Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bay Area Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional $20 billion housing bond and Prop 5 changes could bring $2 billion to Alameda County
Summary
Staff updated supervisors on recent amendments to the state constitutional amendment (now Prop 5) and on a $20 billion Bay Area Housing Finance Agency bond placed on the November ballot; if the measures pass as structured, Alameda County could receive about $2 billion to support production, preservation and flexible housing initiatives, though restrictions limit using bond funds for operating subsidies and for acquisition of 1–4 unit properties.
Michelle Starett told the Health Committee that recent changes to a proposed state constitutional amendment (now appearing on the ballot as Prop 5) and a separate Bay Area regional bond could reshape how regional housing dollars are raised and used.
She said the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency (BAHFA) board voted on June 26 to place a $20,000,000,000 regional housing bond on the November ballot for the nine‑county Bay Area. Starett described amendments to the constitutional change (ACA 1 / Prop 5) that narrowed the measure — removing special taxes from the scope so special taxes would still require a two‑thirds vote — and said that if Prop 5 passes it would lower the voter threshold for general obligation bonds to 55%.
Starett summarized legal and programmatic limits: AB 2813 (described at the meeting) would prohibit the use of bond proceeds to acquire 1–4 dwelling units, limiting certain small-site acquisition or land‑trust strategies. She also said bond proceeds cannot be used for operating subsidies (general obligation bonds are for capital projects), and that the BAHFA enabling legislation prescribes spending targets: roughly 52% for production, 15% for preservation and about 28% flexible funding, with up to 5% for administrative costs.
The staff projection presented at the meeting estimates Alameda County’s allocation at approximately $2,000,000,000 if the bond passes, with Oakland estimated to receive about $765,000,000; Starett said 20% of bond funds would go to BAHFA for administration and that the enabling legislation would require expenditure rules to meet RHNA obligations and local housing elements.
Starett said the county would have to submit an expenditure plan by Feb. 5 if the bond passes, and staff will return to the Board with proposed distribution models (return-to-source, RHNA-based, or low‑income-weighted scenarios) for discussion and recommendation.
Supervisor questions focused on whether capital expenses such as hotel acquisitions for conversion into supportive housing could be funded and on how the county would allocate funds among cities with different capacities; Starett said acquisition and conversion are eligible capital uses but operating subsidies are not, and that the county can provide technical assistance to smaller cities seeking to participate in joint projects.
Next steps: staff will present distribution options to the Board and prepare for an expenditure-plan submission if the bond is approved by voters.
