The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 6 voted to direct county staff to pursue an option to relocate the Government Support Center to a site east of Leesburg while also asking staff to return comparative cost estimates for completing a new campus at the existing Leesburg government site.

The motion, passed after the board suspended its rules to allow reconsideration of a prior October action, directs staff to develop options and seek potential public‑private partnerships to accommodate a building of approximately 300,000 to 400,000 square feet at an eastern Loudoun location and to provide a side‑by‑side comparison with estimated costs to complete the Leesburg campus.

Board members debated timing, cost and access. Supporters said a public‑private lease/purchase vehicle could speed delivery and reduce near‑term capital outlays. Opponents and some undecided supervisors asked for the Leesburg cost estimate to remain in the record, noting the county already owns the Leesburg campus and that ownership carries long‑term fiscal implications.

County staff told the board earlier analyses show Option 2 is likely to be less costly to construct and quicker to deliver, but the board asked staff to return fuller cost comparisons — including projected long‑term lease costs versus full county construction and financing — before commitments are finalized. Staff said construction‑estimate figures for the Leesburg campus previously provided to the board place the build cost in the neighborhood of $230–$250 million and that the effective date for any methodology changes or financing would be driven by design and CIP decisions.

A number of supervisors also raised operational considerations: proximity to Metro for some employees, commuting patterns for staff who live in western Loudoun, and the statutory timeline driven by courthouse expansion needs. Staff indicated the board needs a solution by roughly 2030–2033 and that a public‑private partnership could shorten the delivery schedule.

The motion passed with Supervisor Sainz recorded in the meeting as voting no; two supervisors were absent at the time of the final vote. The motion itself does not authorize a project or a lease; it directs staff to continue negotiations and return comparative analyses to the board for a future decision.