City staff presented a proposed Palm Springs First‑Time Homebuyer Assistance Program and recommended an initial agreement with Riverside County to administer the program.

Noe Arechiga, community development administrator, described a plan that would deploy $1,000,000 a year from hotel tax set‑asides agreed to in the city’s Section 14 restorative‑justice commitments. The program would be administered by Riverside County’s Department of Housing and Workforce Solutions (HWS) under an initial five‑year contract; staff negotiated a 10% administrative fee to cover underwriting, servicing and compliance.

Key program terms presented to council: down payment assistance of up to 50% of a home’s purchase price not to exceed $200,000 per household; a 15‑year affordability term implemented as a silent second mortgage that is forgivable if the buyer remains in the home as a primary residence for the 15‑year term; eligibility up to 140% of area median income (higher than many comparable programs); and a $750,000 maximum property value for eligible units. Staff proposed a 20% initial set‑aside of available annual funds for Section 14 survivors and descendants during the first 60 days of each funding cycle, with subsequent allocations split to preserve priority for survivors if demand is high.

Juan Garcia, deputy director with Riverside County HWS, outlined practical steps: applicants receive a reservation letter, must be prequalified for a first mortgage, complete an eight‑hour counseling class, then identify a home within the city limits and close escrow with the county’s down‑payment assistance recorded as the silent second loan on title.

Members of the public — including multiple Section 14 survivors and descendants — urged greater clarity on eligibility, outreach, how preference would be verified, and whether families who had moved away from Palm Springs could return and be eligible. Several speakers asked whether the assistance is a grant or loan (staff confirmed the silent forgivable loan structure), and requested clearer timelines and communications with the Section 14 cohort.

Council members praised the program’s goal but asked staff to return with additional market data and a concise outreach package before the program launches. Council members noted the funding level will support only a small number of full‑amount awards in the near term (staff estimated the current program design would fund roughly four to six maximum awards per year if applicants take the full $200,000 assistance level) and encouraged staff to identify cross‑referral opportunities with county and state programs to help applicants who do not receive full assistance.

Staff said they will negotiate the county agreement and return with refined program language, market analysis (home prices, HOA fees, expected monthly carrying costs) and a community engagement plan. The council did not vote to approve the program on Wednesday; staff sought initial direction and will bring the agreement back for formal action after additional refinement.