Minutes 11-12-2024 - Work Session

Browse Search

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