HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_12.16.2019Notice of Meeting for the
Housing Adv isory Board
of the City of Georgetown
December 16, 2019 at 3:30 P M
at Historic Light and Waterworks Bldg, 406 W. 8th Street Georgetown, T X 78626
T he C ity o f G eorgetown is c o mmitted to c ompliance with the Americans with Dis ab ilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reasonable
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e contac t the C ity S ecretary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) d ays p rio r to the s cheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eo rgeto wn, T X 78626 for ad d itional info rmation; T T Y us ers route thro ugh R elay
Texas at 711.
P ublic Wishing to Address the Board
O n a s ubjec t that is p o s ted o n this agenda: P leas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Board meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which you wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
S taff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. Yo u will b e c alled fo rward to s p eak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
O n a s ubjec t no t p o s ted o n the agenda: P ers ons may add an item to a future Board agend a by filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than o ne week prior to the Bo ard meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the
s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the
p ublic . F o r Board Liais o n contac t information, p leas e logo n to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
A At th e tim e of p ostin g , n o p ersons had signed u p to speak on items n ot on the a g en d a .
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
B C ons id eratio n and p o s s ib le ac tion to app ro ve the minutes from the November 25, 2019 meeting. - Mirna
G arcia, Management Analyst
C Update on the 2030 P lan Up d ate p ro cess . Nat Waggoner, AI C P, Long R ange P lanning Manager and
S us an Watkins , AI C P, Hous ing C oordinato r
D Update fro m the Ho using Advis o ry Board C hair. Lou S nead , C hairpers o n.
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Dens mo re, C ity S ec retary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereb y certify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgeto wn, T X 78626, a p lace readily
acc es s ib le to the general p ublic as req uired by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at
__________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us hours prec eding the sc heduled time of s aid
meeting.
Page 1 of 27
__________________________________
R o b yn Dens more, C ity S ecretary
Page 2 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
December 16, 2019
S UB J E C T:
C o nsideration and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove the minutes fro m the No vemb er 25, 2019 meeting. - Mirna
G arc ia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Minutes Exhibit
Page 3 of 27
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes November 25, 2019
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
November 25, 2019, at 3:30 p.m.
Historic Light and Waterworks Building, 406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Lou Snead, Chair; Jeannyce Hume; Mary Calixtro; Nathaniel Bonner; Bob
Weimer
Members absent: Randy Hachtel; Nikki Brennan
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 October 28, 2019
meeting. Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst
Motion by Weimer, second by Calixtro to approve the minutes as presented. Approved
(5–0).
C. Update on the 2030 Plan Update process – Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range Planning
Manager
Waggoner provided the Board members an update on the recent and upcoming activities
related to the comprehensive plan update. The housing inventory and affordability analysis
steps have been completed, the policies have been drafted, and the recommendations for
housing have been drafted into the implementation plan. Council will review and consider the
policies for adoption with the comprehensive plan. The next City Council presentation will be
on 12/10, where housing and land use will be discussed together. There is also a planned 3rd
Public Meeting in January 2020, as well as a P&Z presentation in February, and a second
Council presentation in February/March 2020. Waggoner reviewed the discussion from the 11/7
2030 Steering Committee meeting with the Board, where the benefits of the FLU map, member’s
concerns, and the concrete changes needed where further discussed. The next step includes
community engagement and seeking feedback from the public.
Page 4 of 27
Housing Advisory Board Page 2
Minutes November 25, 2019
D. Presentation and discussion of the Housing Toolkit. – Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing
Coordinator
Watkins provided an overview of the housing toolkit to be reviewed by the Board. The Board
reviewed the Housing Toolkit draft developed by Community Development Strategies. The
Board discussed the benefits of the recommended tools and the Board members’ concerns. She
also provided the Board members the top 3 strategies for housing implementation and action
that can be taken for each strategy. Board members participated in an activity where they
discussed these strategies and actions, and then answered staff questions: 1) what stands out? 2)
what are the benefits of the tools? 3) what are your concerns? 4) what options can be taken to
address concerns? 5) what concrete changes would you like to see? 6) what does successful
community engagement look like?
Board members provided their input and identified the following: language needs to be revised
to include ‘Workforce Housing’ instead of ‘Affordable Housing,’ terms and acronyms need to
be defined, include and collaborate with more non-profit partners, use both the top 3 strategies
and the housing summary together as tools, go to the affected areas and seek their input by
providing clear and easy to comprehend information.
Chair Snead opened the Public Hearing.
Walt Doering commented on the housing toolkit summary and asked how City Council will
adopt the tools and how they will be used.
Richard Glasco commented on the Georgetown Housing Initiative and provided
materials/information to the Board members regarding a workforce analysis that was
conducted. This study provided a SWOT analysis (strengths, weakness, opportunity, threats),
and presented an economic-based perspective on the affordable housing issue.
Staff sought feedback from the Board members on ideas of who to communicate with, and they
identified the Chamber of Commerce, the residents, and looking at the top three biggest
employers in Georgetown. The next steps for the Board members include reviewing the toolkit
and sending questions to Susan, as well as any other recommendations and feedback.
E. Update from the Housing Advisory Board Chair. Lou Snead, Chairperson
Adjournment
Motion to Adjourn by Weimer. Second by Bonner. The meeting was adjourned at 5:28 pm.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Lou Snead, Chair Attest, Randy Hachtel, Secretary
Page 5 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
December 16, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Up d ate o n the 2030 P lan Update proc es s . Nat Waggo ner, AI C P, Lo ng R ange P lanning Manager and
S usan Watkins , AIC P, Ho using C o o rd inator
IT E M S UMMARY:
S taff will b rief b o ard members o n the rec ent and upc o ming ac tivities related to the comprehensive plan
update including:
Up d ate from 12/05/19 2030 P lan S teering C ommittee o n Implementation S trategies (Attac hment 1 -
2030 P lan Implementatio n S trategies, Attac hment 2 - S ummary o f 12/05/19 2030 P lan S teering
C o mmittee meeting, Attachment 3 - Hous ing To o lkit Draft, Attac hment 4 - Ho using Toolkit
Exec utive S ummary)
Up d ate from 12/10/19 C ity C o uncil wo rks ho p on 2030 P lan Up d ate I ntro d uc tion to Imp lementatio n
S trategies (http s ://georgetowntx.s wagit.c o m/play/12102019-1327)
Next S teps
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
No ne at this time.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
S usan Watkins , AIC P, Ho using C o o rd inator
AT TAC H ME N T S:
D escription Type
Attachment 1 - 2030 Plan Implementation Strategies Backup Material
Attachment 2 - 2030 Plan Steering Committee Summary (12/05/19)Backup Material
Attachment 3 - Hous ing Toolkit Draft Backup Material
Attachment 4 - Hous ing Toolkit Executive Summary Backup Material
Page 6 of 27
2030 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES SUMMARY
Strategic Initiatives Implementation Approach and Tools
Regulatory Framework
Goals:
1. Balanced land use
2. Reinvestment
3. Development framework
4. Historic Preservation
6. Housing &
neighborhoods
8. Land use that enables
partnerships
Diversity and Density
• Update development standards to ensure compatibility of diverse uses including buffers, setbacks to reduce barriers to higher density
development in Community Commercial Centers and support the updated residential future land use categories
• Use tailored development standards for key areas: Employment Centers, Regional Centers, Gateways, Southeast Georgetown, Williams Drive
and Downtown
• Preserve and incentivize the City’s historic resources and reuse existing structures through tailored, flexible development standards
• Allow a variety of housing types, lot sizes, and a balance of amenities
• Develop incentives for inclusion of moderate density, moderately priced housing types, affordable/workforce housing creation
Land Uses
• Perform UDC diagnostic review of allowed uses, density and subdivision requirements to implement Comp Plan
• Review and update rezoning approval criteria
Gateways
• Update boundaries of overlay districts to reflect development changes within an area (for example, once identified scenic areas have now
become urbanized areas)
• Identify specific locations for major gateway sign locations (I-35 northbound, SH-130) and minor gateway signs (S. Austin and SH29 entrances
into historic Georgetown)
• Create an Urban Corridor type
• Update Scenic Corridor standards for larger setbacks, lower building heights, native landscaping and limited lighting
• Update Downtown Corridor standards for building and street front design
• Prioritize building and site design (placement of buildings, materials, landscaping) when negotiating development agreements and potential
incentives for I-35, SH130, SH29, SH195 that support Employment Centers and Regional Centers
Williams Drive Subarea
• Establish a Williams Drive special zoning district area that implements proposed mix of uses, density, and building form (setbacks, height, and
design)
• Develop an incentive program for enhancing site and buildings in compliance with the goals and policies of the Williams Drive Subarea
Decision Framework
Goals:
1. Balanced land use
3. Development framework
6. Housing &
neighborhoods
Development Agreements, Annexation, Special Purpose Districts and Intentional Infrastructure
• Review utility connection policies to ensure support of land use goals (#1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8) of the Comprehensive Plan
• Ready infrastructure for development in key, prioritized Employment Centers, Southeast Georgetown and mixed-use developments
• Update approval criteria for voluntary annexation
• Review approval criteria for special purpose districts (MUD, PID, TIRZ, PUD) to distinguish between types of development and identify
specific criteria for meeting diversity and density goals
• Evaluate annexation requests and special purpose districts using the City’s Fiscal Impact Model
• Develop a Comprehensive Plan checklist for use in evaluating development proposals and zoning applications for consistency with the plan's
principles and direction
Page 7 of 27
Strategic Initiatives Implementation Approach and Tools
Financial assistance/incentives to housing developers and builders meeting housing policies
• Development and other incentive agreements – tailored development standards and/or contribution in infrastructure costs (including a udit of
existing workforce housing standard incentive to ensure its usability)
• Utilize special purpose financing districts (MUDs, PIDs, TIRZs) policy (for example, to incorporate a minimum amount of workforce housing as
part of the consent to utilize a special purpose financing district)
• Consider utilizing fee waivers (for example parkland, development application, and building permit fees)
• Create a dedicated funding source for housing development incentives and agreements
Plans, Programs, and
Partnerships
Goals:
7. High quality
infrastructure
8. Land use that enables
partnerships
9. Integrate greenspace &
recreation
10. Maintain levels of service
as we grow
Small Area Planning & Neighborhoods
• Create small area plans to guide development in key locations
• Explore the applicability of Neighborhood Empowerment Zones, Neighborhood Conservation Districts or Overlays
• Develop Neighborhood Association Program (assist neighborhoods with education/tools for establishment)
Comprehensive Plan Elements
• Adopt a Historic Preservation Element as part of the next update to the Downtown Master Plan
• Update the Parks Plan and the Overall Transportation Plan (OTP)
• Revisit charter required 2030 plan elements for applicability and identify specific timeframes for update when necessary (Citizen’s Participation
Plan, Urban Design Element, Public Safety Element)
• Coordinate Utility Master Plan with 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Capital Improvement Planning (CIP)
• Identify key capital improvements needed in Employment Centers to support economic development objectives
• Use 4A/4B funds to support Employment Centers, Regional Centers
• Dedicate 5% of project costs of all new roadway improvements within Gateway corridors for beautification
Annual Reporting (2030 Plan)
• Convene the 2030 Steering Committee annually to review and approve the annual report
• Prepare an annual community report card on comprehensive plan progress
• Develop a comprehensive plan checklist for use in evaluating development proposals and zoning applications for consistency with the plan’s
principles and direction
Partnerships
• Partner with GISD for planning of future school sites and infrastructure
• Adopt a Health and Human Services Element
• Support Georgetown Housing Authority (GHA) preservation of units
• Support housing non-profits, banks with Community Revitalization Act initiatives, and other community organizations
Home Repair
• Expand home repair programs to reach moderate income workforce owner-occupied households and small-scale rental properties
• Create a dedicated funding source eligible to be used for both workforce and lower income housing rehabilitation
Page 8 of 27
2030 Update Steering Committee
December 5, 2019
What is your first impression?
•Ambitious, but acheivable
•Digestable, organized, detailed, implementable
•A lot to do, a lot of effort
•Some easy, others really big
•Nothing new, reflects Steering Committee conversations
•Suggestions for updating, a lot of updating
•Generic overview of what long range planning should be
What are the benefits of the
strategies?
•Provides a measuring stick for success
•Can draw direct connections to goal and policy work
•Creating something that everyone can use
•Plan, vision of what we want the city to look like in 2030
•Specific enough to have teeth
•Good balance of achieving goals, not telling people no and not giving away everything
•Good variety of tools and timeline
What are concerns?
•Using the plan
•What process will this be applied to, when someone wants to build something?
•Residential vs. non-residential % for future land use can possibly be too hard to balance and enforce
•Do we have enough criteria to make discretional decisions? Is there enough detail for staff analysis?
•Keeping the Plan Alive
•Bandwith of City staff to keep plan alive with current staffing levels
•Is this a plan that will be on the shelf? Hate to do the work and it go unused
•Incentives
•Development incentives -clarify, political, who is developing the standards/incentives?
•Incentives for single family residential historic properties need to be listed
•Home Repair
•Minimal dedicated funds limit its effectiveness
•Multi-family rehab strategy usage could lead to landlords abusing improvement funds and raising rents
•Miscellaneous
•Balancing the visions of the plan with property owner rights and the City making decisions
•Appears to be a lot of plans in the implementation strategies and not many partnerships or programs
•County should be an identified partnerPage 9 of 27
2030 Update Steering Committee
December 5, 2019
What are the options to address
the concerns?
•Using the Plan
•Pay attention to detailed implementation, keep the big picture in mind
•Keeping the Plan Alive
•Annual reviews and reports to evaluate progress, quarterly evaluations of 2030 Plan
•Use checklist as a way of keeping plan alive
•Invest in resources to get the work done
•Incentives
•Define what an incentive is
•Dedicated funding resources for incentives to encourage housing goals
•Utilize cheapest incentives
•Specifically initiate (tax abatement for historic downtown, residential incentives)
•Home Repair
•Rent control and usage of other tools to not take advantage of renters
•Educate to ensure that people know about homestead exemptions to stay in homes
•Miscellaneous
•Start working with County early
•Stay connected to national innovation
What changes are needed, if any?
•Key areas should be identified for targeted development and the use intentional infrastructure
•Dedicated funding source for implementation of housing goals should be identified
•Keep the plan alive through identified solutions and additional staff resources to prioritize implementation
•Defiine incentives to include financial and development standard incentives including historic preservation
Page 10 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Home Repair
Grant program for low income
homeowners to rehabilitate
homes for eligible repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Existing
Program
HOME/CDBG, economic development sales tax, housing bonds, future tax
increment, Community Reinvestment Act. Federal funds are available
through HOME and CDBG programs (specifically for properties with low‐
income occupants), but local funds and private / nonprofit sector resources
are also available. 4B sales tax funds have been used (San Angelo). Local
housing bond proceeds can also be used, as can TIRZ set‐asides for
affordable housing. For rehabilitation expected to significantly increase the
assessed value of the property, reimbursement from future property tax
increment is another option that does not require immediate disbursement
of funds on hand. Some non‐profits such as Habitat for Humanity also
contribute funds, material, administration and/or labor toward
rehabilitation. HUD also does direct rehabilitation lending to eligible
homeowners through the FHA and has other lending programs for rental
property owners.
Maintain
current funding
($$)
Maintain current program for low income
homeowners (50% AMI and below).
Low income ownership; Affordability Analysis
showed 733 owner HH under $20K income
2016 and 2,152 owner HH $20K ‐ $35K in 2016
# of homes
rehabbed
Pros: Helps remove emerging blight;
usually cheaper than new
construction; potential to assure
longer term affordability depending
on requirements, helps stabilize
neighborhoods
Cons: Usually limited in number of units assisted
(especially single family); tradeoff between
cosmetic (low cost, low administration) and
structural / system improvements (higher costs,
more administration); federal funds involve extra
paperwork and process, and likely limit recipient
properties to low‐income occupancy and other
requirements; history of difficulties with single
family and quality assurance (recent Austin
controversies); without recipient post‐rehab
residency requirement, can potentially sell home
and lose affordable SF unit
Yes, but rapid
housing price
increases as
documented in
Housing Study (sales
under $200K fallen
to 7.5% in 2017‐18)
mean that fewer
low‐income HH will
be owning homes,
though seniors may
be continue to be
eligible
Rehab programs are frequent in cities around Texas including the Austin area,
often using HOME and CDBG funds or proceeds from housing bonds. An
effective program in San Angelo has an exterior rehab program with the
exterior siding replacement funded through CDBG, equipment and supplies
with 4B funds, paint donated through the Habitat for Humanity Valspar
program, and labor donated by community volunteers;
Home Repair for
Workforce
Homeowners
Grant program for workforce
homeowners to rehabilitate
homes for eligible repairs
(possible match component).
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Involvement of federal funds or programs will necessarily require the
subject housing to serve occupants of lower income levels (usually
maximum of 80% of AMI and often 50% or 30%). Some kinds of local funds
are more flexible in terms of the income levels of occupants to be served
and the length of term of affordability. The City should consider requiring a
minimum affordability level and period for programs that are not already
bound by federal or other restrictions, and should consider homes priced to
moderate‐income households (for example, 60% to 120% of AMI) and
minimum compliance terms (5, 10, 15 years for example) as well in such
cases.
Possible one‐
time payment
(see Richardson
example) or
future
reimbursement
or abatement of
increased City
tax due to
assessed value
increase. ($‐$$)
Expand existing housing rehabilitation
programs to target workforce
demograhic, for owner occupied
rehabilitation, major repairs and minor
repairs.
Physically preserve existing affordable and
moderately priced housing structures; link to
preservation of affordable pricing. Preserve
homeownership (owner ability to stay in home)
; Required property owner matches for either
grants or loans make public funds stretch
farther and assure more commitment from
recipients. Reimbursement from future
incremental property tax revenues best suited
for property owners making substantial
(beyond cosmetic) improvements and more
middle‐income occupancy (less need for
immediate funding assistance).
# homes rehabbed
Housing study identified rapid
decrease in lower‐priced homes,
especially below $200K; homes
$200K ‐ $275K also important to
preserve (34.9% of 2017‐18 sales);
program not dependent on HUD‐
type income restrictions to lower‐
income homeowners will be more
appropriate for Georgetown going
forward as low‐income homebuyers
will be unlikely to buy homes as
prices increase; also will address
supply of older single family in
subareas 3, 6 and 7.
Loss of potential future tax revenue if grant is
structured in form of reimbursement to
homeowner based on increase in assessed value.
Yes, very good
proposal well‐suited
to Georgetown's
market situation
The City of Richardson Home Improvement Incentive Program uses only future
incremental City property tax increases and thus does not have occupant
income limits such as what HUD would require, making it a good example for
Georgetown (though Georgetown could still apply a limit at its own discretion).
Multi‐family
Rehabilitation
Loan or grant program to
assist Multi‐family property
owners with property
rehabilitation for eligible
repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program and
Study
HOME/CDBG, economic development sales tax, housing bonds, future tax
increment, Community Reinvestment Act. Federal funds are available
through HOME and CDBG programs (specifically for properties with low‐
income occupants), but local funds and private/nonprofit sector resources
are also available. 4B sales tax funds should be eligible. Local housing bond
proceeds can also be used, as can TIRZ set‐asides for affordable housing.
For rehabilitation expected to significantly increase the assessed value of
the property, reimbursement from future property tax increment is another
option that does not require immediate disbursement of funds on hand.
HUD also does direct rehabilitation lending to eligible homeowners through
the FHA and has other lending programs for rental property owners. Could
be capitalized as revolving loan program to have one‐time funding up front.
Community
Reinvestment
Act funds. Set
up fund of
approx. $500K
if can allow
tenant income
restrictions of
80% AMI or
higher ($$‐$$$)
1. Study the locations and physical
deterioration of existing housing stock.
2. Based on study findings, develop a
program that encourages rehabilitation
of small scale multi‐family units.
Small‐scale rental properties documented as
important element of supply for workforce in
several subareas (1, 3, 6, 7) ‐ 660 duplexes and
352 fourplexes in total planning area per
Housing Study; Affordability Analysis indicated
they are serving primarily moderate‐rent
households (not low‐income)
# of units rehabbed
and # of units price‐
restricted per year
for future period
Can preserve small‐scale workforce
rental units for middle‐income
renters
Voluntary program so property owners must find
terms attractive and income restrictions not too
severe; HUD funds may not allow rehabbing
units for workforce income / rent levels
Yes if can be made
available to
moderate income /
workforce housing
units (as opposed to
low income)
Plano has a rehab program for small‐scale rental properties, though it uses HUD
funding which requires 51% of rehabbed units to be allocated to low‐moderate
income HH.
Regional Partnerships
Partnerships with entities that
acquire properties for
preservation of affordable
housing stock.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Impact Funds ($ ‐ funded primarily by private equity investors, to purchase
and preserve affordable multifamily rental properties), Housing Finance
Corporation ($$$) can provide financial assistance for single family and
multi‐family housing development. The Capital Area Housing Finance
Corporation (CAHFC) serves Williamson County.
Likely little up‐
front City
funding
required;
consider policy
for future tax
abatements or
incremental
property tax
reimbursement
s ($‐$$$ (deal /
agreement‐
specific))
1. Develop and leverage regional
partnerships to maintain existing
affordable housing stock. Invite outside
private sector / nonprofit partners to
facilitate affordable housing
development and preservation of a scale
and long term effectiveness beyond what
the City could accomplish directly.
The housing study identifies older single family
and especially multifamily as a key affordability
resource to preserve, which is difficult without
acquisition by preservation‐focused entities.
Subareas 1, 3, 5, 6 of the study were
particularly notable for the presence of
potential preservation priority housing.
Impact funds and
HFCs contacted.
Formalized
relationships
created.
Creates mechanisms to lessen the
organizational and funding
constraints of the City; increases
long term affordability and
awareness of available
opportunities for housing
developers / builders and
consumers
Property acquisition for impact funds may be
difficult and slow; will likely need to seek
relationships with organizations not specific to
Georgetown (regional or national); potentially
long lead time before implementation.
YES though each
organization or fund
will have to be
considered on its
own
Work with the Strategic Housing Finance Corporation that currently serves only Travis
County communities, where it acquires and preserves affordable housing, but perhaps could
expand into Williamson County if Georgetown leaders seek partnerships. Some nonprofit
housing developers (CDCs / CHDOs) are very experienced and offer educational services for
housing consumers (homebuyer education) as well as their housing development activities;
Examples: Williamson County joined the regional Texas Housing Foundation in 2018. The
Southeast Texas Housing Finance Corporation serves multiple counties and communities
near Houston. Avenue CDC in Houston develops low‐price homes and affordable rentals in
addition to homebuyer education programs, housing rehabilitation, and community
development activities. The Turner Impact Fund purchases multifamily properties around
the United States, including the Austin area, to preserve as workforce housing. The Austin
Housing Conservancy was recently formed, initiated by the City of Austin but funded
primarily by private equity investors, to purchase and preserve affordable multifamily rental
properties.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 1 of 14Page 11 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommende
d Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or
Steps Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How
is success
measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes
or No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Affordability term
extensions
Preservation of existing
affordable units, often tax
credit units.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund/staff time/in exchange for other program participation
or development incentive Staff time ($)
1. Catalog developments to identify
expiring affrodability terms.
2. Develop program to provide
support to property owners with
renovations that use Low Income
Housing Tax Credit.
Preserves LIHTC units nearing end of
affordability term.
# of units
preserved with
extended terms
Low cost tool Not many LIHTC units are yet at risk of
affordability terms expiring. Yes Texas Housing Foundation ‐ Public Housing Authority with agreements
in five county central Texas region.
Community
Reinvestment Act
funds
Partnerships with banks to
meet Community
Reinvestment Act
requirements
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Bank grants Bank grants ($‐
$$)
0. Roundtable of interested banks
1. Programming
2. Execution
Maintain neighborhoods for low
income/workforce households.
Repairs
made/neighborho
od improvements
Promotes partnerships. Banks
meet CRA requirements while
advancing community policies.
Marketing/outreach time needed to
develop program/partnerships.Yes City of Allen Home Repair for non‐CDBG eligible activities like fences
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 2 of 14Page 12 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Small
area/neighborhood
plans
Plans developed through
community outreach for areas
of historical stability that are
transitioning in use and
density.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General Fund General Fund
($$)
1. Establish annual funding for small
area/neighborhood plans.
2. Identify areas and neighborhoods for
plan development.
3. Create process for neighborhoods to
nominate themselves for small area plan.
The subarea profiles show historic sales price
trend data with significant increases in some
subareas in price/square foot. Preservation of
existing neighborhoods.
One plan per year
Focused analysis on defined areas;
support for neighborhood
preservation and compatibility
Potential community concern on any transitions
in use/density Yes
City of San Antonio
City of College Station
City of Sugar Land
Fort Worth Urban Villages
(http://fortworthtexas.gov/PlanningandDevelopment/urbanvillages/)
Development
Regulations
Use of Zoning, Overlay
Districts, Neighborhood
Conservation Districts to
preserve existing
neighborhoods.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)
1. Review and update UDC next budget
cycle
Housing Study documented both need for entry‐
level single family below $275K and current
(and implied potential) role of moderate density
rental properties in serving a middle income
market; having flexibility in development
regulations to facilitate housing diversity can
help achieve additional development of these
types and serve market segments of different
resident ages and life stages as well as incomes.
Document diversity
in type and price of
new housing
development
Will make it easier to develop
moderate‐density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF)
Will need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy Yes
City of Austin, City of Leander, City of Conroe recently reduced minimum lot
sizes to allow single family homes at a lower price point in a master planned
community. The City of Kerrville through the updates to the zoning code,
revised an existing district to include more housing types. The biggest road
block of the previous district was the different levels of approvals required for
anything that was not traditional single family. In the “newer version” these
secondary and tertiary approval processes were removed. The new district
now allows for a variety of housing types within the same district. Single family
(on slightly reduced lot size – 4500 sq. ft.), duplexes, townhomes, patio homes,
and small lot single family (3300 sq. ft. lot with separate alley access). To
address the variety of housing types, building codes, and property values, we
limited each block face to one consistent housing type.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 3 of 14Page 13 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Support owners ability to stay in homes in neighborhoods with rapid value increases without limiting the sale of the home.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Home Repair
Grant program for low income
homeowners to rehabilitate
homes for eligible repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Existing
Program
HOME/CDBG, economic development sales tax, housing bonds, future tax
increment, Community Reinvestment Act. Federal funds are available
through HOME and CDBG programs (specifically for properties with low‐
income occupants), but local funds and private / nonprofit sector resources
are also available. 4B sales tax funds have been used (San Angelo). Local
housing bond proceeds can also be used, as can TIRZ set‐asides for
affordable housing. For rehabilitation expected to significantly increase the
assessed value of the property, reimbursement from future property tax
increment is another option that does not require immediate disbursement
of funds on hand. Some non‐profits such as Habitat for Humanity also
contribute funds, material, administration and/or labor toward
rehabilitation. HUD also does direct rehabilitation lending to eligible
homeowners through the FHA and has other lending programs for rental
property owners.
Continue
current $25,000
level ($‐$$)
Maintain current program for low income
homeowners (50% AMI and below).
Low income ownership; Affordability Analysis
showed 733 owner HH under $20K income
2016 and 2,152 owner HH $20K ‐ $35K in 2016
# of homes
rehabbed
Pros: Helps remove emerging blight;
usually cheaper than new
construction; potential to assure
longer term affordability depending
on requirements, helps stabilize
neighborhoods
Cons: Usually limited in number of units assisted
(especially single family); tradeoff between
cosmetic (low cost, low administration) and
structural / system improvements (higher costs,
more administration); federal funds involve extra
paperwork and process, and likely limit recipient
properties to low‐income occupancy and other
requirements; history of difficulties with single
family and quality assurance (recent Austin
controversies); without recipient post‐rehab
residency requirement, can potentially sell home
and lose affordable SF unit
YES but rapid
housing price
increases as
documented in
Housing Study (sales
under $200K fallen
to 7.5% in 2017‐18)
mean that fewer
low‐income HH will
be owning homes,
though seniors may
be continue to be
eligible
Rehab programs are frequent in cities around Texas including the Austin area,
often using HOME and CDBG funds or proceeds from housing bonds. An
effective program in San Angelo has an exterior rehab program with the
exterior siding replacement funded through CDBG, equipment and supplies
with 4B funds, paint donated through the Habitat for Humanity Valspar
program, and labor donated by community volunteers;
Home Repair for
Workforce
Homeowners
Grant program for workforce
homeowners to rehabilitate
homes for eligible repairs.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Involvement of federal funds or programs will necessarily require the
subject housing to serve occupants of lower income levels (usually
maximum of 80% of AMI and often 50% or 30%). Some kinds of local funds
are more flexible in terms of the income levels of occupants to be served
and the length of term of affordability. The City should consider requiring a
minimum affordability level and period for programs that are not already
bound by federal or other restrictions, and should consider homes priced to
moderate‐income households (for example, 60% to 120% of AMI) and
minimum compliance terms (5, 10, 15 years for example) as well in such
cases.
Possible one‐
time payment
(see Richardson
example) or
future
reimbursement
or abatement of
increased City
tax due to
assessed value
increase. ($‐$$)
Expand existing housing rehabilitation
programs to target workforce
demograhic, for owner occupied
rehabilitation, major repairs and minor
repairs.
Physically preserve existing affordable and
moderately priced housing structures; link to
preservation of affordable pricing. Preserve
homeownership (owner ability to stay in home)
; Required property owner matches for either
grants or loans make public funds stretch
farther and assure more commitment from
recipients. Reimbursement from future
incremental property tax revenues best suited
for property owners making substantial
(beyond cosmetic) improvements and more
middle‐income occupancy (less need for
immediate funding assistance).
# homes rehabbed
and # of units price‐
restricted per year
for future period
Housing study identified rapid
decrease in lower‐priced homes,
especially below $200K; homes
$200K ‐ $275K also important to
preserve (34.9% of 2017‐18 sales);
program not dependent on HUD‐
type income restrictions to lower‐
income homeowners will be more
appropriate for Georgetown going
forward as low‐income homebuyers
will be unlikely to buy homes as
prices increase; also will address
supply of older single family in
subareas 3, 6 and 7
Loss of potential future tax revenue
YES, very good
proposal well‐suited
to Georgetown's
market situation
The City of Richardson Home Improvement Incentive Program uses only future
incremental City property tax increases and thus does not have occupant
income limits such as what HUD would require, making it a good example for
Georgetown (though Georgetown could still apply a limit at its own discretion).
Neighborhood
Empowerment Zones
Explore the creation of a
neighborhood empowerment
zone and other tools to
provide targeted
neighborhood support.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study):
Policy/Program
No up front funding required.
Designate NEZs
for areas of the
City where
certain types of
housing are
desired ‐
permitting fees
can be waived
and tax
abatements
offered to
enhance
affordability;
note that tax
abatements not
compatible with
TIRZ ($)
Short term (review and political process)
1. Propose NEZ incentive concept – fee
waivers and / or tax abatements
2. Define criteria and standards for NEZ –
what kind of housing, pricing or income
ranges served, level of incentive offered
(can be graduated)
3. Define process for selecting NEZ areas
(older housing, areas near employment
or services, etc.)
4. Propose NEZ incentive process,
undergo public and stakeholder feedback
process, Council policy adoption
5. Propose NEZ areas, undergo public and
stakeholder feedback process
6. Formal NEZ designations by Council
Can address either for‐sale or rental housing,
including development of ADUs and moderate
density multifamily
# of housing units
permitted or
granted abatements
that fit NEZ criteria
No up front investment required City gives up a portion of fee or tax revenue
Yes, if areas of city
identified where
new / more
affordable housing
development is
desired
Fort Worth has 6 NEZs, all in CDBG‐eligible areas. Plano designated its
downtown as an NEZ to encourage affordable housing development.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 4 of 14Page 14 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Support owners ability to stay in homes in neighborhoods with rapid value increases without limiting the sale of the home.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Utility billing
assistance
Grant funds for paying
utility bills.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Good Neighbor Fund
Good
Neighbor
Fund ($‐$$)
Provide information regarding
resource.
Low‐income and workforce
homeownership
# of households
assisted.
Lower utility cost can assist
homeowners to remain in
homes.
May not assist with root cause of high
utility costs
Yes, existing
program.City of Georgetown
Homestead
exemption
education
Provide eduation to
eligible homeowners on
how to obtain a
homestead exemption.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Non‐profiits, Staff time Staff time ($)
Package information and provide
through available city
communication channels.
Low‐income and workforce
homeownership
# of homes with
exemption Low cost action Unknown number of homeowners in need
of education Yes Some real estate associations have education materials.
Support
partnerships
Partnerships with non‐
profits that assist existing
home owners with
maintenance.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Staff time Staff time ($)Identify existing assistance and
partner.
Low‐income and workforce
homeownership
# of homes
repaired,
homeowners
retained
Low cost action Dependent on availability of non‐profit
resources. Yes Faith in Action Georgetown
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 5 of 14Page 15 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Neighborhood
Capacity Building
Promote neighborhood
capacity (vitality, services)
building ‐ HOA
training/education/outreach.
Assist neighborhoods with
neighborhood association
creation.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($)
Short term/ongoing Preservation Number of
neighborhood
meetings/attendees
Build neighborhood relationships;
support for neighborhood
preservation
Additional staffing Yes Tulsa, OK Neighborhood Liasions
(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/government/departments/working‐in‐
neighborhoods/neighborhoods/)
Small
area/neighborhood
plans
Plans developed through
community outreach for areas
of historical stability that are
transitioning in use and
density.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($$)
1. Establish annual funding for small
area/neighborhood plans.
2. Identify areas and neighborhoods for
plan development.
3. Create process for neighborhoods to
nominate themselves for small area plan.
The subarea profiles show historic sales price
trend data with significant increases in some
subareas in price/square foot. Preservation of
existing neighborhoods.
One plan per year
Focused analysis on defined areas;
support for neighborhood
preservation and compatibility
Potential community concern on any transitions
in use/density.Yes
College Station
Sugar Land
Fort Worth Urban Villages
(http://fortworthtexas.gov/PlanningandDevelopment/urbanvillages/)
BEST Neighborhoods
(Beautiful, Engaged, Safe and
Thriving) Neighborhood
promotion, recognition and
grant program
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($)
Develop a program for neighborhoods to
be recognized for beautification and
quality of life efforts. Neighborhoods
nominate themselves.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.
Neighborhood
participation is
document by year.
Capitilizes and incentivizes
neighborhoods to take action.
Less resourced neighborhoods may have limited
ability to participate.Yes City of Plano created this program and reports success for cost. Plano has a pop
up trailer they take out to neighborhoods.
Neighborhood traffic
management
program, street
maintenance*
Expand or encourage current
traffic management program.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Existing
Program
General fund General fund
($)
1. Continue current traffic management
program.
2. Outreach to neighborhoods who
might benefit from program.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.
Reported
neighborhood
improvement
Existing program Yes Current COG program.
Neighborhood
cleanup day*
Organize regular clean up day
for neighborhood
beautificaton.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Public works, Solid waste, partnerships with private resource recovery
companies
Public works,
Solid waste,
partnerships
with private
resource
recovery
companies ($)
1. Work with Code Enforcement to
Identify neighborhoods for clean up.
2. Coordinate departments and funding.
3. Select date and conduct outreach to
inform neighborhoods.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.
metrics around
items disposed,
number of blocks
impacted.
Code enforcement reports clean up
day is effective for getting rid of
many undesired uses and potential
violations.
limited resources to perform more than once or
twice a year. Usually only one or two blocks
during event.
Yes COG has conducted in the past.
Neighborhood
registration program*
Expand current program.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund General fund
($)
1. Continue to promote neighborhood
registration program.
2. Create outreach program based on
interest topics submitted by
neighborhoods during registration.
Preservation of existing neighborhoods.# of neighborhoods
registered
low cost method to distribute
information, self organizing
potential
not all neighborhoods are currently organized Yes Current COG program.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 6 of 14Page 16 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Support and increase rental choices for low‐income and workforce households unless the housing is substandard.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Development
agreements
Negotiations with developers
that might include land
provision or direct financial
assistance in exchange of
furthering city policy.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
Depends on structure of agreement; up‐front financial assistance (grant or
loan) will require source of funding (General Fund, TIRZ, 4B), while
reimbursement can use future tax increment or cut of property sales
revenue; some incentive items may not involve a financial cash flow
(relaxed zoning, for ex.)
TBD ($$‐$$$$)
1. Identify and establish a special housing
revenue fund to use for development
negotiations.
Helping developers fund infrastructure, land
costs, materials can help deliver housing in this
price range; could also help deliver new rental
housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis) for
Moderate / middle income HH ($70K and
below)
# new homes
subject to
development
agreement built with
price <$275K; #
units rental housing
affordable to low
and middle income
renters up to $50K
income
Incentive‐based approaches more
palatable than hard regulation; can
very directly address financial
issues that discourage more
affordable new housing
development
Requires monitoring and clawback provisions;
certain tools can reduce City revenues; requires
extra negotiation processes
YES, pursue such
agreements as part
of a housing
incentive policy
City of Houston Developer Participation Contracts; Clute Chapter 380
agreements providing below‐market loan for housing subdivision infrastructure
construction
Development
incentives
Policies that incentize
developers to voluntary
increase rental housing
supply through building
rental units. (Workforce
Housing Standards, Housing
Diversity Standards, Density
Bonus)
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)<1 year
Potential method to gain incremental amounts
of lower‐priced units (most likely rental
housing) for middle‐ and low‐income
workforce (retail, hospitality, government,
health care, etc.)
# low‐to‐moderate‐
priced units
produced
No direct fiscal outlay by City
except administration
Developers may not be familiar with particular
housing types desired or how to incorporate
affordable units into their projects; density may
increase certain kinds of service costs per acre
YES though
effectiveness will
have inverse
relationship to
strictness of overall
regulation
Downtown Austin
Development
Regulations
Zoning, Overlay Districts,
Neighborhood Conservation
Districts, Diverse Housing
Options
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)Next budget cycle
Housing Study documented both need for entry‐
level single family below $275K and current
(and implied potential) role of moderate density
rental properties in serving a middle income
market; having flexibility in development
regulations to facilitate housing diversity can
help achieve additional development of these
types and serve market segments of different
resident ages and life stages as well as incomes.
Document diversity
in type and price of
new housing
development
Will make it easier to develop
moderate‐density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF)
Will need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy YES
Conroe recently reduced minimum lot sizes to allow single family homes at a
lower price point in a master planned community.
The City of Kerrville through the updates to the zoning code, revised an existing
district to include more housing types. The biggest road block of the previous
district was the different levels of approvals required for anything that was not
traditional single family. In the “newer version” these secondary and tertiary
approval processes were removed. The new district now allows for a variety of
housing types within the same district. Single family (on slightly reduced lot
size – 4500 sq. ft.), duplexes, townhomes, patio homes, and small lot single
family (3300 sq. ft. lot with separate alley access). To address the variety of
housing types, building codes, and property values, we limited each block face
to one consistent housing type.
TIF/TIRZ
TIRZ policy might include
provision for units available
to certain AMI groups or fee‐
in‐lieu
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
Always City General Fund; potential to include WilCo property tax also
Designate TIRZs
for larger
projects or
multi‐owner
districts with
significant
public
infrastructure,
facilities, or
amenity needs
to assure
market viability
($$‐$$$$)
Need to create zones when base year
assessed value is low (Jan. 1 value of
creation year)
Could be used to enhance affordability for
either for‐sale or rental; Moderate / middle
income HH ($70K and below) need for‐sale
homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs,
materials can help deliver housing in this price
range; could also help deliver new rental
housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis)
# units created
within the zone,
especially within
targeted sale / rent
price ranges;
amount and timing
of tax increment
generated to fund
public
improvements
No additional fees / taxes imposed
on zone properties; can issue debt
Additional administrative and legal costs to run
TIRZ; City gives up portion of property tax
revenue during life of zone
YES if project or area
fits creation criteria;
participation of
WilCo potentially
makes it very
attractive
Dallas and Houston have required TIRZs to either include development of
affordable units or have TIRZ funds set aside for affordable housing
development.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 7 of 14Page 17 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Support and increase rental choices for low‐income and workforce households unless the housing is substandard.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Public Facilities
Corporation
A public entity that can
acquire sites and partner with
multifamily developers to
create tax‐exempt mixed‐
income housing.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Funding required to acquire properties ‐ could be General Fund, developer
equal lease agreement, land acquisition fund, housing short term debt or
notes of obligation; note that deals can be structured for developer to pay
land cost back; City would have lost tax revenue from qualified projects
since property becomes tax exempt.
Developer pay
land cost back
($$‐$$$$)
1. Create a PFC to acquire sites and
partner with multifamily developers to
create tax‐exempt mixed‐income
housing.
Provides affordable multifamily rental ‐ tax
exempt status requires 50% of units to be
restricted to <=80% AMI tenants; restrictions
can be placed on remaining units also if
financially feasible; Housing Study identified
increased job growth for moderate‐income
local workers (<$50K income) who cannot
afford new Class A rental properties, (low
income and workforce rental units)
# rental units
created within
targeted rent ranges
/ income restrictions
Creation of affordable rentals
without more restrictive
requirements of LIHTC or HOME /
CDBG funding; potential to also
create middle‐income rental
housing
Loss of potential future tax revenue
YES create PFC ‐ city‐
owned land might be
low/no cost
acquisition strategy
San Antonio has constructed several affordable multifamily projects through
PFC partnerships; new workforce rentals in Cibolo created through PFC
partnership
Affordability term
extensions
Support preservation of
existing affordable units,
often tax credit units.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
General fund/staff time/in exchange for other program participation or
development incentive Staff time ($)
1. Catalog developments to identify
expiring affrodability terms.
2. Develop program to provide support to
property owners with renovations that
use Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
Preserves LIHTC units nearing end of
affordability term.
Number of units
preserved with
extended terms
Low cost Not many LIHTC units are yet at risk of
affordability terms expiring. Yes Texas Housing Foundation
Support GHA
programs
Support GHA through CDBG
funds, energy efficiency
upgrades through GUS
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time/CDBG
General
fund/staff
time/CDBG ($)
1. Understand support needed from
GHA.
2. Work with GHA to support current
capital improvements.
low income renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened renters
supports some of only renter
housing available for low income
households.
Not many units overall. Yes
Low Income Housing
Tax Credit process*
Support LIHTC
development
(workforce) that meet
City defined process
Development using LIHTC for
genearl population as
proposed by developers.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time
General
fund/staff time
($)
Build on existing policy workforce renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened renters
No cost to city. Some of only
funding available to build volume
of workforce housing units
9% tax credit developments unlikely to be
competitive in Georgetown Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Multi‐family Tax
Exemption
Tax exemption program in
exchange for on‐site
affordability
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Texas Comptroller exemption for low‐income housing
(https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property‐tax/docs/96‐1740.pdf)
Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation bonds for affordable rental
housing
(https://www.tsahc.org/public/upload/files/general/MF_Bonds_Brochure.
pdf)
N/A ($) Short term Affordability
Number of
affordable units
added to housing
stock
Support for affordability; protect
vulnerable populations
Reduced tax revenue; potential community
pushback on increasing affordable housing
supply
Yes
McKinney, TX (https://www.mckinneytexas.org/1948/Low‐Income‐Housing‐
Tax‐Credit; https://www.mckinneytexas.org/241/Mortgage‐Certificate‐Credit‐
Program)
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 8 of 14Page 18 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Support rental choices for senior households.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Low Income Housing
Tax Credit process*
Support LIHTC
development (senior
specific) that meet
City defined process
Development using LIHTC for
seniors as proposed by
developers.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time
General
fund/staff time
($)
Build on existing policy low income senior renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened senior
renters
serves severely cost burdened
population
Not as many senior renters as non‐senior
renters.Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Support GHA
programs
Support GHA through CDBG
funds, energy efficiency
upgrades through GUS
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time/CDBG
General
fund/staff
time/CDBG ($)
1. Understand support needed from
GHA.
2. Work with GHA to support current
capital improvements.
low income senior renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened senior
renters
supports some of only renter
housing available for low income
seniors.
Not many units overall. Yes
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 9 of 14Page 19 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Increase homeownership choices for workforce households.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Down Payment Assistance
Down payment assistance and home
buyer counseling programs by
supporting public‐private
partnerships with financial
institutions and major employers.
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Program
•DPA ‐ PotenƟal funding sources (HOME, housing bonds, General Fund, TIRZ, 4B sales tax,
nonprofit/private sector partners)
Up‐front down payment assistance, which can be provided by the City, a local housing finance
corporation, or major employers (less common).
•Housing educaƟon / navigaƟon program (include financial and realtor communiƟes)
A more involved strategy would be to work with employers, nonprofits, mortgage finance
firms, realtors, developers, and builders to set up an ongoing program that would work to
prepare first‐time buyers for home ownership through improving credit profile, managing
savings, and helping them with mortgage qualification. This program might be City‐initiated
but not City‐run.
The least‐restricted
funds are the most
desirable for DPA ‐
TIRZ and 4B are
better than HOME
and housing bonds
because the City
can choose to serve
more middle‐
income HH.
Education /
navigation ‐ mostly
same sources in
combination with
partners ($‐$$$)
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
Incentivizes middle‐income households to
consider buying in Georgetown when they
might otherwise have moved elsewhere.
Cons: Does nothing to provide more moderately‐priced for‐
sale housing in Georgetown, and may even help drive up
prices; loses effectiveness as home prices and interest rates
rise; up‐front assistance may be limited in number of
households helped.
YES but rapid housing
price increases as
documented in Housing
Study mean that
assistance may need to
focus more on moderate
to middle income HH and
larger per‐HH assistance
will likely be needed over
time
: The City of Houston has a generous down payment assistance grant program, with some funded
by HOME and restricted to recipients of certain income levels, and other funds coming from TIRZ
affordable housing set asides and available to middle‐income home buyers. The program has had
to improve its bureaucratic process to be better able to work with realtors and builders, and has
lessened in effectiveness as urban core home prices have risen. The City of Austin also offers one
as a 0% deferred payment loan to homebuyers whose incomes do not exceed federal limits.
Development agreements
Negotiations with developers that
might include land provision or direct
financial assistance in exchange of
furthering city policy.
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Policy
Depends on structure of agreement; up‐front financial assistance (grant or loan) will require
source of funding (General Fund, TIRZ, 4B), while reimbursement can use future tax increment
or cut of property sales revenue; some incentive items may not involve a financial cash flow
(relaxed zoning, for ex.)
TBD ($$‐$$$$)1. Identify and establish a special housing revenue
fund to use for development negotiations.
Moderate / middle income HH ($70K and below) need for‐
sale homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs, materials can
help deliver housing in this price range;
# new homes subject to
development agreement
built with price <$275K; #
units rental housing
affordable to low and
middle income renters up
to $50K income
Incentive‐based approaches more palatable
than hard regulation; can very directly
address financial issues that discourage
more affordable new housing development
Requires monitoring and clawback provisions; certain tools
can reduce City revenues; requires extra negotiation
processes
YES, pursue such
agreements as part of a
housing incentive policy
Clute Chapter 380 agreements providing below‐market loan for housing subdivision infrastructure
construction; City of Houston Developer Participation Contracts
Development incentives
Workforce Housing*, Housing
Diversity*, Density Bonus
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Policy
General Fund General Fund ($) <1 year
Potential method to gain incremental amounts of lower‐
priced units (most likely rental housing) for middle‐ and
low‐income workforce (retail, hospitality, government,
health care, etc.)
# low‐to‐moderate‐priced
units produced
No direct fiscal outlay by City except
administration; existing program
Developers may not be familiar with particular housing types
desired or how to incorporate affordable units into their
projects; density may increase certain kinds of service costs
per acre
YES though effectiveness
will have inverse
relationship to strictness
of overall regulation
Existing program, Downtown Austin
Comm. Development
Block Grant (Wilco and/or
HUD)
Land acquistion and infrastructure
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Program
Williamson County or become entitlement jurisdiction Williamson County
until evaluation ($)
1. Continue to apply for grants from Williamson
County to support affordable housing for
households under 80%.
2. Evaluate cost benefit to becoming entitlement
jurisdiction.
Workforce # of homes available due
to investment
Funding for capital improvements;
neighborhood reinvestment Effort/resouces to apply for grant Yes Waco, TX (https://www.waco‐texas.com/housing‐cdbg.asp)
Publically owned lands/tax
delinquent properties
Leverage publicly owned lands for
diverse affordable housing
developments by taking a
comprehensive inventory of land and
its suitability for affordable housing
development.
Type of Action (program, policy,
study):Policy
Revenue from sale of properties. Evaluate agreement WCAD for sale of deliquent properties
to determine best/highest use. To create a special revenue fund.
Special Revenue
Fund ($)
1. Evaluate agreement with WCAD.
2. Estimate/project fund.
3. Structure parameters.
Evaluate delinquent property tax sale
(https://mvbalaw.com/wp‐
content/TaxUploads/1119_Williamson.pdf)
Workforce # of revenue generated
from property sold.
Leverage, public private partnerships,
recognizes demand Offset general revenue, long time to build funds
380 Agreements Chapter 380 of the Local Government
Code authorizes municipalities to
offer incentives designed to promote
economic development such as
commercial and retail projects.
Specifically, it provides for offering
loans and grants of city funds or
services at little or no cost to
promote state and local economic
development and to stimulate
business and commercial activity. In
order to provide a grant or loan, a
city must establish a program to
implement the incentives.
Depends on structure of agreement; up‐front financial assistance (grant or loan) will require
source of funding (General Fund, TIRZ, 4B), while reimbursement can use future tax increment
or cut of property sales revenue; some incentive items may not involve a financial cash flow
(relaxed zoning, for ex.)
TBD 1‐2 years
1. Propose Ch. 380 Housing Incentive concept –
grants / loans / reimbursements for housing
2. Define criteria and standards for Ch. 380
agreement – what kinds of housing, pricing or
income ranges served, determining factors for
potential incentive amount (examples: public
infrastructure or amenity costs, extra costs for
including affordable units, land costs over
financially feasible level, etc.)
3. Determine extent of potential incentive eligible
for applicants – developments serving lowest
income range might be eligible for 100% of
potential incentive while higher priced housing
maybe 50% eligibility; also structure of incentive
can be graduated, such as up‐front grants or loans
f ff d bl h f
Moderate / middle income HH ($70K and below) need for‐
sale homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs, materials can
help deliver housing in this price range; could also help
deliver new rental housing at rents lower than new Class A
(under $1,300/month per Affordability Analysis)
# new homes subject to
development agreement
built with price <$275K; #
units rental housing
affordable to low and
middle income renters up
to $50K income
Requires monitoring and clawback
provisions; certain tools can reduce City
revenues; requires extra negotiation
processes
Incentive‐based approaches more palatable than hard
regulation; can very directly address financial issues that
discourage more affordable new housing development
YES, pursue such
agreements as part of a
housing incentive policy
City of Plano uses 380 agreements for housing incentives by including housing as a community
benefit for economic development in resolutions authorizing 380 agreements. Clute Chapter 380
agreements providing below‐market loan for housing subdivision infrastructure construction; City
of Austin Chapter 380 for affordable housing within the new Domain complex
Community Land Trust
Create a Community Land Trust or
other forms of Shared Equity
Ownership. Transition suitable land
bank properties to permanently
affordable housing through a
public/private partnership with
builders and a shared equity model
Type of Action (program, policy,
study): Program
However, though after formation these tools can act quickly and at a large scale, getting them
setup would be a major effort. Since Georgetown is not a large city (compared to Austin),
Georgetown may have to work with other area communities to pool resources needed to
create these tools or find organizations using them already on a regional basis. While ideally
operational expenses should be covered by real estate sales of improvements, there may be
additional funds (General Fund) or partnership needed to fund administration
Funding options to
be explored. ($$‐
$$$)
Likely at least 2 years unless existing CLT can
expand to Georgetown.
1. Look at possible regional CLTs for expansion into
Georgetown.
2. Idenitfy if any philanthropic or institutional
entities might provide land to land trust.
Create high‐capacity tools to better address the magnitude
of affordable and workforce housing issues in Georgetown;
The housing study highlighted the need to preserve as
much of the current moderately‐priced rental housing
(both smaller and larger properties) as possible. It also
documented the rapid for‐sale home price appreciation
that is occurring, implying the need for mechanisms to
preserve affordability for longer periods or permanently.
# long term housing units
placed into long term /
permanent affordability
Can bring much larger funding and
organization to “move the needle” on
creating and preserving desired housing.
Addressing affordable and workforce
housing primarily through federally‐funded
or sponsored mechanisms such as HUD
funding (HOME, CDBG) is ultimately a small‐
scale approach to a large issue. Creating
tools with the organizational and financial
resources to execute larger‐scale activities in
a quicker time frame may be needed in
order to keep up with the Austin metro’s
ongoing housing price appreciation.
Cons: Will take considerable time and effort to initiate and,
for certain tools, acquire properties.
YES, if existing CLT can
expand to Georgetown or
if a thrid party is willing to
donate land.
Examples: Austin and Houston have started community land trusts. The Houston Land Bank and
Houston Community Land Trust have been formed act in concert to acquire sites for new
affordable for‐sale homes and create permanent affordability. Houston's receives land from the
Houston Land Bank when a prospective homeowner chooses the Land Trust option.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 10 of 14Page 20 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Support the non‐profit community to create housing opportunities for the most vulnerable residents (including but not limited to homeless, seniors, youth aging out of the foster care system, and people with disabilities).
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Health and Human
Service Element
The City Charter lists a Health
and Human Services element
in the Comprehensive Plan. A
needs assessment of
vulnerable populations can
inform the element.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Study
Potential partnering opportunity with WilCo and/or surrounding cities for
needs assessment
Partnerships for
assessment/Ge
neral fund for
element ($$)
1. Support a needs assessment of
potentially vulnerable populations to
refine the scope and focus of the Health
and Human Services Element.
2. Develop a Health and Human Services
Element for the comprehensive plan, as
required by City Charter.
Seniors, Low‐Income
Completion of plan;
measure through
homelessness rates,
foreclosures
Meet charter requirement; protect
vulnerable populations Cost/effort Yes
City of San Antonio's Accomplishments by the Number to track progress
(https://www.sanantonio.gov/humanservices/about#268633469‐children)
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 11 of 14Page 21 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
TIF/TIRZ
TIRZ policy might include
provision for units available
to certain AMI groups or fee‐
in‐lieu
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
Always City General Fund; potential to include WilCo property tax also
Designate TIRZs
for larger
projects or
multi‐owner
districts with
significant
public
infrastructure,
facilities, or
amenity needs
to assure
market viability
($$‐$$$$)
Need to create zones when base year
assessed value is low (Jan. 1 value of
creation year)
Could be used to enhance affordability for
either for‐sale or rental; Moderate / middle
income HH ($70K and below) need for‐sale
homes <$275K (from Housing Study); helping
developers fund infrastructure, land costs,
materials can help deliver housing in this price
range; could also help deliver new rental
housing at rents lower than new Class A (under
$1,300/month per Affordability Analysis)
# units created
within the zone,
especially within
targeted sale / rent
price ranges;
amount and timing
of tax increment
generated to fund
public
improvements
No additional fees / taxes imposed
on zone properties; can issue debt
Additional administrative and legal costs to run
TIRZ; City gives up portion of property tax
revenue during life of zone
YES if project or area
fits creation criteria;
participation of
WilCo potentially
makes it very
attractive
Dallas and Houston have required TIRZs to either include development of
affordable units or have TIRZ funds set aside for affordable housing
development.
Municipal Utility
Districts
Special purpose finance
district. MUDs help offset up‐
front infrastructure costs to
the developer who would
otherwise have to recoup
them through lot/home sale
prices; helps keep home sale
prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits
N/A N/A 1. Evaluate policies for potential housing d
MUDs help offset up‐front infrastructure costs
to the developer who would otherwise have to
recoup them through lot/home sale prices;
helps keep home sale prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits
Successful
development
completion and
absorption; rapidity
of developer
reimbursements
Can be applied outside city limits (in
ETJ)
MUD tax can be higher than City tax, so lower
sale price somewhat offset by higher PITI
Consider on case‐by‐
case analysis; no
precedent for
consent contingent
upon certain price
range of homes, but
may be possible
Georgetown ETJ has existing MUDs; no precedent available regarding
requirements for affordability
Public Improvement
Districts
Special purpose finance
district. MUDs help offset up‐
front infrastructure costs to
the developer who would
otherwise have to recoup
them through lot/home sale
prices; helps keep home sale
prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits.
N/A N/A 1. Evaluate policies for potential housing d
MUDs help offset up‐front infrastructure costs
to the developer who would otherwise have to
recoup them through lot/home sale prices;
helps keep home sale prices more affordable in
projects outside city limits
Successful
development
completion and
absorption; rapidity
of developer
reimbursements
City controls; wide range of
improvements can be funded
PID assessments are on top of City property tax,
so property owner has higher ongoing payment
burden (unless offset with City tax abatement)
Consider on case‐by‐
case analysis; no
precedent for
consent contingent
upon certain price
range of homes, but
may be possible
PIDs have been used extensively in the DFW metro; Travis County also has
PIDs; not know if any PIDs or PID policies have been created specifically for
housing with some affordability restriction
Low Income Housing
Tax Credit process*
Support LIHTC
development
(workforce) that meet
City defined process
Development using LIHTC for
genearl population as
proposed by developers.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General fund/staff time
General
fund/staff time
($)
Build on existing policy workforce renters
# of units available,
change in
percentage of cost
burdened renters
No cost to city. Some of only
funding available to build volume
of workforce housing units
9% tax credit developments unlikely to be
competitive in Georgetown Yes various around Texas including Georgetown
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 12 of 14Page 22 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Development
Regulations
Revise development
regulations (Zoning, Overlay
Districts, Neighborhood
Conservation Districts,
Diverse Housing Options)
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Policy
General Fund General Fund
($)Begin next budget cycle
Housing Study documented both need for entry‐
level single family below $275K and current
(and implied potential) role of moderate density
rental properties in serving a middle income
market; having flexibility in development
regulations to facilitate housing diversity can
help achieve additional development of these
types and serve market segments of different
resident ages and life stages as well as incomes.
Document diversity
in type and price of
new housing
development
Will make it easier to develop
moderate‐density housing through
increasing the diversity of housing
types and lot sizes (for SF)
Will need to determine which areas of the City
are reasonable candidates for strategy YES
Conroe recently reduced minimum lot sizes to allow single family homes at a
lower price point in a master planned community.
The City of Kerrville through the updates to the zoning code, revised an existing
district to include more housing types. The biggest road block of the previous
district was the different levels of approvals required for anything that was not
traditional single family. In the “newer version” these secondary and tertiary
approval processes were removed. The new district now allows for a variety of
housing types within the same district. Single family (on slightly reduced lot
size – 4500 sq. ft.), duplexes, townhomes, patio homes, and small lot single
family (3300 sq. ft. lot with separate alley access). To address the variety of
housing types, building codes, and property values, we limited each block face
to one consistent housing type.
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 13 of 14Page 23 of 27
Housing Toolkit Draft 12/5/2019
Policy: Promote aging in place opportuniƟes by aligning land use policies and transportaƟon policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodaƟng residents throughout all stages of life.
Potential Tool Description Potential Funding Options Recommended
Funding
Implementation Steps (Year or Steps
Required in Advance)
Potential Impact to Housing Need (low
income/workforce) (ownership/ rental)
How is
performance
managed ? How is
success measured?
Pro Con Appropriate for
Georgetown (Yes or
No)
Example Texas Cities / Programs
Health and Human
Service Element
The City Charter lists a Health
and Human Services element
in the Comprehensive Plan. A
needs assessment of
vulnerable populations can
inform the element.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Study
Potential partnering opportunity with WilCo and/or surrounding cities for
needs assessment
Partnerships for
assessment/Ge
neral fund for
element ($$)
1. Support a needs assessment of
potentially vulnerable populations to
refine the scope and focus of the Health
and Human Services Element.
2. Develop a Health and Human Services
Element for the comprehensive plan, as
required by City Charter.
Seniors, Low‐Income
Completion of plan;
measure through
homelessness rates,
foreclosures
Meet charter requirement; protect
vulnerable populations Cost/effort Yes
City of San Antonio's Accomplishments by the Number to track progress
(https://www.sanantonio.gov/humanservices/about#268633469‐children)
Support services to
support aging in place
Aging at home often requires
integrated services including
transportation, healthcare,
food service, and possibly
utility billing assistance.
Type of Action (program,
policy, study): Program
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs ‐ Comprehensive
Energy Assistance Program utility assistance program
(https://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/community‐affairs/ceap/)
General fund
($$$)
Evaluate opportunities to build an
enhanced support services program to
provide transportation, healthcare, food
services, and utility billing assistance to
seniors, which should be addressed
through the Health and Human Services
Element.
Seniors
Number of seniors
participating in
program; annual
survey of seniors to
evaluate awareness
and participating
Support for Georgetown's sizable
senior population; protect
vulnerable populations
Additional cost Yes
Houston's Home Repair Program requires single‐family projects accommodate
aging‐in‐place (https://houstontx.gov/housing/home_repair_programs.html)
Dallas' Office of Senior Affairs
(https://dallascityhall.com/departments/community‐
care/Pages/seniorservices.aspx)
Level of Expense Legend
$ ‐ under $10K
$$ ‐ $10K ‐ $50K
$$$ ‐ $50K ‐ $100K
$$$$ ‐ $100K
Page 14 of 14Page 24 of 27
Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update prepared by CDS (DRAFT 11/25/19) Page 1
HOUSING TOOLKIT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Policies Issues from Housing Study Tools
P1, P3
Assure physical preservation of existing affordable/workforce
housing
The study found that much of the existing non-subsidized
moderately priced housing stock is over 40 years old
Housing rehab incentives
•Expand home repair programs to reach moderate income workforce owner-
occupied households and small-scale rental properties
P1, P3
Assure economic preservation of existing affordable /
workforce housing
The study showed that the stock of for-sale existing housing
priced under $250,000 has been rapidly decreasing, while rental
rates in existing units have also been creeping upward
Housing rehab incentives
•Create dedicated funding source eligible to be used for both workforce and
lower income housing rehab
•Add long term pricing/income restrictions to rehabbing incentives for
workforce/ moderate-priced housing
P2, P4
Assist established neighborhoods experiencing change
The subarea profiles show historic sales price trend data with
significant increases in some subareas in price/square foot
Neighborhood Plans and Programs
• Small area plans, neighborhood empowerment zones, neighborhood
conservation districts or overlays, and/or neighborhood association program
A1, A2,
A3
Address increasing lack of affordability for low to moderate
income residents and workers
Employment data from the study showed that the number of
low to moderate income jobs in Georgetown and Williamson
County is increasing, while the supply of housing affordable to
such workers is limited relative to demand; 51% of renter
households in Georgetown were cost-burdened in 2016;
Direct assistance to homebuyers
• Develop down payment assistance programs
• Create dedicated funding source eligible to be used by both workforce and
lower income home purchasers
• Explore use of Neighborhood Empowerment Zones
Assist supply expansion of workforce housing
• Encourage more quality LIHTC development by reviewing tax credit policy to
ensure it is supportive of the 2030 policies and future land use map
• Density bonuses for affordable / workforce housing creation
•Identify incentives that would encourage a fuller range of housing
opportunities, both form and price point, when a special district or negotiated
standard for development is being considered
Partner to build on the successful housing work being done locally and regionally
•Housing finance corporation
•Public facilities corporation
•Partnerships with nonprofits, impact funds
•Community land trust
DRAFT
Page 25 of 27
Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update prepared by CDS (DRAFT 11/25/19) Page 2
Policies Issues from Housing Study Tools
D1, D2,
D3
Continue increasing the diversity of new housing development
types
The housing inventory showed two main housing types are
present, with the main housing choice being detached single
family (85% Single Family, 15% Multi-family for the planning
area (City Limits + ETJ). Many of the more affordable housing
types documented in the study were moderate-density or niche
types such as duplexes, fourplexes, attached townhome /
rowhouses, manufactured homes, and small-lot detached
Increase flexibility of development regulations
• Allow greater variety of housing types and lot sizes in UDC
• Density bonuses for inclusion of moderate density, moderately priced housing
types
A1, A2,
A3
Mitigate increasing costs of developing and delivering new
housing
Interviewees in the housing and development industry described
how development costs such as infrastructure are high and
rising, and some are attempting to reach lower price points with
smaller lots and attached product; however, no new rental
housing for moderate prices is being produced and limited
homeownership opportunities for workforce households
Review of UDC requirements
• Review for unintended costs to build, deliver new housing that achieves
housing goals and policies
• Review for opportunities to support increased density
Financial assistance to housing developers and builders meeting housing policies
• Development agreements
• Special financing districts
• Fee waivers
• Create dedicated funding source for housing development incentives and
agreements
DRAFT
Page 26 of 27
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
December 16, 2019
S UB J E C T:
Up d ate fro m the Hous ing Ad visory Bo ard C hair. Lo u S nead, C hairp ers on.
IT E M S UMMARY:
C hair Up d ate to the Board
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analyst
Page 27 of 27