Prince George's County task force reviews shared-equity trust models, timetable for resale rules and pricing

Members of a Prince George's County Planning, Housing and Economic Development (PHED) committee task force heard a presentation on shared-equity community land trusts and discussed options for forming a countywide trust during a virtual meeting. Brenda Torpy, technical assistance, Champlain Housing Trust, gave the presentation and answered questions from task force members and local staff.

Torpy framed shared-equity community land trusts as a tool to expand affordable homeownership and preserve household wealth for lower-income buyers. "To me, this is the most important driver for shared equity," Torpy said, adding that nationally "72% of renters don't have the income or savings to buy a home." She cited Champlain Housing Trust's historical data to illustrate outcomes for buyers in that trust's program, including lower foreclosure risk and high retention: Torpy said two post-crash studies found about 90% of shared-equity homeowners remained owners five years later versus roughly 50% for the broader homeowner population.

The presentation included performance and program metrics from Champlain Housing Trust. Torpy described a long-running portfolio and said the trust had about 187 homes in production at the time of the presentation, a 2019 inventory snapshot of 685 homes with an average net price of about $153,000, and an average buyer-area median income (AMI) at purchase of about 71.6%. She said the trust's average public subsidy per home in 2019 was roughly $80,000 and the average seller return then was about $25,000; she noted returns were larger after COVID-era market changes and that, on average, two-thirds of shared-equity buyers later purchase market-rate homes.

Task force members and staff asked for local translations of the national and Champlain data. Stephanie Prestel, executive director of Housing Initiative Partnership, asked about the mechanics of a resale transaction described in the slides; Torpy explained the resale cap and pricing method using a 1991 purchase example that later appraised at $275,000. Members also asked for data on household sizes and income bands served; Torpy said she would look up household-size data and that programs typically analyze 2- and 3-bedroom homes and condominiums when pricing.

Torpy reviewed the policy choices the task force will face in forming a local trust and proposed a decision timetable: formation and service-area considerations first, resale formulas to be discussed starting in November, and pricing and income targeting in December. She outlined three structural options for a county trust: (1) create a new 501(c)(3) nonprofit housing trust (mission-focused but with higher startup and administrative costs); (2) make the trust a program within an existing nonprofit (faster ramp-up and leverages existing capacity but runs the risk of mission dilution and reduced public control); and (3) a hybrid — create a new trust entity with bylaws while contracting implementation to an existing nonprofit (institutional protections plus operational leverage, but with contractual oversight needs).

Task force participants raised implementation and funding questions. Members noted possible use of county land-bank parcels as a subsidy source, and Torpy said many trusts use a mix of public subsidy and partnerships. She described partnerships with Habitat affiliates in her area — including providing land pads on larger sites and storing a shared-equity clause in the trust's ground lease when Habitat homes are built on trust land — as an example of leveraging nonprofit partnerships to increase production.

No formal vote or final decision was taken; the group set next steps. Reina Hightower, committee director for the PHED committee, confirmed the task force will meet again on Oct. 1 to continue narrowing options and to begin framing the recommendations the task force will present to the council. Staff will circulate materials in advance.