Cincinnati Development Fund says $74 million in leveraged funding helped create or preserve about 1,800 income‑restricted units in two years

The Cincinnati Development Fund reported to the Equitable Growth and Housing Committee on Oct. 12, 2025, that it has leveraged about $74 million in pooled public, private and federal resources to make financing commitments to 54 projects that will create or preserve 1,803 income‑restricted units in the city from Sept. 2022 through Sept. 2024.

The update, delivered by CDF President and CEO Joe Huber and senior staff member Luke Blocher, described how city trust‑fund dollars, Hamilton County ARPA, CDFI awards, CDF loan capital and other sources were combined to produce nearly $130 million in available financing commitments when other funders and private investment are included. "We're very proud of the results of this 2 year period," Huber said, adding that the work depended on "collaboration, communication, and sharing a common goal across the region." Blocher warned that federal uncertainty makes local coordination more important: "the sort of uncertainty at the federal level really hones in on why this type of local leadership is so important," he said.

Why it matters: CDF told the committee the fund's flexibility allowed it to issue conditional commitments and gap financing that helped projects move forward despite rising costs and changes in state competition rules. The CDF summary said the program focused on lower AMI levels: 85% of the income‑restricted units are targeted at 60% of area median income (AMI) or below, and 558 units are at 50% AMI. CDF reported 92 distinct investments across the 54 projects, with 16 Cincinnati neighborhoods and nine county jurisdictions represented.

Key numbers and mechanics: CDF said the program's two‑year totals include roughly $74 million in direct ALF (Affordable Leverage Fund) investments to 54 projects, producing 1,907 total units of which 1,803 are income‑restricted. CDF characterized the overall leverage as about 13:1 when private and other public investments are counted. The organization said more than half of the $74 million originated as CDF‑generated loan capital or competitively won federal awards, with the remainder from local public sources including city trust fund appropriations, county ARPA, and short‑term rental tax appropriations.

CDF described operational changes used to respond to market conditions. The Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OFA) altered scoring and application requirements during the period; CDF and the city agreed to a process allowing conditional letters of commitment so developers could remain competitive for state low‑income housing tax credit (LIHTC) awards despite OFA's stricter documentation rules. CDF said that approach helped secure several state awards despite unfavorable scoring for Cincinnati compared with other Ohio cities.

Who benefited and what kinds of projects: CDF said 31 of the 54 projects did not rely on LIHTC and 16 projects had 15 units or fewer. Among partners were smaller for‑profit developers (12 projects), early‑stage for‑profit developers, five black‑ or female‑owned development firms (six projects), and 29 projects led by nonprofit or government developers. CDF emphasized work with smaller and emerging developers and said it is offering predevelopment financing and lines of credit to help teams reach the point where larger financing can close.

Limits and outstanding issues: CDF highlighted that construction and material costs have risen sharply; the agency cited an Ohio Housing Finance Agency figure indicating about a 45% average increase in per‑unit costs for urban projects over three years. CDF also flagged the HUD 108 loan as currently constrained by the high interest‑rate environment, noting the HUD 108 commitment is asterisked in the report because of usability issues. CDF reported an average loan size into projects of about $807,000 and an average city subsidy per unit (where city dollars were used) roughly $26,049, while noting the program generally stayed below the contract caps set by council (council guidance set a $50,000 per‑unit cap for units at or below 60% AMI and $25,000 per‑unit for units between 60% and 80% AMI).

Committee response and next steps: Committee members praised the production rates and asked about federal grant freezes, the potential long‑term revenue stream recommended by the Futures Commission, and technical assistance for market‑rate developers unfamiliar with affordable housing compliance. CDF said federal grant interruptions appeared to pose limited immediate risk to CDF operations but could hurt local partners; it said only a small CDFI award under $1 million remains subject to disbursement conditions. On the Futures Commission idea of a recurring 10‑year $100 million commitment, CDF said multi‑year predictable funding would change developer behavior, attract larger regional developers and increase long‑term pipeline activity.

The presentation closed with committee direction to "file" the presentation. No formal legislative actions or votes on ordinances were recorded during the meeting segment.

Ending note: CDF and committee members described the local funding and coordination model as essential because federal and state resources have not kept pace with cost escalation. Officials said continued local recurring funding, paired with more private "patient" capital and technical assistance for developers, are the next priorities to keep producing and preserve affordability across neighborhoods.