Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_08.20.2018Notice of Meeting for the Housing Adv isory Board of the City of Georgetown August 20, 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 July 23, 2018 meeting. Karen Fros t, Recording S ec retary B Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o n Sub area Profiles . S usan Watkins , AICP, Ho us ing Coordinator 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 Up d ate on the 2030 P lan Update proc es s . 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 /. E 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 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 Page 1 of 44 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 44 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board August 20, 2018 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes from the July 23, 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_07.23.2018 Backup Material Page 3 of 44 Housing Advisory Board Page 1 Minutes July 23, 2018 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board Minutes July 23, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. Historic Light and Waterworks Building, 406 W. 8th Street Georgetown, Texas 78626 Members present: Nikki Brennan; Mary Calixtro; Randy Hachtel; Jennyce Hume; Lou Snead, Chair; and Bob Weimer Members absent: Nathaniel Bonner Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; and Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Call to Order by Chair Snead at 4:05 pm. with reading of the meeting procedures. Legislative Regular Agenda A. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the June 18, 2018 meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary Motion by Calixtro to approve the minutes. Second by Hachtel. Approved 6 – 0 – 1 (Bonner absent) B. Presentation and discussion of the June 26, 2018 Real Estate Round Tables. Lou Snead, Board Chair. Snead presented comments that were made at the round table discussions. Main ideas were that Georgetown has a housing affordability issue. An issue contributing to this is the cost of land. There were concerns about differing neighborhoods and some schools being better than others. There is a concern about a lack of diversity. Nelson reported that more developers are looking to provide a denser product, which is more affordable to build. The cost of building houses in Georgetown is higher without the higher paying jobs to support it. Watkins added that the available inventory of $250-$300K homes is not enough for the demand. Snead reported that there were many long-time and new developers that attended the Round Table session and gave very useful information. Watkins explained that these groups were to target the supply portion of the housing discussion. Weimer asked if there was comparison of other similar cities in this discussion. Snead explained this was more an information gathering session. C. Presentation and discussion of potential policy tools for upcoming Housing Toolkit. Lou Snead, Board Chair. Snead asked if anyone understands what the “toolkit” includes. What do other communities use? He discussed some of the tools that the board thinks would be appropriate for this city. Page 4 of 44 Housing Advisory Board Page 2 Minutes July 23, 2018 A community land trust, with land held in perpetuity by the trust, is when the homeowner owns the house with hopefully an increasing value so that they can earn equity. That is a possible tool to address affordable housing. He has evaluated these tools and tasks the committee with reviewing the documents to make their determination. He wants the group prepared to report to Council which tools seem to have the most promise. The update to Council will be August 28th and the group meets on August 20th to discuss the tools. Watkins will send more information for studying. D. Presentation and discussion of preliminary Housing Inventory data for the 2030 Housing Element Update and affordability definitions. Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator. Watkins reviewed the proposed schedule for discussions. This month’s topic is the Housing Inventory. The subarea map was presented that shows what the consultant is using to identify areas that have similar housing age, type, and values. This is not meant to define “neighborhoods”. This is a tool to determine amount of developable land or density. This was made by the consultant and reviewed thoroughly by staff. Watkins explained what inventory data and sources were included. Watkins reviewed the information presented. She explained the values will be changing based on new information coming from the Realtor MLS information recently received. Nelson explained this was data gathering and the analyzation will will be the next step by the consultant. New information will be coming to this board at the August 20th meeting. This group will be working on housing definitions, giving a range of housing options and defining housing diversity. Watkins discussed the average median income levels and gave numbers of subsidized housing in Georgetown. Public Housing has 158 units listed and housing choice vouchers were 100, as reported by Brennan. They discussed that Heritage Oaks is a special circumstance and listed differently. Watkins says there are different options for renters versus homeowners. Nelson and Snead discussed the difference between a regional issue and a regional solution. Other definitions discussed were affordable, senior, workforce and low-income housing. Snead asked the board to come prepared to the next meeting with an idea of which type of group we would try to serve. Nelson explains this is the heart of the matter. Board discussed the definitions. E. Presentation and discussion on the City's Community Development Block Grant Entitlement program eligibility from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator Watkins shared the presentation which will be presented to the Council this week. She gave a history of previous grants awarded to the city. She explained that the city is now eligible for its own entitlement. The city must determine if they want to stay as a participant with the Williamson County program, or to become its own manager for accepting Entitlement Status. Staff recommends staying as a participant in the Williamson County CDBG program. Council will consider this tomorrow and will take action on August 14th. Motion by Hachtel, second by Brennan to recommend to Council that the city stay as a participant of Williamson County CDBG program. Approved 6 – 0. (Bonner absent.) Page 5 of 44 Housing Advisory Board Page 3 Minutes July 23, 2018 F. Update on the 2030 Plan Update. Watkins reported that the steering committee reviewed housing issues at their last meeting. Snead reported that they affirmed that there are affordable housing issues. Watkins also spoke about the new On the Table discussions that are being planned for meetings on October 2, with organizations hosting events all over town. She explained that each board member is asked to host a discussion. Registration is in August and staff will be asking each person on the board to reach out and seek more hosts. Snead reminded everyone of their homework: tool kit items review, definitions and come ready to register for the On the Table. Adjournment Motion by Hachtel, second by Calixtro to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 pm. __________________________________ _______________________________________ Approved, Lou Snead, Chair Attest, Randy Hachtel, Secretary Page 6 of 44 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board August 20, 2018 SUBJECT: Presentatio n and dis c us sion on S ubarea Profiles . Sus an Watkins, AICP, Hous ing C o o rd inato r ITEM SUMMARY: Staff will pres ent an overview of the Draft Subarea Profiles d eveloped fo r the Ho us ing Element Update. The p urpose of the S ubarea Profiles are to s erve as a b asis for making policy recommendations by understanding existing: Hous ing d ivers ity (typ e, lo t s ize) Hous ing c ho ice (s q uare fo o tage, p rice point) Affordab le ho us ing s toc k (market rate and s ubs idized), and His toric hous ing trends (2008-2018). A summary of hous ing c harac teristics fo r eac h of the fourteen sub areas will b e pres ented (See Attachment 1 - Pres entatio n). 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 7 of 44 Housing Advisory Board Meeting | August 20, 2018 SUBAREA PROFILES Page 8 of 44 PURPOSE OF SUBAREA PROFILES •Basis for making policy recommendations by understanding: •Housing diversity (type, lot size) •Housing choice (square footage, price point) •Historic trends (2008-2018) •Existing affordable housing stock (market rate and subsidized) Page 9 of 44 PLANNING AREA Page 10 of 44 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 11 of 44 CONSULTANT TAKEAWAYS •Rental demand bifurcated for MF properties •Affordable end -unquestionable demand •Duplex and four-plex market (large inventory) important part of naturally occurring affordable housing •High end (most newer apartments) –demand isn’t as strong •MLS sales data very informative •Entry level Home buyers have more options in new communities east of I-35 for modern new homes in the $200,000s Page 12 of 44 CONSULTANT TAKEAWAYS •Neighborhood Condition •areas most at risk are the conventional 1960s-80s •large-lot neighborhoods west of I-35 more at risk of tear-down redevelopment with mini-mansions •didn’t see any signs that neighborhoods were headed toward massive disinvestment, wealth flight, and poverty in the near future •Older homes in Subarea 1 are in good condition •high value per square feet Page 13 of 44 SUBAREA PROFILES OUTLINE •Maps •Demographics •Population •Households •Housing Supply Profile and Trends •Housing Inventory Summary •Multifamily Apartments •Single Family Page 14 of 44 PLANNING AREA HOUSING DATA Page 15 of 44 PLANNING AREA HOUSING PRICES 2008-2018 Page 16 of 44 SUBAREA 1 FINDINGS •33% MF (twice planning area %) •Smaller lot sizes and square footage •$191 per sq/ft (median 2018) •51% Renters (twice planning area%) •Median Household income is 60% AMI •Homeowners stayed longer than planning area average (11 years vs. 9 years) Page 17 of 44 SUBAREA 2 FINDINGS •83% MF (5X planning area %) •$183 per sq/ft (median 2018) •79% Renters (over 3X planning area%) •Median Household income is approx. 50% AMI •Below Poverty Rate 11.4% vs 4.2% area wide •Average Household size 1.8 Page 18 of 44 SUBAREA 3 FINDINGS •75% Single Family housing •$127 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 100% AMI •Average Household size 2.89 – more families with children Page 19 of 44 SUBAREA 4 FINDINGS •76% Single Family housing •42% renters (almost twice planning area) •$132 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is approx. 90% AMI •Average Household size 2.99 – more families with children Page 20 of 44 SUBAREA 5 FINDINGS •70% Single Family housing •42% renters (almost twice planning area) •$132 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is just over 80% AMI •97% of homes under $200K in 2008-2010, only 33% of homes under $200K in 2017-2018 Page 21 of 44 SUBAREA 6 FINDINGS •31.8% Multi-family (almost twice planning area) •37.3% renters •$146 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is approx 80% AMI Page 22 of 44 SUBAREA 7 FINDINGS •94% Single Family housing •6% renters •$156 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 140% AMI •Larger lot sizes (1 acre) Page 23 of 44 SUBAREA 8 FINDINGS •92% Single Family housing •7% renters •$127 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 130% AMI •Average Household size 2.8 – more families with children Page 24 of 44 SUBAREA 9 FINDINGS •100% Single Family housing •4.6% renters •$163 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 90% AMI •Average Household size 1.86 •60% of homes under $200K in 2008-2010, only 5% of homes under $200K in 2017-2018 Page 25 of 44 SUBAREA 10 FINDINGS •100% Single Family housing •16% renters •$170 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 80% AMI •0% of homes under $200K, 44% homes over $500K in 2017-2018 •Larger lot sizes (10 acre average) Page 26 of 44 SUBAREA 11 FINDINGS •100% Single Family housing •5% renters •$170 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 120% AMI •Average Household size 2.75 – more families with children •Larger lot sizes (3.5 acre average) Page 27 of 44 SUBAREA 12 FINDINGS •100% Single Family housing •6% renters •$149 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 140% AMI •Larger lot sizes (3.5 acre average) Page 28 of 44 SUBAREA 13 FINDINGS •100% Single Family housing •46% renters (twice planning area) •$261 per sq/ft (median 2018) •60% of sales over $500k in 2018 •Median Household income is 90% AMI •Larger lot sizes (4 acre average) Page 29 of 44 SUBAREA 14 FINDINGS •98% Single Family housing •18% renters •$143 per sq/ft (median 2018) •Median Household income is over 80% AMI •Average Household size 2.85 – more families with children Page 30 of 44 ADDITIONAL DATA POINTS? •Percentage of zoned land per subarea •Percentage of developable land per subarea Page 31 of 44 Next Steps •Affordability analysis Page 32 of 44 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board August 20, 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 will d is c us s several potential polic y to o ls : 1. Co mmunity Land Trusts 2. Land Banking 3. Develo p ment R egulations (allow smaller lot s izes, ADUs, dens ity bonus es ) 4. Tax Exemptio ns 5. TIFs 6. Ho mes tead P res ervatio n Districts 7. Pres ervation of affo rd ab le units 8. Fee Waivers and Exemp tions The examples of each to o l are taken fro m the Aus tin S trategic Ho using Bluep rint and the Creating Affordability Lo c ally to o lkit reviewed at p revio us Hous ing Advis o ry Bo ard meetings (Attac hment 1 - Hous ing Po lic y Tool Examp les ). FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Sus an Watkins , AICP, Hous ing Co o rd inator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Attachment 1 - Hous ing Policy Tool examples Backup Material Page 33 of 44 Housing Policy Tool Examples Below are examples of eight housing policy tool examples. Please review and pick the top three you think will be suited for use in Georgetown. 1. Community Land Trust Example from Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 21) under Key Action “Prevent Households from Being Priced Out of Austin”: Expand the use of Community Land Trusts (CLT) and other forms of Shared Equity Ownership: Between rental and conventional homeownership, shared equity ownership ensures that homes remain affordable to lower-income households on a long-term basis. One form of this, community land trusts, enable eligible households to purchase a home and lease the land underneath it (Figure 9). By taking the cost of the land out of the real estate transaction, homes in a community land trust are much more affordable than houses on the open real estate market. Dedicating additional resources to the program could help expand it. Combining the land trust tool with regulatory changes through CodeNEXT that allow for a range of multifamily housing types such as missing middle housing could result in greater homeownership opportunities at an even lower cost to prospective income- eligible buyers. Page 34 of 44 Example from Creating Affordability Locally Policy Toolkit (page 28): Affordable Development on Surplus Public Lands Description Affordable housing may be developed on excess public land owned by cities, transit agencies, or other municipal districts. If publicly owned land no longer serves a purpose for a municipal organization, it can be re-developed for an important community purpose. Washington state law permits public lands to be “sold, leased, or exchanged” to developers if they construct affordable homes for very-low income to moderate-income families (RCW 43.63a.510). Alternatively, governments can sell public lands to private entities and use the funds to pay for affordable housing. Benefits For jurisdictions that have excess land, this could be a feasible option to expand the supply of affordable homes. However, the overall public value of this strategy depends entirely on the availability of such land and conditions set during the exchange of land ownership. These considerations, in turn, determine how much affordable housing can be developed. Considerations for Implementation In order for this tool to even be considered, public agencies (e.g. school districts, transit authorities) or jurisdictions must have excess land available. Without this condition, cities will have to turn to other options to generate affordable housing. However, for smaller cities with additional stocks of land, this could be a very accessible way to improve the local stock of affordable housing on available property. Of course, there will be competing priorities for unused local land. In addition to those who envision land being used for affordable housing, others might advocate for additional public park land or other community amenities. Application In September 2014, Imagine Housing opened the doors of Velocity, a transit oriented, energy efficient affordable housing development in the South Kirkland Park and Ride area. Before Velocity existed, the South Kirkland Park and Ride consisted of seven acres of land split evenly between Kirkland and Bellevue, but the land itself was owned by King County. To address shared goals of providing affordable housing with access to transit, King County and the City of Kirkland proposed utilizing the surplus land as an opportunity to build housing affordable for low and moderate income families. The building, with 58 units, now offers housing to people with incomes at or below 60% AMI. Resources Puget Sound Regional Council. “Tool: Public Land for Affordable Housing.” Accessed Sept, 14, 2015. RCW 43.63a.510. “Affordable housing — Inventory of state-owned land.” Accessed Sept, 14, 2015. Page 35 of 44 2. Land Banking Example from Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 23) under Key Action “Foster Equitable, Integrated and Diverse Communities”: *Undertake Strategic Land Banking: Land banks and other real estate acquisition initiatives help affordable housing developers meet one of their greatest challenges: securing properties and sites on which to build affordable and/or mixed income housing. The City of Austin should strategically acquire and hold land in underdeveloped activity centers and corridors, making it available to private or non-profit developers for the construction of affordable housing as these areas develop. Maximize Public Property to Build or Include Affordable Housing: Intense competition for limited land drives up cost and makes it challenging to build affordable homes for low- income residents. Publicly owned land is a public asset that must be used strategically to achieve multiple public benefits, including the creation of affordable homes in our community. In order to do this, the Austin City Council must decide to make situating affordable housing on public land a priority by setting policy that construction of affordable housing will always be considered when the City makes decisions regarding its publicly owned land. The City should also consider proposals, bids and partnerships with other public entities who have underutilized land — including but not limited to Travis County, AISD, Capital Metro and the State of Texas. Building affordable housing on developable public land in key locations near transit and job centers is invaluable in helping low-income workers and families live close to jobs and schools, while decreasing congestion and pollution. The City should consider developing a strategy to purchase state-owned lands as they come up for sale in order to achieve the citywide goal of the creation of desirable and affordable locations that include income-restricted housing and parkland. The City should also consider co-locating affordable housing with other public facilities including fire stations, libraries, community centers, offices, etc. 3. Development Regulations (allow smaller lot sizes, ADUs, density bonuses) Example from Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 29-34) under Key Action “Create New and Affordable Housing Choices for All Austinites in All Parts of Austin”: Allow the Development of Smaller Houses on Smaller Lots: Land values are increasing in Austin, particularly in neighborhoods near Austin’s core. This is due to a number of factors, but most notably to more households valuing reduced distances between their work, home, and other destinations, which minimizes time spent in traffic. With increased demand for housing in central locations, land prices are likely to continue to rise. One potential way to enable more people to afford to live in these location-efficient areas is to make it easier to build smaller houses on smaller lots through land development code changes considered during the CodeNEXT process. This would help produce more housing choices that are generally more likely to be affordable than houses built on larger lots. Small lot regulations can be revised utilizing a context sensitive approach to require a higher level of design and improved compatibility with neighboring properties. Such regulations should take care to incentivize more affordable housing choices rather than fewer and preserving neighborhood character. Page 36 of 44 Increase Housing Diversity in New Subdivisions: New subdivisions (especially those in and around Imagine Austin Activity Centers and Corridors) also present an opportunity to increase housing diversity. Subdivision regulations should incentivize the development of a range of housing types, including missing middle housing and co-housing formats (where smaller housing units are organized around shared common space). The regulations should also incentivize a connected street grid and promote a range of more affordable transportation choices. These centers and corridors allow people to reside, work, shop, access services, and recreate without traveling far distances. Relax Regulations on both Internal and External Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): Accessory dwelling units are a way to increase the supply of smaller housing units while also providing homeowners with a way to increase their income by renting out the unit. Reducing restrictions in more parts of Austin to allow internal and external ADUs to be built may not result in every ADU being rented at an affordable rate, but ADUs do exhibit lower per-unit and infrastructure costs and “offer the opportunity to increase the number and variety of housing units throughout the community.”18 HUD notes that ADUs can help increase a community’s housing supply, and as they cost less than a new single-family home on its own lot, they can also be a more affordable housing option for some households. The City should consider amending regulations for both internal ADUs, which are created by converting interior residential space into a separate unit, and external ADUs, which are separate structures. Regulations should also ensure accessibility and/or visitability. Page 37 of 44 *Implement Consistent Density Bonus Programs for Centers and Corridors: Several of Austin’s existing density bonus programs (University Neighborhood Overlay, Vertical Mixed Use, and Downtown Density Bonus Program) have successfully leveraged new development to create units affordable for households earning between 60% and 80% MFI, depending on the program (see Figure 10). This is consistent with Imagine Austin Land Use Transportation (LUT) Policy 1019 and Housing and Neighborhoods (HN) Policy 120. The revised Land Development Code should implement a consistent density bonus program for Imagine Austin Activity Centers and Corridors where larger buildings are deemed acceptable. These centers and corridors allow people to reside, work, shop, access services, and recreate without traveling far distances. Economic modeling is being conducted in conjunction with the CodeNEXT process to determine where such programs would be financially feasible while also producing affordable housing benefits. Any increase in development capacity will be tied to an affordability requirement. The City should incentivize and provide additional opportunities for housing units with two bedrooms or more, particularly in high opportunity areas. The existing density bonus programs have resulted in income-restricted affordable units in high opportunity areas along transit corridors with no subsidy by the City of Austin. Page 38 of 44 4. Tax Exemptions Example from Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 35) under “Create New and Affordable Housing Choices for All Austinites in All Parts of Austin”: Support Legislation or other Mechanisms to Create a Multifamily Property Tax Exemption Program: Multifamily Property Tax Exemption Programs are effective incentive programs used in other cities that ensure a percentage of housing in participating new developments is affordable for low-and moderate-income people. In exchange for on-site affordability, the city provides a partial property tax exemption for a number of years. The new program should allow all unit types to participate and should incorporate an incentive for building larger units so that families have more affordable housing choices throughout the city. Multifamily Property Tax Exemption housing can provide housing to retail and service workers, entry-level professionals, and retirees on fixed incomes. (From Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 35) under “Invest In Housing for Those Most in Need”) Develop Programs and Policies that can help Mitigate Gentrification Pressures in Historically Low-Income Neighborhoods The Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan defines gentrification as the process of neighborhood change that results in the replacement of lower income residents with higher income ones. The City of Austin should continue to focus resources on programs and policies that can help mitigate gentrification pressures in historically low-income neighborhoods. This includes undertaking equitable development strategies to create healthy, vibrant communities of opportunity. Equitable outcomes result when intentional strategies are put in place to ensure that everyone can participate in and benefit from decisions that shape their neighborhoods and city. This could also include the creation of a low interest loan fund or grant for preservation in historically low-income gentrifying areas. Such a fund could provide a further incentive to preserve affordable housing stock in targeted areas with the greatest redevelopment and displacement pressures. Example from Creating Affordability Locally Policy Toolkit (page 28): Preservation Property Tax Exemption Description A preservation property tax exemption incentivizes multifamily property owners to maintain the health and affordability of housing. Owners must agree to keep their rental units affordable for a specified period of time in exchange for receiving a property tax exemption (which could free up capital for rehabilitation). The tax exemption can be especially useful for buildings in high-cost areas or near transit lines and for buildings undergoing renovations or changing ownership. Benefits Providing incentives for property owners to preserve and maintain their affordable housing units means minimal displacement and better quality of housing. This tool can be used in high cost markets to “buy down” rents and ensure units are available to the families that need them, to prevent displacement by creating long-term affordability of “naturally occurring” affordable housing, and to ensure the health and safety of housing in both low and high cost markets. A preservation property tax exemption represents a tax shift, rather than forgone revenue, as other property taxpayers pay a slightly higher amount Page 39 of 44 to make up for the preserved buildings. This policy could also provide long-run cost savings since municipalities will not have to worry about replacing as much lost affordable housing stock. Considerations for Implementation This tool requires state legislative action for local implementation. Many cities and stakeholders are interested in working with legislators to authorize this tool as soon as possible. When implementing a preservation property tax exemption it is important to consider: • What type of property qualifies for the exemption? • How long will the exemption last? • Should the exemption require that properties meet certain health, safety, and quality standards? • What will be done to further preserve the affordable units once the exemption expires? Application New York City: New York City has a variety of tax incentives specifically aimed at preserving affordable housing. The J-51 Property Tax Exemption and Abatement is an incentive for rehabilitation of residential property. Rehabilitation of low- and moderate-income housing, or conversion of a building to low- and moderate-income housing is just one of the ten targeted activities specified in J-51. The abatement (applicable only for major renovations) reduces the amount of property tax property owners pay and the exemption freezes the building’s assessed value so that the property taxes remain the same even though a rehabilitation would increase the assessed value of the property. J-51 is seen as a popular and effective program in NYC. As of 2011, almost 600,000 housing units were receiving J-51 tax benefits and is the most widely used housing tax incentive program in NYC (Schultz et al, 2011). 5. TIFs From Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 26) under “Invest In Housing for Those Most in Need”: Utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIFs) for Affordable Housing: Austin is limited in the range of tools it can legally use to achieve affordable housing. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for affordable housing is allowed by state law, but the law restricts the amount of property that can be included within TIF districts to 10% of a city’s assessed value. City policy should strive for a balanced approach enabling TIF policy to be an effective tool. Many cities have maintained a high credit rating while using TIF districts to achieve policy objectives, such as affordable housing. The potential of a responsibly employed TIF program could outweigh potential risk to the City’s credit rating. This is a critical tool that needs to start being utilized effectively. 6. Homestead Preservation Districts Example from Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 25) under “Foster Equitable, Integrated and Diverse Communities”: Fully Utilize Homestead Preservation District Tools: Homestead Preservation Districts (HPDs), in combination with Homestead Preservation Reinvestment Zones, can provide a dedicated funding stream to reinvest in affordability within the most impoverished areas of Austin. Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones or Tax Increment Financing (TIFs) can be set up under the state’s Homestead Preservation District law to ensure property tax dollars from economic development are reinvested in affordability for that area. The Homestead Preservation Districts and Reinvestment Zones do not establish new taxes or increase existing taxes on residents. Page 40 of 44 7. Preservation of affordable units Example from Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint (p 25) under Key Action “Foster Equitable, Integrated and Diverse Communities”: Develop Programs, Resources, and Guides to Aid with Small Scale Preservation: Cities like Seattle offer guides, tools, and programs specifically geared toward helping small landlords preserve the affordability and safety of their rental housing, without selling the property to be redeveloped, resulting in a loss of affordability. The City of Austin should identify funding sources and programs to help retain this small scale multifamily rental housing stock. Many of these owners are long term Austinites that care deeply about the housing they own and the opportunity to both preserve the character of the structure and to serve Austinites who help Austin retain its character. 8. Fee Waivers and Exemptions Example from Creating Affordability Locally Policy Toolkit (page 30): Description Cities can incentivize affordable housing development by lowering the cost of development. Many municipalities charge residential developers a variety of fees, including impact fees and permit fees, during the construction process. Fees typically account for a relatively small share of overall development costs, yet waiving or exempting developers from these charges can further incentivize affordable housing production and lessen financial burdens on nonprofit developers. Washington state statute allows municipalities to grant fee waivers or exemptions for the purpose of affordable housing production, so long as the housing is made available to individuals or families earning no more than 50 percent AMI. Municipalities have latitude to adjust the qualifications for fee waivers and exemptions as they see fit within this context, up to 80 percent AMI (RCW 36.70A.540). For impact fees, specifically, state law allows up to an 80 percent fee exemption without having to replenish foregone fee revenue. Any revenue lost from exemptions above 80 percent of the total cost of the impact fee must be reallocated from other public funds (RCW 82.02.060). Benefits Fee waivers or exemptions alone may not incentivize an optimum amount of affordable housing, given that they represent a relatively small share of overall residential development costs. However, if combined with other inclusionary housing policies, they can serve as an additional strategy to leverage affordable residential development in the private market or support nonprofit developers. When implemented alongside inclusionary zoning, municipalities can align affordability and resident-income requirements for fee waivers and exemptions with those included in other tools or deepen affordability by incentivizing developers to produce lower AMI units. Exempting non-profit providers from fees provides those organizations with additional funds to convey community services and ensures housing subsidies are going toward their intended purpose, and not to pay municipal fees. This has potential to produce an additional, broader community benefit. Page 41 of 44 Much like MFTE programs, fee waivers and exemptions encourage affordable development within market rate development and also reduce costs for non-profit developers. Implementing this tool can help promote local economic development and socioeconomic diversity, particularly in proximity to transit, educational, and employment centers. Considerations for Implementation Waiving or exempting fees results in foregone revenue for cities, and may require reallocation of other city funds. However, knowing that fees are a small portion of city revenues, implementing this type of program is generally not a major burden for municipalities. Despite no explicit state requirement to replenish foregone revenue from permit fee waivers, cities will often have to replenish revenue in practice. Officials account for permit fee revenues in budget projections, so losing some of that revenue will have an impact on financial planning. Page 42 of 44 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board August 20, 2018 SUBJECT: Update on the 2030 Plan Up d ate p ro cess. 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 43 of 44 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 44 of 44