Dallas Housing Opportunity Fund reports $42M raised, 940 units supported and path to 1,500-unit goal

Kevin Spath, director of the Office of Economic Development, opened the committee’s annual briefing on the Dallas Housing Opportunity Fund, an effort seeded by a $6 million city recoverable grant. Brian Maddox of LISC Fund Management and fund staff described the fund’s structure, the projects it has financed and the criteria used to select deals.

LISC Fund Management reported that the DHOF has raised $42,000,000 in capital and closed 10 loans across nine projects, deploying about $40,000,000 in subordinate financing to support roughly $245,000,000 of total development cost. "We're excited to share with you some of the information over the last 12 months that, has developed with the fund," Brian Maddox said during the presentation.

Presenters said the fund launched in 2022 with $6,000,000 in seed capital from the city, and that the fund’s goal is to create or preserve 1,500 affordable units by 2031. Under the city agreement, affordability is measured such that 50% of units be at or below 120% of area median income (AMI); as a fund-level requirement driven by investors, LISC’s operating assumption targets 51% of units at or below 80% AMI.

Ben Gillespie and other fund staff described the nine financed projects in varying stages of stabilization and preservation. Examples cited included Kiva East (an East Dallas development, a subordinate loan of roughly $3,000,000; reported as stabilized and ~97% occupied), Oak Lawn Place (a senior development targeted to the LGBTQ community, a $5,400,000 loan and fully occupied), Roland Chateau with Metro Care (54 units with half set aside for supportive housing), Jopoor Lofts (71 units, fully occupied after completion), Armonia (a 15‑unit project expected to finish construction this month) and The Colbert (a 364‑unit mixed-finance senior project currently under construction).

Fund staff described eligibility and scoring: every deal must include an affordability component (minimum 15 years deed restriction) and projects gain extra points for services (senior services, supportive housing, refugee supports), geographic dispersion and deeper affordability. The presenters said six of the nine funded deals are located north of I‑30 to demonstrate geographic diversity across Dallas.

On performance and the city’s recoverable grant, presenters reiterated the forgiveness metric built into the grant: a stated $400,000 of forgiveness for every 100 completed affordable units produced. "As of 12/31/2024, we were able to receive $1,200,000 of forgivable grant dollars," a presenter said and later stated total forgiveness received to date of $1,600,000 as more units completed.

Committee members asked several follow‑up questions. Chairman West asked whether the fund’s "high opportunity" map aligns with a HUD definition; staff said they align with how the city defines high‑opportunity census tracts and that a public map is available for applicants to confirm eligibility. Vice Chair Ridley and others pressed for detail on investor structures; fund staff explained that banks may invest either as debt (repaid first) or as preferred equity (paid after debt in the waterfall) and that the fund provides monthly construction oversight and annual asset‑management reporting after stabilization.

Members also sought outcome metrics beyond unit counts—questions about whether the fund prevents homelessness or how long households remain housed. Fund representatives said the fund measures success at the fund level by capital raised, units produced and investor repayment; they acknowledged that city‑level outcome metrics (homelessness avoidance, tenant mobility) are harder to capture and would require collaboration with city partners to gather.

Committee members asked for a follow‑up with more granular AMI breakouts (for example, the number of units at 30–60% AMI and the share of permanent supportive housing). Staff agreed to provide that information to the housing and homelessness committee and to Kevin Spath’s office.

The presentation was informational only; staff clarified the update did not move to full council for action.

Next steps: staff will provide requested affordability breakouts and additional data on supportive housing and outcome metrics; no formal action was taken at the committee meeting.