lindsay $51,312 $38,706 $90,018 $4,501 Woodlake* $51,312 $21,408 $72,720 $3,636 Tuolumne County $51,312 $129,820 $181,132 $9,057 Sonora $51,312 $22,265 $73,576 $3,679 Yolo County $51,312 $60,971 $112,283 $5,614 Winters $51,312 $22,607 $73,919 $3,696 Yuba County* $51,312 $159,963 $211,275 $10,564 Marysville* $51,312 $37,850 $89,162 $4,458 Wheatland* $51,312 $5,994 $57,306 $2,865
SB2 - Building Jobs and Homes Act (Dedicated Source)
NOFA Amounts in Millions Apps Due NOFA $30 ESG* Qtr 3 Qtr 4$268 Million $759 Million $516 Million $451 Million $92 Million
CESH FarmworkerOngoing Programs
NOFA Amounts in MillionsNo Place Like Home (Prop 2)
NOFA Amounts in Millions Awards * Federal funds available to non-entitlement jurisdictions only. NOFA amounts are based upon 2018 funding levels and are subject to changeCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development
Notice of Funding Availability Calendar 2018/19 Q4 Update - 6/10/2019
AHSC VHHP Funds Available by Quarter (in millions) HOME* FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 NPLH Non-Competitive Applications accepted over-the-counter - Please Note: Non-Competitive Allocation Acceptance forms must be submitted by August 15, 2019. HHC IIG TOD CalHOME (Disaster) Other NOFA Amounts in Millions Applications Accepted over-the-counter Applications Accepted over-the-counter MHP - Supportive MPRROP MHP CalHOME LHTF SERNA ** Applications accepted over -the-counter Applications Accepted over-the-counter **SB2 Farmworker funding will be released in conjuction with Serna Program NOFA under SB3 - see detail belowSB3 - Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act (Prop 1)
NOFA Amounts in Millions Local (Year 2+) Planning Grants NPLH Competitive Applications Accepted over-the-counter Applications Accepted over-the-counter