Richland County committee hears plan to rehab vacant homes with Columbia Housing; HUD deed release could delay work

Richland County’s Affordable Housing Ad Hoc Committee received an update on a collaboration with Columbia Housing to rehabilitate vacant homes and discussed funding, oversight and timing.

The committee heard that staff organized target properties into three funding groups: Group A (to be supported by general-fund money and intended for up to about four homes initially, with room for one or two more depending on recoupment), Group B (homes funded with CDBG/CDBG COVID that require occupants at 80 percent area median income) and Group C (disposition properties with funding to be determined). Director Sunita Williams presented an updated spreadsheet of addresses and funding sources and said homes with existing plans and specifications could be advanced more quickly.

"Group A would be the 1 supported by the general fund," Director Sunita Williams said, describing the spreadsheet and the distinctions between funding sources. Williams also said Columbia Housing had recently moved people into two formerly vacant homes, and that staff had drafted a memorandum of understanding and were finalizing individual home contracts.

Mr. Brown summarized actions the county sought to make the program operational, including administrative authorities approved or requested by county council. "I said those items included authorizing the administrator to approve individual expenses in excess of a $100,000 up to a maximum of $200,000 related specifically to this initiative regarding affordable housing," he told the committee. Brown said council also authorized steps to pursue a substantial amendment to HUD plans guiding CDBG CV funds to reallocate money and to execute an operating agreement with Columbia Housing.

Several members pressed staff on eligibility and timing. Councilwoman Cooper urged the committee to consider households who fall just above HUD income thresholds and recommended a mix of HUD and general-fund assistance so people who are slightly over the 80 percent AMI cutoff are not left out. "I would like to encourage the committee to think about those individuals that are just somewhat in the in between," she said.

Committee members asked whether a tranche of homes already had plans and specs and whether modest additional general-fund allocations could move further units quickly; Williams said staff had received Columbia Housing’s list of homes with plans and specs and were comparing it to the committee’s recommendations.

Staff warned that a HUD deed-of-trust release for the Columbia Housing properties is a gating item. Williams said Columbia Housing intended to request HUD release this summer but that federal timing could delay that release. As an interim approach, Williams said the county could potentially front rehab costs for one or two homes if Columbia Housing agreed to reimburse the county should HUD not release the deed of trust.

On delivery and oversight, Williams said the county plans to hire a project manager whose salary would be paid from block grant funding and who would work alongside Columbia Housing’s project manager; who hires and manages contractors will depend on the funding source, but committee members were asked to contact county staff about specific construction concerns.

Next steps identified by staff include finalizing the MOU, executing individual home contracts, posting a request for a county project manager this week, and continuing coordination with Columbia Housing and HUD. The committee took no formal vote on the housing plan itself during this meeting; the formal motions recorded were procedural (approval of minutes, adoption of the agenda and adjournment).