Affordable‑housing developer offers three options for Old County Courthouse, cites $50M reuse estimate and $20M funding gap

Representatives from Anchor Development presented three options on Dec. 1 for using the Old County Courthouse site for affordable housing and neighborhood supports, and commissioners debated feasibility, procurement and timing while staff cautioned about legal limits on county funds.

Laurie Ingram, Anchor’s executive director, outlined Option 1—adaptive reuse of the courthouse into four to five floors of residential with a ground‑floor fresh market and supportive services. "We would be looking at nearly $50,000,000 in redevelopment costs and about a $20,000,000 gap," Ingram said, adding that the developer would use historic and low‑income housing tax credits and other gap sources. Anchor estimated approximately 165–200 units under that scenario and emphasized on‑site supportive services for housing stability.

Option 2 would demolish the existing structure and construct a podium building with 90–120 units and purpose‑built retail for a grocery partner. Anchor said demolition estimates are currently $1–2 million and asked the county to consider covering demolition costs if the board preferred this route.

Option 3 would sell the property through the existing upset‑bid process and split the proceeds roughly in thirds among a community land trust, a rental stabilization/down‑payment assistance fund, and a county home‑repair initiative. Anchor suggested that if a $2,600,000 sale occurred and funds were split in thirds it could support about 10 permanently affordable homes in year one.

Deputy development director Tonya Skillman said financing choices matter: 9% Low‑Income Housing Tax Credits reduce required gap financing compared with 4% credits, but the 9% credits are competitive. Commissioners asked Anchor for modeled finance stacks showing how a purchase price, demolition costs and various tax‑credit scenarios would affect affordability and rents. Anchor said the target rents could be in the $550–$750 range depending on subsidy mixes but that final rents cannot be committed without a completed financing plan.

County Attorney advised the board that using county funds or transferring land and money to nonprofits for long‑term affordable housing could require a referendum or specific legal arrangements; he recommended a community housing needs study and further legal review before committing county dollars or changing the upset‑bid process.

Commissioners split: some urged accepting the upset‑bid sale process to preserve immediate proceeds for housing programs, while others supported pausing the sale to pursue longer‑term preservation (community land trust) or redevelopment options. Several commissioners asked staff to return with more detailed gap‑funding scenarios and to coordinate with the City of Winston‑Salem and other housing stakeholders.

There was no board action at the briefing; commissioners asked staff to compile financial models, procurement/legal options and to report back.