Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing And Local Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pulaski County redevelopment commission halts two housing projects, prioritizes small wins and facade pilot
Summary
The Pulaski County Redevelopment Commission elected officers for 2026 and shifted focus from two larger catalyst housing projects toward smaller, community-driven efforts, a countywide facade pilot funded with roughly $50,000 in existing line items, and a consultant-led comprehensive plan (RFPs due in February).
Nathan Giorgher, executive director of the Pulaski County Redevelopment Commission, opened the commissionmeeting and said the body would not pursue two previously discussed housing projects for now after county commissioners declined to sell county farmland that had been part of a proposed land-swap plan. "The county commissioners have decided that at this moment, they are not ready to sell the county farmland," Giorgher said.
Giorgher told commissioners the county had been "tentatively awarded $1,000,000 in ready funds to put towards that project," but that the grant came with a substantial local-match requirement and the commission could not assemble the full match without a land swap or other funding partners. He said the land-swap proposal with the Galbraith family would have produced about $198,000 in cash as part of the transaction but that commissioners preferred to retain the farm for income generation.
Rather than pursue the large neighborhood-scale development, commissioners discussed smaller-scale interventions and partnerships. Members flagged Willow Creek(34 income-restricted units) as already filled and noted it may shift demand: "All 34 units are filled," Giorgher said, and participants argued that rapid leasing could change private-sector incentives.
The commission discussed redirecting smaller sums to pilot projects this year. Giorgher said departmental budgets include some available professional-services and economic-development line items and estimated roughly $50,000 could be used for a countywide facade program or similar small projects without asking the County Council for additional money this calendar year. He proposed a mix of grants and low-interest loans to sustain a revolving fund, and members discussed using existing Main Street or OCRA programs as partners to multiply impact.
Commissioners also reviewed the comprehensive plan process. Giorgher said the county council authorized up to $120,000 for a self-funded comprehensive plan; an RFP was distributed to 12 firms, five firms had responded at the time of the meeting, and proposals are due in February with a goal to select a consultant by late spring or early summer.
Other issues discussed included utility service-area constraints (Giorgher said NIPSCO resisted changing electric service territory), parcel-specific access problems near the plaza, and the need to survey and split the roughly 90-acre farm parcel to improve future flexibility. Members requested maps and visuals for a future meeting and asked Giorgher to circulate a spreadsheet ranking projects by cost, time to completion and impact so the commission could prioritize "small wins" ahead of the comprehensive-plan outcomes.
The commission took two formal housekeeping votes: it approved the slate of officers for 2026 by voice vote and approved the consent agenda (agenda and minutes). The meeting closed with a motion to adjourn and no additional formal actions on projects were taken. Giorgher said he would circulate a project spreadsheet and scheduling options for follow-up meetings and the RFP timeline remains the immediate next procedural step.
