Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Authority Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vallejo housing commission deadlocks on recommendation for Housing Authority’s 2026–27 budget
Summary
The Housing & Community Development Commission declined to recommend the Housing Authority’s proposed FY 2026–27 budget after a 3–3 tie; commissioners raised concerns about HUD shortfall funding, the authority’s use of a 120% landlord rate and staffing constraints tied to program administration.
The Vallejo Housing and Community Development Commission failed to forward a recommendation on the Housing Authority’s proposed fiscal year 2026–27 budget after a 3–3 tie vote Tuesday, leaving the item to be decided by the Authority’s Board.
Shari, who presented the budget for the Housing Authority, said the proposal covers four funds including the Section 8 voucher program fund (123), an admin fund (121), a housing development fund and an affordable housing fund (126). She said the authority projects roughly $28.06 million in voucher-program revenue for 2026–27 and total proposed revenues across authority funds of about $30.4 million, with expenditures of about $31.6 million and an ending balance of roughly $1.7 million.
“Right now … we’re not taking in any new participants because of the shortfall,” Shari said, explaining that budget projections use monthly averages and that the authority is constrained while in shortfall.
Why it mattered: the budget governs Section 8 landlord payments, administration staffing and loans for affordable projects. Commissioners pressed staff on how shortfall funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) would affect the authority’s ability to lease up vouchers, the calculation of admin fees and whether the local practice of paying landlords 120% of a recommended rate affects capacity to serve more households.
Commissioners asked whether reducing the 120% landlord rate could stretch available funds to serve more voucher holders. Shari and the city council liaison explained that 120% is an allowable top rate intended to encourage landlord participation and that HUD can mandate changes; the authority currently has an allocation of about 2,100 vouchers, of which roughly 1,500 are leased up, leaving about 600 unleased.
Commissioners also questioned a decline in the housing development fund’s adopted-to-proposed expenditures (from about $374,197 in the adopted year to a proposed $38,000), and Shari said the earlier amount had not been spent and the lower projection reflects that unspent allocation.
A motion to adopt a resolution recommending Housing Authority Board approval was made and seconded. Roll-call voting produced three yes votes and three no votes with one commissioner absent; the city attorney clarified that a tie vote does not carry the recommendation, so the motion failed and the commission will not forward a recommendation to the Housing Authority Board.
Other procedural notes: staff said the Housing Authority board will consider the item on Tuesday the 9th, and commissioners were urged to raise outstanding questions with the director before that meeting. The commission also approved other routine items including agenda and minutes approvals and created an ad hoc committee to implement the commission work plan.
What’s next: Because the commission did not recommend the budget, the Housing Authority Board will take up the proposed FY 2026–27 budget on its scheduled date.
