HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_2030SC_12.05.2019Notice of Meeting for the
2030 Comprehensiv e P lan Update Committee
of the City of Georgetown
December 5, 2019 at 4:00 P M
at Georgetown Health F oundation, 2425 Williams Dr # 101, Georgetown, T X 78628
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
A C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the O ctober 24 and November 7, 2019
regular meetings of the S teering C ommittee. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
B P resentation and dis cus s ion of the 2030 Implementation P lan S trategies - S ofia Nelson, P lanning Direc tor
C P ublic C omment
D Next Meeting Date/Time/Agenda. - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 1 of 42
City of Georgetown, Texas
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Committee
December 5, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the O c tober 24 and November 7, 2019
regular meetings of the S teering C ommittee. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Minutes 10.24.19 Backup Material
Minutes 11.7.2019 Exhibit
Page 2 of 42
Page 1 of 2
Minutes of Meeting of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee
City Hall, Community Room
808 Martin Luther King, Jr. St. Georgetown, Texas 78626
Thursday, October 24, 2019 6:00 pm
In attendance: Mayor Dale Ross; Ercel Brashear; Lou Snead; Linda McCalla; Danelle Houck; Suzy Pukys;
Hugh Brown; Josh Schroeder; Tommy Gonzalez; PJ Stevens; Wendy Cash
Staff present: Sofia Nelson; Nat Waggoner; Susan Watkins
Regular Session –
Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 6 pm.
A. Consideration and possible approval of the minutes from the September 19, 2019 meeting of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
Motion by Brashear to approve the minutes, second by Schroeder.
B. Presentation and possible recommendation of updates to the Land Use Element – Nat
Waggoner, PMP, AICP
The purpose of this meeting is to:
- Inform: Share summary results of the updates to the land use policies, categories and
the land use map. Share a summary of the direction from the 10/22 workshop and
inform the Steering Committee of future public input opportunities.
- Action: Confirm drafted policies and review changes to land use categories and land
use map. The outcome of this meeting is for the Steering Committee to provide
sufficient direction on the recommended changes for Council and the public
consideration at meetings in October and November.
At the meeting, the Steering Committee will be asked:
- Do the updated categories support our land use/housing policies and the
community’s input? How could they be more supportive?
- Does the updated map reflect the changes you recommended? Are additional
changes needed?
- Are there additional stakeholders we should consult in the land use update process?
The agenda for the meeting includes:
- 6:00pm – 6:15pm: Presentation
- 6:15pm – 7:30pm: Land use policies, categories & map recommendations
Waggoner began the discussion with an overview of land use policies established by the
Committee, and review of these policies to determine how they match with current development
patterns, how those pattern match with compatible uses and existing uses. Waggoner also
presented changes that have been made as a result of the Committee’s feedback and engaged in
discussion with the Committee members on modifications to regional nodes and consolidation
Page 3 of 42
Page 2 of 2
of the nodes, employment centers that were added to the map and shifting of existing
employment centers, and density changes. The Committee members participated in mapping
activities and discussed the teams’ recommendations with staff.
C. Public Comment
D. Next Meeting Date/Time/Agenda – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment – Motion for adjournment by Brashear second by Schroeder.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm.
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Approved, Mayor Dale Ross Attest,
Page 4 of 42
Page 1 of 2
Minutes of Meeting of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee
City Hall, Community Room
808 Martin Luther King, Jr. St. Georgetown, Texas 78626
Thursday, November 7, 2019 6:00 pm
In attendance: Mayor Dale Ross; Tommy Gonzalez; Josh Schroeder; Doug Noble; Danelle Houck; Suzy
Pukys; Linda McCalla; Wendy Cash; Paul Secord
Staff present: Sofia Nelson; Nat Waggoner; Susan Watkins
Regular Session –
Mayor Dale Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
A. Consideration and possible approval of the minutes from the October 24, 2019 meeting of the
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee. – Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
The minutes were not included in the agenda packet and will be on the next meeting’s
agenda.
B. Presentation and possible action on the updates to the 2030 Land Use Element – Nat Waggoner,
PMP, AICP
The purpose of this meeting is to:
- Inform: Share summary results of the updates and public comment. The City will
continue to take public comment on the draft map through the 2030 website until
Sunday, November 3rd at 5pm.
- Action: The outcome of this meeting is for the Steering Committee to provide a
recommendation to City Council of the proposed updates.
At the meeting, the Steering Committee will be asked:
- Do the updated categories support our land use/housing policies and the
community’s input? How could they be more supportive?
- Does the updated map reflect the changes you recommended? Are additional
changes needed?
- Are there additional stakeholders we should consult in the land use update process?
Staff discussed the input received from the Planning and Zoning discussion, as well as the
October 30 Public Meeting and the Georgetown Development Alliance. There was discussion on
the land use percent share evaluation, FLUP categories, and the key updates for residential and
non-residential uses. The Committee broke into groups and participated in an activity to review
land use policies, categories and the FLU map.
C. Public Comment
Page 5 of 42
2030 Update Steering Committee
November 7, 2019
What work have you done
to update the FLUM?
•Renamed and refined land use categories
•Divided parks and recreation and open space into separate categories
•Adjusted densities within categories
•Created Community Commercial and Regional Center categories
•Planned for land use with the use of legos
•Added residential and non-residential ratios
•Utilized the fiscal impact model
What are the benefits of
the updates to FLUM?
•It helps citizens and developers understand the vision for the city as they plan for development of
their property
•Expansion of mixed density opportunities
•Greater integration of MF & Commercial
•Addresses concerns of too much MF development
•Increased and spread out opportunities for commercial nodes-this will help with trafZic node and
opportunities for amenities nearby
•Outlines possible densities
•Created Regional Commercial and Community Commercial nodes
•Included ratios for non-residential and residential development
•Helps to plan out infrastructure
What concerns you about
the updates to the FLUM?
•Does the map reflect current infrastructure? Infrastructure drives development
•Clarity needed on how residential ratio were developed
•Understanding how the FLUM will be implemented
•Within nodes how will ratios be implemented?
•What is guidance vs. what will require a map amendment?
What concrete changes are
needed, if any?
•Clarify language regarding mix density residential
•Establish a priority land use for each category
Page 6 of 42
Page 2 of 2
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing. Tim Haynie commented on employment centers. Mayor
Ross closed the Public Hearing.
D. Next Meeting Date/Time/Agenda – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment – Motion for adjournment by Mayor Ross. Second by Gonzalez.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:24 pm.
_____________________________________ ____________________________________
Approved, Mayor Dale Ross Attest,
Page 7 of 42
City of Georgetown, Texas
2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Committee
December 5, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and disc ussion of the 2030 Implementation P lan S trategies - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he draft Your G eorgetown 2030 Implementation P lan is organized into three (3) s trategies. T he purpose
of this meeting is to disc uss thes e strategies and provide a recommendation to the C ity C ounc il whic h will
be presented to the C ity C ouncil at their Dec ember 10, 2019 works hop.
T he Your G eorgetown 2030 Implementation P lan’s s trategies are:
1. R egulatory F ramework – the “R ules” for land development
2. Dec is ion F ramework – how “R ules” are applied by C ity C ounc il and the Boards/C ommis s ions that
evaluate/recommend land development dec is ions
3. P lans , P rograms and P artners hips – work plans needed to achieve goals, rec urring C ity func tions and
coordination with other local governments and non-profits.
F or a deeper understanding on how eac h s trategy will be implemented, to inc lude a summary of the
as s ociated ac tion items . T he three attached doc uments will be the bas is of the disc ussion at the meeting:
1. Top 3 Implementation S trategies for 2030 P lan Memorandum (summary of rec ommended actions)
2. Draft Hous ing Toolkit (full listing of all tools available to the C ity)
3. Executive S ummary of the Housing Toolkit (s et of rec ommended Tools for inclus ion in the 2030
Implementation P lan)
Als o attac hed for your referenc e, if needed are:
1. Hous ing Technic al S tudy S ummary Memo, whic h outlines the key findings of the Housing Element
2. S teering C ommittee Land Us e R ec ommendations, a graphic repres entation of the solutions needed to
meet the 2030 G oals for land us e
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Nat Waggoner, P MP, AI C P
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
2030 Implementation Strategies Cover Memo
Hous ing Toolkit Executive Summary Cover Memo
Draft Hous ing Toolkit Exhibit
Hous ing Technical Study Executive Summary Cover Memo
Land Us e Recommendations Exhibit
Page 8 of 42
1
MEMORANDUM
Subject: 2030 Update Top 3 Implementation Strategies
From: 2030 Update Project Team
Date: 11/27/2019
Purpose: Define the top three strategies to Implement the Goals of the 2030 Plan
The 2030 Implementation Plan is organized into three (3) strategic initiatives to address
the 2030 Goals established by the City Council.
1. Regulatory Framework:
Action items that involve updates to the regulations and standards (“rules”) for the
development of land, primarily zoning and subdivision. These “rules” are the basic
keys to ensuring that the form, character, and quality of development reflect the City’s
goals related to land use. Key action items involve:
• In-depth review of Unified Development Code (UDC) to ensure it enables the
implementation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan vision
i. Standards and incentives to allow for a diversity of housing types
ii. Standards for gateways and corridors (landscaping, signage, building
design, streetscape and walkability)
• In-depth review of land uses categories to ensure transition of uses
2. Decision Framework
The City staff, Council and supporting Boards and Commissions play a role in the
implementation of the 2030 Plan through their analysis, recommendations and
legislative actions. The Implementation Plan includes specific actions staff will take to
improve criteria and processes used in the decision-making process related to land
development; specifically, those legislative decisions made by the City Council that
impact the expansion of the city limits and the provision of infrastructure including
roads, utilities and the creation of special financial districts.
• Zoning map change criteria and Planned Unit Development approval criteria
i. “For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and
desirable development within the territorial limits of the City, the
Official Zoning Map may be amended based upon changed or
changing conditions in a particular area, or in the City generally, or to
rezone an area or extend the boundary of an existing Zoning District or
Page 9 of 42
2
Overlay District. All amendments must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.”
ii. “The Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is intended to allow
flexibility in planning and designing for unique or environmentally
sensitive properties and that are to be developed in accordance with a
common development scheme. PUD zoning is designed to
accommodate various types of development, including multiple
housing types, neighborhood and community retail, professional and
administrative areas, industrial and business parks, and other uses or a
combination thereof. A PUD may be used to permit new or innovative
concepts in land use and standards not permitted by zoning or the
standards of this Code.”
• Development Agreements
i. “An agreement approved by the City Council for a development that
could not otherwise be accomplished under this Code or the Code of
Ordinances. A Development Agreement may modify or delay certain
requirements of this Code (including any Manuals adopted by
reference in the Code) and/or any other provisions of the City Code of
Ordinances.”
• Annexation
i. “The process by which a municipality expands its boundaries into
adjacent areas not already incorporated into the municipality.”
• Special Purpose Districts
i. “Political subdivision(s) created pursuant to Article III, Section 52,
and/or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution and that are
authorized by law to provide water, wastewater, stormwater, and
other services ("Districts"), in order to allow development within the
City's corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction that is
generally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan”
3. Plans, Programs, Partnerships
The 2030 Plan is a long-range decision-making tool which provides strategic guidance
for the future growth and development goals of our community. To achieve these goals,
the 2030 Implementation Plan includes multi-year strategies for work that exceeds the
level of this long-range planning effort including:
• Small area planning for preservation, redevelopment, or reinvestment
• Health and Human Services Element
• Historic Preservation Element
• Overall Transportation Plan (OTP)
• Parks and Recreation Element
Page 10 of 42
3
Programs involve the routine activities of City departments and staff, as well as special
projects and initiatives. This Implementation Plan includes actions which build upon
existing programs, introduces new programs and expands community outreach efforts
including:
• Home Repair
• Capital Improvement Planning (CIP)
• Annual Reporting (2030 Plan)
Many of the goals of the 2030 Plan were developed through participation and input
from local government and nonprofit partners. Successful implementation will require
direct coordination, agreements, or funding support.
Page 11 of 42
Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update prepared by CDS (DRAFT 11/25/19) Page 1
HOUSING TOOLKIT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Policies Issues from Housing Study Tools
P1, P3
Assure physical preservation of existing affordable/workforce
housing
The study found that much of the existing non-subsidized
moderately priced housing stock is over 40 years old
Housing rehab incentives
•Expand home repair programs to reach moderate income workforce owner-
occupied households and small-scale rental properties
P1, P3
Assure economic preservation of existing affordable /
workforce housing
The study showed that the stock of for-sale existing housing
priced under $250,000 has been rapidly decreasing, while rental
rates in existing units have also been creeping upward
Housing rehab incentives
•Create dedicated funding source eligible to be used for both workforce and
lower income housing rehab
•Add long term pricing/income restrictions to rehabbing incentives for
workforce/ moderate-priced housing
P2, P4
Assist established neighborhoods experiencing change
The subarea profiles show historic sales price trend data with
significant increases in some subareas in price/square foot
Neighborhood Plans and Programs
• Small area plans, neighborhood empowerment zones, neighborhood
conservation districts or overlays, and/or neighborhood association program
A1, A2,
A3
Address increasing lack of affordability for low to moderate
income residents and workers
Employment data from the study showed that the number of
low to moderate income jobs in Georgetown and Williamson
County is increasing, while the supply of housing affordable to
such workers is limited relative to demand; 51% of renter
households in Georgetown were cost-burdened in 2016;
Direct assistance to homebuyers
• Develop down payment assistance programs
• Create dedicated funding source eligible to be used by both workforce and
lower income home purchasers
• Explore use of Neighborhood Empowerment Zones
Assist supply expansion of workforce housing
• Encourage more quality LIHTC development by reviewing tax credit policy to
ensure it is supportive of the 2030 policies and future land use map
• Density bonuses for affordable / workforce housing creation
•Identify incentives that would encourage a fuller range of housing
opportunities, both form and price point, when a special district or negotiated
standard for development is being considered
Partner to build on the successful housing work being done locally and regionally
•Housing finance corporation
•Public facilities corporation
•Partnerships with nonprofits, impact funds
•Community land trust
DRAFT
Page 12 of 42
Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update prepared by CDS (DRAFT 11/25/19) Page 2
Policies Issues from Housing Study Tools
D1, D2,
D3
Continue increasing the diversity of new housing development
types
The housing inventory showed two main housing types are
present, with the main housing choice being detached single
family (85% Single Family, 15% Multi-family for the planning
area (City Limits + ETJ). Many of the more affordable housing
types documented in the study were moderate-density or niche
types such as duplexes, fourplexes, attached townhome /
rowhouses, manufactured homes, and small-lot detached
Increase flexibility of development regulations
• Allow greater variety of housing types and lot sizes in UDC
• Density bonuses for inclusion of moderate density, moderately priced housing
types
A1, A2,
A3
Mitigate increasing costs of developing and delivering new
housing
Interviewees in the housing and development industry described
how development costs such as infrastructure are high and
rising, and some are attempting to reach lower price points with
smaller lots and attached product; however, no new rental
housing for moderate prices is being produced and limited
homeownership opportunities for workforce households
Review of UDC requirements
• Review for unintended costs to build and opportunities to support increased
density
Financial assistance to housing developers and builders meeting housing policies
• Development agreements
• Special financing districts
• Fee waivers
• Create dedicated funding source for housing development incentives and
agreements
DRAFT
Page 13 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Policy: Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Home Repair
Grant program for low
income homeowners to
rehabilitate homes for eligible
repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Existing
Program
HOME/CDBG, economic development sales tax, housing bonds, future tax
increment, Community Reinvestment Act. Federal funds are available
through HOME and CDBG programs (specifically for properties with low-
income occupants), but local funds and private / nonprofit sector resources
are also available. 4B sales tax funds have been used (San Angelo). Local
housing bond proceeds can also be used, as can TIRZ set-asides for
affordable housing. For rehabilitation expected to significantly increase the
assessed value of the property, reimbursement from future property tax
increment is another option that does not require immediate disbursement
of funds on hand. Some non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity also
contribute funds, material, administration and/or labor toward
rehabilitation. HUD also does direct rehabilitation lending to eligible
homeowners through the FHA and has other lending programs for rental
property owners.
Maintain
current funding
($$)
Maintain current program for low
income homeowners (50% AMI and
below).
Low income ownership; Affordability Analysis
showed 733 owner HH under $20K income
2016 and 2,152 owner HH $20K - $35K in 2016
# of homes
rehabbed
Pros: Helps remove emerging
blight; usually cheaper than new
construction; potential to assure
longer term affordability depending
on requirements, helps stabilize
neighborhoods
Cons: Usually limited in number of units assisted
(especially single family); tradeoff between
cosmetic (low cost, low administration) and
structural / system improvements (higher costs,
more administration); federal funds involve
extra paperwork and process, and likely limit
recipient properties to low-income occupancy
and other requirements; history of difficulties
with single family and quality assurance (recent
Austin controversies); without recipient post-
rehab residency requirement, can potentially sell
home and lose affordable SF unit
Yes, but rapid
housing price
increases as
documented in
Housing Study (sales
under $200K fallen
to 7.5% in 2017-18)
mean that fewer
low-income HH will
be owning homes,
though seniors may
be continue to be
eligible
Rehab programs are frequent in cities around Texas including the Austin area,
often using HOME and CDBG funds or proceeds from housing bonds. An
effective program in San Angelo has an exterior rehab program with the
exterior siding replacement funded through CDBG, equipment and supplies
with 4B funds, paint donated through the Habitat for Humanity Valspar
program, and labor donated by community volunteers;
Home Repair for
Workforce
Homeowners
Grant program for workforce
homeowners to rehabilitate
homes for eligible repairs
(possible match component).
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Involvement of federal funds or programs will necessarily require the
subject housing to serve occupants of lower income levels (usually
maximum of 80% of AMI and often 50% or 30%). Some kinds of local funds
are more flexible in terms of the income levels of occupants to be served
and the length of term of affordability. The City should consider requiring a
minimum affordability level and period for programs that are not already
bound by federal or other restrictions, and should consider homes priced
to moderate-income households (for example, 60% to 120% of AMI) and
minimum compliance terms (5, 10, 15 years for example) as well in such
cases.
Possible one-
time payment
(see Richardson
example) or
future
reimbursement
or abatement of
increased City
tax due to
assessed value
increase. ($-$$)
Expand existing housing rehabilitation
programs to target workforce
demograhic, for owner occupied
rehabilitation, major repairs and minor
repairs.
Physically preserve existing affordable and
moderately priced housing structures; link to
preservation of affordable pricing. Preserve
homeownership (owner ability to stay in home)
; Required property owner matches for either
grants or loans make public funds stretch
farther and assure more commitment from
recipients. Reimbursement from future
incremental property tax revenues best suited
for property owners making substantial
(beyond cosmetic) improvements and more
middle-income occupancy (less need for
immediate funding assistance).
# homes rehabbed
Housing study identified rapid
decrease in lower-priced homes,
especially below $200K; homes
$200K - $275K also important to
preserve (34.9% of 2017-18 sales);
program not dependent on HUD-
type income restrictions to lower-
income homeowners will be more
appropriate for Georgetown going
forward as low-income
homebuyers will be unlikely to buy
homes as prices increase; also will
address supply of older single
family in subareas 3, 6 and 7.
Loss of potential future tax revenue if grant is
structured in form of reimbursement to
homeowner based on increase in assessed
value.
Yes, very good
proposal well-suited
to Georgetown's
market situation
The City of Richardson Home Improvement Incentive Program uses only
future incremental City property tax increases and thus does not have
occupant income limits such as what HUD would require, making it a good
example for Georgetown (though Georgetown could still apply a limit at its
own discretion).
Multi-family
Rehabilitation
Loan or grant program to
assist Multi-family property
owners with property
rehabilitation for eligible
repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program and
Study
HOME/CDBG, economic development sales tax, housing bonds, future tax
increment, Community Reinvestment Act. Federal funds are available
through HOME and CDBG programs (specifically for properties with low-
income occupants), but local funds and private/nonprofit sector resources
are also available. 4B sales tax funds should be eligible. Local housing bond
proceeds can also be used, as can TIRZ set-asides for affordable housing.
For rehabilitation expected to significantly increase the assessed value of
the property, reimbursement from future property tax increment is another
option that does not require immediate disbursement of funds on hand.
HUD also does direct rehabilitation lending to eligible homeowners through
the FHA and has other lending programs for rental property owners. Could
be capitalized as revolving loan program to have one-time funding up front.
Community
Reinvestment
Act funds. Set
up fund of
approx. $500K if
can allow
tenant income
restrictions of
80% AMI or
higher ($$-$$$)
1. Study the locations and physical
deterioration of existing housing stock.
2. Based on study findings, develop a
program that encourages rehabilitation
of small scale multi-family units.
Small-scale rental properties documented as
important element of supply for workforce in
several subareas (1, 3, 6, 7) - 660 duplexes and
352 fourplexes in total planning area per
Housing Study; Affordability Analysis indicated
they are serving primarily moderate-rent
households (not low-income)
# of units rehabbed
and # of units price-
restricted per year
for future period
Can preserve small-scale workforce
rental units for middle-income
renters
Voluntary program so property owners must
find terms attractive and income restrictions not
too severe; HUD funds may not allow rehabbing
units for workforce income / rent levels
Yes if can be made
available to
moderate income /
workforce housing
units (as opposed to
low income)
Plano has a rehab program for small-scale rental properties, though it uses
HUD funding which requires 51% of rehabbed units to be allocated to low-
moderate income HH.
Regional Partnerships
Partnerships with entities that
acquire properties for
preservation of affordable
housing stock.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Impact Funds ($ - funded primarily by private equity investors, to purchase
and preserve affordable multifamily rental properties), Housing Finance
Corporation ($$$) can provide financial assistance for single family and
multi-family housing development. The Capital Area Housing Finance
Corporation (CAHFC) serves Williamson County.
Likely little up-
front City
funding
required;
consider policy
for future tax
abatements or
incremental
property tax
reimbursement
s ($-$$$ (deal /
agreement-
specific))
1.Develop and leverage regional
partnerships to maintain existing
affordable housing stock. Invite outside
private sector / nonprofit partners to
facilitate affordable housing
development and preservation of a scale
and long term effectiveness beyond what
the City could accomplish directly.
The housing study identifies older single family
and especially multifamily as a key affordability
resource to preserve, which is difficult without
acquisition by preservation-focused entities.
Subareas 1, 3, 5, 6 of the study were
particularly notable for the presence of
potential preservation priority housing.
Impact funds and
HFCs contacted.
Formalized
relationships
created.
Creates mechanisms to lessen the
organizational and funding
constraints of the City; increases
long term affordability and
awareness of available
opportunities for housing
developers / builders and
consumers
Property acquisition for impact funds may be
difficult and slow; will likely need to seek
relationships with organizations not specific to
Georgetown (regional or national); potentially
long lead time before implementation.
YES though each
organization or fund
will have to be
considered on its
own
Work with the Strategic Housing Finance Corporation that currently serves only Travis County
communities, where it acquires and preserves affordable housing, but perhaps could expand
into Williamson County if Georgetown leaders seek partnerships. Some nonprofit housing
developers (CDCs / CHDOs) are very experienced and offer educational services for housing
consumers (homebuyer education) as well as their housing development activities; Examples:
Williamson County joined the regional Texas Housing Foundation in 2018. The Southeast
Texas Housing Finance Corporation serves multiple counties and communities near Houston.
Avenue CDC in Houston develops low-price homes and affordable rentals in addition to
homebuyer education programs, housing rehabilitation, and community development
activities. The Turner Impact Fund purchases multifamily properties around the United States,
including the Austin area, to preserve as workforce housing. The Austin Housing Conservancy
was recently formed, initiated by the City of Austin but funded primarily by private equity
investors, to purchase and preserve affordable multifamily rental properties.
Policy: Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommende
d Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or
Steps Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How
is success
measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes
or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 1 of 9
DRAFT
Page 14 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Affordability term
extensions
Preservation of existing
affordable units, often tax
credit units.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund/staff time/in exchange for other program
participation or development incentive Staff time ($)
1. Catalog developments to identify
expiring affrodability terms.
2. Develop program to provide
support to property owners with
renovations that use Low Income
Housing Tax Credit.
Preserves LIHTC units nearing end of
affordability term.
# of units
preserved with
extended terms
Low cost tool Not many LIHTC units are yet at risk of
affordability terms expiring. Yes Texas Housing Foundation - Public Housing Authority with
agreements in five county central Texas region.
Community
Reinvestment Act
funds
Partnerships with banks
to meet Community
Reinvestment Act
requirements
Type of Action (program
Bank grants Bank grants
($-$$)
0. Roundtable of interested banks
1. Programming
2. Execution
Maintain neighborhoods for low
income/workforce households.
Repairs
made/neighborh
ood
improvements
Promotes partnerships. Banks
meet CRA requirements while
advancing community policies.
Marketing/outreach time needed to
develop program/partnerships.Yes City of Allen Home Repair for non-CDBG eligible activities like fences
Policy: Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Small
area/neighborhood
plans
Plans developed through
community outreach for areas
of historical stability that are
transitioning in use and
density.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General Fund General Fund
($$)
1.Establish annual funding for small
area/neighborhood plans.
2.Identify areas and neighborhoods for
plan development.
3. Create process for neighborhoods to
nominate themselves for small area plan.
The subarea profiles show historic sales price
trend data with significant increases in some
subareas in price/square foot. Preservation of
existing neighborhoods.
One plan per year
Focused analysis on defined areas;
support for neighborhood
preservation and compatibility
Potential community concern on any transitions
in use/density Yes
City of San Antonio
City of College Station
City of Sugar Land
Fort Worth Urban Villages
(http://fortworthtexas.gov/PlanningandDevelopment/urbanvillages/)
Development
Regulations
Use of Zoning, Overlay
Districts, Neighborhood
Conservation Districts to
preserve existing
neighborhoods.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)
1. Review and update UDC next budget
cycle
Housing Study documented both need for entry-
level single family below $275K and current
(and implied potential) role of moderate
density rental properties in serving a middle
income market; having flexibility in
development regulations to facilitate housing
diversity can help achieve additional
development of these types and serve market
segments of different resident ages and life
stages as well as incomes.
Document diversity
in type and price of
new housing
development
Will make it easier to develop
moderate-density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF)
Will need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy Yes
City of Austin, City of Leander, City of Conroe recently reduced minimum lot
sizes to allow single family homes at a lower price point in a master planned
community. The City of Kerrville through the updates to the zoning code,
revised an existing district to include more housing types. The biggest road
block of the previous district was the different levels of approvals required for
anything that was not traditional single family. In the “newer version” these
secondary and tertiary approval processes were removed. The new district
now allows for a variety of housing types within the same district. Single family
(on slightly reduced lot size – 4500 sq. ft.), duplexes, townhomes, patio homes,
and small lot single family (3300 sq. ft. lot with separate alley access). To
address the variety of housing types, building codes, and property values, we
limited each block face to one consistent housing type.
Policy: Support owners ability to stay in homes in neighborhoods with rapid value increases without limiting the sale of the home.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Home Repair
Grant program for low
income homeowners to
rehabilitate homes for eligible
repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Existing
Program
HOME/CDBG, economic development sales tax, housing bonds, future tax
increment, Community Reinvestment Act. Federal funds are available
through HOME and CDBG programs (specifically for properties with low-
income occupants), but local funds and private / nonprofit sector resources
are also available. 4B sales tax funds have been used (San Angelo). Local
housing bond proceeds can also be used, as can TIRZ set-asides for
affordable housing. For rehabilitation expected to significantly increase the
assessed value of the property, reimbursement from future property tax
increment is another option that does not require immediate disbursement
of funds on hand. Some non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity also
contribute funds, material, administration and/or labor toward
rehabilitation. HUD also does direct rehabilitation lending to eligible
homeowners through the FHA and has other lending programs for rental
property owners.
Continue
current $25,000
level ($-$$)
Maintain current program for low
income homeowners (50% AMI and
below).
Low income ownership; Affordability Analysis
showed 733 owner HH under $20K income
2016 and 2,152 owner HH $20K - $35K in 2016
# of homes
rehabbed
Pros: Helps remove emerging
blight; usually cheaper than new
construction; potential to assure
longer term affordability depending
on requirements, helps stabilize
neighborhoods
Cons: Usually limited in number of units assisted
(especially single family); tradeoff between
cosmetic (low cost, low administration) and
structural / system improvements (higher costs,
more administration); federal funds involve
extra paperwork and process, and likely limit
recipient properties to low-income occupancy
and other requirements; history of difficulties
with single family and quality assurance (recent
Austin controversies); without recipient post-
rehab residency requirement, can potentially sell
home and lose affordable SF unit
YES but rapid
housing price
increases as
documented in
Housing Study (sales
under $200K fallen
to 7.5% in 2017-18)
mean that fewer
low-income HH will
be owning homes,
though seniors may
be continue to be
eligible
Rehab programs are frequent in cities around Texas including the Austin area,
often using HOME and CDBG funds or proceeds from housing bonds. An
effective program in San Angelo has an exterior rehab program with the
exterior siding replacement funded through CDBG, equipment and supplies
with 4B funds, paint donated through the Habitat for Humanity Valspar
program, and labor donated by community volunteers;
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 2 of 9
DRAFT
Page 15 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Home Repair for
Workforce
Homeowners
Grant program for workforce
homeowners to rehabilitate
homes for eligible repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Involvement of federal funds or programs will necessarily require the
subject housing to serve occupants of lower income levels (usually
maximum of 80% of AMI and often 50% or 30%). Some kinds of local funds
are more flexible in terms of the income levels of occupants to be served
and the length of term of affordability. The City should consider requiring a
minimum affordability level and period for programs that are not already
bound by federal or other restrictions, and should consider homes priced
to moderate-income households (for example, 60% to 120% of AMI) and
minimum compliance terms (5, 10, 15 years for example) as well in such
cases.
Possible one-
time payment
(see Richardson
example) or
future
reimbursement
or abatement of
increased City
tax due to
assessed value
increase. ($-$$)
Expand existing housing rehabilitation
programs to target workforce
demograhic, for owner occupied
rehabilitation, major repairs and minor
repairs.
Physically preserve existing affordable and
moderately priced housing structures; link to
preservation of affordable pricing. Preserve
homeownership (owner ability to stay in home)
; Required property owner matches for either
grants or loans make public funds stretch
farther and assure more commitment from
recipients. Reimbursement from future
incremental property tax revenues best suited
for property owners making substantial
(beyond cosmetic) improvements and more
middle-income occupancy (less need for
immediate funding assistance).
# homes rehabbed
and # of units price-
restricted per year
for future period
Housing study identified rapid
decrease in lower-priced homes,
especially below $200K; homes
$200K - $275K also important to
preserve (34.9% of 2017-18 sales);
program not dependent on HUD-
type income restrictions to lower-
income homeowners will be more
appropriate for Georgetown going
forward as low-income
homebuyers will be unlikely to buy
homes as prices increase; also will
address supply of older single
family in subareas 3, 6 and 7
Loss of potential future tax revenue
YES, very good
proposal well-suited
to Georgetown's
market situation
The City of Richardson Home Improvement Incentive Program uses only
future incremental City property tax increases and thus does not have
occupant income limits such as what HUD would require, making it a good
example for Georgetown (though Georgetown could still apply a limit at its
own discretion).
Neighborhood
Empowerment Zones
Explore the creation of a
neighborhood empowerment
zone and other tools to
provide targeted
neighborhood support.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy/Program
No up front funding required.
Designate NEZs
for areas of the
City where
certain types of
housing are
desired -
permitting fees
can be waived
and tax
abatements
offered to
enhance
affordability;
note that tax
abatements not
compatible with
TIRZ ($)
Short term (review and political process)
1.Propose NEZ incentive concept – fee
waivers and / or tax abatements
2.Define criteria and standards for NEZ –
what kind of housing, pricing or income
ranges served, level of incentive offered
(can be graduated)
3.Define process for selecting NEZ areas
(older housing, areas near employment
or services, etc.)
4. Propose NEZ incentive process,
undergo public and stakeholder feedback
process, Council policy adoption
5. Propose NEZ areas, undergo public
and stakeholder feedback process
6. Formal NEZ designations by Council
Can address either for-sale or rental housing,
including development of ADUs and moderate
density multifamily
# of housing units
permitted or
granted abatements
that fit NEZ criteria
No up front investment required City gives up a portion of fee or tax revenue
Yes, if areas of city
identified where
new / more
affordable housing
development is
desired
Fort Worth has 6 NEZs, all in CDBG-eligible areas. Plano designated its
downtown as an NEZ to encourage affordable housing development.
Policy: Support owners ability to stay in homes in neighborhoods with rapid value increases without limiting the sale of the home.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Utility billing
assistance
Grant funds for paying
utility bills.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Good Neighbor Fund
Good
Neighbor
Fund ($-$$)
Provide information regarding
resource.
Low-income and workforce
homeownership
# of households
assisted.
Lower utility cost can assist
homeowners to remain in
homes.
May not assist with root cause of high
utility costs
Yes, existing
program.City of Georgetown
Homestead
exemption
education
Provide eduation to
eligible homeowners on
how to obtain a
homestead exemption.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Non-profiits, Staff time Staff time ($)
Package information and provide
through available city
communication channels.
Low-income and workforce
homeownership
# of homes with
exemption Low cost action Unknown number of homeowners in need
of education Yes Some real estate associations have education materials.
Support
partnerships
Partnerships with non-
profits that assist existing
home owners with
maintenance.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Staff time Staff time ($)Identify existing assistance and
partner.
Low-income and workforce
homeownership
# of homes
repaired,
homeowners
retained
Low cost action Dependent on availability of non-profit
resources. Yes Faith in Action Georgetown
Policy: Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 3 of 9
DRAFT
Page 16 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Neighborhood
Capacity Building
Promote neighborhood
capacity (vitality, services)
building - HOA
training/education/outreach.
Assist neighborhoods with
neighborhood association
creation.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($)
Short term/ongoing Preservation Number of
neighborhood
meetings/attendees
Build neighborhood relationships;
support for neighborhood
preservation
Additional staffing Yes Tulsa, OK Neighborhood Liasions
(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/government/departments/working-in-
neighborhoods/neighborhoods/)
Small
area/neighborhood
plans
Plans developed through
community outreach for areas
of historical stability that are
transitioning in use and
density.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($$)
1. Establish annual funding for small
area/neighborhood plans.
2. Identify areas and neighborhoods for
plan development.
3. Create process for neighborhoods to
nominate themselves for small area plan.
The subarea profiles show historic sales price
trend data with significant increases in some
subareas in price/square foot. Preservation of
existing neighborhoods.
One plan per year
Focused analysis on defined areas;
support for neighborhood
preservation and compatibility
Potential community concern on any transitions
in use/density.Yes
College Station
Sugar Land
Fort Worth Urban Villages
(http://fortworthtexas.gov/PlanningandDevelopment/urbanvillages/)
BEST Neighborhoods
(Beautiful, Engaged, Safe and
Thriving) Neighborhood
promotion, recognition and
grant program
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($)
Develop a program for neighborhoods to
be recognized for beautification and
quality of life efforts. Neighborhoods
nominate themselves.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.
Neighborhood
participation is
document by year.
Capitilizes and incentivizes
neighborhoods to take action.
Less resourced neighborhoods may have limited
ability to participate.Yes City of Plano created this program and reports success for cost. Plano has a
pop-up trailer they take out to neighborhoods.
Neighborhood traffic
management
program, street
maintenance*
Expand or encourage current
traffic management program.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Existing
Program
General fund General fund
($)
1. Continue current traffic management
program.
2. Outreach to neighborhoods who
might benefit from program.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.
Reported
neighborhood
improvement
Existing program Yes Current COG program.
Neighborhood
cleanup day*
Organize regular clean up day
for neighborhood
beautificaton.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Public works, Solid waste, partnerships with private resource recovery
companies
Public works,
Solid waste,
partnerships
with private
resource
recovery
companies ($)
1. Work with Code Enforcement to
Identify neighborhoods for clean up.
2. Coordinate departments and funding.
3. Select date and conduct outreach to
inform neighborhoods.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.
metrics around
items disposed,
number of blocks
impacted.
Code enforcement reports clean up
day is effective for getting rid of
many undesired uses and potential
violations.
limited resources to perform more than once or
twice a year. Usually only one or two blocks
during event.
Yes COG has conducted in the past.
Neighborhood
registration program*
Expand current program.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($)
1. Continue to promote neighborhood
registration program.
2. Create outreach program based on
interest topics submitted by
neighborhoods during registration.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.# of neighborhoods
registered
low cost method to distribute
information, self organizing
potential
not all neighborhoods are currently organized Yes Current COG program.
Policy: Support and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households unless the housing is substandard.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Development
agreements
Negotiations with developers
that might include land
provision or direct financial
assistance in exchange of
furthering city policy.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
Depends on structure of agreement; up-front financial assistance (grant or
loan) will require source of funding (General Fund, TIRZ, 4B), while
reimbursement can use future tax increment or cut of property sales
revenue; some incentive items may not involve a financial cash flow
(relaxed zoning, for ex.)
TBD ($$-$$$$)
1. Identify and establish a special housing
revenue fund to use for development
negotiations.
Helping developers fund infrastructure, land
costs, materials can help deliver housing in this
price range; could also help deliver new rental
housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis) for
Moderate / middle income HH ($70K and
below)
# new homes
subject to
development
agreement built with
price <$275K; #
units rental housing
affordable to low
and middle income
renters up to $50K
income
Incentive-based approaches more
palatable than hard regulation; can
very directly address financial
issues that discourage more
affordable new housing
development
Requires monitoring and clawback provisions;
certain tools can reduce City revenues; requires
extra negotiation processes
YES, pursue such
agreements as part
of a housing
incentive policy
City of Houston Developer Participation Contracts; Clute Chapter 380
agreements providing below-market loan for housing subdivision
infrastructure construction
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 4 of 9
DRAFT
Page 17 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Development
incentives
Policies that incentize
developers to voluntary
increase rental housing
supply through building
rental units. (Workforce
Housing Standards, Housing
Diversity Standards, Density
Bonus)
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)<1 year
Potential method to gain incremental amounts
of lower-priced units (most likely rental
housing) for middle- and low-income workforce
(retail, hospitality, government, health care,
etc.)
# low-to-moderate-
priced units
produced
No direct fiscal outlay by City
except administration
Developers may not be familiar with particular
housing types desired or how to incorporate
affordable units into their projects; density may
increase certain kinds of service costs per acre
YES though
effectiveness will
have inverse
relationship to
strictness of overall
regulation
Downtown Austin
Development
Regulations
Zoning, Overlay Districts,
Neighborhood Conservation
Districts, Diverse Housing
Options
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)Next budget cycle
Housing Study documented both need for entry-
level single family below $275K and current
(and implied potential) role of moderate
density rental properties in serving a middle
income market; having flexibility in
development regulations to facilitate housing
diversity can help achieve additional
development of these types and serve market
segments of different resident ages and life
stages as well as incomes.
Document diversity
in type and price of
new housing
development
Will make it easier to develop
moderate-density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF)
Will need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy YES
Conroe recently reduced minimum lot sizes to allow single family homes at a
lower price point in a master planned community.
The City of Kerrville through the updates to the zoning code, revised an
existing district to include more housing types. The biggest road block of the
previous district was the different levels of approvals required for anything
that was not traditional single family. In the “newer version” these secondary
and tertiary approval processes were removed. The new district now allows
for a variety of housing types within the same district. Single family (on slightly
reduced lot size – 4500 sq. ft.), duplexes, townhomes, patio homes, and small
lot single family (3300 sq. ft. lot with separate alley access). To address the
variety of housing types, building codes, and property values, we limited each
block face to one consistent housing type.
TIF/TIRZ
TIRZ policy might include
provision for units available
to certain AMI groups or fee-
in-lieu
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
Always City General Fund; potential to include WilCo property tax also
Designate TIRZs
for larger
projects or
multi-owner
districts with
significant
public
infrastructure,
facilities, or
amenity needs
to assure
market viability
($$-$$$$)
Need to create zones when base year
assessed value is low (Jan. 1 value of
creation year)
Could be used to enhance affordability for
either for-sale or rental; Moderate / middle
income HH ($70K and below) need for-sale
homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs,
materials can help deliver housing in this price
range; could also help deliver new rental
housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis)
# units created
within the zone,
especially within
targeted sale / rent
price ranges;
amount and timing
of tax increment
generated to fund
public
improvements
No additional fees / taxes imposed
on zone properties; can issue debt
Additional administrative and legal costs to run
TIRZ; City gives up portion of property tax
revenue during life of zone
YES if project or area
fits creation criteria;
participation of
WilCo potentially
makes it very
attractive
Dallas and Houston have required TIRZs to either include development of
affordable units or have TIRZ funds set aside for affordable housing
development.
Policy: Support and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households unless the housing is substandard.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Public Facilities
Corporation
A public entity that can
acquire sites and partner with
multifamily developers to
create tax-exempt mixed-
income housing.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Funding required to acquire properties - could be General Fund, developer
equal lease agreement, land acquisition fund, housing short term debt or
notes of obligation; note that deals can be structured for developer to pay
land cost back; City would have lost tax revenue from qualified projects
since property becomes tax exempt.
Developer pay
land cost back
($$-$$$$)
1. Create a PFC to acquire sites and
partner with multifamily developers to
create tax-exempt mixed-income
housing.
Provides affordable multifamily rental - tax
exempt status requires 50% of units to be
restricted to <=80% AMI tenants; restrictions
can be placed on remaining units also if
financially feasible; Housing Study identified
increased job growth for moderate-income
local workers (<$50K income) who cannot
afford new Class A rental properties, (low
income and workforce rental units)
# rental units
created within
targeted rent ranges
/ income restrictions
Creation of affordable rentals
without more restrictive
requirements of LIHTC or HOME /
CDBG funding; potential to also
create middle-income rental
housing
Loss of potential future tax revenue
YES create PFC - city-
owned land might
be low/no cost
acquisition strategy
San Antonio has constructed several affordable multifamily projects through
PFC partnerships; new workforce rentals in Cibolo created through PFC
partnership
Affordability term
extensions
Support preservation of
existing affordable units,
often tax credit units.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund/staff time/in exchange for other program participation or
development incentive Staff time ($)
1. Catalog developments to identify
expiring affrodability terms.
2. Develop program to provide support
to property owners with renovations that
use Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
Preserves LIHTC units nearing end of
affordability term.
Number of units
preserved with
extended terms
Low cost Not many LIHTC units are yet at risk of
affordability terms expiring. Yes Texas Housing Foundation
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 5 of 9
DRAFT
Page 18 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Support GHA
programs
Support GHA through CDBG
funds, energy efficiency
upgrades through GUS
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time/CDBG
General
fund/staff
time/CDBG ($)
1. Understand support needed from
GHA.
2. Work with GHA to support current
capital improvements.
low income renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened renters
supports some of only renter
housing available for low income
households.
Not many units overall. Yes
Low Income Housing
Tax Credit process*
Support LIHTC
development
(workforce) that meet
City defined process
Development using LIHTC for
genearl population as
proposed by developers.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time
General
fund/staff time
($)
Build on existing policy workforce renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened renters
No cost to city. Some of only
funding available to build volume
of workforce housing units
9% tax credit developments unlikely to be
competitive in Georgetown Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Multi-family Tax
Exemption
Tax exemption program in
exchange for on-site
affordability
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Texas Comptroller exemption for low-income housing
(https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/docs/96-1740.pdf)
Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation bonds for affordable rental
housing
(https://www.tsahc.org/public/upload/files/general/MF_Bonds_Brochure.
pdf)
N/A ($)Short term Affordability
Number of
affordable units
added to housing
stock
Support for affordability; protect
vulnerable populations
Reduced tax revenue; potential community
pushback on increasing affordable housing
supply
Yes
McKinney, TX (https://www.mckinneytexas.org/1948/Low-Income-Housing-
Tax-Credit; https://www.mckinneytexas.org/241/Mortgage-Certificate-Credit-
Program)
Policy: Support rental choices for senior households.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps Required
in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Low Income Housing
Tax Credit process*
Support LIHTC
development (senior
specific) that meet
City defined process
Development using LIHTC for
seniors as proposed by
developers.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time
General
fund/staff time
($)
Build on existing policy low income senior renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened senior
renters
serves severely cost burdened
population
Not as many senior renters as non-senior
renters.Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Support GHA
programs
Support GHA through CDBG
funds, energy efficiency
upgrades through GUS
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time/CDBG
General
fund/staff
time/CDBG ($)
1. Understand support needed from
GHA.
2. Work with GHA to support current
capital improvements.
low income senior renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened senior
renters
supports some of only renter
housing available for low income
seniors.
Not many units overall. Yes
Policy: Increase homeownership choices for workforce households.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps Required
in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Down Payment Assistance
Down payment assistance and home
buyer counseling programs by
supporting public-private partnerships
with financial institutions and major
employers.
Type of Action (program, policy, study):
Program
• DPA - Potential funding sources (HOME, housing bonds, General Fund, TIRZ, 4B sales tax,
nonprofit/private sector partners)
Up-front down payment assistance, which can be provided by the City, a local housing finance
corporation, or major employers (less common).
• Housing education / navigation program (include financial and realtor communities)
A more involved strategy would be to work with employers, nonprofits, mortgage finance firms,
realtors, developers, and builders to set up an ongoing program that would work to prepare first-
time buyers for home ownership through improving credit profile, managing savings, and helping
them with mortgage qualification. This program might be City-initiated but not City-run.
The least-restricted
funds are the most
desirable for DPA -
TIRZ and 4B are
better than HOME
and housing bonds
because the City can
choose to serve
more middle-income
HH. Education /
navigation - mostly
same sources in
combination with
partners ($-$$$)
Establish down payment assistance and expand home
buyer counseling programs by supporting public-
private partnerships with financial institutions and
major employers. Next budget cycle (General Fund,
4B); partnerships may take longer to develop
Increase the ability of middle-income households to purchase
a home in Georgetown by lower down payment amounts or
ongoing costs such as property taxes; the housing study
documented dramatic loss of available homes under $200K, so
middle income buyers ($50K - $70K income) will need
increasing help to purchase homes up to $275K, which is
becoming the new bottom price tier
# buyers of target income
range ($70K and below)
assisted
Incentivizes middle-income households to
consider buying in Georgetown when they
might otherwise have moved elsewhere.
Cons: Does nothing to provide more moderately-priced for-sale
housing in Georgetown, and may even help drive up prices;
loses effectiveness as home prices and interest rates rise; up-
front assistance may be limited in number of households
helped.
YES but rapid housing price
increases as documented
in Housing Study mean
that assistance may need
to focus more on moderate
to middle income HH and
larger per-HH assistance
will likely be needed over
time
: The City of Houston has a generous down payment assistance grant program, with some funded by
HOME and restricted to recipients of certain income levels, and other funds coming from TIRZ
affordable housing set asides and available to middle-income home buyers. The program has had to
improve its bureaucratic process to be better able to work with realtors and builders, and has lessened
in effectiveness as urban core home prices have risen. The City of Austin also offers one as a 0%
deferred payment loan to homebuyers whose incomes do not exceed federal limits.
Development agreements
Negotiations with developers that
might include land provision or direct
financial assistance in exchange of
furthering city policy.
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Policy
Depends on structure of agreement; up-front financial assistance (grant or loan) will require source
of funding (General Fund, TIRZ, 4B), while reimbursement can use future tax increment or cut of
property sales revenue; some incentive items may not involve a financial cash flow (relaxed zoning,
for ex.)
TBD ($$-$$$$)1. Identify and establish a special housing revenue
fund to use for development negotiations.
Moderate / middle income HH ($70K and below) need for-sale
homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping developers fund
infrastructure, land costs, materials can help deliver housing in
this price range;
# new homes subject to
development agreement
built with price <$275K; #
units rental housing
affordable to low and
middle income renters up
to $50K income
Incentive-based approaches more palatable
than hard regulation; can very directly address
financial issues that discourage more
affordable new housing development
Requires monitoring and clawback provisions; certain tools can
reduce City revenues; requires extra negotiation processes
YES, pursue such
agreements as part of a
housing incentive policy
Clute Chapter 380 agreements providing below-market loan for housing subdivision infrastructure
construction; City of Houston Developer Participation Contracts
Development incentives
Workforce Housing*, Housing
Diversity*, Density Bonus
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Policy
General Fund General Fund ($)<1 year
Potential method to gain incremental amounts of lower-
priced units (most likely rental housing) for middle- and low-
income workforce (retail, hospitality, government, health
care, etc.)
# low-to-moderate-priced
units produced
No direct fiscal outlay by City except
administration; existing program
Developers may not be familiar with particular housing types
desired or how to incorporate affordable units into their
projects; density may increase certain kinds of service costs
per acre
YES though effectiveness
will have inverse
relationship to strictness
of overall regulation
Existing program, Downtown Austin
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 6 of 9
DRAFT
Page 19 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Comm. Development
Block Grant (Wilco and/or
HUD)
Land acquistion and infrastructure
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Program
Williamson County or become entitlement jurisdiction Williamson County
until evaluation ($)
1. Continue to apply for grants from Williamson
County to support affordable housing for
households under 80%.
2. Evaluate cost benefit to becoming entitlement
jurisdiction.
Workforce # of homes available due
to investment
Funding for capital improvements;
neighborhood reinvestment Effort/resouces to apply for grant Yes Waco, TX (https://www.waco-texas.com/housing-cdbg.asp)
Publically owned lands/tax
delinquent properties
Leverage publicly owned lands for
diverse affordable housing
developments by taking a
comprehensive inventory of land and
its suitability for affordable housing
development.
Type of Action (program, policy, study):
Policy
Revenue from sale of properties. Evaluate agreement WCAD for sale of deliquent properties to
determine best/highest use. To create a special revenue fund.
Special Revenue
Fund ($)
1. Evaluate agreement with WCAD.
2. Estimate/project fund.
3. Structure parameters.
Evaluate delinquent property tax sale
(https://mvbalaw.com/wp-
content/TaxUploads/1119_Williamson.pdf)
Workforce # of revenue generated
from property sold.
Leverage, public private partnerships,
recognizes demand Offset general revenue, long time to build funds
380 Agreements Chapter 380 of the Local Government
Code authorizes municipalities to offer
incentives designed to promote
economic development such as
commercial and retail projects.
Specifically, it provides for offering
loans and grants of city funds or
services at little or no cost to promote
state and local economic development
and to stimulate business and
commercial activity. In order to
provide a grant or loan, a city must
establish a program to implement the
incentives.
Depends on structure of agreement; up-front financial assistance (grant or loan) will require source
of funding (General Fund, TIRZ, 4B), while reimbursement can use future tax increment or cut of
property sales revenue; some incentive items may not involve a financial cash flow (relaxed zoning,
for ex.)
TBD 1-2 years
1. Propose Ch. 380 Housing Incentive concept – grants
/ loans / reimbursements for housing
2. Define criteria and standards for Ch. 380 agreement
– what kinds of housing, pricing or income ranges
served, determining factors for potential incentive
amount (examples: public infrastructure or amenity
costs, extra costs for including affordable units, land
costs over financially feasible level, etc.)
3. Determine extent of potential incentive eligible for
applicants – developments serving lowest income
range might be eligible for 100% of potential incentive
while higher priced housing maybe 50% eligibility; also
structure of incentive can be graduated, such as up-
front grants or loans for most affordable housing vs.
future reimbursements from lot sales or tax increment
f hi h i d h i
Moderate / middle income HH ($70K and below) need for-sale
homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping developers fund
infrastructure, land costs, materials can help deliver housing in
this price range; could also help deliver new rental housing at
rents lower than new Class A (under $1,300/month per
Affordability Analysis)
# new homes subject to
development agreement
built with price <$275K; #
units rental housing
affordable to low and
middle income renters up
to $50K income
Requires monitoring and clawback provisions;
certain tools can reduce City revenues;
requires extra negotiation processes
Incentive-based approaches more palatable than hard
regulation; can very directly address financial issues that
discourage more affordable new housing development
YES, pursue such
agreements as part of a
housing incentive policy
City of Plano uses 380 agreements for housing incentives by including housing as a community benefit
for economic development in resolutions authorizing 380 agreements. Clute Chapter 380 agreements
providing below-market loan for housing subdivision infrastructure construction; City of Austin Chapter
380 for affordable housing within the new Domain complex
Community Land Trust
Create a Community Land Trust or
other forms of Shared Equity
Ownership. Transition suitable land
bank properties to permanently
affordable housing through a
public/private partnership with builders
and a shared equity model
Type of Action (program, policy, study):
Program
However, though after formation these tools can act quickly and at a large scale, getting them setup
would be a major effort. Since Georgetown is not a large city (compared to Austin), Georgetown
may have to work with other area communities to pool resources needed to create these tools or
find organizations using them already on a regional basis. While ideally operational expenses
should be covered by real estate sales of improvements, there may be additional funds (General
Fund) or partnership needed to fund administration
Funding options to
be explored. ($$-
$$$)
Likely at least 2 years unless existing CLT can expand
to Georgetown.
1. Look at possible regional CLTs for expansion into
Georgetown.
2. Idenitfy if any philanthropic or institutional entities
might provide land to land trust.
Create high-capacity tools to better address the magnitude of
affordable and workforce housing issues in Georgetown; The
housing study highlighted the need to preserve as much of the
current moderately-priced rental housing (both smaller and
larger properties) as possible. It also documented the rapid for-
sale home price appreciation that is occurring, implying the
need for mechanisms to preserve affordability for longer
periods or permanently.
# long term housing units
placed into long term /
permanent affordability
Can bring much larger funding and
organization to “move the needle” on creating
and preserving desired housing. Addressing
affordable and workforce housing primarily
through federally-funded or sponsored
mechanisms such as HUD funding (HOME,
CDBG) is ultimately a small-scale approach to a
large issue. Creating tools with the
organizational and financial resources to
execute larger-scale activities in a quicker time
frame may be needed in order to keep up with
the Austin metro’s ongoing housing price
appreciation.
Cons: Will take considerable time and effort to initiate and, for
certain tools, acquire properties.
YES, if existing CLT can
expand to Georgetown or if
a thrid party is willing to
donate land.
Examples: Austin and Houston have started community land trusts. The Houston Land Bank and
Houston Community Land Trust have been formed act in concert to acquire sites for new affordable for-
sale homes and create permanent affordability. Houston's receives land from the Houston Land Bank
when a prospective homeowner chooses the Land Trust option.
Policy: Support the non-profit community to create housing opportunities for the most vulnerable residents (including but not limited to homeless, seniors, youth aging out of the foster care system, and people with disabilities).
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Health and Human
Service Element
The City Charter lists a Health
and Human Services element
in the Comprehensive Plan. A
needs assessment of
vulnerable populations can
inform the element.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Study
Potential partnering opportunity with WilCo and/or surrounding cities for
needs assessment
Partnerships for
assessment/Ge
neral fund for
element ($$)
1. Support a needs assessment of
potentially vulnerable populations to
refine the scope and focus of the Health
and Human Services Element.
2. Develop a Health and Human Services
Element for the comprehensive plan, as
required by City Charter.
Seniors, Low-Income
Completion of plan;
measure through
homelessness rates,
foreclosures
Meet charter requirement; protect
vulnerable populations Cost/effort Yes City of San Antonio's Accomplishments by the Number to track progress
(https://www.sanantonio.gov/humanservices/about#268633469-children)
Policy: Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
TIF/TIRZ
TIRZ policy might include
provision for units available
to certain AMI groups or fee-
in-lieu
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
Always City General Fund; potential to include WilCo property tax also
Designate TIRZs
for larger
projects or
multi-owner
districts with
significant
public
infrastructure,
facilities, or
amenity needs
to assure
market viability
($$-$$$$)
Need to create zones when base year
assessed value is low (Jan. 1 value of
creation year)
Could be used to enhance affordability for
either for-sale or rental; Moderate / middle
income HH ($70K and below) need for-sale
homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs,
materials can help deliver housing in this price
range; could also help deliver new rental
housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis)
# units created
within the zone,
especially within
targeted sale / rent
price ranges;
amount and timing
of tax increment
generated to fund
public
improvements
No additional fees / taxes imposed
on zone properties; can issue debt
Additional administrative and legal costs to run
TIRZ; City gives up portion of property tax
revenue during life of zone
YES if project or area
fits creation criteria;
participation of
WilCo potentially
makes it very
attractive
Dallas and Houston have required TIRZs to either include development of
affordable units or have TIRZ funds set aside for affordable housing
development.
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 7 of 9
DRAFT
Page 20 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Municipal Utility
Districts
Special purpose finance
district. MUDs help offset up-
front infrastructure costs to
the developer who would
otherwise have to recoup
them through lot/home sale
prices; helps keep home sale
prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits
N/A N/A 1. Evaluate policies for potential housing d
MUDs help offset up-front infrastructure costs
to the developer who would otherwise have to
recoup them through lot/home sale prices;
helps keep home sale prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits
Successful
development
completion and
absorption; rapidity
of developer
reimbursements
Can be applied outside city limits
(in ETJ)
MUD tax can be higher than City tax, so lower
sale price somewhat offset by higher PITI
Consider on case-by-
case analysis; no
precedent for
consent contingent
upon certain price
range of homes, but
may be possible
Georgetown ETJ has existing MUDs; no precedent available regarding
requirements for affordability
Public Improvement
Districts
Special purpose finance
district. MUDs help offset up-
front infrastructure costs to
the developer who would
otherwise have to recoup
them through lot/home sale
prices; helps keep home sale
prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits.
N/A N/A 1. Evaluate policies for potential housing d
MUDs help offset up-front infrastructure costs
to the developer who would otherwise have to
recoup them through lot/home sale prices;
helps keep home sale prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits
Successful
development
completion and
absorption; rapidity
of developer
reimbursements
City controls; wide range of
improvements can be funded
PID assessments are on top of City property tax,
so property owner has higher ongoing payment
burden (unless offset with City tax abatement)
Consider on case-by-
case analysis; no
precedent for
consent contingent
upon certain price
range of homes, but
may be possible
PIDs have been used extensively in the DFW metro; Travis County also has
PIDs; not know if any PIDs or PID policies have been created specifically for
housing with some affordability restriction
Low Income Housing
Tax Credit process*
Support LIHTC
development
(workforce) that meet
City defined process
Development using LIHTC for
genearl population as
proposed by developers.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time
General
fund/staff time
($)
Build on existing policy workforce renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened renters
No cost to city. Some of only
funding available to build volume
of workforce housing units
9% tax credit developments unlikely to be
competitive in Georgetown Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Policy: Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Development
Regulations
Revise development
regulations (Zoning, Overlay
Districts, Neighborhood
Conservation Districts,
Diverse Housing Options)
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)Begin next budget cycle
Housing Study documented both need for entry-
level single family below $275K and current
(and implied potential) role of moderate
density rental properties in serving a middle
income market; having flexibility in
development regulations to facilitate housing
diversity can help achieve additional
development of these types and serve market
segments of different resident ages and life
stages as well as incomes.
Document diversity
in type and price of
new housing
development
Will make it easier to develop
moderate-density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF)
Will need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy YES
Conroe recently reduced minimum lot sizes to allow single family homes at a
lower price point in a master planned community.
The City of Kerrville through the updates to the zoning code, revised an
existing district to include more housing types. The biggest road block of the
previous district was the different levels of approvals required for anything
that was not traditional single family. In the “newer version” these secondary
and tertiary approval processes were removed. The new district now allows
for a variety of housing types within the same district. Single family (on slightly
reduced lot size – 4500 sq. ft.), duplexes, townhomes, patio homes, and small
lot single family (3300 sq. ft. lot with separate alley access). To address the
variety of housing types, building codes, and property values, we limited each
block face to one consistent housing type.
Policy: Promote aging in place opportunities by aligning land use policies and transportation policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Health and Human
Service Element
The City Charter lists a Health
and Human Services element
in the Comprehensive Plan. A
needs assessment of
vulnerable populations can
inform the element.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Study
Potential partnering opportunity with WilCo and/or surrounding cities for
needs assessment
Partnerships for
assessment/Ge
neral fund for
element ($$)
1. Support a needs assessment of
potentially vulnerable populations to
refine the scope and focus of the Health
and Human Services Element.
2. Develop a Health and Human Services
Element for the comprehensive plan, as
required by City Charter.
Seniors, Low-Income
Completion of plan;
measure through
homelessness rates,
foreclosures
Meet charter requirement; protect
vulnerable populations Cost/effort Yes City of San Antonio's Accomplishments by the Number to track progress
(https://www.sanantonio.gov/humanservices/about#268633469-children)
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 8 of 9
DRAFT
Page 21 of 42
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/27/2019
Support services to
support aging in place
Aging at home often requires
integrated services including
transportation, healthcare,
food service, and possibly
utility billing assistance.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs - Comprehensive
Energy Assistance Program utility assistance program
(https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/community-affairs/ceap/)
General fund
($$$)
Evaluate opportunities to build an
enhanced support services program to
provide transportation, healthcare, food
services, and utility billing assistance to
seniors, which should be addressed
through the Health and Human Services
Element.
Seniors
Number of seniors
participating in
program; annual
survey of seniors to
evaluate awareness
and participating
Support for Georgetown's sizable
senior population; protect
vulnerable populations
Additional cost Yes
Houston's Home Repair Program requires single-family projects accommodate
aging-in-place (https://houstontx.gov/housing/home_repair_programs.html)
Dallas' Office of Senior Affairs
(https://dallascityhall.com/departments/community-
care/Pages/seniorservices.aspx)
Level of Expense Legend
$ - under $10K
$$ - $10K - $50K
$$$ - $50K - $100K
$$$$ - $100K
Page 9 of 9
DRAFT
Page 22 of 42
1
2/26/19
Re: State of Housing Background Materials
Background
On May 24, 2016 Council directed completion of an update to the Housing Element and also a
Housing Feasibility Study. Council asked to evaluate the City’s housing needs of three
populations: low income, workforce and senior. City Council appropriated funds in the Fiscal
Year 2017 budget and approved a contract for services which included an update to the
Housing Element and Housing Feasibility Study, hereinafter referred to as the “Housing
Toolkit” or ‘Toolkit”. The update to the Housing Element and the development of a Toolkit
within the overall 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update will align the City’s development, fiscal
and land use strategies.
Figure 1 - Housing's Role in Future Land Use
2030 Plan Update goal development
During the December 11, 2018 City Council workshop, the project team presented Council a
review of the existing land use goals and a summary of the public input to date. Council
recommended that a housing specific goal be considered. At the January 3, 2019 Steering
Committee meeting, after reviewing the existing land use goals, the committee found that
recent public input themes related to housing were not included and therefore not reflective of
recent community input.
At the January 10, 2019 Joint Session of City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission, the
group arrived at consensus on a Housing specific goal:
“Ensure access to diverse housing options and amenities and preserve existing neighborhoods for
residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels.”
Page 23 of 42
2
2030 Housing Element Update
Included in the newly formed housing goal are three specific themes: affordability, diversity
and preservation. Together, the three themes provide a fuller community housing strategy that
preserves existing housing stock and accommodates future needs by creating greater consumer
choice by 2030. The 2030 Housing Element uses the data from the technical study and concerns
from the public input to inform the policies for each of the areas.
Figure 2- Comprehensive Housing Plan
Key Terms Used in this Report
• Affordable housing - regardless of income level,
affordable housing is housing for which all
combined expenses—mortgage or rent, utilities,
insurance and taxes—cost no more than 30% of
gross household income.
• Area Median Income (AMI) – used by HUD to
determine eligibility for housing programs. This
calculation is used in this report to reflect regional
conditions and the household incomes eligible for
federally subsidized units. The AMI for Williamson
County is used to calculate eligibility in Georgetown.
• Median Household Income – half of households earn below and half earn above
• $81,818 WilCo (2016 US Census ACS 1 year estimate)
• $67,379 Georgetown (2016 US Census ACS 1 year estimate)
• Cost Burden – paying more than 30% of gross income toward housing
Affordability
DiversityPreservation
Support existing
Neighborhoods
Increase
consumer choice
Figure 3- Household expenses
Page 24 of 42
3
• Low-income (Industry standard)- Often households that make 50% or 30% or less than
AMI
• Workforce (City of Georgetown UDC) - Workforce Housing Developments are available
for those whose incomes are less than or equal to 80% AMI
• Senior (Industry standards) - Can be age restricted at 55 or 62, Census data addresses
65+
• Planning Area - Geographical study area that includes the City limits of Georgetown
and the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ)
Technical Studies
Community Development Strategies (CDS) was hired as a sub-consultant to Freese & Nichols,
the prime consultant for the 2030 Plan Update, to complete a technical study of housing. The
components of the technical study consisted of a a) Housing Inventory, b) Subarea Profiles and
an c) Affordability Analysis as detailed below.
Housing Inventory
Purpose
The Housing Inventory serves as a full accounting of housing units and households in the City’s
planning area. The inventory provides the type, age, lot size, tenure, and household
composition of the city’s housing stock. This report tallies and catalogues the various types of
housing existing in Georgetown. The Inventory has two primary data sources: (1) the
Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD) and (2) Nielson / Claritas, a private sector
provider of demographic data estimates based on recent data available from the Federal Bureau
of the Census and other sources. The geographic Planning Area covered includes the entirety of
the City’s incorporated jurisdiction plus its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). While the Nielsen /
Claritas data is ascribed generally to the year 2018, the WCAD data is specifically ascribed to a
download period of June-July 2018. The inventory includes maps for comparison of the
characteristics across the city. CDS delivered a Housing Inventory in July 2018. The information
was presented to the Housing Advisory Board on July 23, 2018. Additional information was
presented to the Comp Plan Steering Committee on November 1, 2018.
Key Findings
The report concludes that housing product options not evenly distributed across the planning
area and there are decreasing options among lower price points.
The Planning area has the following characteristics:
Page 25 of 42
4
Housing Unit Characteristics
• 16.6% MF/83.4% SF
• Median home size 1,994 sq ft., Average home size 2,159 sw. ft.
• Median lot size .23 acre, Average lot size 1.17
• 33,842 total units
• Median Homes Value (excluding multi-family) $269,593
• Average Value (excluding multi-family) $309,797
• $146 per sq./ft. (median 2018)
• Median Year built (all units) 2004
Household Characteristics
• 22.4% Renters/77.6% Owners
• Average size 2.47 persons
• Homeowner average of 9 years, Renter occupied 3 years
• Median Household income is $81,219 (94% AMI), Average is $103,384
Subarea Profiles
Purpose
The subarea profiles provide a basis for making policy recommendations through an
understanding of housing as it exists across the city. The granularity of the subarea profiles
allows the City to make recommendations for specific geographies or recommendations that
may apply to the entire study area:
•Housing diversity (type, lot size)
•Housing choice (square footage, price point)
•Historic cost trends (MLS sales and rental data 2008-2018)
•Existing affordable housing stock (market rate and subsidized)
The Subarea map consists of 14 areas. The map was developed using housing characteristics of
housing age, type, density and value. Other considerations included well known boundaries
such as neighborhoods Sun City (age-restricted), zoning overlays such as the Old Town /
Downtown, Census Block Group boundaries and elementary school zones although the zones
had limited impact on the subarea boundaries. The subareas are not intended to define
“neighborhoods”. The review of housing characteristics for the subareas included Multiple
Listing Service (MLS) sales information from the Austin Board of Realtors, US Census data and
field research.
The Subarea information was presented at:
• August 20, 2018 Housing Advisory Board meeting
• September 6, 2018 Steering Committee meeting #4
• September 18, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Page 26 of 42
5
Findings
• Some subareas have no or little housing product diversity or rental options. Other
subareas such as those in the center city have a wide variety of housing types and ages.
• Older duplexes, four-plexes and multi-family properties play an important role in
affordable housing stock.
• Neighborhood change is a concern for some existing residents.
• Household characteristics are depicted geographically and varies widely across
subareas. A summary for each of the subareas is attached to this memo (Attachment 1 –
Subarea Profiles).
Affordability Analysis
Purpose
The Affordability Analysis provides a general picture of the need for affordable rental and for-
sale housing in the Georgetown Planning Area defined as the City of Georgetown City Limits
and its extra-territorial jurisdiction. The report is broken into three parts: Affordable Housing
Demand (including regional employment data), Affordable Housing Supply, Analysis and
Recommendations.
Housing Demand and Supply information was presented at the following meetings:
• September 24, 2018 Housing Advisory Board meeting
• October 15, 2018 Housing Advisory Board meeting
• November 1, 2018 Steering Committee #5
• November 6, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Findings
The bullets below represent the generalized findings of the 11/1 Steering Committee:
• Rental Demand
Housing is an economic development issue
Surprised by high renter cost burden
Surprised Georgetown AMI is lower than WilCo
Surprised that there are a significant amount of more renters are cost burdened than
owners
The data suggests there is a segment of the population for whom Georgetown is
unaffordable
• For Sale Demand
Do Sun City numbers skew planning area numbers?
Lower income is more cost burdened
Surprised that anyone under $20K could own a home
Not enough houses for $50K incomes
When looking at regular employment you can’t afford the job
Income does not equal ownership
Page 27 of 42
6
• Rental Supply
Send to Council: Georgetown needs more 2 plex, 4 plex
Used to be no more than 20% class A, we have 40% because of cost to build
Lower rents for single family than expected
Duplexes = affordability
Surprising that more subsidized units than Class B
• For Sale Supply
Surprised nothing under $399K west of I-35
Townhouses/condos play a role in the market
Density is the answer
# of units under $275K in next 12-18 months, making some progress
Surprised to know wages not growing as fast as housing costs
2008-2018 Wages not growing as fast as housing costs increase UDC, increase cost
Demand
Housing demand is influenced by regional employment trends, household income, age, ability
and desire to rent or own, among other factors. CDS analyzed employment data for the region
using the Williamson County geography.
Regional Employment trends
Nearly half of all jobs (81k/165k) in Williamson County are in industry sectors with lower
average wages, these sectors are exhibiting growth in overall jobs (Texas Workforce Commission
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) – August 2018)
• Retail Trade
• Educational Services
• Accommodation and Food Services
• Health Care and Social Assistance
Strong growth in high-wage sectors in Williamson County (Texas Workforce Commission
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) – August 2018)
• Manufacturing
• Professional and Technical Services
Life Sciences, including Health Care, has been identified as a target industry for Georgetown to
pursue. While success in this pursuit would bring a number of higher-wage jobs, it will also
grow the number of lower-wage jobs associated with Health Care, which has a wide range of
wages for that sector. (City of Georgetown, Target Industry And Workforce Analysis, 2017)
Page 28 of 42
7
Rental Supply
The last four years since 2014 have included generally rising rents in the greater Austin region,
though the increases appear to be plateauing since 2017. This may be because overall supply has
been increasing with new property deliveries, nearly all of which have been considered Class A,
since land and construction costs generally limit the financial feasibility of new unsubsidized
development to only upscale projects. The market rate (non-subsidized or income-restricted)
multifamily properties in Georgetown that supply more affordable rental units either fall into
the Class “B” designation by the real estate investment community or are unrated. They tend to
be older properties (the newest dates to 2001). Lease rates for one-bedroom units tends to range
from $750 to $900 per month. Two-bedroom units range from approximately $900 to $1,100,
with such units at a few properties slightly higher priced. The total number of units in the listed
properties is 1,293.
Georgetown also has a significant supply of multifamily properties that have been publicly
subsidized in some fashion (federal tax credits, public housing, etc.) and have income
restrictions on tenants to remain affordable to lower income residents. Three such projects are
under construction, two of which will offer market rate units. Some properties are age-restricted
to seniors. The total number of units in these properties is 1,916, including the under
construction properties, and of which 1,697 units are income-restricted. Multifamily apartments
are not the only source of rental units in the Georgetown Planning Area. Housing consumers
also look for individual or small-scale rentals. Unfortunately, comprehensive data is not
available to summarize and analyze these transactions. A particular type of rental unit in
Georgetown for which no large transaction or listing sample was available is the small-scale
multi-unit property (mostly quadplexes) and duplexes. These are mostly concentrated in
neighborhoods on just south of the historic core, just west of I-35 off Leander Road, and in
Figure 4 – Regional industry trends, wages and percentage of employment
Page 29 of 42
8
relatively older residential areas off Williams Drives also just west of I-35. A small sample of
listings from field research indicates that typical rents in these properties may be comparable to
Class B market rate multifamily units for the same number of bedrooms.
Type Percentage of Units
Class A 37%
Class B 20%
Rent Restricted 27%
Duplex 10%
Fourplex 6%
For Sale Supply
Market data for the Georgetown Planning Area from the MLS transactions in recent years show
that there is very little excess inventory of existing homes available; this is evident from the
relatively small difference between listing price and sales price, and also the short average days
on market (less than 40, down from a typical 70 to 90 a few years earlier). The sales volumes in
the bottom two price ranges, below $275,000 (1,230 total sales), are a dramatic drop from
previous years. In the 2014-2016 period, sales in these two categories totaled 3,087. These lower
price categories represent “entry level” prices for first-time buyers at or below area median
income (approximately $67,000 and $82,000 for Georgetown and Williamson County
respectively as of the 2016 American Community Survey – see the analysis in the next section).
However, the area housing market is rapidly shrinking the available inventory of such homes.
Figure 5 – Multi-family rental percentages by product type
Figure 6 – Multi-family rental percentages by product type
Page 30 of 42
9
Sun City Factor
One of the frequently asked questions when housing data was presented in 2018 was how much
Sun City skewed any city wide statistics. CDS ran a report that was able to separate the
geography that approximately encompasses Sun City (eight Census block groups) from the rest
of Georgetown. The findings are below:
• The age restriction for living in Sun City is that one person in the household must be at least
55 years of age. Of the 7,787 households represented in the eight Census block groups, 6,419
(or 82%) of the households are headed by persons 65 years or older as of 2016.
• Included in the overall Georgetown tally, 65 and older households account for
approximately 44% of total households. Removing Sun City, this share drops to
approximately 25%.
• Because Sun City is dominated by owner households, its impact on renter data for the city
overall is small. A similar share of total renter households in the Sun City Block Groups are
cost-burdened as compared to the city excluding Sun City.
• A lower share of Sun City owner households have a mortgage than in Georgetown overall.
This is likely because many Sun City residents purchased their homes with cash, having
equity from previous homes they owned. Interestingly, a higher share of Sun City owner
households with mortgages were estimated to be cost-burdened than in the rest of the city.
• Sun City accounted for a very high share, 69%, of all over-65 owner households in
Georgetown. Of these households, a higher share were cost-burdened than in the
remainder of the city – approximately 25% to 18%.
Page 31 of 42
10
Analysis & Recommendations
The current housing needs for the three groups requested by Council are presented below.
The chart above illustrates the number of Georgetown households at each of the HUD defined
income levels using the Williamson County Area Median Income of $77,800 for 2016. The
American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the Census provides the number of
households by income level for the City of Georgetown. That figure can then be apportioned to
the AMI levels to provide an estimate of number of households by AMI level. The ACS 2016 1
Year estimate for the City of Georgetown was a total of 25,235 households, with 10,271 of those
households headed by a householder over the age of 65.
Low Income households
The findings for the approximately 3,000 low income households with incomes less than 30% of
the Area Median Income were that:
• 69% of renters (1,100/1,600 HHs) are cost burdened
• 68% of owners (950/1,400 HHs) are cost burdened
Possible policies to address this high cost burden include policies to increase rental inventory
and preserve homeownership for low income households.
Workforce households
The findings for the approximately 8,000 workforce households with incomes between 30% and
80% of the Area Median Income were that:
• 80% renters (2,000/2,500 HHs) are cost burdened
• 42% owners (2,300/5,500 HHs) are cost burdened
• Limited supply for sale under $250K
Page 32 of 42
11
Possible policies to address this high cost burden and limited supply of affordable for sale
housing include policies to increase rental inventory, preserve homeownership, and increase
homeownership opportunities for workforce households.
Senior households
The findings for the approximately 10,000 senior households with incomes between 30% and
80% of the Area Median Income were that:
• 67% renters (1,000/1,500 HHs) are cost burdened
• 24% owners (2,000/8,500 HHs) are cost burdened
Possible policies to address this high cost burden include policies to increase rental inventory
and preserve homeownership for senior households.
Future Housing Need
The future needs for housing are projected using the anticipated growth rate for Williamson
County from the Texas State Data Center for the year 2030.
Page 33 of 42
12
The above chart provides a simple analysis of possible housing units needed in 2030 to
accommodate the City’s 2016 household population by income based a 55% growth rate, as
described in the preceding figure.
Public Input
One of the seven themes that emerged from the extensive public input conducted during 2018
was to focus on housing & affordability. A summary of the public input from the various
outreach opportunities can be found in the attached Housing Public Input Report (Attachment
2).
Page 34 of 42
Page 35 of 42
From:Carl Norris
To:Sofia Nelson
Cc:Nathaniel Waggoner; District2; District4; District7; District6; Mayor; District3; District5; GTAB Board; GRP_2030
Subject:[EXTERNAL] 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update-ACC Comment No.3
Date:Wednesday, November 13, 2019 11:44:36 AM
Attachments:Email 102119-Pitts-Land Use-2030 Compe Pln Update- GTU Relocation.eml.msg
Email 102219-Nelson-CC Workshop 102219-Draft FLUP.eml.msg
GTAB 110819-Dew Statement-No.98.docx
GTAB 110819-Norris Statement-No.99.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Dear Ms. Nelson,
RE: Email dated December 26, 2018- Subject: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update ACC
Comment No.1
Email dated October 10, 2019 – Subject: 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update ACC
Comment No.2
Please file the contents of this email and its attachments as 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update ACC Comment No.3
The No.1 priority of government is the safety of its people. This priority is being
abandoned by our city’s 20130 Comprehensive Plan Update officials and staff by planning
for permanent location of the airport in the heart of our densely growing city and totally
atop the EARZ.
The presentation by you and your quality planning staff of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update, Future Land Use Map (FLUM), land use policies, categories, and approval schedule to
the city council on November 12, 2019 remained essentially unchanged from that presented
to city council on October 22, 2019. The presentation continues to ignore flagged citizen
concerns and comments of the public hazards of the airport’s location. ACC comments No.1
and 2 provide comprehensive explanation of the public safety, health, and environmental
hazards of this location and mandatory need for NEPA compliance for the airport operations
2016 ,20 year, 52 projects, $60 Million PROGRAM of new federal and state funded capital
improvements demonstrated by preparation of a fully scoped EIS and resultant ROD to
ensure government transparency and accountability for this hazardous PROGRAM.
These concerns are heightened by no reduction in FAA’s data showing over 70% of ALL air
crashes occurring during take offs or landings; over 80% of ALL aircraft using the airport being
piston engine toxic leaded fueled aircraft with resultant health hazards; TV dramatizations
such as “Air Disasters” and air crashes at other airports displayed on news media outlets;
refusal of the city and FAA to provide flight rules to mitigate low level debilitating flight noise
over homes, schools, churches, and nursing homes over city established “safety and noise
Page 36 of 42
sensitive” areas; and citizen airport noise complaints reaching the Congress and creating the
Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus.
In addition, every member of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update staffs is well aware of
city plans to subdivide and develop over 100 acres of airport property into leased tracts for
use by FBO’s authorized to use every known type of hazardous materials; that EPA
recognizes over 30 types of hazardous materials for use in aviation electronics, engine, and
airframe repairs and remodeling; and no pro-active inspection/enforcement controls exist for
EARZ protection regarding hazardous materials handling, storage, use, containment, and
disposal. TCEQ has no regulatory means of mandatory EARZ leased subdivisions
review/approval and no means of pro-active advance hazardous materials
inspection/enforcement until AFTER A DISASTER.
This email’s attachments include ACC statements to the GTAB from August through
November 2019 demonstrating a seamless relocation of airport operations to a safe,
superior site is a practicable alternative to the airport’s current hazardous location. More
information will be provided in future GTAB meetings. The GTAB has refused to discuss this
issue at its meetings nor provide open public meetings or workshops for such purpose.
The current 20 year Airport Master Plan developed intentionally and entirely without NEPA
concerned citizen input and participation for health, safety, and environmental concerns of
those on the ground contains a $60 Million PROGRAM of new federal/state taxpayer
funded capital improvements which totals over TWICE the total of ALL PRIOR federal/state
funding in the airport’s over 70 years civilian airport history. The draft 2030 Plan Update
schedule for final development and approval of the plan has NO SCHEDULED open public
hearings specifically allocated to the FLUM’s airport location to ensure governmental
transparency and accountability for this governmental decision.
The ACC has two demands regarding the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update process: (1) an
item inserted in the draft 2030 Plan Update completion schedule between the January 14th
City Council Workshop and the Public Outreach on the draft plan providing for stand alone
newspaper advertised open public hearings process structured on FAA EIS format for full
public examination of ALL cumulative social, economic, and environmental (safety, health)
impacts of the new $60 Million PROGRAM, mitigation measures for elimination or reduction
of adverse impacts, and FULL examination of ALL practicable ALTERNATIVES to the PROGRAM
including the AIRPORT’S OPERATIONS LOCATION. These hearings must be open to ALL
impacted members of the Community and Region and representatives of interested Agencies
unencumbered by individual speaker time limits or individual addresses on individual
structured topics. A transcript of hearings proceedings must be made part of the adopted
2030 Plan Update, AND;
Page 37 of 42
(2) The adopted 2030 Plan Update be strongly flagged within the document stating that due
to cumulative potential public safety, health, and environmental adverse impacts to those on
the ground the airport location shown on the FLUM is a subject of documented public
controversy AND the airport’s operations must be relocated to a safe and superior site as
expeditiously as possible.
On behalf of the ACC and Respectfully,
Hugh C.(Carl) Norris, Jr.
Member: ACC
Mobile: (512) 925-5202
Page 38 of 42
GTAB MEETING - NOVEMBER 08, 2019
Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the GTAB. My name is Wendy Dew. My
residence is 30109 Spyglass Circle, Georgetown, Texas. I am a member of the Airport
Concerned Citizens (ACC).
My comments address ACC demands for a professional study showing how our airport can be
seamlessly relocated at no cost to existing taxpayers. As a citizen and taxpayer of Georgetown,
I am a co-owner of the airport unlike TxDOT and FAA who behave as if they own it. In its
current location approved by our leaders for permanent placement in the heart of our planned
city rapidly growing to 200,000, it remains a hazardous threat to the health, lives and
properties of our citizens, the esteem of our future city and a regional hazard. It's inevitable
expansion with the city's growth will result in unacceptable operations, extended runways,
destruction of existing neighborhoods and will politically tear this city apart.
Other cities facing similar situations have relocated their airports. Near examples are Temple,
and Austin. Others exist across the nation such as St. George Airport that I use when visiting
Utah family. These examples show that FAA not only approves airport relocations to safer,
superior sites, but in some cases will provided grants to assist relocation and in all cases has
continued grants for the new location. What this city desperately needs is an airport relocation
plan. This board has the authority to make a recommendation for such a plan to City Council.
We are all familiar with the concept of trading the value of a property for another by written
agreements. This can be done for the seamless relocation of the airport to a safe, superior site
at no cost to existing taxpayers. We need a plan developed by professionals. In this case, our
professionals must be experts in FAA airport design and regulations, negotiations and
document preparations with private owners and governmental units, and highest and best use
land conceptions, land sales and closings. One won't find these and other areas of expertise in
one firm. If I were in charge of a Blue Ribbon Committee for the plan and its mission as stated,
I would demand a planning agreement between the city and a single joint venture of
professional firms and individuals with one firm in charge selected on basis of demonstrated
expertise in joint venture management to fully implement the study's mission.
Our airport has tremendous highest and best land use redeveloped value. The property is in
the planned heart of our city, three miles from Court House Square and Old Town, and within
the fastest growing metro-area in the nation. It has ready access to IH-35, SH 130, the Sheraton
Hotel and Conference Center, major city roadways, and other highways. It is surrounded by
utilities, quality schools, and is leveled and drained for rapid development. Current
developments such as the Rivery, Wolf Ranch Center, Wolf Lakes Village and development of
the old Mueller Airport property demonstrate its best use would be as the financial and
Page 39 of 42
business center for Georgetown including up-scale shopping, restaurants, and residential
housing.
Our ACC August 9, 2019 statement outlined six tools or issues readily available for use by a
selected professional joint venture consultant team for the study. There are others. The City
Council routinely funds projects for excess budgeted revenues, over $1 Million for Austin Ave.
Bridges alternatives, city offices, other federal funded projects including a recent $390,000 cost
share for a bus line few folks ride. This study is vital for the future of our city and region.
Mr. Chairman, this board has the responsibility of its appointed public service members to
recommend to the City Council that it establish, prior to the end of this calendar year, a Blue
Ribbon Committee to implement this vitally needed study.
Comments and questions to me would be appreciated.
Page 40 of 42
GTAB STATEMENT
NOVEMBER 8, 2019
AGENDA ITEM “D”
AIRPORT MONTHLY REPORT
Good morning Mr. Chairman, and members of the GTAB. My name is Hugh C. Norris, Jr. My
residence is 4400 Luna Trail, Georgetown, Texas. I am a member of the Airport Concerned
Citizens (ACC), a group of over 100 city households.
My comments this morning on behalf of the ACC continue the four ACC statements from
August 9th through Ms. Dew's statement this morning focused on our ACC demands for a
professional study showing how the Georgetown Municipal Airport (GTU) can be seamlessly
relocated to a safe, superior, and protected site at no cost to current taxpayers.
When the old Airport Advisory Board developed without critical public participation the 1980
GTU Airport Master Plan, the scientific knowledge of the EARZ, the Edwards Aquifer, and
mapping of both had not been developed to their extent today. Now we know different. If a
GTU adjacent property had been prior developed for use as a livestock feedlot/packing and
rendering plant or a munitions or hazardous materials production plant and been previously
grandfathered into the city during that time, the city leaders would have taken notice and pressed
by public objections for its relocation long before now. Because the GTU is an airport, with
recognized value to the overall local economy and public official's concealment of its hazards
from the ground dwelling public, our city leaders have resisted recommendations for its
relocation to a safe, superior site.
The ACC September 13th statement described historical actions leading to the legislature's statue
requiring TxDOT to provide a State Airport for Central Texas and the agency's professional
study to determine needs for such an airport. That 2003 20 year study showed minimum
requirements to the year 2023 as 750 acres, a runway minimum of 7,000 ft and cost of $59
Million. Our area has experienced a surge in unexpected added growth and aviation needs since
2003 with more on the way. City, TxDOT and FAA officials have been working for the past
near 30 years to make that state statute fit the GTU. Trying to fit those 10 pounds of need into
the 3 pound GTU bag will politically tear this city apart. Seamless relocation of the GTU is the
only sane political alternative.
A variety of relocation models are available for study by a joint venture of professionals. The
most favored by ACC is an "Airport Authority" recommended by CH2MHill, Inc. in its 2013
GTU "Business Case Analysis". Why? Because an airport authority can be legislatively created
and protected to operate outside the city limits, entirely off the EARZ, with access to key
roadways, and by a board of directors under city control. The model most favored is a modified
type of the Ft. Worth Alliance Airport (AFW). The AFW is a product of a partnership between a
private land owner, the City of Ft. Worth and FAA. A similar airport developed by Georgetown
Page 41 of 42
leadership and financing would provide all Reliever Airport services envisioned by the
legislature for ABIA and Central Texas of a vast array of flight services, charter passenger, air
cargo, corporate and government aviation to serve the entire region. In lieu of destruction of city
neighborhoods, this regional Reliever Airport could provide runways of 8 to 10,000 ft with
strength for regional aviation needs, relocation of existing GTU FBO's, protection from non
compatible land uses, safe flight rules, provisions for adjacent private land development, utilities,
connecting roadways, and taxes for appropriate entities.
As previously described, the ultra-upscale highest and best land use retail value of GTU property
is in excess of $100 Million. Moreover, based on the 164 acres Wolf Lakes Village projected
2050 taxable value, developed GTU's taxable property valuation could exceed $6 Billion.
Targeted Certificates of Obligation to developed GTU ultra-upscale properties even under
today's tax rate would exceed $25 Million per year. In addition, the city could ensure to
prospective purchasing site developers extension of needed utilities, off-site improvements, and a
TIRZ for all public facilities required for construction of GTU properties.
It is important for the city's planning purposes that prior to the end of this calendar year the City
Council establish a Blue Ribbon Committee charged with implementing a professional study
showing how the GTU can be seamlessly relocated at no cost to existing taxpayers. Let's work
together to create a safer, superior, GTU for the health, safety, and environment of our Central
Texas region and protect our "City of Excellence".
Mr. Chairman, this board must recommend to the city council to act on this stated need
immediately. Questions and comments are requested from the board
Page 42 of 42