Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board backs $100,000 CDBG feasibility application for Exodus affordable‑housing plan
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted to adopt a resolution supporting a $100,000 Community Development Block Grant feasibility application to study infrastructure and planning for an Exodus Family Institute housing project on county property; the board stopped short of endorsing larger construction funding.
The King George County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt a resolution supporting a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) feasibility application of $100,000 for an Exodus Family Institute housing development on county-owned land. The motion directed staff to draft a resolution of support and to work with regional partners on the application. The vote was taken after discussion about the scope of support and whether the board would commit to larger construction grants at this stage; supervisors limited the action to backing the feasibility phase.
Why it matters: Exodus seeks federal CDBG feasibility funding to assess infrastructure needs (roads, water, sewer) and engineering for a proposed affordable/workforce housing project intended to provide homes targeted at teachers, first responders and other local workers. Project supporters said using feasibility funding to pay for engineering and infrastructure planning would reduce the amount of household subsidy required at sale and make homeownership more attainable for local workers.
Exodus’ presenter said the nonprofit has builders and partners available for construction but needs grant-funded infrastructure analysis to keep end costs down for buyers. The board discussed options including deed restrictions, resale formulas or community-land-trust models to preserve affordability; staff and regional partners indicated the first stage is a feasibility study and that a resolution of support is required to proceed with the CDBG application.
Supervisor commentary varied: some supervisors supported only the feasibility study and asked staff to return for decisions about larger construction funding, while others encouraged moving forward to help the workforce and to preserve affordability using demonstrated mechanisms. The board approved the feasibility-support resolution by voice/roll call and asked staff and the applicant to work with Gwinnett-Rappahannock Regional Council (GWRC) and county staff on the grant application and any required county resolutions ahead of the application deadlines.
Ending: The board’s support covers the feasibility phase (to prepare engineering and infrastructure planning) only; any future county role in construction funding or ownership would require separate board action.
