In response to the more than 5,000 homes destroyed in the October firestorm, county leaders and stakeholders are pushing for a $300 million housing bond to be placed on the November ballot.
County supervisors considered the bond’s details and budgetary plan during their May 8 regular meeting. District 4 Supervisor James Gore said on the Monday prior to the meeting he felt unsure about the bond.
“To me, I still have questions about whether or not I will support it,” he said.
Although Gore believes people would vote for the bond, he said he wants to make certain the bond would truly deliver. “I want to make sure the housing we build is utilized by residents,” he said.
Sonoma County officials said voters have successfully approved similar affordable housing bonds in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. County staff received positive feedback from a formal poll they undertook as part of the housing bond initiative several months ago.
In the poll, 71 percent of responders gave positive feedback to a proposed housing bond of more than the current $300 million proposed bond.
Gore said a housing bond in itself will not fix the current housing situation, but using the money as principal to pull in more could be the solution. “It’s all about leverage and pulling things together,” he said.
Putting local tax dollars on the table to move forward to play a bigger role is something Gore said he supports as well as combining the efforts of city and county government.
“We as a county have to partner with cities to put finances on the table,” he said. “We have to work together on this because housing is a regional issue.”
According to the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California; median rent in Sonoma County has increased 16 percent since 2000 while median renter household income decreased six percent when adjusted for inflation. Renters need to earn more than four times the state minimum wage to afford the median asking rent of $2,285.
The estimated revenue from the bond would be $300 million, at a tax rate of $19.53 per $100,000 of assessed value, with a term of 26 years and a assumed interest rate of 4.56 percent, according to a working draft of the bond. A piece of property valued by the county assessor at $453,000 (the county average) would pay $88.47 per year in their property tax until the bonds are paid off
Fifth District Supervisor Lynda Hopkins has worked with the stakeholders and county leaders who brought the idea to the supervisors to develop the general obligation housing recovery bond.
Hopkins said in terms of financing the bond, the burden winds up going to large landowners, commercial property owners and people who purchased more recently, at higher home prices.
“This is in many ways a Robin Hood tax, where those with high-assessed property values are going to be contributing hugely to this bond,” Hopkins said.
The proposed funding breaks down in two categories, workforce housing production and preservation and conversion fund at 75 percent ($225 million), and homeownership at 25 percent ($75 million).
The bond’s working draft states that the workforce category includes housing that serves and is affordable to extremely low, very low and low-income households. Examples of this would be general rental housing, permanent housing for formerly homeless families and individuals, special needs housing, agricultural worker housing, and accessory dwelling units or accessory dwelling units (ADUs, also known as granny units).
The draft states the homeownership category includes gap financing for rebuilding homes lost in the October fires and to assist with necessary infrastructure costs. Examples of this would be down payment assistance, home repair, non-traditional affordable homeownership models, manufactured home repair or replacement and ADUs.
The bond draft also proposed the resources generated from the housing recovery bond would be dedicated for investment back in the originating jurisdictions. This “return to source” approach promises contributing property owners a dollar for dollar return in housing recovery assistance in the jurisdiction in which their property is located.
The total estimated cost to place the bond on the ballot is $423,000. Supervisors are expected to consider a formal vote to put the bond on the ballot no later than July 10. If the board approves placing the measure on the ballot, they would need to approve the final language of the measure on or before August 10 for it to be allowed on the November ballot.
