Shared Goal

Akron residents have greater access to safe, well-maintained, and affordable housing.

Outcome

More Investment in Homes & Neighborhood

The Problem

Housing programs in Akron face two related challenges. There is not enough local funding dedicated to housing, and the funding that does exist is often temporary or uncertain.

Programs that help prevent eviction or repair homes may rely on grants that expire or change from year to year. When funding rises or falls, it can be difficult for these programs to plan ahead, keep staff, and consistently serve residents. This can mean that a renter facing eviction may be able to get help one year, but not the next — simply because funding has run out.

At the same time, building new homes or preserving existing ones requires long-term investment. Developers may need several years to secure financing and complete a project. If funding is uncertain or limited, housing projects may be delayed, made smaller, or not built at all.

Without a stable, dedicated source of local housing funding, many of these needs may continue to go unmet.

A Way to Address These Challenges

Akron could establish reliable sources of funding set aside specifically for housing. 

When public funding is legally reserved for a specific purpose, it is often called dedicated revenue. In this case, the dedicated revenue would be used only for housing and would not compete each year with other city priorities.

If dedicated housing revenue is established, the city would need to define how the funds can be used. For example, funds could support: 

• Developing new, affordable homes

• Preserving existing housing

• Upholding existing codes and safety standards

• Assisting qualified residents with:

  • Purchasing a home

  • Repairing a home

  • Preventing eviction or foreclosure in emergency situations

In an upcoming deliberation session (not today), the Assembly will review and prioritize different ways dedicated housing funds could be used. 

Today’s deliberation focuses on whether Akron should create a dedicated housing fund, and what types of funding sources could support it. 

There are several ways the city could generate dedicated housing revenue. Three common options — borrowing money upfront, raising local tax revenue, and charging fees on new development — are described below. Each has its own benefits and tradeoffs. 

Overall Benefits & Tradeoffs of Dedicated Housing Revenue

The points below apply to the overall idea of establishing dedicated housing revenue, regardless of which funding sources would support it. Benefits and tradeoffs specific to each funding option are described further below.

Possible Benefits

More consistent support for housing programs
Stable funding could allow programs that help prevent eviction or improve housing conditions to plan ahead and serve residents more reliably.

Greater ability to build and preserve housing
Long-term funding could make it easier to assemble financing for housing projects, increasing the likelihood that new homes are built or existing ones are maintained.

Clearer public understanding of housing investments
If funds are dedicated and publicly reported, residents could more easily see how much money is collected, how it is used, and what results are achieved.

Possible Tradeoffs

Someone always pays
Dedicated housing revenue is not free money. Every funding source places the cost on some group (or all) of Akron’s residents. The choice of funding source determines who pays and how much.

Less flexibility in the city budget
If money is set aside only for housing, the city can’t easily use it for other needs if unexpected situations arise, such as a public safety emergency or budget shortfall. 

Less pressure to reprioritize existing spending
Raising new revenue may reduce the incentive to examine whether existing city funds could be better used by redirecting those dollars toward housing.

Option #1: Borrowing Money Upfront (Housing Bonds)

One option for creating dedicated housing revenue is for the city to borrow a large amount of money upfront for housing projects and repay it over time, usually over 10 to 30 years. This is often done through something called a bond.

In Akron, housing bonds could be issued by the city or by a public financing agency such as a Development Finance Authority. These agencies help fund housing and community development projects that may not generate the kinds of profits that attract private investment on their own.

Possible Benefits

Quick access to significant funding
Money raised from bonds happens all at once, allowing the city to fund large housing projects and repairs right away.

Cost spread over time
Because repayment is stretched over 10 to 30 years, the upfront impact on residents can be relatively small.

Can attract additional investment
In some cities, public bond funding has helped attract additional public and private investment, increasing the total number of housing units created. In Columbus, for example, a $50 million bond filled a funding gap that helped unlock roughly $250 million more in public and private dollars. The combined investment funded more than 1,300 housing units.

Possible Tradeoffs

Total cost is higher than the amount borrowed
Bonds must be repaid with interest, so the total cost exceeds the original amount borrowed.

Limits future borrowing
Issuing bonds for housing reduces the city’s ability to borrow for other purposes in the future, such as public safety or infrastructure. Just like a household, a city can only borrow so much money.

Future residents share the cost
Because bonds are repaid over 10 to 30 years, future residents and taxpayers will pay for housing built today.

Option #2: Raising Local Tax Revenue (City Income Tax)

Another option for creating dedicated housing revenue is to increase the city income tax and direct the additional revenue toward housing programs.

Possible Benefits

Steady, recurring revenue
An income tax provides a relatively predictable stream of funding that can support programs year after year.

Broad base of contributors
Because the tax applies to everyone who works in Akron, the cost is shared widely rather than falling on a single group. In Pinellas County, Florida, a voter-approved one-cent sales tax directed a portion of revenue toward housing, with roughly $100 million expected over a decade.

Possible Tradeoffs

Revenue changes with the economy
Income tax collections rise and fall with employment and wages. During a recession, when housing needs may be greatest, revenue could decline.

Could cost the people it is meant to help
Under Ohio law, city income taxes must be charged at a single, flat rate. They can’t be set at different rates for different income levels. This means an income tax increase would apply equally to all workers, including those with lower incomes who may already be struggling with housing costs.

Revenue can be reduced by forces outside the city's control
Even when a tax is approved locally, state-level policy changes can reduce what the city actually collects. In Pinellas County, Florida, a state decision to eliminate sales taxes on commercial rents reduced the housing program's projected revenue — and demand for housing funds outpaced what was available.

Option #3: Charging Fees on New Development (Development-Related Fees)

Another option for generating dedicated housing revenue is to charge fees on new housing or commercial development and use that money to support housing programs.

Possible Benefits

No direct tax increase on existing residents
Development fees are paid by builders, not through a tax on residents.

Ties funding to growth
Revenue increases when new development occurs, connecting funding to periods of growth and housing demand.

Possible Tradeoffs

Costs are often passed on to buyers and renters
Developers often pass fee costs on through higher home prices or rents. This means development fees could raise costs for the very people the funding is meant to help.

Could discourage new construction
If fees are set too high, they could make some projects financially difficult, which could work against the goal of increasing Akron’s housing supply.

Revenue depends on development activity
If construction slows due to economic conditions or other factors, revenue from fees will also decline.

What Other Cities Have Done 

These types of funding tools are not new. Cities across Ohio and the country have used them to support housing.

In Columbus, voters have approved affordable housing bonds three times: $50 million in 2019, $200 million in 2022, and $500 million as part of a larger bond package in 2025. To repay bond debt, the city uses 25 cents of every income tax dollar, and has avoided property tax increases to pay for bonds since 1956.

In Philadelphia, the mayor launched a $2 billion housing plan in 2025, backed by $800 million in city bonds, about $200 million in existing local, state, and federal housing funds, and $1 billion in publicly owned land. The plan aims to create or preserve 30,000 homes.

These examples show that dedicated housing funding tools have been used in practice. However, they do not guarantee specific outcomes. Results depend on how programs are designed, how funds are managed, and local conditions.

Akron already works with state and county partners on housing, but those resources have not been sufficient to meet the scale of the city's housing needs. This proposal focuses on funding sources the city could establish on its own.



View the Sources