Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citrus County authorizes workforce‑housing study after Habitat pledge
Summary
The Board approved a consultant‑commissioned workforce‑housing study (E1D) after public testimony, including a $25,000 cost‑share commitment from Habitat for Humanity. Commissioners sought clearer deliverables and direction for policy and code changes.
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Citrus County Board voted 4‑1 on Feb. 26 to commission a workforce‑housing study intended to identify actionable code and permitting changes that could make housing more attainable for local workers. Justin Leach of Habitat for Humanity told the board Habitat’s board had already voted to cost‑share up to 50 percent of the study—an amount the speaker identified as $25,000—if it helps produce implementable recommendations.
Commissioners expressed frustration with repeated outside studies that produce recommendations without clear timelines, costs or implementation plans. "I want to know what the information is actually going to be used for," one commissioner said during debate, urging the consultant to produce concrete policy language and options rather than general analysis.
Supporters at the meeting, including other nonprofit and advisory‑board members, argued the county needs focused expertise to identify land‑development‑code changes, permitting improvements and fee adjustments that can unlock more workforce housing. Opponents and some commissioners said the county already employs consultants and is updating its comprehensive plan; they urged tighter scopes and assurance that consultant recommendations would lead to concrete action.
The approved motion requires that any consultant scope include specific recommendations for land‑development‑code changes, permitting streamlining and fee structures, and that the consultant identify realistic funding options. The board recorded the vote as 4 in favor and 1 opposed.
