Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pittsboro commissioners debate affordable‑housing fund use, in‑lieu fee and land purchases
Summary
Commissioners discussed the town's affordable housing fund balance, timing of conditional‑zoning payments, whether to raise the developer in‑lieu fee, and a proposal to consider buying land for future affordable housing.
Commissioners debated how to use and grow Pittsboro's affordable housing fund, including whether to increase the current in‑lieu fee and whether the town should buy land to reserve for future affordable housing.
Commissioner Richard Barnett (referred to in discussion) described the town's accumulated affordable‑housing fund and asked staff for specifics. Staff said the fund balance was about $300,000–$425,000 depending on accounting and recent receipts. "We have 300,000 total accumulated," a staff member said; another estimate during the exchange put the balance closer to $425,000 including recent contributions.
Discussion addressed a developer payment schedule tied to conditional zoning: staff said the developer's first payment is due in February, with a second payment due the following November, and that the town holds collateral lots if payments are missed. "Their first payment is due in February with their second payment due this time next year ... we have collateral of, I think, 7 or 8 lots," staff said.
On the in‑lieu fee calculation, staff described the current fee as $85 per unit and said a more correct calculation yields roughly $155–$158 per unit. Commissioners discussed gradually increasing the fee rather than a single large jump to avoid legal or market pushback. "Maybe next year, if the board is okay with it, we may we go halfway and then adjust the rest later," a staff member said.
Commissioners also proposed using the fund to assemble land for future affordable housing or public–private partnerships. One commissioner urged caution about immediate large land purchases, noting the town already faces an outstanding potential liability tied to Chatham Park (a $5 million figure was discussed in the meeting) and advising the board to prioritize covering that anticipated liability before major acquisitions.
There was also discussion about tying the in‑lieu fee formula to a publicly available index — for example, HUD measures or area median income updates — to make annual adjustments more defensible and predictable.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to memorialize the discussion in the budget document and to bring proposals for a defensible formula and a staged fee increase for future consideration.
