Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fox Mill CDA topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer pitches Fox Mill CDA; county staff and supervisors press for procurement and liability clarifications
Summary
A developer presentation described a proposed Community Development Authority (CDA) to finance Fox Mill infrastructure, showing modeled special assessments of $65/month for townhomes and $90/month for single‑family homes and roughly $4M net proceeds for public improvements (about $3M for county water upgrades). Supervisors sought clarity on procurement, trustee payments, and county exposure.
A developer representative told the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors on May 19 that the Fox Mill subdivision team is exploring a Community Development Authority to fund public improvements and to deliver a $3 million proffer for county water capacity upgrades.
The municipal adviser presenting the plan said CDAs are special‑purpose political subdivisions that can issue bonds secured by special assessments levied on properties inside the CDA. “A CDA is a special purpose political subdivision created by a locality to finance, facilitate, acquire, own, and/or maintain public infrastructure benefiting a defined development area,” the presenter said.
Under the model shown to supervisors, the Fox Mill community would include about 214 townhomes and 213 single‑family homes. The adviser presented target assessments of $65 per month for townhomes and $90 per month for single‑family houses and said those levels would support about $6.22 million in gross bond proceeds, producing roughly $4 million in net funds to pay for improvements; presenters proposed allocating about $3 million of that to county water‑capacity work.
Supervisors pressed for details about the bidding and procurement process for projects financed by CDA proceeds. Dr. Lemming asked whether CDA proceeds paid directly to contractors would be subject to the county’s public‑procurement rules when the county receives and uses funds for county projects. Presenters explained that the CDA issues bonds, the developer submits requisitions, engineers and the CDA administrator review work, and a trustee pays requisitions; they said the county would apply county procurement rules for projects the county manages with funds it receives.
On liability, presenters emphasized that CDA bonds are generally not county obligations. “The county is not liable for the debt of the CDA,” the presenter said, noting that bonds are payable solely from special assessments and administered through the trustee and trust indenture.
Supervisors also asked how the bond is protected if the developer does not build homes quickly. The adviser said bond structures typically include capitalized interest and reserve funds to cover debt service during initial build‑out and that undeveloped parcels can carry assessments that revert to the owner/developer until homes are constructed.
What happens next: The board heard the presentation as a work‑session briefing and did not vote on a CDA ordinance. Staff told supervisors they expect a CDA ordinance and special‑assessment methodology could come forward in July if the subdivision is approved; they advised that either the ordinance or the subdivision approval might be processed first depending on timing.
