Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on Banyan affordable housing award after debate over Live Local location, tax treatment and county subsidy
Summary
Council split 4–3 after an extended debate over using SHIP/HOME funds to back a Banyan Development proposal under Florida’s Live Local Act. Supporters said negotiated payments‑in‑lieu preserve county revenue after the 15‑year tax exemption period; opponents warned of building residential units in industrial areas and of market conditions.
The Volusia County Council considered and then rejected funding for a Banyan Development affordable housing project on May 20 after an extended debate over location, state Live Local Act implications and the county’s use of federal and state housing funds.
Lede and nut: Staff presented a negotiated deal to fund a minimum‑45‑unit, transit‑oriented workforce housing project located near a SunRail station. The developer had agreed to a payment‑in‑lieu of taxes for county millage during the year‑16 to year‑50 affordability period to preserve county revenue that the low‑income housing tax exemption would otherwise remove. After more than an hour of debate on location, market timing and public subsidy, a motion to approve the award failed 4–3.
Funding and negotiated terms: Staff said the developer would use Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits and requested county HOME ($200,000) and SHIP ($1,500,000) support to complete the capital stack. Staff reported they had negotiated a payment‑in‑lieu arrangement for the county portion of property taxes during years 16–50 of the agreement, estimated to generate more than $1,500,000 in county tax revenue over the period using current millage assumptions.
Council concerns and arguments: Opponents argued the site sits in an industrial zone surrounded by heavy industrial uses, that the Live Local Act may leave affordable housing with no local tax base for decades, and that market conditions show a local housing inventory glut making new subsidized rental units risky. Supporters said the county would likely not see the year‑16 tax revenue unless it negotiated the PILOT (payment in lieu) and noted funding was earmarked for affordable housing uses and subject to program deadlines.
Vote and immediate consequences: Vice Chair Matt Reinhart moved to approve the award; the motion carried 4–3 at the roll call but a subsequent recount of recorded votes in the transcript shows the motion ultimately failed 4–3. (Transcript roll‑call shows votes split; staff recorded that the motion failed on a 4–3 vote at the meeting close.) No award was made at the meeting; staff said grant funds could be used for other SHIP/HOME‑eligible activities but noted timelines for spending federal/state funds.
Ending: Members who opposed the project asked staff to consider other uses for the SHIP/HOME funds such as homeowner repair and rehabilitation and to report back on the feasibility of redirecting the funds, given spending deadlines and program requirements.
