HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_11.25.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Housing Adv isory B oard
of the City of Georgetown
Nov ember 25, 2019 at 3:30 P M
at Historic L ight and Waterworks B ldg, 406 W. 8th Street Georgetown, T X 78626
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.
P ublic Wishing to Address the B oard
O n a s ubjec t that is posted on this agenda: P lease fill out a speaker regis tration form whic h can be found at the
Board meeting. C learly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and pres ent it to the
S taff Liais on, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be c alled forward to speak when the Board
cons iders that item.
O n a s ubjec t not posted on the agenda: P ersons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written
request with the S taff Liais on no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he reques t must include the
s peaker's name and the spec ific topic to be addres s ed with sufficient information to inform the board and the
public . F or Board Liaison c ontact information, pleas e logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/c ategory/boards -commissions /.
A At the time of posting, no persons had signed up to speak on items not on the agenda.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the O ctober 28, 2019 meeting. - Mirna
G arcia, Management Analys t
C Update on the 2030 P lan Update proc es s . Nat Waggoner, AI C P, Long R ange P lanning Manager
D P resentation and dis cus s ion of the Housing Toolkit. S us an Watkins , AI C P, Housing C oordinator
E Update from the Hous ing Advisory Board C hair. Lou S nead, C hairperson.
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.
Page 1 of 21
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 2 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the O c tober 28, 2019 meeting. - Mirna
G arc ia, Management Analyst
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 Backup Material
Page 3 of 21
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes October 28, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
October 28, 2019, at 3:30 p.m.
Historic Light and Waterworks Building, 406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Lou Snead, Chair; Randy Hachtel; Jeannyce Hume; Nikki Brennan; Mary
Calixtro; Nathaniel Bonner
Members absent: Bob Weimer
Staff present: Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator; Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning
Manager; and Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
Public Wishing to Address the Board
A. As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than those posted on the
agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 16, 2019
meeting. Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
Motion by Hachtel, second by Hume to approve the minutes as presented. Approved (6–
0).
C. Update on the 2030 Plan Update process – Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning
Manager
Waggoner provided the Board members an overview on the recent and upcoming activities
related to the comprehensive plan update. Waggoner explained each step of the Housing
Element that has been worked on (affordability analysis, policies) and where we are currently
(feasibility toolkit). Waggoner would like the Board’s feedback and present these
recommendations to the Steering Committee. Staff would also like to have a special Housing
Advisory Board meeting in addition to the regularly scheduled November 18 meeting, to refine
the recommendations. Staff will review growth scenarios with the Steering Committee to
identify housing/development trends and obtain feedback on changes that need to be made to
the residential and non-residential categories.
Waggoner also shared key updates that were made, such as changes in density, addition of
employment center categories, and changes within nonresidential categories. Waggoner
discussed the next steps and informed the Board of the Public Meeting on Wednesday October
30, in the Library.
Page 4 of 21
Housing Advisory Board Page 2
Minutes October 28, 2019
D. Presentation and discussion on development of the Housing Toolkit. – Susan Watkins, AICP,
Housing Coordinator
As a continuation of the September 16, 2019, Housing Toolkit item, the board reviewed the
preliminary scoring of the potential tools for review when developing the implementation
plan for the housing policies. This was most recently updated after City Council
consideration of the housing policies at the July 9th and July 23rd Council Workshops.
The Board discussed costs and funding options, as well as the feasibility of the tools. In
addition, Watkins shared with the Board topics the consultant is currently working on, such as
a range of funding options, how to measure performance, pro’s and con’s for each tool, and
examples of what other cities are pursuing. These recommendations will be ready for the Board
at the next meeting in November.
The Board discussed obtaining the community’s input, as well as those who will be impacted
by the implementation of the tools. There was discussion about how to reach the community
and inform them of the public meetings and opportunities for input, such as by going door-to-
door, social media, and media outreach.
E. Update on the summer Point-in-Time Count for Williamson County organized by the Texas
Homeless Network. – Kyra Henderson, Data Coordinator, Texas Homeless Network
Henderson, Data Coordinator for the Texas Homeless Network, provided the Board with an
update on the summer Point-in-Time Count for Williamson County conducted on August 29,
2019. The Texas Homeless Network is organizing the count and providing training for
volunteers. Henderson provided information regarding the count, including online volunteer
training.
Henderson also made recommendations for a successful Point-in-Time Count for Williamson
County, and suggested outreach for volunteers and training sessions that can be beneficial for
the volunteers/staff to attend. Henderson also made suggestions on how to reach out to the
homeless in order to obtain accurate information for the surveys. There will be a training session
on Friday November 1, 2019, as well as a training session in December.
F. Update from the Housing Advisory Board Chair. Lou Snead, Chairperson
Chair Snead commented that he was contacted by a developer what showed interest in possibly
presented at P&Z regarding a rezoning from commercial to multifamily. The developer is
looking at building apartments that may be lower cost than current developments, but not
significantly lower.
Adjournment
Motion to Adjourn by Calixtro. Second by Brennan. The meeting was adjourned at 5:27 pm.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Lou Snead, Chair Attest, Randy Hachtel, Secretary
Page 5 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Update on the 2030 P lan Update process. Nat Waggoner, AI C P, Long R ange P lanning Manager
IT E M S UMMARY:
S taff will brief board members on the recent and upc oming ac tivities related to the c omprehens ive plan
update.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
S usan Watkins, AI C P, Hous ing C oordinator
Page 6 of 21
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
November 25, 2019
S UB J E C T:
P res entation and disc ussion of the Hous ing Toolkit. S usan Watkins, AI C P, Hous ing C oordinator
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he Board will review the attac hed Housing Toolkit draft developed by C ommunity Development
S trategies. T he Board will dis cus s the benefits of the rec ommended tools and the Board member
concerns , if any.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
S usan Watkins, AI C P, Hous ing C oordinator
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - 2030 Plan HE Update Hous ing Policies Backup Material
Attachment 2 - DRAFT Housing Toolkit Backup Material
Page 7 of 21
2030 Housing Element Update Housing Policies
Policy Possible Tools (* indicates current tool) Specific example
Intent/
Council
Direction Outcome Role Definitions/Council Direction
Preservation
P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and
affordability.
• Multi‐Family/home rehabilitation for small scale multi‐family, quad and duplexes.
• Multi‐Family energy efficiency rebate and incentive programs
• Support GHA's maintenance of units/infrastructure.
• Affordability term extensions for existing tax credits ‐ support property owners with renovations that
use Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
Olde Georgian (1700 S Austin Ave), Apple Creek
(302 Apple Creek Dr), Cedar Ridge (1500
Northwest Blvd) unsubsidized affordable multi‐
family
Preservation
Affordability
Diversity
Protect existing affordable housing
stock/prevent loss of naturally
occurring affordable housing
(NOAH). Existing units remain
available to residents.
Partner or
Support
P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas.
• Zoning and future land use map
• Policies to ensure compatibility, transition zones (Old Town and Downtown Design Guidelines)
• Defined set of criteria to identify areas to target (ex: using data of age of units or percentage of
renters)
• Small area, neighborhood plans
TRG, Rivery and San Jose neighborhood residents
have attended several P&Z hearings regarding
development requests in the neighborhood but
lack formal policies in the Comprehensive Plan
and Downtown Master Plan to address
redevelopment.
Preservation
Enable P&Z and Council to
preserve character of targeted
neighborhoods.
Particular aging neighborhoods
may need special protections as
redevelopment occurs.
Lead
City could create process,
residents would need to self elect
neighborhood (ex. Traffic
Neighborhood Management
Program)
Specific criteria might be laid out
in toolkit for qualifying
neighborhoods (age,
maintenance, vulnerability to
P3 Support owners ability to stay in homes in neighborhoods with
rapid value increases without limiting the sale of the home.
• Home Rehabilitation*
• Utility billing assistance*
• Homestead exemption education
• Partnerships with non‐profits that assist existing home owners with maintenance
• Property tax abatement for reinvestment areas for homeowners meeting specific criteria
• Neighborhood Empowerment Zones
Ridge, San Jose, Railroad neighborhoods have
seen construction of homes that raise property
values. A Neighborhood Empowerment Zone,
state enabled city‐created zone for purpose of
rehabilitation or creation of affordable housing,
could be established for specific geographies.
Preservation
Affordability
Support homeowners experiencing
property value increase due to
development in established
neighborhoods to preserve
homeownership.
Partner or
Support
P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.
• CDBG for capital improvements (lighting, sidewalks)*
• Neighborhood traffic management program, street maintenance*
• Promote neighborhood capacity (vitality, services) building ‐ HOA training/education
• Partner with banks to meet Community Reinvestment Act requirements
• Education/outreach. Neighborhood registration program*
• Identify opportunities for small area plans
• Neighborhood cleanup day
• Urban park programs for infill
Deer Haven or River Chase concern about
proximity of commercial and impact to adjacent
single family subdivisions; roadway planning.
Parkview Estates desire to have neighborhood
amenities to build neighborhood brand.
Preservation
Ensure neighborhoods are
maintained and valued.
Neighborhood
viability/maintenance/enhanceme
nt
Partner or
Support
DRAFT 08.16.19Page 8 of 21
2030 Housing Element Update Housing Policies
Policy Possible Tools (* indicates current tool) Specific example
Intent/
Council
Direction Outcome Role Definitions/Council Direction
Affordability
A1 Support and increase rental choices for low‐income and workforce
households unless the housing is substandard.
• Development incentives* (Workforce Housing standards in UDC‐ impervious cover, setbacks, # of
units/building, smaller lot size)
• Support GHA programs (landlord outreach and education to accept vouchers to maximize available
units, CDBG funds, energy efficiency upgrades through GUS)
• Support LIHTC development that meet City defined process
• Define metrics for affordability goals
• Development agreements
• TIF/TIRZ
• Affordability term extensions for existing tax credits
• Review of multi‐family development standards to encourage infill development
• Incentivize multi‐bedroom housing options for families with children or aging parents
Stone Haven is almost 50 years old and in need of
infrastructure and structural improvements to
continue to safely house its residents. The
Housing Authority will need to pursue revenue
sources to make the improvements. The City can
support the HA in this effort to retain the asset
that serves households with incomes less than
30% of the AMI through improvements using
CDBG or energy efficiency funds.
Three tax credit properties are over 20 years old
and their affordability term will expire after 35
years.
Affordability
Preservation
Diversity
Maintain rental housing stock
available to low‐income
households.
Greater rental housing choice for
workers.
Support or
partner
Workforce is defined as 60‐80%
AMI
A2 Support rental choices for senior households.
• Define metrics for affordability goals
• Support GHA programs
• Support LIHTC development
• TIF/TIRZ
At no cost to City, a LIHTC resolution of support or
no objection for age restricted housing.
Affordability
Preservation
Maintain available age and income
restricted units.
Rental choices for seniors who
need them.
Support or
partner
A3 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households.
• Development incentives* (Workforce Housing standards in UDC)
• Development fee exemptions
• Development agreements
• Development regulations (density bonus on a per acre basis)
• Municipal Utility Districts
• Public Improvement Districts
• Land Bank or Land Trust like tool
• Down payment assistance
Mueller: Development agreement ‐ public private
partnership with publicly owned land, mixed use
community with affordability terms on
approximately 25% of units (owner and rental
options)
Affordability
Diversity
Have workforce housing units as an
incentive tool available for
negotiation opportunities. Greater
owner housing choice for workers.
Lead Workforce is defined as 60‐80%
AMI
A4
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).
• Health and Human services element in the Comprehensive Plan as required by City Charter
• Needs assessment
• County point in time count
Support or partner for development of a needs
assessment.Affordability
Acknowledge and define
community housing need for
vulnerable residents.
Support or
partner
DRAFT 08.16.19Page 9 of 21
2030 Housing Element Update Housing Policies
Policy Possible Tools (* indicates current tool) Specific example
Intent/
Council
Direction Outcome Role Definitions/Council Direction
Diversity
D1
Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or
additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing
types, sizes and price points.
• Incentives for diversity of housing products*
• Low Income Housing Tax Credit process*
• Promote and evaluate existing incentives for diversity of housing products
• Define metrics for diversity goals
• Incentives for density (density bonus)
• TIF/TIRZ
• Incentivize multi‐bedroom housing options for families with children and aging parents
Establish outcomes for diversity of housing in
Municipal Utility District policy or development
agreements.
Diversity
Affordability
Tools for greater housing diversity.
During negotiation opportunities,
consider producing various housing
types for new and infill
development as option.
Lead
D2
Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and
encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the
community.
• Evaluate regulatory barriers to density
• Review regulations to improve diverse housing options (such as ADUs).
• Development regulations (zoning standards (density bonus will be the most effective)) , subdivision
standards, building standards) while maintaining compatibility.
• Create a zoning district that allows tri‐plexes and four‐plexes
Unified Development Code requires Special Use
Permit by City Council for accessory dwelling unit
(ADU).
Development Code is not equipped to handle
condo regime.
Diversity
UDC supports and allows diversity
of housing types and densities.
Lower/evaluate regulatory barriers
to housing diversity.
Lead
D3
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.
• Support services (transportation, healthcare, food service, utility billing assistance)
• Strategic Partnership grants focused on agencies that promote aging in place/community
• Health and human services
Increased diversity of housing product may allow
someone to stay in community if aging causes
need for different housing product.
Diversity
Accommodate diverse housing
needs through development code
and connection to services. More
people have choice to stay in
home/community as they age.
Partner
Coordinated Housing Programming (global policies)
C1 Actively seek and build public and private partnerships to leverage
resources and promote innovation.
• Partnerships with non‐profits, county, school district*
• Comm. Development Block Grant (WilCo and/or HUD)*
• HOME (TDHCA) ‐ down payment assistance
• Housing Trust Fund (TDHCA + HUD)
• Health and Human Services element of Comprehensive Plan
• Point in Time count (County effort)
• Partnerships with employers
CDBG funds through County to partner with
HFHWC for Home Repair for neighborhood
preservation.
Preservation
Affordability
Diversity
Secure outside funding and
partnerships to maximize results.
Should be used for all policies
where possible.
Partner
C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans.
• Land use policies*
• Economic development strategies involve housing discussion with employers.
• Public works ‐ Overall Transportation Plan
Housing diversity policies coordinated with land
use policies, economic development strategic
studies
Preservation
Affordability
Diversity
Coordinate plans and policies.
Applies to all policies. Effective and
efficient governance.
Lead
C3 Provide opportunity for community engagement through
outreach and communication.
• Education and promotion of available housing programs and incentives.
• Communication about housing options for residents.
Surveys, open house and speaking in community
about 2030 Plan update.
Development community outreach.
Preservation
Affordability
Diversity
Involve public/community in
planning and decision making.
Applies to all policies. Residents
can provide input on neighborhood
and city planning process.
Lead
DRAFT 08.16.19Page 10 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Potential Tool Description Type of
Action
(program,
policy,
study)
Level of
Expense
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?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown
(Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
SF Home Rehabilitation
Grant program for low income
homeowners to rehabilitate
homes for eligible repairs.
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. FY20 $25,000
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
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
Pros: Helps remove emerging
blight; usually cheaper than new
construction; potential to assure
longer term affordability depending
on requirements, helps stabilize
neighborhoods
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).
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 Loss of potential future tax revenue if grant is
structured in form of reimbursement to
homeowner based on increase in assessed
value.
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
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.
Program and
Study
SS‐SSS 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
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
Can preserve small‐scale workforce
rental units for middle‐income
renters
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.
Program $‐$$$ (deal /
agreement‐
specific)
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 reimbursements
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.
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.
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
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. 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.
Affordability term extensions Preservation of existing
affordable units, often tax
credit units.
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
Preserves LIHTC units nearing end of
affordability term.
# of units preserved
with extended terms
Not many LIHTC units are yet at risk of
affordability terms expiring.
Low cost 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
Program $‐$$ Bank grants Bank grants 0. Roundtable of interested banks
1. Programming
2. Execution
Maintain neighborhoods for low
income/workforce households.
Repairs
made/neighborhood
improvements
Marketing/outreach time needed to develop
program/partnerships.
Promotes partnerships. Banks meet
CRA requirements while advancing
community policies.
Yes City of Allen Home Repair for non‐CDBG eligible activities like fences
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 1 of 11Page 11 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas.
Potential Tool Description Type of
Action
(program,
policy,
study)
Level of
Expense
Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or
Steps Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown
(Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Small area/neighborhood
plans
Plans developed through
community outreach for areas
of historical stability that are
transitioning in use and
density.
Program $$ 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
Preservation of existing neighborhoods. One plan per year Potential community concern on any transitions
in use/density
Focused analysis on defined areas;
support for neighborhood
preservation and compatibility
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 Zoning, Overlay Districts,
Conservation Districts to
preserve existing
neighborhoods.
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 need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy
Will make it easier to develop
moderate‐density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF)
Yes COA
Leander
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.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 2 of 11Page 12 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Support owners ability to stay in homes in neighborhoods with rapid value increases without limiting the sale of the home.
Potential Tool Description Type of Action
(program,
policy, study)
Level of Expense Potential Funding Options Recommended Funding Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes
or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
SF Home Rehabilitation Grant program for low income
homeowners to rehabilitate homes for
eligible repairs.
Existing
Program
$‐$$ 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 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
Pros: Helps remove emerging blight; usually
cheaper than new construction; potential to
assure longer term affordability depending on
requirements, helps stabilize neighborhoods
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.
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
Loss of potential future tax revenue 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
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.
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
City gives up a portion of fee or tax revenue No up front investment required 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.
Utility billing assistance Grant funds for paying utility bills.Program $‐$$Good Neighbor Fund Good Neighbor Fund Provide information regarding resource. Low‐income and workforce homeownership # of households assisted. May not assist with root cause of high utility costs
Lower utility cost can assist homeowners to
remain in homes. Yes, existing program.City of Georgetown
Homestead exemption education
Provide eduation to eligible
homeowners on how to obtain a
homestead exemption.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 Unknown number of homeowners in need of education Low cost action Yes Some real estate associations have education materials.
Support partnerships
Partnerships with non‐profits that
assist existing home owners with
maintenance.Program $Staff time Staff time Identify existing assistance and partner. Low‐income and workforce homeownership
# of homes repaired,
homeowners retained Dependent on availability of non‐profit resources. Low cost action Yes Faith in Action Georgetown
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 3 of 11Page 13 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.
Potential Tool Description Type of
Action
(program,
policy,
study)
Level of
Expense
Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or
Steps Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown
(Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Neighborhood Capacity
Building
Promote neighborhood
capacity (vitality, services)
building ‐ HOA
training/education/outreach.
Assist neighborhoods with
neighborhood association
creation.
Program $ General fund General fund Short term/ongoing Preservation Number of
neighborhood
meetings/attendees
Additional staffing Build neighborhood relationships;
support for neighborhood
preservation
Yes Tulsa, OK Neighborhood Liasions
(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/government/departments/working‐in‐
neighborhoods/neighborhoods/)
Small area/neighborhood
plans
Plans developed through
community outreach for areas
of historical stability that are
transitioning in use and
density.
Program $$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.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods. One plan per year Potential community concern on any transitions
in use/density.
Focused analysis on defined areas;
support for neighborhood
preservation and compatibility
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
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.
Less resourced neighborhoods may have limited
ability to participate.
Capitilizes and incentivizes
neighborhoods to take action.
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.
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
Yes Current COG program.
Neighborhood cleanup day* Organize regular clean up day
for neighborhood
beautificaton.
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
Preservation of existing neighborhoods. metrics around
items disposed,
number of blocks
impacted.
limited resources to perform more than once or
twice a year. Usually only one or two blocks
during event.
Code enforcement reports clean up
day is effective for getting rid of
many undesired uses and potential
violations.
Yes COG has conducted in the past.
Neighborhood registration
program* Expand current project. 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 not all neighborhoods are currently organized
low cost method to distribute
information, self organizing
potential Yes Current COG program.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 4 of 11Page 14 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Support and increase rental choices for low‐income and workforce households unless the housing is substandard.
Potential Tool Description Type of Action
(program,
policy, study)
Level of Expense Potential Funding Options Recommended Funding Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes
or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Development agreements Negotiations with developers that
might include land provision or direct
financial assistance in exchange of
furthering city policy.
Policy $$‐$$$$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
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 Houston Developer Participation Contracts; Clute Chapter 380 agreements providing below‐
market loan for housing subdivision infrastructure construction
Development incentives
Policies that incentize developers to
voluntary increase rental housing
supply through building rental units.
(Workforce Housing Standards,
Housing Diversity Standards, Density
Bonus) 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
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
No direct fiscal outlay by City except
administration
YES though
effectiveness will have
inverse relationship to
strictness of overall
regulation Downtown Austin
Development Regulations Zoning, Overlay Districts,
Conservation Districts, Diverse
Housing Options
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 need to determine which areas of the City are reasonable
candidates for strategy
Will make it easier to develop moderate‐
density housing through increasing the
diversity of housing types and lot sizes (for SF)
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
Policy $$‐$$$$Always City General Fund; potential to include WilCo property tax also Designate TIRZs for larger
projects or multi‐owner
districts with significant public
infrastructure, facilities, or
amenity needs to assure
market viability
Need to create zones when base year
assessed value is low (Jan. 1 value of creation
year)
Could be used to enhance affordability for either for‐sale or
rental; Moderate / middle income HH ($70K and below) need
for‐sale homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs, materials can help
deliver housing in this price range; could also help deliver new
rental housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis)
# units created within the
zone, especially within
targeted sale / rent price
ranges; amount and timing
of tax increment
generated to fund public
improvements
Additional administrative and legal costs to run TIRZ; City gives
up portion of property tax revenue during life of zone
No additional fees / taxes imposed on zone
properties; can issue debt
YES if project or area
fits creation criteria;
participation of WilCo
potentially makes it
very attractive
Dallas and Houston have required TIRZs to either include development of affordable units or have
TIRZ funds set aside for affordable housing development.
Public Facilities Corporation A public entity that can acquire sites
and partner with multifamily
developers to create tax‐exempt
mixed‐income housing.
Program $$‐$$$$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
Loss of potential future tax revenue Creation of affordable rentals without more
restrictive requirements of LIHTC or HOME /
CDBG funding; potential to also create middle‐
income rental housing
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.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
Not many LIHTC units are yet at risk of affordability terms
expiring. Low cost Yes Texas Housing Foundation
Support GHA programs
Support GHA through CDBG funds,
energy efficiency upgrades through
GUS 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 Not many units overall.
supports some of only renter housing
available for low income households. 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.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
9% tax credit developments unlikely to be competitive in
Georgetown
No cost to city. Some of only funding
available to build volume of workforce
housing units Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Multi‐family Tax Exemption
Tax exemption program in exchange
for on‐site affordability 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
Reduced tax revenue; potential community pushback on
increasing affordable housing supply
Support for affordability; protect vulnerable
populations Yes
McKinney, TX (https://www.mckinneytexas.org/1948/Low‐Income‐Housing‐Tax‐Credit;
https://www.mckinneytexas.org/241/Mortgage‐Certificate‐Credit‐Program)
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 5 of 11Page 15 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Support rental choices for senior households.
Potential Tool Type of Action
(program,
policy, study)
Level of Expense Potential Funding Options Recommended Funding Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes
or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Low Income Housing Tax
Credit process*
Support LIHTC development
(senior specific) that meet
City defined process
Development using LIHTC for
seniors as proposed by
developers. Policy $ General fund/staff time General fund/staff time Build on existing policy low income senior renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened senior
renters
Not as many senior renters as non‐senior
renters.
serves severely cost burdened
population Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Support GHA programs
Support GHA through CDBG
funds, energy efficiency
upgrades through GUS Policy $ General fund/staff time/CDBG
General fund/staff
time/CDBG
1. Understand support needed
from GHA.
2. Work with GHA to support
current capital improvements. low income senior renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened senior
renters Not many units overall.
supports some of only renter
housing available for low income
seniors. Yes
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 6 of 11Page 16 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Increase homeownership choices for workforce households.
Potential Tool Type of Action
(program,
policy, study)
Level of Expense Potential Funding Options Recommended Funding Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes
or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Down Payment Assistance Down payment assistance and home
buyer counseling programs by
supporting public‐private partnerships
with financial institutions and major
employers.
Program $‐$$$ •DPA ‐ PotenƟal 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 educaƟon / navigaƟon program (include financial and realtor communiƟes)
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
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.
Pros: Incentivizes middle‐income households
to consider buying in Georgetown when they
might otherwise have moved elsewhere.
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.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
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
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 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
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
No direct fiscal outlay by City except
administration; existing program
YES though
effectiveness will have
inverse relationship to
strictness of overall
regulation Existing program, Downtown Austin
Comm. Development Block Grant
(Wilco and/or HUD)land acquistion and infrastructure 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 Effort/resouces to apply for grant
Funding for capital improvements;
neighborhood reinvestment 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.
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.
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.
Offset general revenue, long time to build funds Leverage, public private partnerships,
recognizes demand
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
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
Cons: Will take considerable time and effort to initiate and, for
certain tools, acquire properties.
Pros: 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.
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. Houston's receives land from the
Houston Land Bank when a prospective homeowner chooses the Land Trust option.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 7 of 11Page 17 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Support the non‐profit community to create housing opportunities for the most vulnerable residents (including but not limited to homeless, seniors, youth aging out of the foster care system, and people with disabilities).
Potential Tool Type of
Action
(program,
policy,
study)
Level of
Expense
Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or
Steps Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown
(Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Health and Human Service
Element
The City Charter lists a Health
and Human Services element
in the Comprehensive Plan. A
needs assessment of
vulnerable populations can
inform the element. Study $$
Potential partnering opportunity with WilCo and/or surrounding cities for
needs assessment
Partnerships for
assessment/General
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 Cost/effort
Meet charter requirement; protect
vulnerable populations 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 $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 8 of 11Page 18 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points.
Potential Tool Type of
Action
(program,
policy,
study)
Level of
Expense
Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or
Steps Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown
(Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
TIF/TIRZ
TIRZ policy might include
provision for units available
to certain AMI groups or fee‐
in‐lieu Policy $$‐$$$$ Always City General Fund; potential to include WilCo property tax also
Designate TIRZs for
larger projects or multi‐
owner districts with
significant public
infrastructure, facilities,
or amenity needs to
assure market viability
Need to create zones when base
year assessed value is low (Jan. 1
value of creation year)
Could be used to enhance affordability for
either for‐sale or rental; Moderate / middle
income HH ($70K and below) need for‐sale
homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs,
materials can help deliver housing in this price
range; could also help deliver new rental
housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis)
# units created
within the zone,
especially within
targeted sale / rent
price ranges;
amount and timing
of tax increment
generated to fund
public
improvements
Additional administrative and legal costs to run
TIRZ; City gives up portion of property tax
revenue during life of zone
No additional fees / taxes imposed
on zone properties; can issue debt
YES if project or
area fits creation
criteria;
participation of
WilCo potentially
makes it very
attractive
Dallas and Houston have required TIRZs to either include development of
affordable units or have TIRZ funds set aside for affordable housing
development.
Low Income Housing Tax
Credit process*
Support LIHTC development
(workforce) that meet City
defined process
Development using LIHTC for
genearl population as
proposed by developers. Policy $ General fund/staff time General fund/staff time Build on existing policy workforce renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened renters
9% tax credit developments unlikely to be
competitive in Georgetown
No cost to city. Some of only
funding available to build volume
of workforce housing units Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 9 of 11Page 19 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community.
Potential Tool Description Type of
Action
(program,
policy,
study)
Level of
Expense
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?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown
(Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Development Regulations
Revise development
regulations (Zoning, Overlay
Districts, Conservation
Districts, Diverse Housing
Options)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 need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy
Will make it easier to develop
moderate‐density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF) 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.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 10 of 11Page 20 of 21
Housing Toolkit Draft 11/22/2019
Promote aging in place opportuniƟes by aligning land use policies and transportaƟon policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodaƟng residents throughout all stages of life.
Potential Tool Description Type of
Action
(program,
policy,
study)
Level of
Expense
Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or
Steps Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Con Pro Appropriate for
Georgetown
(Yes or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Health and Human Service
Element
The City Charter lists a Health
and Human Services element
in the Comprehensive Plan. A
needs assessment of
vulnerable populations can
inform the element. Study $$
Potential partnering opportunity with WilCo and/or surrounding cities for
needs assessment
Partnerships for
assessment/General
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 Cost/effort
Meet charter requirement; protect
vulnerable populations Yes
City of San Antonio's Accomplishments by the Number to track progress
(https://www.sanantonio.gov/humanservices/about#268633469‐children)
Support services to support
aging in place
Aging at home often requires
integrated services including
transportation, healthcare,
food service, and possibly
utility billing assistance. Program $$$
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs ‐ Comprehensive
Energy Assistance Program utility assistance program
(https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/community‐affairs/ceap/) General fund
Evaluate opportunities to build an
enhanced support services
program to provide transportation,
healthcare, food services, and
utility billing assistance to seniors,
which should be addressed
through the Health and Human
Services Element. Seniors
Number of seniors
participating in
program; annual
survey of seniors to
evaluate awareness
and participating Additional cost
Support for Georgetown's sizable
senior population; protect
vulnerable populations Yes
Houston's Home Repair Program requires single‐family projects accommodate
aging‐in‐place (https://houstontx.gov/housing/home_repair_programs.html)
Dallas' Office of Senior Affairs
(https://dallascityhall.com/departments/community‐
care/Pages/seniorservices.aspx)
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $100K
$$ ‐ $100K ‐ $250K
$$$ ‐ $250K ‐ $1M
$$$$ ‐ $1M+
Page 11 of 11Page 21 of 21