Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Fund Appropriation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisor Peskin proposes moving $175 million in housing funds to Board appropriation; MOHCD warns of delays
Summary
Supervisors debated an ordinance to move roughly $175 million in affordable‑housing impact and program funds from self‑appropriating category 8 to board‑appropriated category 4. Sponsor Supervisor Peskin said the change restores appropriation oversight; MOHCD staff said the change could delay projects that rely on quick fund substitutions to meet external deadlines.
Supervisor Aaron Peskin proposed an ordinance that would reclassify several housing funds so they require Board of Supervisors appropriation rather than remaining as category 8 self‑appropriating funds. Peskin said the change affects roughly $175,000,000 in this year’s budget and framed it as restoring a core legislative function: the power of the purse and high‑level policy oversight.
Peskin said the Board needs broader opportunity “to have a soup to nuts, high level understanding of where the policy is going” and to check performance, citing past instances where affordable housing units with Below‑Market‑Rate protections were lost. “This is a $175,000,000 in the current fiscal year that we should have some high level appropriative oversight over,” Peskin said.
The mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) opposed the immediate change, arguing that category 8 authority provides necessary flexibility to bridge projects to meet strict state and federal funding deadlines. Sophie Hayward and Deputy Director Kate Hartley described how impact fees and other defined sources are used to move projects forward while MOHCD secures reimbursements or additional grants. Hayward said impact fees make up about 32 percent of the department’s budget and that every project undergoes public outreach, environmental and entitlement review.
MOHCD gave project examples in which the office bridged funds to access state grants: one project received $2,000,000 in state funding that was reimbursable, requiring MOHCD to initially bridge the work with inclusionary housing funds; another project used $5,000,000 in bridge funds to meet cap‑and‑trade deadlines. “We do not spend randomly,” Kate Hartley said, adding that MOHCD follows the Consolidated Plan the city files with HUD and that midstream appropriation changes could jeopardize projects that rely on committed funding.
Supervisor Katie Tang and others expressed concern that moving funds to Board appropriation could politicize and slow the delivery of affordable housing. Tang asked whether the ordinance duplicates transparency available through existing project review and suggested an alternative: asking MOHCD to present an annual plan for how it intends to use self‑appropriating funds so supervisors could have a global policy conversation without adding transactional appropriation steps.
Supervisor Norman Yee said he sided with Peskin on the need for appropriation oversight, while Peskin reiterated that this was a checks‑and‑balances issue the Board should address through the budget process. After debate, Supervisor Tang moved to continue the item until after the election; the committee continued the ordinance to the call of the chair without a roll call vote.
The committee did not take final action on the ordinance; the matter will return for further consideration after the continuance.
