1 26-89993
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE JOINT MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL AND
GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Report on Emergency Housing Choice Voucher Transition Plan
1. City Council Motion directing staff on the Section 8 waitlist strategy.
2. City Council Motion approving the Parkview Selection Plan.
3. City Council Motion approving the tiered prioritization strategy and approving the deployment of available local and regional resources, HOME, Homeless Services funds, as a temporary subsidy to prevent immediate displacement for the most vulnerable households.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for April 28, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report outlines Housing Division staff’s proposed strategy for managing the federal wind-down of the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program, aimed at preventing displacement for 188 vulnerable households. Due to soaring regional rents, federal EHV funding is projected to be exhausted by the end of calendar year 2026. Because Glendale’s regular Section 8 program is already facing a $700,000 shortfall, it cannot currently absorb these households.
At the center of the plan is a four-tier prioritization framework designed to guide the use of limited resources if federal funding ends before other solutions are in place. The framework prioritizes seniors, persons with disabilities, families with children, and households with histories of homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. Conversely, the lower tiers include households with relatively greater ability to transition with reduced subsidy support. This structure is intended to ensure that available resources are directed first at those at greatest risk of displacement.
The Housing Division staff has identified approximately $4.1 million in potential funding sources, including HOME TBRA funds and Homeless Services Local Solutions funding through Measure A, to serve as temporary funding. Longer-term options include Tenant 12 26-89993
6 8
1 1
Protection Vouchers (TPVs) and affordable housing placements, such as within Parkview Glendale, an affordable housing project.
Because TPVs are the most promising potential federal replacement resource, staff will continue to pursue them as the primary long-term transition strategy. However, given the uncertainty regarding whether TPVs will be awarded, the number of vouchers that may be available, and the timing of their availability, this report outlines a contingency scenario in which local funding would be used to temporarily subsidies EHV applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council may approve all, none, or any combination of the following recommendations:
1.Direct Staff on Housing Choice Voucher Waitlist Strategy: Select one of three outlined options regarding the placement of EHV households onto the regular Section 8 waitlist as follows:
1.1 Pursue HUD Waiver
1.2 Initiate Targeted Waitlist Opening
1.3 Defer Action
2.Approve Parkview Selection plan: Direct staff to implement either Option A (Income-Weighted), Option B (Age-Weighted), or provide other direction for filling the eleven (11) available HOME ARP senior units.
3.Approval and Prioritization of Home and Homeless Services Funds: Direct staff to establish temporary subsidy using Home and Homeless Services Funds.
ANALYSIS
For 50 years, the Glendale Housing Authority has administered the federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, commonly known as the Section 8 Program. Funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HCV is a core component of Glendale’s housing stability framework. It provides rental subsidies to low-income residents, seniors, and individuals with disabilities, bridging the gap between what they can afford and the contract rent of private-market housing.
The Housing Division staff manage all aspects of the program, including determining eligibility, conducting unit inspections, monitoring compliance, and issuing ongoing housing assistance payments (HAP) directly to landlords. Because vouchers are limited, applicants are selected from a waiting list using a points-based preference system. The waiting list is currently closed with 722 applicants, many of whom have been waiting 25 years. When vouchers do become available, the preference system prioritizes the 13 26-89993
6 8
1 1
elderly, individuals with disabilities, U.S. Veterans, local residents, and high-need households (such as those experiencing homelessness, victims of hate crimes, or those displaced by government action).
The Housing Authority administers a total of 2,572 vouchers across all programs, supported by an annual HAP budget of $51,794,904 and an administrative fee budget of $3,680,362. A detailed breakdown of the Housing Authority’s current voucher capacity, special purpose programs, waitlist demand, and financial data is provided in Attachment
1. While the HCV program is a vital community resource, it is currently operating in a challenging regional market. Rapidly increasing rents have directly driven up the average subsidy cost per household and made the lease-up process significantly more difficult for participants. More importantly, because per-unit subsidy costs have risen faster than federal renewal funding allocations, the regular HCV program is currently operating under a budget shortfall of approximately $700,000. This deficit directly restricts the staff’s ability to absorb additional households, including EHV participants, into the standard program without new, sustainable federal funding.
Shortfalls occur when projected housing assistance payments exceed the annual HUD renewal funding allocation and available reserves. Shortfalls are common nationally and particularly in high-cost rental markets where per-unit subsidy costs have increased faster than federal funding. Key drivers locally include:
Rapid market rent inflation.
Higher payment standards required to maintain housing stability (last year, for the first time in the agency’s history, payment standards were based on Small Area Fair Market Rents (FMRs) as required by HUD via Notice PIH 2024-34, Attachment 2). Increased overall per-unit subsidy costs.
EMERGENCY HOUSING VOUCHERS (EHVS)
In addition to standard tenant-based vouchers and portability administration, the Housing Division manages several targeted HUD programs, including EHVs. EHV’s are special- purpose subsidies targeted at highly vulnerable populations, including those experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. Through EHVs, HUD provided 70,000 vouchers to local Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) across the United States to assist the qualifying households identified above.
While EHV funds were originally anticipated to last through September 30, 2030, rapidly rising rental costs and higher per-household subsidy levels have accelerated spending 14 26-89993
6 8
1 1
nationwide. However, HUD’s current estimate is that EHV funding could potentially carry programs into approximately Calendar Year 2026, but this is contingent on national spending trends and subsidy costs, and is not guaranteed to fully cover all households through that period. Consequently, HUD has mandated that all housing authorities stop issuing new EHVs and prepare for an orderly program wind-down.
This accelerated timeline is the direct result of the federal funding environment and not local policy decisions by the City. Between FY 2021 and FY 2026, HUD’s FMR benchmarks for the Los Angeles area surged, increasing nearly 30% for one-bedroom units and 26% for two-bedroom units.
Currently, the City supports 188 households through the EHV program. For each leased EHV household, the Housing Authority must make an ongoing HAP payment to the owner on the household’s behalf in order to keep them housed. Glendale’s local EHV program currently provides the following subsidy:
Monthly EHV HAP obligation: $347,597
Annual EHV HAP obligation: $4,171,164
This challenge is not unique to Glendale. To understand how regional peer agencies are navigating the EHV wind-down, the City surveyed several neighboring housing authorities, including the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA), the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), Burbank, Anaheim, and Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA).
Agencies were asked a consistent set of questions regarding their EHV scale, average subsidy costs, populations served, and planned transition strategies. The goal was to identify workable solutions and understand how common constraints are shaping regional responses.
While a comprehensive comparison table is provided in Attachment 3, the key findings below highlight how an agency's regular HCV budget directly dictates its EHV transition capacity.
According to the survey results, Orange County and Anaheim reported that they plan to transition EHV households into their regular HCV programs as funding and capacity allow. Similarly, while Burbank hopes to absorb its full EHV portfolio, it may rely on temporary Measure A funds if full transition is not feasible. In contrast, HACLA reported that it does not currently have an absorption plan due to its HCV funding shortfall.
LACDA indicated that it is still evaluating available options, including prioritizing the most vulnerable households for possible transition to the regular HCV program and pursuing any Tenant Protection Voucher opportunities that may become available through HUD.
15 26-89993
6 8
1 1
While some agencies reported that they intend to transition EHV households into their regular HCV programs as funding permits, those plans remain conditional and are not guaranteed solutions. In practice, no surveyed agency appears to have a fully certain or permanent path forward currently. Instead, most are operating within a high degree of uncertainty and are largely dependent on evolving federal, state, and local funding developments to determine which transition options will ultimately be feasible.
A common question regarding the EHV wind-down is whether the City can simply transition the 188 EHV households into the regular Section 8 (HCV) program or move them onto the HCV waiting list. Evaluating this option requires a clear understanding of our current financial constraints, the realities of the waitlist, and federal HUD guidelines.
While HUD guidance permits housing authorities to absorb EHV households into the regular HCV program, this option is not currently available to the Glendale Housing Authority due to our program operating in a funding shortfall. Thus, we do not have the ability to absorb the EHV households into the existing HCV program and are prohibited from issuing new vouchers. While the FY26 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) bill could provide enough funding to address this shortfall and allow for some limited movement on the waiting list, it is not expected to be enough to absorb the entire EHV portfolio of 188 households.
If the agency recovers from this shortfall in the future, the procedural process of moving EHV households into the regular HCV program would require them to be placed on the HCV waiting list first.
Although the City cannot currently absorb these households into the program, the option to move EHV residents onto the waiting list is currently available and can be executed regardless of our shortfall status. Should the City choose this route, it can be accomplished in one of two ways:
HUD Waiver (Automatic Placement): HUD offers a streamlined submission and review process for a regulatory waiver that, if approved, would permit PHAs to place all EHV families on its HCV waiting list with the appropriate preference.
This would automatically transfer all 188 EHV households without requiring individual applications.
Targeted Waitlist Opening: The Housing Authority could formally open the waitlist strictly for EHV participants, allow them to apply, and assign them "preference points" to prioritize their position.
While these pathways exist, it is critical to note that the waiting list is not an immediate housing solution. Placement on a waiting list does not provide a subsidy; it merely ensures a household is "in line" for assistance. Without a federal budget increase, a 16 26-89993
6 8
1 1
waiting-list-based transition would likely take years to translate into actual assistance.
As a result, placement on the waitlist does not protect EHV households from housing instability when the federal EHV assistance expires. Additionally, prioritizing EHV households would directly impact those on the regular Section 8 waitlist who have been waiting over twenty years. In short, the ability to transition these households to the regular Section 8 program depends entirely on resolving our current budget shortfall.
In fact, HUD issued Notice PIH 2025-19 (Attachment 4) in June 2025, strongly encouraging PHAs to transition EHV families to the HCV program and provided guidance on how to execute this process. However, the guidance emphasizes that the PHA must have available HCV capacity to support EHV families. This means the agency must have federally funded, unused voucher "slots" available. Because the Housing Authority is currently in shortfall, it is unable to issue any additional vouchers at this time. New federal funding is the strict prerequisite to unlocking this transition.
If federal funding were to materialize and vouchers become available, Notice PIH 2025- 19 would allow the Housing Authority to execute the transition with significantly reduced administrative barriers.
Given these conditions, staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding how to proceed with the HCV waitlist strategy via the following options:
1. Direct Staff to Pursue the HUD Waiver: Council may direct staff to immediately submit a good-cause justification to HUD requesting the regulatory waiver to automatically place all 188 EHV households onto the closed HCV waiting list.
2. Direct Staff to Initiate a Targeted Waitlist Opening: Council may direct staff to begin the formal process of amending the Administrative Plan to open the waitlist exclusively for EHV participants and establish a new preference point ranking system. This will require a formal public comment period and subsequent Board approval.
3. Defer Waitlist Action: Council may choose to take no action regarding the HCV waiting list at this time. Under this option, staff will focus entirely on pursuing TPVs and deploying local funds, if approved by Council.
Should the City Council direct staff to pursue the preceding transition strategy, staff will return at a later date with a detailed implementation plan outlining the necessary administrative steps and policy amendments.
Since managing this wind-down requires adapting to unpredictable external factors, staff continues to monitor pending state and federal funding opportunities, temporary local funding sources currently available, and any other alternative options. 17 26-89993
6 8
1 1
The timeline and ultimate cost depend heavily on pending federal and state funding decisions. Staff is actively pursuing the following external resources:
Federal Funding and Tenant Protection Vouchers: The FY26 federal budget expanded TPVs to explicitly include EHV households. TPVs are the most promising federal replacement option, but staff does not yet know if the Housing Authority will receive any TPVs, how many will be available, or what application processes and program rules HUD will ultimately require. State Funding: The City is pursuing a direct $3.6 million state budget request to support the local EHV program. Simultaneously, we are tracking a proposed $500 million statewide grant program that could utilize stabilization funds through Continuums of Care (CoCs).
Because this timeline is a race between our expiring EHV funds and the arrival of new money, staff is planning for both a best-case scenario where external funds absorb the EHV portfolio; as well as a contingency scenario requiring strict reliance on limited local resources, as described in this report’s following two sections. However, it is important to note that even in a best-case scenario, any TPV allocation we receive may not be enough to cover all households.
PARKVIEW GLENDALE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
Staff has actively explored alternative long-term placement strategies intended to transition eligible households directly into dedicated units within local affordable housing developments and specialized supportive care facilities.
One opportunity for transitioning seniors is associated with the Parkview Glendale development, which includes eleven dedicated units. To qualify for the HOME-ARP units, households must meet one of HUD's designated Qualifying Populations, which include individuals and families who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, fleeing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking, or at greatest risk of housing instability.
Because Parkview operates with a fixed pro-forma rent of $750 for 1 bedroom and $710 for studio, the City must bridge the gap between the rent and what the senior can afford to pay (calculated at 30% of their income). Housing division staff is exploring funding sources to address this funding gap and has modeled two viable pathways for filling these eleven units, which presents a direct policy trade-off between cost efficiency and protecting the most vulnerable. The two potential pathways for these units are as follows:
18 26-89993
6 8
1 1
Option A (Income-Weighted): Prioritizes seniors with higher fixed incomes. This requires a lower City subsidy (approximately $1,068 per month or a $221,000 one-time allocation) because the tenants can contribute more toward their rent. Option B (Age-Weighted): Prioritizes the oldest seniors (ages 78–87). Because these residents typically have extremely low incomes, this requires a higher City subsidy (approximately $4,035 per month or a $837,000 one-time allocation).
A complete household-by-household financial breakdown of these two pathways, including the projected cost of providing subsidies over the 15-year affordability covenant period, is provided in Attachment 5.
Additional Options Considered
Another potential temporary option (15 to 24 months) is associated with Hamilton Court, which currently has eight available spaces that can be utilized to directly support women in the EHV program who are fleeing violence and facing housing instability. To allocate these units, the City will inform EHV participants of the opportunity so that those who meet the definition of fleeing violence may submit an application. Because the anticipated need exceeds the available number of spaces, the final residents will be selected through a randomized lottery drawn from that pool of qualified applicants. Staff is continuing to explore this option and is awaiting final confirmation on feasibility and implementation details.
In addition to traditional housing placements, staff also explored the potential of utilizing a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) model for single adults and seniors who would benefit from on-site supportive services. However, after a thorough evaluation of the financial, security, and liability risks associated with this model, it’s been determined that pursuing an SRO facility is not a viable option at this time.
Staff visited the site located in the Pacific–Edison neighborhood on Central Ave. The 30,000 sq ft facility is currently operating as an intermediate care facility for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. There are several concerns regarding this type of assistance, including feasibility, security and liability factors.
The building is a large facility and contains 35 functional rooms with shared bathroom and kitchen facilities. The facility is dated and would need significant improvements, estimated at a minimum of $250,000 in order to bring the units into functional condition.
The owner has requested between $35,000 and $40,000 in monthly rent under a long- term triple net (NNN) lease. In addition to the base rent, the city would be responsible for utilities, insurance, a provider to manage the facility and ongoing maintenance.
These additional obligations increase the estimated monthly total cost to over $60,000. 19 26-89993
6 8
1 1
Additionally shared bathrooms and kitchens create safety, privacy, and liability concerns. Managing an environment with shared facilities increases the city’s exposure to liability regarding resident health, safety, and overall facility management.
When considering these costs alongside the potential liabilities of property management, staff does not believe this project is feasible. The cost (excluding the $250,000 upfront investment and unpredictable maintenance issues) of operating the facility is estimated to be $1,714 per resident.
The other option would consist of a complete renovation of the building to increase housing capacity. This would be a significantly more expensive endeavor, potentially costing millions of dollars.
Implementation would require a formal policy decision and site approval, with operating costs potentially supported by the HOME or Homeless Services funds identified above.
APPROVAL AND PRIORITIZATION OF HOME AND HOMELESS SERVICS FUNDS As we prepare for the expiration of federal EHV funds, staff has identified a few primary funding options to establish temporary rental subsidy programs. Each resource has specific constraints regarding how it can be used and which populations it can support.
The following temporary funding options may be considered to establish temporary rental subsidy programs:
HOME Funds - Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) - $3,700,000 oThis is a local resource used to provide time-limited rental assistance where the program structure aligns with EHV household profiles. Funds come from federal HUD block grants allocated to the City to fund affordable housing initiatives. A key constraint is that the use of these funds is subject to federal program rules and requires direct tradeoffs with other HOME-eligible City priorities.
Homeless Services Sources - $434,000
oThese are short-term stabilization resources designed to prevent immediate displacement where rental assistance is a permitted use.
Funds come from State and County allocations, specifically $434,000 from County Measure A (Note: Final allocations are pending). A specific constraint of this funding is that it is not sized to replace a large tenant- based subsidy portfolio for long durations, making it best suited for targeted coverage of a limited tier.
Should the City Council elect to utilize the HOME and Homeless Services funds to establish a temporary rental subsidy program as a strategy to prioritize the 188 EHV 110
26-89993
6 8
1 1
households, staff has developed a tiered prioritization framework to ensure these limited bridge resources are deployed where they prevent the greatest harm. In developing the following framework, staff conducted a preliminary review of each household based on housing stability indicators. The information presented reflects the most current data available at this time. Prior to implementation, staff will conduct a re-evaluation of each household to verify applicant status and confirm that key factors, including income, health status, and other relevant conditions remain unchanged.
This proposed tiered approach aligns with HUD guidance to prioritize seniors, individuals with disabilities, individuals with long histories of homelessness, and those least likely to stabilize without assistance. Please note that the numbers in parentheses next to each tier indicate the number of EHV households that would be placed under each tier. Because this represents a current snapshot in time, these household counts may shift slightly as staff conducts final verifications of income, age, and health status prior to deploying any temporary bridge funds.
Tier 1 – Highest Risk (24 Households): Reserved for the most vulnerable residents: single seniors (62+) who are disabled, earn less than 15% AMI, and were literally homeless or fleeing violence.
Tier 2 – Moderate Risk (47 Households): Protects disabled adults or families with children who were literally homeless and earn 30% AMI or less. Any Glendale resident 70 years or older is automatically protected in this tier if they did not qualify for Tier 1.
Tier 3 – At-Risk (80 Households): Captures those certified as "At Risk" rather than literally homeless. This serves as a safety net for all seniors (62+), any household with a disability/children, or anyone earning below 30% AMI. Tier 4 – Transition (37 Households): Households with the highest relative capacity to absorb a subsidy reduction, consisting of able-bodied adults under 62 earning above 30% AMI, and any household residing outside of Glendale.
Tiering is a planning tool; it does not change a household’s current assistance while federal funding remains, but provides a transparent framework for deploying resources.
A detailed description of the Tiering approach and priority sorting rule and an alternative option prioritizing senior applicants is also provided in Attachment 6 and the demographics for each tier are provided in Attachment 7.
If the City Council elects to deploy temporary bridge funds, a critical decision remains:
how to distribute them. The funds can be allocated in several ways, ranging from providing short-term support for all 188 households, to utilizing the tier system to provide subsidy strictly for the most vulnerable. To guide the deployment of the $4.1 111
26-89993
6 8
1 1
million in available resources ($3.7 million HOME TBRA + $434,000 Homeless Services) and help the Council visualize these trade-offs, staff evaluated three primary coverage scenarios. These models are designed to show the Council how many families can be sustained, and for how long, depending on which tiers are funded under each strategic approach. A complete breakdown of the coverage scenarios below and additional scenarios, including specific monthly costs and tier-by-tier expenditure rates, are provided in Attachment 8.
Sample scenarios:
Scenario A (Universal Coverage): Funds all 188 households equally but exhausts all combined bridge resources in approximately one year, returning to the same situation we have today.
Scenario B (Tiered Coverage): Focuses resources solely on the most vulnerable (Tiers 1 and 2) from day one. This significantly extends the funding runway (approximately 2.5 years) but would result in the immediate loss of subsidy for households in Tiers 3 and 4.
Scenario E (Hybrid / Phased Approach): This scenario provides 3 months of universal coverage for all 188 households to allow time for intensive case management and placement planning. After Month 3, bridge assistance ends for Tiers 3 and 4, and the remaining funds are dedicated exclusively to sustaining the 71 highly vulnerable households in Tiers 1 and 2 for approximately an additional 23 months.
Because local bridge resources are finite, households cannot secure long-term, subsidized housing before their short-term coverage expires. If federal or state interventions do not materialize, it will result in the forced termination of cases, resulting in a loss of rental assistance for these households.
If the City Council approves staff’s recommendations as described in this staff report, the following framework outlines the path for implementing and sequencing the strategies and options identified above. If approved, the framework is designed to remain flexible and adaptive, allowing staff to respond in real time to changes in federal timelines and funding availability.
Reevaluate, Communicate and Prioritize
Maintain current EHV households under existing federal funding. While we anticipate support through late 2026, we are monitoring HUD communication daily to adjust if the federal timeline accelerates. Clear communication with participants is ongoing to ensure they understand the federal wind-down. Review in detail all 188 households current status and assign them to Tiers 1–
4. This framework is intended to guide rapid resource deployment to the most 112
26-89993
6 8
1 1
vulnerable households if federal funding is exhausted earlier than expected.
Monitor State and Federal Funding landscape
Staff will continue to monitor federal and state funding opportunities in order to take advantage of any additional funding that may support EHV’s long-term like the TPV funds.
Establish Temporary Subsidy
Begin work to set up the administrative framework for the temporary rental subsidy program using the $4.1 million in identified bridge funds. Structure the program guidelines and payment mechanics based on the specific coverage scenario approved by City Council, ensuring the system is fully operational and ready to launch if existing federal EHV funding is exhausted and new state or federal replacement funds do not materialize first.
Parkview Placements
Match households to available units at Parkview.
Prepare eleven residents to transition if federal or state funding options do not materialize.
Future Active Monitoring & Crisis Intervention
For households that do not receive a direct voucher replacement or other support, the Housing Division staff will not simply end the relationship. Instead, staff proposes moving these individuals into a long-term monitoring phase.
Should these households face an immediate crisis after their EHV assistance ends, staff will look to secondary options, including Gateways Hospital’s Enhanced Care Management, Rapid Rehousing, or Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA) funding, to provide short-term stabilization. As participants transition off the federal EHV program, staff maintains a mechanism to intervene if they are at risk of falling back into homelessness.
In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge the stark reality of the current fiscal landscape. Even with full implementation of this proposed strategy, staff cannot guarantee continued assistance for every household currently enrolled in the EHV program.
The wind-down strategy is designed to protect our most vulnerable seniors, disabled individuals, families with children, those fleeing violence and those with a history of homelessness. However, the inevitable trade-off is that households in lower-priority tiers may face a permanent transition off the program if federal resources are not renewed.
Additionally, any new Federal and State funding will be finite and potentially not all eligible participants will likely be served. Some participants will reach the end of their assistance without a direct voucher replacement.
113
26-89993
6 8
1 1
Furthermore, for some participants, long-term housing stability will require relocation.
Whether transitioning into a partner development with a lower subsidy or seeking more affordable market-rate housing outside of Glendale, maintaining stability may involve a transition to other housing options. To remain housed, participants must be prepared to accept the housing options that are available and feasible within the City's constrained resources.
The Housing Authority’s commitment is to ensure that no household transitions into homelessness. However, the "off-ramps" provided may not mirror the exact level of support or the specific housing units currently enjoyed under the EHV program. This is the difficult reality of navigating the wind-down of a major federal initiative.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Housing Authority’s current Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) portfolio supports 188 households and carries an estimated subsidy cost of approximately $347,597 per month (approximately $4,171,164 annually). The proposed options would not have an impact on the General Fund.
If Council approves the proposed transition framework, staff has identified approximately $4.1 million in primary local and regional funding sources potentially impacted as temporary bridge resources as follows:
HOME: approximately $3,700,000
Homeless Services Funding: approximately $434,000
Additionally, if Council elects to assist eleven residents through the Parkview project, an estimated one-time allocation of $221,000 to $837,000 will be required. These funds would be sourced from LACAHSA or other non-General Fund sources. Following Council direction, staff will revise their funding plans with the federal and county funding sources and return to Council at a later date with a request for appropriation.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 114
26-89993
6 8
1 1
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: City Council may reject the proposed options and direct staff to explore alternative strategies.
Alternative 2: City Council may elect to consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Jack Wong, Interim Community Development Director
Prepared by:
Michael Fortney, Deputy Director of Community Development/Housing Sipan Zadoryan, Housing Supervisor
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Program Snapshot
Attachment 2 – PIH 2024-34
Attachment 3 – Peer Agencies
Attachment 4 – PIH_2025-19
Attachment 5 – Parkview Breakdown
Attachment 6 – Tier Breakdown
Attachment 7 – Tier Demographics Update
Attachment 8 – Subsidy Allocation Scenarios