Citizen Portal
Sign In

Charter committee asks staff to analyze funding options for affordable housing after staff outlines current tools

Leon County Charter Review Committee · January 6, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff reviewed existing funding for affordable housing, including SHIP, bonds, state funds and local sales-tax allocations; the committee approved a substitute motion asking staff to return with options for both policy recommendations and potential ballot/charter language (12–3).

Staff told the committee that Leon County uses a portfolio of funding sources to support affordable housing, including the state SHIP program, bond financing, federal grants, a local sales-tax allocation established through Blueprint and general revenue. The presentation said the county has invested about $5.8 million in direct funding and authorized roughly $195 million in bond financing to support developments that will deliver about 1,200 added affordable units in the next 12–18 months; staff also said nearly 50% of set-aside units are targeted to very-low-income households and many affordability commitments run 50 years or longer.

Committee members probed the numbers and asked how many units are truly income-restricted vs. market-rate projects that include set-aside units tied to tax credits. Staff said units that received county funding are dedicated as low-income in accordance with tax-credit and bond requirements and provided a breakdown: approximately 40% for low income (≤80% AMI), about 50% for very low income (≤60% AMI) and roughly 10% for extremely low income (≤30% AMI). Members also noted a county waiting list of roughly 3,500 residents for affordable housing assistance.

After extended discussion — including whether to pursue a charter amendment to guarantee a trust fund or to make a nonbinding policy recommendation — the committee approved a substitute motion directing staff to analyze the proposal and return with options for ballot language and other recommendations. The substitute passed by roll-call vote (12–3). The committee did not itself adopt specific ballot language; staff will prepare options and additional public hearings will follow if the committee pursues a ballot path.

Next steps identified by members include returning with an analysis of potential dedicated revenue sources, uses of a trust fund (acquisition, gap financing, down-payment assistance, land banking) and fiscal projections to inform any ballot or policy recommendation.

The substitute motion instructs staff to present both policy recommendations and potential charter or ballot language for committee consideration.