HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_04.16.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Housing Advisory Board
of the City of Georgetown
April 16, 2015 at 3:30 PM
at Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Ave.,
Georgetown, Texas 78626
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak,
and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called
forward to speak when the Board considers that item.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a
written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request
must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to
inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to
http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
A Welcome to guests.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B Consideration and possible action to approve minutes from the March 18, 2015 meeting.
C Introduction of board members Jim Mann and Joe Ruiz.
D Introduction of city staff: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Jordan Maddox, Principal
Planner.
E Discussion and possible action to determine a day and time for an affordable housing tour by
HousingWorks in Austin. --Monica Martin, Board member
F Presentation and discussion on a Brief History of Comprehensive Planning in Georgetown.
G Discussion on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element to answer questions with board
members.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
H Presentation and discussion on workforce data from the 2011 and 2013 American Community
Survey.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
I Discussion and possible action on establishing benchmarks for rental and housing sales.--Jennifer
C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
J Mini-Series Presentation: The Community Development Block Grant Program.--Jennifer C. Bills,
Housing Coordinator
K Presentation: What can you expect from your leader?--Walt Doering, Board Chair
L Updates:
Update on Fair Housing disparate impact information from Legal Department.
Implementation of the Workforce Housing Development Incentives and the Workforce
Housing Locations map.
M Next Mini-Series Topic: Texas HOME Investment Partnership Program.
N Reminder of the next regular meeting date of May 21, 2015.
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice
of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public
at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Welcome to guests.
ITEM SUMMARY:
No requests for public comment have been made.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to approve minutes from the March 18, 2015 meeting.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Draft Housing Advisory Board Minutes_March 18, 2015 Cover Memo
Housing Advisory Board Minutes, March 18, 2015 1
City of Georgetown
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
March 18, 2015 at 3:30 p.m.
Convention & Visitors Bureau
103 W. 7th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Brenda Baxter, Walt Doering; Chair, John Gavurnik; Vice-Chair, Richard
Glasco, Monica Martin; Secretary
Members absent: Jim Mann, Joe Ruiz
Staff present: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator, Tammy Glanville, Recording Secretary
This is a regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown. The Board,
appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, makes recommendations to the City Council on
affordable housing matters.
Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 3:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order at 3:31 by Walt Doering.
Agenda
A. Welcome to guests
B. Introduction of the current and new Housing Advisory Board members.
Chair Doering welcomed new board members Richard Glasco and Jim Mann and
suggested everyone introduce themselves with a brief background.
C. Consideration and possible action to approve minutes from the February 18, 2015
meeting
Motion by Board Member Baxter to approve the minutes from the February 18, 2015
Housing Advisory Board meeting. Second by Board Member Martin. Approved. (5-0).
D. Consideration and possible action to elect a Vice-Chair for the 2015-16 term.
Motion by Martin to nominate Gavurnik as the 2015-2016 Housing Advisory Board
Vice-chair, second by Baxter. Approved 5-0
E. Consideration and possible action to elect a Secretary for the 2015-16 term.
Motion by Gavurnik to nominate Martin as the 2015-2016 Housing Advisory Board
Secretary, second by Baxter. Approved 5-0.
F. Consideration and possible action to set the regular meeting time and date for the
Housing Advisory Board.
Housing Advisory Board Minutes, March 18, 2015 2
Chair Doering suggested the Housing Advisory Board meeting move to the third
Thursday of each month. Board and staff discussed staffing and room reservation
issues.
Motion by Gavurnik to move the Housing Advisory Board meeting to the third
Thursday of each month, same time and place based on verifying with staff, second by
Baxter. Approved 5-0.
G. Discussion on the purpose of the Housing Advisory Board, the duties of members and
meeting requirements.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
Board and staff briefly reviewed and discussed the Bylaws and Code of Ordinance.
Chair Doering, suggested including the Boards Purpose and Mission into the Agenda.
• The Board is established for the purpose of ensuring that the City has affordable
housing for residents at all income levels.
• Members are encouraged to be active in discussions and activities of the
commission, committee or board, seeking to be innovative, creative, and freely
sharing the skills and knowledge that prompted their appointment.
Bills will follow up with City Secretary’s office regarding standardized agendas in
Novus.
H. Discussion on the presentation to City Council on February 24th, 2015.--Jennifer C. Bills,
Housing Coordinator
Board and staff discussed focusing on specifics, being more concise and clarifying items
such as separating owner-occupied and rental presentation.
I. Discussion and possible action on the implementation steps:
1. Forwarding the Workforce Housing Location through the annual
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process with the Planning Department
2. Adopting the site and development incentives in the Unified Development
Code (UDC).
Bills discussed in order to implement the Workforce Housing Locations the, board is
proposing an amendment to the Future Land Use Map to include prioritize sites for
workforce multifamily. Bills explained it will be considered during the annual
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process lead by the Planning Department.
Board and staff discussed Housing Diversity Development standards in the Unified
Development Code (UDC).
J. Discussion and possible action on mini-information session to develop a knowledge
base on affordable housing topics.--Walt Doering, Board Chair
Housing Advisory Board Minutes, March 18, 2015 3
Board and staff discussed expanding HAB knowledge and being more effective in
understanding affordable housing with different options that are available. The
presentations will be no longer than 30 min.
Motion by Baxter to establish a mini-information session, second by Glasco. Approved
5-0.
K. Housing trends, trainings and upcoming topics:
Key takeaways from session on the "Access to Fair Housing." --Richard Glasco and Walt
Doering
Chair Doering passed out handout and gave a brief presentation to board.
"Website #1 for Expanding Knowledge Base." --Walt Doering
Chair Doering passed out handout and gave a brief presentation to board.
Update on issues related to the Downtown Parking Study. --Jennifer Bills
Bills provided a brief update regarding parking garage for downtown.
Affordable Housing Tour by Housing Works in Austin.--Monica Williamson
Board member Martin discussed organizing, coordinating, and setting up
Housing Tour. Board and staff agreed the tour is a great idea.
L. Reminder of the next regular meeting date of April 15, 2015 – Tammy Glanville,
Recording Secretary.
M. Adjournment.
Motion by Board Member Gavurnik to adjourn. Second by Board Member Glasco.
Approved. (5-0).
Adjourned at 5:25
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Walt Doering, Chair Attest, Monica Martin, Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Introduction of board members Jim Mann and Joe Ruiz.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Introduction of city staff: Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager and Jordan Maddox, Principal
Planner.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action to determine a day and time for an affordable housing tour by
HousingWorks in Austin. --Monica Martin, Board member
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion on a Brief History of Comprehensive Planning in Georgetown.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Please see the attached report.
For more information on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and links to all of the adopted element,
please visit https://2030.georgetown.org/.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Board Chair's History of Comprehensive Planning Cover Memo
2030 Plan Chapter 1-Introduction Backup Material
Housing Advisory Board Chair’s
Brief History of Comprehensive Planning in Georgetown
Section 213.002 of the Texas Local Government Code authorized municipalities to “adopt a
comprehensive plan for the long-range development of the municipality.” With this Code, our
City began a long history of involving itself in the development of comprehensive planning to
direct the community and smart growth.
The first of two comprehensive plans was crafted in 1964. The second in 1976. Both
contained few recommendations or “had little 'teeth' for implementation.” And the
community provided only minimal input to these products.
In 1979, a community-wide planning initiative was developed to “supplement and update the
1976 plan.” It included public hearings throughout the City. Out of this, a “Guide to Growth
and Development in Georgetown, Texas” was developed. This guide focused on “immediate
and short-term issues.”
In 1986, voters supported an amendment to the City Charter requiring a comprehensive
plan. It made a commitment to comprehensive planning as a “continuous and ongoing
governmental function” to enhance the quality of life for our residents. The Charter thus
became a document that grounded our City in comprehensive planning to effectively address
and manage our growth. From this, the Century Plan was adopted. But the content was
“often ill-defined” and placed “too great a burden on staff.”
In 2006, the City began the process of updating the framework and visioning of the
comprehensive plan, which is now known as the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Wallace, Roberts
& Todd, LLC (WRT) were contracted to assist in the development of the 2030 Plan vision
statements and the Land Use Element. These were adopted and replaced the Century Plan in
2008.
The prior work helped our City recognize planning as an on-going process that requires
monitoring, evaluating and updating as new information emerges and circumstances change.
And it led to the development of the 2008 draft of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Housing
Element with fifteen policy recommendations. This was truly a professional and qualitative
comprehensive plan. It addressed our need to reduce housing affordability significantly by
supporting the building of more affordable housing. Unfortunately, it was undermined.
In 2012, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element was adopted. It contained seven
recommendations (Note! Some say five depending on the count). While the recommendations
of the Housing Element are valuable, they fall short in their breadth and scope, unlike the
original fifteen in the first draft of the Housing Element. They're not sufficient. They're not
comprehensive enough to fix the problem.
-- Prepared by WRD
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 1. - Introduction
Chapter 1. - Introduction
1.1
1. Introduction
HISTORY OF PLANNING IN GEORGETOWN
Section 213.002 of the Texas Local Government Code grants municipalities the authority to
“adopt a comprehensive plan for the long-range development of the municipality.” This section
further allows the governing body of a municipality to define the content and design of the compre-
hensive plan, which may:
Include but not necessarily limit provisions on land use, transportation, and public facilities;
Consist of a single plan or a coordinated set of plans organized by subject and geographic 1.
area; and
Be used to coordinate and guide the establishment of development regulations.2.
Georgetown’s first two comprehensive plans, the first prepared in 1964 and the second in 1976,
were predominantly analytical and either provided few policy recommendations or had little “teeth”
for implementation. Both were prepared with minimal community input.
In 1979, the City initiated a community-based planning effort to supplement and update the
1976 plan, holding public hearings in each of the city’s eight sectors. The input obtained from citi-
zens through this effort was compiled into the “Guide to Growth and Development in Georgetown,
Texas.” While the guide was generally put to use, it was not intended as a long-range planning tool,
focusing instead on immediate and short-term issues.
In 1986, the residents of Georgetown approved, by a wide margin, an amendment to the City
Charter to require a comprehensive plan. This amendment committed the City to plan as a “continu-
ous and ongoing governmental function,” with the common goal of enhancing and maintaining a
high quality of life for the city’s residents. The Charter establishes that the comprehensive plan must
contain the “Council’s policies for growth, development and beautification of the land within the
corporate limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, or for geographic portions thereof,
including neighborhood, community or area-wide plans.” The Charter also prescribes that the
comprehensive plan must address the following elements:
Future land use
Traffic circulation and public transit
Infrastructure, including wastewater, electric, solid waste, drainage and potable water
Conservation and environmental resources
Recreation and open space
Housing
Public services and facilities, which shall include but not be limited to a capital improve-
ment program
Public buildings and related facilities
Economic development
Health and human services
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
1.2
Historic preservation
Citizen participation
Urban design, and
Public safety
The Charter goes on to explain that:
“The several elements of the comprehensive plan should be coordinated and be internally consistent.
Each element should include policy recommendations for its implementation and should be
implemented, in part, by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate land development regulations.”
Upon approval of the Charter amendment, the City’s first task in preparation for a new
comprehensive plan was to develop a work program. In June 1986, staff prepared and the City
Council approved “A Program Proposal for the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan
for the City of Georgetown, Texas.” This program defined the process, work tasks, and schedule
to be followed to meet the April 1988 deadline established in the Charter amendment for adoption
of the plan. The Fiscal Year 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 budgets made significant commitments to
the preparation of the comprehensive plan which later came to be known as “The Century Plan.”
Two additional staff planners and a graphics technician were hired, and an extensive base mapping
program was undertaken in support of the Plan. In addition, a series of studies were conducted
during this period in anticipation of the comprehensive plan. The studies included a Development
Impact Analysis, a Thoroughfare Plan, and a Parks and Recreation Plan. The Development Impact
Analysis included a Development Plan to guide land use decisions made by the City. In 1986, the
Intensity Map became the only portion of the previous studies to be adopted by the City Council.
Development of the Policy Plan proceeded through two major steps, including data collection
and analysis and plan formulation. Base studies prepared by staff as part of the first step were
designed to provide the various decision-making groups with a broad understanding of existing
conditions, past trends, and potential future needs of the community as they relate to each of the
base study subject areas. The base studies were used as the basis for development of the policies,
ends, and means included in the Policy Plan.
The second major step in developing the comprehensive plan was plan formulation. The name
“The Century Plan: A New Century Georgetown,” was selected from entries submitted by George-
town school children, and became the official name for the comprehensive plan. A fifteen member
Century Plan Steering Committee was established to lead the process and present recommendations
to the City Council. The Steering Committee was comprised of two Council members, the Mayor,
the seven Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and five citizens at-large. The citizens at-large also
chaired Task Groups charged with preparing goals, objectives and policies related to specific areas
of concern. The documents prepared by the Task Groups, reviewed and refined by the Steering
Committee, became the basis for the Plan, which was presented to the public before City Council
began their review in December of 1987.
The Century Plan was adopted in 1988. The effort garnered praise among the planning
community as innovative and state-of-the art. However, a number of elements were never completed,
and the plan as a whole was not systematically monitored and updated.
Chapter 1. - Introduction
1.3
THE NEED FOR THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Georgetown is unique among Texas communities for the importance it places on comprehensive
planning. This is evidenced by the action of City Council in 1986 to amend the City Charter with
the addition of Section 1.08, excerpted as follows:
…(to) establish comprehensive planning as a continuous and ongoing governmental function in
order to promote and strengthen the existing role, processes and powers of the City of Georgetown
to prepare, adopt and implement a comprehensive plan to guide, regulate, and manage the future
development within the corporate limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City to assure the most
appropriate and beneficial use of land, water and other natural resources, consistent with the public
interest.
This action led the City to commence the following sequence of planning activities:
In 1988, the Century Plan – Policy Plan was adopted, which outlined the City’s policies
for growth and development, created the process by which the various elements would be
adopted, and created the administrative requirements by which the comprehensive plan
would operate for the City.
The Century Plan – Development Plan, which was first adopted in 1990 and amended
in 1996, includes land intensity, utilities, and transportation in a combined plan element.
This plan recognized and addressed the linkages between land development and the avail-
ability of services such as water, wastewater, and transportation.
The Future Land Use Plan was approved by the City Council in April 2002. The Plan was
created to provide a basis for making land use decisions. In addition, the Plan provided
a basis by which the City could create growth scenarios for future utility, transportation,
and facility planning. The Thoroughfare Plan (2002) was subsequently replaced with the
Overall Transportation Plan in 2005.
While the City’s past planning activities continue to be a source of community pride, the
Century Plan is now nearly two decades old and no longer addresses today’s challenges in managing
growth and change. Since the adoption of the Policy Plan, the city has tripled in population, along
with a dramatic geographic enlargement of the city limits and the area of extraterritorial jurisdiction
(ETJ). The Century Plan was innovative for its time, providing tools such as the Intensity Map to
help regulate development intensity based on the capacity of roads and infrastructure. However, it
no longer provides an adequate policy response or the tools and strategies that can address the chal-
lenges the city will face in managing growth over the next two decades.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan builds on the foundation established by the Century Plan and
advances the state-of-the-art of planning for the city’s future in five important ways:
First, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes a definitive Vision Statement reflecting
the shared values and aspirations of citizens, which becomes the policy touchstone and the
destination for the comprehensive plan.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
1.4
Second, it identifies the tools that should be put in place to better manage the
city’s growth so as to realize the Vision. These include a tier system to stage the
city’s growth over time and prevent the consequences of fragmented sprawl, as
well as land use categories and development standards to promote more creative
and efficient development, such as mixed-use and walkable communities. It also
suggests an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to ensure that premature devel-
opment does not overburden schools, infrastructure, and public safety resources.
Third, it depicts on its Future Land Use Map the desired patterns and locations for
land use between now and 2030, including the land needed for future employment
uses to strengthen the tax base and enable the city to become more economically
independent.
Fourth, as the city has grown, Georgetown has reached its potential ETJ limits to
the east, south and west, creating an ultimate growth boundary in those directions.
This allows the City the opportunity to begin approaching planning decisions
based on the ultimate buildout, potential redevelopment, and inter-connectivity to
adjacent communities without an endless horizontal growth scenario.
Finally, it provides a framework for implementation that includes a timetable of
actions along with protocols to monitor progress and make amendments thus
ensuring that the plan will remain relevant to emerging challenges and changing
circumstances.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The City of Georgetown mobilized a significant effort to create the 2030 Compre-
hensive Plan. The first step in the planning process was the preparation of the Land Use
Element, completed through a collaborative structure in which specific responsibilities were
assigned as follows:
A Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, comprised of a broad cross-section
of citizens, guided policy-making throughout the plan process, including nine
monthly meetings.
A Staff Resource Team, comprised of senior City staff, compiled necessary data
and studies, provided support for all presentations and meetings and took responsi-
bility for much of the mapping.
A Consultant Team, led by Wallace Roberts and Todd, LLC, facilitated the plan-
ning process and drafted the land use policies and strategies for review and refine-
ment by City staff and the Steering Committee.
The Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the product of a careful design process
that incrementally built consensus on the desired future of the city and the means to achieve
that future. The Land Use Element led the way in the design of this process, in which the
major steps were as follows:
Chapter 1. - Introduction
1.5
Step One: Project Mobilization
The “getting ready” step consisted of meetings between City staff and consultants to review
available data and design a coordination protocol, a day-long tour of Georgetown, interviews with
a variety of community leaders and stakeholders to get an initial scan of issues of local concern,
and a Steering Committee Kickoff Meeting to discuss the steps in the planning process, the “job
description” of the Steering Committee, and their expectations about outcomes.
Step Two: Vision Statement
If a comprehensive plan is thought of as a community’s roadmap to the future, then the
Vision Statement should be thought of as the community’s destination: a description of the desired
future character of the community based on the shared values and aspirations of its citizens. The
process to write the Vision Statement for Georgetown’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan included the
following:
Community Forum Series One – “Aspirations and Concerns”
The first of three community forum series were held on November 2, 3 and 4, 2006 to
measure consensus on community aspirations for the desired quality of life and community
character of Georgetown, today and in the future, and the perceived impediments to realizing
those aspirations. Steering Committee members were trained to facilitate small group discussions
using a modified “SWOT” (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) technique. The
results were subsequently tabulated for use in articulating shared values and identifying key issues
of community concern.
Issues Identifi cation
The consultant assisted the Steering Committee in identifying issues raised through the
stakeholders’ interviews and Community Forum Series One, including the identification of key
themes and areas of apparent consensus.
Vision Statement
The Vision Statement, included in Chapter 2.0 of the plan, puts into words and images an
expression of the community character and quality of life desired by residents. The Vision State-
ment is the motivation and the policy touchstone for the Land Use Element, as well as for all
comprehensive plan elements to follow.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
1.6
Step Three: Existing Conditions and Trends – the Dynamics of Change
In this step, a systematic investigation and analysis of existing conditions and trends was
conducted in the following areas:
Existing Conditions
Regional Context
Natural Features
Existing Land Use
Zoning
Current Land Use Policies
Community Facilities
Police/Fire/EMS
Infrastructure (water and wastewater)
Transportation/Road Network (existing and planned)
Development Trends
Annexation History
Development/Permitting Trends
On-going/Planned/Proposed Developments
Community Structure (susceptibility to change and development)
Factors for Change (potential triggers for growth)
Build-out Scenario
A series of meetings of the Steering Committee were facilitated to deliberate potential
policy responses to the emerging development patterns and trends, with a particular focus on
altering these patterns and trends to ensure that in the future they will reflect the 2030 Vision of
Georgetown.
Step Four: Preliminary Goals, Policies and Strategies / Future Land Use Map
The consultant drafted a series of preliminary Land Use Goals, Policies and Strategies to
address the issues that emerged from the existing conditions and trends assessment. In addition,
the consultant and City Staff prepared several iterations of a Future Land Use Map, depicting the
land use and development patterns reflected in the preliminary Goals, Policies and Strategies. In
a sequence of monthly Steering Committee meetings, the “menu” of draft policy directions for
each identified issue, along with the Future Land Use Map and proposed Growth Management
Framework, were incrementally refined until the Steering Committee arrived at consensus.
Chapter 1. - Introduction
1.7
Step Five: Public Review of Preliminary Goals, Policies and Strategies /
Future Land Use Map
The preliminary Goals, Policies and Strategies, the Future Land Use Map and the Growth
Management Framework were presented to the public at a series of events, including:
• City Council Workshop Presentation
At a workshop on August 13, 2007 the Consultant and City Staff presented the Preliminary
Goals, Policies and Strategies and Growth Management Framework and received City Council
direction to present it for public review.
• Community Forum Series Two
On August 23 and 24, 2007, the Consultant and City Staff presented the Preliminary Goals,
Policies and Strategies and the Growth Management Framework at two community forums
to answer questions, receive public comment, and refine the policy and growth management
frameworks.
• Community Forum Series Th ree
On October 4 and 5, 2007, the Consultant and City Staff presented the proposed Future
Land Use Map, along with the refined Goals, Policies and Strategies and the Growth Management
Framework in a sequence of two community forums, with the aim of answering questions and
receiving public comment.
Step Six: Comprehensive Plan Framework Document / Land Use Plan
Element
The Future Land Use Element, along with the Comprehensive Plan Framework, was docu-
mented to reflect and respond to public input at the final community forums, at the direction of
the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee.
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element to answer questions with board
members.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element is available here:
http://housing.georgetown.org/g/files/2013/10/Housing-Element-2012_Final.pdf
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Presentation and discussion on workforce data from the 2011 and 2013 American Community
Survey.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
See attached report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Georgetown Workforce Data Cover Memo
Page 1 of 3
Georgetown Workforce Data
According to the 2013 American Community Survey (Census), more than half of the residents of
Georgetown are not in the workforce.
EMPLOYMENT STATUS Estimate Percent
Population 16 years
and over 42,482
In labor force 21,130 49.70%
Civilian labor
force 20,949 49.30%
Employed 19,643 46.20%
Unemployed 1,306 3.10%
Armed Forces 181 0.40%
Not in labor force 21,352 50.30%
The following data is from the 2011 American Community Survey and can be accessed at
http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/.
Page 2 of 3
Inflow/Outflow Analysis
The graphic below shows the number of workers the commute into and out of Georgetown, and how
many of the workforce lives in Georgetown. This data looks at primary jobs only.
Page 3 of 3
Where Georgetown Residents Work
This data includes all jobs, so the numbers do not exactly match the inflow/outflow map. The table
shows that there were 15,556 residents in the workforce in 2011. About a third of Georgetown
residents in the workforce are employed in Austin.
Where Workers in Georgetown Live
This table indicates that there were 19,061 workers within Georgetown in 2011. When expanding the
options to show all Cities, 33% were in All Other Locations, which indicates that a large percentage of
workers live in unincorporated areas.
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action on establishing benchmarks for rental and housing sales.--Jennifer
C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
Attached is the current inventory of apartment units and home sales data in Georgetown from
2005-2014. We will be discussing how to use this data and set benchmarks to measure meeting the
affordable housing deficit.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2015 Georgetown Apartment Inventory Backup Material
2005-2014 Homes sole in Georgetown Backup Material
Apartment Inventory in Georgetown
2015
Total
Units Units
SF Average
Price
Minimum
Income Units SF
Average
Price
Minimum
Income
Apple Creek 302 Apple Creek Drive 175 47 447 579$ 23,160$ 32 614 659$ 26,360$
Cypress Creek 120 River Bend Drive 180 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 36 708 769$ 30,760$
Georgetown Park 209 Luther Drive 160 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 72 447 635$ 25,400$
Georgetown Place 805 Quail Valley Drive 176 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 00 ‐$
Georgetown Square 206 Royal Drive 55 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 19 603 812$ 32,480$
Indian Creek 600 Luther Drive 240 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 40 582 650$ 26,000$
Mariposa at Riverbend 121 River Bend Drive 200 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 103 741 806$ 32,240$
Oaks at Georgetown 550 22nd Street 192 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 48 644 745$ 29,800$
Parkview Place 2111 N. Austin Ave 176 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 36 668 739$ 29,560$
San Gabriel Senior Village 2101 Railroad Street 100 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 72 736 793$ 31,720$
Shady Oaks 501 Janis Drive 60 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 24 700 601$ 24,040$
Two Rivers 103 N. Austin Ave 179 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 129 863 1,157$ 46,268$
Victorian Villages 708 W. 15th Street 98 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 98 400 545$ 21,800$
Waters Edge 25 Waters Edge Circle 180 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 126 767 880$ 35,198$
Waters Edge Ph. II 200 River Oaks Cove 149 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 71 722 957$ 38,275$
Westwood Townhomes 200 River Bend Drive 110 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 32 698 670$ 26,800$
San Gabriel Apts 1100 Leander Road 136 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 72 650 N/A N/A
Northwest Apartmetns 1623 E. Northwest Blvd 24 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 1 650 N/A N/A
Stonehaven Apartments 210 W. 18th Street 158 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 94 592 N/A N/A
Gateway Northwest 1617 Northwest Blvde 180 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 64 648‐734 763$ 30,520$
Vantage at Georgetown FM 1460 288 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 144 597‐735 960$ 38,411$
Anatole at Westinghouse 600 Westinghouse Road 250 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 148 659‐789 961$ 38,424$
Summit at Rivery 1400 Rivery Blvd 228 0 0 ‐$ ‐$ 145 ‐$
Total Units 3694 47 1606
% of Total 1.27% 43.48%
Name Address
Efficiency One Bedroom
Page 1 of 3
Apartment Inventory in Georgetown
2015
Apple Creek
Cypress Creek
Georgetown Park
Georgetown Place
Georgetown Square
Indian Creek
Mariposa at Riverbend
Oaks at Georgetown
Parkview Place
San Gabriel Senior Village
Shady Oaks
Two Rivers
Victorian Villages
Waters Edge
Waters Edge Ph. II
Westwood Townhomes
San Gabriel Apts
Northwest Apartmetns
Stonehaven Apartments
Gateway Northwest
Vantage at Georgetown
Anatole at Westinghouse
Summit at Rivery
Total Units
% of Total
Name Units SF
Average
Price
Minimum
Income Units SF
Average
Price
Minimum
Income Units SF
Average
Price
Minimum
Income
96 806 774$ 30,960$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 00‐$ ‐$
72 1031 890$ 35,600$ 64 1215 989$ 39,560$ 8 1357 1,198$ 47,920$
88 777 821$ 32,822$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 10 1099 1,516$ 60,640$
104 935 725$ 29,000$ 72 1143 825$ 33,000$ 00‐$ ‐$
10 757 989$ 39,560$ 14 876 1,331$ 53,240$ 00‐$ ‐$
160 870 791$ 31,640$ 40 1183 1,061$ 42,440$ 00‐$ ‐$
98 1017 959$ 38,360$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 00‐$ ‐$
64 880 845$ 33,800$ 80 1060 945$ 37,800$ 00‐$ ‐$
132 935 955$ 38,200$ 8 1154 1,024$ 40,960$ 00‐$ ‐$
28 970 943$ 37,720$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 00‐$ ‐$
26 950 727$ 29,086$ 8 1100 903$ 36,120$ 2 1300 982$ 39,280$
50 1300 1,636$ 65,424$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 00‐$ ‐$
00 ‐$ ‐$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 00‐$ ‐$
54 1144 1,181$ 47,258$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 00‐$ ‐$
78 1104 992$ 39,677$ 00 ‐$ ‐$ 00‐$ ‐$
44 1082 885$ 35,418$ 34 1563 1,039$ 41,565$ 00‐$ ‐$
52 842 N/A N/A 12 1322 N/A N/A 0 0 ‐$ ‐$
23 750 N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 ‐$ ‐$
46 725 N/A N/A 16 917 N/A N/A 2 1119 N/A N/A
60 942‐998 907$ 36,280$ 56 1198 1,039$ 41,560$ 00‐$ ‐$
120 960 1,170$ 46,800$ 24 1150 1,445$ 57,800$ 00‐$ ‐$
96 1055‐1152 1,311$ 52,450$ 6 1278 1,500$ 60,000$ 00‐$ ‐$
76 ‐$ 700‐$ ‐$
1577 441 22
42.69% 11.94% 0.60%
Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Four Bedroom
Page 2 of 3
Apartment Inventory in Georgetown
2015
Apple Creek
Cypress Creek
Georgetown Park
Georgetown Place
Georgetown Square
Indian Creek
Mariposa at Riverbend
Oaks at Georgetown
Parkview Place
San Gabriel Senior Village
Shady Oaks
Two Rivers
Victorian Villages
Waters Edge
Waters Edge Ph. II
Westwood Townhomes
San Gabriel Apts
Northwest Apartmetns
Stonehaven Apartments
Gateway Northwest
Vantage at Georgetown
Anatole at Westinghouse
Summit at Rivery
Total Units
% of Total
Name
674 1.04$ 1987 C No No 0 0 100%
1046 0.87$ 2008 A No Yes 180 180 97%
656 1.17$ 1984 C No No 0 0 96%
1020 0.75$ 2001 B No Yes 106 106 97%
728 1.40$ 1979 C No Yes 53 0 100%
874 0.93$ 1995 B No No 0 0 96%
876 1.01$ 2007 A Yes Yes 200 200 100%
896 0.96$ 1997 B No Yes 192 192 92%
890 1.03$ 1999 B No Yes 12 0 97%
802 1.04$ 2007 A Yes Yes 100 100 96%
882 0.81$ 1968 C No Yes 60 60 100%
985 1.31$ 2013 A No No 0 0 99%
400 1.36$ 1983 C No No 0 0 98%
880 1.10$ 2000 B No No 0 0 97%
922 1.06$ 2002 B No No 0 0 97%
1119 0.78$ 1997 B No No 0 0 100%
783 N/A 1978 C No Yes 136 136 100%
746 N/A 1984 N/A No Yes 24 24 100%
670 N/A 1968 N/A No Yes 158 0 99%
N/A N/A 2015 A No Yes 177 177 Underconstruction
N/A N/A 2015 A No No 0 0 Underconstruction
N/A N/A 2014 A No No 0 0 Underconstruction
N/A N/A 2015 A No No 0 0 Underconstruction
1398 1175 97%
37.85% 31.81%
Senior (55+)
Income
Restricted
Income
Restricted Units
Low‐income
Housing Tax
Credits Units
Occupancy
2014
All Units
Average SF
All Units
Average
$/SF Year Built
Class
(2014)
Page 3 of 3
1202
1342
1245
1087
965 997
1125
1437
1722
1862
581
647
530 495
422
491 550
669 684
527
268 301
210 181 165
231 240 287 242
149
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Homes Sold 2005‐2014
in 2014 dollars
Total Homes Sold
Under $200k
Under $150k
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Mini-Series Presentation: The Community Development Block Grant Program.--Jennifer C. Bills,
Housing Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
See the attached report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Community Development Block Grant information Cover Memo
2015 CDBG funding request for Williamson County allocation Backup Material
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
History
The Community Development Block Grant program was enacted with the Housing and Community
Development Act in 1974. It was established to be a flexible program to allow local jurisdictions to fund
activities with federal funds to serve low to moderate‐income households. For 2015, $2.87 billion was
requested by HUD, which was a reduction of $230 million from the 2014 budget. The program has seen
a steady decline in funding by Congress since the inception of the program. The funding is allocated to
eligible jurisdictions based on formulas used to estimate the relative need for each area (population,
growth rate, poverty level, overcrowding, and age of housing stock are a few variables).
Entitlement Communities (eligible jurisdictions)
There are three main jurisdictions that are eligible to receive direct allocations from HUD.
1. Cities over 50,000 in population,
2. Counties with a population over 200,000,
3. States receive the remainder of the funds for the non‐entitlement areas.
Once HUD considers a community eligible, they are given the opportunity to become an entitlement
community by completing a Consolidated Plan. This plan is created through a public process and
identifies specific activities for which the community wishes to prioritize the funds. These activities have
to meet the three main objective of CDBG program and be targeted to the low to moderate‐income
community. Once a community receives funds, they must complete a Consolidated Plan every five
years, an annual Action Plan for yearly project allocations, a yearly Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report and conduct an Impediments to Fair Housing Choice analysis to remain in
compliance.
HUD national objectives
Benefit low to moderate‐income persons (below 80% Area Median Income). Abused children,
elderly persons, battered spouses, homeless persons, adults meeting Bureau of Census’
definition of severely disabled persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS, and migrant
farm workers qualify as Limited Clientele.
Eliminate slums and/or blight.
Meet an urgent community development need as in disaster relief.
For projects that impact specific people or households, applicants must meet the low to moderate
income guidelines. For other projects, the service area Census block group income numbers must meet
a threshold set by HUD.
Williamson County CDBG
Williamson County was awarded Entitlement County Status by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) in 2003 and the first funds were awarded October 1, 2005. As such, the
County applies for and administers Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the City of
Georgetown is a participant in this program. If we did not participate with the County, funds for
Georgetown would be part of the State of Texas funds for non‐entitlement areas and we would apply
for funding through the state. Other organizations that serve the Georgetown city limits are able to
apply for funds as well. Habitat for Humanity, the Boys and Girls Club and the Georgetown Housing
Authority have all received funding in the past. If the City were to gain entitlement status, those
organizations would then be applying for the city’s allocation. The County receives approximately $1.1
million annually. Over the last 10 years, the City of Georgetown has averaged $167,250 per year in
funding for infrastructure improvements in low‐income areas. Public infrastructure projects have been
approved more often as they can be built quickly and are easier for the county to monitor.
Increasing Access to Affordable Housing is considered a High Priority in the county’s Consolidated Plan.
It addresses three main goals.
Rehabilitation of existing units.
Pro: This would retain existing affordable units.
Con: 1.) In conducting repairs, all existing deficiencies must be brought up to current building
codes, along with remediating all lead and asbestos (not just containment). This usually means
repairs can be well over $50,000 per house. 2.) We would probably need additional staff to
handle project management.
Creation of Homeownership.
Pro: Funds could be leveraged with other funding sources to bring down the purchase price of
the home.
Con: Any profit made using HUD funds has to be recycled back into the CDBG program, so only
non‐profit housing developers such as Habitat for Humanity are willing to utilize the funds.
Creation of affordable Rental Housing.
Pro: Can fund activities that leverage other public and private resources such as Low‐Income
Housing Tax Credit projects.
Con: Timing. Often the timing between the LIHTC process and the CDBG process do not align
well.
General caveats:
CDBG funds must be spent in a timely fashion with only 20% carry over from year to year. Funds
that are not spent may be forced to be reallocated by HUD.
If funds are spent and the project is not completed, all funds must be repaid to the CDBG
program (i.e. Sierra Ridge).
Websites for further research:
Department of Housing and Urban Development CDBG:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment/
programs
Information on HUD CDBG budgeting:
https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=fy15cj_comm_dvlpt_fnd.pdf
Williamson County CDBG Program:
https://www.wilco.org/CountyDepartments/HUDGrants/tabid/455/language/en‐US/Default.aspx
2015 Community Development Block Grants Page 1 of 3
February 24, 2015
Agenda Item Report
Subject: Consideration and possible action to approve the submission an application to
Williamson County to request FY 2015‐16 Community Development Block Grant
funding ‐‐ Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Background:
Williamson County was awarded Entitlement County Status by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2003. As such, the County applies for and
administers Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to participating cities
and counties. The City of Georgetown currently participates in the County’s program. The
City can become an Entitlement City once the population is over 50,000 (by HUD
estimates) and completes a Consolidated Plan. The population determination is made by
HUD using Census data and can happen between the Decennial Census counts. As an
Entitlement City, the City would be required to set the program priorities (as allowed by
the program) and handle all administration of the funds. Other organizations in
Georgetown that have applied through the County would apply for the funds the City
receives. The agreement for participation renews every three years, so we are committed to
participating with the County through 2015. Once HUD has made this determination, staff
will bring analysis to City Council for becoming an entitlement city or continuing to
participate with the County.
All CDBG funds must be used for projects that meet at least one of the following HUD
national objectives:
“Benefit low to moderate‐income persons (below 80% Area Median Income).
Abused children, elderly persons, battered spouses, homeless persons, adults
meeting Bureau of Census’ definition of severely disabled persons, illiterate
adults, persons living with AIDS, and migrant farm workers qualify as Limited
Clientele.”
“Eliminate slums and/or blight.”
“Meet an urgent community development need as in disaster relief.”
Additionally, the funds must be used in census tracts where there is a significant portion of
the households (47% or greater) that make 80% of Area Median Income or less (Exhibit A).
The Williamson County CDBG program is governed by the 2015‐2018 Consolidated Plan,
which was adopted in 2014. This Plan defines priorities populations and project types that
are eligible for funding. Five priorities areas were outlined and are prioritized as either
high or low. Decreasing Homelessness, Public Facilities and Improvements, Public
Services, and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing are all ranked as high priority needs.
Increasing Access to Affordable Housing is ranked as a low priority and will only be
funded after high priority projects are considered (Exhibit B).
2015 Community Development Block Grants Page 2 of 3
February 24, 2015
Applications for the October 2015 budget cycle were made available Thursday, January 29,
and are due Monday, March 23rd.
Over the last 10 years, the City of Georgetown has received the following amounts for the
projects listed below:
2005 $85,000 Leander/Railroad Street and Utility Improvements (in
conjunction with Habitat for Humanity’s Old Mill
Village Development)
2006 $50,000 Continuation of Leander Street drainage
2007 $250,000 and street improvements
2008 $179,595 Completion of Leander and 22nd Street drainage and
street improvements (Completed March 2009), expanded
original scope to add sidewalks and drainage
improvements on 22nd Street (Completed August 2010).
$120,000 Sidewalk from Austin Avenue to Quail Valley Drive
on FM 1460 (Completed May 2011)
2009 $64,590 Sidewalk from West University Avenue to 17th Street
on the west side of Scenic Drive. (in process)
2010 $392,370 Sidewalks on portions of Scenic, 18th, Maple and Holly
Streets
2011 $69,180 Sidewalks for the Madella Hilliard Center and along 8th
Street (in process)
2012 $78,900 Sidewalks along the south side of University Drive
from I‐35 to Austin Avenue, filling in gaps along the
route. (in process)
2013 $79,400 Wastewater line for Georgetown Project’s NEST
Homeless Teen Center (completed)
$38,000 Engineering for sidewalks along MLK/3rd and 2nd Street
(in process)
2014 $160,000 Sidewalk along the south side of E. 2nd Street from
Austin Avenue to College Street (in process)
Item Request:
This year we are seeking funds for the sidewalk projects outlined below.
Sidewalk Routes
These projects will fill gaps in sidewalk routes in already developed areas and increase
pedestrian safety for high priority routes.
2015 Community Development Block Grants Page 3 of 3
February 24, 2015
1. Construction of sidewalks and ramps along one side of Scenic Drive, Martin
Luther King Jr. Street, and 3rd Street to connect from Blue Hole Park Road to
Austin Avenue. (Exhibit C)
Total estimated project cost: $87,120
The sidewalk would link the Hike and Bike Trail from Blue Hole Park Road back to
Austin Avenue. This would provide sidewalk access from the neighborhood to the park
and visitor using the City parking lot on 3rd Street. This is a continuation of the
allocation of engineering money we received in 2013‐14.
2. Construction of sidewalk and ramps along College Street, from 15th Street to 19th
Street. (Exhibit D)
Total estimated project cost: $132,000
Currently, there are few north/south sidewalk routes south of 15th Street,
between Church and Maple Street. The route will connect with existing sidewalk
routes on 15th and 18th Streets.
The total estimated costs of both projects: $219,120
Financial Impact: This grant does not require any matching funds, but any match
provided does increase the scoring criteria set by the county. Staff time and resources
will be used as in‐kind match of $2,500.
Recommendation: Approval to submit applications for the projects described in this
report.
Attachments: Exhibit A—CDBG eligible areas; Exhibit B—2015 CDBG Program
Guidelines and Priorities; Exhibit C— CDBG Sidewalk Projects Area #1; Exhibit D —
CDBG Sidewalk Projects Area #2
48%
61%72%
84%
FM 97
1
CR 152
N IH
3
5
S
B
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
N
B
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
D
R
SHELL R
D
E UNIVERS
I
T
Y
A
V
E
NE
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
N A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S
H
1
3
0
N
B
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
SEREN
A
D
A
D
R
W UNIVERSITY AVE
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
LAKEW
A
Y
D
R
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
FM 1460
E 15TH ST
LEANDER
R
D
E 7TH ST
STADIUM D
R
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
N COL
L
E
G
E
S
T
BOOTYS C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
R
D
WOL
F
R
A
N
C
H
P
K
W
Y
HO
L
L
Y
S
T
W E
S
P
A
R
A
D
A
D
R
L
U
N
A
T
R
L
DA
W
N
D
R
CHAMPION
S
D
R
RIVER B
E
N
D
D
R
E 2ND ST
H
U
T
T
O
R
D
QUAIL V
A
L
L
E
Y
D
R
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
LOGAN RA
N
C
H
R
D
S
H
1
9
5
E
B
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
W 17TH ST
ESTRELL
A
X
I
N
G
POW
E
R
R
D
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
W SEQUO
I
A
S
P
U
R
LAWHON LN
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
S
H
E
L
L
S
P
U
R
E CE
N
T
R
A
L
D
R
COUNTRY CLU
B
R
D
E
S
E
Q
U
O
I
A
T
R
L
HEDG
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
WA
G
O
N
W
H
E
E
L
T
R
L
BELMONT
D
R
OL
D
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
WI
L
D
W
O
O
D
D
R
KAT
H
I
L
N
S
M
I
T
H
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
BELLAIRE
D
R
W 7TH ST
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
P
A
T
R
I
O
T
W
A
Y
S
H
A
D
Y
O
A
K
D
R
E 21ST ST
WESTE
R
N
T
R
L
VE
R
D
E
V
I
S
T
A
MA
D
R
I
D
D
R
RIVER HILLS DR
T
O
W
E
R
D
R
WESTBUR
Y
L
N
WOO
D
L
A
K
E
D
R
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
B
L
V
D
W SEQUOIA T
R
L
E SH 29
C
L
A
R
I
S
L
N
INDIAN MEADOW DR
E SEQUO
I
A
S
P
U
R
S
U
M
M
E
R
C
R
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
PARQUE VISTA DR
LOGAN RD
CHAMPIONS DR
S
H
1
3
0
N
B
S IH 3
5
N
B
PAT
R
I
O
T
W
A
Y
47%
58%
48%77%
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
N IH
3
5
F
W
Y
S
B
N IH
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
SH 130
S
B
S
H
1
3
0
S
B
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
S
B
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
S IH
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
N IH
3
5
N
B
N IH
3
5
N
B
S
H
1
9
5
W
B
R
I
V
E
R
C
H
A
S
E
B
L
V
D
E ESPARADA
D
R
RE
I
N
H
A
R
D
T
B
L
V
D
ROSEDALE BLVD
SMITH CREEK R
D
SMITH CR
E
E
K
R
D
GOLD
E
N
O
A
K
S
D
R
INDUS
T
R
I
A
L
A
V
E
GA
N
N
S
T
CHURCHILL FARMS DRCHURCHILL FARMS DRCHURCHILL FARMS DRCHURCHILL FARMS DRMA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
PARKVIE
W
D
R
S
H
I
N
N
E
C
O
C
K
H
I
L
L
S
D
R
BERRY CREEK DRBERRY
C
R
E
E
K
D
R
UNIVE
R
S
I
T
Y
P
A
R
K
D
R
T
E
X
S
T
A
R
D
R
W 21ST ST
KATY CR
O
S
S
I
N
G
B
L
V
D
L
U
T
H
E
R
D
R
E 17TH ST
W 2ND ST
VIL
L
A
G
E
C
O
M
M
O
N
S
B
L
V
D
VIL
L
A
G
E
C
O
M
M
O
N
S
B
L
V
D
STONEHEDG
E
B
L
V
D
STONEHEDGE BLVD
TASUS WAY
MADISON
O
A
K
S
A
V
E
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
L
N
W CEN
T
R
A
L
D
R
MASON RANCH DR
BRIAR
W
O
O
D
D
R
HIGH TE
C
H
D
R
E S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
O
V
E
R
L
O
O
K
W
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
O
V
E
R
L
O
O
K
SH 195
SAN GABRIEL VI
L
L
A
G
E
B
L
V
D
EX
I
T
2
6
1
N
B
SAN
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
P
A
R
K
C
I
R
THOUSAN
D
O
A
K
S
B
L
V
D
N IH
3
5
S
B
BE
L
M
O
N
T
D
R
±
1 inch = 4,000 feet
Legend
2000 Census
Tract 201.01, BlkGrp 2
Tract 201.02, BlkGrp 3
Tract 214.01, BlkGrp 1
Tract 214.02, BlkGrp 1
Tract 214.02, BlkGrp 2
Tract 214.02, BlkGrp 3
Tract 214.02, BlkGrp 4
Tract 214.03, BlkGrp 2
City Limits
Extra Territorial Jurisdiction
Income Eligible Block Groups
(with percentage of
low/mod income
population)
Exhibit A
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
PROGRAM GUIDELINES and PRIORITIES
FUNDING FOR FY2015 (OCT. 1, 2015 – SEPT. 30, 2016)
Williamson County was awarded Entitlement County status by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
in August 2003. The County applied for and received funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. Funds are intended to primarily benefit low- to moderate-income persons in Williamson County. This area is
comprised of the unincorporated area of the County and the incorporated cities that have joined the urban County designation.
These cities include Cedar Park, Coupland, Georgetown, Granger, Jarrell, Leander, Liberty Hill, Taylor, Thrall and Weir.
The following information is designed to provide you with a better understanding of activities which can be funded through the
Williamson County CDBG program.
Please contact Sally Bardwell, Williamson County Community Development Administrator, for assistance.
512-943-3757
sbardwell@wilco.org
Applications are due by 5pm on March 23, 2015.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
PROJECTS MUST BE DESIGNED TO MEET AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING NATIONAL OBJECTIVES:
Benefit low to moderate income persons (see income guidelines below). Abused children, elderly persons,
battered spouses, homeless persons, adults meeting Bureau of Census’ definition of severely disabled
persons, illiterate adults, persons living with AIDS, and migrant farm workers qualify as Limited Clientele.
Eliminate slums and/or blight.
Meet an urgent community development need as in disaster relief.
FUNDING PRIORITIES AND GUIDELINES
High priorities are those activities that will be considered for funding with CDBG funding during
the five-year consolidated plan period of 2014 through 2018 prior to low priority projects.
Low priorities are those activities that will be considered for funding with CDBG funding during
the five-year consolidated plan period of 2014 through 2018 following the consideration of high
priorities.
The County will consider providing certification of consistency and supporting applications
submitted by other entities for non-County funds for projects not funded with CDBG funding
during the five-year consolidated plan period of 2014 through 2018.
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
Williamson County Funding Priorities for 2014-2018
Public Facility and Infrastructure Improvements
Fund non-housing community development proposals that eliminate a threat to public health and
safety to include water/sewer projects, drainage projects, sidewalks, and street improvements.
Fund public facility improvements that benefit low income households and persons, and persons
with special needs to include senior centers, neighborhood facilities, youth centers, homeless
facilities, childcare centers, parks and recreational facilities.
Increase Access to Affordable Housing
Fund activities that expand the supply and improve the condition of housing affordable to lower
income households.
Fund activities that leverage other public and private resources such as Low Income Tax Credit
Projects.
Extend the useful life of existing affordable housing through weatherization, repair, and
rehabilitation programs.
Decrease Homelessness
Provide funds to support shelter operations and transitional housing.
Provide funding to increase permanent supportive housing opportunities and work to create a
stronger network of providers of supportive and mainstream services to homeless clients.
Public Services
Fund projects that provide supportive services to low and moderate income household as well as
persons with special needs.
Support efforts to develop a regional social service collaborative to coordinate the work of social
service organizations, disseminate news and information, and eliminate duplication of effort.
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Support improved access to community resources.
Continue to operate in compliance with protected class definitions found in federal regulations.
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
Priority Need Name Priority
Level
Goals Addressing Population Category
Increase Access to Affordable
Housing
High
Rehabilitation of existing units Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Elderly
Families with Children
Large Families
Homeownership Assistance
Affordable Rental Housing
Decrease Homelessness High
Emergency Shelters Families with Children
Individuals
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Public Facilities/
Improvements
High
Neighborhood Facilities Non-Housing Community
Development
Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements
Flood Drain Improvements
Water/Sewer Improvements
Street Improvements
Sidewalks
Homeless Facilities
Youth Centers
Childcare Centers
Senior Centers
Abused and Neglected Children Facilities
Handicapped Centers
Parks, Recreational Facilities
Public Services High
Senior Services Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Non Homeless Special Needs
Persons with Disabilities
Elderly
Victims of Domestic Violence
Homeless
Families with Children
Handicapped Services
Youth Services
Transportation Services
Battered and Abused Spouses
Employment Training
Fair Housing Activities
Child Care Services
Health Services
Abused and Neglected Children
Mental Health Services
Affirmatively Further Fair
Housing
High Fair Housing Activities Extremely Low
Low
Moderate
Williamson County
710 Main Street
Georgetown, TX 78626
(512) 943-3757
SELECTION GUIDELINES
1. The project must meet one or more of the three national objectives.
2. The project must be a Consolidated Plan Priority activity.
3. The project or segment of a phased project must be ready to begin when funds become available on or after
October 1, 2015 and be completed within one year or a reasonable amount of time.
4. When required, leveraged funds must be available at start of project.
5. Documentation of income eligibility and other demographic information is required.
6. The project sponsor must be able to meet all Williamson County requirements for insurance coverage.
SECTION 8 INCOME LIMITS
Note: FY2014 Income Limits provided are to be used as a guide only.
FY2015 Income Limits are expected to be available in February 2015 and will be used in the
determination of eligibility.
Austin--San Marcos, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
FY 2014
MFI: 75,400
1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON
30% OF MEDIAN 15,850 18,100 20,350 22,600 24,450 26,250 28,050 29,850
VERY LOW INCOME 26,400 30,200 33,950 37,700 40,750 43,750 46,750 49,800
LOW-INCOME 42,250 48,250 54,300 60,300 65,150 69,950 74,800 79,600
POVERTY INCOME DEFINITIONS
0-30% of Medium Income Extremely Low Income
31-50% of Medium Income Very Low Income
51-80% of Medium Income Low Income
W 4TH ST
R
O
C
K
S
T
W 3RD ST
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
WEST
S
T
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
SCENI
C
D
R W 2ND ST
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
B
L
U
E
H
O
L
E
P
A
R
K
R
D
W 2ND ST
Sidewalks
2015 Priority #1
Existing
New Handicapped
Ramps
±
1 inch = 150 feet
2015 CDBG Application
Exhibit C
Blue Hole Park
A
S
H
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
E 15TH ST
E
L
M
S
T
E 18TH ST
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
E 16TH ST
E 17TH ST
E 19TH ST
H
O
G
G
S
T
E 17TH 1/2 ST
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 16TH ST
E 17TH ST
E 14TH ST
Sidewalks
2015 Priority #2
2010 CDBG
Sidewalk Built
Existing Sidewalks
New Handicapped
Ramps
±
1 inch = 200 feet
2015 CDBG Application
Exhibit D
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Presentation: What can you expect from your leader?--Walt Doering, Board Chair
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
What can you expect from you leader Cover Memo
What Can You Expect From Your Leader?
Unfortunately, our city has been slow in meeting the needs of our workers for safe
and affordable housing. As a result, the needs of individuals and families with house-
hold incomes from $60,000 to $30,000 keeps growing larger everyday. Where it
not for our federal government and tax credit program, we'd be in worse shape than
we are now.
I believe our workers should have the same opportunity to live here, as we. That is to
say, if you're good enough to work here in Georgetown, you're good enough to live
here. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, is the American way. And I
think you believe the same, too.
Yes, our workers should have the same opportunity to experience similar services as
we, whether provided by our various small businesses, including grocery, clothing and
pharmaceutical stores, or by our educational institutions and entertainment centers.
Our workers should have the same opportunity to experience the high quality of
services offered by our healthcare professionals, childcare providers, law enforcement
personnel, firefighters, parks and recreational staff, plus other government servants,
as we. And many more! They make life better for us. We need to make life better for
them, too.
Ensuring housing affordability here in Georgetown has been a slow process. The
work has not been easy as you well know. But today, we have a window of
opportunity to make that happen. Our mayor, Mayor Dale Ross, is committed to
ensuring housing is affordable for our workers, and others. And we should, too.
I believe we are. But we'll soon find out.
I commend Clay for moving us forward in identifying fourteen possible locations for
affordable housing plus establishing building incentives for builders. I'm grateful
for his leadership, I know you are, too. Having said that, we now need to move to
to another level. Why? Like any reasonable human being, I recognize that the five
remaining recommendations of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element,
while good, are not sufficient for meeting the need which currently exists in George-
town. Nor are they adequate for us to fulfill our mission, namely: ensure our City has
affordable housing for residents at all income levels. And you're aware of that, too.
Or so I think.
We know there's been a precipitous decline in homes for sale from $150.000 and
less. We know we're short 1069 rental units for our workforce. We know that, in
2016, 500 workers will be working at the Rivery. They will need affordable housing,
also. Moreover, we know, if we attract more 21st-century businesses to Georgetown,
additional affordable housing will be needed, too.
That's why we need to do three things: (1) accelerate the pace of building,
Page 2
(2) expedite infill development, and (3) maintain our current inventory. And we
need to do this by embracing quality comprehensive strategic planning.
Recently, we lost one of our potential 14 locations to condo building. If we don't
move faster, we'll lose more. We can't afford that. So we need to get more locations
zoned for multifamily housing as Jennifer has suggested. Otherwise, the window
of opportunity will pass us by. Also, if more resources are needed by our Planning
Department, we need to make this happen. In addition, we will need other external
professional resources, as were needed for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2008)
and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element (2012), both quality products.
Only so will we reverse our direction and reduce housing affordability significantly,
much less keep pace with the ever growing need.
With that as background, I plan to lead. I'll be proposing three recommendations,
shortly, on which we need to focus, like a laser beam, over the next two years.
The content is not knew. But the process and outcome for implementing them
are. And the outcome of accelerating the pace will be contained in a comprehensive
strategic plan which builds on and enhances prior qualitative comprehensive
planning. Such outcome will enable us to accelerate the pace for creating
sustainable communities with diverse housing for workers, millennials and seniors
changing lifestyles, though not limited to them.
My education and life's work tells me a comprehensive approach is the best way to
go. The quick fix approach will not solve the problem. It works for small businesses,
though not always. But it doesn't work well when faced with huge challenges. And
that's what we face now in Georgetown. Besides, comprehensive planing and
strategic development have been an integral part of our heritage. Georgetown has
historically valued it.
I hope you will support this approach and direction. If so, in using it, we will need
to be collaborative and inclusive. We will need to work more in partnership with the
Planning Department, Planning and Zoning, Economic Development, the building
industry, local businesses, service organizations, citizens-at-large, and our target
population, and they with us, while seeking common ground to accelerate the pace of
building. Only so will we get things done effectively and enhance our “City of
Excellence.” Only so will we move more expeditiously. Only so will we resolve the
problem, not just solve it.
This approach will require us to obtain key data so we can develop a substantive
strategic direction. But in making our decisions with quality data, our decisions
always need to be shaped by compassion for others, for those who need safe and
affordable housing.
Page 3
In focusing on these recommendations, you will find I have high standards. Being
“better' is not an acceptable standard. Its not good enough. Why? Being “better”
often results in satisfactory work, work which ultimately deteriorates into mediocrity.
Such thinking and behavior, overtime, results in going backwards. And that's not
acceptable.
That's why I value both strategic planning, that is comprehensive in its approach,
and continuous quality improvement. Together, they will move us forward, not
backwards. Together, they will prevent us from getting stuck in our comfort zones,
which results in individuals, organizations or projects moving backwards, instead
of moving forward.
Note, too! I believe in being proactive, not reactive. Ergo, I'm not into aim, fire,
ready. I believe in thinking big, not small. I believe we need to do our homework
first, before we fire away. I believe we need to be more adaptive and flexible, more
innovative and creative while using the recommendations of the Housing Element.
And more! Anything less than that will not enable us to fulfill our purpose. Meeting
the standard of “satisfactory” or “better” will not cut it.
So let's think big. Let's be open to learning and growing from one another, and
others. Let's do things constructively and comprehensively. Let's demonstrate
wisdom and courage. Let's dare to be great. Let's move to another level to accelerate
the pace of creating sustainable, durable and affordable housing. If not, the problem
of housing affordability simply will grow larger. And we'll not fulfill our purpose to
ensure affordable housing at all economic levels in Georgetown.
Questions! Comments! Concerns!
______________________
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man (or woman) who points out how the strong
man (or woman) stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better...
The credit belongs to the man (or woman) who is actually in the arena, whose face is
marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who at the best knows in
the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he (or she) fails, at
least fails while daring greatly.”
--Theodore Roosevelt
--WD, 4/18/15
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Updates:
Update on Fair Housing disparate impact information from Legal Department.
Implementation of the Workforce Housing Development Incentives and the Workforce
Housing Locations map.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
Next Mini-Series Topic: Texas HOME Investment Partnership Program.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
April 16, 2015
SUBJECT:
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY: