Agenda - 12-10-2024; 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

17 1 Leigh Anne King said they could make estimates of general square footage outputs could 2 be, and more specifics would have to come later in this process. 3 Commissioner Hamilton said she wants to make sure that they are actually getting the 4 benefit of expanding economic development. 5 Commissioner Fowler said they contracted the economic development zone because of 6 lack of water and another issue. She asked if they would be back in talks with Durham and if there 7 are any updates on that location. 8 Cy Stober said he does not have an update on this, but they can resume conversations 9 with Durham. He said the challenge is on the wastewater side and environmental challenges due 10 to rock. He said it could be a policy recommendation in the plan, but more conversations would 11 have to happen with Durham. 12 Commissioner McKee said his two takeaways from tonight are any option other than 13 staying with what they are doing is going to be a difficult situation. He said that he sees no way to 14 do some of these things without putting pipe in the ground. He said even economic development 15 along 85 will require water and sewer. He said the second is that the percentages are not heavily 16 weighted for or against. 17 Commissioner Richards said she supports these three ideas. 18 Chair Bedford said she supports the first and will leave the second up to the towns. She 19 said she supports the expansion of economic development in the different nodes. 20 Vice-Chair Greene said all three towns are on track to increase housing density and she 21 sees the county plan as complementary to those plans. She said that rural conservation 22 subdivisions would involve individual communal septic systems because she does not see the 23 Board opening itself up to having to run water and sewer. 24 Commissioner McKee said if the Board supports economic development in the rural 25 nodes, it will require them to lay pipe. He said if they are going to talk about expanding, they need 26 to think about the pipe requirements because that will be what addresses the concerns and gives 27 a return on investment. 28 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if they can make these decisions without hearing from 29 the for-profit and non-profit developers because a developer might have additional insight. 30 Cy Stober said no targeted outreach has been done to constituent groups. He said that 31 they have presented to the affordable housing coalition but otherwise, no other interest groups to 32 have a deeper dive. He said that he will be bringing an information item to address the rural 33 conservation subdivisions in the future. 34 35 2. Discussion on Affordable Housing Bond/Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Scoring Matrix 36 The Board reviewed and discussed the incorporation of stakeholder feedback from the 2023 37 Requests for Proposals (RFP) process into the Affordable Housing Bond/Capital Investment Plan 38 (CIP)Scoring Matrix to create a more transparent, equitable, relevant, and effective process going 39 forward. 40 41 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Housing Department received feedback both during and 42 after the 2023 Affordable Housing Bond/CIP RFP process from applicants, residents on the 43 Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB), and elected officials. The feedback was varied but 44 several themes emerged across groups: 45 46 • The scorecard was confusing and subjective, with poor definitions at times. 47 • The scorecard unfairly penalizes repair and rehabilitation projects. 48 • The scorecard does not sufficiently account for past performance of applicants. 49 • The scorecard does not sufficiently reward housing for 60% AMI (area median income) 50 and below.