Housing Choice Voucher Funding
and Payment Standards
Vallejo Housing Authority
September 29, 2026
Housing Choice Voucher Funding and Payment Standards
Housing Choice Voucher Funding
and Payment Standards
Briefing for the City Council
September 2026
CITY OF VALLEJO
Vallejo Housing Authority
The issue
The issue 02
Federal voucher funding has not kept pace with the cost of supporting participating households.
•VHA has experienced Housing Choice Voucher funding shortfalls for two consecutive years.
•HUD has directed housing authorities at risk of a shortfall to reduce program costs.
•VHA must bring spending within available federal funding and reserves.
Immediate objective: preserve assistance and avoid terminating vouchers because funding runs out.
Vallejo Housing Authority
What the payment standard means
Whatthe paymentstandard
means
03 The payment standard is the benchmark VHA uses to calculate the federal rent subsidy.
It is not the landlord's rent and it does not guarantee that the subsidy will cover the full rent. 120%
Temporary HUD exception used by
VHA
during FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26
90%–110%
HUD's normal range that VHA must
return to as a cost-saving measure
Paymentstandard reduction
Vallejo Housing Authority
Why VHA must act
Why VHA must act 04
•HUD cannot guarantee additional money to resolve a shortfall. •HUD expects VHA to take cost-saving measures now rather than rely on excess reserves.
•Continued access to shortfall assistance may depend on whether VHA follows its action plan.
•Delaying action increases the risk that VHA will have insufficient funding to support current families.
The choice is between a managed reduction now and a greater risk of voucher terminations later.
Vallejo Housing Authority
HUD timing and local implementation
HUD timing and local
implementation
05 December 22, 2025
HUD directed housing authorities to
begin cost-saving measures
immediately for the 2026 funding
year.
During 2026
VHA must continue following its HUD
action plan. Compliance may affect
access to additional shortfall
assistance.
After FY 2027 FMR publication
VHA has 60 days to complete its
payment-standard analysis.
Local implementation
Staff will recommend the payment
standards and effective date for
consideration by the Housing
Authority Board.
HUD requires action now. Vallejo's specific effective date remains pending.
Vallejo Housing Authority
Affected families and timing
Affected families and timing 06
Existing voucher families
The lower standard
generally would not apply
until the second regular
annual reexamination,
providing approximately
24 months of protection.
Families who move
The transition protection
does not apply when a
family moves. The lower
payment standard would
apply to the new unit.
New participants
The payment standard in
effect when the family
leases a unit would
apply.
Timing could change if HUD approves a waiver allowing earlier implementation.
Vallejo Housing Authority
Potential effect on a household
Potential effect on a household 07
1 VHA applies the
lower payment
standard
2 The federal housing
assistance payment
may decrease
3 If the landlord keeps the
same rent, the family's
share may increase
The effect will vary by household, unit rent, bedroom size, income, and implementation date.
Vallejo Housing Authority
What staff will bring back
Whatstaff will bring back 08
•The recommended payment standard for each bedroom size. •The projected savings and effect on VHA's funding position. •The estimated number of families affected and the timing of those effects. •The expected change in tenant rent burdens and the communication plan for participants.
Staff is completing the analysis within HUD's required 60-day period following publication of the Fair Market Rents. The effective date of the payment standards is January 1, 2027.
Our responsibility is to preserve as many vouchers as possible while minimizing the impact on participating families.
THANK YOU
Alicia M. Jones – Housing Director
Housing and Community Development
Department
[email protected]
RENTER PROTECTION AND
HOUSING STABILITY
MEASURES
City Council Study Session
September 29, 2026
Purpose of Tonight’s Study Session
• Receive an overview of four renter-protection
measures and their potential administrative
and fiscal implications.
• Direct staff to proceed with the Market and
Feasibility Study identified in Housing
Element Program F 1.1.3 (Renter Protection
and Housing Stability Program).
• Direct staff to return with Vallejo-specific
findings and options before preparing an
ordinance or ordinances.
Photo Credit: Nick Otto, San Francisco Chronicle
Four Renter-Protection Measures
Each measure serves a different function and requires policy choices.
Measure Core Function Key Design Choices
Rent Stabilization Limits the amount or frequency of rent increases for covered units.
Coverage, formula, base rent,
petitions
Just Cause for
Eviction
Limits tenancy terminations to specific at-fault or
no-fault grounds.
Grounds, cure period, relocation,
notices
Tenant AntiHarassmentProhibits coercive, retaliatory, or intimidating conduct that interferes with tenancy rights.
Prohibited acts, complaints,
remedies
Tenant Right to
Counsel
Provides legal advice or representation in eviction
or other covered disputes
Eligibility, provider, funding,
scope
State law establishes the baseline;
local ordinances can add protections within legal limits.
Vallejo Rental Housing Conditions
18,709
Renter-Occupied
Households
44.5% of occupied households
10,463
Cost-Burdened Renter
Households
55.9% of renter households
5,875
Severely Cost-Burdened
Renter Households
31.4% of renter households
Housing Stock by Structure Type:
31,470 single-family units | 70.2% 12,004 multifamily units | 26.8% 1,358 mobile homes | 3.0% A recent San Francisco Chronicle analysis placed renter cost burden at approximately 71%. This annual estimate is not directly comparable to the Housing Element’s 2015–2019 five-year ACS estimate.
Existing data establishes scale of need, not the number of units a future ordinance would cover.
Community Input and VHJC Priorities
VHJC Requested Policy Framework
Coverage Broad coverage, including
specified informal and nontraditional tenancies
Rent Cap Lesser of 60% of CPI or 2.5%
Administration Rent registry, petitions,
hearings, vacancy and
eviction data
Enforcement Relocation, remedies, notice
rules, and buyout safeguards
The study can test these priorities
against Vallejo market data, legal
requirements, administrative capacity,
and fiscal sustainability.
Survey Participation and Findings
• 319 responses collected from November 2023
through July 2024; 277 respondents identified
as renters.
• Reported support for renter-protection
measures ranged from 75% to 95%, with the
highest support among renters.
• 53.6% identified pests, rodents, or illegal
activity as a housing problem.
• Top priorities included safety (74.6%),
affordable or alternative housing (69.9%),
and tenant associations (54.9%).
Questions Requiring Vallejo-Specific Study
Study Area Questions
Scale and Coverage How many units and tenancies could be covered under different legal and policy choices?
Policy Parameters What formulas, grounds, exemptions, notice rules, remedies, and petition processes are workable?
Administration and
Enforcement
Which functions are complaint-based, proactive, contracted, or City-operated – and at what service level?
Legal Integration How do state law, due process, mobile homes, hotels, affordable-housing rules, and potential short-term-rental regulations interact?
Fiscal and Market
Effects
What are the staffing, technology, legal, hearing, fee, General Fund, maintenance, investment, and housing-supply implications?
Desired Study Outcome:
A factual, legal, administrative, and fiscal basis for Council policy direction What Program Administration Could Require
Education and referrals
Mediation
Complaint response
Limited
Registration and billing
Notice tracking
Petitions and hearings
Public outreach
Moderate
Proactive enforcement
Legal assistance
Tenant counseling
Broader compliance and
data
Comprehensive
Across service levels, programs may also require software, hearing officers, legal support, consultants, language access, and data management Lower recurring cost Higher recurring cost
Peer Program Staffing, Costs, and Fees
Three reference points illustrate how program scope affects cost. They are not estimates of Vallejo costs.
Jurisdiction Service Level Staff Units Annual Budget
Hayward Low 3.5 11,580 $642,000
San Pablo Moderate 5 5,608 $1.21 M
Richmond High 14 18,000 $3.00 M
Source: City of San Pablo Fiscal Analysis (July 2024). Reported amounts may have changed; San Pablo figures were proposed.
Richmond is closest in registration scale;
Hayward is closer to Vallejo’s gross multifamily scale. • Reported annual fees for fully covered units ranged from $66 to $290 per unit • Pass-through rules varied. Some do not allow. Others allow up to 50% pass-through to tenants.
Proposed Policy Development Process
1 Study Kickoff
October 2026
2 Draft/Final Study
Feb. – Mar. 2027
3 Council Direction
Mar. – Apr. 2027
4 Ordinance Work
Spring – Fall 2027*
5 Implementation
6-12 months after
adoption*
The Housing Element calls for study first, Council direction second, and ordinance preparation only if directed.
*Timing is illustrative. Ordinance preparation and implementation would occur only if directed and adopted by the City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Receive the presentation regarding four renter-protection measures and their potential administrative and fiscal implications.
Direct staff to proceed with the Market and Feasibility Study identified in Housing Element Program F 1.1.3.
Return to the City Council with Vallejo-specific findings, policy options, legal considerations, and preliminary staffing and fiscal implications before preparing an ordinance or ordinances.
Council direction tonight authorizes analysis – not a predetermined policy outcome.
QUESTIONS
Hector Rojas – Long-Range Planning Manager
Planning & Development Services Department
[email protected]
(707) 553-7283
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street | Vallejo, CA 94590
www.vallejo.gov
REFERENCE TABLES
Summit Government Affairs
428 E Thunderbird, #402
Phoenix, AZ 85022
T: (480) 900-7532
summitgovernmentaffairs.com
TO: SAOR
FROM: Louie Lujan, GAD (Summit Government Affairs)
RE: Vallejo Housing Report | Counter Argument
DATE: August 6, 2026
INTRODUCTION:
Vallejo renters deserve safe, stable, and affordable homes. Property owners also need clear rules, fair returns, and the ability to maintain rental housing. The Right to Thrive gives voice to residents who report serious problems. Its survey, however, does not establish the prevalence of those problems across Vallejo or prove that rent stabilization, a new local just cause ordinance, universal right to counsel, and expanded private enforcement would improve the city’s housing market. The City should treat the report as stakeholder testimony, not a representative market study. Before adopting permanent regulation, Vallejo should collect neutral data, enforce existing protections, measure costs, and focus on housing production and preservation. This approach addresses misconduct without reducing the supply and quality of rental homes.
CONCERNS WITH THE REPORT:
1. The survey does not support citywide conclusions
The report received 319 responses over nine months. It recruited participants through VHJC supporters, social media, advocacy events, a food pantry, a farmers market, and selected apartment complexes. This was a nonrandom convenience sample designed to reach residents already facing housing problems. No probability sample, response rate, weighting method, confidence interval, or comparison to Vallejo’s renter population appears in the report. The authors acknowledge major limits. The survey mixed online and in person collection, included homeowners and respondents with unknown housing status, relied on self reporting, omitted race and ethnicity, omitted household size and number of earners, and recorded 16 to 30 percent nonresponse on some questions. Staff also helped explain questions and supplied verbal translation, while advocacy staff coded open ended answers. These choices serve community outreach, but they limit inference and introduce selection, measurement, and coding risks. Survey support for a policy is not evidence of the policy’s effect. Questions framed around rights, protection, harassment, discrimination, and community power predict favorable responses. The report does not present the full wording and order of all questions beside each result, test neutral alternatives, measure tradeoffs, or ask whether respondents would support each program after learning its cost and possible housing supply effects.
2. Existing law already provides substantial protections The report’s claim that Vallejo lacks local protections should not be read as an absence of tenant rights.
California’s Tenant Protection Act already limits annual increases for covered units to 5 percent plus inflation, capped at 10 percent, and requires just cause after the statutory tenancy period. SB 567 strengthened owner move in and substantial remodel requirements and added enforcement remedies. State law also protects habitability, bars retaliation and discrimination, regulates entries and deposits, and provides eviction procedures. The policy question therefore should be: What documented gaps remain after existing law is enforced, and what local action addresses those gaps at the lowest cost? The report Summit Government Affairs
428 E Thunderbird, #402
Phoenix, AZ 85022
T: (480) 900-7532
summitgovernmentaffairs.com
does not quantify unlawful increases, improper notices, substantiated harassment cases, code violations by property type, eviction filings and outcomes, or repeat offenders. It also does not separate responsible local owners from large or chronically noncompliant operators.
3. Rent stabilization treats the symptom and risks worsening supply Housing affordability reflects household income, demand, and the number of available homes.
California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office identifies insufficient housing construction as the most important driver of the state’s high housing costs. A local cap may reduce increases for some current tenants, but it does not create a unit, rehabilitate an aging building, or help a renter who lacks access to a controlled unit.
Local rent regulation also creates tradeoffs the report does not examine:
● Owners facing rising insurance, utilities, labor, security, financing, and repair costs have less revenue for maintenance and capital work.
● Small owners may sell, move units to owner occupancy, or leave long term rental use when risk and compliance costs exceed expected returns.
● Benefits attach to units and incumbent tenants rather than being targeted by income or need. Higher income tenants in covered homes may benefit while lower income newcomers face fewer choices. ● A new program requires registration, staffing, hearings, legal review, outreach, translation, data systems, and enforcement. Those costs need a public estimate and funding plan.
A serious feasibility study should model these effects using Vallejo specific data. It should identify the covered inventory, owner profile, operating cost trends, vacancy rate, deferred maintenance, likely program cost, and expected effect on new investment. It should compare several policy designs, including no new cap, instead of beginning with draft ordinances as the assumed outcome.
4. Duplicate just cause rules and broad harassment standards invite confusion State law already requires just cause for many tenancies. A second local framework risks inconsistent notices, overlapping remedies, technical disputes, and higher legal costs. Those costs ultimately affect the operation of rental housing. Before layering on another ordinance, Vallejo should identify specific cases where state law failed and explain why education, enforcement, or targeted amendments would not solve the problem. Harassment, retaliation, utility shutoffs, unlawful entry, discrimination, and refusal to meet habitability duties warrant firm enforcement. Any local ordinance should define prohibited conduct objectively, require notice and an opportunity to cure when health or safety does not demand immediate action, penalize knowing or repeated violations, guard against duplicative recovery, and protect good faith communications and lawful property management. Vague standards or private action incentives create leverage in ordinary disputes without necessarily improving housing conditions.
5. Right to counsel requires scope and cost discipline
Legal help improves access to the courts, but Vallejo should not assume that San Francisco’s program results transfer directly to a smaller city with different rents, case volume, staffing, and finances. The report compares a legal case cost with the annual cost of one shelter bed. Those are different units of analysis and do not establish that every represented case prevents homelessness or saves the cited amount.
Vallejo should first publish local unlawful detainer filings, default rates, representation rates, case outcomes, and the number of income eligible households. If an unmet need exists, the City should consider targeted legal navigation, mediation, emergency rental assistance, and income qualified counsel.
Summit Government Affairs
428 E Thunderbird, #402
Phoenix, AZ 85022
T: (480) 900-7532
summitgovernmentaffairs.com
A universal entitlement regardless of income directs scarce funds to households able to retain counsel and may lengthen routine cases.
6. Housing quality calls for enforcement, not price regulation Reports of pests, unsafe conditions, and delayed repairs deserve a direct response. Yet the survey does not verify conditions through inspections, link complaints to parcel or management data, or distinguish isolated incidents from repeat patterns. Rent regulation does not compel a repair and may reduce the funds available to complete one. Vallejo already operates code enforcement and a Housing Authority. The City should improve complaint intake, response times, multilingual education, interdepartmental referrals, and repeat offender tracking. It should publish anonymized performance measures and prioritize properties with verified health and safety risks. Responsible owners should receive clear correction timelines and access to rehabilitation financing where appropriate.
A BETTER POLICY FRAMEWORK
Vallejo should pursue housing stability through evidence, enforcement, and supply. The following steps respond to tenant concerns while preserving rental housing:
● Commission an independent housing-market study. Use a statistically valid renter survey and administrative data. Report vacancy, rents, operating costs, ownership type, code cases, eviction filings, outcomes, and displacement indicators by neighborhood. ● Audit existing protections and enforcement. Identify whether residents lack rights, knowledge, access, or enforcement. Publish service standards and outcomes before creating overlapping rules. ● Target verified misconduct. Use escalating penalties for serious or repeated violations, with objective definitions, due process, and coordinated code, fair-housing, and legal-service referrals. ● Expand housing supply and preservation. Advance the Downtown, Waterfront, and Mare Island plans, streamline infill and accessory dwelling units, reduce avoidable approval costs, and preserve naturally occurring affordable housing.
● Support tenants based on need. Prioritize emergency rental aid, mediation, housing navigation, and income-qualified legal help for households at the greatest risk of displacement. ● Include all housing stakeholders. Seat renters, nonprofit providers, small rental owners, multifamily operators, housing economists, fair-housing experts, and City staff in a transparent process. Publish draft assumptions and fiscal analysis before any ordinance hearing. ● Require evaluation and sunset review. For any new program, define goals, baseline measures, annual reporting, cost controls, and a scheduled review of housing supply, maintenance, rents, and displacement.
CONCLUSION
The Right to Thrive raises concerns that deserve respect and follow through. It does not provide a representative measure of Vallejo’s rental market, establish causal links, or evaluate the costs and tradeoffs of its preferred policies. Its own limitations support a measured response. Vallejo should enforce existing law, address verified bad actors, assist tenants facing immediate hardship, and add and preserve homes. Permanent citywide regulation should follow independent data, legal and fiscal analysis, and Summit Government Affairs
428 E Thunderbird, #402
Phoenix, AZ 85022
T: (480) 900-7532
summitgovernmentaffairs.com
meaningful participation from renters and housing providers. Housing stability depends on protecting tenants and keeping responsible owners willing and able to provide safe rental homes.
Louie A. Lujan
Founder & CEO
Summit Government Affairs
Direct: (626) 824 8658
*Serving REALTOR® Associations Since 2015
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2026 5:43 PM
To: Dawn Abrahamson <[email protected]>; City Manager <[email protected]>; Alexander Matias <[email protected]>; Andrea Sorce <[email protected]>; Charles Palmares <[email protected]>; Harry Black <[email protected]>; Helen-Marie Gordon <[email protected]>; JR Matulac <[email protected]>; Peter Bregenzer <[email protected]>; Tonia Lediju <[email protected]>
Subject: City of Vallejo Rent Control Workshop Sept. 29th My name is Theresa Karr. I have been a Vallejo resident, homeowner and rental property owner for over 50 years. My late husband and I invested in rental property as college investments for our children’s education and continued to hold ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
My name is Theresa Karr. I have been a Vallejo resident, homeowner and rental property owner for over 50 years. My late husband and I invested in rental property as college investments for our children’s education and continued to hold on to them for retirement income with the idea of eventually leaving our surviving family with a property inheritance.
Over the years we worked hard and made sacrifices to acquire and maintain our home and our rental properties. As the years have passed It has been increasingly more difficult and costly to maintain the rental properties. I have experienced the cost of evictions, lost rent, extreme property damages, increased insurance costs, the latest insurance increase was over three times the previous amount, property taxes including increased garbage and sewer charges and never ending increased property maintenance costs.
When cities implement stricter rental mandates, which include price fixing, what are the incentives to build and/or own rental property? I know I am a fair and reasonable landlord. I know from my past professional experience that rent control is not the answer for income property owners or tenants and a costly short term solution that adds nothing to the rental housing supply. Every qualified prospective tenant regardless of income can rent a rent controlled unit. More housing, market rate, affordable and a consideration of a rental assistance program in lieu of rent control are better choices for Vallejo.
I am sure you recognize that I am not uneducated about the rental housing industry in California. In my past professional life, which I am now retired, I worked in the rental housing industry and the state of California working with tenants and landlords during and after the COVID pandemic. The state of California has many rental housing laws including AB 1482 which is a statewide rent control and just cause eviction protections law; it is just one of many state laws that rental property owners must follow.
The question are the rents too high? Maybe they are but the operating costs keep increasing. Is rent control going to bring rents down or increase rents over time? Can the city afford the startup cost for a rent control program? Who will administer and manage the program? Who pays for the cost of rent control at the end of the day? How do you calculate the gains and losses? Because I was curious I looked up current rents in Vallejo and the surrounding cities. Vallejo looks like it is in a pretty good place (Apartments.com current data):
Vallejo rents (vary by size and layout)
• Studio apartments in Vallejo average $1,338 per month. • One-bedroom apartments in Vallejo average $1,773 per month. • Two-bedroom apartments in Vallejo average $2,097 per month. • Three-bedroom apartments in Vallejo average $2,500 or more per month.
Fairfield rents (vary by size and layout)
• Studio apartments in Fairfield average $1,744 per month. • One-bedroom apartments in Fairfield average $1,892 per month. • Two-bedroom apartments in Fairfield average $2,173 per month. • Three-bedroom apartments in Fairfield average $2,735 or more per month.
Vacaville rents (vary by size and layout)
• Studio apartments in Vacaville average $1,867 per month. • One-bedroom apartments in Vacaville average $2,118 per month. • Two-bedroom apartments in Vacaville average $2,388 per month. • Three-bedroom apartments in Vacaville average $2,773 or more per month.
Dixon rents (vary by size and layout)
• Studio apartments in Dixon average per month.
• One-bedroom apartments in Dixon average $1,447 per month. • Two-bedroom apartments in Dixon average $2,125 per month. • Three-bedroom apartments in Dixon average $3,353 or more per month.
Davis rents (vary by size and layout)
• Studio apartments in Davis average $1,842 per month.
• One-bedroom apartments in Davis average $1,937 per month. • Two-bedroom apartments in Davis average $2,219 per month. • Three-bedroom apartments in Davis average $2,761 or more per month.
Benicia rents (vary by size and layout)
• Studio apartments in Benicia average $1,830 per month. • One-bedroom apartments in Benicia average $2,140 per month. • Two-bedroom apartments in Benicia average $2,362 per month. • Three-bedroom apartments in Benicia average $2,135 or more per month.
Thank you for allowing me to comment. I received the meeting notice late regarding this meeting allowing me little time to prepare testimony and read and absorb all the agenda materials provided. On top of the late notice, I broke my leg and cannot attend in person but plan to attend in person in the future. I will try to join online but since I expect there will be a lot of testimony at this meeting I submit this as my testimony. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss further or would like additional information.
Theresa M. Karr
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
January 30 – 31 2027
“We can only be ethical in relation to something we can see, understand, feel, love,or otherwise have faith in.” Aldo Leopold
From: Helen-Marie Gordon XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2026 6:39 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Print for Agenda Item #4A. Vallejo Ca September 29, 2026 To: Helen-Marie Gordon XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: Fact Check Agenda Item #4A. Vallejo Ca September 29, 2026 Good evening Mayor Sorce, Vice Mayor Matulac, and Members of the City Council.
I am standing here tonight to strongly urge this council to vote YES on Agenda Item #4A and implement strong, enforceable local rent control and tenant stabilization protections.
Corporate property owners lobbies argue that state laws like AB 1482 are enough.
The data proves they are not. Vallejo is facing a unique, structural housing crisis that requires local, targeted intervention. According to the Right to Thrive report, surveyed renters in Vallejo faced an astronomical 19% average annual rent increase.
The Rent-to-Income Gap: Vallejo's median household income is $30,171 - $80,000while the median gross rent has climbed to $2,073 - $3,500. This is not including income from those who are receiving SSI or any other subsidized funding, which is around one $1,200.00 monthly - Localized tracking shows surveyed renters faced an average 19% annual rent increase, forcing working-class families to spend 50% to 70% of their total income on housing.
This is not standard market adjustment; this is unchecked rent gouging that forces working-class families to spend 50% to 70% of their income just to keep a roof over their heads.
Look at the structural realities of the city you govern:
• First: Nearly half of our community relies on rental housing. 42.6% of Vallejo households are renters, representing over 19,000 occupied units directly exposed to market volatility.
• Second: Vallejo carries a disproportionate economic burden. Our Census poverty rate stands at 12.2%, significantly outstripping Solano County’s average of 10.1%.
• Third: This vulnerability feeds a relentless cycle of displacement. Multi-year tracking by UC Berkeley reveals that Solano County maintains a 5% eviction lockout rate the absolute highest sheriff lockout rate among all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties.
This severe surge has completely overwhelmed our local legal infrastructure.
Annual eviction lawsuits in Solano County recently spiked to 1,906 filings in a single year, leaving a crushing 447 eviction filings for every single legal aid attorney available in our county.
Thousands of Vallejo families are being uprooted, pushed into homelessness, or forced out of our city entirely.
Leaving our families unprotected exposes them to predatory pricing, unaddressed habitability issues like toxic mold and pests, and immediate retaliation when they ask for basic repairs.
Rent control is not just an economic calculation. It is a matter of public safety, racial equity, and community survival.
Mayor Sorce, Vice Mayor Matulac, Councilmember Bregenzer, Councilmember Gordon, Councilmember Matias, Councilmember Lediju, and Councilmember Palmares, I urge you to stand with Vallejo’s working-class families over corporate interest groups.
Please vote YES on Agenda Item #4A.
Thank you.
Fact Check Agenda Item #4A.
Vallejo Ca September 29, 2026
📊 Attached Briefing: Executive Socioeconomic Datasheet
Key Socioeconomic Metrics (Vallejo vs. Solano County)
• Renter Density: 42.6% of Vallejo households rent their homes, representing 19,089 occupied units directly exposed to market volatility. By comparison, Solano County's overall renter rate is lower at 37.0%.
• Poverty Disparity: Vallejo’s Census poverty rate stands at 12.2% (~14,260 individuals), significantly outstripping Solano County’s average of 10.1%. County-wide poverty grew by 7.4%between 2020 and 2025.
• The Rent-to-Income Gap: Vallejo's median household income is $30,171 - $80,000 while the median gross rent has climbed to $2,073 - $3,500. Localized tracking shows surveyed renters faced an average 19% annual rent increase, forcing workingclass families to spend 50% to 70% of their total income on housing.
Displacement & Legal Infrastructure Crisis
• Bay Area-Leading Lockouts: Multi-year tracking by UC Berkeley and the KQED Eviction Research project reveals that Solano County maintains a 5% sheriff lockout rate the highestamong all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. • Surging Court Filings: Annual eviction lawsuits in Solano County spiked to 1,906 filings in a single tracking year.
• Severe Legal Shortages: This surge has completely overwhelmed local legal infrastructure, leaving a crushing 447 eviction filings for every single legal aid attorney available in the county.
• Demographic Asymmetry: Eviction filings and lockouts disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic households, with a severe concentration among female-headed households.
Policy Implications for Agenda Item #4A
1. AB 1482 Limitations: Existing state law leaves critical gaps in local enforcement, leaving half of Vallejo's active renter population vulnerable to predatory pricing and rapid displacement.
2. Economic Stabilization: Localized rent control directly addresses the 19% rent gouging spikes, keeping families housed and reducing municipal strain on emergency homelessness services.
3. Community Safety and Equity: Stabilizing the tenant base directly preserves neighborhood continuity, improves habitability compliance (mold, pests), and protects vulnerable families from retaliatory eviction.