Lake County officials outline ideas for Community Development Block Grant competitive application

County staff told the Board of Supervisors on July 15 that the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program had not yet been issued and is expected in August, and asked the board for guidance on projects the county should pursue.

The presentation, led by Deputy County Administrative Officer Ben Rickleman and Jeff Lucas of Community Development Services, described CDBG as federal funds channeled through the state and distributed competitively for projects that principally benefit low- and moderate-income residents. Rickleman said the county had $300,000 previously approved for a workforce BUILD program and that the state’s rules can change year-to-year.

Staff proposed possible applications in the economic development bucket including: a façade-improvement program for commercial corridors; a countywide microgrid analysis that would evaluate small-scale solar for commercial strips (studies suggested in the 1–2 megawatt range for some areas); continued funding for a microenterprise/low‑interest revolving loan program; and planning/feasibility work that could underlie future construction grant requests. Rickleman said construction projects must be shovel-ready with environmental (NEPA/CEQA) and engineering documents completed to be eligible.

Supervisors and public commenters urged outreach to local business associations, and several board members asked for more data on the county’s existing business loan fund (how many loans were made, defaults and repayments). Rickleman replied that the microenterprise program funds had been exhausted for a few years but that the department could provide historical loan-performance information from grant closeout reports.

Supervisor Sabatier and others argued for broad outreach on the microgrid idea, and suggested targeting business associations in multiple communities rather than focusing on a single downtown. Questions were raised about how subrecipient agreements (which can be used instead of competitive RFPs) were used on prior applications; staff said that awarding funds to a known nonprofit subrecipient can earn application points for demonstrated implementation experience but that the board could instead direct an RFP or RFQ process to increase competition and reduce perceived conflicts of interest.

Staff described potential funding caps reflected in previous NOFAs (past guidance allowed application requests of up to $3.6 million total with sublimits such as $1.5 million for housing or economic development and $300,000 for public services) but said HCD had not confirmed this year’s caps. Staff recommended outreach to county departments to identify shovel-ready construction projects, and suggested Lucerne streets, parks projects and an industrial park feasibility study as examples of eligible work.

The board did not commit to specific applications at the meeting because the NOFA had not been published. Staff said they would continue meeting with community and economic development partners, return with an RFQ recommendation for workforce-development providers if the board agrees, and bring a formal resolution and allocation recommendations after HCD issues the NOFA.

Ending: County staff emphasized that the NOFA’s release date will drive the application timeline, and that a second public meeting and a future formal board action will be required once HCD posts the application window.