Charlotte City Council members on Oct. 13 discussed two supportive-housing proposals that staff recommended for funding from the city's housing trust allocations.

The council considered (1) a Mecklenburg County hotel conversion to provide non-congregate emergency shelter with 62 rooms and on-site medical and behavioral-health care, and (2) a Charlotte Mecklenburg Dream Center transitional housing campus with an initial phase of 48 rooms and resident services. Rebecca Hafford, the city's housing director, told the council that supportive housing is "characterized by low barrier to entry, shorter median length of stay, and wrap around services that provide supports to the residences." She said the city's affordable-housing funding policy includes a $9 million investment goal for supportive housing and shelter capacity and that the two recommended projects would use a large share of that funding category.

Why it matters: Supportive-housing projects typically require higher per-room public subsidy than conventional affordable rental development because they include space for services, and many residents pay little or no rent and therefore cannot carry debt. Council members pressed staff for more operational details so the council can judge the proposals' long-term impact and whether public dollars will be deployed effectively.

Key decisions and funding context

Hafford told the council staff had presented both proposals to the Housing, Safety and Community Committee and returned with the projects as recommended uses of the housing trust fund. She told council that the two projects proposed would account for about $6.25 million of the $9 million investment goal in the supportive housing/shelter category, leaving roughly $2.75 million in that category for additional projects.

She described the county hotel conversion as a non-congregate emergency shelter designed as hotel-style rooms with private bathrooms and on-site medical, mental health and substance-use treatment, and said "some shelter capacity would be earmarked for direct referrals from the city and county's street outreach partners." Hafford said that private-sector partners have expressed willingness to fund the first three years of operating costs for the hotel-conversion shelter but that the private funding had not been secured at the time of the meeting; she said the city could condition any release of funds on confirmation of that private commitment.

The Dream Center proposal was presented as transitional housing with job-readiness training and wraparound services; Hafford said the Dream Center is a 501(c)(3) faith-based nonprofit that would partner with development firm True Homes. She described the site plan as a campus with units and on-site services and said the initial phase would require capital assistance (the Dream Center request in the meeting packet was $2 million for construction) while operating funds were expected to be philanthropic for the first years.

Questions councilors pressed staff to answer

Operational throughput and success metrics. Council member Ed Driggs asked how many people each project would serve per year and how the city would measure success. Hafford said the county hotel conversion has 62 rooms and that the Dream Center transitional housing proposal anticipates a 12-month program length. Driggs asked staff to follow up with estimated annual throughput numbers and outcomes data; Hafford agreed to provide that information in a follow-up memo.

Earmark for street outreach referrals. Several council members asked staff to tighten or define a minimum percentage of capacity reserved for referrals from street outreach teams (for example, Hearts for the Invisible). Council member LaWanna Mayfield and others said they wanted a floor so outreach teams would have dependable referral pathways; Hafford said the county will solicit an experienced operator and staff would return with a recommended definition.

Faith-based operator and nondiscrimination enforcement. Council members raised concerns that residents could feel excluded in faith-based settings even if nondiscrimination language exists in contracts. Mayfield asked how the city would ensure religious freedom and access when a faith-based nonprofit operates city-funded housing. Hafford said city contracts already include nondiscrimination requirements but acknowledged council members' concerns that contract language does not always reflect lived experiences; she recommended additional contract monitoring and, if council desired, additional contract parameters for new partners.

Family shelter gap and population targeting. Council members noted the city lacks open family shelter capacity while Booth Commons (a family shelter) is closed for renovation, and they pressed staff to clarify which proposals would serve adults only vs. families with children. Hafford said the county hotel-conversion proposal is intended for adults and adult households without minor children; Dream Center's proposal targets individuals and families impacted by homelessness, addiction or reentry but staff emphasized the projects would not, by themselves, address every housing need.

Cost and leverage. Council members asked about per-room capital costs and leverage ratios. Council member Dimple Ajmera observed the per-room cost estimates for the non-congregate model ranged from roughly $40,000 to $68,000 per room, higher than typical construction for rental units, because of the services and medical-access requirements. Hafford reiterated that supportive housing projects typically rely on public and philanthropic dollars for most capital because the operations cannot carry debt.

Questions about new partners and past funding rounds

Council members asked about the Dream Center's track record. Hafford said the Charlotte Mecklenburg Dream Center is a 501(c)(3) that has provided supportive services since 2014 and would partner with True Homes for development; she said staff had not interviewed residents of other Dream Center facilities and could not provide a direct comparative success analysis because this would be a new local housing venture for that organization.

Council members also raised broader process issues: whether organizations previously funded by the city but later found noncompliant (for example, local grassroots providers) would remain eligible for future funding, and how the city should treat projects that return seeking additional gap funding after changes in construction-cost or financing conditions. Staff said the city underwrites repeat requests and seeks other funding sources before recommending additional city gap funding; several council members asked staff to recommend a formal policy on second-round funding requests.

What the council asked staff to do next

Staff was asked to return with:
- Estimated annual throughput (how many people per year each project could serve) and median length-of-stay projections for both proposed facilities.
- Proposed minimum percentage (a floor) of capacity to reserve for direct referrals from city/county street outreach teams for the non-congregate shelter.
- Contractual safeguards and monitoring measures that would assure nondiscrimination and voluntary participation where faith-based providers operate supportive housing funded in whole or in part by the city.
- A memo on policy options for council consideration that would set criteria for when the city will provide additional gap funding to previously approved projects.

Council action: none finalized tonight

Council members discussed the proposals at length but did not adopt final funding approvals during the Oct. 13 business meeting. Staff will return with the follow-up materials requested above.

Ending

Council members signaled general support for expanding shelter and supportive-housing capacity but repeatedly emphasized the need for clearer operational commitments, defined referral pathways for street outreach, protections for residents in faith-based settings, and explicit plans to address family-shelter gaps while staff and partners work to align capital and operating funds for the proposals.