Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recovery Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Retired judge pitches 100‑bed regional recovery housing campus, seeks multi‑county support
Summary
A retired judge described a plan for a 100‑bed residential recovery campus with step‑up housing and workforce training, outlined estimated cost savings and asked neighboring counties to signal interest for state and federal funding.
Joel Pennington, a retired circuit court judge, told the Charlotte County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 8 that a regional recovery housing campus could reduce recidivism, increase employment and save taxpayer dollars while providing residential treatment and job training for people in recovery.
Pennington said the concept centers on a 50‑acre tract the project team has under option near South Boston. The initial building would provide about 100 beds in a congregate residential model; a second phase would add roughly two dozen step‑up apartment units for residents who demonstrate sustained sobriety and employment. The campus would also include a job‑training facility aimed at trades such as welding, carpentry and electrical work, and Pennington said the Southside Community Services Board (CSB) has been in talks to serve as the behavioral‑health services provider.
The proposal includes an economic case the presenter summarized for the board: Pennington cited an estimated per‑day incarceration cost of about $85 in the region versus about $58 per day for recovery‑court programming, projected a 68% reduction in recidivism for participants, a 39% increase in employment, and an overall multi‑year benefit–cost ratio of roughly $5 returned for each dollar invested. Pennington said the plan anticipates funding from opioid‑abatement dollars, the Virginia Tobacco Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture programs and low‑income housing tax credits (LIHTC).
Pennington described outreach already underway: meetings with the governor’s office, the opioid abatement authority, the Tobacco Commission, USDA representatives (including a site visit by USDA officials), and local county administrators across South Central Virginia. He asked the Charlotte County supervisors to send a brief e‑mail indicating whether the county sees potential in the project so he can demonstrate regional support while pursuing state or other competitive funding.
Supervisors responded with supportive questions and comments. One supervisor called it “a worthy project,” noting first‑responder experience with repeat offenders and urging continued discussion. Another asked whether the residential stays are time‑limited; Pennington said operators he visited typically set a two‑year guideline but rarely evict participants who are progressing and stable, and that building more capacity is the preferred solution to overflow.
Pennington also outlined program scale and projected impact: the concept paper attached to his presentation estimates serving about 1,500 people over 15 years and lists expected net fiscal benefits over that period. He said the team expects to pursue LIHTC for roughly 60% of capital funding, with other grants and abatement funds filling gaps.
The presentation concluded with Pennington offering to meet county staff and supervisors to discuss next steps and asking for letters or e‑mails indicating whether Charlotte County is interested in participating in a multi‑county application or collaboration.
The presentation was delivered during the board’s public comment and committee‑report portion of the Jan. 8 meeting; supervisors did not take a formal vote on the project that day.
