Charlotte staff recommend funding 13 projects from $100 million housing bond; council to vote April 28

Charlotte City Council received a staff presentation April 14 on recommended investments from the city’s $100 million Housing Trust Fund bond, with staff recommending 13 proposals for the first funding round and asking the council to vote on the recommendations at its April 28 business meeting.

City housing Director Rebecca Heffner told the council that “the bottom line is ... staff. We recommend 13 housing trust fund proposals,” and that the package includes multifamily production, rental preservation (NOAH acquisition/rehab), homeownership developments and one transit-oriented site-acquisition request. Heffner said the round included 25 proposals in total and that demand exceeded available funds.

The recommendation set would use a mix of Housing Trust Fund dollars, federal HOME funds where eligible and a balance of fee-in-lieu payments for a transit-oriented land acquisition. Staff advised the council that the recommended multifamily investments would create nearly 700 new affordable rental units (including roughly 168 senior units) and that the overall combined recommendations — if approved including both preservation proposals — would fund more than 1,100 affordable units across categories.

Why it matters: Charlotte voters approved a $100 million affordable-housing bond last year. The council adopted an Affordable Housing Funding Policy in September that sets goals including economic mobility, neighborhood affordability and residential stability; staff used that policy to score and prioritize proposals. The April 14 presentation laid out near-term commitments and asked the council to approve staff’s recommended awards on April 28 so projects can proceed toward financial closing, permitting and construction.

Key recommendations and features

- Rental production: Staff recommended five developments for Housing Trust Fund support plus one development eligible for federal HOME funds, together creating nearly 700 units. Examples include Baker Crossing (58 units, TOD near Tom Hunter station; contingent on a 9% tax-credit award), Barton South (140 units; previously land-acquired with HTF funds), and Union at Graham (198 units; many targeted at 70% AMI). Most recommended multifamily projects include a 99-year affordability commitment.

- Homeownership: Staff recommended four homeownership proposals totaling about $4.7 million that would create roughly 102 for-sale homes. Proposals include Avalon Newell Townhomes (54 for-sale townhomes, 70–80% AMI, faith-and-housing partnership) and several Habitat for Humanity infill projects. Heffner and staff explained the different deed-restriction models used by Habitat (initial 15-year resale restriction with extended rights of first refusal that extend effective affordability) and by other developers (for example, 30 years for some Dream Key proposals).

- Rental preservation/NOAH: Two NOAH (naturally occurring affordable housing) acquisition‑and‑rehab proposals were presented: Hideaway at Kings Park (110 units; new partner Sandy Road Ventures; staff noted a larger per-unit rehab cost and a 40-year affordability period) and Woodford Estates/Willow Park (Ascent Housing partner; 228 units; 20-year affordability committed). Staff warned that approving both preservation projects now would exceed the council’s current preservation allocation by about $1.5 million and asked council to deliberate.

- TOD land acquisition and city-owned parcels: Staff recommended using a $1.5 million fee-in-lieu balance (rather than HTF bond dollars) to support acquisition of a small parcel on Trade Street for a carless, high-density TOD project. Staff also recommended two conveyances of city‑owned parcels (Tyner Street and the Freedom Drive assemblage) for affordable housing development subject to ground-lease or fee-simple conveyance with deed restrictions.

Funding mechanics and schedule

Staff detailed how the HTF acts as gap financing stacked on tax credits, private debt and other sources; noted that some proposed projects are contingent on state low-income housing tax credit awards; and described a two-week timeline for council vote and the typical 18–24 month timeline from approval to ground‑breaking for new construction. Heffner said some proposals are ready for closing in 6–10 months. The city manager and staff also stressed using HOME funds and other federal sources where eligible to stretch HTF bond dollars.

Points of council discussion

Councilmembers asked about homeownership affordability terms, recycling of HTF loans, parking and the feasibility of carless developments, capacity for more homeownership units in future rounds, and how the city might speed permitting and encourage innovation (modular construction, alternative materials) to shorten delivery timelines. Multiple councilmembers and staff highlighted Brooklyn Village, a large multifamily proposal requesting $13.5 million, as a project requiring further partner convening (city, county and the developer) before final recommendation; staff proposed returning with options in June.

Votes and next steps

No formal HTF funding vote was taken April 14. Staff said the recommendations will appear on the April 28 Council Business Agenda for final action. Several procedural votes occurred later in the meeting: the mayor pro tem moved approval of the consent agenda items 11–28 (motion carried by voice/raised hands), council approved two public hearing items together, and the council later moved into a closed session under state law.

What to watch

- April 28, 2025: scheduled Council Business Agenda vote on the staff-recommended HTF awards. - Brooklyn Village: staff proposed convening city, county and developer partners to explore alternatives and return with updated options in June. - Future HTF rounds: staff said a May RFP will open for the next round with recommendations expected in September.

Ending

City staff described the April 14 presentation as the first major deployment of the expanded housing bond and emphasized the competitive demand: 25 proposals asked for roughly $80 million across categories while the bond provides $100 million overall. Councilmembers praised staff work and signaled areas for follow-up before the April 28 vote, including preservation allocation limits, Brooklyn Village partnership options, and mechanisms to accelerate homeownership and permitting outcomes.