Skip to content

BAHFA survey for elected officials

1 / 1
100%
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) is seeking information from elected officials in each community in the nine-county Bay Area on topics related to housing and affordability in the region. We are using these responses, along with presentations, one-on-one conversations and other touchpoints, to help shape BAHFA’s policy framework for potential amendments to BAHFA’s enabling statute and a potential future regional housing revenue measure perhaps as soon as 2028.

BAHFA is the region’s housing finance agency, created by state statute in 2019 to raise transformative revenue to focus on large-scale solutions for affordable housing production, preservation and tenant protections (the 3 Ps). BAHFA is a unique regional authority that can unlock billions in future funding for affordable housing and homelessness prevention; create structural change in affordable housing delivery systems to improve efficiencies and impact at scale; and build a self-sufficient public lender that reinvests earnings back into communities while reducing reliance on repeated tax increases.
1.Title(Required.)
2.Jurisdiction(Required.)
3.On a scale of 1-5 (with one being the lowest and five being the highest) how familiar are you with the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA)?
4.Are you familiar with these BAHFA programs (check all that apply):
5.What are the biggest barriers to affordable housing in your community? (check all that apply)
6.BAHFA brings housing funds to your communities, filling the gap left by lack of state and federal funds. What types of support would you like to see BAHFA provide to help your jurisdiction meet its housing goals? (Check all that apply).
State legislation authorizes BAHFA to ask voters to approve new revenue that can be used to produce affordable housing, presere existing affordable housing, and protect tenants from displacement and homelessness. The statute sets important guardrails for how the revenue would be spent, eligible uses of funds and the types of taxes that BAHFA can place on the ballot, but it leaves significant flexibility for decisions about details to be made at the time that a measure is placed on the ballot.

It is helpful to use a “menu vs. meal” metaphor. The statute sets broad parameters for what is permissible (“the menu”), with details for any particular ballot measure determined by the measure itself, regional and local expenditure plans, and program guidelines (“the meal”). The broad “menu” could result in a variety of quite different “meals” that can be calibrated based on the most pressing needs at the time of a ballot measure.

The following questions seek your opinion on topics that are currently under discussion by BAHFA’s leadership and stakeholders as BAHFA considers whether to seek amendments to its enabling statute to add items to the “menu.”
7.Eligible Uses: BAFHA’s statute limits how funds can be used, though generally there is some flexibility across “production” (constructing new homes), “preservation” (keeping existing housing affordable), and “protections” (preventing displacement and homelessness). BAHFA is considering whether to seek amendments to allow additional eligible uses of funding, such as:
  • Tenant support services and programs
  • Operating subsidies to help more deeply affordable buildings stay financially solvent
  • Funding for homeownership
  • Mixed-income projects
Please share your thoughts on potentially adding these or other eligible uses to BAHFA’s statute. If there is a particular type of housing or program that you would like to see funded, please describe it briefly.
8.Funding Mechanisms: BAFHA’s statute authorizes only the following revenue mechanisms for voter consideration:

  • General obligation bond (backed by an ad valorem property tax)
  • Uniform parcel tax
  • Gross receipts business tax
  • “Head tax” based on the number of employees employed by a business

BAHFA is considering whether to seek amendments to allow additional revenue mechanisms. If there is a revenue mechanism that you believe should be added to BAHFA’s statute, or one that you believe should not be included, please briefly describe.
9.Revenue Distribution: BAHFA’s statute provides a strong “return to source” requirement for funds raised by a ballot measure, requiring that much of the revenue generated by a measure be allocated back to the county where the taxes were generated (i.e. “county of origin.”)

For the funds that “return to source,” the funding will generally be administered at the county level with the exception of Oakland, San Jose, and potentially several other of the region's larger cities. BAFHA’s statute requires that counties demonstrate that they consulted with each city in the county, excluding cities that receive a direct allocation, before adopting their expenditure plans.

If you have suggestions about how counties and cities can work together to ensure fair distribution of “return to source” funds, please briefly describe.
10.Labor Standards: BAHFA’s statute defers to local jurisdictions on the imposition of any labor standards. Counties may, if they wish, choose to impose labor standards on their “return to source” funds. BAHFA may, if it wishes, choose to impose labor standards on its regional funds. BAHFA may not impose any labor standards on the counties’ “return to source” funds.

Please share your thoughts on whether BAHFA should have authority to impose labor standards on the counties’ “return to source” funds, whether there is a particular labor standard that you believe should be required in statute (e.g., prevailing wage, training requirements, etc.), and any thoughts you have related to potentially mandatory labor standards.
11.Is there anything else that you would like to share with BAHFA?
12.Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your responses will inform BAHFA’s decision making.

This survey does not ask for individuals’ names. If you would like to share your name, please do so below.