SHRA warns federal cuts threaten Sacramento housing pipeline; council seeks joint city‑county strategy

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday told the City Council that expected federal and state funding changes will intensify pressures on local affordable housing programs and force tradeoffs between preserving existing affordable units and building new permanent supportive housing.

Keisha Boulware of SHRA and Executive Director LaShelle Dozier outlined a decade‑long shift in the agency’s priorities toward serving extremely low‑income households and people experiencing homelessness. Boulware said national and state funding changes mean SHRA must “lean on the strength of its JPA structure” and reprioritize how limited local funds are used.

SHRA presented data showing several factors that have increased costs and changed production patterns: a high proportion of new construction since 2019 has been motel conversions and studios or one‑bedroom units; operating costs for developments serving extremely low‑income residents have risen because of higher service needs; HUD has curtailed voucher issuance in recent months and the agency expects a 10–15 percent reduction in federal housing budgets for 2026. SHRA staff also said emergency housing vouchers are likely to sunset earlier than anticipated; staff estimated the change could affect roughly 450 households that currently receive an emergency housing subsidy.

Dozier and SHRA staff reviewed federal and state tools the agency uses, including project‑based vouchers, RAD conversions and state programs such as Homekey. SHRA reported that the agency’s typical loan contribution to new developments has grown to about $10,000,000 per project and that a recent developer request totaled roughly $39,000,000 in financing while the city and county had only about $6,000,000 and $10,600,000, respectively, available this year.

Council members across the chamber asked detailed questions about prioritization and program mechanics. Council member Montague asked how housing choice vouchers are prioritized; Dozier and Mary Liz (Assistant Director, HCV program) confirmed that preferences place people experiencing homelessness at the top of wait lists and that project‑based vouchers are currently being used to target homeless households. SHRA reported roughly 12,500 leased vouchers in the program and said it is currently near the regulatory cap for project‑based vouchers (about 28.7 percent of its stock, close to the 30 percent cap HUD allows for general project‑basing and up to 30 percent for homeless targeting).

Several council members urged SHRA and the city to pursue local funding measures. Council member Mervain and others asked the city to study a local housing bond and to coordinate with the county on a regional funding strategy; Council member Maple and others warned against placing too many measures on a single ballot and urged coordination with county and regional partners. Multiple council members suggested a joint city‑county meeting to set shared priorities and improve coordination on homeless services and financing.

Speakers from the development and advocacy community addressed the council during public comment. Noor Khosrow of EAH Housing thanked SHRA for the presentation and backed both a local funding measure and support for a proposed statewide $10 billion general obligation housing bond. Jonathan Cook, executive director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance, likewise urged local funding and continued prioritization of extremely low‑income and permanent supportive housing. Public commenter Michael Milton accused SHRA of mishandling funds and called for an investigation; Mac Worthy repeated critical remarks from earlier in the meeting. SHRA did not record any findings or actions related to those allegations on the public record during the workshop.

At the end of the discussion, multiple council members asked SHRA to return with actionable alternatives — including options to deliver housing at lower price points and an analysis of potential unintended consequences — and several members supported convening a joint discussion with the county and other regional partners to set shared priorities and improve competition for scarce state funds. Council members also encouraged continued advocacy to congressional delegations and national housing organizations for additional federal funding.

SHRA emphasized that the agency will continue to use RAD conversions, project‑based vouchers, and targeted preservation financing while seeking ways to diversify revenue and leverage limited local funds.

No formal council action was taken at the workshop itself; the session was informational and advisory, with council direction requesting follow‑up analysis and potential joint city‑county engagement.