Anchor Development lays out three options for Old County Courthouse site; commissioners request more data

Representatives of Anchor Development presented three alternative approaches to using the county‑owned Old County Courthouse site during the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners’ Dec. 1 briefing and answered commissioners’ questions about costs, financing and procurement.

Anchor’s executive director, introduced to the board by a staff member, outlined the options: an adaptive‑reuse conversion of the courthouse into roughly 165–200 rental units with a ground‑floor market and supportive services; demolition and new construction of a podium structure with about 90–120 units; or selling the building and splitting proceeds among a community land trust (CLT), rental stabilization/home repair programs and a first‑time buyer fund. "We would be looking at nearly $50,000,000 in redevelopment costs and about a $20,000,000 gap," Anchor said when discussing the adaptive reuse scenario.

Key details and financials presented or discussed:

- Adaptive reuse: Anchor estimated 4–5 floors of residential yielding 165–200 units, with an estimated redevelopment cost near $50 million and an approximate financing gap of $20 million. Anchor said it would pursue historic and low‑income housing tax credits and other gap funding sources.

- Demolition/rebuild: Anchor proposed a podium building of 90–120 units with purpose‑built retail; the group said demolition is estimated at $1–2 million and that the project would likely require rezoning.

- Sale and split proceeds: In a third option, Anchor proposed using the sale proceeds (Anchor used an example $2.6 million sale) split into thirds to support a community land trust, a rental‑stabilization fund and a county home‑repair/first‑time buyer fund; staff and the county attorney cautioned there may be legal and procurement constraints on using county funds or transfers to nonprofits.

Rent targeting and affordability: Anchor said precise monthly rents depend on the final subsidy/finance stack but said a target range for affordable units would be about $550–$750 per month depending on subsidies and unit mix.

County attorney and process issues: The county attorney advised the board that using county funds or transferring land to nonprofit programs could require legal review and possibly a voter referendum to expand county authority for certain affordable housing activities. Commissioners pressed Anchor for more detail on the "gap" figures and evidence of prior experience securing gap funding; Anchor cited experience with tax credit projects and awards from entities such as the Federal Home Loan Bank.

Procurement and upset‑bid concerns: Commissioners raised the ongoing upset‑bid process for the courthouse and questioned whether pausing that sale would be appropriate. Several commissioners emphasized they did not want to lose the currently active bid; others said a sale could create a pool of funds to support affordable housing while broader options remain under study.

Next steps: Anchor agreed to provide additional modeling, community land trust materials and breakdowns of gap‑financing scenarios. The board signaled interest in continuing discussions but did not take action at the briefing.

Quoted directly from the presentation: "This would include about 50% studio units, 40 percent 1 bedroom units, and 10 percent 2 bedroom units...We would be looking at nearly $50,000,000 in redevelopment costs and about a $20,000,000 gap," Anchor representatives said. The county attorney added that "it may require...a voter referendum" for some approaches to using county funds or land transfers, and commissioners asked staff to produce legal guidance and financial details before any decision.

The discussion combined policy, procurement and community‑partner planning; commissioners asked staff to provide additional information on financing, procurement restrictions, the upset‑bid timeline and other county properties that might be leveraged for affordable housing.