SB 107 appropriates a long list of General Fund awards for housing‑related projects and directs the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to allocate those sums to the named recipients in Section 19.564(b). The statute lists specific cities, counties, nonprofits, housing authorities, and projects with dollar amounts attached.
The bill pairs these targeted appropriations with extra administrative flexibility designed to speed deployment: it authorizes the Department of Finance to create item numbers if needed, permits advance lump‑sum payments, and allows HCD to use self‑attestation and alternative local fiscal agents. Those procedural allowances change the normal contracting and oversight posture for the identified allocations and will shape how the named projects get funded and monitored.
At a Glance
What It Does
Designates itemized General Fund appropriations for housing projects listed in Section 19.564(b) and assigns HCD as the allocating authority. It gives Finance and the allocating entity tools — creation of item numbers, advance lump‑sum payments, and the ability to transfer allocation authority — plus permission to accept self‑attestation of use.
Who It Affects
Named recipients in the statute (cities, counties, universities, housing authorities, and nonprofits), HCD, the Department of Finance, and local fiscal agents. It also changes the role of DGS and normal public contract processes for these awards by exempting them from certain state contracting rules.
Why It Matters
By combining pre‑targeted dollars with sweeping procedural waivers, the bill prioritizes speed and direct legislative direction over competitive allocation and standard procurement oversight. Compliance officers, local finance directors, and project sponsors need to plan for statute‑specified conditions rather than competitive grant terms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 107 is a budget appropriation vehicle that itemizes dozens of housing and homelessness projects and assigns those amounts to HCD for allocation to the recipients named in the statute. Rather than creating a competitive program with a rulebook, the Legislature names cities, counties, housing authorities, universities, and nonprofits and ties specific dollar amounts to projects such as motel conversions, farmworker housing, navigation centers, ADU accelerators, and capital improvements for interim housing.
The bill changes the state’s normal administrative approach for these awards. It allows the Department of Finance to create item numbers if the normal budget structure lacks an appropriate line item and permits HCD (or another designated allocating entity) to use self‑attestation as an acceptable verification method of fund use.
It also expressly removes the listed allocations from certain state personal services contracting and public contract code requirements and exempts them from Department of General Services approval.To accelerate disbursement, a designated allocating entity may provide funds as advance lump‑sum payments, and the statute allows those funds to pay costs incurred before the bill’s effective date. The Department of Finance can transfer allocating authority to a different state entity or permit an alternative local fiscal agent, provided written notice is given to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee ahead of the change.
The statute sets encumbrance and expenditure windows and prevents disbursement for projects before a specified date, while also forbidding use for purposes barred by Article XVI, Section 8 of the California Constitution.Programmatically, the appropriations support a wide mix of activities across the state: acquisition and renovation of housing, predevelopment and infrastructure for dense housing, supportive and transitional housing operations, service centers and outreach, youth and workforce facilities, and targeted community projects. Those diverse uses mean compliance and reporting expectations will vary by recipient, but the statutory naming of recipients and the administrative waivers will be the controlling authority for how funds move and are verified.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lists and attaches dollar amounts to over 70 specific recipients and projects in Section 19.564(b), turning legislative intent into directed spending rather than a discretionary competitive grant program.
It allows the Department of Finance to create new budget item numbers when existing items don’t exist, removing a common administrative barrier to obligating funds.
The statute exempts these allocations from specified personal services contracting rules, parts of the Public Contract Code, and Department of General Services approval, narrowing routine procurement oversight for these awards.
A designated allocating entity may provide funds as an advance lump‑sum payment that may be used for costs incurred before the bill’s effective date, enabling retroactive reimbursement.
Transfers of allocating authority or substitution of local fiscal agents are permitted, but must be reported in writing to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee at least 30 days before the change (subject to the committee chair’s discretion).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Purpose statement and allocation obligation
These paragraphs state that the appropriations reflect legislative housing priorities and require the designated state entity (HCD in subdivision (b)) to allocate funds to the recipients identified in the statute. Practically, naming recipients makes the allocation a ministerial task: the statute controls who receives money and for what purpose, and the designated state entity’s role is to distribute those funds to the named recipients by whatever method the entity deems most effective.
Verification flexibility: self‑attestation allowed
The statute explicitly permits self‑attestation by the receiving entity as an acceptable verification method when HCD determines it appropriate. That lowers the bar for initial certification of use compared with standard grant audits or third‑party verification. Administratively, this reduces upfront documentation requirements but shifts more post‑disbursement monitoring burden onto the allocating entity and the Department of Finance.
Procurement and administrative waivers plus Finance authority
These provisions remove the listed allocations from specific contracting rules (Article 4 of Gov. Code §19130 et seq., parts of the Public Contract Code, and the State Contracting Manual) and from DGS approval requirements. They also authorize Finance to create item numbers when necessary, allow advance lump‑sum payments (including for costs incurred before the bill’s effective date), and permit Finance to transfer allocating authority or permit alternative local fiscal agents. In practice, this creates a streamlined path to disbursement but also concentrates discretion about process and oversight in Finance and the allocating entity.
Timing, disbursement floor, and constitutional limitation
Unless otherwise specified, the statute sets the encumbrance window (available to encumber through June 30, 2025) and the expenditure window (expenditures allowed until June 30, 2027), and bars disbursement for any listed project prior to September 30, 2023. It also instructs that funds may not be used for purposes prohibited by Article XVI, Section 8 of the California Constitution (generally prohibitions on state aid to sectarian institutions), and requires Finance to withhold allocation if it deems a use prohibited and notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
Itemized appropriations and program mix
Subdivision (b) is the operative funding schedule: more than 70 line items assign amounts to cities, counties, nonprofits, housing authorities, a university, and other entities for specific projects (for example, motel conversions, farmworker housing, ADU accelerator grants, navigation centers, and youth centers). Because recipients and amounts are statutorily named, standard competitive solicitation, scoring, or prioritization processes do not apply — the Legislature has already selected the slate and dollar levels.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Named local governments and housing authorities — they receive statutorily guaranteed awards and can expect priority access to those funds without entering a competitive grant process.
- Nonprofit service providers and developers included in the list — organizations like GLIDE, Lao Family Community Development, and Habitat for Humanity gain direct project support and predevelopment capital without standard grant competition.
- Project populations — unhoused individuals, seniors, farmworkers, and youth served by the listed projects benefit from targeted infrastructure, shelter, service centers, and housing units the funds aim to create.
- State agencies with allocation authority — HCD and the Department of Finance gain discretion and tools (lump sums, item numbers, transfer powers) to speed fund deployment and shape implementation.
Who Bears the Cost
- State contracting and procurement oversight — DGS and related procurement units face a reduced role for these awards, which shifts oversight burdens to allocating entities and Finance.
- Other potential projects and applicants — because the bill names recipients directly, groups not on the list lose access to these particular appropriations and may face longer waits for discretionary funding sources.
- Local fiscal agents and small jurisdictions — accepting advance lump sums and meeting post‑award monitoring may create cash‑flow, compliance, and administrative burdens for smaller entities.
- California taxpayers and auditors — expedited disbursement and relaxed verification increase the risk of inefficient spending or misuse, potentially generating audit findings and the need for corrective actions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves one policy problem — getting targeted housing funds out quickly to named local projects — by relaxing oversight and procurement controls, which raises the opposite problem: faster deployment with weaker safeguards increases the risk of improper spending and reduces competitive fairness. The central trade‑off is therefore between speed/direct legislative targeting and transparency/standard safeguards.
The statute prioritizes speed and legislative direction over the competitive allocation and procurement oversight that typically accompany state grant funds. Allowing self‑attestation, retroactive lump‑sum reimbursements, and exemptions from parts of the Public Contract Code reduces administrative friction but also narrows contemporaneous checks on eligibility, procurement fairness, and cost reasonableness.
That trade‑off will force allocating entities to design stronger post‑award monitoring to detect and remedy misuse, shifting compliance costs downstream.
Operationally, the bill creates ambiguous accountability lines when authorities are transferred or local fiscal agents are swapped: reporting to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee is required, but the statute permits the committee chair discretion on timing. Small jurisdictions and community organizations named in the statute may lack the administrative capacity to accept large advance payments and later document allowable costs under state audit standards.
Finally, naming recipients in statute locks legislative choices into law and reduces flexibility to redirect funds if circumstances change or if a project stalls, except via subsequent legislative action.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.