And I have uh a couple of just uh housekeeping matters. Council member Silver is absent and excused. Mayor Pro Tim Harrison is absent and excused. and we will have a joint meeting with the Wake County Board of Commissioners on February 17th at 6 PM at the Wake Justice Center and we will be discussing housing. So, uh, and we will put public announcements, but this is, uh, one way to get the word out on that meeting and, um, obviously public, uh, can attend. So, all right. Uh, and then we're going to talk about housing today as well. So, we have Emily Sutton here from housing and community development and then Evan, assistant city manager Evan Raleigh will be uh chairing. And I will say we have uh if we don't get to the second item because we have so much to talk about on housing. We can discuss that on Tuesday because we have a our next council meeting if we need to. So, everybody feel free to have plenty of discussion. Welcome. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. Emily Sutton, uh, director of housing and community development for the city. Um, I'm here today to talk to you all about a number of different housing tools, and we are going to frame them within our key housing goals. So, each one of these housing tools that we're going to discuss with you fall into one of these three categories. Um, some of which fall into two. But the Raleigh's key housing goals are to increase affordable housing supply, improve overall housing affordability, and end and prevent homelessness. This is our agenda. Um we are going to um some of these are are very short, some of these are a few minutes. Um and then we're we're going to go over each one of these tools and then we're going to tie it back to our bond recommendations. So you all heard at your retreat what our bond recommendations are and this will really help flesh out the activities behind those recommendations. Um I would ask too if we could save questions um after each um agenda item that would help us get through efficiently. Um so and you know to really just remind us to and ground us in in a in a policy that deeply impacts the work we do um is the our missing middle policy. So you all have heard this before but only 8% of units produced in Raleigh in the last seven years are legally binding affordable housing. Um so to meet demand we really have to be intentional about producing housing of all types. In order for the market to be abundant, accessible and attainable, we have to have the market uh meet demand. And so part of this is developing by right and the other is known as missing middle. So prior to 2021, about twothirds of Raleigh was zoned as single family. And that means what was missing was housing types between single family and larger to mid high-rise apartments known as the missing middle. And this includes duplexes, triplexes, town homes, small apartments. So, prior to summer of two 2021, these housing types were prohibited in many neighborhoods. And so, then in 21 and 22, Raleigh passed changes to its unified development ordinance um to to change this. And so these changes again allow for smaller homes on smaller lots which provides a wider array of housing, allows for more housing options in residential neighborhoods and increases housing supply for existing and future residents, especially near those um highfrequency transit areas to include the bus rabbit transit corridors. This is just a visual of the progress that has occurred since those changes have been made. You can see all of the missing middle projects either approved or in review on this map uh by council district and market data is really showing the impact of this missing middle uh change. So they focus on housing type the change focuses on housing types and it contributes directly to new unit growth. And so we can look at uh and and benchmark other cities and the way that their rents rise or fall and we can see that where more housing was built, rents stabilized or actually decreased. And this is not to say that housing is becoming affordable in particular to those who are earning in that lower income bracket. However, it is showing that it has a a really uh very large impact on the way in which our uh rents are calculated. So either uh lowering or or raising. And you can see here that we are actually seeing our rents fall. And this is directly because of this um missing middle change and the more housing types that are allowed. Also just want to point to how these changes impact rates of homelessness. We know that homelessness rates decrease where there are more housing units and types available. This is really well explained in uh Greg Colburn's book homelessness is a housing problem where he points out that u this very fact. So where municipalities have more flexibility in zoning and are and can build more housing types and more housing in general, you have homelessness rates that are lower. He really uh pinpoints this in talking about how homelessness rates are impacted in looking at things like substance misuse and uh uh mental mental illness. So, you know, typically there's a lot of mythology around substance use and mental illness being the drivers of homelessness. But if you look at communities that have, for example, higher rates of substance misuse or higher rates of mental illness, you do not see it correlating at all to homelessness rates. So you see communities where they have very high substance misuse and very high mental illness rates and their homelessness rates are actually lower because their housing market is softer because they have lower rents, they have higher vacancy and they have more housing types. Do you all have any questions there before we go into our >> Thank you so much. How are Raleigh's homeless homelessness rates since the theory that you just mentioned is that the if we have lower it will lower our homelessness rates and since we have lower um rents are we seeing the same correlation in Raleigh? >> Yeah, I mean the the missing middle changes happen in 2021. I think you would need to definitely look at uh um over time and you need to benchmark against other communities. So you would really have to pull out sort of housing production and lay it against homelessness rates which is something we can do. But we just haven't done that. But it's a really good question. >> And how o when you say over a certain amount of time, what is your number? Is it 10 years? Is it 15? What what is that number? >> You know, I don't know the answer to that. I think I think what we could do though is we could look at that, right? So we could benchmark sort of homelessness rates and and and and Greg Coburn does this in his book really where he looks at homelessness rates compared to housing production and that's how he shows that correlation. Um we can do that for Raleigh. I would imagine that it would take um I don't you know developments can take anywhere from two to five years. So I would say [snorts] five years would probably be a good time to look at the impact of missing middle on Yeah, we're here. >> Five years. That's great. And I I mean I love the theory and I especially if we can be used as that test case to show that it is working. I think we should be able to reflect that for the public to hopefully get them a little bit more buy in um if they are on the fence. But thank you. >> Yeah, we can do that. So, our first agenda item is to talk about anti-displacement tools. Um, we've had several members of council and the mayor um point us in the direction of looking at anti-displacement tools and anti-displacement plans. Um, it's important to uh make sure that we are on the same page as far as defining what this is. So, displacement can mean many different things to different people. Um, and it's displacement as defined by Boston University's um initiative on cities. and is defined here as the involuntary relocation of residents due to direct or indirect pressure from rising housing costs, landlord pressure, harassment, or changing neighborhood um composition from gentrification. And so because uh displacement can show up in different ways, anti-displacement is best understood as not a single policy but a set of coordinated strategies. So in Raleigh, those strategies fall into these four core categories and that is supply and choice, preservation, targeted investment, and stability and prevention. And you'll see as we go through that's really where other communities also really and how they categorize their work. So um we were able to uh produce this uh housing vulnerability index and I just want to shout out the um pathways to public service program. We had a Pathways to Public Service fellow Sarah Weber who did this incredible work for us when she was with us where she took American Community Survey data and HUD data which are standard sources as you all know. Um and it really looks at uh income cost burden, housing problems, age, disability, public assistance and group census tracks according to high, moderate and low vulnerability categories. So this index is really intended to serve as a planning and coordination tool providing us context um and to support our internal discussions and alignment on housing and stability investments. Emily, I do have one question. Do you factor in the NCOD that the neighborhood conservation overlays as part of your vulnerability assessment? >> I don't believe so. This is primarily just coming from American Community Survey data and HUD data. That is something that we could incorporate. >> And I guess, you know, one person made the observation that those NCOD overlays were largely put on white communities and then that kind of created the the flood of right. So now that those communities are protected, it really drove a lot of redevelopment towards communities of color. And so I wonder if it's worth factoring in how that might impact here or, you know, or if that's a true statement. >> Yeah, I think that's a really great point and something we can we can incorporate and take a look at. Thank you. So, um, grounding the work, grounding the conversation in the work that's already happening, staff has met with city of Boston staff as well as we had a conversation with Louisville facilitated by council member Branch and then also with Denton, Texas whom um, council member Silver has worked closely with on their anti-displacement work and the mayor um, is actually the person who pointed us towards Boston. So, we really examine these existing uh policies um and programs and um this really helped us identify many anti-displacement strategies and and really learn that a lot of these strategies that are existing in our our other peer cities um are are already happening in Raleigh. And so, part of this presentation is really going to put together information for you all on what we're already doing and how we can build [clears throat] upon what we're already doing. and then um you know open to you know discussion about what additional strategies we could potentially employ. [snorts] So um referencing the strategies stated while um defining displacement these are the four categories that reflect again how RI already approaches anti-displacement in practice. So, we have intentionally embedded these anti-displacement strategies across our housing tools and investments and really guided by our key housing goals and our affordable housing plan. And so, the following slides will walk you through each of these areas in more detail with more concrete examples of what the city is doing. So, we'll look at housing uh supply and choice first. So, increasing housing supply uh and housing choice is Raleigh's primaril primary anti-displacement strategy. So, our affordable housing plan explicitly recognizes that limited supply concentrates demand in historically affordable neighborhoods, accelerating displacement pressure. And to address this, the city has expanded incomerestricted affordable housing citywide and adopted zoning reforms to allow for more housing types, including what we talked about um at the start of this presentation, which is over 2,000 units and missing middle housing. Um and we also prioritize rental affordability near transit, jobs, and everyday amenities. Um, a really powerful example of this is the city's enhanced home buyer assistance program, which targets areas along the future bus rapid transit corridor. And by investing in these home ownership opportunities in these growing, well-connected areas, we are helping residents build their long-term stability and ensuring that new public investment creates inclusive growth. Next, we're going to take a look at preservation. So preserving existing affordable housing is one of the most effective ways to prevent displacement because it protects affordability where residents already live. The city has made preservation a core strategy through sustained investment and regional partnership. And a key example of this is the Wake affordable housing preservation fund. So this fund um the city helped establish in 2022 in partnership with the county local financial um institutions as well as nonprofit lenders. And this fund is designed to help nonprofit and mission aligned developers acquire, rehabilitate, and preserve existing affordable multif family housing before it's lost to market pressures. Great examples of this would be um Groner Gardens and Builtmore Hills um that was funded through this um fund for through this preservation fund and was able to preserve affordability in 108 units. Um, so this tool allows the city to act proactively in a very competitive housing market and protect long-term affordability across the county. Um, so next we are going to talk a little bit about targeted investments. So Raleigh also aligns public investment with areas experiencing growth or major public construction. So communities can benefit from investment rather than than be displaced. And this includes intentional use of city funds and federal entitlement dollars to align with adopted plans and stabilized neighborhoods before displacement occurs. The city prioritizes also um land acquisition along these transit corridors. This strategy has been used along the bus rapid transit corridor helping position affordable housing near transit access jobs and amenities. We also have the um public project community support fund which was launched in um fiscal year 2023 and it's a $ 1.5 million cross departmental investment to mitigate short-term construction impacts and long-term development pressure. So the PPCSF resources support small businesses, neighborhood programming, and direct resident support specifically in Southeast Raleigh. And that includes things like estate planning, financial education, foreclosure prevention, home ownership improvements, um homeowner improvements, and helping stabilize communities during those periods of change. Going to talk a little bit about well, I'll also mention too that our ground lease model. So, the way that the city ground leases is also another way to support that uh long-term and maintain affordability in communities. So we have examples of where the city owns property and then it will be redeveloped but the city maintains that lease on the land so that we can then also make sure that public use and affordability continues. So in the stability and prevention category um the city supports eviction prevention and you all heard about this last week when Campbell came to present to you um that is the primary partnership with the city is through the housing justice project to prevent evictions. I'll also mention that since 2024, the city has invested over a million dollars in homelessness prevention and diversion efforts. So this is really upstream a lot of times from eviction and preventing eviction because it mainly covers arars. So covers utility arars, rental arars and so far with that work we have seen 167 households received homelessness prevention services and 128 households have been served with diversion. So, um, and [clears throat] that's a total of almost 300 residents who have been supported with that work. So, the city also supports housing stability of existing homeowners through our rehabilitation and repair programs, which helps um, lowincome home homeowners who are seniors or have disabilities address critical repairs, helping them remain safely housed um, and avoid displacement due to deteriorating housing conditions. So now we're going to take a little bit of a closer look and just snapshot some of these communities. Again, Council Member Branch facilitated a really fantastic conversation with Louisville, Kentucky to learn more about their anti-displacement ordinance. So they actually have an ordinance in Louisville that was passed in 2023. Um, Council Member Branch can probably talk a lot more expertly about this. Um, and in f in fall 2024, the council approved an actual tool developed by Boston University to help them implement this ordinance. So, we really looked at how this could be transferable to the city of Raleigh and also we looked at for these communities, what is the policy impact of these decisions. So when we're looking at Louisville and and I would say across the board really it's almost too early to see the the real policy and and impact of these because they're all in that either um they just implemented or they're starting to implement um kind of phases. So they were all really excited also to talk to us to say hey if you all have any tools or ideas we really want you all to keep in touch and they are going to keep in touch with us and let us know um about their progress too. But there is a difference um in the the legal risk for Louisville and North Carolina. As you all know, um in North Carolina, municipalities cannot compel affordable units for projects receiving city subsidy, whereas in Louisville, that is something they're allowed to do. So they that's exactly what they do, too. So they look at city- funded projects in those vulnerable areas and then compel additional affordability from those units. So um we do have legal limitations. If you have questions about that, I'm sure CEO would be happy to answer those. And then again, you know, we're not quite sure yet to see the um policy outcomes of those, but we will, I think, in the next year or two for sure. And if you look at Boston, so in spring 2025, we met with the city of Boston leadership involved with their anti-displacement plan. Um they released their final plan just this past July. Um and that at that point they moved into implementation. So again, they're new. They just started this in July 2025. Um they have an official progress report that is due in the summer of 2026 to measure their progress. Uh but no data is yet available to really look at outcomes. Uh they did publish a progress report that demonstrates the efficacy of their existing anti-displacement strategy. So sort of everything that we're talking about here, the city is already doing. Boston put those all together in a report to just say how uh effective that these existing tools already are. So things like home repair assistance, um efforts to keep homeowners in their homes, um and also down payment assistance for homeowners. So several of the things of the tools that are in our toolbox are things that they pulled out in this report to show how effective those existing tools are. They did add some resources to this and again we are going to look um and make sure that we uh you know see their report and really understand what the policy impacts um have been from this. So we talked with Southeast Denton again we were connected um to folks through council member Silver who uh worked alongside them to um help design this anti-displacement strategy that Denton has. Texas has a statewide framework for anti-displacement which is really interesting and so South Denton actually um took that uh state level framework and focused on a particular marginalized area of Denton. So that would be southeast Denton for them. Um and they again they sort of put together all the existing tools and how they could target and better focus tools to be um anti- to to do anti-displacement work in this particular area of their city. So their plan focuses on things like increasing capital to the area through a consortium of banks for mortgage lending for example. They also talk about making sure that um schools are neighborhood schools. That was really important to them. And then they also talk about homeowner assistance, um, down payment assistance, things like that to help keep folks stable in their homes. And again, they were one of the communities that were really open to keeping in touch to say, um, we want to hear how you all are doing. They have a a website that that provides all of their plan and then also kind of u tracks their outcomes, the the percent that they are completed. So if you're interested in that, suggest going to look at that. It's it's pretty helpful. But you can see that again they're they are in that new sort of phase. So based off of staff research and peer city review, we identified several tools that may be worth further exploration if the city decides to pursue a more formal anti-displacement planning effort in the future. And these include um improved displacement risk identification and monitoring. [clears throat] Um, so we would really use that vulnerability index tool to help us focus our work, continued coordination around eviction prevention and our stability partnerships and also streamlining access to housing resources. Another area that we've talked about is referralbased um, housing for folks who are at risk or who are displaced. So I don't know if you all talked about this a couple of retreats ago. Um, I actually think it was my first retreat where this could be a mechanism. So, for example, our rental development NOA right now, it allows for a set aside for uh referrals of city for city approved um housing programs. So, we could utilize that for example for folks who are involuntarily displaced to provide that referral source. Um so, again, all of these are really presented asformational and exploratory just really building on the tools um that the city already uses. So, our key takeaways here is that Raleigh is already doing a lot of this work. It's just a matter of, you know, pulling that out and really talking about it in this framework. Um, these efforts align with our affordable housing plan and focus on those three key goal areas of affordability, stability, and supply. And any future consideration of anti-displacement plan or additional tools would build on this foundation and be guided by council direction. So, I'll pause there for any questions. >> Just one question. I know some years ago the city used to have a list of all landlords and that ability went away. Is there a way maybe we could create a voluntary list in which landlords can register and keep track? And I think this is a way for us to kind of keep a track of our especially our naturally occurring affordable housing. Is there is that a tool that we could possibly implement and and have again it's voluntary so that'll take away any need for any state registration regulations I would hope. >> So sort of serving as like an inventory or a like an inventory. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think, yeah, as long as it it, you know, um, aligns with, you know, legal parameters, I don't Yeah, I think that could be a helpful tool. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And thank you for incorporating what we talked about last week, which was the the number of evictions and they're happening so much. I know a question that I asked there was the monitoring and we we learned that there is no monitoring of it. So, I'm really encouraged to to understand that maybe we can help in that at least for the city of Raleigh because I know that was Wake County completely. Um, but uh but I I second councelor Branch's I think that's a great way to help us keep our thumb on the heartbeat of what's happening. >> Yeah. Hi. Um, how how is the bringing neighbors home program going? you. So, I'm gonna touch on that a little bit in our um presentation. I'm happy to skip ahead if you want, but it is on our list. >> Okay, that's totally fine. That maybe this is also on your list then too. I was curious like about the home uh home buyer assistance and the the home repair programs. I think they have like a high administrative burden. So, I am curious like how much bang for a buck we're getting out of some of those programs. Maybe those are later in your presentation too. >> Yeah. No. Um we can absolutely provide you with the latest numbers there. It is I would say a high administrative burden. However, um for our rehab program, it really is a limitation with the contractors and the availability of folks to to do that work. Um I don't know if you all have numbers off hand for home ownership or >> I think we did over 80 loans last. >> Okay. So over 80 loans for down payment assistance last fiscal year for home ownership. Okay. >> Any other? >> Sorry, one more. Um, the preservation fund, we keep referring back to Groveser Gardens. Is that the only use of the fund thus far? >> Builtmore Hills was the other city use. There are several other projects that that fund has um supported. Just those are the ones that the city of Raleigh um had funding in. I have that written down actually. Um, can you think of that off the top of your head? >> Um, no, but we can follow >> Okay, we can follow up. Yeah, it's actually in my notes. I just didn't get that far in the weeds, but yeah, we can we can let you know all of the different projects and the funding that has been provided to support preservation across the county. Those were just the two that the city had funding in specifically. Any other? Okay, thanks. So, we're going to talk a little bit about affordable housing location policy. We touched on this retreat before last and we're just going to sort of do a reminder, a recap and then also um just go a little bit more into detail. We did a pretty high level review prior. So just to review, you have seen this before. Our land is expensive and since land cost doesn't count towards calculating the amount of the low-income housing tax credit equity which is the main driver of affordable rental housing development that we have in this country um it it the expense ends up driving up the overall cost of the project. So that is a a big factor in these projects. So uh low-income housing tax credit location is driven primarily again by land costs and also by site suitability. But as we have talked about also those qualified census tracks are what drive um where affordable housing is located under that program and also um the the overall qualified allocation plan. So for um [clears throat] QCTs they they actually are able to access a higher credit allocation for easier financing which then reinforces that concentration of affordable units in certain areas. So, as far as how um housing gets cited with city funds, review of applications for city funding takes into account the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency who oversees the low-income housing tax credit program. It takes into account NCHFA site score as many of the sight scoring factors overlap. So for example, both NCHFA and the city prioritize accessible and frequent transportation near amenities such as grocery stores, health care,armacies, employment centers, etc. And so the city's affordable housing location policy is a threshold requirement for projects to receive city funding. Um, and so in addition to that low-income housing tax credit criteria, the city will look at project location. So there's sort of like two different pieces that are looking at location. So policy updates to the affordable housing location plan can help address concentration and open new areas and resourcerich neighborhoods as you all have talked about prior, but those trade-offs are unavoidable. So for example, it would really be a higher cost per unit because that land cost is so much higher and that would mean reducing total production. So you would just have to consider um those those things against that policy decision. There's also the factor that limited land can slow development and frequent changes to policies can also increase risk for developers. So just some some things to keep in mind. The bottom line is that cost and feasibility are what drive location. And while policy and qualified census track incentives guide development, there are still those tradeoffs to consider. So, the city's affordable housing location policy is an important guiding policy when considering citing and funding affordable housing developments. It was adopted in 2015 to really help guide the development towards those resourcerich neighborhoods um that we often refer to as areas of opportunity. Um it applies to multifamily rental developments funded wholly or partially by the city with 24 or more units. And so this policy includes mapped areas of opportunity and exceptions. And we have a map that we'll show you all. Um, but there are exception areas as well as defined areas of opportunity. This map was last updated in 2023 and it was done so as a part of the comprehensive plan amendment. Um, so there are things taken into consideration such as poverty rates, percentage of subsidized housing, demographic data. Those are the things that are that are considered um in the policy. So policy updates again can help address the concentration and there are just a few trade-offs as we've talked about to consider and keep in mind. [snorts] Pause for questions there questions. Okay. Okay. Now we're getting really into an exciting part. Um mixed income public development model. So, we we referred to this at the retreat because we are recommending a capital onetime capitalization of a mixed income public development model. So, we're just going to talk a little bit more about it and I'll say that Ken Bowers is here um who is really the the deep dive expert in this in this. So, if you have those sort of in the weeds um I will call on Ken as a phone of friend. Um so the mixed income public development model is a tool for financing exactly what it says which is mixed income apartment buildings under public ownership. So the core component is this revolving loan fund and it's seated through public borrowing and then such as bond issuance and it becomes self- sustaining which is the revolving part as loans are made and repaid back into the fund. And in most cases where the model has been implemented, a public housing authority serves as the developer and owner of the project. This model produces developments where about a third of the units are set aside as affordable and the rest are market rate. And this allows for the project to be internally cross subsidized. So it also uh it allows for the the higher rate higher rent units to subsidize the the affordable units and also meets the policy goals that we know are very important around creating mixed income housing opportunities. So here are just the the three components to the model. So the central feature of the model again is this revolving loan fund which lends out money to fund development at a lower cost and then uh funds the development pro projects during construction. So it's so it's during that construction phase and once the project is fully leased and stabilized that's when the private debt comes in to pay off that public loan. So that's where you're going to see that return come in and the public dollars will then get recycled back into the revolving loan fund and conceded another project. Um so in addition to the revolving loan fund, there are two other core components to the program which are having a public housing authority own the project. Um they have uh the authority to own this type of project which the city does not and it can and they can also provide um that access to property tax relief which makes the project able to pencil. So unlike most tax credit projects, the developer in this model does not remain in the deal as a property owner. Um they are simply working for a fee um and with no ownership stake. So it is a fully public um public ownership model. [snorts] And here are some typical roles and responsibilities. You have the local governments that are using our their bonding capacity to help establish the loan fund. The housing agency or subsidiary thereof will partner with developers, owns and manages the finished projects. And then there's also a governance structure that sits over that to prioritize projects, approve loans, and also direct funds. >> Just one question there because the uh Riley Housing Authority also got bonding capacity last year, right? So is it I'm assuming it's still more advantageous for the city in terms of rates, but is there do some housing authorities use their bonding capacity? >> They do. I'll give you an example of that. Yes, that's a great question. And I'm not I you know I won't speak for RHA. They are here though if you have any questions for them. Um so in a market rate development investors take on an equity stake in the project meaning that they are part of that ownership structure. And in a mixed income model as we've said the public entity owns the entire project and the revolving loan fund replaces that role of private equity as a source of financing and this lowers the financing cost um and requires less equity from the public entity. So, the ability to move a project forward is no longer dependent on raising money from equity partners. Um, which helps make it less sensitive to the business cycle. Sorry, I did not have the right side up for that. Um, so here are some examples. So, going back to your question, Mayor, um, here is how other communities have capitalized. So, in Montgomery County, Maryland, the county actually um developed this housing opportunity commission which acts as a public housing authority. And um they they have a different it's an interesting model. They have a different level of authority to even um do the work that they do. So, it's it's slightly different, but they had uh that housing opportunity commission. It is bonds that they issued that actually capitalized the fund at 50 million. It later then increased to a hundred million. In Atlanta, they um have a $38 million capitalization through bond issuance. And then [snorts] in Chattanooga, um they were able to move some funds around and leverage some ARPA funds in order to capitalize at 20 million um with city council appropriation. Chicago also had a bond issuance and theirs is capitalized at 135 million. So, we're going to walk through just a couple of examples really quickly. Um, so to show you sort of what it can spur and how this uh model can really work in the community. So, this is an example of a project in Montgomery County of a stalled um project that a private u market rate project that did that was stalled and didn't have the financing in order to move forward. And so, this housing opportunity commission was able to come in and offer um p the part of the revolving loan fund to move it forward, but then again that replaces the ownership. So it means it's completely publicly owned. Um the private uh the original uh private developer there is actually the one who's on site doing the day-to-day management of the property. Uh and you can see here that it was funded without low-income housing tax credit or long-term county funding. 25% of the units in the building are affordable to households making 50% AMI, area median income and 5% are affordable to making 70% of area median income with the remaining units um paying market rate. And again, because the units produced through this process are publicly owned, they're going to remain affordable into perpetuity. So, they are perpetually affordable. Here's the example from Atlanta that has been really um cool to follow along with. We've talked to these folks. Um we've talked to a lot of folks who are doing this, but um these in particular have a really fascinating model of where they're building a high-rise along with a fire station. So they um released this RFP last year and they are just really moving quickly. I mean they they seated their they capitalized their uh fund and they really moved very quickly towards uh putting out an RFP. So they have expected completion in 2028. It will have almost a 20,000 ft² fire station, 231 units. 30% of those will be affordable. And then as well as a 224 space um podium parking deck. So, just to sort of give an example of how this compares to our existing tools, um this is not at all to say one of these tools is better than the other per se, but it really is to just show how this could be an additional tool in our housing toolbox to create again that permanent and perpetual affordability and a percentage of units in a pro in a project. Um, so while we have tax credits that provide that 30% equity tax exemption really underwrites the affordability and helps generate that net income in a mixed income model. Um, we also, as we've talked about, location and project design are really dictated by the statewide qualified allocation plan and the federal qualified um, census tracks and that's not the case. Right? So you could have more opportunities to build mixed income housing in those higher opportunity areas. Um and it also can utilize denser construction types because it doesn't require that four to five acres that low-income housing tax credits require. [snorts] There is a trade-off because you know you have 100% affordable and lit projects versus we um you know are are advancing a policy priority of mixed income um projects which we know are very important to people's overall health and wellness and then uh but it will be a mix of affordable units with market rate. Um, the our GAP financing, as you all know, also requires that ongoing year-over-year expenditure to provide the GAP financing out of the bond for those 4% projects. Whereas, this revolving loan fund just requires that one-time capitalization. And then we're going to see that return come in and be able to provide funding for other projects. So, just going a little more into the cost, benefits, and risk comparison. um looking at so a million dollars of city investment can produce uh between 10 and 60 units between for the LITC program and again that depends on the construction type um new b new build versus rehab and then on the other hand 1 million in the investment and the mixed income model which would enter a project as construction financing rather than permanent debt uh like city funding does in a lit deal would produce about 10 units but here's the difference unlike gap financing money that $1 million dollar will again be recycled back into the city plus interest. And this net income may end up and will end up cross-subsidizing the affordable units within um one deal or it will go back into the revolving low fund to provide another 10 units after 5 to seven years. So you can kind of see um you know one produces more units in the short term but this produces more units over a long term as as funds are recycled and it also provides for that perpetual affordability whereas the 4% low-income housing tax credit has an affordability period that can expire. So the potential project pipeline um really these three categories here. So, it can be utilized sort of how McGomery County model and that example showed where stalled private projects. Um, it can also be utilized for publiclyowned land. An example of that would be Heritage Park. Um, we could also look at unfunded um low-inccome housing tax credit projects. So, there are unfunded low-income housing tax credit projects such as the one mentioned here. um you know could help push that along and make sure that we are providing um those projects to move forward and provide affordability. So um really these again those are the three kind of ways that it can help uh move projects forward. So there are some legal and financial feasibility considerations. As we've talked about housing authorities have that explicit authority to own and operate mixed income projects. Um tax relief requires that full public ownership. So no private equity is permitted in order to have that. And then um we've had some market test proformas show projects generating positive cash flow um which would enable growth of the revolving loan loan fund. So we've kind of seen examples of this um with the consultants that we've been working with to show that um the positive cash flow is something that that would happen with these projects. So for sizing, um, typically the the funds remain in the projects for three to five years before they come back for repayment. A $20 million fund could fund either one larger project or two smaller projects. Um, if the county wanted to participate in this, it would of course expand the fund size, but you would also have to think about that if the county joined, there would be projects that they would want to fund that would be outside of the city of Raleigh. So, those are just things to consider. There's also really uh great potential for philanthropic participation and opportunity to really further increase capacity and reach of the loan fund. Okay, I'll pause for questions here. So, >> yep. >> With the county revolving, if we did like the revolving fund, could we not put parameters on it that it would just be participation for Wake County and the city of Raleigh within the city limits if we partnered with the fund and then certainly they could fund their own stuff if they wanted to. >> Yes, we've talked about that too. Sort of how we would build that governance structure um so that city funds go into city projects, county funds go into county projects. Great point. Thank you. Councelor Lambert, >> can you just in like one quick sound bite help me understand the difference between this type of fund and then the LITC projects? >> Um, one sentence. >> Well, there one sentence. I'm just trying to figure out how I can succinctly explain it. >> Ken, do you want to take that one? Can you do one sentence? >> Okay. So, [laughter] so you know, um, with with tax credits, the equity investors are buying tax credits and they're getting paid back over a period of time by claiming the credits against their tax liabilities and also claiming depreciation on the on the development, which they own the majority share of. And the city money that goes in it is soft money and very little of it ever gets paid back. So it's sort of an ongoing expenditure. The revolving loan fund once it's set up lends into a project at construction phase and then when the project is stable is leased stabilized and producing income it gets converted to private debt which is then covered by the rent roll on the building and you can lend the money out. So it's a it's a substantially different model. I'd say that the the they're compleiments, you know, because one type of project is well um you know could be well positioned to to compete well for LITC funding and has reasonable cost in terms of the gap money that the city has to put in it. But when you get into more urban scale projects, particularly those with structured parking, that becomes very, very costly as we've seen with certain urban projects where the gap could be 70, 80, $100,000 per unit because of the higher construction costs. This model works to finance those things. that project in the laurate um that was shown the first one that was done in Montgomery County which was featured in a New York Times article as a interesting model is a high amenity mixed in you know high amenity mid-rise building that is indistinguishable from any other market rate building in that in that area which of course is a fairly high income part of the country and so uh it allows you to do projects of a type that would be difficult to impossible to finance with tax credits. Does it does that get at the question you were answering? >> Yeah, I don't um I won't be able to probably articulate that back to anybody who [laughter] asked me very well, but I have a better understanding of it. In particular, it seems like we'll be able to fund if we approve this type of revolving fund more of these denser developments in our cores where a lot of folks do want to live. I remember going to Durham when we did that council retreat and saw the challenges they had there with developing their mixed income um project by the bus station because of the parking and then wanting to do some retail. Um, and I would also just add that when you first the first slide came up, my mind immediately went to the rust bus stalled private development. Um, and I don't know if it'll ever time, but that would be something I would really love to pursue because if we were able to contribute with this revolving fund, we'd be able to kick off a project that's sitting empty, actually put some affordability in it when we actually had to adjust their zoning conditions to take the affordability requirement out so they could try to get funding. and it would be right on transit, new build right by retail. And so I don't know if timing will sync up, but that would be a fantastic I think probably my number one choice for the revolving fund if we could make it happen. >> Yeah, I just that we we did look at that and it is possible. The the note of caution is that's a big expensive high-rise project and so the size of the loan that would go into it is quite large. Um Atlanta has done it. Atlanta um you know u they they have and I think it's it's worth continuing to explore that as an option um so >> thanks for >> yeah so see not to this benefit might not stretch all the way but like lit is is like a Honda Civic like she's like an old reliable girl she's predictable you know how to use it well serviced universally. But then sometimes you need a pickup truck or a minivan and >> don't say it's a Tesla. >> I [laughter] I wouldn't dare. Sometimes you need a pickup truck or a minivan to do like a different job. And so LITC like another constraint of LITC is that that you have to average at 60% AMI. So you don't really create a full mix of incomes and you max out at 80% AMI, right? So this >> accomplishes a different goal which is that truly mix of incomes. Is that >> great description? >> Y >> and then so then an actual question I have is um [sighs] so we seed the money, the city seeds the money but the housing authority owns the property. >> So we're giving the like like who is the loan holder? Like we are loaning the money to the housing authority and then as it's paid back like half a million dollars a month or whatever for the five three to five years the money who's the money loan to who's paying it back and to whom? >> Ken do you want to take that one too? So it's a construction loan. So it comes in at the construction phase. So that and the and the housing authority acts as the developer and the owner. I mean there could Yeah. So, we're loaning the money to the housing authority and then the housing authority is paying us back or >> Yeah. >> So, you know, when we do a typical housing bond for gap financing, we borrow money to create this pool and we lend it out and it's soft money, so relatively little of it gets put back and we use general fund revenues to pay the debt service. On this case, you're you're capitalizing the loan fund. It'll the loans will be actually made by the housing authority, but there is a there is a a governance structure committee that involves representation from the city and the housing authority and the county they were to participate that reviews, prioritizes, and approves loans before they can be made. But if we're essentially using our bonding authority to create a a pot of money that will then be lend out by the housing authority to lend into projects. The key to the revolving loan fund is that when you build a building and you go to a bank to borrow money for that construction, they're only going to lend you 60 to 70% of the value of the project. And they're going to expect some more the rest of the money to come from somewhere else. In a private project, that somewhere else is equity investors. You raise a bunch of money from equity investors and the developer puts in some equity themselves. Um, but those equity investors are expecting 15 20% return on their money. The revolving loan fund is going to be lent out at a more modest interest rate of say 5%. That loan is going to end 5%. That 5% can come back to service the debt on the bonds that the city issued. So in the Montgomery County model, even though they have hund00 million of bond debt outstanding, the actual debt service payments on that are are much much lower would be enough to only say service say 15 or $20 million of debt because they're actually earning interest on the loans that are out. Now, if you don't loan out 100% of the money, you won't get 5% return. But if you loan out the bulk of it, the 5% that you were earning on your revolving loan fund, construction loan, is not that dissimilar to what the city could borrow in the bond markets today. I'm sure it may be a little higher than five. If finance were here, they could know the answer to that question, but there's not a big spread between the interest that you're earning on the loan and the money that and the interest you're paying on the bond debt. So the debt service that the city has to pay out of general fund to support this debt issuance is smaller than would be typical for the equivalent amount of bonding. I hope that >> So I have a question just about the amount that we're including for this because as you kind of rattle off the number of projects given how fast things changed in this market and that we have a number of approvals sitting there 23 million does seem like a small amount. So just could you talk about the sizing of that as it gets into these stalled projects? Yeah, Ken, you might want to take a stab at that, too. You know, in law school, they said you really understand something when you can explain it to your parents. And I think I have a ways to go on this one. [laughter] >> You know, I think there's there's there's a lot of considerations in sizing. Um I think the the staff proposal which colleagues in housing and community development had the primary responsibility for developing was based on a number of factors. One of which is this is competing with other housing dollars and we have we want to keep and maintain the funding of our current housing programs as we add this to the mix. Um so the total size of the housing bond uh is is one constraint. Um, I think the other constraint is that this is a this is a brand new program. Uh, it's been implemented as we've seen in in four or five other cities, but it'll be we be the first in North Carolina. So, it's new, it's innovative. Um, there was a thought, I think, going into the request that we wanted enough to to have a meaningful impact on a project or two and see how that went and if it it went well, then there would be an appetite to expand that. Montgomery County again is instructive. Of course, Montgomery County was a much bigger tax base than we have, but they started with 50 million. They did a project or two, like the results, and then said we're going to up it to with another 50 million so we have a loan fund of 100. And the same thing could happen potentially here. We felt like it was important this request to have a request that uh would meet with the approval of the council and of ultimately with the voters that would get us started down this path. Um I'm sure no one would say no to a larger request, but that was I think the thinking behind the size of it. >> Yeah, I I think the overall point is that we feel like this is a great way to pilot and get started and to show the efficacy of this model and then that then could generate interest from, you know, other municipalities, um other philanthropic partners. Um so yeah, that was our thinking around sizing. >> That's helpful. I just the one followup would be it would be interesting to know this total size of the need and what this 23 million represents of the you know if you took all those approved but stalled projects. >> Yeah. What percent? >> Okay. Councelor Jones. >> Thank you. Um, can you walk me through uh since this is a partnership with the market rate, you know, the development community, what conversations have you have with the development community? Because as great of an idea as I see this is, if it gets no buy in and nobody does anything, then it it's just a tool that maybe one day will be used. So, if you can walk me through your conversations with them, what was their feedback? Was there any negative, especially since they won't own it? Is this something that concerns them? What are they saying? >> Yeah, it's a really good question. and all of the developer feedback we've had is very positive. I think everyone really wants to see those stalled projects move forward. Um I don't know can if you all have any specific examples but we all of the overall the development the the feedback from that community has been positive. Is that the case? Yeah, I would say that we did talk and with our consultants talk to a few developers including including Russ um and I would [snorts] say that their financial people immediately got it >> and we're were quite interested. Again, I think the reservation with the Rusbus project is the sheer size. I believe that the the proforma and this was our consultants proforma not the developers proforma showed a loan amount that was in excess of what we're asking for um in this bond issuance I think it was >> $200 million >> what >> it's a minimum of $200 million project >> yes 200 million I think the loan was like in the 30 to $40 million range for that one project and so I think a a key thing we'd have to think about is Russ bus is an important project high visibility is unfortunate that it stalled, but it would be a major commitment for for us to lend into that project as the first first example. Um, I do think there's u, you know, the other the other prime in addition to stalled projects downtown, the other opportunities are are potentially publicly owned land, whether that's city-owned or RHA owned. >> Just to follow up on um on that, what does it look like in ongoing conversations? Is it with the development design uh commission? Is this something that we can have check-ins? Because right now they could be really interested and say yes. Yes. But if in a year we get nothing like how are we measuring success and how are we making sure that they actually are committed to it um so that we can continue using this as a tool. >> So if I could restate the question, the question is um private developers may be expressing interest now but what would we do if the interest was not there? My my uh question is how what are our metrics to make sure that we are seeing that buyin that we are hearing now that we're seeing it in actual we can measure it you know. >> Well I mean the the the metric would be lending out the money and the project being constructed. So once once you get to the phase of an approved project that has a loan is under construction because it's going to be publicly owned then the performance that we're looking for which is the affordability is going to be incumbent on the public owner and operator. >> So then I guess my refraining of that is what is your time span in making sure to see that because if you're saying that when it when it gets been my question is if it's two years from now would take to get a loan out the way when will you raise the red flag to say this isn't working? Um, if we're not getting loans out the door then >> in what amount of time? >> I would I would say that I would expect the limit on the timing to not be anything based on market or development, but our ability to get ourselves organized to review to to put out the solicitation, review applications, and choose a project to make a loan. I think that would be the I think capacity would be the staff capacity would be the late rate limiting step. So $6 >> not interest I I be I would personally be highly surprised if we do not get many applications of developments wanting to wanting to get a loan out of the revolving fund. I mean, I'll just push back to say when we have the projects that are stalled, when you've got those that we have the big, you've got more square, you've got these things that are I want to make sure that we're putting those those guard rails in that we can check it instead of being surprised and then the community being disappointed that they're not get they feel and I mean we're going to get there, but I want to be able to show them these are how often we're checking and how we're keeping our, you know, thumb on the heartbeat of it, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, I have a quick question. I know there's going to be a groundbreaking for Heritage Park in about two weeks or so. >> 25th I think it is. >> So when will we get like a breakdown of like the number of units, how many are going to be affordable housing, how many market rate and and that whole thing >> like uh for the cap onetime capitalization like what are we going to get for that? Is that >> or just the how what the the unit breakdown is going to be? So, how many are going to be affordable housing at what AMI level? And then like how many would be market rate? >> Yeah, I would uh in general it's going to be a third affordable and then the rest are going to be market rate. I think you saw some variability and so we could also work to set those terms. So, in Montgomery County, you saw there were some that were 50% AMI and some that were 70% AMI. Um Ken came back up. Just just clearly was your question about the first phase of Heritage Park? >> All phases. I think I think folks kind of want to know what the breakdown is going to be for the for the entirety of the project. I don't think I said >> Kenya Pleasant is right back there. So she might >> I misunderstood that question. I apologize. Kenya is much better to answer that. >> Pop quiz. Kenya. >> Hi. Um, so for the first phase, which is block one, it's 163 units. All of those will be affordable because those are be going to be built with tax credits. In general, across the entire site, we're planning for up to a,000 units. There's a lot of factors that will determine whether we will be able to reach that level of density. Um but uh we're still trying to get some final terms from HUD, but uh at least near half of the units will be um below 80% um AMI. Okay, >> if that helps. >> That helps. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> And we can give you a a a more detailed breakdown, too. Well, and then just to follow up, uh my neighbors of course are all very interested and and I guess there's going to be a it is on the 25th, 10:00 a.m. Um and uh uh Kenya told me there will be a uh a visual rapper on the fence so people will start getting a feeling right for what's going >> correct. Correct. >> And but for that first phase, those 163 units, do you know the mix of affordability? I know they're all affordable, but is it 60? So 51 units which is going to be the senior building that's 1B. >> Um those will that'll be 100% project base. So that's going to serve deeply affordable. >> Okay. >> Um and then uh the mix on so it's going to be 112 units is the balance of that. I don't want to misspeak and and give you the wrong number but it is going to be 30 units that are going to have projectbased vouchers. So again deeply affordable. And then it's the balance is a mix between um those 30% and up to 80% AMI. >> Any other questions while not for pleasant is here. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Y councelor branch. >> So question as far as the fund we have to get started. >> Where does the initial money come from? So the we what we are recommending is that part of the next bond, the 2026 bond is going to be a one-time capitalization. And at the end of this presentation, we're going to go back to show you exactly what those recommendations are to sort of remind us. >> Cool. Thank you, >> Councelor Patton. Yeah, and I would just say like I I think my ears perked up when I heard that the constraint would be staff capacity and administrative burden, a constraint of using a fund like this. And so I guess um I would just try to continue to have us learn from from our past bond experiences and um just we want like we want to be prepared. So if if it's the will of the council to proceed with this and then the voters are generous again with their housing bond as they have been in the past like we want to like confer those election results on December second or whatever and like get that loan out the door on December 3rd. So like whatever we could I mean that's [snorts] ambitious but to to illustrate the point like let's do whatever behind the scenes work we can so that >> that loan can be administered nearly instantly. we are already talking about that and so um and sort of analyzing what the capacity need would be to get it off the ground. So heard thank you. Okay. And I'll just shout out clearly planning and development were really the lead on this work for almost the entire thing. So just shout out to them to for and thank them for all of their work on moving this forward. So, we're going to talk now about Yes in God's Backyard or Yiggby. [laughter] This is a movement [snorts] that aims to utilize um underutilized religious and church properties to develop affordable housing. It's seen as a creative land use tool to really unlock land for development and address [clears throat] the housing shortage. So, we have been engaged in two different work streams to explore Yigb as a housing tool in Raleigh. And we're going to talk about those two work streams in this section. So first is our department engagement with a consulting group called Sara. It's a nonprofit in the faith-based uh development space. And then second is our participation in the Bloomberg Harvard city leadership initiative. The city was selected to participate in the Bloomberg initiative focused on using data to solve problems. So a little bit of background on the SAR project. In June 2025, Housing and Community Development contracted with Sara to conduct research, docational analysis and mapping, and also conduct in-depth interviews to identify opportunities for housing development on faith properties. And many, if not most, of Raleigh's faith communities share the city's concern about housing affordability. So, here is that map of sort of opportunity areas as defined in the affordable housing location policy. And we wanted some part to focus on properties located within these opportunity zones um which is pictured here. So we wanted that because we know that developers seem to be having an easier time finding available sites outside of this area and we really wanted to identify more sites within the policy area in particular those that would be possible through a partnership with a faith community. So they evaluated um faith properties with at least three acres of what they deemed as excess land that could be developed. Um so that would be like non-historic structures um that could be redesigned or replaced or parking um that would be deemed as excess land. It's important to note that um zoning changes may be required to fully capture the potential of all of this and in many cases that is the case. So we would really need to do that analysis of of zoning in order to um capture how many you know what is really possible in this excess land. So there's a lot of potential but we're still at sort of the exploratory phases of this. Um so there were 27 properties congregations with uh strong low-income housing tax credit scores. So, they took the scoring process for low-inccome housing tax credits and applied it here and then found 27 congregations with high scores and they contacted all 27 for interviews. And of those 27, 13 were open or interested in affordable housing and participated in those interviews. Um, which is super exciting. I think there's just uh, you know, a lot of potential with this. So then Sara then interviewed clergy and lay leaders to assess congregational readiness which was deemed as one of the um deciding factors was really that congregational readiness to develop affordable housing using these scoring categories listed here. So leadership capacity and looking at passion, skill and bandwidth and clergy. Um also looking at social capital, so community relationships that can be leveraged. Um expansive mission. So a commitment to reimagine the nature of the community with neighbors um that may not be uh religious at all or of other faith traditions. And then also looking at judicatory support. So for those faith communities in hierarchical or um connectional systems where property is owned by the judicatory or property decisions uh require approval as well as spiritual health which would be the disposition, practices and willingness to embark upon a multi-year journey. So here are the key findings. Um Sara found that there is strong interest from Raleigh faith communities to develop affordable housing and significant potential excess land um within the affordable housing location policy area. So looking very broadly, Sara found over 400 acres of land that faith communities may consider excess or may be able to repurpose over time. Again though, developments on this acreage would need to be considered on a sightby-sight basis. So again, lot of potential, but we really need to do that sightby-sight analysis to determine what is really actually feasible or viable, but it's exciting. Um, we they also found that clergy generally do not understand affordable housing, finance, and development. um but they become more interested in education once they have basic information. Another takeaway is that congregations are generally looking to develop housing both because it aligns with their mission but also because they would like it to generate revenue. So they want to kind of to meet both of those goals, their mission goals but then also revenue generation. To go a little bit into some more depth on these um I want to share a highlevel recommendations from this report. The final report was completed less than a month ago, so we're still really digesting these takeaways and considering feasibility and implications for next steps. Um, the executive summary is included in your agenda materials. And many of the takeaways from this report recommend that the city play a role mainly as convenor and educator. So, we really feel like this is where the city could play an important role in moving this work forward. Some ideas for convening could be um to invite uh churches who have completed or who are starting this process to talk to other congregations who are early in the discernment process. Um we could do a Q&A um with housing community development as well as city planning to answer questions about available funding programs. So we sort of already thought about um ideas for this and also connected to this category of recommendations is creating web resources. So things like a journey map to really help congregations understand the steps in funding um a development and also what it takes to um fully develop a project. So Sara also recommends that the city plays a role in capturing and sharing the stories of congregations who have embarked on this for again that sort of cohort learning model. We also really uh want to you know an option could be is to include YIGB topics and upcoming city sponsored events. [snorts] So several recommendations include various types of technical assistance that could be offered by city staff. Um you know sponsored by the city or provided by the city um again to council member Patton's point earlier providing this does have staffing implications and outsourcing has budget implications as well. So resources from MIGB could f come from the next bond. Um a relatively smaller amount for something like pre-development for example. So things to um look at uh soil reports, civil engineering, survey work, a small sort of fund of about $500,000 for example could support 5 to 10 projects. So another um great recommendation is for rethinking and enhancing city processes to better support housing delivery. So if needed that includes things like fasttracking um conducting massing studies. So really helping churches understand congregations understand how uh what a building size might look like on that excess land. Um looking to identify barriers in the code. um some of which could be addressed in uh pending text changes. So lastly, SAR recommends engaging with philanthropic community. We agree that connections and partnerships with faith communities are at the heart of this work. Um could really open up additional opportunities to work across private and public sectors. So we're going to talk very briefly about the Bloomberg Harvard city leadership initiative. Again, that's the second sort of workflow that we're in right now around JIGBY. Um, a staff team for this project is learning from peer communities through workshops and trainings and also by working together to solve problems. Um, on-site identification staff are using GIS data to flag parcels that may have development potential. Again, this real um deeper dive into the SAR work to make sure that we're looking at siteby-sight feasibility. Um and in and in contrast to Sara that focuses mostly on the 9% LIT, this work is really looking at site characteristics such as slopes, zoning, floodways, and waterways. Um vehicular access and utility availability. So the toolkit is still in process, but its expected components include that journey map we talked about. So simplifying the development process, some sort of discernment tool to help congregations ask themselves questions to determine readiness and mission alignment, and then also a roles and responsibilities guide book. We really identified these three things as a part of a toolkit that could help this uh work move forward to provide um help and support to congregations that are looking to do this type of work. Um, we also identified out of this workflow that the city could play that role again as being a convenor for developers, faith communities, and partners to learn and share with each other. In November, we had Bloomberg consultants come to Raleigh to get to know our community firsthand, and we brought together several uh a small group of of faith leaders, developers, and financing partners. We took a bus tour of affordable housing. um both faith connected and not and then the Bloomberg partners led a focus group to talk about how the city can play a role. So we really have been um digging deep into this for the past several months in both of these work streams. And so next steps on this again is to really synthesize further the SAR recommendations and going more of a sight by sight. Um it's still you know new work overall and we are in the information gathering um part of this work. Uh so it's really about aligning recommendations and deliverables, making sure that we are remaining aligned with our affordable housing plan and also identifying the most impactful strategies. So the 2026 bond planning again includes identifying ways to incorporate faith and housing strategies such as that fund for predevelopment. I'll pause here for questions. Well, I will just say councelor Jones and I were talking about, you know, some residents might be concerned that somehow we're supporting, right, we're blending churches and government and supporting churches. So, could you just speak to how working with faith-based communities to develop housing, h how do you sort of still keep those lines? I mean this is not making a direct contribution into a church or a synagogue or you know a mosque but how is how would you answer that? >> Yeah this would be gap financing like we do with all other types of projects. This is just a way to identify land because as we know that is one of the major barriers to affordable housing production. So this would be um you know partnering to provide that gap financing which is what we provide now to nonprofit developers um for-profit developers with city funds in order to achieve the goal of providing for affordable housing. So again this is really just um you know churches own a lot of land and really high opportunity areas as Sara found. Um that is land that we would not be able to access if it were not for the church saying we want to do this. We want to help provide this land for affordable housing. >> And madame mayor, it may be good if staff pulled a list of past projects that land was developed or redeveloped that's on church property. I think about the property, the Milner Commons um as example and then I can go as far as back as the um Cosmo Lewis estate they use hope sits funding. So I know staff can have just pull a list together and that's how you say this is something that historically we've done and this is how we've done it. >> Yeah. And just the structures that I mean not to get too in the weeds but that the church uses you know do they spin off and have another [clears throat] sort of nonprofit entity that oversees the housing you know and anyway that would all be helpful. Um okay because I think the conversation we just had you know is going to come up probably very early in these conversations. Okay. Absolutely. Yeah, we can provide more information on that. >> Well, and one of the things I was going to jump in and say, I know you said the Bloomberg folks were here, but got actually had a picture up of the ribbon cutting that um the folks at Mount Pleasant and Apostle Walker did when they had um their development. So, it may be useful to for the 13 churches that may not have been interested um but as well as folks who've got questions uh to sort of point them in a direction of a person who I know Apostle Walker cuz he did a documentary or something following up um from their project. >> Um >> so he's really just trying to spread the spread the message of how effective it could be. So setting up tours and giving people an opportunity to sort of see it um firsthand was probably the the best way to spread that message. >> Apostle Walker was with the Bloomberg and also uh Reverend Jamon Taylor. Those were the two pastors that met with them. >> Okay. >> Anybody? Yes. >> Yeah. Hi. Um this is this is exciting. Um what I I guess my question is so it sounds like you have these different levels, right? So it's like one option is cheaper. We could we could sort of teach we could we could be the conveners and the teachers of how this could happen allowing the churches to to lead the charge and that or there's like another level where we could do soil testing and some other things you mentioned and we could carry some like upfront cost so they feel like they have a little more certainty as they go back to their congregation and pitch an idea. Um, I am curious of the participating churches that you've already interviewed with. I like I some part of me thinks like maybe some of them would want to like just deed the land to the city and be like you guys do it. This is this is a lot. We want a good public purpose, but we don't we're not necessarily trying to broker broker the whole thing. I so I'm just curious like what came up in the interviews of what the actual the participants who showed some initial interest like what were the kinds of things they said they would need. >> Yeah. Jess, do you want to speak to that? So Jess Brandice, the assistant director of the department has really been a key part of leading this work. I'll let her fill some gaps in there. >> Hi there. Yeah, I'd go back to the um the key takeaways. I mean some of that it really depended. One thing that we did learn from uh the Empire report is that u most congregations are looking for this work to be a revenue source as well. So um I think fewer may be interested in deeding the property over but as a some sort of sale. So all of this really is centered around what are those questions? What are those discernment steps? You know how do you uh work together as an organization uh to decide what your priorities are? And so that's why those convenings, those coming togethers to hear from Apostle Walker talking about here's what our fears were. Here's how we weighed these different decisions. Here's how we chose to um here's why we chose to develop it, you know, in this certain fashion. Um and really that learning from each other is probably the best way to facilitate that. Um because it was a lot of questions is what uh you know a lot of uh the results from SAR is that we want to do this. We know this is a need. how can we help? We don't understand, you know, we don't know if if a developer is approaching us, are we being taken advantage of? We don't know how to kind of evaluate um real estate deals. So, there's a lot of learning that was uh being sought. >> All right. Okay. Okay. um going to provide a brief update on the uncheltered homelessness response strategy. So, as you all know, we had a two-fold initiative designed to address and end unsheltered homelessness in Raleigh. Um we had a pilot program and that was really designed to give proof of concept for an innovative approach to ending homelessness that we know has worked in all of these other communities. We wanted to show that it can also work here. It provides rapid response to people with urgent health and safety needs living outside as well as that solution to homelessness with rent assistance as well as um intensive case management and connections to follow along services. We have achieved that goal. So we decommissioned one encampment of high concern as you all know and we enrolled successfully 45 households living unsheltered at that site. um we have uh our preliminary numbers. So we have a six-month and we're soon to have a a one-year um evaluation and we are at about 90% success for ending homelessness for folks in that encampment. Um so um alongside that pilot, we also and I'll just add we we have a a lot of really uh incredible health and wellness improvements overall too. So, housing and and health and wellness improvements. So, alongside in parallel with this, we really wanted to also develop an overall strategy. So, the broader community develop uh driven strategy was with a 53 member steering committee. The city funded um a consultant to come in and help facilitate this process to develop these shared protocols and tools to offer actual solutions to unsheltered homelessness. So that plan um includes a resource gap analysis as well as a site assessment tool um and a housing surge model which is similar to what we provided in the pilot. So, it's really about how do we scale up the pilot at a communitywide uh in a communitywide method and um the plan is grounded in the understanding that um homelessness is a regional challenge that demands that unified systems and shared accountability as well as flexible solutions tailored to meet unique needs. So where we are now with this is that the strategy um has transitioned to the continuum of care. So because uh this work really demands a communitywide approach and leveraging all of our existing resources um adding new resources but all of us working together um to scale uh something like this. uh the the COC has now taken this under their overall strategy which you all will hear about in a week. So the COC will be here with the county and city to talk with commission and and council more about this. So there will be more from the COC on where they are with their strategic plan and how the pilot um and building its success is a part of that overall strategy. So when we are going to continue joint implementation with the COC and county to make sure that we're aligning roles, timelines, and outcomes, I think everyone understands the urgency of this issue and is really um you know running head first into this and figuring out like how do we scale this up? How do we make this work across the community? Um it will take identifying and securing additional funding sources beyond what the city and county can provide. So, we're really looking to who else can be um stakeholders in this work to help us really scale it up and make a significant change in these um in unsheltered homelessness and in people's lives. So, that is um where we are there. I will pause here for questions questions on this. >> Yes, councelor J. Um, this is kind of similar to my other questions in terms of metrics. As we turn that over to the COC, which I think is wonderful, how do we is this something that we say, okay, your thing by or how what is that relationship look like? >> We're really close together in this relationship. So, it really is a joint implementation. Um, you know, the city brings certain strengths. So, we we are the ones that, um, you know, provided this pilot. we have that experience and so we can speak to what it would take to scale it. So you know definitely our um adisement and expertise and our experience going into that um as well as um you know some recommended funding potentially from the next bond. So there are a lot of ways in which the city is staying close with this. We also are represented on the COC governance board in addition to the membership generally. um we talk all the time. We are we are very much in lock step on this um and and together in this. >> That's fantastic to hear. And as since you're on the board, what is that meeting structure? Is it open to the public? Are these things that people can if they want to participate can learn more? >> Absolutely. Great comment. The COC is absolutely an open public structure. So if folks want to join the COC, for example, they can. um that if you just Google Wake Raleigh COC, you'll get to their web page. You can sign up for their newsletters. It has really um fantastic updates. And then also um the governance meetings are also public, so anyone can join those. Those are on a monthly basis. I can we can uh get you more information on exactly where and and the cadence of those, but those can also be found on the COC website. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Any others? Okay. Okay. Um, just a quick look at our affordable housing dashboard because this has come up, I know, in a couple of ways and I don't think we've ever really talked to you all um, about this. So, this is our current dashboard. We really are just showing units by type and by year as you can see here. So, we have um, all of our different activities. We have rental units preserved, some of our rehabilitation, new construction units, home buyer assistance, home ownership. Um, you can see here. So, it's pretty straightforward. Um, but it's also limited in what it shows. So, this is sort of where we would like to get. We would like to be able to show what units are in pre-development, under construction. So, we talk a lot about with you all, we have pipeline units and we have units that are on the ground. So how do we show pipeline units with on the ground units in this dashboard? We would love to do that. And then we would also love to show where each of these activities are in progress too. So where how many you know new construction what percentage of new construction are um under construction and what percent are in pre-development. And so someone can go to this dashboard and see sort of the progress under each one of these categories. Here is another way we would like to do things. So, we would love to, and this is um as you all can see from this example, we're actively working to make these enhancements to the dashboard. They just were not ready by the specific date. Um, but we really want to show geographic location, too, right? So, we want to look at council districts. We want to look at across the city. Where are these units going? Where are they under construction? And where are they completed by council district? We also want to show the name of the development and the developer to be really transparent. We've seen really great dashboards across the country and so we want to follow suit and be able to offer um this additional information to the public on our on our dashboard. So those are the things we're working towards. I'll pause. Yep. Um if you can go back to that. So one thing that I know I um have yearned for and I think a lot of residents is that it is really wonderful to have this data and that map and you know this additional would be amazing. So this is fantastic is the full picture of what's happening. So you know Raleigh Housing Authority, what do they own? What is the base? How is that changing? I think some of the questions that came up earlier from um councelor uh fort what are the other you know some of these folks do they have a corpus of housing and how many are those and what's the condition and wake county housing and so what is that complete picture of subsidized housing and then going back to your um displacement strategies where you talk about preservation and extension and how do all you know how does all of that feed in together and are we lo despite all these efforts I mean the qu question that constantly comes to me is are we losing ground because this market has been you know is changing so rapidly the growth is so fast the costs are going up so high that all of this amazing work is it being overcome by all these other market forces and then combining that with right here's the overall market of supply which you do have. Anyway, I will stop there, but um could you just comment on trying to get the comprehensive full picture of even just the subsidized housing in Wake County and Raleigh? >> Yes. So, I so I will say that the county is going to be with us again in a week and they're going to debut with you all their dashboard. So, the county does have a really um it h it goes more in depth in pulling from other sources and places as you can see here. This is really about how the city is investing and it's focused on what the city is doing those different projects and where they are. Um if we you know I I wonder if there's an opportunity to think about you know uh when we look at Wake County's dashboard is there a carveout for Raleigh? maybe we could um you know have them sort of let us know if that's something that's possible there. >> I will also say I've looked at Wake counties and I'm appreciative of that effort too. It is not super upto-date and so a lot of the questions we're getting even on council is are are things slowing down? What happened last quarter? How does this compare year-on-year? And to my again, I haven't looked at it in a couple of months, but it was not particularly, you know, going into quarterly data that is giving you super current info. Councelor Lambert Milton. >> Yeah, just to build on that, you know, we started with the slide that shows that cities that build more housing have lower rents, and we can see that Raleigh's rents have dropped 8% since last year. Um, and we can tell that story, but folks are still feeling priced out. We still got folks that are living on the street. We still have folks that can't find an affordable home purchase or rental. And it's helpful if we can do a better job of telling our story because I think it's important for folks to know that there is still a lot more work to do, but the solution cannot be to stop the progress we're making. Um, we know we have to get our supply up. And when I talk about these issues, sometimes folks say, "Well, the private sector is going to solve all of our problems." No. And as you've pointed out, there are three things we need to be focusing on. The supply, the affordable housing, and then also the stabilization. And I think sometimes we struggle to tell the story and how all the pieces work together. And so having a dashboard like this where we can show these are all the affordable housing developments that are under production, super helpful. the slide you gave us with the missing middle projects. Candidly, I don't know if that's on our website or not, but if we had some dashboard that showed where all of the missing middle or multif family projects are under construction, I think that would help. And then I think we could pair that maybe with some of this data for the anti-displacement and stabilization that we're providing. And then we could maybe have a one-stop page where we could direct residents and folks who are interested in the data to look at it because I think it'll help us tell our story a little bit better because it is working. We have a lot more work to do. But you know, you got folks that I think sometimes want to change course in a drastic way. And what data is showing us is that we're on the right track. We just have to do a lot more of it. >> Yeah. I to comment on that. Yeah, I think we agree on all of those points and I think we can think about ways to layer the information to make it more helpful and more of a full picture. So, absolutely open to that feedback and and working on that. >> Any other comments, sir? >> Yeah, councelor Jones. >> Yes, I I definitely think information like we're just talking about is important. I do think as we referenced earlier also if we're going to say that declining um rental rates should equal declining homelessness rates, you have to give both sides of that because we if we only tell the story the side of the story that makes us look good and we don't acknowledge the negative unintentional impacts of what it may or may not be doing. Whatever the data is, we just need to see it. But if we're going to claim it is, then we need to have metrics to be able to prove that it is. >> Yeah. which is a whole other issue, right? Which is the whole unhoused count, which is so challenging to talk about because I mean, and it's so imprecise anyway. Nobody's fault. Um, but then you also get different numbers from the school system saying there's like 8,000, you know, unhoused kids or shadow unhoused and then we have these numbers that are much lower. So I agree I mean with councelor Jones sort of trying to show all of this housing work but ultimately right if if the unhoused numbers are rising um I >> mean we're listening to that just in one week we're hearing last week 750 evictions per week. So where is that reflected in the data that's supporting this? You know that the the coral and it maybe it doesn't correlate but where are we seeing the where the problems could arise because if we're only saying oh this is good this is good it's going to work it's going to work it's going to work and then we wait until it like crashes then we haven't done the the due diligence to be like well it's working and bringing this down but it's also not working and bringing homelessness down because our our evictions are actually increasing. So those I'm I'm confus I just want to be able to tell that both sides of that story. >> Yeah. And I think I think it's important as the mayor pointed out like it's not there's not a direct through line, right? And there there are real challenges with methodology and assumptions behind the data that I think are really hard to explain a lot of times. And so I don't necessarily think that we're going to be able to say because there are so many other things that go into why uh like for example locally like I think we know on a a broader scale because of research that you can look at regional differences in homelessness and when you take communities where they offer more housing sizes and types and they have better vacancy rates and lower rents their homelessness rates are lower. I think that it gets harder to show at a granular granular level in Raleigh like how those are connected and I think part of that has to do with the inherent flaws in the way that the data is collected and also um maintained and I don't and I I just want to offer that to say you know I think we um are really willing to try and look at all of those things and those are really great points. I just want to make sure that we're not overpromising what we can deliver because there are real constraints on um the data that we have available and then what we're going to be able to show at a granular sort of level. Does that make sense? >> No, it most definitely does and maybe that's not possible because of the constraints that you're saying. I think we have to be careful how we position it. Then then I don't know if the the the message to start with is oh if this then this and this is what we see nationally when locally we can't prove that. So I'm not saying that it's not true. I'm saying what what other metrics can I do to support when I don't have the answers to those questions? Because if we keep saying lower rent equals lower homelessness rates and people keep asking me what are our homelessness rates and I can't give that to them and I can't defend that then it's not something that I can defend to the public and explain to them. So if we can't find that data cuz it's very hard, then how can you help me tell that story through other whatever data that you're using that can help us prove that this this is the theory that's working. >> I think we speak to it as we do here, which is at a national level, we know these things to be true. We know that more housing types and availability impacts homelessness rates in in Wake County and Raleigh. the way that we count people living unsheltered has just inherent flaws and and that is not due to anyone's fault. It is just that we are not able to truly capture what that number is. And I think the way that we try and solve for it and have over years, over decades of dealing with this issue of just sort of inherent flaws in the point in time count is trying to do um you know really targeted surveys to get a better idea and then also to what we do in the what we did in the strategic uh unsheltered plan is to just triple the number that we think it is. I think a lot of communities also just say, "Okay, you know, 300, well, we know that's probably more like 1,200 because we can't really count everyone." Um, so I I don't Yeah, I think I I agree with you. I think it's just it's just going to be a I don't know that it's possible to say in Raleigh this housing production impacted this unsheltered number again because that unsheltered number is just unreliable and and inherently unreliable >> and I can say that message. I just want to just put on the table and maybe there is no answer and that's that's okay too. But I can't help get more support from those who are on the other side of the fence, who are anti-missing middle, who are saying all these things when I can't refute what they're saying. And so I just want that to be part of this conversation. When I can't respond to them and give them the metrics that we're saying we're looking for, then um it doesn't help me tell your story. It doesn't help me build that bridge with the community that is still concerned with the increased production. And I get the reasons why we want to do it. I'm not I'm not saying that that's wrong, but as we go through the work session and trying to build the the narrative that I'm going to go to the public and say these are the things that would be really helpful so that I can push and and and emphasize your work and what it's doing. Um, and when we can't, I just want us to be reflective of the fact that that's not going to get us any more buyin to it from the community. >> Understood. >> Okay. So the last thing we're going to do is just to tie it back to these slides you all have already seen about housing bond recommendations. So as a refresher um these are recommendations for the next housing bond. All of these activities we discussed in the tools presentation are all activities that will be funded through this recommendation. Um so for housing development and preservation we have 57.6 million recommendation and that is really the engine and the pipeline of affordable homes being developed. So that would include GAP funding for construction, preservation, both tax credit supported smallcale or home ownership developments. It would be site acquisition, construction, and soft cost um to preserve more affordable housing. It could also be that pre-development amount that we talked about um to help uh folks develop housing that perhaps have not done that before. Um and here you'll just see that same amount, but it's just going to look at the year-over-year. So, and again, I I didn't mention, but this will also help fund that um plan to end homelessness. Um that is going to be a combination u in led by the COC um with city of Raleigh contribution here. Also, um this is where you'll see the one-time capitalization again of that mixed income development. So, you'll see here the production. We looked at this um at your retreat. So we're looking at 160 to 510 units annually under this uh housing development and preservation category. And again, that is really dependent upon a lot of times mostly the land cost. So in those higher opportunity areas, you're going to see less units per dollar. In the lower uh you know or in the other outside areas of that affordable housing location policy, you'll see a little less subsidy per unit. Um, under the home buyer assistance and preservation, you'll see 40 to 50 units annually. Um, the homelessness response can serve 125 households or if it's used for diversion, that number would look a lot different. 125 households per year though makes a significant um impact on overall homelessness. Uh, and then we sort of estimate around 200 units every 3 to five years for this one time 21.5 million mixed income development capitalization. So that is it. I will take your questions. Any other questions? Yes, council Patton. >> You've uh really had a marathon of a presentation and good good work. Um the this last bit, you know, we would have seen this presentation at our retreat and it would [clears throat] have been paired with some of the other presentations. Um, you know, I I think ultimately Steph's looking for some direction on like the size of the bond, the split that's been presented between the two topics, housing and transportation, and then further direction within those within the categories. I think, you know, at first blush of looking at this, the the sections you have inside of the housing amount seem to to mirror our priorities. I guess it's probably not for you, so I'm gonna turn this way. I guess like I am wondering when we have the conversation that pairs the full amount of debt capacity with we we heard some transportation discussion at the retreat and then there was like this third like the the debt for the public safety facilities and and I think it was called like public safety and infrastructure or something. There's like this third category that we didn't really hear any about. So, I guess I am wondering like when do we when do we need to provide that? When will be the opportunity for that part of the conversation? >> Yeah, Councilman Patton, I appreciate the question. I think um you will have an opportunity to uh take another bite at that apple, so to speak, related to um the specific the bond package as you heard it proposed at the retreat. So staff at this point is planning to bring back an item in March that will give you I think we heard very clearly the desire to um dig a little deeper into the specifics of the packages and so uh in staff's recommendations. So that's going to happen in March is is what we're we're planning to do and so we're working on on bringing that back then. >> Okay, great. Um All right. Well, then I I yeah, I'll just close by saying I think within the amount like if it were the desire of the council to do the 50-50 split that's sort of been shown here in draft, I think within it the buckets you've got presented the like emphasis on continuing to produce new units, um home buyer assistance, homelessness response is is like a top priority for me individually. And then I think this this seed money for this new tool is really import is a really important tool to add to our toolbox and this is I think the second time you've brought us a really cool innovative tool um to meet a new need in our community. So thank you for your work on that. Um and then one last thing I'd ask you to dig into is on the home buyer assistance a down payment assistance specifically. It a policy is currently written to support firsttime home buyers. Is that right? the first time. >> Yes, that is right. >> Okay. I I have like heard a like just a thread that there's a a way to explore first generation home buying which I think would meet the policy objective, the policy intent a little bit better if we could figure out how to actually like index that against something like make that operational. So I think that first generation home buying actually like breaks cycles of poverty and pushes whole families into um like generational wealth in a different way than a firsttime home buyer might be a young professional who is benefited by a boost but isn't breaking a cycle of poverty for instance. So um that's just a thought that I'd like you all to look into. >> Madam Mayor, >> yes. Um, just two quick thoughts. Um, to piggyback on counselor Patton's comment about the first generation home buyers, really look into that cuz I'm cons that concerns me when you have on how it could be interpreted as a first generation because if you have those that are new to the country that may come with good resources, but they would still qualify as a first generation. >> Um, cuz they would be the Yeah. So, I'm just saying I just want staff to look in that holistically. And and lastly, the second thing is I honestly think the 21.5 million is not enough. And I just leave it there. >> Yeah. And I mean, I would just I guess kind of echo councelor Branch at some point. It's just trying to think about the sizing in a community experiencing as much cost inflation and need and growth and you know just understanding um is this enough? What are the constraints on this? because the chassis can only accommodate so much. I get you know there's staffing and you know but again if we can't the one big project we're thinking of this isn't enough to fund that is it the appropriate amount. So >> just a just a note on this uh topic because I think it was shared earlier kind of what the constraining factors were in terms of what what recommendation we brought forward on that particular point. It's a conversation that we're going to have probably more in depth in March when we bring back the full package. But, uh, just to to reiterate and keep in mind, um, the steadystate model that, uh, affords us the opportunity to put a bond package together that doesn't include a tax increase is 203 million. So, that was the the number that we've been working off of to try to divvy the pie. And I think as far as the other buckets that you see, um just again another uh note, uh those figures represent continuation of work that aligns with council's policy goals to continue at essentially the same levels as we've seen and in a couple of cases some modest increases in production from the previous bond. So those are from a foundational perspective how why the numbers appear the way they do at this point. certainly subject to council's discretion to change the any of those things, but just want to give a little bit more color in terms of uh the foundation the baseline recommendation and >> okay any other >> do you need any recomig or the location policy stuff? >> I would tell you no. I think um this is just a presentation of information. Much of this work is continuing kind of in an administrative [snorts] form just uh information for the council to have but I don't think that there's any specific direction or action we're asking you to take today. >> Thank you. >> All right. Yeah. Thanks to all the folks out there that worked on this and are doing great work out in the community. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh and we are adjourned until 7 pm when we have public comment.