[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6681810,"mediaKeyId","2153882-4d7b13794f310d7380196cbbbf365437","parentId",2153882,"title","Council considers HUD Section 108 loan to support Enterprise redevelopments; members question density, school and environmental impacts","audioSeconds",5199,"startMs",3353000,"endMs",8552000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2153882-4d7b13794f310d7380196cbbbf365437&start=3353&end=8552","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2153882-4d7b13794f310d7380196cbbbf365437/thumbnail_3353000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6681810/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-considers-HUD-Section-108-loan-to-support-Enterprise-redevelopments-members-question-density-school-and-environmental-impacts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681810-3f0c2d9ebe6015ea280e43791b5e6890/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437818&Signature=GhMGnZw8lcRJjckOmjRuHbv1SQoS3qKlmnDz~EBOcneEX5bd5ZTtCvarYHNUVO6I58ruecfPBgubsCCkm~Ph2qDBtX-ETJQHYUquEZPRxUUDbZVjdpj6OPVy6BVAthMubPv9UQNNH~BdpsAy1yr-ZwfCXd7IWfOpm2MxHghNgIowtO8QRgLDiopsvtHvN0QPGv71Ab~Togr0QoGQuZD~aoCcIZ7We~Xw7-DyoympHCO8xdP4TpkBejFzLP~vwgh~6q62Q2yLqe4dXspgqBR~dEyM-Em~wyH4wVHP2UkTXfMh7VEoRycdxHFrfnn9vYUZiSWytuDEQPDzzxr6T-eYkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Howard","date","2025-01-27T00:00:00Z","article","Howard County officials and representatives from Enterprise discussed CB3, a proposed use of HUD Section 108 financing to support redevelopment of two existing affordable housing communities (noted in the meeting as Randle/Ramley and Waverly Winds) and other Enterprise projects. The plan discussed would have HUD lend to the county under Section 108; Howard County would sub‑loan proceeds to Enterprise, and the county would use a portion of its annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement to cover a $350,000 per‑year commitment for 20 years. Enterprise representatives said the nonprofit developer will repay the remaining required payments from project cash flow.

How the financing works: staff described Section 108 as a loan mechanism that allows an entitlement community to borrow up to five times its annual CDBG allocation for eligible projects; the county would be obligated to make an annual payment (the county committed to pay $350,000 per year from CDBG entitlement administrative funds in the presentation), while Enterprise would be required to cover other amortization amounts as projects reach cash‑flow maturity. Participants said similar financing had been used previously in the county (for Burgess Mill and the Roger Carter Center) but that the county has not used Section 108 regularly in recent years.

Project and unit details discussed in the meeting:
- Randle/Ramley: the redevelopment replaces about 41 existing units with 82 proposed units (exact net counts and bedroom breakdowns were discussed), including a mix of deeply affordable units and some market‑rate units. Council members pressed Enterprise on façade design and resident amenity/yard placement.
- Waverly Winds: noted in the presentation as increasing from 62 existing units to 123 proposed units; project unit breakdown included categories by area median income (AMI) bands and deep affordability tiers.
- Legacy at Twin Rivers (formerly noted in discussion): speakers said completed redevelopment was being tracked for school impacts.

Council concerns and follow‑ups: several councilmembers and board members asked for additional documentation before acting on the Section 108 request. Key requests and concerns included:
- an amortization schedule and clearer illustration of which payments the county will cover and which payments Enterprise will make over time (staff said the initial years will include interest‑only payments covered in part by the county’s $350,000 commitment while project cash flow matures); staff also said HUD typically fixes the interest rate via a public offering within 12 months of closing, which will change the precise interest cost.
- requests for the county to provide a breakdown of prior county investment or subsidy for each of the five projects in the broader package and to explain how this loan compares to other options for producing affordable housing.
- school impacts: councilmembers asked for enrollment impacts and follow‑up data about students generated by prior redevelopments (for example, Legacy at Twin Rivers) and requested counts of children likely to be generated by the proposed projects; staff referenced an APFO‑style student‑generation formula and said a previous analysis indicated roughly 4–5 additional students for a comparable completed project, but officials did not provide a full post‑occupancy student count at the meeting and committed to follow up.
- environmental and tree impacts: councilmembers asked about specimen‑tree removals, Phase I/Phase II environmental site assessments (staff said Phase I has been done and Phase II is underway), and a list of environmental waivers sought for projects (Enterprise/department committed to provide that list).

Other points: Enterprise representatives confirmed the projects are rental communities (not for‑sale) and said replacements generally mirror existing bedroom counts or increase deep‑affordability units; staff noted the county could consider Section 108 for other eligible uses (community centers, for‑sale housing, infrastructure), but no for‑sale projects were presented for this loan. Council members asked whether Enterprise’s large national philanthropic gifts (referenced in public reporting) could be available for these projects; Enterprise staff said much donated funding is donor‑restricted and not available for site‑specific capital gaps.

What’s next: councilmembers requested an amortization schedule, a breakdown of county subsidy across the package of projects, a list of environmental waivers sought, post‑occupancy school enrollment figures from prior redevelopments and an accounting of available CDBG administrative balances. Staff and Enterprise said they would provide the requested follow‑up material before the council acts on any loan authorization.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Howard - Legislative Work Session - Jan 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Howard County considered using HUD Section 108 loan authority to finance two Enterprise redevelopments (Randle/Ramley and Waverly Winds), with the county committing roughly $350,000 a year from CDBG entitlement funds for 20 years while Enterprise covers remaining payments as projects generate cash flow.","taxTitle","Howard County, Maryland","taxId",13634,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6681814,"School board seeks $500,000 P3 study and facilities assessment; council debates capital priorities and Hammond High closeout funds",3513,2194000,5707000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2153882-4d7b13794f310d7380196cbbbf365437&start=2194&end=5707","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2153882-4d7b13794f310d7380196cbbbf365437/thumbnail_2194000.jpg","/articles/6681814/Howard-County/Maryland/School-board-seeks-500000-P3-study-and-facilities-assessment-council-debates-capital-priorities-and-Hammond-High-closeout-funds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681814-9d3c020325ca1972afd91806003f819a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437818&Signature=NSWlIH8DepXLU8Dvfvr2g-vn-5ONuXMIwB5TfGfoBHr69FoydCXqr0gQWDYHXtZ1ZYn1BwX07sM6f2257F6PHkLUHoul4gfewSglgUVqgTAJVJZm59vyTbh4DOOmGfdCK7fVlyP9CUnLw2nNEI7r6hV5G~Z9njV2eg6FSwEOs2fsu~P07bZM4~npGgTXdZDNjYG6JxUSgX-zddprV4GMZSvTpqhzpYOY8PINaAxcj~YmOBOMpeXz2XaTtCFMOZV~9rvPBybdlnUPvzaASNicRW~ahGQEGZpnr2fS4U-aPdBlmllA2FyWXYRu0T6~VYq0~WwrpF6cCuFD1IWCFzxw1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Howard County Public School System leaders told the council they want to hire consultants to evaluate public‑private partnership (P3) options and to perform a facilities assessment that would prioritize capital needs across the district.

Cornell Brown, chief operating officer for the Howard County Public School System (HCPSS), told the January work session that the school system plans to engage technical and financial consultants — typically a P3 technical consultant plus financial advisors — to evaluate which projects would be marketable to private partners and what financing structures could yield. Brown and Dan Lubli, executive director of capital planning and construction for HCPSS, said the study would not presume P3 is the outcome; rather, it is intended to identify which projects, if any, would be suitable for alternative financing and to produce short-, mid- and long‑range options for the district.

The board asked for the study after prior discussions with other jurisdictions and presentations that included Prince George’s County experience, Brown said. HCPSS also seeks a facilities assessment beyond the state’s building‑condition index — an evaluation that would pair building‑system condition with programmatic needs (for example, whether a building’s layout supports current educational programs, wraparound services, pre‑K or other changed uses). Brown and Lubli said the district’s last similar assessment (a Gilbert study) dates to 2008 and that the school‑system team needs updated information to prioritize projects and guide long‑range planning.

Councilmembers at the work session pressed several points. Some, including members who have opposed P3 in the past, said P3s can shift capital costs into ongoing operating obligations and pointed to the county’s experience with a courthouse public‑private arrangement. Others said the core problem is an insufficient capital envelope; councilmembers repeatedly referenced a historical “$54 million” annual capital funding ceiling for school projects and urged stronger prioritization and/or more county investment. Several council members asked how a P3 analysis would change if the county increased its capital allocation rather than seeking alternative financing.

On Hammond High School, Lubli said construction is complete and the project is in the closeout and warranty phase; remaining funds in the capital project account exist to address any warranty or unforeseen items. He explained that state cost‑of‑construction indices and contingencies for renovation projects drive budgeting practices and can result in residual funds at closeout that the system then reallocates for other needs. Councilmembers asked for a follow‑up meeting to reconcile specific line‑item figures for project E1024 (Hammond High) and to document remaining work and balances.

School board members and councilmembers also discussed past studies in other Maryland counties (for example, Charles County) that evaluated P3 and did not find it financially feasible. School officials said each district’s portfolio is different and that a district‑specific analysis is needed to determine marketability. The board emphasized the study is intended to provide definitive, data‑driven options that let elected leaders choose a path rather than continually revisiting the question without updated analysis.

What’s next: HCPSS will pursue consultant procurement for a P3 technical/financial study and a facilities assessment, then present options and a prioritized plan. The council signaled it wanted clearer cost/benefit information — including the operating‑budget implications of any P3 scenario and reconciled closeout figures for Hammond High — before committing to alternative financing or changing capital‑budget ceilings.","Howard County Public School System leaders asked the county council for funding to hire consultants for a P3 feasibility study and a facilities assessment; officials said the work will identify which capital projects, if any, are marketable to private partners and will produce a prioritized long‑range plan.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6681818,"Council reviews multiyear MOU to extend US‑29 bus rapid transit into Howard County; service eyed for spring 2026",2139,67000,2206000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2153882-4d7b13794f310d7380196cbbbf365437&start=67&end=2206","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2153882-4d7b13794f310d7380196cbbbf365437/thumbnail_67000.jpg","/articles/6681818/Howard-County/Maryland/Council-reviews-multiyear-MOU-to-extend-US29-bus-rapid-transit-into-Howard-County-service-eyed-for-spring-2026","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6681818-7910d144b16b3521eab842e556667ae5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437818&Signature=BGPyG5owU~ndki-lbAk4~1dsX1AU3hi8FqogdGHnSNQJRk-YAavNEVkr1wn~ppuWgm10ZSyERzBEFPmISFGRLdqW-OQ822jRE2eiipO3CIMK1suXGUvvCV6mGeKK5VH7JSlj9rS6Hr5lB9k7Id1Vp6kMx2eOwD0~qzixbf2MgLPg3f3O6rVVH1WrkaVt9mQOaguUB7I~tSkbn7NYW81qTa8AoBIKE8s1FGdV0dGhkZ64EEMn-riqJ4deao~F3GSrFz0PCMlR59EAly8LtigRPbgOmMMjGUisDUrRofMlahXwVgiROGa9fcYMIJ~L2DNNr6MkzWa1lUBuz-cZzDFiuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Howard County Councilmembers spent the work session reviewing CB4, a proposed multiyear memorandum of agreement with Montgomery County and the State of Maryland to extend bus rapid transit (BRT) along U.S. 29 into Howard County. The council and staff discussed funding, procurement, ridership assumptions and a tentative operating timeline that could put buses in service in spring 2026.

Under the current financing plan described at the work session, Montgomery County is handling procurement of electric buses using a congressionally directed spending award of about $4.8 million. Howard County’s anticipated match for federally supported capital (the typical 80/20-style arrangement for Federal Transit Administration vehicle projects) is roughly $1.45 million, staff said. Individual battery-electric buses were described in the session as costing about $1.2 million each.

Why it matters: the proposal would create a new regional commuting connection — enabling Howard County riders to reach the Washington Metro system and give Montgomery County residents direct service north into Howard County — but it depends on federal and state funding actions and interjurisdictional coordination.

County transportation staff told the council that Montgomery County will lead bus procurement and federal compliance steps; Howard County would provide the matching funds and coordinate operations once the vehicles are available. Staff said Montgomery County’s existing Flash service currently carries roughly 3,000–4,000 riders per weekday and that initial BRT demand estimates rely on a combination of that history and older demand studies. Councilmembers repeatedly pressed staff for updated, written ridership, revenue and financial projections; staff acknowledged there are no formal updated demand or revenue projections since a 2019 study.

Operating and fare assumptions discussed at the meeting included Montgomery County’s $1 one‑way fare and a plan to operate the Howard‑Montgomery extension fare‑free for the first one to two years to encourage ridership while staff assess fare recovery. Councilmembers asked whether farebox revenues were realistic given fare-collection equipment costs; staff said fare revenue typically does not cover transit operating costs for many bus systems.

Capacity and service details shared at the session: 60‑foot buses were described as seating about 54 passengers, 40‑foot buses about 34 seated, and maximum loaded capacities near 80 people when standing room is used. Staff said the corridor currently operates roughly 13 buses, with peak frequencies near every eight minutes and off‑peak frequencies around 15 minutes. The county also discussed transit signal priority and using shoulders or dedicated lanes as ways to buy travel time along congested segments.

Council concern focused on several areas: whether ridership assumptions reflect post‑COVID commuting patterns and return‑to‑office guidance, whether Howard County businesses or job centers (notably APL and Maple Lawn) would actually generate riders from the locations where workers live, and how long it will take to secure state support for shoulder‑use studies and infrastructure changes. Staff said some shoulder segments already operate in Montgomery County (about three miles) and that work to secure analyses and funding from the State Highway Administration is ongoing but not yet funded in full.

There was no council vote during the work session; staff characterized the MOU as a step that would allow Montgomery County to obligate federal grant funding and initiate procurement. Staff noted delivery and production-line timing for buses could put vehicle availability in approximately 12–18 months after procurement — a timeline that aligns with a spring 2026 service start if other actions proceed.

What’s next: the council and transportation staff will continue to vet the MOU and budget implications. The project’s advancement depends on Montgomery County’s procurement schedule, vehicle production slots, execution of federal grant obligations and state decisions on corridor improvements (shoulders, medians and signal priority) that affect travel time and reliability.","Howard County Councilmembers reviewed CB4, a proposed multiyear memorandum of agreement with Montgomery County and the State of Maryland to extend bus rapid transit (BRT) along U.S. 29 into Howard County; Montgomery County will purchase electric buses with a congressional grant while Howard County is expected to provide a federal match, staff said.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council considers HUD Section 108 loan to support Enterprise redevelopments; members question density, school and environmental impacts

School board seeks $500,000 P3 study and facilities assessment; council debates capital priorities and Hammond High closeout funds

Council reviews multiyear MOU to extend US‑29 bus rapid transit into Howard County; service eyed for spring 2026