The Housing Trust Task Force met remotely to continue designing a county housing trust and on funding and service-area priorities, with consultant Brenda (last name not specified), leading the discussion and asking for direction on the group’s recommendations.

The task force focused on three organizational options for stewarding permanently affordable homeownership: creating a new nonprofit dedicated to the trust; contracting the program to an existing nonprofit; or forming a new, mission-embedded entity that contracts program delivery to an existing nonprofit. The group did not take a formal vote — members noted there was not a quorum to approve minutes or make final decisions — but participants broadly favored a nonprofit-led model with continued public oversight and a competitive selection process for program partners.

Why it matters: Participants said a housing trust would preserve permanently affordable homeownership and protect neighborhoods at risk of gentrification, but members repeatedly raised questions about start-up and operating costs, who will provide sustained funding, and how the trust’s service area should be prioritized.

Brenda, the consultant leading the review, summarized the options and trade-offs, saying, “If you create a new entity, you get that mission clarity” but it will add infrastructure costs and take longer to ramp up. She described the hybrid option as a way to “embed that mission” in bylaws while using an existing nonprofit’s program capacity: “You have an entity designed legally to protect this mission going forward...and you get that leverage of the other nonprofit.”

Discussion highlights and remaining questions

- Funding and county commitment: Warren asked how committed the county would be to funding a new structure and whether the county would provide operating support from general funds. Eric (identified in the meeting as a county official and task force sponsor) said the question of funding “remains to be seen” and that the task force will present a report to the council; he noted examples of mixed funding approaches, including a past earmark obtained with Senator Van Hollen’s assistance for a pilot in College Park. Members repeatedly flagged start-up and ongoing operating costs as a constraint whether an existing nonprofit or a new entity administered the program.

- Landscape and capacity scan: Brian asked for a “landscape scan” of county departments, quasi-governmental entities and housing nonprofits, and for an accounting of current resources those organizations devote to similar work. Brenda and staff agreed to perform that mapping to inform which organizations could feasibly run program operations or serve as partners.

- Governance and leadership: Multiple members emphasized board composition and leadership experience as critical. Brenda described the “classic” community land trust board structure: roughly one-third public representatives, one-third resident/homeowner representatives and one-third housing experts or fundraisers. Warren and others warned against appointing leaders without subject-matter expertise; one member said, “leadership, whatever structure it is, is gonna be equally as important as what structure it is.”

- Selection process and local preference: Several members favored an open, public Request for Proposals (RFP) with scoring that could give preference or bonus points to organizations based in the county. Bryce said he would “encourage a public RFP process that does give sort of bonus points to organizations based in Prince George’s but doesn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of other organizations applying.” Stephanie (representing HIP, a nonprofit participating in county pilot projects) said the RFP process should be “open and transparent.”

- Operational models: Members described trade-offs between embedding the trust’s mission inside an existing nonprofit (faster ramp, lower duplication of back-office functions but potential mission dilution) versus creating a standalone entity (more mission protection, higher start-up costs). A commonly expressed compromise was a hybrid model: create a mission-focused entity that contracts program operations to an existing nonprofit, leveraging its accounting and program infrastructure while embedding permanent-affordability rules in the new entity’s governing documents.

Service area and program targeting

Task force members discussed whether the trust’s service area should be countywide or targeted to specific places or market conditions. Options considered included countywide coverage with transparent prioritization rules; targeting areas at high risk of gentrification; prioritizing concentrations of poverty or under‑served areas; and coordinating across jurisdictional lines (for example, suburbs that straddle county borders). Several members said cross-jurisdictional work (with Montgomery County or the District) would be “too much to bite off” at the start.

Brenda noted the practical point that not every neighborhood will be financially viable for a permanently affordable homeownership tool: “If a house is too expensive...it's not gonna work.” Members suggested framing service-area policy around market and equity criteria (for example, income bands and market feasibility) rather than naming fixed geographic zones. Brian said the answer depends in part on what housing types the trust will pursue (single-family homeownership, condominium ownership, co-ops or multifamily ownership conversions), which affects where the model will be financially feasible.

Existing tools and related programs mentioned

Participants referenced existing federal and programmatic tools and local policies that intersect with a housing trust’s work, including HUD programs (section 8 homeownership), the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program for multifamily affordable housing, and the county’s right-of-first-refusal policy (noted in the meeting as currently focused on multifamily properties). Staff and members also referred to county planning documents (including Plan 2035 and the county’s Transforming Neighborhoods Initiative) and regional plans by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments as relevant inputs for prioritization.

Next steps and staff work

Task force members asked staff and the consultant to draft language for the report that captures the group’s preferred direction: a nonprofit-led entity with public representation and oversight, created through a transparent competitive process, and guided by policy priorities that will determine where the tool is used. Brenda said she would summarize the group’s direction and return to the task force with a draft recommendation. The group scheduled its next meeting to begin discussing resale formulas and to review the draft report and the requested landscape scan. The meeting did not include any formal votes or motions because a quorum was not present.

Ending: The consultant and staff will prepare a draft recommendation for the task force’s next meeting and will include a landscape scan of potential nonprofit and quasi‑governmental partners, funding options, and options for service-area prioritization.