Columbia County advisory board narrows focus to mixed‑use and multifamily rentals in incentive workshop

Columbia County economic development advisory board members met in a workshop to review a draft residential incentive scorecard and discuss whether and how the county should use tax rebates or other incentives to attract housing development. Staff and outside consultants linked the proposed incentive to an ongoing comprehensive‑plan and land development regulation (LDR) update and asked the board to define what types of housing to prioritize before finalizing incentive mechanics.

Blair Knighting, a planner working with Kimberly Horn’s firm, told the board the decision should start with “what type of housing do we want” and where to direct incentives, not with the rebate mechanics. “Let’s have a vision for this and maybe hopefully have a cohesive vision so we understand,” she said, framing the incentive as one tool that must align with the comprehensive plan and draft overlays.

Why it matters: board members and developers said Columbia County lacks a range of quality rental options and that workforce housing gaps could limit the county’s ability to attract and retain employees for new commercial and industrial projects. Participants repeatedly identified infrastructure readiness — utilities and entitlement status — as the principal barrier developers face in delivering multi‑unit rental housing.

Developers and consultants told the board that projects are feasible when utilities and entitlements are in place. Dylan (consultant) summarized that “if you don’t have infrastructure, you don’t have anything,” and urged targeted incentives that reward projects that add utility capacity or come with necessary entitlements. Several participants pushed the board to prioritize mixed‑use nodes and apartment communities rather than broad, untargeted incentives for single‑family subdivisions.

Substance of the discussion: the group debated how to measure need and how to structure rewards. Staff noted draft scorecard features discussed in the meeting, including the idea of awarding points for project characteristics (density, reserved workforce units, on‑site amenities) and an example threshold in the draft that would trigger a substantial rebate if a project reached a high point total. Board members questioned parts of the draft — for example, a 4× median‑household‑income qualifier that planners said could be unrealistic for many developers — and discussed reserving a share of units for lower‑moderate incomes or workforce households.

Participants proposed practical limits: several members suggested capping incentives to the first few qualifying projects (one proposal was to incentivize the first three large, qualifying developments) or tying incentives to a fixed number of new dwelling units (participants discussed a 100‑unit benchmark as a scale where multifamily projects become financially viable). Staff and attorneys cautioned about administrative burdens, noting that rebate programs often require up‑front payment and multi‑year reporting from developers.

Timing and coordination: several board members urged caution about finalizing any incentive before planning staff complete LDR updates and overlay mapping; others favored advancing both tracks in parallel so incentives and land‑use rules align. The meeting closed with an agreement that staff would pull and present data quantifying the multifamily rental gap, simplify and refine the draft score sheet, and coordinate with the planning board to identify targeted overlay areas and public outreach strategies. No formal vote or binding action occurred at the workshop.

Next steps: staff will return with specific data on the multifamily gap, a streamlined scorecard proposal, and recommended overlay locations for targeted incentives; the board will revisit the proposal for potential action after those materials are provided.