Nonprofit lays out three paths for old courthouse — county asked to consider building transfer, demo or sale proceeds for housing

Anchor Development on Monday presented three distinct proposals for the county-owned old courthouse in downtown Winston‑Salem, asking the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners to consider whether to transfer the building, fund demolition, or allow sale proceeds to be used for permanent affordable‑housing programs.

An Anchor representative, presenting the group's feasibility work, said the adaptive‑reuse option would convert four to five floors into about 165–200 rental units with a 15,000–20,000 sq. ft. ground‑floor market and space for supportive residential services. The presentation estimated about $50 million in redevelopment costs and a roughly $20 million financing gap; the presenter said, “we would only be asking for the building to come from the county.”

Anchor proposed a second option to demolish the existing structure and build a podium‑style project with 90–120 units. The presenter said demolition estimates are in the $1 million–$2 million range and that new construction would be less expensive and more predictable than retrofit. A third option would complete the upset‑bid sale and place sale proceeds into three funds — a community land trust, rental stabilization, and a county home‑repair/down‑payment assistance pool — splitting proceeds into roughly equal shares. Under that model, Anchor said a $2.6 million sale could create immediate permanent affordability for about 10 homes in the first year.

Tonya Skillman, Anchor’s deputy director and development director, described tradeoffs in financing: adding a purchase price to the gap could increase rents or make a tax‑credit project less feasible. “Adding the purchase price … would increase our gap,” Skillman said, noting reliance on low‑income housing tax credits and other gap‑funding sources subject to competitive awards.

County staff and several commissioners pressed for specifics. Budget and development questions included how the financing stack would affect target rents (Anchor’s aim ranged from $550 to $750 monthly, depending on subsidies), whether the group had inspected the building (Anchor said its estimates were based on plans and comparable projects), and the details supporting the nonprofit participation rate on other projects.

The county attorney advised caution about direct county funding and property transfers. He said some approaches — including direct transfers of money or land to nonprofits for housing activities — could require additional legal steps or even a voter referendum, and recommended staff analysis and referencing a memo prepared in August that reviewed state guidance.

Several commissioners emphasized the competing priorities: one commissioner argued the upset‑bid sale remains the best source of near‑term funds for housing programs, while others asked the county to study longer‑term roles for county involvement and to consider other county properties that might be better suited for development. Commissioners also asked Anchor to return with more detailed numbers showing how adding purchase costs would change the gap and affordability assumptions.

No formal action was taken at the briefing. Commissioners asked staff to gather additional financial detail from Anchor, to provide the county attorney’s memo referenced in August, and to continue coordinating with the City of Winston‑Salem on any path that would require rezoning or other city approvals.