Spencer County Fiscal Court backs Second Baptist Church senior housing project

Spencer County Fiscal Court voted July 7 to approve a resolution supporting Second Baptist Church’s proposal to build an independent senior housing complex, court members said during a presentation and a short voice vote.

The resolution expresses the court’s support for Second Baptist Church’s plan to develop a senior housing complex aimed at residents aged 55 and older, and directs staff to sign the simple support document the church can include in funding applications, County Judge (name not specified in transcript) said. The court approved the resolution on a motion by Mike, seconded by Zach; the measure passed by voice vote.

The project team told the court the plan calls for roughly 30 units in a three-story building and would renovate the church’s former Manor’s Chapel to serve as a community center for residents and the public, Reverend Lewis said. Jake Spielman and a representative from Winter Wood — the property’s proposed manager and developer — described a timeline keyed to tax-credit financing: the application is expected to be filed Aug. 1 with an anticipated response around January, and construction would begin six to nine months after financing approval.

A Winter Wood representative said the financing will be private capital drawn in by low-income housing tax credits; another speaker stated the tax credits are federal in nature and the project is not planned as Section 8-subsidized housing. Cornerstone Engineering’s vice president, identified in the meeting as Travis Bison, will provide on-site construction supervision during building work, the presenters said.

Court members and presenters discussed coordinating the senior housing site with a planned park on nearby school property, shared pathways and a “healing garden,” and said the church plans to involve community members in a contest to name the facility.

The court’s resolution is nonbinding on financing and is expressly contingent on successful grant or tax-credit awards, the resolution’s text says; court members said they will sign the resolution and provide it to the church team for inclusion with funding applications. Project backers said they will return with progress updates.

Questions from court members centered on financing sources and timing; no formal conditions or amendments were attached to the resolution.

The court’s action does not itself authorize construction or commit county funds; presenters repeatedly described the court’s vote as a supportive letter for the church’s funding packet.