Board committee releases $18M in housing reserves, sends $28M supplemental to full board after wide public comment

Chair Chris Daley opened the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Budget & Finance Committee hearing by reading two housing items: a release of reserve funds (Ordinance 71‑06) and an ordinance appropriating $28,050,000 of FY2006‑07 general‑fund balance for affordable housing, public‑housing repairs and related programs.

Matt Franklin, director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing, told the committee the office issued three Notices of Funds Availability (NOFAs) in June to allocate earlier appropriations and that eight developments in the pipeline would together produce about 170 family units, 270 supportive‑housing units and 180 senior/disabled units (plus Roots program units). Franklin said capital subsidies typically produce affordability in the 25–50% area median income (AMI) range and that reaching very low income levels (30% AMI or below) at scale requires ongoing operating (rent) subsidies. He estimated operating subsidies for supportive housing at roughly $5,000 per unit per year and about $2,500 per unit per year for units targeted at 30% AMI.

Supervisors pressed for analytical review: Budget Analyst Ken Bruce said his office did not receive the item in time to prepare a report; Chair Daley said he reviewed the three‑page memo from the Mayor’s Office of Housing and felt comfortable moving forward without a fuller analyst memo. The Controller’s office confirmed the nonprofits named in the release of reserves were in good standing.

More than 100 residents, nonprofit developers and advocates gave public comment over roughly two hours. Speakers representing tenant groups, senior and disability advocates and developers urged the supervisors to: allocate funds for 24/7 security and on‑site custodial services in senior and disabled public housing; use dollars for deferred maintenance (some speakers described raw sewage and broken heaters); set aside deeper affordability for extremely low income households (30% AMI and below); include transitional‑age youth (18–24) in supportive housing categories; and ensure units are accessible and accept Section 8 vouchers. Nonprofit developers (for example, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, Community Housing Partnership and Mercy Housing) described projects that could move forward quickly if funds were released and noted that timing matters for acquisition and construction.

After public comment Chair Daley proposed and the committee adopted several amendments to the supplemental — including language explicitly covering transitional aged youth, tenant services and legal services/eviction prevention — and Supervisor Mercarini moved to release $18,000,000 in reserves. The release of reserves motion passed by unanimous consent. The committee then moved item 2, as amended, to the full Board with recommendation.

What happens next: Item 2 will be considered by the full Board of Supervisors; the Mayor’s Office of Housing and the Controller will be expected to provide further expenditure plans and program criteria as projects are selected. Chair Daley and Mayor’s Office staff signaled a continued dialogue about whether and how to fund operating subsidies that would preserve very deep affordability.

Quotes

"We could commit to a criteria of 35% of the units at 30% or lower using a range of development strategies," Matt Franklin said, summarizing how capital plus operating subsidies could push affordability deeper. (Matt Franklin, Mayor’s Office of Housing)

"Without your advocacy, I'm afraid that we would be stuck in terms of moving forward affordable housing," Chair Chris Daley said to public speakers. (Chris Daley, Chair)

"We need 24/7 security guards and custodians — without them our buildings become unsafe," multiple senior housing residents testified during public comment. (Public commenters)

Ending

The committee approved release of the $18 million reserve by unanimous consent and forwarded the $28.05 million supplemental, as amended, to the full Board with a recommendation. The full Board will take up the supplemental and any remaining appropriations and program criteria in its next stages of review.