Council weighs bigger housing bond as members debate tax impact and policy alternatives

The council examined options to increase a proposed housing bond beyond the manager’s $125 million recommendation, with some members urging more ambitious investments in low‑income housing and others warning that raising the bond now would require additional property‑tax burden on residents.

Staff presented a range of bond scenarios and the estimated tax impacts. For a median house value close to $400,000, raising the bond from $125 million to $150 million would add roughly $2–$3 a year; moving to $200 million would add about $6–$8 a year on top of other proposed tax changes presented in the budget packet. Several councilmembers noted that even a few dollars can accumulate for households near the margin and urged caution.

Debate focused on whether the city should rely on additional property taxes to fund more housing spending or pursue a mix of approaches: increased private and foundation matches, expanded state incentives such as inclusionary zoning or tax‑credit reforms, and targeted programs to preserve homeownership for vulnerable residents. Councilmembers asked staff to return with comparative scenarios showing the programmatic outcomes of $125M, $150M and $200M bond levels — e.g., how many units and what types would be funded, district‑level proposals and projected leverage from private/grant partners.

The council ultimately codified the manager’s $125 million recommendation but several members asked that the housing committee and staff develop a more holistic financing and policy package — including state and private matching options — before committing to a larger referendum. Councilmembers said they want clearer answers on where additional bond dollars would go, how many units would be preserved or created, and protections to avoid displacing existing residents in the neighborhoods most affected.