Madison County awarded $1 million CDBG to extend water service to Northwood Circle area

Madison County staff announced that on Oct. 6 the county received a $1,000,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to extend the county water system to Griffith Road, Norfolk Circle and Shady Lane, targeting residents in the Northwood Circle neighborhood who rely on private wells.

“CDBG funds will be used to expand the waterline to provide reliable clean drinking water to residents in the Northwood Circle neighborhood,” said Speaker 2, a county presenter. The presenter said the project aims to improve water quality, provide fire safety and support projected growth in the area.

The presentation included a budget breakdown: $61,200 for engineering and $938,800 for construction, plus a county match for additional construction costs that was not specified during the meeting. Speaker 2 said the work will be confined to existing rights-of-way and “no property needs to be acquired.”

Speaker 2 said the CDBG program is administered under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs and is intended to benefit low- and moderate-income residents. The presenter also listed federal compliance requirements that will apply to the project, including the Fair Housing Act, the Davis-Bacon Act’s wage regulations, and HUD Section 3 hiring preferences.

During the meeting, a participant questioned why the program statement referenced economic development. “I find it ironic that they include that in their statement,” said Speaker 1, noting that CDBG grants typically target housing and community development rather than direct economic development. Speaker 2 responded that any support for growth would be indirect and that the program’s primary objectives are housing and community improvements.

Questions from participants also focused on schedule and procurement. Speaker 1 asked whether the engineering or construction firms were selected; Speaker 2 said the engineering firm has been engaged but the construction contractor has not yet been selected. Timing was described as dependent on contracting and engineering processes, with residents mentioning a possible February–March window but no firm construction start date announced.

Concerns about engineering costs were raised. Speaker 1 said the engineering price initially seemed high but that further explanation of the firm’s scope of work made the cost “feel a little bit better.” The county did not provide a detailed contractor bid or final match amount during the presentation.

The county presenter said no conflicts of interest were identified in the project funding and reiterated that federal labor and nondiscrimination rules would apply to contractors hired for the work. No formal motion or vote related to this grant was recorded in the transcript.

The next steps, as described in the meeting, are completing the required federal administrative tasks and moving forward with procurement for construction; a firm construction schedule was not provided at the meeting.