Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Community Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mooresville staff outline HOME/CDBG/ARPA options and developer playbook to advance attainable and affordable housing
Summary
Town staff summarized federal funding mechanisms (HOME, CDBG, ARPA), described limits on ARPA eligibility, and presented recommendations of the board—s Attainable Housing Working Group: a developers— playbook, CHDO partnerships, land‑bank considerations and a more structured application process for incentives and gap loans.
Town staff briefed the board on the range of federal and local tools available to support affordable and attainable housing and presented the Attainable Housing Working Group—s recommendations, including a developers— playbook, a stronger role for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) and exploration of a land bank or land‑banking practices.
Amber Boudreau (community planning staff) and other presenters explained the three main federal funding sources commonly used by municipalities: the HOME program, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding dedicated to housing. Staff warned that each source carries different eligible uses, compliance requirements and timelines.
HOME, CDBG and ARPA: purposes and limits
Staff said HOME funds are typically focused on low‑income homeowner and rental production and can be directed into gap loans, down‑payment assistance and CHDO projects. CDBG funds are a broader community development tool tied to one of three national objectives (benefit to low and moderate‑income persons, prevention/elimination of slums and blight, or urgent community development need) and are commonly used for infrastructure or public‑facility work that benefits qualifying areas. ARPA housing funds that the town holds are more restrictive: staff said ARPA allocations targeted to housing must benefit specific qualifying populations (for example people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, veterans with defined needs, or survivors of domestic violence) and therefore require narrower program designs.
Staff noted one operational deadline tied to ARPA‑HOME drawdowns and payments: several small HOME‑ARPA subgrants that the town holds must be drawn down and projects completed by a specified year; staff quoted an example drawdown total of $92,350 with a drawdown completion date the board was shown in the briefing. Commissioners asked staff to prepare program templates that match the funding restrictions, including ready‑to‑use contracts for tenant‑based rental assistance or rehabilitation programs where eligible.
Working Group recommendations and town next steps
The Attainable Housing Working Group, a cross‑section of commissioners, private and nonprofit developers and staff, recommended producing a "developers— playbook" that would document incentives, zoning tools and procedural steps for builders. The group also recommended active recruitment of a CHDO partner to manage HOME development and administration, creation of a residential development corporation or land‑bank vehicle to acquire and hold strategic parcels, and public education about tradeoffs and objectives for attainable housing.
Staff suggested immediate next steps: create a clear application and scorecard for town incentives and for use of HOME/CDBG funding, identify a CHDO partner for piloting small projects and evaluate site feasibility and environmental constraints on town‑owned parcels that were discussed by the working group. Staff also recommended procurement of a client‑management system to track income verification, compliance and grant reporting for federally funded programs.
Board members asked staff to return with a prioritized set of projects that could move quickly (for example, a gap loan for a senior rental project already seeking assistance) and a short list of town parcels that could be feasibly developed or exchanged for affordable housing.
