Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industrial Development Board studies Austin, Denver housing programs as models for Nashville
Summary
At an Oct. 8 ad hoc meeting, the Industrial Development Board reviewed Austin and Denver housing programs, focusing on bond funding, eviction-prevention initiatives, zoning incentives and outreach strategies. The board approved last month's minutes and asked staff and members to produce comparative charts and source links for follow-up.
The Industrial Development Board met Oct. 8 for an ad hoc session to compare Austin's and Denver's affordable-housing strategies and to consider what elements might be applicable in Nashville.
Board members spent most of the meeting reviewing funding structures, program design and zoning tools used in those cities, with particular attention to general obligation bond packages, eviction-prevention programs and mixed-income incentives. The board approved the minutes of the prior ad hoc meeting before proceeding to the substantive presentation and discussion.
Board member Wright, who presented the Austin material, told colleagues that Austin voters approved a $350,000,000 affordable-housing general obligation (GO) bond in 2022 and had previously issued a $250,000,000 GO bond in 2018. Wright said Austin had spent roughly $316,000,000 of those bond funds as of late 2022, leaving about $34,000,000 unspent in that cycle. Wright said the city combines bond proceeds with other revenue sources, including general-fund transfers, a dedicated affordable-housing fund, a homelessness-resolution fund, federal grants and COVID-response dollars.
Wright described a $2,000,000 eviction-prevention rental-assistance initiative in Austin that he said targets households at or below 80% of area median family income (AMI) and covers past-due rent, moving and relocation costs. He said details on whether the program is funded as a recurring line item or a one-time allocation were not specified in the documents he reviewed and that he would return to the board with source links and clarifications.
On zoning and density, Board member Hastings summarized Austin's DB-90 program (adopted Feb. 2024), which allows buildings up to 90 feet on qualifying commercial parcels when affordable units are included. Hastings said the program typically requires about 10%–12% of units to be set aside at 50%–60% of median family income for rental projects and a similar percentage for ownership projects, with in-lieu fee options available. Hastings noted that Austin appears to include homeownership in some incentives, while Tennessee state rules limit some local tools.
The board also discussed Denver's recent attempts to dedicate new revenue to housing via a sales-tax referendum that failed narrowly (about 49% support, as reported by members) and Denver's multi-year allocations tied to a housing stability department (HOST). One presentation slide summarized Denver's funding breakdown: HOST (about $71,000,000), an affordable-housing fund (about $60,000,000), homelessness-resolution funds (about $51,000,000), roughly $11,000,000 in federal funds and $20,000,000 in COVID-response funds. Board members emphasized that the majority of Austin and Denver allocations described in the materials originated in each city's general fund or other recurring municipal revenue.
Members examined other program features: a mixed-income pilot that offers developers incentives in exchange for long-term affordability commitments (presentations described some incentives requiring 30-year affordability terms), multi-modal transportation investments tied to housing plans (a cited total of about $7.1 billion for capital projects, including light rail and bus rapid transit in one summary), and overlay-district zoning that Austin uses to refine development standards.
Discussion focused on local applicability: members agreed Nashville could borrow elements of these approaches but noted legal and revenue constraints. Board members raised the need to compare population-adjusted spending levels and local revenue sources (for example, Nashville does not have a marijuana tax that generates revenue in some peer cities). Members asked for a comparative chart that lists each city's funding sources, program design elements and measurable outcomes; the board asked Wright to assemble the chart and provide source links.
The board confirmed one formal action at the start of the meeting: approval of the previous ad hoc meeting's minutes. A motion to approve was seconded by Board member Wright; the board voiced ayes and the chair recorded an abstention.
Board members closed the meeting after assigning follow-up research tasks; the presenter agreed to return with source citations, funding breakdowns and suggested outreach strategies, including public-education practices Austin and Denver used before up-zoning efforts.
