Consultants from Grow America presented a citywide housing needs assessment and strategy options to the Richardson City Council on Oct. 20, concluding the city faces growing demand for housing types and price points not currently abundant in Richardson.

The presentation, led by Maureen Milligan of Grow America, drew on federal and local data and framed three primary needs: (1) older, lower‑income homeowners need options to stay and age safely in place; (2) more reasonably priced for‑sale units are needed to accommodate families and starter‑home buyers; and (3) well‑maintained rental units affordable to lower‑wage workers are in short supply. Milligan said vacancy rates have tightened — rental vacancy fell from about 7.3% to about 5.1% — while household growth modestly outpaced new housing supply.

Key findings and numbers presented:
- Median household income in Richardson: about $96,257; 50% of area median income (AMI) ≈ $58,650.
- Average single‑family home sales price (2024): about $515,633 — roughly a 175% increase since 2011.
- Household size has trended smaller (from about 2.64 to 2.51 persons), while housing demand tightened.
- The city has little subsidized housing for families; Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)‑supported multifamily activity has been limited and existing LIHTC properties focus on seniors.

Milligan outlined a menu of policy tools aimed at preservation, production and economic mobility. For preservation and aging‑in‑place, she recommended exploring a new tier of the city’s Home Improvement Program (HIP) funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars to support major repairs for low‑income older homeowners, and suggested leveraging neighborhood empowerment zone tools to abate property‑tax impacts of certain repairs. For production, options included zoning changes to allow missing‑middle housing (duplexes, townhomes, cottage courts), pre‑approved housing plans to speed development of one‑story, senior‑friendly units, and use of city‑owned land for incentivized developments. For rental affordability, she suggested targeted incentives and a standard city policy to guide developers using LIHTC or other subsidies, the possible creation of a housing finance corporation (HFC) or public facility corporation (PFC) to structure tax‑exempt financing and tax‑exemption packages, and targeted rehabilitation incentives for older multifamily (NOAH) to preserve affordability.

Milligan also flagged Opportunity Zones as a federal tax incentive that the city could petition the governor to designate in targeted census tracts; she said this is another mechanism to attract private capital with tax advantages. She noted the city’s next briefing will include a market value analysis from The Reinvestment Fund to identify geographic targeting and implementation costs.

Council questions and discussion focused on definitions and priorities. Mayor Pro Tem Tim Hutchenrider urged sharper definitions of terms: “I feel like we use a couple of words… affordable housing, they don’t talk low income housing,” and asked the council to decide which income groups the city intends to serve (for example, HUD definitions that treat 80% AMI as low income and 50% AMI as very low income). Milligan replied: “Most HUD programs… 80% of AMI is considered low income,” and explained that the appropriate tools depend on which income group the council wants to target.

Council Member Barrios, who said he lives near some aging multifamily areas, expressed concern about future redevelopment creating outdoor noise or displacement and asked staff to include safeguards: “If they were to build a run and start storing dogs outside… I could see that being a problem.” Although that comment was in the separate zoning item earlier in the meeting, the broader concern about displacement surfaced repeatedly in the housing discussion.

Several council members supported piloting targeted steps before major resource commitments. Council Member Corcoran and others urged the city to create flexible tools — an HFC/PFC framework and a set of “carrots” the city can offer developers — so the city can negotiate mixed‑income projects case‑by‑case rather than prescribing a single rigid approach. Multiple council members asked staff to return with a short list of prioritized strategies paired with pros, cons and estimated costs.

Next steps: staff and Grow America will return with a second briefing that integrates the market value analysis and proposes geographic targeting, cost estimates, and timelines for a prioritized set of strategies. Council asked for options that show the tradeoffs for pursuing different AMI targets, a plan for piloting senior‑friendly missing‑middle housing, and a clearer recommendation on whether to pursue an HFC or PFC framework to facilitate future negotiations with developers.