EDC receives updated housing study that spotlights affordable housing shortfall and regulatory barriers

A consultant hired to update San Angelo’s housing analysis told the San Angelo Development Corporation on Wednesday that the city faces a growing affordability gap driven by an aging housing stock, recent job gains and weak production of lower‑priced homes.

Community Development Strategies’ managing director Michael Pratt told the board the market now has roughly 43,000–44,000 housing units and that about 60% of the stock was built before 1980. Pratt said the median single‑family sale price in 2025 is $240,000, up from about $157,000 in 2015, and that the supply of entry‑level homes priced under about $160,000 has declined significantly.

The gap is most acute for rental housing, Pratt said: CoStar data indicate roughly 92% market occupancy for multifamily, but his field interviews found many desirable properties at or near full occupancy. He estimated the city has about 800 affordable rental units and would need roughly 850 more units to reach a 15% share of affordable rentals.

"When demand is high and supply is low, that’s what generates the increase in pricing," Pratt said, noting that Goodfellow Air Force Base and Angelo State University also compete for limited rental stock.

Pratt described the affordability threshold for local workers: with a median household income near $62,000, an owner‑affordable home price is about $185,000; for renters with median income near $44,000, a rent of roughly $900–$1,200 keeps housing costs at or below 30% of income.

The study recommends policy changes to reduce housing production costs and expand “missing‑middle” housing. Pratt urged reforms such as allowing duplexes, fourplexes and accessory dwelling units in more zones, lowering minimum lot sizes, streamlining permitting and creating preapproved pattern zones to speed approvals for small‑lot homes.

"If we can reduce the cost of regulation and make it easier to build smaller homes, the market can deliver more affordable options," Pratt said.

Board members pressed for missing pipeline data (Pratt said the report’s page 100 lacked full listing of platted or proposed projects because permitting data did not separate multifamily and single‑family entries). City staff acknowledged the data exists in multiple records and said they would try to provide an annotated pipeline for the next meeting.

The board voted to receive the study, asked staff to post the full report on the EDC website and discussed forming a stakeholder task force that would include planning staff, the builders association, realtors, EDC representatives and citizen stakeholders to prioritize zoning and permitting updates and other short‑term measures.

The next steps the board requested include delivering the missing pipeline information to Pratt so the report can be updated and convening a task force to translate the study’s recommendations into a timetable of regulatory and programmatic actions.