HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_11.19.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Housing Advisory Board
of the City of Georgetown
November 19, 2015 at 3:30 PM
at Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Ave.,
Georgetown, Texas 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak,
and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called
forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a
written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A Welcome to guests.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 15, 2015 regular
meeting and the October 29, 2015 special meeting.
C Update: Workforce Housing Incentives and Accessory Dwelling Unit Unified Development Code
Amendments.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator.
D Mini-Information Session: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.--Jean Latsha, Land Acquisition
Manager, Pedcor Investments, former Director of Multifamily Finance, Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA)
E Discussion and possible action on the November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop presentation:
Funding Request to Address Workforce Housing Deficit. --Walt Doering, Board Chair.
F Discussion and possible action on the next steps for the strategic plan funding request and team
appointments.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator.
G Discussion and feedback on the University of Texas Law School presentation by Michael Allen,
partner at Relman, Dan, & Colfax, a civil rights law firm based in Washington, D.C.: "Affirming
the use of disparate impact liability under the federal Fair Housing Act." --Brenda Baxter, Walt
Doering, and Joe Ruiz.
Page 1 of 30
H Reminder that the next regular meeting will be on December 10, 2015 in the Convention and
Visitors Bureau Conference Room.
Upcoming topics:
Timeline for first quarter activity on Phase 1: Gathering Data and Education the
Public.
Review and discuss "Expectation of Team Members for Making Teams Productive."
Information on locations for team meetings.
Orientation for team members.
Scope and requirements for Request for Proposal for a consultant.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley Nowling, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this
Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general
public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained
so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Shelley Nowling, City Secretary
Page 2 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 19, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 15, 2015 regular
meeting and the October 29, 2015 special meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft October 15, 2015 minutes Cover Memo
Draft October 29, 2015 speical meeting minutes Cover Memo
Page 3 of 30
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes October 15, 2015
City of Georgetown
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
October 15, 2015, at 3:30 p.m.
Williamson Conference Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex
300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Brenda Baxter; Walt Doering; Chair, Richard Glasco, Jim Mann, Monica Martin;
Secretary, and Joe Ruiz
Members absent: Larry Raper
Staff present: Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator; David Morgan, City Manager; Laurie
Brewer, Assistant City Manager; Bridget Chapman, City Attorney; Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
This is a regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown. The Board,
appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, makes recommendations to the City Council on
affordable housing matters.
A. Welcome to guests.
• Sofia Nelson, Planning Director - Sofia was introduced and stated she looked
forward to working with the Board in developing neighborhoods for all, and that
there are several good neighborhoods here. Good Planning is all inclusive.
• David Morgan, City Manager David was introduced and he explained that he has
been in Richardson for 18 years with lots of neighborhoods and community
involvement. He is excited about being in Georgetown that is in a different growth
cycle. He stated Georgetown is the second fastest growing city over 50,000 in the
Country and that Planning is very important to the city. He looks forward to
working with this group.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 17, 2015
regular meeting.
Motion by Brenda Baxter to approve the minutes with the correction, Item K on page 3
should be postponed to October 15. Second by Richard Glasco. Approved 6 – 0.
C. Discussion and feedback on the November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop
presentation: Funding Request to Address Workforce Housing Deficit
Board members discussed the presentation and made recommendations. They
suggested adding the Board’s purpose, spend the majority of the time on the consensus
items and shortening the presentation to fit within the allotted 20 minutes. Chair
Doering stated he would send the presentation pages with updates to the board before
the October 29th meeting.
D. Discussion and feedback on obtaining City Council's approval of team members.
Page 4 of 30
Housing Advisory Board Page 2
Minutes October 15, 2015
Chair Doering presented suggestions for community member involvement. The Board
did not have any more suggestions for participants.
E. Consideration and Possible Action to move the regular Housing Advisory Board
meeting to December 10, 2015.
Motion by Richard Glasco to move the December meeting to December 10, 2015.
Second by Joe Ruiz. Approved 6 – 0.
F. Information on staff appointments, their role and relationship to teams.
Not included on the lists of teams were the staff members that were being asked to serve
on the various teams. J. Bills suggested adding those staff members to the Council
presentation to be considered since it is an extra workload that is being added to those
positions. Proposed staff support consisted of Jennifer Bills, Jordan Maddox, Sofia
Nelson, and Keith Hutchinson. Administrative staff was not listed, but it was suggested
they should also be considered when assessing the costs and benefits.
G. Open Meetings Act refresher.
J. Bills read through the Basics of Open Meetings for the Board. There was discussion
and confirmation that emails could be considered online meetings and that members
should not send emails to others and not hit “reply all” to emails. Staff will usually send
emails by blind carbon copy (bcc) so this will not happen. If members have items they
would like sent to the entire board, forward to staff, and the information will be sent to
the rest of the board.
H. Update: Workforce Housing Incentives and Accessory Dwelling Unit Unified
Development Code Amendments.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator.
J. Bills presented the UDC amendments that were going through the process. She
reported that the amendments were approved at the Planning & Zoning Commission
level, but that City Council pulled the accessory structures portion of the amendments
for further discussion. A workshop will be presented to City Council on October 27 and
further action will be decided at that time.
Motion by Jim Mann to postpone this discussion to the next regular meeting on
November 19th. Second by Richard Glasco. Approved 6 – 0.
I. Update: Neighborhood clean ups for the west side of the downtown (west of Austin
Ave.) scheduled for October 24 (north of University Ave.) and November 14 (south of
University Ave.).--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
J. Bills reported that the fliers were being distributed that day for neighbors to put trash
out on the curb for pick-up by TDS and the city. Dates are as noted and time of pick-ups
will be between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m.
J. Update: Gateway Northwest Apartments ribbon cutting October 27, 2015 at 1617
Northwest Boulevard.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
Jenifer Bills encouraged board members to attend this event.
Page 5 of 30
Housing Advisory Board Page 3
Minutes October 15, 2015
K. Reminders:
• October 29, 2015: Special Housing Advisory Board meeting will be held to work on
the workshop presentation to City Council.
• November 10, 2015: HAB presentation: Funding Request to Address Workforce
Housing Deficit and Obtaining Council's Approval of Team Members.
• November 19, 2015: Regular HAB meeting: Mini-Information Session: Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits
Adjournment
Motion by Mann to adjourn, Second by Ruiz. Board adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Walt Doering, Chair Attest, Monica Martin, Secretary
Page 6 of 30
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes October 29, 2015
City of Georgetown
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
October 29, 2015, at 3:30 p.m.
Convention and Visitors Bureau
103 W. 7th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Brenda Baxter; Walt Doering; Chair, Richard Glasco, Jim Mann, and Monica
Martin; Secretary
Members absent: Joe Ruiz
Staff present: Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator
This is a special meeting of the Housing Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown. The Board,
appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, makes recommendations to the City Council on
affordable housing matters.
Legislative Regular Agenda
A. Consideration and possible action to create a presentation for the November 10, 2015
City Council Workshop meeting, "Funding Request to Address Workforce Housing
Deficit."--Walt Doering, Board Chair
• Doering presented the PowerPoint slides that will be presented at City Council
Workshop. The board made a few edits to the content and chose pictures that
represented the target population and types of housing needed mentioned within
the slides.
Adjournment
Board adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Walt Doering, Chair Attest, Monica Martin, Secretary
Page 7 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 19, 2015
SUBJECT:
Update: Workforce Housing Incentives and Accessory Dwelling Unit Unified Development Code
Amendments.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator.
ITEM SUMMARY:
As the implementation step for Priority #1, the Housing Advisory Board has identified two areas
in which the city can offer incentives to encourage the development of Workforce Housing units
(Attachment 1). These recommendations were forwarded to the Unified Development Code
Advisory Committee at their June meeting for review and discussion. No revisions were requested,
so the amended UDC language was considered during a public hearing at the August 4
(Attachment 2). The UDCAC recommended the revisions, which was forwarded to the August 18
Planning & Zoning Commission. A public hearing was held and a recommendation for approval
was forwarded to City Council.
The item, along with 18 other amendments to the UDC, went to the September 8, regular City
Council meeting for first reading of the ordinance and public hearing. During the discussion, the
Housing Diversity and Workforce Housing amendments were pull for further review, along with
amendments to Accessory Dwelling Unit Limitations and Accessory Structure limits (Attachment
3).
Staff presented more detail on these amendments at the October 27, 2015 City Council Workshop.
You can watch the item online at gtv.georgetown.org.
The attachments are the same as last meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1--Workforce Housing Incentives summary Backup Material
Attacment 2-draft UDC amendment for Workforce Housing Backup Material
Attachment 3--Accessory Dwelling & Accessory Structure
amendments summary
Backup Material
Page 8 of 30
1
Attachment 1: Workforce Housing Incentives
Existing UDC provisions
In Section 6.070.020 Housing Diversity Development standards exist within the UDC, allowing
alternative lot widths, lot sizes and, setbacks for single-family, two-family and townhouse
development. An additional requirement of this section is that the entire development must
consist of a mix of housing types, which has not been a direction developers have been willing to
consider to date. Once the housing type mix requirement was met, additional incentives and
waivers could be gained by setting aside a number of the units as “Attainable Housing,” would be
available to those making 80% of Area Median Family Income (AMFI). The intent of the
recommended text amendments will be offer incentives for affordability OR housing mix.
Addition of Multifamily Standards
Section 6.070.020 does not have any incentives for creation of Workforce Housing in the
multifamily districts. The board has recommended three alternatives that would allow for
increased density (Exhibit 1).
1. Increase the number of units per building.
2. Reduce the front setback.
3. Increase in Impervious Cover.
Fee Waivers
Section 6.07.020 F allows for fee waivers for housing developments that provide Attainable
Housing units. Fees waived in this section include parkland dedication fees, impact fees and
connection fees. The Housing Advisory Board reviewed the fee structure and city policy for
collection of fees and has recommended not waiving parkland, impact, and connection fees.
For fee waivers, the Board reviewed fees charged to recent developments. They proposed that
for eligible projects, the City waive a portion of the staff review and inspection fees.
• For each Workforce Housing Unit included in the project, the developer will receive a
$2,500 waiver of City review and inspection fees, up to a total of $100,000. The value of
the waivers cannot exceed the total fees assessed.
• Total incentivized units cannot be more than 50% of total project.
Examples:
200 unit apartment complex
– Up to 40 units (20%) can receive fee waivers
– 40 x $2,500 = $100,000
20 unit townhome/apt project
– Up to 10 units (50%) can receive fee waivers
– 10 x $2,500 = $25,000
Page 9 of 30
2
Street Standards
With a Housing Diversity Development, applicants were able to reduce the paved width on
Residential Local streets and Residential Collectors if parking is allowed on only one side. Staff
is recommending removing this option and requiring the standard paved width for all
developments.
Page 10 of 30
A. Accessory structures and buildings shall meet the dimensional standards of the base zoning
district, except as specified in this Section. However, properties in the Old Town Overlay District
may request a Certificate of Appropriateness for setback exception in accordance with Section
3.13 of this Code.
B. The accessory structure shall only be located on a lot with a principal structure, unless two
adjacent lots have common ownership, in which case the structures may be located on different
lots. In such instance, the accessory structure shall be located in the rear yard as determined by
the lot with the principal structure on it.
C. The square footage of an accessory structure shall not exceed 25% of the square footage of the
principal structure. However, the maximum accessory structure square footage may exceed 25%
of the principal structure to allow for the construction of a detached two‐car garage, not to exceed
600 square feet. For the purposes of this calculation, the square footage of an attached garage
shall not be considered part of the principal structure.
D. Accessory Structures shall not exceed the height of the principal structure, however, accessory
structures associated with a Non‐ Residential Use allowed in Table 5.07.010 (Agricultural Uses)
may exceed the height of the principal structure provided the maximum building heights of the
district are not exceeded.
E. Accessory structures measuring 8 feet or less in height are allowed in the setbacks in the rear
yard up to 3 feet from the property line, but may not extend into any P.U.E.
EF. Garages and carports, whether attached or detached from the principal structure, shall be set
back a minimum of 20 feet from the public street from which the associated driveway takes
access or a minimum of 10 feet when taking access from a public alley.
F. No more than 30% of the rear yard may be covered with accessory buildings or structures. All
impervious cover requirements in Section 11.02 shall be met.
G. Accessory dwelling units located in accessory structures in the AG, RE, RL, and RS Districts are
allowed subject to the limitations provided for in Section 5.02.020.B or within a Housing
Diversity Development without limitations (as detailed in Section 6.07.020).
**********
Section 6.07 Special Development Types
**********
6.07.020 Housing Diversity Development
A. Purpose
To encourage housing diversity, this Code allows flexibility to the development standards and
allowable housing types for projects that foster housing diversity.
Page 38 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 11 of 30
B. Housing Types
The following Table shows the types of housing permitted in a Housing Diversity Development.
At least three of the following housing types in any of the following Districts shall be included to
qualify for the alternative dimensional standards in Table 6.07.020.B6.07.021.
Table 6.07.020.B: Permitted Housing Types by Residential District
Housing Type Minimum Lot Size RL RS TF TH MF-1 MF-2
Single Family, Detached 7,500 SF lot X X X X X X
Single Family, Detached 4,500 SF lot X X X X X X
Single Family, Attached 3,500 SF lot X X X X X X
Two-family 6,000 SF lot X X X X X X
Townhouse 7,000 SF lot X X X X X X
Apartment 12,000 SF lot -- -- -- -- X --
Apartment 2 acre lot -- -- -- -- -- X
C. Dimensional Standards
The following Table provides the dimensional standards for each residential building type that
can be used in lieu of the dimensional standards otherwise applicable. For any explanation of
any reference in this Table to “Attainable Housing,” see subsection (F)
Page 39 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 12 of 30
Table 6.07.020.C: Housing Diversity Type Dimensional Standards ¹
Standard Single Family,
Detached
Single
Family,
Attached
Two- family Townhouse
Lot Size, minimum 7,500 4,500 7,000 6,000 1,7507,000
Dwelling Size, minimum - - 3,500 3,000 --1,750
Dwellings per structure, max. - - 3 2 7
Lot Width, minimum feet 60 35 ² 35 ² 60 20
Front Setback, minimum feet 15 15 15 15 5 ³
Front Setback, minimum feet
(Attainable Housing) -- 10 10 10 5
Side Setback, minimum feet 10 6 6 6 10
Side Setback, minimum feet
(Attainable Housing) 6 4.5 ⁴ -- 4.5 ⁴ 7.5
Rear Setback, minimum feet 10 10 10 10 15
Rear Setback, minimum feet
(Attainable Housing) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 --
Building Height, max. feet 35 40 40 40 45
Acc. Building Height, max. ft. 20 20 20 20 20
Impervious Coverage, max % See Section 11.02 “Impervious Cover”
Perimeter Buffer, min. feet See Chapter 8 “Tree Preservation, Landscaping and
Fencing”
1. All Standards in Table 6.07.02O.C shall meet any specific requirements of the allowed housing
type, as detailed elsewhere in this Chapter. When a conflict occurs between such requirements
and the standards of this Table, the Table shall apply.
2. Lots less than 40 feet in width must be alley loaded lots, with the exception of townhouse lots.
3. See Section 6.03.070.C.1.a for clarification.
4. All applicable requirements of the Fire Code must be met.
D. Interpretations and Exceptions
All dimensional standards in Paragraph (C), above, are subject to the interpretations and
exceptions in Section 6.05.
E. Perimeter Buffer
The perimeter buffer applies to the subdivision edge or contiguous area of a Housing Diversity
Development, and not to specific Zoning Districts within the Development. The perimeter buffer
may be counted towards required landscaping if it is within the lot.
F. Alternative Sidewalk DesignAttainable Housing
Refer to Section 12.02.040 Alternative Design and Financing for sidewalk options in Housing Diversity
Developments.
Page 40 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 13 of 30
1. Housing Diversity Developments that include 10% of the housing units available for those
whose incomes are less than or equal to 80% of the area median income (attainable housing),
and for which the deed for each attainable housing unit lot approved by the City Attorney
and including language that provides that for seven years from the date of the original home
sale to the qualifying buyer any resale shall be to a party whose income is less than or equal
to 80% of the area median income or, absent that, shall require a payment to the City of their
proportionate share of fees that were waived for their lot.
2. Housing Diversity Developments that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (1)
may use the setback adjustments as noted in Table 6.07.020.C.
3. Housing Diversity Developments that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (1)
are exempt from the requirement to pay parkland dedication fees, impact fees, and
connection fees for those units that meet the definition of attainable housing (i.e., for up to
10% of the lots.) These waived fees shall either be used to reduce the price of the home or for
buyer incentives, such as funds to help with closing costs.
6.07.030 Workforce Housing Development
A. Purpose
To encourage affordable housing for the workforce, this Code allows flexibility to the
development standards and allowable housing types for projects that foster housing
affordability.
B. Dimensional Standards
The following Table provides the dimensional standards for each residential district that can be
used in lieu of the dimensional standards otherwise applicable.
Table 6.07.030 Workforce Housing Dimensional Standards
Standard RS TF TH MF‐1 MF‐2
Lot Size, Minimum 4,500 6,000 1,750 12,000 2 acres
Dwelling Units per acre, max ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14 24
Dwelling Size, Minimum ‐‐ 3,000 1750 ‐‐
Dwellings per structure, Max ‐‐ 2 8 20 50
Lot Width, minimum feet 35 2 60 20 50 50
Front Setback, minimum feet 10 10 10 15 15
Side Setback, minimum feet 5.5 5.5 7.5 10 10
Side Setback to Residential District,
minimum feet ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 20 30
Rear Setback, minimum feet 7.5 7.5 10 10 15
Rear Setback to Residential District,
minimum feet ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 20 30
Building Height, max feet 40 40 45 35 45
Impervious Coverage, max % See Section 11.02 "impervious Cover"
1. All Standards in Table 6.070 C B shall meet any specific requirements of the allowed housing type,
as detailed elsewhere in the is Chapter. When a conflict occurs between such requirements and
the standards of this Table, the Table shall apply.
Page 41 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 14 of 30
2. Lots less than 40 feet in width must be alley loaded lots, with the exception of townhouse lots.
C. Interpretations and Exceptions
All dimensional standards in Paragraph (C), above, are subject to the interpretations and
exceptions in Section 6.05.
D. Alternative Sidewalk Design
Refer to Section 12.02040 Alternative Design and Financing for sidewalk options in Workforce
Housing Developments.
E. Workforce Housing
1. Workforce Housing Developments in Single‐Family Residential, Two‐Family and Townhouse
Districts that include 20% of the housing units available for those whose incomes are less
than or equal to 80% of the area median family income (as set by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development) are eligible to use the standards in Table 6.070.030 for all lots
within the subdivision. The Ddeed resistrictionsrestrictions, approved by the City Attorney,
must include language that requires all workforce housing lots be restricted for ten years
from the date of the original home sale to the qualifying buyer any resale shall be to a party
whose income is less than or equal to 80% of the area median family income or, absent that,
shall require a payment to the City of their proportionate and prorated share of fees that
were waived for their lot.
2. Workforce Housing Developments in Low‐Density Multifamily (MF‐1) and High‐Density
Multifamily (MF‐2) Districts are eligible to use the dimensional standards in Table 6.07.030
with the provision of the following workforce housing units.
a. Dwelling Units per structure maximum can be reached by providing 5% of the total
development as workforce units.
b. Front Setback can be reduced by 5 feet for every 10% of total development set as
workforce units, to the minimum.
c. Impervious cover can be increase by 10 % for every 10 % of the total development set as
workforce units, to the maximum of 70%, with required water quality improvements as
required in Section 11.02.
F. Fee Waivers
Workforce Housing Developments are eligible for administrative fee waivers. For each
workforce housing unit provided, the developer will receive a waiver of $2,500 of review fees, up
to a total of $100,000. Fee waivers cannot be earned for more than 50% the total development., as
adopted and published by the City of Georgetown.
Page 42 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 15 of 30
Chapter 11 Environmental Protection
**********
Section 11.02 Impervious Cover
These impervious cover limitations are adopted to minimize negative flooding effects from stormwater
runoff and to control, minimize, and abate water pollution resulting from urban runoff of rainwater or
other non‐point specific sources, pursuant to §26.177 of the Texas Water Code.
11.02.010 Impervious Cover Limitation
Impervious Cover limitations apply to all properties in the city limits and the city’s extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ).
**********
B. Residential Development
Residential Development in the City limits shall follow the provisions below. All development in
the ETJ shall follow the provisions in Section C below.
1. Except as provided in Subsection b and c, below, Impervious Cover for development located
in Residential Zoning Districts shall be calculated on a per subdivision basis and shall not
exceed the limits set forth in Table 11.02.010.B. All maximum percentages are established by
district, regardless of use. The limits in Table 11.02.010.B apply to all development located in
Residential Zoning Districts over any part of the Edwards Aquifer in the table below.
Table 11.02.010.B: Impervious Cover (max. %) for Residential Zoning Districts
Residential Zoning Districts
AG RE RL RS TF TH MF-1 MF-2 MH
All properties 20 40 45 45 45 50 50 50 50
2. Exceptions for Residential Zoning Districts
a. Impervious cover credits are established for all properties, regardless of size and
location, in Section D below.
b. For Conservation Subdivisions in Residential Zoning Districts, a bonus of 10% per
subdivision is granted for all properties.
c. For Workforce Housing Development in MF‐1 or MF‐2 Districts, a bonus of up to 20%
per site is granted with the provision of 20% of the units restricted as Workforce
Housing.
**********
Page 53 of 58
Exhibit A
Page 16 of 30
Attachment 3
Accessory Dwelling Unit Limitations (UDC Section 5.02): The current UDC limits accessory
dwelling units, including garage apartments, from being rented. The problem with the rental
condition is that it is not enforceable by the City and, per the limitation, an owner could live in
the accessory dwelling unit and rent out the main house, defeating the intent. Related to
removal of the rental restriction, an additional parking space requirement was added as well as
utility restrictions.
Accessory structures (UDC Section 6.06.010): This amendment language addresses challenges
staff has experienced applying and interpreting the existing requirements with regard to height
and size. The proposed language removes the regulation limiting accessory structures to only
30% of the rear yard and provides a standard that would allow a two car garage on any size lot.
Additionally, the proposed amendment changes the maximum accessory building height to be
that of the principal structure.
Page 17 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 19, 2015
SUBJECT:
Mini-Information Session: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.--Jean Latsha, Land Acquisition
Manager, Pedcor Investments, former Director of Multifamily Finance, Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA)
ITEM SUMMARY:
See attached information.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Housing Tax Credit Basics Cover Memo
Housing Tax Credit Flow Chart Executive Summary
Page 18 of 30
Reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities and language assistance will be made available for persons with limited English proficiency.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Street Address: 221 East 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701 Mailing Address: PO Box 13941, Austin, TX 78711
Main Number: 512-475-3800 Toll Free: 1-800-525-0657 Email: info@tdhca.state.tx.us Web: www.tdhca.state.tx.us
02/21/14
HOUSING TAX CREDITS BASICS
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs’ (TDHCA) Housing Tax Credit (HTC) program is one of the primary means of directing private
capital toward the development and preservation of affordable rental housing for low-income households. The HTC program is designed to:
Provide a source of equity financing for the development of affordable housing;
Maximize the number of affordable units added to the state’s housing supply;
Ensure that the state’s affordable housing supply is well maintained and operated, serving as a credit to the communities in which affordable housing
is constructed and operated; and
Prevent losses in the state’s supply of affordable housing.
HOW HOUSING TAX CREDITS WORK
Tax credits are awarded, using a competitive process detailed in
statute and rule, to eligible participants to offset a portion of their
federal tax liability in exchange for the production or preservation of
affordable rental housing.
The value associated with the tax credits allows residences in HTC
developments to be leased to qualified households at below market
rate rents.
There are two types of HTCs: 9% HTC and 4% HTC.
9% HTC (COMPETITIVE)
The 9% HTC program is highly competitive.
The amount of HTC available in each region is determined through
the Regional Allocation Formula (RAF).
There are set-asides for “at risk” and USDA assisted developments.
At least 10% of the allocation must be used for qualified non-profits.
Applications are scored and ranked within their region or set -aside.
Scoring criteria range from financial feasibility, different indicators of
local support, size and quality of units, amenities services to be
provided to the tenants, and more.
Scoring reflects requirements found in state law and program rules;
the program rules are known as the Qualified Action Plan (QAP).
4% HTC (NON-COMPETITIVE)
4% HTCs are awarded to developments that use tax-exempt bonds
as a component of their financing.
Applications are accepted throughout the year.
4% HTCs are available statewide; they are not subject to regional
allocation.
FUNDING SOURCE
U.S. Treasury Department via the Internal Revenue Code.
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
The development of affordable rental properties or the rehabilitation of
existing properties that maintain affordable rents for an extended
period of time.
BENEFICIARIES
Tenants earning up to 60% of the area median family income (AMFI),
which varies by area. For example, to qualify for a reduced rent in an
HTC-supported property, the annual income of a Dallas family of four
may not exceed $42,540, while the annual income for the same
household living in Brownsville may not exceed $29,160. (These limits
are subject to change as HUD releases new income limits and are
available under the Featured Items drop menu on TDHCA’s home
page).
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
Private for-profit and nonprofit developers.
PUBLIC INPUT
Public comment is taken at all TDHCA board meetings and is
accepted during the application review process.
Public input for purposes of scoring is subject to a number of
requirements, including deadlines, all specified in detail in the QAP.
Regional public hearings are held to take public comment on 9%
HTC applications (Applications for 4% HTC have hearings
associated with their bond funding; no separate hearing is held for
the 4% HTCs.)
Hearing schedules, TDHCA board meeting announcements, and
other informational notices are posted on TDHCA’s Website.
AWARDS
Final funding decisions on all HTC applications are made by
TDHCA’s Governing Board.
The application “cycle” for 9% applications begins at the beginning
of the year. Throughout the cycle different issues relating to the
developments that are competing will be considered by the TDHCA
board, such as appeals of terminations, scoring notices, requests for
waivers, and challenges.
- 9% HTC applications are recommended for final approval
in July
- 4% HTC applications are considered for approval throughout the
year
COMPLIANCE
TDHCA monitors and physically inspects all properties which have
received tax credits and/or multifamily funds from any TDHCA
program.
The Department follows very specific requirements for monitoring,
inspecting, and reporting.
In Texas, property owners who don’t keep their promises during the
building process, who let their properties fall into disrepair, or who
do not follow the program rules may be subject to certain actions
designed to encourage compliance. These actions, if not promptly
addressed, may lead to other more serious actions such as the
assessment of administrative penalties or, in extreme instances,
debarment from the HTC program.
TDHCA provides oversight authority for health, safety, and program
compliance of funded properties for up to 40 years.
CONSUMER ASSISTANCE
Individuals may search for TDHCA-supported affordable rental
properties in their area by visiting the Help for Texans page or by
calling the TDHCA Housing Resource Center toll free at 800-525-0657.
More HTC information can be found on the Multifamily Housing
Applications or the Apply for Funds page or by calling 512-475-3340.
Page 19 of 30
Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs (TDHCA)
Developer/Owner
Rental Income
Investor/Syndicator
Mortgage Payment
Apartment Complex
Owner/property manager
Tenants in the worforce
TDHCA awards credits to developer/owner
Developer sells credits for equity
Developer uses equity for some costs
Debt payment is low due to equity from HTCs
Need less rental income to pay mortgage
TDHCA Compliance
division
TDHCA monitors property Tenants pay rent
Page 20 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 19, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action on the November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop presentation:
Funding Request to Address Workforce Housing Deficit. --Walt Doering, Board Chair.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The presentation can be viewed online at http://government.georgetown.org/gtv/.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Nov 10 workshop notes from Jim Backup Material
Nov 10 workshop notes from Walt Backup Material
Fiscal Components-Three Strategies to Acheive our Strategic
Objective
Backup Material
Page 21 of 30
151110 HAB Presentation to CC
Walt Doering did an excellent job in presenting the HAB approved slides and text to city
Council. You can view it at http://georgetowntx.swagit.com/play/11102015-820 and I
recommend anyone who did not attend do so. Below is my notes taken from the video. They
are not verbatim, but do relate the context. A lot of verbiage was omitted and only notes that
painted a picture of a council member’s concerns and responses to those concerns are noted.
These notes are being sent to HAB members for reference and analysis of each council
member’s concerns, and to learn from what was said so we can do a proper job of addressing
these issues.
Steve Fought: Georgetown is not ready to pay $195,000. Better jobs through economic
development yield higher wages, people make the choice to live wherever they want, are
happier, and are better off. Not everyone wants to live in Georgetown, within 2 blocks of
where they work, spouses transport, tax structure in ETJs, schools. Narrative here is people
want to live in Georgetown. I have said many times; it is not within city limits of Georgetown
we ought to be looking.
We need to be looking within a 30-mile radius of Georgetown.
• What does housing market look like in that 30-mile radius? I have not received an
answer to that question.
• Get me three places, near our size, where these problems have been solved – according
objectives you think are important.
• Can make housing affordable without building affordable housing
Help people with utilities
Insulating houses
Any number of other processes you can take, and we have been doing some of
those, and I think they seem to work.
Rachael Jonrowe: This survey can provide us with the hard data to then develop the various
solutions. More information from our citizens. Teams will look at this data for viable options
and make viable recommendations based on this data for the target population. Contacting
people who do not have access to internet by door to door, business to business contact by
people trained by people conducting the survey. We invest in data driven plans to support our
advisory groups with needed support, information to do their job. We spent $120,000 on our
downtown master plan, committed to spend $140,000 on a historical survey. We have a
history putting resources into making sure we have good data driven plans. We need to think
boldly about this and be at the forefront of this of this. Walt Doering: May I just say we do
regard this as an investment. In your packets is information about the economic impact of
building a 100-unit apartment will provide Georgetown with $826,000 in local taxes is the first
year and $441,000 ongoing.
Keith Brainard:
• Can you explain why you think Market forces alone will not resolve the affordable
housing issue? Walt Doering: They haven’t to date.
Page 22 of 30
• City’s Housing Elements contains necessary steps that include waiving development
fees and subsidization of impact fees JB: ? yet to be adopted by council.
John Hesser: His experience is that surveys provide limited value information from time to
time.
• Can you explain why our studies in the past have failed. Walt Doering: Underfunded,
under resourced, or under staffed, and under minded. It wasn’t the plan itself. We
need to look into federal programs, LHTF where we develop an income stream where
non-profits and others can come in and accelerate the building of affordable housing,
CLT where a non-profit or city can buy land, builders come in and develop land and
builder repay City.
• What kind of money do you think we are looking at? Grants (like Gateway NW) Walt
Doering: Early to say. After the study, we will come back to council with
recommendations and economic development study.
• How many units do you think we are behind now? Walt Doering: Owner occupied 810.
Rental units 1069-177= 892, but these are not static figures, we are growing which
necessitates more workers. Like to shoot for 99% of need. John Hesser: The 177 comes
close to meeting the needed number of 810. I need to better understand this gap and
the costs necessary to resolve the shortage which is required for us to understand your
request. To pursue that will give us some idea of what hill we have to climb. To me it is
not tangible and difficult for me to put my arms around it and make a decision for you.
With the information gathered from the strategic plan we will be able tell you the fiscal
components, what it is going to cost, the economic study, the targets of how many units
are needed at a given time, but we have a long way to go.
• What sources are you looking to fund the programs?
Tye Gipson: applauds efforts for need problem.
Steve Fought: I will add to the applause for the passion. I just want to make sure it can work. I
want you to be very explicit in your objectives, and then give us three places in the US about
our size, that have met that objective, so we know there is a feasible solution out there. I think
that ought to be doable and I need that to be done before I can move ahead.
Dale Ross: Every day we delay the be hinder we get. There is a perception in the public’s eye
about what workforce housing is, e.g., Mueller has a component of workforce housing, in
Georgetown at corner of I-35 and Leander, San Gabriel Apartments that no one could speculate
from exterior or interior they were affordable housing. Education and communication is a key
part of the plan. I can see it from the economic side, even before the Rivery comes on stream
with its need for housekeeping staff and restaurant workers, where retail and restaurants are
understaffed at lunch and service is not as good as what is desired. The inverse correlation
between the quality of services and robustness of economy. There is no silver bullet to this
complicated problem. Requires bold, visionary leadership. It will take the will of our elected
body to at least have the data we need to make a decision. If not, we will probably keep doing
what we have been doing with the same results. Applaud your teams of 33 people for their
time and effort. I personally want people to work, play and live in Georgetown. I drive 4 miles
Page 23 of 30
to work. The dollar spent here just gets circulated over and over. In a normal family household
there are two cars, but for workforce in Georgetown, that is probably not true, but I do not
know that because the data is not available. More data is needed to put together a credible
and thoughtful plan as we go forward. With 11 more people moving into Georgetown a day,
we are going to have more people here. A new wrinkle in workforce housing is the number of
seniors living in Georgetown [and their needs and the city’s need to provide for them] and how
they are being affected. Average house price in Georgetown is $250,000. Developers who
specialize in affordable housing for seniors where situations arose where they now have one
income earner, etc. and are not able to live in the place where they have lived for the past 15
years.
Walt Doering: I would like to address John Hesser’s comments. The myths and sterotypes
about affordable housing raised its head and undermined its ugly head and people were not
prepared to address it which under minded a very substantive plan, the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, and tapper down somethings and not be as effective because it had some very good
things in its policy recommendations. John Hesser: I thank you for that because that is what I
am trying to illustrate that usually there is a big message in the failure of a plan that you can
draw from it and make those corrections so we don’t have to pass that way again. Walt
Doering: That’s why we want to go out there because we want to surface those needs,
concerns, and feelings. Unless we bring them out in the open and address them, we are not
going to solve the problem.
Walt Doering: I would like to address Steve Fought’s comments about the myth that people
can live outside Georgetown. That used to be true, you could go to Jarrell, you could go to
Liberty Hill. About 6 months ago, the last development that began there, houses being built
there cost about $180,000. This is a big reach for the population we are talking about. The
problem is not getting better. There is no way people can live nearby and spend their money
on transportation like they used to. Steve Fought: Not everybody has to buy, they can rent.
We did it for the first 20 years we were married. I am back to the problem, if you pay people
more, it will solve the problem. Walt Doering: I agree we need to pay people more, but as you
well know, in Texas, does not allow the city to do that. Let me address homeownership and
renting. We are not advocating home ownership. We need to set up preventions so those
expectations are not too high on homeownership because there is no way we will be able to do
that in many cases. You can’t go to Jarrell and rent.
Dale Ross: What is clear based on the questioning, to come up with a solution, you need better
data and more information, and 33 people to evaluate the data, and then come back to council
with a proposal.
Page 24 of 30
Objections to Proposed Solutions and Statements in Support
Steve Fought
- Sympathetic. Not the time. Not ready for study. Not considering other
ways to have housing affordable without building affordable housing…
Help people with utilities. Insulate homes.
- Wants us to give him three places, same size as Georgetown, where this
problem has been solved.
- Lots of folks want to live outside Georgetown.
- Solution is to pay people more. Better jobs. Better wages. Give them the
choice to live where they want. We're not considering that.
- Need to be explicit in objectives.
Rachael Jonrowe-
--You want to provide hard data to develop solutions. Need more info.
--You plan to develop a marketing plan?
--Will you address emergency housing like for the homeless?
--Not functioning from preconceived notions?
--Will consultants provide us with access to people who do not access
internet.
--See this survey and monies as an investment, and are data driven.
--We spend monies like $220,000 for master plan and $140,000 for
historic survey. We've done surveys before.
--Big, big, big issue. Need to think boldly. Support it.
Keith Brainard
– Expressed thanks for service and info. Recognized HAB reps.
Page 25 of 30
Page 2
--Tell us, why will market forces not solve the problem?
--What's status of waivers and impact fees.
John Hesser
--Limited success with consultants.
--Why have plans failed?
--What kind of monies are we looking at? Grants? Gateway
Northwest. How much monies are we talking about?
--How many units do we need?
--Having hard time getting his hands around the problem. Not
tangible enough. Confused. Needs more info.
Mayor Ross
--Would it be safe to say there is not a silver bullet?
--Sees under-staffing at lunch time in restaurants with service
declining.
--Recognized we'll not fix it, but improve situation. For that,
need good data.
--Recognizes this is an educational process and everyday we delay,
problem gets worse.
--Facing perceptions about affordable housing. If we don't face
problem, what's next? Same results?
--Need dollars to get job done.
--Need bold visionary leadership. Need data and will of elected body
behind it. Think boldly.
Ty Gipson
Page 26 of 30
Fiscal Components
Strategic Objective: Craft a substantive strategic plan to build accessible housing
and reduce significantly our housing affordability deficit for workers, millennials
and senior changing lifestyles with household incomes from $30,000 to $60,000.
Enabling Objectives: (1) Accelerate building of affordable housing, (2) Expedite
infill development. (3) Maintain our current inventory.
I. Build on Successful Programs
1. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) give State and Local allocating
agencies tax credits for affordable rental housing for low income households.
2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) is a flexible program to provide
resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs.
3. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) provides grants for States
and Local Communities - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups - to
fund a wide range of activities.
II. Review and Evaluate Key Fiscal Components for Strategic Plan (Examples)
1. Community Land Trust (CLT) is a proven, flexible model for a government to
commit resources for funding and managing attainable workforce housing.
2. Housing Trust Funds are distinct public funds established by city, county or
state governments to receive ongoing dedicated to support affordable housing.
3. National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) is a new federal program to complement
existing efforts to increase and preserve affordable housing.
4. Choice Neighborhoods program supports locally driven strategies to address
distressed assisted housing with a comprehensive neighborhood transformation.
5. The Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation (TSAHC) offers programs
aimed at helping workforce housing developers and homebuyers achieve the
American dream of sustainable homeownership and down payment assistance.
6. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allows City to promote affordable housing
developments by earmarking property values increases within designated district.
7. Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) set aside property tax increases for
affordable housing zones.
8. Creative process for private monies to fund workforce housing.
9. Bond issue to fund a viable workforce housing program.
III. Explore new and novel ways to accomplish our objectives.
Page 27 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 19, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action on the next steps for the strategic plan funding request and team
appointments.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
Page 28 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 19, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion and feedback on the University of Texas Law School presentation by Michael Allen,
partner at Relman, Dan, & Colfax, a civil rights law firm based in Washington, D.C.: "Affirming
the use of disparate impact liability under the federal Fair Housing Act." --Brenda Baxter, Walt
Doering, and Joe Ruiz.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
Page 29 of 30
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 19, 2015
SUBJECT:
Reminder that the next regular meeting will be on December 10, 2015 in the Convention and
Visitors Bureau Conference Room.
Upcoming topics:
Timeline for first quarter activity on Phase 1: Gathering Data and Education the
Public.
Review and discuss "Expectation of Team Members for Making Teams Productive."
Information on locations for team meetings.
Orientation for team members.
Scope and requirements for Request for Proposal for a consultant.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
Page 30 of 30