Housing Trust Fund Commission debriefs Round 15 awards, flags caps, underwriting and scoring changes for Round 16

The Housing Trust Fund Commission on Aug. 26 held a work session to debrief Round 15 of Barnes Fund awards and to gather public and commissioner feedback on policy changes staff may bring before the commission ahead of Round 16.

Director Hubbard told commissioners the round drew roughly $71,000,000 in funding requests and that recommended awards shifted the mix of projects: “of the recommended awards” staff reported, homeowner projects represented about 38 percent, rental about 60 percent, and owner-occupied rehab about 2 percent. Hubbard also noted Metro code requires a 20 percent set-aside for qualifying small organizations; for this round that set-aside equaled about $7.1 million but only about $3.7 million was awarded to small organizations, with the shortfall rolling into the general pot.

Why it matters: commissioners and speakers said the current rules and scoring produced unintended incentives — larger award caps encouraged applicants to request maximum grants, and bonus points designed to promote long-term affordability and other policy priorities sometimes skewed results toward specific project types such as cooperatives.

Staff review and recommendations

Hubbard summarized several staff findings and recommendations. She said the commission raised the maximum general award cap this year from $4,000,000 to $4,500,000 and the small-organization cap from $750,000 to $1,000,000; the change “limited the number of awards” and encouraged applicants to request the maximum. Staff recommended the commission revisit caps and consider implementing underwriting criteria so awards better match project feasibility and public investment goals.

On applicant readiness, Hubbard said this round was the first to require a provided sources-and-uses template but that not all applicants used it and some submitted expired or otherwise unclear funding commitments. She said audits were not required in the application and recommended requiring organizational audits as a threshold and offering workshops and technical assistance on financial-capacity requirements before the next round.

Hubbard also flagged an uneven bonus-point system that effectively overweighted some project types. “This was the first initial attempt to incorporate policy priorities from the unified housing strategy,” she said, but the result was that nearly all rental projects scored for long-term affordability (30+ years) and several deeply affordable and permanent supportive housing units were included. Staff suggested moving policy priorities into baseline evaluation criteria rather than leaving them as discretionary bonus points.

Commission and public reaction

Commissioners and public commenters offered similar, sometimes blunt, critiques. Commissioner Anton said higher caps incentivized maximum requests and urged staff to consider lower caps or other guardrails. Commissioner Taylor questioned whether cooperative housing should be categorized with homeownership because co-ops do not create individual title and therefore do not generate home-equity or HELOC opportunities.

Several public commenters urged separating funding into distinct pools. Terry Skipper, executive director of New Level CDC, suggested separating rental and homeownership pools and creating bonus points tailored for each; Terry of Westminster Home Connection proposed reserving funds for categories identified as highest need in the Unified Housing Strategy rather than leaving allocations solely to applicant interest. Andrea Prince, CEO of Rebuilding Together Nashville, warned that nonprofit preservation work benefits from year-over-year funding and that cuts to Round 15 awards imperil dozens of preservation projects: she said her group planned 85 units in the round that now will not move forward.

Eddie Latimer of Affordable Housing Resources framed the debate as a reminder of the fund’s purpose: “we were not about housing, but that we were about the people,” he said, urging policy choices that maximize the resource for lower-income and special-needs households. Developer speakers including Andy Zhu (MFX Ventures), Reed Lauer (Holiday Ventures) and Josh Hasten (LDG Development) recommended clearer scoring matrices, per-unit award considerations, and dialogue opportunities during external review to reduce subjectivity.

Process and next steps

Staff acknowledged constraints experienced by reviewers — tight review timelines and clunky grant software (SurveyMonkey Apply) — and noted that Metro Council has budgeted for improved grant-management technology. Hubbard recommended creating an application manual, separate from funding-round priorities, to codify the process, evaluation roles and the commission’s standing responsibilities.

The commission and staff agreed that the Unified Housing Strategy recommendations could not be completed in the remaining meeting time. Chair and staff said they will follow up individually with commissioners and return with more concrete materials and proposals at the commission’s next meeting in September.

Quotes that capture the meeting tone

“We raised this year, the commission voted to raise the funding cap…The outcomes and the feedback we received…incentivize grantees to ask for a maximum funding cap,” Director Hubbard said, describing the effect of higher caps.

“We were not about housing, but that we were about the people,” Eddie Latimer said, urging the commission to prioritize households over project mechanics.

“When an applicant puts in their application and you award the money, that’s the deal. You don’t amend it,” Steve Reiter said, urging clearer mission and plan milestones.

What the commission directed

No policy votes were taken at the Aug. 26 work session. Commissioners asked staff to prepare follow-up materials — including possible cap scenarios, a preliminary scoring matrix, and recommendations on audit thresholds and expenditure requirements — and to bring those items back for public discussion before Round 16. Staff committed to continuing the conversation next month.

Funding and data points mentioned

- Total funding requests: about $71,000,000 (Round 15) - Recommended award distribution (staff summary): ~38% homeowner, ~60% rental, ~2% owner-occupied rehab - Metro code small-org set-aside: 20% of available funding (≈$7.1M this round); awarded to small orgs ≈$3.7M - Award caps noted: general pool raised from $4,000,000 to $4,500,000; small-org cap from $750,000 to $1,000,000 - Affordability outcomes highlighted: roughly 91 units at 0–30% AMI and 105 permanent supportive housing units identified via bonus-point outcomes

The commission adjourned after members moved to pause the UHS presentation until more detailed policy and implementation materials are prepared for public discussion next month.