Committee of the Whole recommends disposition of 23 surplus county parcels, removes District 7 lots for further review

The Committee of the Whole of the Prince George's County Council voted 9-0 to report favorably on CR-41-2025, a resolution that would begin the formal disposition process for 23 county-owned parcels designated surplus under CB 106-2024, after a separate 9-0 vote to remove the parcels listed in District 7 for additional review.

The disposition process described in staff presentations would be administered by the Redevelopment Authority of Prince George's County (RDA) rather than the Office of Central Services going forward, consistent with changes to county procedures enacted in CB 61-2023 and the county code provision cited by staff. "This legislation provides for the disposition of 23 real property parcels designated as surplus," said Mr. Tutt, council staff, in opening remarks. E. Kennedy, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority of Prince George's County, told the committee the RDA will market and seek development partners for the parcels and prioritize equitable inclusion and opportunities for county-based minority developers.

Why it matters: the parcels were declared surplus by the council last fall in CB 106-2024. Disposing of surplus property can generate capital receipts for county priorities and reduce operating costs, but several council members pressed staff on how the county will protect opportunities for affordable single-family housing and how to ensure parcels do not immediately convert to market-rate development.

RDA presentation and parcels

RDA staff presented the list of 23 parcels by council district and discussed preliminary appraisals and recommended disposition approaches. The staff presentation said the parcels total about 19.29 acres (840,573 square feet) with a combined market value of $733,000 as presented to the committee; the presentation noted that figure excluded the old Fairmont Heights High School and that including that site would raise the stated total fair-market value substantially. RDA staff walked through individual properties, including a 14.9-acre site at 1401 Nye Street in Capitol Heights (listed in the binder as the former Vermont Heights High School) with an appraised value presented as $10,970,000; several small residential lots in Capitol Heights and Landover with appraisals ranging from a few thousand dollars up to the low six figures; and a roughly 20,000-square-foot lot at 9533 Badger Avenue in Clinton appraised at $25,000, among others. For some parcels the RDA described a plan to offer first priority to adjacent property owners or to assemble lots for larger development; for others staff described holding the property for housing initiatives or transferring it to the RDA for assemblage.

Affordable housing, land bank and right-of-first-refusal issues

Council members repeatedly asked how the county can ensure properties are used for affordable housing rather than converting to market-rate single-family homes. "I would be uncomfortable supporting it unless I was guaranteed it would be going to a project like this," said Council member Oriada, referring to nonprofit affordable-housing developers such as Habitat for Humanity. RDA staff replied that the agency has previously sold property to nonprofit affordable-housing developers and that disposition agreements can include covenants to preserve affordability. E. Kennedy said the RDA is "working with the Department of Housing and Community Development" on potential partnerships and RFP approaches.

Council members also raised the county's land bank as a potential tool to hold parcels for affordable housing. RDA staff said creating a land bank previously had been estimated to cost about $2 million and that they would need to follow up on the current status and feasibility. Another council member noted that the county code includes a "preferred government entity" right of first refusal (naming the revenue authority, municipalities where properties are located, and other public entities) that could be used in some cases to preserve public-purpose uses, including affordable housing, and suggested the attachment that accompanies the resolution could be revised to reflect specific disposition directions.

Timing, appraisals and next steps

Staff told the committee the resolution process includes a 30-day clock for disposition steps and that the committee's report would send the current version of the resolution to public hearing and adoption. The clerk warned the committee that to meet publication deadlines the resolution must be sent to newspapers quickly to secure a public hearing date. RDA staff said typical appraisal certificates remain valid about nine months for commercial appraisals and that, if parcels were removed now and reintroduced later, the full process to re-list them could take roughly a year because of new appraisals, legislative steps and committee review.

Committee action

Council member Oriada moved to remove the District 7 parcels from the disposition package so those parcels could receive additional review for affordable-housing protections; the motion was seconded and carried 9-0. The committee then voted 9-0 to report favorably on the remainder of CR-41-2025, sending the resolution and accompanying materials toward a public hearing and final council action. Council staff and RDA representatives agreed to meet with Council member Oriada and the Department of Housing and Community Development to work line-by-line through the attachment and proposed disposition directions before introduction to the full council.

What remains unsettled

The committee left open how the council will incorporate specific affordable-housing requirements into final disposition agreements. Staff suggested covenants and prioritizing sales to nonprofit developers are possible mechanisms; council members asked staff to prepare draft language to reflect the council's direction. The RDA reiterated that final disposition requires returning with a purchaser or specific disposition terms for council approval under the changed surplus process.

The resolution will move to a public hearing and later to full council for final action; staff said scheduling and advertising deadlines will determine the public-hearing date.