Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Community Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntington Park approves FY 2026–27 CDBG and HOME annual action plan after debate on youth vs. senior services and rehab eligibility
Summary
After public comment and a detailed staff presentation, the council adopted the FY 2026–27 Annual Action Plan for CDBG and HOME funds — programming HOME funds of about $3.7 million for housing rehab, tenant‑based rental assistance and acquisition — and approved amendments to the public‑service split (allocating $42,000 to after‑school programs) and to review eligibility for owner‑occupied multifamily rehab.
The Huntington Park City Council approved the city’s FY 2026–27 Annual Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership funds after a prolonged public hearing and debate over program priorities.
Lizette Montoya, the city’s interim housing manager, said the city’s draft plan programs the year’s HUD allocations and some unprogrammed prior‑year funds: $494,798 in CDBG for basic categories (administration, public services, and sidewalk/ADA work) and $3.7 million in HOME funds proposed for homeowner rehabilitation, tenant‑based rental assistance and acquisition/development. Montoya said the HOME package includes a recommended $1.2 million each for housing rehab and tenant assistance and $1.3 million for acquisition and development.
Councilmembers pressed staff on eligibility rules and program targeting. One councilmember noted HUD’s 80% AMI cap on HOME‑funded homeowner rehab and urged options to broaden eligibility; staff said HUD permits owner‑occupied multifamily (up to three units) if one unit remains owner‑occupied and that changing local program guidelines could be brought back to council. Montoya also said the city had identified roughly $3.2 million in previously unprogrammed HOME funds available for allocation.
Debate over the public‑service allocation focused on proportionality between youth after‑school programs and senior services. Staff said after‑school providers requested $42,000 while senior services requested $75,000; because total public‑service dollars are limited by HUD caps, staff had proposed splitting available funds. One councilmember argued the after‑school allocation should be increased to reflect that roughly one quarter of residents are youth; another councilmember defended maintaining funds for seniors given the community’s needs. Council ultimately approved an amendment to allocate $42,000 to the after‑school program and use the remaining public‑service funds for senior programming, and directed staff to return with updated program guidelines to allow owner‑occupied multifamily units to be eligible for rehab funds if HUD permits.
A prior motion to adopt the staff recommendation without amendment failed earlier in the meeting. After deliberation and amendment language added on the council floor, the council voted to approve the plan with the stated amendments (roll call recorded: Macias yes; Flores yes; Martinez yes; Martis abstained). Staff cautioned that substantial eligibility changes could trigger a required 30‑day republication/notice period to preserve HUD’s public‑comment requirements; the city manager/staff will confirm publication requirements and timelines for HUD submittal.
