Council committee forwards competing Affordable Housing Trust Fund ordinances to full council after public hearing; committee votes 6–1 to send both without a -

The Organizational Development Standing Committee held a public hearing on two competing ordinances to fund the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and voted to forward both to full council without a recommendation.

Maria Garnett, a council policy analyst, summarized the member paper (Ordinance 2026‑0018) patroned by Council Member Robertson and co‑patrons. That paper would repeal section 12‑46 and add a new section (12‑48) to allocate 2.5% of annual real estate tax revenue to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and require annual reporting with the mayor’s budget. Garnett said that using FY24 adopted and actual real estate tax revenue as an example, 2.5% would have yielded roughly $10.96 million in that year, though FY25 and FY26 numbers were not available at the time of the presentation.

Mayor Rula presented the administration’s ordinance (Ordinance 2026‑0001), which also repeals section 12‑46 but would instead guarantee a minimum annual appropriation of $10,000,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund while allowing the administration to fund the minimum from a mix of real estate tax growth and other flexible streams. The mayor told the committee the ordinance includes annual reporting, a four‑year comprehensive review, and two narrow exceptions when the appropriation could be suspended: if available funds fall below required reserve levels or if funding the trust fund would impair the city’s ability to meet legally required contractual obligations.

Speakers during the public hearing — including housing advocates, developers and faith leaders — largely supported a predictable, dedicated revenue stream. Greta Harris of the Better Housing Coalition said $10 million is likely insufficient and encouraged the parties to collaborate on a single paper. Justin Ferguson, a broker and developer, said a $10 million floor would help developers plan financing; faith leaders and community advocates argued the mayor’s contingency language leaves funding dependent on the mayor’s determination and urged a guaranteed stream.

Council Member Gibson questioned the administration’s assertion that the $10 million obligation is "not discretionary" given the ordinance text that allows the mayor to lower or eliminate appropriations in certain circumstances. Lawson Rajesuriya, the mayor’s chief of staff, said budgetary language commonly includes a "subject to appropriation" clause and that the administration sought legal language to limit discretion while preserving required budget levers; he agreed to follow up with where required reserve levels are published.

Vice President Jurden moved to forward both ordinance 2026‑0001 and ordinance 2026‑0018 to the full council without recommendation and to the February 9 council meeting. The motion passed on roll call: Gibson (Yes), Breton (Aye), Jones (Aye), Robertson (No), Lynch (Aye), Jurden (Aye), Newbill (Aye). The committee recorded the result as a 6‑1 vote to forward both papers with no recommendation. Council members said they will continue negotiations and noted an amendment submitted by Council Member Abu Bakr that could be drafted and posted before the full council consideration.

The public hearing was closed and the committee returned to other agenda items, including a request that the administration prepare an after‑action report about a recent ice storm (timing and reimbursement possibilities were discussed).

This committee action does not adopt either ordinance; it forwards them for full council consideration.