From: Vanessa Cooper
To: Vanessa Cooper; Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7A - update on FMRS and AHA funding for 2027 Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 3:01:45 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Good afternoon, City Council Members and the Housing Authority Commissioners,
I wanted to provide some new information about the expected availability of 2027 HUD funding for AHA ahead of this evening’s Council meeting. On September 1, 2026, the Housing Authority received the Fair Market Rents for 2027 which show a 2.5% - 4% decrease for the East Bay.
New Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for 2027
Bedroom Size 2027 FMR 2026 FMR
Studio $2,088 $2,142
1-bedroom $2,290 $2,385
2-bedroom $2,805 $2,912
3-bedroom $3,592 $3,724
4-bedroom $4,250 $4,413
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html
Renewal Funding Inflation Factor (RFIF) 2027
FMRs are a key determinate of the 2027 RFIF. RFIFs are inflation adjustment factors used by HUD to determine how much housing authorities (PHAs) will be renewed in funding for the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program in the next fiscal year.
Unfortunately, a drop in FMRs means that the AHA will likely receive a 0% RFIF for 2027.
In contrast, the RFIF for 2026 was 5.051%.
AHA Staff will return to the Board on September 16, 2026 with an updated budget analysis but a 0% RFIF would increase the possibility and potential size of a shortfall situation in 2027.
There are some limited opportunities to influence the 2027 FMRs/RFIF :
AHA along with other local PHAs intend to submit an appeal for the 2027 FMRs by October 1, 2026. However, the funding levels for 2027 will likely remain uncertain for some time. The 2026 appeals were not decided on by HUD until May 2026.
There is advocacy work that could be done by the City and Housing Authority and local elected officials to HUD on improving the general methodology for these RFIF numbers.
AHA will also apply for 2027 set aside funds, if eligible. However, not all of these were funded by HUD in 2025, and it is unlikely much of this funding will be available for 2026.
AHA staff are available during the day today or at the meeting tonight to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you,
Vanessa Cooper
Executive Director
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
[email protected]
DRE License #01892974
My workday may look different than your workday. Please do not feel obligated to respond outside of your normal working hours.
From: Jenn Heflin Wit
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for the Stardust Gardens Funding Backstop Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 2:12:32 PM
Dear Members of the Alameda City Council,
I am writing to urge you to approve the funding backstop for the Stardust Gardens project to secure its financing deadline. This dispute should not delay housing that is otherwise ready to move forward.
Stardust Gardens is critical to the momentum of the 478 West Midway homes and the broader Alameda Point housing pipeline. Delaying this project risks losing these units, compromises financing timelines for subsequent projects, and risks higher future construction costs.
I request that city council structure Alameda's contribution as a true backstop—funding that steps in now to meet the deadline but reduces as other operating subsidies become available. This protects the project while minimizing Alameda's long-term financial commitment. Additionally, please direct the Alameda Housing Authority, MidPen, and HUD to immediately secure a permanent voucher or subsidy solution.
Finally, once Stardust Gardens is stabilized, I encourage Alameda City Council to review the process that allowed an affordable housing project to reach a critical financing deadline with an unresolved operating subsidy to ensure future projects do not face the same issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Jenn Heflin Wit
Alameda Resident
From: Doug Mead
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please vote yes on Item 7-A (Stardust Gardens) Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 12:28:58 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I live at Alameda Point, and I’m writing to ask you to support Item 7-A — authorizing the City Manager to sign the Stardust Gardens commitment letter.
I know a contingent backstop isn’t the most exciting thing on an agenda, but this one does a lot of work. It’s what lets West Midway actually break ground: 478 homes, 171 of them below-market-rate, plus more than $55 million in state housing and infrastructure money that’s on the line if the schedule slips.
From where I sit, the bigger deal is momentum. Right now we’re living next to a construction freeze and a row of empty Navy warehouses near Site A. Nothing changes out here until something gets built, and West Midway is the thing that’s ready to go.
Please vote yes on staff’s recommendation for 7-A.
Sincerely,
Doug Mead
Alameda Point resident
201-675-1130
[email protected]
From: Carly Grob
To: CITYCOUNCIL-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment - Stardust Gardens (Agenda item 7A).
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 12:26:22 PM
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. Please see my public comment for agenda item 7A for tonight's meeting. Please note that I am speaking on my own behalf and I am not speaking on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority.
Tonight, I’d like to speak to one of the stated alternatives in the staff report, which recommends “directing staff to explore structural modifications to the City’s relationship to generally align priorities and to return to the City Council for further discussion at a later date.”
For months, AHA has communicated the same message to the City and to the Developer:
1. The agency shows a shortfall in 2027 and cannot make a commitment for any new vouchers.
2. Even if we can come out of the shortfall, the Housing Authority cannot commit vouchers without a fair and compliant
competition process.
3. HUD has confirmed that if AHA were to commit vouchers to Stardust Gardens while we are in shortfall, or without a fair and compliant competition, then we would be in violation of HUD regulations governing Project Based Vouchers.
Over the past several weeks, the City has pressured AHA staff to sign a commitment letter that it would provide vouchers to the Stardust Gardens project before September 8. I would characterize many of these communications as bullying, harassment, and threats, including one persistent threat that the “City will take back the Housing Authority.”
In fact, the City said it had a legal opinion in December 2025 regarding the issuance of vouchers under federal regulations. The City waited until July 2026 to provide that analysis to the Housing Authority. The City’s delay needlessly compressed these discussions to just over a month - putting further unnecessary pressure on the Housing Authority to make a decision and with deadlines that were never made clear.
Your case packet today cites a “misalignment” of AHA’s priorities and the City’s priorities, arguing that AHA prioritizes its own projects when holding competitions for PBVs, but the report intentionally omits key details. For example, the evaluation criteria for PBV competitions are based on federally mandated standards and are not just made up by AHA. The “perceived tension” between AHA and the City has been fabricated to support the recommendation that AHA be “restructured.”
When it comes to Stardust Gardens, it’s not clear how the City’s management of the Housing Authority would result in a different scenario than we’re in today - assuming the city wanted to follow the law. The City would still be in shortfall, and if a competition was held, it would still violate HUD regulations to hold a competition in service of a single project. It’s not a fair competition if there’s a predetermined winner.
If the City did sign a commitment letter for vouchers they couldn’t issue, then we may never see those vouchers. In a worst-case scenario, we leave MidPen in a lurch when they don’t have them in the future, and we deteriorate our standing and reputation with HUD regulators. If we break the rules, and we politicize the process, then it only makes it harder to deliver functional affordable projects in the future.
AHA and the City have achieved incredible success in furthering affordable housing goals in the City by working collaboratively, not only in the devleopment of new housing (Corsair Flats, Jack Capon Villa) but also in supporting lower-income residents of Alameda.
One suggestion would be to hold an annual joint hearing to align objectives, develop joint strategy, and identify status of projects, so both sides are hearing and receiving the same information. I’m disappointed how the City has approached the Stardust Gardens project, spending months making demands and threats, instead of using their time and resources to figure out a backup plan to find operating subsidies.
I support the City Council in providing an operating subsidy while also encouraging the Developer to continue to pursue alternative subsidies, but this project has demonstrated how the City Council can politicize the Housing Authority in a way that may actually be damaging in the long run. I respectfully request that you do not take the recommendation which directs staff to restructure the Housing Authority.
Thank you,
Carly Grob