Richmond council adopts consent agenda including multiple affordable-housing performance grants after debate on terms and oversight

The Richmond City Council on Monday adopted a consent agenda that included multiple ordinances authorizing affordable-housing performance grants and related measures, after several council members questioned the length of affordability commitments, unit-size mix and long-term oversight.

Council members concerned about the structure of the performance grants urged staff to provide more information about how long units would remain affordable and how the city would monitor outcomes.

Councilmember Allison Gibson said the 30-year commitment cited in the ordinances ‘‘does seem like a very long time’’ and asked whether the term could vary by project and how the city would ensure the grants matched resident need for larger family units. ‘‘I want to make sure that whatever those residents are saving is at least matching what we are not receiving in the additional tax,’’ Gibson said.

Eric Malone, the city’s director of housing and community development, told the council the typical structure is a 15-year requirement with an additional 15-year period the city may extend at its discretion, and that the 30-year timeframe aligns with common affordable-housing financing models. ‘‘The incremental tax rebate starts only after the developer builds,’’ Malone said. He added the rebate is calculated on the incremental assessed value increase and noted a $10,000-per-unit maintenance requirement after the initial 15-year period.

Councilmember Ellen Robertson urged support for the tool as a way to produce more affordable units quickly, noting the program has helped produce about 2,700 affordable units over roughly the past two and a half years. Robertson said the city’s grant money is intended to leverage substantially larger sums of private financing and to provide gap funding.

Other council members pressed for more detail about unit sizes and income targeting. Gibson and others said they want clearer reporting on bedroom counts and AMI (area median income) levels for projects so the council can evaluate whether new units meet family-sized household needs, not just studio and one-bedroom demand.

Councilmember Stephanie Lynch raised questions about an ordinance (listed as item 33 on the agenda) that would commit $1,000,000 of city funds as local match to a $2,000,000 grant for a downtown planning study tied to the Richmond 300 master plan. Gail Johnson, director of general services, said the $3,000,000 package would hire consultants to assess highest-and-best uses, including planning for a new courthouse and a permanent transfer station, and to develop financial options. Sabrina Joyhawk, interim chief administrative officer, said the grant imposes no obligation to proceed with development after the planning work is complete.

Votes and next steps

The council adopted the consent agenda by roll-call vote. The package included multiple ordinances numbered in the transcript as: 2024-026, 2025-027, 2025-028, 2025-029, 2025-030, 2025-031, 2025-033, 2025-034, 2025-035, 2025-036, 2025-037, 2025-038, 2025-039, 2025-040, 2025-041, 2025-042, 2025-043 and resolutions 2025-R-012 and 2025-R-013. The council recorded unanimous approval of the consent agenda (aye votes from Mr. Breton, Ms. Gibson, Ms. Jones, Ms. Robertson, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Trammell, Ms. Abubakar, Vice President Jordan and President Newbill). Several items were continued to the April 28 council meeting as noted earlier on the agenda.

Administration committed to provide additional reports and documentation to the council, including project-level details and a summary of bedroom-size mix and AMI targeting for projects receiving performance grants. Councilmembers said they will continue oversight as projects move from agreement to construction.

The council also debated a separate resolution expressing concurrence with a Henrico County economic development authority inducement for revenue bonds to benefit Bon Secours Mercy Health; staff described the item as part of a larger bond issuance and indicated they were not aware of any planned service reductions at Richmond Community Hospital.