Consultant lays out phased workforce‑housing plan; estimates $6M–$8.4M infrastructure costs

A consultant working with the Economic Development Authority told supervisors on Sept. 9 that preliminary plans for a county property could support a workforce‑housing development but will require substantial infrastructure funding. "Where we are in the project, we're getting very near the end of it...we've completed utility strategy...we settled on 3 general concepts," Chris Chittum told the board. Chittum presented three concepts (low, medium and higher density) that locate most residential buildout on the parcel's northern two‑thirds and reserve the steeper southern portion for passive recreation and trails. The concepts range from about 18–22 dwelling units on the low‑density scheme to roughly 70–150 units on the higher‑density option, depending on house type and lot configuration; a quarter‑acre minimum lot was shown in higher‑density sketches. Preliminary hard costs presented for roads, utilities, stormwater and soft costs put total development infrastructure between about $6.1 million and $8.4 million, Chittum said, noting that the estimate excludes building construction and carried a large contingency (about 30%) because of site unknowns. Chittum told the board the county would likely need grants or other subsidy to achieve affordable or workforce rents: "We need to seek utility and road building assistance...this does not include the houses. This is just to put the pads in." Board members and consultants discussed potential sources including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; staff read packet figures for CDBG maximum income limits cited by the presenter, noting a one‑person limit of roughly $49,400 and about $56,450 for two people, and that CDBG typically requires a majority of units (presented as 51%) be occupied by households meeting the income limits. Supervisors expressed concern that those limits could exclude some teachers and other public‑service workers; one supervisor said, "I don't want this to put the people we're trying to reach out of reach." At 8,964 seconds into the meeting, board members agreed to remove the housing item from the consent/action calendar and to schedule more time for review and a workshop to examine the planning commission’s recommended edits and the packet figures in depth. No bond or funding commitment was authorized; staff and the consultant were directed to refine cost estimates, obtain an ALTA survey, and explore potential funding mixes and phasing that would lower per‑unit infrastructure costs if grants become available.