HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_07.23.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Housing Adv isory Board
of the City of Georgetown
July 23, 2018 at 4:00 PM
at Historic Light and Waterworks Bldg, 406 W. 8th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities 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, reas onab le
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 c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose
authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.)
A Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes fro m the June 18, 2018 meeting. Karen Fros t,
Recording S ec retary
B Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f the June 26, 2018 Real Estate Round Tab les . Lou S nead, Board Chair.
C Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f potential p o lic y to o ls for upc o ming Hous ing To o lkit. Lou S nead, Board
Chair.
D Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f preliminary Ho us ing Invento ry d ata fo r the 2030 Hous ing Element Update
and afford ab ility definitions . Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator.
E Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o n the City's Community Develo p ment Blo c k Grant Entitlement program
eligib ility fro m the Department of Hous ing and Urban Development. Sus an Watkins, AICP, Ho using
Co o rd inator
F Up d ate on the 2030 P lan Update.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a sub ject that is pos ted on this agend a: Pleas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Bo ard meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which yo u wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
Staff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
On a sub ject not pos ted on the agend a: Pers ons may add an item to a future Bo ard agenda b y filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board 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 . For Board Liais on c o ntact info rmatio n, pleas e lo gon to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
G As of th e d ea d lin e, n o p ersons were sign ed up to sp ea k on items other than those p osted on the a g enda.
Adjournment
Page 1 of 55
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
July 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2018 meeting. Karen Frost,
Rec o rd ing Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _HOUAB_06.18.2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 55
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes June 18, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
June 18, 2018, at 4:00 p.m.
Historic Light and Waterworks Building, 406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Nathaniel Bonner; Mary Calixtro; Randy Hachtel; Jennyce Hume; and Lou
Snead, Chair
Members absent: Brian Ortego (resigned); Nikki Brennan
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator; Nat
Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Karen Frost, Recording Secretary and Patrick Lloyd,
Community Resources Coordinator
Call to Order by Chair Snead at 4:00 pm. with reading of the meeting procedures.
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.
Chair Snead opened the meeting at 4:00 pm, explained the meeting procedures and welcomed
the guests. He also explained Ortego’s resignation and expressed appreciation for his service.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the May 21, 2018 meeting.
Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Motion by Hachtel to approve the minutes. Second by Hume. Approved 4 – 0 (Brennan
absent, Calixtro in after the vote, and Ortego – resigned.)
C. Presentation and discussion of housing affordability terms and definitions. Susan Watkins,
AICP, Housing Coordinator
Watkins presented the discussion topic. She discussed what the current Housing Plan
element states, along with the Unified Development Code definitions.
There was discussion of the gap of groups that are not identified by the Housing Authority
and by others looking at “affordable” housing. Snead questioned if this group would
address all housing needs, including low income, seniors, first-time homeowners as
identified by council. He asks for more clarity on what is to be addressed. He is concerned
about the 30 – 80% average median income and the gap of the extremely low, very low, low
incomes. Waggoner explains that homelessness has not been part of the discussion.
Hachtel is concerned about trying to be all things to all people. Snead wants to insure that
the group understands what is included in being a “caring community”. The board
discussed the existing problems that exist for homeless and very low income citizens.
Page 4 of 55
Housing Advisory Board Page 2
Minutes June 18, 2018
Watkins gave examples of other city definitions of housing element terms.
Watkins also discussed the desire to evaluate housing needs in three parts: senior housing,
workforce housing and low income housing. Senior housing includes assisted living,
nursing and hospice facilities. Workforce housing is housing for employees and jobs for
residents. Low income housing is defined as Georgetown’s regional role for providing low
income housing.
D. Presentation and discussion of three Policy Toolkit examples. Susan Watkins, AICP,
Housing Coordinator
Watkins reviewed the provided examples. She discusses these through the framework of
housing examples, key questions and applicable tools. She listed common tools that are
used nationally which included items such as: community land trusts, land banks, public
land, community benefit agreements, development agreements, housing trust funds,
housing counseling and homeownership education, and tax increment financing (TIF).
Waggoner and Snead discussed the existence of TIF’s in Georgetown and their location.
They discussed how the TIF is an overlay on top of the zoning districts. The details will
need to be discussed in detail at a later time to determine what can be added to the toolkit
and what the impact of that choice will be. Snead appreciates all the tools, but asks how the
board will make a recommendation on what tools will be best for Georgetown. Nelson
explains that the consultants will be coming in to complete an analysis and look at this
technically and bringing the best practices back to the group. There will be focus groups
and forums and the toolkit will be developed in spring 2019. This will all fit in with the
comprehensive plan update and will be considered as part of that adoption.
E. Update on the 2030 Plan update.
Snead gave an update from the first Steering Committee meeting, which he is sitting on as
representing the Housing Advisory Board. He explained the first meeting was getting to
know one another. And working together to take the vision of the city and formulating a
plan that will pull from all the development and city issues. The SC will meet every month,
first Thursday of every month. Waggoner listed the different member representations.
Waggoner also gave the new website that will have information from this project:
www.2030.georgetown.org. There will also be a housing forum for realtors and developers
on June 26th which all were invited to.
F. Board will discuss availability for the July meeting date.
Snead explained several people will be out for the next meeting and has asked that the next
meeting be moved to July 23rd . Motion by Hachtel to move the meeting to July 23rd.
Second by Hume. Approved 5 – 0. (Brennan absent and Ortego resigned.)
Adjournment
Motion by Hachtel, second by Bonner to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 pm.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Lou Snead, Chair Attest, Randy Hachtel, Secretary
Page 5 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
July 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of the June 26, 2018 R eal Es tate Ro und Tab les . Lo u Snead , Bo ard Chair.
ITEM SUMMARY:
A series o f Real Es tate Round Tables were held on June 26, 2018 with lo cal realto r, develo p ment and
finance p ro fes s ionals . T he Bo ard Chair will provid e a s ummary of the event. C o mments from the loc al real
es tate profess io nals inc luded:
Tightnes s of market
Rec o gnitio n o f need for affo rd ab ility
Infrastruc ture challenges
Regulatory c hallenges
Perc eptio n o f s c hools
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - Realtor Feedback Backup Material
Attachment 2 - Developer Feedback Backup Material
Attachment 3 - Finance Feedback Backup Material
Page 6 of 55
RESIDENTIAL REALTORS DISCUSSION GROUP
Georgetown Comprehensive Plan Update 26 June 2018
1. What is the perception of overall market conditions for existing homes
o What types of existing housing products and neighborhoods perceived as in greatest need /
demand (home and lot type and sizes, rental unit type and sizes, etc.)
o General demand is strong and inventory low.
o Area 9. Sun City. (18-20 years old housing stock, original owners). Many original owners
moving to newly built senior housing. Very little remodeling done by original owners,
buyers want discount to compensate. New home construction in Sun City offering new
construction incentives. Lot of out of State buyers. Established landscape is selling point
for re-sale in Sun City.
o Large number of retired, fixed income levels; abundance of assisted living, but very
expensive. Interest in more affordable 1-story, or townhouse / attached single family is
growing.
o Categorically we are out of all housing types, moving faster than we can build new
houses.
o What price ranges in demand (relative to development/construction cost feasibility) and
how is this affecting price trends for existing homes and neighborhoods?
o $200-300K resale in high demand, preferred for more varied home styles and mature
landscape (not “cookie-cutter”)
o Lowest resale inventory in 20 years
o Zero inventory in $150-$200K – have to go to Jarrell or Florence
o Ton of housing $400k and up – moving fairly well – good jobs, amazed at number of
people working from home, plenty of people to buy them, but just a portion of the
population - the only portion being served right now.
o $350K-$400K resale is harder than it used to be, because there are new homes. Many
homes are 20-30 years old, but not renovated.
o Younger population – single person, making 20K a year, can’t pay all of the bills.
o Community and neighborhood features / amenities most desired
o Trees, mature landscaping.
o Proximity to parks: San Gabriel Park. Rivery. Garey Park. Downtown Square.
o Medical in Temple and jobs in Austin make Georgetown a good middle commuting
location and lessen concern about access to health care
o Out of staters are surprised about lack of gated communities.
o How are market demand conditions likely to change in the future (due to overall economy,
interest rates, demographic trends, consumer preferences, etc.)?
Page 7 of 55
o Lacking entry price point, for which demand is increasing. Westside is $250K and
greater. Number of competing buyers driving prices upward.
o Some people are seeking “connected housing”- as seen on military bases: Attached,
townhouse, patio homes. Not 2-3 story townhomes. Price needs to be $175K-$225K.
o “Need boxes for butts”. Multi-family rentals are needed for those who cannot afford to
buy. Public-Private partnership.
2. Strengths and weaknesses of Georgetown and its different neighborhoods vs. other northern Austin
metro locations
o For upscale / professional families with children
o ($400K +) Regionally Georgetown is the leader for upscale homebuyers (big inventory)
o Georgetown has a lot of options for people who want an acre or more.
o For middle / working class families with children
o ($50K-$100K income). Extremely competitive.
o Pflugerville and Round Rock have plenty of inventory.
o For lower-income households
o ($25-$50K income). No inventory. Living in trailers or out in the country.
o 5,600 of 11,500 students qualified for fee lunch (is indicator of size of need).
o GISD reports 300 students are homeless at any one time.
o For young adults
o No product to buy. Have lifestyle they seek. Number of choices within financial reach
are limited.
o Not single-family oriented. Maybe living with their parents.
o Culture has a lot to do with it. Never went to Square, but now the Square is offering
culture. People seeking culture and modern architecture (design focused). New
developments lack technology in homes. Georgetown lacks some compact, accessible
styles (don’t need a backyard).
o High density and mixed use products are not priced for the person it targets. Young
working class adults living in 5th wheel trailers.
o For seniors and retirees
o Reputation.
o Healthcare has come a long way.
o Downsizing from $350K - 3000 sq ft house for a $400K 2000 sq ft house in a newer
neighborhood
o People are not aging in place because not wide enough doorways or trouble finding
contractors
3. What are the market characteristics of older neighborhoods in Georgetown (pre-WWII, 1941-1985,
and 1986-2000)
Page 8 of 55
o Older neighborhoods – post war subdivisions – only two areas
a. Resident profile trends
• Sun City – many from out of state
• Old Town – young upscale professionals, often with kids, and healthy, active seniors
• 1990s-era housing – similar profile to new housing
b. Pricing trends
• Increasing and still selling rapidly
c. Owner-occupied vs. rental
• A lot of investors in the lower end – Riata trails, San Gabriel trails
o Lack of availability – 15 ppl a day moving in town, 1 house a day showing
d. Rehab / updating trends and potential
o Old Town and Downtown Overlay development restrictions – make rehabs
complicated.
o Upper-end of price ranges only.
o Downtown Master Plan seeks density – but rules and goals in conflict.
e. Role of courthouse square
o A huge draw, but that has changed recently, used to be a destination – things to do
than things to buy; now more things for nearby residents
o Walking and biking distance
f. Role of Southwestern
o Employees/students try to get into old town – some parents buy homes for children
who attend
o SU is overall selling point for community
g. Threats to stability / risks of deterioration
o (Oak wilt in Serenada)
o Maintenance of stock by older people. Non-functioning housing stock in Old Town.
o Post war housing doesn’t have much character –functionally obsolete 2 bed/1 bath,
buy house for 200k and then needs 200k worth of work, though some areas are still
attractive enough to attract rehab/renovation interest
4. What are key desirability factors for buyers and renters? How do they differ among neighborhoods
/ subareas, and for different demographic segments
o Affordability – top factor
o Neighborhood retail and services
Page 9 of 55
o People are generally satisfied
o Walkability
o People want more connectivity to trails and public facilities
o Neighborhood aesthetics and “character”
o Mature landscaping
o Regional access
o Need some street redesigns, congestion can inhibit desirability
o Natural and recreational amenities (open space, parks, trails)
o Connectivity to hike/bike trails. State of the art Rec Center. Library.
o Schools
o In general people like the school district.
o GISD replicates housing stock.
o School performance. Tippit is worst middle school
o HOAs / deed restrictions.
o Split between those seeking and avoiding HOAs.
5. Recommendations to enhance residential life in Georgetown
o Get and keep more food/beverage/entertainment venues to allow residents to stay home
for their fun events.
o TRAFFIC, continued intelligent development with beauty, history and usage taken into
account.
o Public capital improvements (infrastructure, mobility, amenities etc.)
o roadways are congested. Some downtown streets and corridors. Transportation is the
single biggest need.
o Think about the people in the community here before you cater to the developers
coming to the community.
o Continue to improve traffic issues
6. What elements do your buyer and renter customers find lacking in market and community – what
frustrates them?
o Frustrations for buyers in Georgetown is property values have climbed rapidly and there's
not a lot of selection under $250K.
o Affordable or Work Force housing is lacking, area amenities in Master planned
communities is fine, and for the city in general.
7. What are the market characteristics of older neighborhoods in Georgetown (pre-WWII, 1941-1985,
and 1986-2000)?
o Most buyers are finding prospect of their housing needs are available, if not now, soon.
Page 10 of 55
o Older neighborhoods are 'tired', pricing high and older homes seem a money pit, too expensive
for the end result.
o Older neighborhoods are a good mix of rentals and owner occ's. There is renewal going on in a
number of the neighborhoods.
8. Typical Mortgage for Georgetown home buyers:
o Mostly Conventional 80/20, Second, VA
o Once established in their jobs, most buyers coming out of rentals can qualify for loans.
o A lot of FHA and VA, yes just need more of the below $300K property.
Page 11 of 55
DEVELOPER / BUILDER DISCUSSION GROUP
Georgetown Comprehensive Plan Update 26 June 2018
1. What is the perception of overall market conditions for new residential development (for-sale and
rental) in the northern part of the Austin metro including Georgetown?
a. Types of housing products perceived as in greatest need / demand (home and lot type and
sizes, rental unit type and sizes, etc.)
o Affordable product does not exist, 32’ lots approved in Austin – didn’t get there here.
o Meeting need for affordable units by decreasing lot size.
o MetroStudy says 50’ width is the new 60’, 40’ width is the new 50’.
o Price everything by linear foot on front curb. Was $800 in 2013, now $1300. Used to be
5:1 price to land ratio, now exceeding 25%. Hard to get into 20% rate of return needed
to attract investment.
o Increased density is an attempt to answer the affordability gap.
o Old Mill. Lower $200K, working professionals. Affordable product missing. Still demand
for $450-600K.
o Wolf Ranch by Hillwood. Phase 1 is $450K. Empty nesters, wanting to downsize. 51’, 61’,
71s. Next phase is 50’. Southside of SH29 is 40s, 50s. Land, labor and lumber are the
biggest challenges.
b. Price ranges in demand (relative to development/construction cost feasibility)
o Robust market. High demand. Big need is $200-$300k. Lot sizes are getting smaller.
o Still have demand for bigger lots $400K and up as well.
c. Community and neighborhood features / amenities most desired
o Affordability and adding features become mutually exclusive-drive cost. May see a shift
away from amenities.
o Trails, sidewalks are the most in demand.
o In Wolf Ranch, buyers in $400k are willing to pay for amenities (“resort-style”).
Southside phase will include an elementary school.
o GISD ratings will affect future family homebuyers. Lost homes sales due to Tippit.
Talked with GISD about rating. Forbes has the best rating. Also has an effect on
corporate relocation.
o Targeted consumer-psychographics on two groups with kids showed those with kids
aged 5-12 – schools was number one concern.
d. How are market demand conditions likely to change in the future (due to overall economy,
interest rates, demographic trends, consumer preferences, etc.)
Page 12 of 55
o Additional upward pressure from regional (south)
o leapfrog effect, drive till you qualify. Austin is leader with low un-employment rates,
cost is driving customers out toward the bedroom community.
o 75% of workers commute out of Georgetown. Trying to attract corporate users.
o (Corporate in Round Rock lives in Georgetown).
o SH45/Domain is the new downtown north.
o Affordability – what does 250 buy? A great challenge is young people getting into the
market – student debt, lending regulations.
o Condo product that looks like single-family, generally gated and maintained
o Build to rent concept – FM971 and The Park, second project
o City has approved zoning for that – Multiple single-family units on one lot.
2. What is Georgetown’s “market niche” in the northern part of the Austin metro – what drives
development in Georgetown specifically, compared to other locations nearby?
a. Overall market demand strengths and weaknesses of Georgetown for new housing
o Hike/Bike trails are #1 amenity for Hillwood. Due to the dominance of Sun City,
Georgetown has a perception of being an old community. Need a cool factor going.
Needs a shift (maybe marketing).
b. What is the strength / role of demand from the local employment base vs. commuter
suburb to Round Rock? To Austin or elsewhere?
o Transportation options are lacking. Employment and tech center is needed to facilitate
job growth. Hike and Bike trails. Millennials desire no yards, modern architecture and
smart house technology.
o Round Rock employment is still most important demand driver. Local Georgetown
employment not much of a factor.
3. Perception of areas within Georgetown (refer to Subareas map):All
o No utilities in subareas 10 and 14. No incentives for City to coordinate utilities in area 14
because of lack of corresponding revenue sources (ie. outside the City’s CCN).
a. West of I-35 vs. central area vs. SH 130 corridor / east side
o Balcones fault line – different conditions for construction
o Water capacity in the west. Waste water. Natural gas inadequate.
b. Specific local features that draw / repel development
o Traffic congestion will discourage development in some corridors
c. Infill and redevelopment opportunities
o Infill land in Georgetown is scarce, utilities downtown are a train wreck
o Entitlements process is widely erratic, Planning and fire codes an issue
o Nevertheless, opportunities are strong – lot prices are rising
Page 13 of 55
4. Other factors affecting development opportunities and costs –impacts, reasonable changes /
improvements needed
a. Infrastructure availability and capacity
o Costs have gone up, also helps drive denser products
o Capacity exists, but generally requires upsizing and paid for through development. Size
of development drives financing type. Many developments have offsite infrastructure
costs to access the City’s systems.
o 600 homes or larger general rule of thumb for special financing district. a PUD is
required, $6 million in offsite you’ll need a MUD to pay that back
o TxDOT can also be a constraint.
b. Land prices
o Ten years ago, was $15K/acre now $45-55K/acre
c. Local government regulatory processes and policies (permitting, land use regulation, special
district consent, etc.)
o Downtown plan identifies need for higher density residential – what is being said in plan
and what you can actually get done is two different things, fire code requirements limit
what development can be done
o Density increases walkability and attracting businesses creating a sense of place
o Downtown - Tension between developers and residents who have lived here a long time
d. Regulatory driven and lot cost, everything in Georgetown. Environmental and neighborhood
conditions (floodplains, historic preservation, wildlife protection, environmental
contamination, blight / crime, neighborhood opposition, etc.)
o Environmental regulations require you to tie into municipal services especially west of I-
35. Waste water limitations are generally the issue.
o Fire code changes have imposed costs. Fire code increase impervious cover, in direct
competition with environmental constraints. Also sprinkling requirements.
o Size of fire trucks impacts road size, have cost implications. Presents real challenges to
affordability.
o Extra foot on eaves drives cost on inhabitable space.
o Historic area overlays and codes
5. Perception of feasibility (market and financial) of different/alternative housing product types
o Driven by price point.
o New financing regulation.
o Burden of college debt.
o Townhouse market begin to emerge.
o Condo projects are beginning to emerge.
a. Affordable housing (for sale and rental)
Page 14 of 55
b. Density (small-lot single family, condos, etc.); best in infill or TND development, or
applicable other locations?
c. Multi-gen / accessory units / duplex and small-scale rental
o Demand for it would be in Old Town.
o Casitas product built out west. Very expensive product because of cost or architectural
standards.
d. Built-to-rent single family
o New concept. Not sure how the financing works. Common area maintenance. Market
performance still developing track record.
6. Other issues not discussed
o Transportation corridors – Williams Drive/29 at capacity, driving growth to I30, downtown
development will be curtailed by parking.
o You start with a far better roadway network on 195 corridor – why are they not principle targets
for growth along I35 and I30?
o Existential water supply issues
Page 15 of 55
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DISCUSSION GROUP
Georgetown Comprehensive Plan Update 26 June 2018
1. What is the perception of Georgetown in the financial community as a location for residential
development, in terms of risk and acceptability in light of other lending opportunities? Has this
been changing? Does it differ by area within Georgetown?
o Georgetown is a good place.
o Construction/infill in Downtown Overlay is difficult. Georgetown has Austin construction costs
but Austin yields $93/ sq. ft.
o Affordability of housing has changed due to lack of inventory. Hard for 1st time homebuyer to
enter into this market. They go to Hutto & Liberty Hill. “Austin prices but not Austin jobs.”
o Cost of development is pricey (environmental and utilities, particularly the west side of 35.
o Individual lot loans. Buying with future intent to build. West Georgetown.
Land Development
1. Are the types of residential land developers who are active in and around Georgetown generally
perceived as credit-worthy? How much equity is generally required?
o LTV can range from 50-65%.
o For local builders use familiarity and track record to leverage loan, particularly within lending
footprint.
o Some less known out of area developers have been showing up.
2. Are there community/subdivision types or features that the lending community would perceive as
inherently more risky?
o When a developer comes in with a new type of product, first question I ask can your product be
delivered so that people can get financing to buy – is mortgage financing lined up for the
potential buyers?
o Detached condos make use of that space. The product in East Austin, 3 story – pushed together,
would be nice to have here. A walkability factor would be reassuring.
o Brownstones that we have off of Rivery have been successful.
Page 16 of 55
Housing Construction
1. What is the climate / risk environment in Georgetown for lending to:
a. Production single family builders, Small single family builders and infill builders (spec homes)
o Secondary market is major consideration. You can build it, but can another finance the
purchase?
o “Warrantable” status is important. Process with FHA.
o Density is driven by surrounding amenities.
b. Multifamily developers
o Concern for absorption – want evidence of likely absorption.
o Concern for affordability – high rent properties have the risk of competing with
mortgages.
o A lot more multi-family coming in.
o Assumptions on lease rate increases – the project must cash flow under current
conditions, regardless of future revenue expectations.
2. What is the willingness to lend for new, niche or unusual product types:
o Home value balance is important. Lacking what other communities are offering (Jarrell).
a. New infill or redevelopment in older Georgetown neighborhoods (appraisals an issue?)
o Comps are key for local lending.
o HARC stifles process.
o Infrastructure cost issues.
b. Adaptive reuse (converting to residential)?
o No stock exists in Georgetown. Downtown may offer 2nd story.
o Opposite activity could be possible in Downtown. SFR could be converted to MF or
commercial activities.
c. Affordable housing (for sale or rental).
o Perception is an issue. City has to work with neighborhoods. Have to decide what you
want your City to look like.
o Need public help with utility infrastructure on east side to build affordably.
d. Seniors-focused or age-restricted product (for sale or rental)
o Balance is key.
o Perception is that we are overbuilt in that area; consider adding product appealing to
seniors but not age-restricted.
e. Mixed owner / renter or small-scale multifamily
o Extra rental income can qualify sometimes for mortgage or loan applicant
o Appraisals important
Page 17 of 55
3. Are there any reasonable public policy or regulatory actions that could reduce risk and increase
willingness for residential construction lending?
o Subdivision and platting utility requirements and assistance for SFR vs MFR
Mortgage Lending
1. Is there extensive use of FHA or other mortgage assistance programs to reduce down payment or
help buyers qualify?
o We have a nice product mix of it. FHA limit in Williamson County is $323K.
2. Can rental income of ADU be included? Is lending market set up to help that along?
o For investments fine, but if it’s your primary house, probably not. If you have to have it to
qualify, then probably not.
o Mortgage lenders willing to go up to 40% of gross income, maybe more.
General
3. Is there anything the community and public sector of Georgetown could do to improve its appeal for
financial investment in housing?
a. Economy, management and public services, physical infrastructure and amenities,
marketing
o Maintenance and quality assurance requirements from lending community. Done as
part of lending for custom builder.
o Depends on how long bank is involved. On multi-family, more common, on single-family,
shorter lending period.
o Awareness is key. Down payment assistance is available, but people are unaware.
o USDA. FHA (323K limit)
Page 18 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
July 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of p o tential p olic y tools fo r up coming Hous ing Toolkit. Lo u Snead , Bo ard
Chair.
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Bo ard Chair will present s everal p o licy tools fro m "Creating Affo rd ability Loc ally " for cons id eration
b y the board.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator
Page 19 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
July 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of p reliminary Hous ing Inventory data for the 2030 Ho us ing Element Update
and affo rd ability d efinitio ns. S usan Watkins , AIC P, Ho using Coordinator.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Community Development Strategies (CDS), the hous ing c o nsultant fo r the up d ate o f the Hous ing Element
and d evelopment of the Ho using Toolkit, has d elivered p reliminary find ings o f Georgetown's hous ing
invento ry. Staff will review find ings with the HAB. Additio nally, staff will prep are the Bo ard for d eveloping
d efinitio ns for affo rd ab le, s enior, workfo rce, and lo w-income in p rep aration fo r making a recommend ation
to the 2030 Plan Update S teering Committee at the August 20, 2018 meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - Pres entation Pres entation
Page 20 of 55
HOUSING INVENTORY
Page 21 of 55
HOUSING ELEMENT
Outcomes
•Neighborhood conditions
•Housing inventory
•Preferred housing scenario (FLUM) based on need and location
suitability
•Strategies toolkit
Page 22 of 55
SUBAREA MAP DEVELOPMENT
•Housing considerations
1.Housing age
2.Housing type / density
3.Housing value
•Other considerations
•Sun City (age-restricted)
•Old Town / Downtown overlays
•Census Block Group boundaries
•Elementary school zones (limited impact)
•Not meant to define “neighborhoods”
Page 23 of 55
Inventory Data and Sources
•Structure type (WCAD)
•Structure age (WCAD and Nielsen / Claritas)
•Property value (WCAD and Nielsen / Claritas)
•Lot and structure size (WCAD)
•Household characteristics (Nielsen / Claritas)
•Number and estimated growth (Nielsen / Claritas)
•Tenure (owner / renter) (Nielsen / Claritas)
•Household size (Nielsen / Claritas)
•Household income (Nielsen / Claritas)
•Families and children (Nielsen / Claritas)
Page 24 of 55
Data Tables by Sub Area –Housing Type
Sub Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share
Total Units 2,185 454 4,685 2,251 1,506 4,364 1,311
Condominium 16 0.7%1 0.2%0 0.0%0 0.0%32 2.1%1 0.0%27 2.1%
Duplex 28 1.3%6 1.3%246 5.3%0 0.0%2 0.1%338 7.7%16 1.2%
Fourplex 16 0.7%4 0.9%184 3.9%0 0.0%0 0.0%148 3.4%0 0.0%
Mobile Home 0 0.0%0 0.0%3 0.1%11 0.5%6 0.4%1 0.0%0 0.0%
Multifamily 665 30.4%376 82.8%720 15.4%542 24.1%407 27.0%899 20.6%560 42.7%
Single-Family, Attached 34 1.6%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%77 5.1%15 0.3%0 0.0%
Single-Family, Detached 1,426 65.3%67 14.8%3,532 75.4%1,698 75.4%982 65.2%2,962 67.9%708 54.0%
All Multifamily 725 33.2%387 85.2%1,150 24.5%542 24.1%441 29.3%1,386 31.8%603 46.0%
All Single Family 1,460 66.8%67 14.8%3,535 75.5%1,709 75.9%1,065 70.7%2,978 68.2%708 54.0%
Sub Area 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Combined
Coun
t
Share Coun
t
Share Coun
t
Share Coun
t
Share Coun
t
Share Coun
t
Share Coun
t
Share Count Share
Total Units 4,268 7,527 443 2,322 1,226 201 1,099 33,842
Condominium 1 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%78 0.2%
Duplex 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%24 2.2%660 2.0%
Fourplex 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%352 1.0%
Mobile Home 4 0.1%0 0.0%33 7.4%100 4.3%11 0.9%1 0.5%309 28.1%479 1.4%
Multifamily 346 8.1%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%4,515 13.3%
Single-Family, Attached 0 0.0%308 4.1%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%24 2.2%458 1.4%
Single-Family, Detached 3,917 91.8%7,219 95.9%410 92.6%2,222 95.7%1,215 99.1%200 99.5%742 67.5%27,300 80.7%
All Multifamily 347 8.1%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%24 2.2%5,605 16.6%
All Single Family 3,921 91.9%7,527 100.0%443 100.0%2,322 100.0%1,226 100.0%201 100.0%1,075 97.8%28,237 83.4%
Page 25 of 55
Data Tables by Sub Area –Housing Value
Sub Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share
Total Units 1,504 75 3,715 1,711 1,102 3,196 745
Less than $20,000 0 0.0%0 0.0%2 0.1%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%
$20,000 to $39,999 7 0.5%0 0.0%0 0.0%1 0.1%1 0.1%1 0.0%0 0.0%
$40,000 to $59,999 26 1.7%1 1.3%2 0.1%8 0.5%6 0.5%0 0.0%1 0.1%
$60,000 to $79,999 60 4.0%1 1.3%6 0.2%11 0.6%2 0.2%5 0.2%0 0.0%
$80,000 to $99,999 67 4.5%6 8.0%2 0.1%15 0.9%3 0.3%5 0.2%1 0.1%
$100,000 to $149,999 331 22.0%39 52.0%217 5.8%68 4.0%101 9.2%73 2.3%0 0.0%
$150,000 to $199,999 379 25.2%8 10.7%895 24.1%273 16.0%695 63.1%845 26.4%4 0.5%
$200,000 to $299,999 330 21.9%9 12.0%2100 56.5%1003 58.6%264 24.0%1370 42.9%202 27.1%
$300,000 to $399,999 153 10.2%1 1.3%242 6.5%290 16.9%19 1.7%444 13.9%260 34.9%
$400,000 to $499,999 84 5.6%1 1.3%51 1.4%31 1.8%1 0.1%101 3.2%139 18.7%
$500,000 to $749,999 29 1.9%0 0.0%16 0.4%5 0.3%3 0.3%120 3.8%96 12.9%
$750,000 to $999,999 7 0.5%0 0.0%1 0.0%1 0.1%1 0.1%11 0.3%27 3.6%
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999 2 0.1%1 1.3%0 0.0%1 0.1%0 0.0%2 0.1%4 0.5%
$1,500,000 to $1,999,999 1 0.1%1 1.3%0 0.0%0 0.0%1 0.1%0 0.0%1 0.1%
$2,000,000 or more 0 0.0%0 0.0%1 0.0%2 0.1%0 0.0%2 0.1%0 0.0%
Multifamily Properties 28 1.9%7 9.3%180 4.8%2 0.1%5 0.5%217 6.8%10 1.3%
Median Value $180,110 $134,929 $218,409 $249,025 $179,940 $235,229 $351,749
Average Value $214,741 $189,135 $226,724 $254,181 $190,337 $264,907 $396,367
Page 26 of 55
Data Tables by Sub Area –Housing Value
Sub Area 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Combined
Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share Count Share
Total Units 3,924 7,527 443 2,322 1,226 201 1,087 28,778
Less than $20,000 1 0.0%0 0.0%1 0.2%1 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%1 0.1%6 0.0%
$20,000 to $39,999 0 0.0%0 0.0%5 1.1%2 0.1%1 0.1%0 0.0%13 1.2%31 0.1%
$40,000 to $59,999 7 0.2%11 0.1%9 2.0%9 0.4%7 0.6%0 0.0%133 12.2%220 0.8%
$60,000 to $79,999 13 0.3%4 0.1%8 1.8%41 1.8%11 0.9%0 0.0%123 11.3%285 1.0%
$80,000 to $99,999 5 0.1%6 0.1%4 0.9%30 1.3%3 0.2%1 0.5%45 4.1%193 0.7%
$100,000 to $149,999 18 0.5%15 0.2%21 4.7%36 1.6%20 1.6%2 1.0%130 12.0%1,071 3.7%
$150,000 to $199,999 85 2.2%453 6.0%21 4.7%48 2.1%31 2.5%1 0.5%139 12.8%3,877 13.5%
$200,000 to $299,999 1,708 43.5%3,653 48.5%60 13.5%267 11.5%59 4.8%17 8.5%227 20.9%11,269 39.2%
$300,000 to $399,999 1,195 30.5%2,309 30.7%46 10.4%433 18.6%224 18.3%42 20.9%112 10.3%5,770 20.1%
$400,000 to $499,999 516 13.1%979 13.0%129 29.1%624 26.9%270 22.0%68 33.8%58 5.3%3,052 10.6%
$500,000 to $749,999 333 8.5%66 0.9%127 28.7%736 31.7%387 31.6%64 31.8%62 5.7%2,044 7.1%
$750,000 to $999,999 32 0.8%21 0.3%5 1.1%69 3.0%132 10.8%5 2.5%14 1.3%326 1.1%
$1,000,000 to $1,499,999 6 0.2%10 0.1%1 0.2%16 0.7%66 5.4%1 0.5%10 0.9%120 0.4%
$1,500,000 to $1,999,999 1 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%2 0.1%9 0.7%0 0.0%2 0.2%18 0.1%
$2,000,000 or more 2 0.1%0 0.0%6 1.4%8 0.3%6 0.5%0 0.0%6 0.6%33 0.1%
Multifamily Properties 2 0.1%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%12 1.1%463 1.6%
Median Value $306,578 $290,435 $452,185 $451,512 $493,726 $455,511 $184,120 $269,593
Average Value $337,116 $302,465 $468,936 $456,572 $567,714 $455,066 $244,405 $309,797
Page 27 of 55
Multi-family share and Median Year
Page 28 of 55
Median Home Value & Median Lot Size
Page 29 of 55
Median Home Size
Page 30 of 55
Housing Occupancy & Owner-Occupied Housing
Page 31 of 55
Affordability Definitions
•Range of housing options
•Housing diversity
Page 32 of 55
WilCO Area Median Income (AMI), Family of 4
13
$25,800 $43,000 $68,800 $86,000
$51,600
Source: Graphic (COSF), 2018 HUD Income Limits
Federal housing programs Municipal housing programs
% Area
Median
Income
Median
Income
$103,200 $120,400
Page 33 of 55
Subsidized Housing in Georgetown
14
Tax Credit units
•952 General (188 to open by Dec. 2018)
•301 Senior (122 to open by Dec. 2018)
Public Housing
•218 units
Housing Choice Vouchers
•Approx. 85
43 Habitat for Humanity homes
San Gabriel Senior Village
Page 34 of 55
Fair Market Rents (2017-2018)
Year Efficiency One-
Bedroom
Two -
Bedroom
Three-
Bedroom
Four-
Bedroom
FY 2018
FMR $860 $1,023 $1,251 $1,679 $2,018
FY 2017
FMR $799 $968 $1,195 $1,619 $1,948
Page 35 of 55
Renter Options
Area Median
Income (%)
30% of Income
(family of 4)
Monthly Housing
Expenses
Renter Options at
Fair Market Rent
30 $7,740 $645 None
50 $12,900 $1,075 One bedroom
60 $15,480 $1,290 Two bedroom
80 $20,640 $1,720 Three bedroom
100 $25,800 $2,150 Four bedroom
120 $30,960 $2,580 Four bedroom
140 $36,120 $3,010 Four bedroom
Page 36 of 55
Owner Options
Area Median
Income (%)
30% of Annual Income
(family of 4)
Monthly Housing
Expenses Owner Options*
30 $7,740 $645 None
50 $12,900 $1,075 $180K home, 4% interest, 20% down
60 $15,480 $1,290 $180K home, 4.5% interest,10% down
80 $20,640 $1,720 $220K home, 4%interest, 3% down
100 $25,800 $2,150 $250K home, 4.5%interest, 3% down
120 $30,960 $2,580 $275K home, 4.5%interest, 3% down
140 $36,120 $3,010 $300K home, 4.5% interest, 3% down
*If household can qualify for a loan with credit score, income to debt ratio, etc.
Source: https://www.zillow.com/mortgage-calculator/
Page 37 of 55
Definitions
•Affordable
•Should this definition include households making between 80% to 120% AMI?
•Senior
•Age restricted at 55 or 62
•Should definition include age and income restrictions (senior and low income)?
•Workforce
•UDC states Workforce Housing Developments are available for those whose
incomes are less than or equal to 80% AMI
•Low-income
•Often those households that make 50% or 30% or less than AMI
Page 38 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
July 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion on the City's Co mmunity Development Blo ck G rant Entitlement p ro gram
eligibility fro m the Dep artment o f Ho using and Urb an Develo p ment. Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing
Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
The City was offered the ability to b ecome an Entitlement City fo r Co mmunity Develo p ment Bloc k Grant
(CDBG) fund ing from the Dep artment o f Hous ing and Urb an Develo p ment o n June 27, 2018. This wo uld
allo w the c ity to rec eive funds d irectly fro m HUD ins tead of p artic ip ating with Williams o n County. The
city would be able to have more control o ver funding p rio rities (within HUD regulations ), however we
would also take o n the full adminis tratio n b urd en that is c urrently handled by the County. This wo uld
inc lude comp leting a C o nsolidated Plan and Impediments to Fair Hous ing Analys is every five years, an
Annual Ac tion Plan and a Cons o lid ated Annual P erfo rmanc e and Evaluation Report (Attachment
#1). Ad d itionally, we wo uld b e respons ib le fo r proc es s ing Enviro nmental R eviews for o ther entities within
the c ity limits that receive funding fro m other HUD programs , s uc h as the Georgetown Hous ing Autho rity
(GHA) and Williams on Burnet Co unty Oppo rtunities (WBCO).
The current es timated funds that we would rec eive on Oc tober 1, 2019 would b e $274,000 that could be
allo cated between ad ministration and projec ts bas ed o n the priorities of the Plan (Attachment #2). Up to
20% of the allo c atio n, or $54,800, c an b e sp ent on planning and ad ministratio n and up to 15% of the
allo catio n, or $41,100, can be s p ent on public s ervices , leaving $178,100 for eligible activities . We wo uld
need to have the C o ns olidated P lan, Annual Ac tio n Plan, and Analys is of Impediments to Fair Hous ing
turned into HUD b y August 16, 2020 to receive FY21 funding.
We have p artic ipated with the county s inc e 2005 and the City has received b etween $50,000 and $392,590
in annual funds (Attac hment #3). Other entities , s uch as Habitat fo r Humanity and the Boys and Girls Club
have also received fund s for p ro grams in the c ity limits . If the c ity is an Entitlement City, they would have
to req uest our fund ing.
There are two optio ns fo r c o nsideratio n:
Op tion 1: Stay as a p artic ip ant in the Williams o n County CDBG program. We wo uld continue to b e
eligible fo r fund s through Oc tober 1, 2022. In 2021, the c ity c an review Entitlement S tatus and could start
the Co nsolidated Plan to prepare fo r rec eiving direc t fund ing for FY22/23.
Op tion 2: Terminate the Co o p eration Agreement with the c o unty, but d efer Entitlement status until Oc tober
1, 2020, giving the city mo re than a year to c o mp lete all of the necessary work and review s taff
as s ignments . For FY19/20, the city could ap p ly to the S tate CDBG p ro gram to rec eive fund s for non-
entitlement areas .
Rec o mmendation: S taff recommend s c o ntinuing p artic ip ation with the Williams o n County CDBG program.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Page 39 of 55
The City o f G eo rgeto wn wo uld b e alloc ated approximately $274,000 as a direc t recipient o f Co mmunity
Develo p ment Blo c k Grant fund s .
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - Required Plans and Documents Backup Material
Attachment 2 - Eligible Us es for CDBG Backup Material
Attachment 3 - Pas t Funding Allocations to City through Williams on
County
Backup Material
Attachment 4 - Pres entation Backup Material
Page 40 of 55
Attachment #1
Description of Required CDBG Plans and Documents
Five Year Consolidated Plan
This plan is completed every five years. The Consolidated Plan is designed to help states and
local jurisdictions to assess their affordable housing and community development needs and
market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The
consolidated planning process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to
identify housing and community development priorities that align and focus funding from the
CPD formula block grant programs.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule)
This is completed every five years with the Consolidated Plan. This planning process helps
communities analyze challenges to fair housing choice and establish their own goals and
priorities to address the fair housing barriers in their community.
Before the Affirmatively Further Fair Housing rule, recipients were required to complete an
analysis, but there was no formal format or metrics required. The new AFFH rule sets out
specific metrics to be analyzed and the format of the document approved by HUD.
Annual Action Plan
The Consolidated Plan is carried out through Annual Action Plans, which provide a concise
summary of the actions, activities, and the specific federal and non-federal resources that will
be used each year to address the priority needs and specific goals identified by the Consolidated
Plan.
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
An annual report on accomplishments and progress toward the Consolidated Plan goals.
Additional reviews/paperwork
Environmental Reviews
In addition to environmental review for CDBG projects, the county processes environmental
review paperwork for other HUD participating entities, namely the Georgetown Housing
Authority. This requirement comes with the entitlement area qualification, so HUD
environmental reviews would fall to the City for the GHA and others that are within the city
limits.
Page 41 of 55
Attachment #2
Eligible Uses for Community Development Block Grants
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 or specific individuals/households must qualify
by income. For 2018, there are eleven Census Block Groups that qualify.
According to HUD, an estimated amount of $274,000 would be available October 1, 2019.
Up to 20% can be used for plan administration ($54,800)
• Excluding the first Consolidated Plan to become an entitlement city, the city can use these funds for
consultant fees to complete the plans to requalify.
• If salaries are paid in part with funds, time must be tracked and allocated to specific
projects/tasks. Otherwise, the city would have to certify that the staff person only works on
CDBG.
Up to 15% can be used for public services ($41,100)
• The funds can be used for new or existing programs, but it would to expand on an existing
program, cannot replace existing funding.
• If the money is allocated to a sub-recipient, the City will be responsible for making sure that
the income of clients helped with the funds is documented.
Page 42 of 55
Attachment #3
Past funding allocations to the City through Williamson County
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, expanded original scope to add sidewalks and
drainage improvements on 22nd Street
$120,000 Sidewalk from Austin Avenue to Quail Valley Drive on FM 1460
2009 $64,590 Sidewalk from West University Avenue to 17th Street on the west side
of Scenic Drive
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
2012 $78,900 Sidewalks along the south side of University Drive from I-35 to Austin
Avenue, filling in gaps along the route
2013 $79,400 Wastewater line for Georgetown Project’s NEST Homeless Teen
Center
$38,000 Engineering for sidewalks along MLK/3rd and 2nd Street
2014 $160,000 Sidewalk along the south side of E. 2nd Street from Austin Avenue to
College Street
2015 $87,120 Sidewalk along MLK/3rd Street from Scenic to Austin
2016 $135,500 Sidewalk along Scenic Drive to connect University Ave and 6th Street
2018 $206,824 Sidewalk along 17th Street with two bus shelters
In addition to the City receiving funds, other non-profit entities within the city limits are eligible to
request funds from Williamson County. If the City is an Entitlement, those funds would have to come
from our allocation.
Other groups in Georgetown Receiving Funds from the County
Boys and Girls Club for the expansion of the Georgetown Housing Authority facility
o FY09/10: $232,825
Habitat for Humanity for lot acquisition
o FY09/10: $150,000
o FY12/13: $140,000
o FY13/14: $140,000
o FY14/15: $100,000
Georgetown Housing Authority for upgraded electrical and housing rehabilitation
o FY16/17: $166,610
o FY18/19: $282,603
Page 43 of 55
Community Development
Block Group
Entitlement Evaluation
Housing Advisory Board
July 23, 2018
Page 44 of 55
Purpose
•Determine if City wants to accept
entitlement status
2Page 45 of 55
Agenda
•Background
•Entitlement Allocation from HUD
•Required CDBG Plans and Documents
•Options
•Considerations
•Staff Recommendation
3Page 46 of 55
Background
•Currently apply for CDBG funds through
Williamson County Cooperation Agreement
•May 22 -Approval of Cooperation Agreement
renewal
–Signed FY2019-2021 Cooperation Agreement
–Signed letter deferring CDBG entitlement status
•June 26 -Williamson County FY19 award -
$206,824
–17th Street sidewalk project
–11.7% of County Allocation
4Page 47 of 55
Entitlement Allocation from HUD
•Estimated $274,000
–20% for Administration ($54,800)
–15% for Public Services ($41,100)
–65% remaining for activities ($178,100)
5Page 48 of 55
Required CDBG Plans and Documents
•Five Year Consolidated Plan
•Assessment of Fair Housing
•Annual Action Plan
•Consolidated Annual Performance
Evaluation Report
6Page 49 of 55
Options
•Option 1: Stay as a participant in the Williamson
County CDBG program.
•Option 2: Terminate the Cooperation
Agreement with the county, but defer Entitlement
status until October 1, 2020, giving the city more
than a year to complete all of the necessary
work and review staff assignments.
7Page 50 of 55
Considerations for accepting
Entitlement Status
Pros
•Plan and direct
priorities
8
Cons
•Administrative costs likely
beyond 20% allowance
•Staffing and Compliance
•Less funding for City
projects
•Likely less funding for
other entities
•Funding history with
County
Page 51 of 55
Staff Recommendation
•Option 1: Stay as a participant in the
Williamson County CDBG program.
Page 52 of 55
Next Steps
•Return 8/14 for action
Page 53 of 55
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
July 23, 2018
SUBJECT:
Update on the 2030 Plan Up d ate.
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff will brief board memb ers on the recent ac tivities related to the c o mp rehens ive plan up d ate inc luding a
recap o f the s ec o nd Steering Co mmittee meeting held o n July 12, 2018 and a preview o f the firs t p ublic
meeting to b e held o n Octo b er 2, 2018.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - OTT Fact Sheet Backup Material
Page 54 of 55
Georgetown
WHAT: The City of Georgetown is embarking on an update to the 2030 Plan, which will
establish goals for land use, housing, and growth. On the Table Georgetown is a one-of-a-
kind initiative where residents, from all walks of life and socio-economic backgrounds,
gather to discuss meaningful ideas about the future of our community. It’s an
opportunity to shape our community into a strong, vibrant, safe and dynamic place to
live and work.
How do we get there? We plan to put it all On the Table.
WHO: Everyone in Georgetown is invited to host a mealtime conversation of 8 to 12
participants.
WHERE: Conversations can be hosted in homes, restaurants, coffee shops, schools, libraries,
offices, parks, places of worship, anywhere. They can be formal or informal, brown bag
or potluck. They may happen over breakfast, coffee, lunch, dinner, dessert or a snack –
it’s up to you. The city and its community partners are incorporating this initiative into
its National Night Out efforts.
WHEN: Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2018
WHY: We genuinely want to hear every voice. Our community-wide mealtime
conversations will generate new ideas, inspire bold solutions, and create opportunities
for us to talk about the things we love and the things we want to improve as a
community. After October 2, participants will be invited to complete a short email or
paper survey covering big ideas, themes and their priorities. From these responses, the
city will share a report highlighting the ideas, conversations, themes and outcomes that
emerge from On the Table Greater Georgetown, and the data will inform the City’s 2030
Plan Update.
• Host - Gather your Friends and colleagues. Register at 2030.georgetown.org and
you will receive a Host Toolkit with everything you need including a conversation
guide. A training event will be held in the end of September.
• Guest – Your Voice Matters! Attend a conversation hosted by friends or colleagues,
or register to attend a conversation at a public location when registration opens in
August.
• Super Host – Super hosts are organizations that commit to hosting multiple
conversations of 8-12 people. They will be recognized on the website and on social
media platforms.
We invite you to pull up a chair and join the discussion.
Sign up for more information at 2030.georgetown.org or email us at 2030@georgetown.org
HOW TO GET
INVOLVED:
Page 55 of 55