Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Affordable topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fiscal court awards county-owned site for workforce housing amid calls for safeguards and reports

Franklin County Fiscal Court
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The fiscal court awarded Wynnewood Development LLC the contract to develop workforce housing at 501 Holmes Street; members supported moving forward but raised concerns about long-term lease terms, federal affordability commitments, reporting requirements, and whether county funds should deepen affordability.

Franklin County fiscal court voted to award Wynnewood Development LLC the contract to develop workforce housing on county-owned property at 501 Holmes Street after a review of a lone RFP response.

Presenters said the proposal would produce between roughly 30 and 50 units (different figures were discussed) and that the developer expressed willingness to work with the county on unit mix and special needs populations. Court members and staff stressed that final design and unit counts will depend on architectural plans and funding sources. One member summarized the proposed unit mix in the response: 9 one-bedroom, 12 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units (proposal scope), but speakers said the developer and county could adjust those numbers during design.

Several court members urged protections and oversight given the project's likely use of federal low-income housing tax credits and long-term affordability covenants. One member noted that if the project uses certain federal programs it could create a 50-year partnership obligation and recommended annual reporting back to the court and strict contract terms to ensure the county's interests as landowner are protected. A member proposed directing some county dollars toward deeper affordability if feasible; another asked that neighboring residents be afforded a public conversation and that the county require performance and reporting terms in the final contract.

Despite concerns, the court voted in the voting session to award the contract. Staff said additional steps remain: hiring architects and engineers, preparing formal agreements, determining whether the county will provide direct funding support, and finalizing compliance and reporting provisions as part of ensuing contract negotiations. The court did not formally specify amounts of county subsidy at this meeting.