Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Revenue topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Health committee advances consultant to test housing revenue options after public pleas to protect Measure W funds
Summary
The Alameda County Health Committee voted to hire a consultant to evaluate revenue options for a county housing plan — including a GO bond, parcel tax, sales tax and an inclusionary/impact-fee ordinance — after staff outlined tradeoffs and public speakers urged preserving Measure W for homelessness services.
The Alameda County Health Committee voted Monday to secure a consultant to evaluate revenue options for a countywide housing plan, after staff presented several financing approaches and residents urged the board to dedicate Measure W funds to homeless services.
Michelle Starrett of the county Community Development Agency's Housing and Community Development Department told supervisors the staff report and a consultant analysis (CSG Advisors) identified three leading options: a countywide general-obligation bond, a parcel tax and a countywide sales tax, as well as a county-enacted inclusionary-housing or impact-fee ordinance that would apply only to the unincorporated area. Starrett said a GO bond would require a two-thirds majority and be restricted to capital; a parcel tax could be structured to raise flexible revenue for operations and services and, if placed by citizens, would need only a simple majority; and a sales tax could generate substantial revenue but many Alameda County jurisdictions are near the sales-tax cap.
Starrett estimated an inclusionary-housing or impact-fee ordinance limited to the unincorporated county might bring in roughly $3 million to $7 million a year; she also recommended a blended financing approach that pairs a regular dedicated revenue stream with bond financing or other tools.
Supervisor Tam sought detail on past ballot performance and the unincorporated area’s share of Measure A1-funded units; staff said about 250 Measure A1 units were in the unincorporated county and suggested that $10 million to $12 million a year for 20 years would allow the county to preserve and rehabilitate aging housing stock. Board members noted that even if a fund were intended for the unincorporated area, countywide measures are decided by all county voters.
Public commenters urged the board to use Measure W proceeds for homelessness services. Jen Oakley, who said she was formerly unhoused, told the committee, “We already have a solution, Measure W ... over $390,000,000 that’s supposed to go” to homeless services. Several speakers with lived experience asked that the money support frontline outreach, interim shelter and permanent supportive housing and that people with lived experience be involved in design and governance.
Supervisors acknowledged both the legal constraints on earmarking general-tax revenues (the board noted Measure W is legally a general tax and is subject to litigation) and the political difficulty of reaching two-thirds for some ballot measures. Chair Supervisor Meili and Supervisor Tam said staff will return in May with a program framework that would explain what new money would fund and asked for polling to gauge voter support for different approaches.
On the motion to proceed, Supervisor Tam moved to hire the consultant to evaluate revenue options; Chair Supervisor Meili seconded. The committee passed the motion by consensus.
The staff presentation and the board’s direction will return to the committee on May 12, when staff have been asked to bring a more detailed program plan and options for spending any new money, and to consider fallback strategies if ballot measures do not pass.
