Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_09.17.2015Notice of Meeting for the Housing Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown September 17, 2015 at 3:30 PM at Williamson Room, Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Public Wishing to Address the Board On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be found at the Board meeting. Clearly print your name, the letter of the item on which you wish to speak, and present it to the Staff Liaison, preferably prior to the start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board considers that item. On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board Liaison contact information, please logon to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/. A Welcome to guests. Legislative Regular Agenda B Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 20, 2015 regular meeting. C Consideration and possible action to approve the Home Repair Application for 808 E. 3rd Street in the amount of $20,484.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator D Discussion on city policy for the formation of subcommittees and meeting locations.--Bridget Chapman, City Attorney E Presentation and suggestions for framework and content for November 10, 2015 workshop presentation to City Council. --Walt Doering, Board Chair F Presentation on the timeline for starting Phase 1 of the Housing Strategic Plan.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator, and Walt Doering, Board Chair G Presentation on the Request for Proposal (RFP) and bidding process.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator H Consideration and possible action to hold a special Housing Advisory Board meeting on October 29, 2015 to complete the presentation for City Council Workshop on November 10, 2015.--Walt Doering, Board Chair Page 1 of 87 I Discussion and possible action to change the time, day and date of the regular Housing Advisory Board meetings.--Walt Doering, Board Chair J Discussion and identification of problems board members are having downloading agenda materials.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator K Update: Workforce Housing Incentives and Accessory Dwelling Unit Unified Development Code Amendments.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator. L Update: Key Takeaways on the 2015 Re-imagining Cities Conference.--Brenda Baxter, Board Member, Walt Doering, Board Chair, and Monica Martin, Board Secretary. M Updates: Planning topics--Tamiro Phase 2, University Avenue Apartments (old hospital site), and form-based codes.--Richard Glasco, Board Member and Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator N Update: Multifamily rental statistics for Austin and Georgetown.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator O Updates: Key takeaways from the Urban Land Institute: Housing Opportunity 2015 conference in Minneapolis, Q&A.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator P Reminder that the next regular meeting will be on October 15, 2015. Upcoming topics: Generate and review content for presentation at the November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop. Mini-Information Session: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (Attachment 1). Information on staff appointments from respective managers relative to teams. Open Meetings Act refresher. Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting. ____________________________________ Jessica Brettle, City Secretary Page 2 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 20, 2015 regular meeting. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Housing Advisory Board Minutes_August 20, 2015 Cover Memo Comments on Rules and Regulations Cover Memo Page 3 of 87 Housing Advisory Board Minutes, August 20, 2015 Page 1 of 4 City of Georgetown Housing Advisory Board Minutes August 20, 2015, at 3:30 p.m. Williamson Room—Georgetown Municipal Complex 300-1 Industrial Ave., Georgetown, Texas 78626 Members present: Brenda Baxter, Walt Doering; Chair, Richard Glasco, Jim Mann, Monica Martin; Secretary Members absent: Larry Raper and Joe Ruiz Staff present: Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator; Tammy Glanville, Recording Secretary This is a regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown. The Board, appointed by the Mayor and the City Council, makes recommendations to the City Council on affordable housing matters. Regular Session - To begin no earlier than 3:30 p.m. Meeting called to order at 3:30 p.m. A. Welcome to guests. a. Rey Bessmer B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 9, 2015 regular meeting. Motion by Baxter to approve the minutes from the July 9, 2015 Housing Advisory Board meeting. Second by Glasco. Approved 5-0. C. Updates: Updates: --Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator • Multifamily rental statistics for Austin and Georgetown. o Board members reviewed Bills summary prior to meeting and will like to revisit this topic at a later meeting due to time restraint. • Number of people moving to Georgetown per day. o Bills announced city officials have stated 11 people move to Georgetown every day per the 2014 Census estimate. Board members will like to revisit this topic at a later meeting due to time restraint. • Proposed increase in impact fees. Page 4 of 87 Housing Advisory Board Minutes, August 20, 2015 Page 2 of 4 o Board members and staff briefly discussed the approved impact fees from City Council’s August 11th meeting. Board members will like to revisit this topic at a later meeting due to time restraint. • New Planning Director, Sofia Nelson. o Bills announced new Planning Director, Sofia Nelson will start on Monday, August 24, 2015 and gave a brief work history. • Key takeaways from the Urban Land Institute: Housing Opportunity 2015 conference in Minneapolis. o Bills gave a brief presentation and board members will like to revisit this topic at a later meeting due to time restraint. D. Mini-series Presentation: Local Housing Trust Fund. --Jim Mann, Board Member. Mann gave a brief presentation on Housing Trust Funds and how they are established. E. Discussion and possible action on tasks of teams for crafting key substantive recommendations for integration into the strategic plan.--Walt Doering, Board Chair Board members discussed establishing teams and processes for integration into the strategic plan. Board members also discussed preparing HAB presentation to City Council on November 10th for funding the strategic plan. In addition, the board will start working on the criteria’s for the consulting team for bid proposal. Motion by Mann to accept the focus and task of the five teams presented by Doering for crafting key substantive recommendations for integration into the strategic plan. Second by Glasco. Approved 5-0. F. Discussion and possible action on recommendations for Membership on Teams plus other Helpers. --Walt Doering (At this time Glasco left the meeting) Doering passed out revision to Membership on Teams which consists of both specialist and non-specialist. Doering briefly reviewed the teams and individual’s qualification. Doering also mentioned the teams may need to be reassessed due to the outcome of legal department’s interpretation on subcommittee rules and regulations. Page 5 of 87 Housing Advisory Board Minutes, August 20, 2015 Page 3 of 4 Motion by Mann to accept recommendations for team membership crafting the strategic plan as presented. Second by Baxter Approved 4-0. G. Discussion and clarification of requirements and regulations for teams and team members.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator 1. Formation of teams; 2. Residency requirements for team members; 3. Application and resumes required for team members; 4. Location of team meetings. Bills gave a brief overview from the city secretary’s office and legal department on the rules and regulation, for subcommittees. Board members and staff discussed in great length their concerns on formation of teams vs. subcommittees, residency requirements, location of meetings. Board members requested clarification in writing or perhaps have a representative from legal department attend next HAB meeting to address outstanding concerns. Bills responded she will obtain a written determination from legal and will forward to board. Doering passed out handout comments on Rules and Regulations. H. Discussion and possible action on the FY 2015-16 Budget process regarding no funding for the Housing Strategic Plan.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Bills and board members reviewed the budget process. Board members were concerned with timing of response in regards to no funding for the Housing Strategic Plan. Bills explained the HAB will go before City Council on November 10th to request funding from the revenue fund to support the Housing’s Strategic Plan. I. Reminder that the next regular meeting will be on September 17, 2015. • Upcoming topics: o Mini-Information Session on Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). o Criteria for bidding work for consulting firm. Page 6 of 87 Housing Advisory Board Minutes, August 20, 2015 Page 4 of 4 o Crafting presentation for City Council on November 10th. Motion by Mann to adjourn, second by Baxter. Board adjourned at 5:06 p.m. __________________________________ _______________________________________ Approved, Walt Doering, Chair Attest, Monica Martin, Secretary Page 7 of 87 Comments on Rules and Regulations I find it embarrassing to go back and tell some individuals that, even though you work here, you can not serve on a team. Why? Because you don't live here. That sounds similar to the message we tell our workers, but with a slightly different twist. You can work here. You can help us preserve Georgetown's quality of life. But you can't live here. Yes, you say I could have asked about the rules before forming teams. True. Though I worked in government, most of my career was spent with corporations, two different world views. I knew the rules. Not so with Georgetown. Such regulations are not all known to me. So staff has to help me, and the Board, be aware of these rules, in sufficient time, so similar mistakes are not made in the future. Second, in our documents, we say we want high quality people for our Boards and Commissions. I support that. So does the Board. And we do with these teams, too. But how do we attract high quality volunteers if we make them jump hoops? It seems like we don't understand volunteers volunteer because of their life-purpose. Volunteers want to fulfill their reason for being in this world and take their unique place in helping their community. They're not driven by money. Nor are they into form-filling, or redoing resumes. They're into getting things done, into giving and loving and serving, not into jumping over hurdles and barriers which prevent them from living out their life-purpose. Third, when you look at the seven stages of an organization's life-cycle, including government, Georgetown is mostly in the “succeeding” phase. That's great. But a portion of it's life is in “becoming an institution” or bureaucratic phase. With these rules and regulations, we've staking out a territory of exclusiveness. We're keeping the external environment at arms length. With such rules, organizations or governments tend to experience a loss of energy in moving forward. They tend to experience a loss of concern for continuous improvement, from being innovative and creative. They hire or select on the basis of how employees “fit” or conform to organizational life. Selection of individuals, or volunteers, on the basis of knowledge, skills, expertise, creativity and motivation is not primary. Such rules, while important, soon cause organizations to lose their connection to the external environment. And that spells trouble. The organization becomes self-satisfied. The workers no longer want to move out of their comfort zones. Inertia sets in. They forget about their customers. The business and services become hard to sustain. The organization begins to decline and head toward entropy. There is no specific date and time for any organizations death. While organizations can exist for a long time in the bureaucratic phase, they will slowly slip on to the path of decay. Such path accelerates into dying (e.g. mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and even Page 8 of 87 Page 2 death), unless they wake up and reinvent their organization or government. That's sad. It's also depressing. This, too, can happen with our government unless we foster renewal through more innovation, redream the Dream, and breakdown the walls that prevent us from reaching out to creative persons from the external environment. Page 9 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to approve the Home Repair Application for 808 E. 3rd Street in the amount of $20,484.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: The homeowner at 808 E. 3rd Street has requested assistance from the Home Repair Program based on a code enforcement violation. An illegal addition was added without any permits or inspections. Review by city inspectors deemed that there was no way to bring the addition up to code, due to setback encroachments and an improper foundation. A contractor through the Home Depot Renovation Services has provided a bid that would demo the addition, replace broken doors and windows, and bring some other code violations into compliance. Only one bid has been received. Home Depot participates in the U.S. Communities Government Purchasing Alliance, which provides volume discounts and rebates to government agencies. By participating in this purchasing program, they are exempt from the regular bid process that requires the city to obtain three bids. The Renovation Service provides turnkey services and uses local contractors for many of the trade permits. The Home Repair Program has had good resulting using the service in the past. Attached are the Home Repair Guidelines. Upon completion of the work, a lien will be place against the home for the value of the work. This will be recouped at some time in the future when the home is sold, so there is no immediate cost to the home owner. Staff recommends approval of the repairs to 808 E. 3rd Street. FINANCIAL IMPACT: $20,484 from the 2013-14 Home Repair Program budget. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Home Repair Program Guidelines Backup Material Home Depot Renovation Services Bid Estimate Backup Material Pictures of the required repairs Backup Material Page 10 of 87      City of Georgetown  Home Repair Program Guidelines      CITY OF GEORGETOWN  HOME REPAIR PROGRAM  GUIDELINES    1. Residents of the City of Georgetown (must live within the city limits) are to fill out an  application and to be interviewed by the City of Georgetown for eligibility.    a. Income eligibility is defined as low‐income households at 60% of the Area Median  Income (see income limits below). A household is defined as anyone that resides in the  house.  Household income is the total income of everyone in the household that is 18  years or older. Proof of income must be submitted.  b. The home on the application must be owner occupied (person who lives there owns  the home) and the applicant must be the homeowner(s). Property taxes must not be  outstanding on the property, or the owner must be enrolled in a program with the Tax  Assessor office.  Additionally, a minimum of two years of ownership and occupancy of  the home must be maintained for the house to be eligible. Proof of identification,  ownership and payment of property taxes must be submitted.    c. For repairs of less than $10,000 in value:  The applicant must be willing to agree to  reimburse the City for cost expended on their behalf if they place their house on the  market within two years of the date repairs are initiated.  For repairs of $10,000 or more, the applicant will have lien placed against the property  for the value of the repairs.  A lien is a charge that is recorded with the Williamson  County Clerk’s office and is associated with the title to the property.  When the house is  sold, or the deed transferred, the amount charged will be owed to the City.    2. Once the City reviews and approves the initial application, staff will inspect the home to  determine a list of repair priorities. With this list, the applicant will solicit three (3) bids for  the requested work and submit them to the City.      3. If the estimates are $10,000 or more, the application will be forwarded to the Housing  Advisory Board for review and will determine approval or denial of repairs.  a. In the review, the Board will examine current building and property maintenance  violations, the potential costs that would result from code enforcement, legal action  associated with eviction and demolition versus the cost of repairs.    4. For estimates less than $10,000, City staff will review the project costs and determine if  repairs can be funded.    5. Some repairs may be conducted by volunteer contractors and workers authorized by the  Home Repair Program, as available.    Page 11 of 87      City of Georgetown  Home Repair Program Guidelines  6. The City will send a letter to the applicant either approving or denying the project.  Once  the homeowner agrees to the approved repairs, the City will contact the selected contractor.    7. The City will contract with the lowest acceptable bidder for the work.     8. Once completed, the contractor will submit to the City itemized invoices for all completed  work. The City will then pay the invoice directly to the contractor.      9. City permits shall be obtained for all projects that require permitting.  Permit fees for  approved projects shall be waived.     10. The City will take pictures of the property prior to work, as well as upon completion.           2014 Income Limits  Number of  Persons in  Household  Annual  Income before  taxes  (60%  AMI)   Monthly  Income Limit  before taxes  1 $31,680 $2,640  2 $36,180 $3,015  3 $40,725 $3,394  4 $45,225 $3,769  5 $48,855 $4,071  6 $52,455 $4,371  7 $56,100 $4,675  8 $59,700 $4,975      *Household income is the total income of everyone in the  household that is 18 years or older. Proof of income must be  submitted for all occupants.    Page 12 of 87 Contact Phone: Contact Email: Order # TX808E3rd Date Jobsite Address:9/8/2015 NOTE: Quote is valid for up to 30 days from the above date. ITEM #COST 1 $384 2 $160 3 $225 4 $658 5 $212 6 $484 7 $799 8 $675 9 $194 10 $357 11 $357 12 $1,875 13 $726 14 $1,875 15 $2,265 16 $189 17 $267 18 $283 19 $139 20 $350 21 $600 22 $185 23 $185 24 $185 25 $938 26 $752 27 $726 28 $750 29 $755 30 $500 31 $2,100 32 $335 40 PROJECT TOTAL 20,484$ INSTALL 216SF OF NEW S/ROCK TO INTERIOR PORTION OF NEW WALL INSTALL 120LFOF NEW BASEBOARDS TO KITCHEN, BDRM, & BATH INSTALL NEW METAL ATTIC LADDER TO ACCESS BDRM IN ATTIC INSTALL 312SF OF NEW INSULATION TO NEW EXTERIOR WALL PERMIT FEES FOR DEMO, FRAMING, & PLUMBING FRAME OUT 3 NEW DOORWAYS W/HEADERS AT KITCHEN, BDRM, & BATH INSTALL NEW 30" INTERIOR DOOR UNIT TO KITCHEN INSTALL NEW 30" INTERIOR DOOR UNIT TO BDRM INSTALL NEW 24" INTERIOR DOOR UNIT TO BATH DEMO EXISTING ELECTRICAL WIRING FROM ADDITION & CORRECT WIRING TO NEW WALL INSTALL 26LF OF 1X6 FASCIA TO NEW EXTERIOR WALL INSTALL 26LF OF 1/2"X1' WOOD SOFFIT TO NEW EXTERIOR WALL INSTALL/CORRECT 26LF OF EXTERIOR WALLFRAMING DUE TO DOORWAYS/CASED OPENING INSTALL 2 NEW 3-0X5-0 WINDOWS COMPLETE TO NEW EXTERIOR WALL DEMO CLOSED IN DOORWAYS AT KITCHEN, BDRM, & BATH REPLACE 14"X30" SINGLE PANE WINDOW AT KITCHEN DEMO 12' TALL 104SF ADDITION ON LEFT SIDE OF DWELLING DUMPSTER FOR DEMO &REPAIR WORK INSTALL 312SF OF PLYWOOD TO AREA OF DEMO ON EXTERIOR WALL INSTALL 312SF OF D/LAP VINYL SIDING TO NEW EXTERIOR WALL REPLACE 22LF OF 1/2"X12" SOFFIT AT FRONT OF HOUSE REPLACE 64SF OF PLYWOOD SOFFIT ON FRONT PORCH INSTALL 4"X4"X9' SUPPORT POST TO FRONT PORCH-INSTALL METAL BRACKET TO BOTTOM PAINT NEW FASCIA,SOFFIT, & POST TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS REPAIR 22LF OF ROOF LINE & INSTALL METAL DRIP EDGE TO STOP WATER INTRUSION INSTALL NEW 36"EXTERIOR GRADE DOOR TO FRONT ENTRY SUE TO BROKEN OVAL WINDOW PAINT/STAIN NEW DOOR TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS REPLACE 14"X30" SINGLE PANE WINDOW ON FRONT PORCH Project Name:808 E. 3rd Street DESCRIPTION OF WORK REPLACE 32LF OF GUTTERS AT FRONT OF HOUSE REPLACE 22LF OF 1X6 FASCIA BOARD AT FRONT OF HOUSE Jobsite Name:808 E. 3rd Street 808 E. 3rd Street Georgetown, TX 78626 PAINT NEW DOORS, TRIM, AND S/ROCK TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS Water Heater Stand-Labor and materials to install galvanized water heater stand in compliance with local regulations. Order Form CUSTOMER INFORMATION Contact Name: Housing Authority of the City of Georgetown Jennifer Bills Client Name: Billing Address: 512-930-8477 jennifer.bills@georgetown.org Home Depot U.S.A., Inc, 2455 Paces Ferry Road, NW, Bldg C11, Atlanta, GA 30339 THDOF060711 Page 13 of 87 I hereby authorize the described scope of work for the above referenced property.THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Authorizing Name (please print)Date of Authorization Authorizing Signature ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION OF NOTICE PROCEED PAYMENT SCHEDULE Payment will be made according to the following schedule: Initial payment:50%(due upon execution of this contract) Final payment:50%(balance due upon completion of project, including all authorized Change Orders) PAYMENT TERMS PROGRAM AGREEMENT This contract is subject to general terms and conditions in the following Program Agreement: Name/Number: Effective Date: CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Approximate Start Date:9/21/15 Approximate Complete Date:10/23/15 DAVIS BACON/PREVAILING WAGE COMPLIANCE This project ____ IS ___X_ IS NOT subject to compliance with the Davis-Bacon Wage Act and/or Prevailing Wage conditions and reporting requirements. WARRANTY AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY LICENSE OR REGISTRATION NUMBERS(S) HELD BY ON ON BEHALF OF HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. AK #25084, Anchorage #1745; AL: #3010, 03633, 009458, 10031, 45878, East Brewton #20100000006, Florence #66387, Mobile County #13882; AZ # ROC252435, # ROC092581; CA602331; CO #30122, #189758, #EC-7930, #ME-5538; CT #533772; DC #50008329, #DPM1070; DE: #1997116469(331), Bethany Beach #6301, Dewey Beach #92, Elsmere L0-00162, New Castle County #LC3246, Rehoboth Beach #25321; fl #22640, # CAC1813767, #CFC053316, #CFC1426021, #CFC1427642, #CGC1504124, #CGC1514813, #CMC1249322, #EC0001440, #QB8009, #CGC1512641; GA #GC1000087; GM,#C-0610-0320; HI #C30305, #CT-22120; CT 28468; IA #C091302; ID#002302, #3662, #003812, #005190, #37905, #RCE-19683, #RCT30229; IL : Chicago #1842218-1842227, #PL058-156068, #TGC052654. Elmwood Park, IL, #058-169244; Lake Bluff # 43009, Melrose Park #1292, Westchester #3333; IN: Allen County (Ft. Wayne) #BD16823, #BD16824, Evansville-Vanderburgh County #RSC1230, Gary #100255-01, #100257-04, Griffith #C000965, Hammond #10384; KY: Lexington-Fayette Urban County #11517; LA: #LMP 2977, #43960; MA #112785, 104510; MD #11589, #76141, #100770, #76141-01-45, Ocean City #32682; MI: #2101-089942; MN #20147263, #20638192; MS: #R 00304, MH #15012093; MT: #37730; NC: #31521; ND: #29073; NE: #26085; NM: #86302, #365222; NV: Las Vegas #C11-08622, North Las Vegas #89676, NV: #25720, #38686, #0011400B; NY: Buffalo #524355, City of Tonawanda #14425, East Hampton #4499, Long Beach #4917, #Nassau County H1171050000- H1771053000, Niagara Falls #971, North Hempstead #0971, North Tonawanda #368.10, New York city #0900456, #900457, #0900458, #0910621, #0910622, #0920734, #0968605, #1003822, #1003823, #1003825, #1003828, #1003830, #1003833, #1026224, #1075580, #1129555, #1129556, #1129557, #1129562, #1129564, #1133444, #1152032, #1152034, #1152035, #1152036, #1152038, #1152039, #1152040, #1178447, #1186042, #1212045, #1223272, #1251871, #1276050, #1318292, #1349280, #1349282, Oyster Bay #00971, Putnam County #PC 689, Rockland County #H-06464, Southampton #L002442, Suffolk County #35119-ME, Suffolk County 45864-H, Town of Tonawanda #CN0280, Westchester County #WC18484H06, Yonkers #4409; OH: Cleveland #CR09034748, Cleveland Heights #3897, Columbus #G6052, Lakewood #1000003993, Shaker Heights #7223; OK: Edmond #463, Lawton #109863, Norman #10-0008027, OK #91910, #126128, Tulsa #TUL-2131A; OR #8558, #11827, #95843; PA: Bear Creek Township #1610, Johnstown #0395, Philadelphia #18736; RI: #9480; SC: Charleston County #201045424, City of Charleston #35736, SC #CB00008, #48557, #48550, #G110120; TN #00047781; TX: DALLAS #1131556, #1133429, #1135096, #1135132, #1138821, #1138822, #1143219, TX #113, #3481, #8926, #13710, #24447, #46054, #127673, #167953, #LI17862, #LI18140, #M-16451, #M-36192, #TACLB00014980C, #TACLB00016712C, #TALCA-1574C, #WT0004195, #WT004132, #XXXXX0450, #XXX-XXX- 3426; UT: #286936-5501, 6585049-5501; VA: 2705133809, #2710010483, #2710053444, #2705-068841A, #2705113107A; WA: HOMED088RH; WI: #127782, #1046796, #1126970; WV: #PL02583, #WV036104, Charleston #15121, Huntington #063802, WY: Cheyenne #10-09550, CT11-23684 Services provided by The Home Depot authorized independent installation professionals. License numbers held by or on behalf of HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC.: a. HOME DEPOT WARRANTS THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE INSTALLATION FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE COMPLETION DATE. DURING THIS WARRANTY PERIOD, HOME DEPOT WILL REPAIR AT NO CHARGE TO HOUSING AUTHORITY, ANY DEFECTS DUE TO FAULTY WORKMANSHIP. HOME DEPOT WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER DAMAGE CAUSED BY ABUSE, MISUSE, NEGLECT OR IMPROPER CARE OR CLEANING. MERCHANDISE AND MATERIALS ARE COVERED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE MANUFACTURERS’ WARRANTY, IF ANY. HOME DEPOT WILL ASSIST WITH HOUSING AUTHORITY WITH ANY WARRANTY CLAIMS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS. THE FOREGOING IS IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER WRITTEN, ORAL, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AND SETS FORTH HOUSING AUTHORITY’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES IN THE EVENT OF PRODUCT FAILURE. NO IMPLIED STATUTORY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE SHALL APPLY. Acceptance of this Order, either by authorized physical or electronic signature (email), serves as a Notice To Proceed by the Customer to The Home Depot to order and arrange for the delivery of all goods and services required for the completion of the above referenced scope of work, and is a promise to pay upon completion of that work as outlined in the referenced Program Agreement. Customer further agrees and understands that this Agreement supercedes all prior discussions and agreements, either oral or written, relating to said goods and services for this property. This Agreement cannot be assigned or amended without the expressed written consent of both the Customer and The Home Depot. b. Limitation of Liability. Home Depot shall not be liable to Housing Authority for indirect, incidental, special, punitive or consequential damages, including damages for lost opportunities, lost profits from this Agreement or any other transaction, or lost savings, even if such damages were foreseeable or result from a breach of this Agreement. In no event will Home Depot be responsible for any liabilities or damages resulting from, or in any way related to, this Agreement, whether in contract, warranty, indemnity, tort (including negligence), strict liability, or otherwise greater than one million dollars, except to the extent such liabilities or damages are resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Home Depot. Home Depot liability under this Agreement shall terminate one (1) year from the instance giving rise to such claim. Payment terms are governed by and subject to the Terms/Conditions outlined above or in the Program Agreement named herein between the Customer and The Home Depot. Please note that neither The Home Depot nor its Authorized Service Providers are responsible for delays resulting from events beyond their control including, but not limited to Change Orders, incorrect information You provided, legal encumbraces on Your property or its non-conformances with building code or zoning requirements, limitations on Your credit/financing, acts of nature, government or any third parties, labor strife, hidden/unforeseen physical/hazardous conditions, including but not limited to, environmental hazards such as mold, asbestos and lead paint, or Your non-compliances with this Agreement. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc, 2455 Paces Ferry Road, NW, Bldg C11, Atlanta, GA 30339 THDOF060711 Page 14 of 87 808 E. 3rd Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 15 of 87 Page 16 of 87 Page 17 of 87 Page 18 of 87 Page 19 of 87 Page 20 of 87 Page 21 of 87 Page 22 of 87 Page 23 of 87 Page 24 of 87 Page 25 of 87 Page 26 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion on city policy for the formation of subcommittees and meeting locations.--Bridget Chapman, City Attorney ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Page 27 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Presentation and suggestions for framework and content for November 10, 2015 workshop presentation to City Council. --Walt Doering, Board Chair ITEM SUMMARY: This item will be the first step in the creation and organization of the presentation the Housing Advisory Board will make to City Council at their workshop on November 10, 2015. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Suggested Framework for November Council Presentation Cover Memo Page 28 of 87 Suggested Framework for Council Presentation Workshop, Tuesday, November 10, 2015 This is a suggested framework to request funds from Council for crafting a strategic plan. It's the first step for developing a quality presentation. Obtaining funds are critical to developing the strategic plan. They will enable us to have a community-wide conversation, obtain the needs of citizens and stakeholders, and involve them in owning the solution. The plan, when fully implemented, will help us to get out in front of the problem, not lag behind. It will help us meet the needs of our workers, millennials and seniors changing lifestyles, too. It will help us reduce significantly the current gap between supply and demand. It will help us preserve Georgetown's quality of life over the long-term. This framework contains the bare bones structure. It also contains some meat, that is content. Time is of the essence to craft a quality presentation. So come prepared to offer your suggestions and/or modifications. That will help us expedite the process. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Suggested Framework for Council Presentation Request for Funds Housing Advisory Board's Purpose + Ensure our City has affordable housing for residents at all income levels. Members' Duty + Be innovative and creative. Population + 2012 - 52,547 (Census 7/1/2012) + 2017 projected - 67,435 (using Census trends) + 2nd highest rate of growth in the country Page 29 of 87 Page 2 Need for Housing Affordability + Based on 2012–2017 projection, using existing cost burdened households at or below 80% of average median income, total need is 2,902. + Need 1,069 workforce rental units, and 1,833 rental units for persons below $30,000. + For owner-occupied, need 810 workforce homes, and 759 below $30,000. + Need continues to grow in Georgetown with: --Building high-priced homes requiring more services by residents, --Migration of people from Florida, New York, California and states plus other areas of Texas. --Attracting new retail businesses or bio-tech firms. – Demand for services by aging senior population requiring more independent, assisted and memory care facilities. (more concise?) Recommended Solution Craft a strategic plan to build accessible housing within sustainable communities in collaboration with public-private partnerships, using housing as the medium, for workers, millennials and seniors changing lifestyles with household incomes from $30, 000 to $60,000. How? + Build on the work of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element. + Accelerate building diverse rental or owner-occupied housing, approximately 500 to 1200 square feet, within multigenerational and mixed-income communities. + Expedite infill developments, where appropriate, that retain the neighborhoods' character. + Maintain current inventory of affordable housing, where feasible. (more concise?) Why This Target Population? + Workers? Millennials? And seniors changing lifestyles? Page 30 of 87 Page 3 (Concepts for Housing Affordability in Sustainable Communities – Gary Wang) Phase I: Data Gathering and Public Education - FY 2015-16 (8-10 months) + Establish five teams (see attachments for focus and tasks): --Design and Construction --Finance --Sustainability --Research --Communication – Members will consist of city staff, HAB and citizens both specialists and non- specialists. Teams will make key suggestions for resolving the problem and feed recommendations to HAB for approval and subsequent inclusion into the strategic plan, + Select and contract with consultants. Collaborate with them to: --Create an operational plan using a variety of strategies, including mobile technology and conceptual materials to present information, gather key data and provide feedback to participants. --Craft a unified and compelling message that engages citizens, stakeholders and target population, and helps them transition to new ways of thinking. --Present and facilitate public forums (circa 10) and focus group sessions (circa 65). --Educate public on the need for housing affordability and the consequences for Georgetown if the problem is not solved. --Obtain needs of stakeholders (e. g. businesses, builders, etc.) and citizens on affordable housing including their solutions for resolving the problem. --Develop material for gathering data to obtain specific needs from target population to build durable, cost-effective, energy-efficient housing. Craft market study from data to attract developers for building accessible housing in Georgetown. --Assess data, identify findings, plus select major fiscal components and key recommendations for fixing the problem. Prepare report on economic impact workforce and seniors will have on Georgetown when able to live and retire here. --Craft presentation on findings, fiscal components and key recommendations for presentation to Council for “go/no go” decision. -- (more concise?) Page 31 of 87 Page 4 Phase II: Crafting a Comprehensive Strategic Plan – FY 2016-17 (6 months) Using the data, findings and recommendations from the teams in Phase I, the Housing Advisory Board (aka Steering Committee) will develop a detailed comprehensive strategic plan. The plan will include specific action steps, time-frames, benchmarks and fiscal components vital for achieving desired results. Here is our request for funding this plan and growing love larger in Georgetown: $_ _ _, _ _ _ The plan will contain our best advice for Georgetown. It will promote smart growth. It will give workers the opportunity to live and retire here, not just work here, the same option we enjoy. It will maintain a quality workforce for our businesses, schools, builders, public safety operations and health care providers so all can grow their potential. It will help us recruit and maintain millennials to reinvent Georgetown and ensure our future. Workers and millennials will be able to lift themselves up thru greater opportunity and fulfill their dreams for life. Seniors changing lifestyles will be able to remain here while contributing to multigenerational communities. All will make a difference in sustaining Georgetown's quality of life, and we in their lives, too. It is a win-win proposal. It builds on our city's heritage and character. It reflects Georgetown's concern not only to be a City of Excellence but also a City of Compassion, It will sustain our quality of life for years to come. It will make our City a better place for all. (Note! We'll need some pictures for the slides beyond what Gary Wang presents.) +++++++++++++++ “Life is a process of growing love larger in our lives.” --Bears Kaufman Page 32 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Presentation on the timeline for starting Phase 1 of the Housing Strategic Plan.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator, and Walt Doering, Board Chair ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Timeline for Housing Strategic Plan Backup Material Page 33 of 87 Housing Strategic Plan  Draft Timeline 9/11/2015 Task September October November December January February March April May June July August September Sharing Timeline for initial work  formation for rolling out teams Framework for Presentation Scrubbing teams and recruting  replacements Open Meetings Act refresher Input on study criteria and scope of  work for Request for Proposal Presentation and request for funding Approval by City Council of teams Orientation for teams Open bid process for RFP  Review RFP responses and interview  potential consultants Create operational plan Initiate Phase 1 with consulting firm  and teams Present study findings to City  Council 2015 2016 Page 34 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Presentation on the Request for Proposal (RFP) and bidding process.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: A Request for Proposal (RFP) is a document that the city posts through the Purchasing Department to solicit business proposals from consultants and vendors to provide a certain service or good. Criteria for determining the winning proposal are often done by lowest qualified bidder or best value. When creating the RFP for a planning document or service using the best value method, staff includes the specific criteria that must be included in process and deliverables. A point scoring system must also be included. Attached is an example from Williamson County's 2014 Consolidated Plan RFP. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type RFP example from the 2014 Backup Material Page 35 of 87 5. PROPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS - CONSULTANT TO HUD PLAN 5.1 PROJECT SUMMARY The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement jurisdictions are required to submit a Consolidated Plan, including a housing and community development needs assessment and strategy at least every five years. Major components of the Consolidated Plan include: 1) the Citizen Participation Process; 2) the Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment; 3) the Housing and Community Development Five-Year Strategy; and 4) the One-Year Action Plan. The Williamson County Commissioners Court and the Community Development Block Grant office are seeking a consultant to provide services in developing the 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan will span 2014-2018 (October 1 – September 30). The Action Plan will cover FY14 (October 1, 2014 –September 30, 2015). The Successful Respondent (sometimes referred to herein as the “selected consultant” or “consultant”) will assist with the development of a plan format that links One-Year Action Plan projects to the objectives and outcomes developed for the five-year strategy. This will improve tracking of projects in order to facilitate preparation of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report required by HUD. The consultant will need to consider HUD’s performance measurement system in developing the five-year strategy. Information on HUD’s performance measurement system can found via the following web link: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/performance/index.cfm. The consultant will use HUD’s eCon Planning Suite, to the greatest extent feasible, to format the 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan and the 2014 Action Plan. Information on HUD’s eCon Planning Suite may be found at the following web site: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/about/conpla n/cp_idis The current Consolidated Plan may be used as a reference. However, the consultant should revisit each area of the Consolidated Plan to determine if the information is relevant based on current needs and issues and should make recommendations accordingly. A specific timeline with milestones will be developed by the selected consultant and the Williamson County Community Development Block Grant Office. Final submission of the five year Consolidated Plan and the one year Action Plan to HUD must be made by August 15, 2014. The consultant will work closely with the Williamson County CDBG Office in preparing all portions of the Consolidated Plan and the Action Plan. Page 36 of 87 5.2 Specific Work Requirements Citizen Participation Process: Forums The consultant shall conduct forums for community leaders, representatives and advocates from a cross-section of the community including community-based organizations, service providers for the homeless and the disabled, public housing residents, business and economic development interests, and County and other governmental departments and entities. The forums will serve as part of the consultation process required by HUD (see 24 CFR 91.100). Forums should consist of the following topics:  Linking Community Development and Anti-Poverty Efforts  Fostering Economic Development Opportunities through Community Development  Preserving Affordable Housing  Helping Persons with Special Needs: Housing, Services, and Facilities The following are tasks for which the consultant will be responsible in conducting the forums:  The consultant shall conduct and facilitate three (3) forums for community leaders in order to assess needs and strategies for the Consolidated Plan.  The consultant will be responsible, with the assistance of the Williamson County CDBG Office, for developing agendas and topics to be discussed for each forum.  The consultant shall make all necessary copies of agendas and any other handouts for the forums.  The consultant shall use the information collected during the forums and incorporate the information into the Consolidated Plan’s needs assessment, strategic plan, and other section as appropriate.  The consultant will write up summaries of each forum including, but not limited to, topics addressed, meeting notes, and attendees. These summaries must be included in the Consolidated Plan. Citizen Participation Process: Assessing Survey Results For the 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan, four (4) community meetings throughout the County will be held to solicit input on housing and community development needs. During the community meetings, a survey of the residents will be conducted to identify and prioritize the community’s housing and non-housing needs for the next five (5) years. The survey will also be disseminated to public housing sites and through various other methods of distribution. The County will distribute the survey and will post it on the County’s web site. The consultant will be required to assess the survey results and incorporate them into the various sections of the Consolidated Plan. Page 37 of 87 The consultant will be responsible for the following tasks involving assessing the survey results and including them in the Consolidated Plan:  The consultant shall assess and analyze the survey results and include them in the Consolidated Plan’s need assessment sections using tables or matrices.  The consultant shall include narratives in the Consolidated Plan’s need assessment sections describing the survey results. Citizen Participation Process: Develop the Citizen Participation Plan and Summary The Citizen Participation Plan will describe opportunities for the public to be involved during the five-year Consolidated Plan cycle as required by HUD (see 24 CFR 91.105). The following are tasks in which the consultant will be responsible for relative to developing the Citizen Participation Plan and Citizen Participation Summary:  The consultant will develop a Citizen Participation Summary which describes how the public was involved in the development of the Consolidated Plan, Action Plan and how the public will be included in future Action Plans. The Citizen Participation Summary must be included in the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan. The Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment The consultant will prepare the Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment in accordance with federal regulations as cited herein. This includes assessment of the County’s housing and homeless needs [24 CFR 91.205] and non- housing community development needs [24 CFR 91.215(e)(1)] and preparation of a Housing Market Analysis [24 CFR 91.210]. The Consolidated Plan Regulations are outlined in 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The following are tasks in which the consultant will be responsible for in preparing the Housing and Community Needs Assessment:  The consultant shall prepare the Housing and Community Needs Assessment in accordance with the Federal Regulations citied above.  The consultant shall prepare maps to illustrate low- and moderate- income areas, population by race and ethnicity, unemployment population, poverty population, and other maps as requested. These maps must be incorporated into the relevant sections of the Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment.  The consultant shall prepare the Housing and Community Development Needs Assessment with the most recent data available including, but not limited to, housing price data, public housing information, and homeless need data. The most recent Census should only be used when other data is not available.  The consultant shall prepare the Housing and Community Needs Assessment so that it is reader friendly to the public. This will include using charts, tables, and Page 38 of 87 matrices where necessary to convey data so that the relevant sections are clear and concise.  The consultant shall use HUD’s eCon Planning Suite in developing the Housing and Community Needs Assessment and provide all necessary information required by this tool. The Housing and Community Development Five-Year Strategy [24 CFR 91.215] The consultant will prepare the Housing and Community Development Five-Year Strategy, which sets priorities, objectives, outcomes, actions and benchmarks, and links strategy priorities, and outcomes to specific 2009-2014 Action Plan projects. The following are tasks in which the consultant will be responsible for in preparing the Housing and Community Development Five-Year Strategy as required by the Consolidated Plan regulations [24 CFR 91.215]:  The consultant shall develop a format that will link current and future one-year action plan projects to the five-year strategy. Linking projects to the strategy will facilitate the tracking of projects and preparation of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report required by HUD.  In developing the format, the consultant must incorporate Performance Measurement data required by HUD.  The consultant shall review other County Department strategic plans and include any relative information from these plans that may further articulate the Institutional Structure and Coordination of the Urban County Program in implementing the priorities and objectives of the Consolidated Plan’s Five-Year Strategy.  The consultant must use HUD’s eCon Planning Suite to develop the Housing and Community Development Five-Year Strategy. All sections of the tool must be addressed.  The consultant shall address all other requirements according to the Consolidated Plan regulations [24 CFR 91.215]. The 2014-2015 One-Year Action Plan [24 CFR 91.220] The Williamson County CDBG Office will prepare the Proposed Project Pages, certifications and application forms that are to be included in the one year Action Plan. The consultant will be responsible for preparing the 2014 One-Year Action Plan [24 CFR 91.220]:  The consultant shall integrate the 2014 One-Year Action Plan into the 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan by editing the plan and ensuring that the formats are consistent using HUD’s eCon Planning Suite.  The consultant shall produce computer-generated maps to indicate geographically how Williamson County will direct assistance to low-income and minority concentrated areas during fiscal year 2014. These maps must be included in the 2014 One-Year Action Plan. Page 39 of 87 Format and Presentation Draft and final 2014-2018 Consolidated Plan and 2014 Action Plan must be available for viewing in two (2) separate formats, in printed form and on CD-ROM. Documents must be of high quality, easily read and understood and include Executive Summary. The following are tasks in which the consultant will be responsible for in terms of Consolidated and One-year Action Plan formatting and presentation:  The consultant shall include Executive Summaries in both the Consolidated Plan and One-Year Action Plan that are easy to read and summarizes key information from each section of the documents.  The consultant shall develop the Consolidated Plan and Action Plan to include graphs, charts, matrices, pictures, maps, tables or graphics to clearly convey information to the public, as needed.  The consultant shall provide three (3) bound copies of all drafts submitted as well as a master copy of each document in Microsoft Word and/or Excel with all supporting files on CD-ROM disk.  The consultant shall provide six (6) bound copies of each final document, as well as, a master copy of each document in Microsoft Word and/or Excel with all supporting files on CD-ROM disk. The County will have ownership of all final products.  The consultant shall place the documents on a CD-ROM disk in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) allowing the finished document to be posted on the County’s Internet Web Site. Project Scheduling, Technical Consultation, and Support During the Consolidated Plan Approval Process The consultant shall provide the following to meet the requirements of project scheduling, technical consultation and support: The consultant shall prepare a detailed schedule of performance that will encompass all phases of the Consolidated Plan development including research, citizen participation, development, and the submission and approval process. The schedule must be submitted to the Williamson County CDBG Office Commission within ten (10) business days of executing the contract between Williamson County and the consultant, and is to include, but not be limited to, the following elements:  One meeting per month with the Williamson County CDBG Office Commission staff during the contract with the option of more meetings to be scheduled as needed during the Consolidated Plan development to coordinate and oversee the final phases of the project.  A listing of a minimum of three (3) forums to obtain input as previously described. Page 40 of 87  A listing of a minimum of four (4) community meetings to obtain input as previously described.  The establishment of target dates for completion of all the specific work requirements described herein.  The establishment of target dates for preliminary, rough and final draft Consolidated Plan product submission.  Projected dates for final Consolidated Plan document review by staff and executive management, as well as public review and comment and final Commissioners’ Court review and approval. 6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Sally Bardwell, Grants Coordinator for Williamson County (or successor), 710 S. Main Street, Georgetown, TX 78626, shall serve as Williamson County’s Contract Administrator with designated responsibility to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Contract and any ensuing Agreement such as but not limited to, acceptance, inspection and delivery. The Contract Administrator will serve as liaison between the Williamson County Commissioners Court and the Successful Respondent. 7. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS 7.1 INTRODUCTION The Proposal evaluation and selection process is detailed in this section, as are other factors, and the format in which the Price Proposal of each Proposal must be submitted. 7.2 Price Proposal The Respondent must utilize the form provided in the Appendix below in its submission of a Price Proposal in response to this RFP. The Price Proposal must be included in each copy of the Proposal. Any reworked version of the Appendix that is intended to be a substitute and that is provided by a Respondent may be determined as non-responsive, and may, at Williamson County’s sole discretion, result in the Respondent’s disqualification. 7.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SELECTION PROCESS All Proposals received by the specified deadline will be reviewed by a County Evaluation Committee for content, fee, related experience, and professional qualifications of consultants. After initial screening, the Evaluation Committee may select those firms deemed most qualified Page 41 of 87 for this project for further evaluation. Interviews of these selected firms may be conducted as part of the final selection process. Respondents are advised that the County, at its option, may award a contract strictly on the basis of the initial Proposals. The consultant selected by the Evaluation Committee will be recommended to the County’s Commissioners Court for this project, but the Court is not bound to accept the recommendation or award the project to the recommended consultant. The following (6) six criteria will be used by the Evaluation Committee in determining its recommendation to the Commissioners’ Court. Please provide thorough responses to these criteria items: 1. Consultant’s experience in years and projects developing consolidated plans or closely related planning documents. (minimum of three (3) years preferred) 15 Points 2. Experience in years and projects of qualified personnel that consultant shall provide to perform all work in accordance with the statement of work. (minimum three (3) years of experience preferred) 15 Points 3. Recent experience in using HUD’s eCon Planning Suite or other experience in using similar tools. 15 Points 4. Recent experience in developing Performance Measurement Systems required by HUD or other experience in developing similar systems. 15 Points 5. Experience of a qualified Project Manager the consultant shall provide for the project. Will the Project Manager be accessible throughout the project, as requested? 15 Points 6. Fees for Consulting Services 25 Points The County reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals and to waive informalities and minor irregularities in any Proposals received. Absence of required information may render a Proposal non-responsive, resulting in rejection of the Proposal by the County. The County may, during the evaluation process, request from any Respondent additional information which the County deems necessary to determine the Respondent’s ability to perform the required services. If such information is requested, the Respondent shall be permitted five (5) working days to submit the information requested. An error in the Proposal may cause the rejection of that Proposal. However, the County may, in its sole discretion, retain the Proposal and make certain corrections. In determining if a correction will be made, the County will consider the conformance of the Proposal to the format and content required by the RFP, and any unusual complexity of the format and content required by the RFP. If the Respondent’s intent is clearly established based on review of the complete Proposal submittal, the County may, at its sole option, correct an error based on that established content. The County may also correct obvious clerical errors. The County may also request clarification from a Respondent on any item in a Proposal that County believes to be in error. The County reserves the right to select the Proposal which in its sole judgment best meets the needs of the County. The lowest proposed cost is not the sole criterion for recommending contract award. All firms responding to this RFP will be notified of their selection or non- selection in writing after the Evaluation Committee has completed the selection process. Page 42 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to hold a special Housing Advisory Board meeting on October 29, 2015 to complete the presentation for City Council Workshop on November 10, 2015.--Walt Doering, Board Chair ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Page 43 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and possible action to change the time, day and date of the regular Housing Advisory Board meetings.--Walt Doering, Board Chair ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Page 44 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Discussion and identification of problems board members are having downloading agenda materials.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Page 45 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Update: Workforce Housing Incentives and Accessory Dwelling Unit Unified Development Code Amendments.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator. ITEM SUMMARY: As the implementation step for Priority #1, the Housing Advisory Board has identified two areas in which the city can offer incentives to encourage the development of Workforce Housing units (Attachment 1). These recommendations were forwarded to the Unified Development Code Advisory Committee at their June meeting for review and discussion. No revisions were requested, so the amended UDC language was considered during a public hearing at the August 4 (Attachment 2). The UDCAC recommended the revisions, which was forwarded to the August 18 Planning & Zoning Commission. A public hearing was held and a recommendation for approval was forwarded to City Council. The item, along with 18 other amendments to the UDC, went to the September 8, regular City Council meeting for first reading of the ordinance and public hearing. During the discussion, the Housing Diversity and Workforce Housing amendments were pull for further review, along with amendments to Accessory Dwelling Unit Limitations and Accessory Structure limits (Attachment 3). The Planning staff will be meeting this week to discuss the next steps to bring these back to City Council. You can watch the item online at http://georgetowntx.swagit.com/play/09082015-1080, Item AJ& AK. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Attachment 1--Workforce Housing Incentives summary Backup Material Attacment 2-draft UDC amendment for Workforce Housing Backup Material Attachment 3--Accessory Dwelling & Accessory Structure amendments summary Backup Material Page 46 of 87 1 Attachment 1: Workforce Housing Incentives Existing UDC provisions In Section 6.070.020 Housing Diversity Development standards exist within the UDC, allowing alternative lot widths, lot sizes and, setbacks for single-family, two-family and townhouse development. An additional requirement of this section is that the entire development must consist of a mix of housing types, which has not been a direction developers have been willing to consider to date. Once the housing type mix requirement was met, additional incentives and waivers could be gained by setting aside a number of the units as “Attainable Housing,” would be available to those making 80% of Area Median Family Income (AMFI). The intent of the recommended text amendments will be offer incentives for affordability OR housing mix. Addition of Multifamily Standards Section 6.070.020 does not have any incentives for creation of Workforce Housing in the multifamily districts. The board has recommended three alternatives that would allow for increased density (Exhibit 1). 1. Increase the number of units per building. 2. Reduce the front setback. 3. Increase in Impervious Cover. Fee Waivers Section 6.07.020 F allows for fee waivers for housing developments that provide Attainable Housing units. Fees waived in this section include parkland dedication fees, impact fees and connection fees. The Housing Advisory Board reviewed the fee structure and city policy for collection of fees and has recommended not waiving parkland, impact, and connection fees. For fee waivers, the Board reviewed fees charged to recent developments. They proposed that for eligible projects, the City waive a portion of the staff review and inspection fees. • For each Workforce Housing Unit included in the project, the developer will receive a $2,500 waiver of City review and inspection fees, up to a total of $100,000. The value of the waivers cannot exceed the total fees assessed. • Total incentivized units cannot be more than 50% of total project. Examples: 200 unit apartment complex – Up to 40 units (20%) can receive fee waivers – 40 x $2,500 = $100,000 20 unit townhome/apt project – Up to 10 units (50%) can receive fee waivers – 10 x $2,500 = $25,000 Page 47 of 87 2 Street Standards With a Housing Diversity Development, applicants were able to reduce the paved width on Residential Local streets and Residential Collectors if parking is allowed on only one side. Staff is recommending removing this option and requiring the standard paved width for all developments. Page 48 of 87    A. Accessory structures and buildings shall meet the dimensional standards of the base zoning  district, except as specified in this Section. However, properties in the Old Town Overlay District  may request a Certificate of Appropriateness for setback exception in accordance with Section  3.13 of this Code.  B. The accessory structure shall only be located on a lot with a principal structure, unless two  adjacent lots have common ownership, in which case the structures may be located on different  lots. In such instance, the accessory structure shall be located in the rear yard as determined by  the lot with the principal structure on it.  C. The square footage of an accessory structure shall not exceed 25% of the square footage of the  principal structure.  However, the maximum accessory structure square footage may exceed 25%  of the principal structure to allow for the construction of a detached two‐car garage, not to exceed  600 square feet.  For the purposes of this calculation, the square footage of an attached garage  shall not be considered part of the principal structure.  D. Accessory Structures shall not exceed the height of the principal structure, however, accessory  structures associated with a Non‐ Residential Use allowed in Table 5.07.010 (Agricultural Uses)  may exceed the height of the principal structure provided the maximum building heights of the  district are not exceeded.  E. Accessory structures measuring 8 feet or less in height are allowed in the setbacks in the rear  yard up to 3 feet from the property line, but may not extend into any P.U.E.   EF. Garages and carports, whether attached or detached from the principal structure, shall be set  back a minimum of 20 feet from the public street from which the associated driveway takes  access or a minimum of 10 feet when taking access from a public alley.  F. No more than 30% of the rear yard may be covered with accessory buildings or structures. All  impervious cover requirements in Section 11.02 shall be met.  G. Accessory dwelling units located in accessory structures in the AG, RE, RL, and RS Districts are  allowed subject to the limitations provided for in Section 5.02.020.B or within a Housing  Diversity Development without limitations (as detailed in Section 6.07.020).  **********  Section 6.07 Special Development Types **********  6.07.020 Housing Diversity Development A. Purpose To encourage housing diversity, this Code allows flexibility to the development standards and  allowable housing types for projects that foster housing diversity.  Page 38 of 58 Exhibit A Page 49 of 87    B. Housing Types The following Table shows the types of housing permitted in a Housing Diversity Development.  At least three of the following housing types in any of the following Districts shall be included to  qualify for the alternative dimensional standards in Table 6.07.020.B6.07.021.  Table 6.07.020.B: Permitted Housing Types by Residential District Housing Type Minimum Lot Size RL RS TF TH MF-1 MF-2 Single Family, Detached 7,500 SF lot X X X X X X Single Family, Detached 4,500 SF lot X X X X X X Single Family, Attached 3,500 SF lot X X X X X X Two-family 6,000 SF lot X X X X X X Townhouse 7,000 SF lot X X X X X X Apartment 12,000 SF lot -- -- -- -- X -- Apartment 2 acre lot -- -- -- -- -- X C. Dimensional Standards The following Table provides the dimensional standards for each residential building type that  can be used in lieu of the dimensional standards otherwise applicable.  For any explanation of  any reference in this Table to “Attainable Housing,” see subsection (F)  Page 39 of 58 Exhibit A Page 50 of 87     Table 6.07.020.C: Housing Diversity Type Dimensional Standards ¹  Standard Single Family, Detached Single Family, Attached Two- family Townhouse Lot Size, minimum 7,500 4,500 7,000 6,000 1,7507,000 Dwelling Size, minimum - - 3,500 3,000 --1,750 Dwellings per structure, max. - - 3 2 7 Lot Width, minimum feet 60 35 ² 35 ² 60 20 Front Setback, minimum feet 15 15 15 15 5 ³  Front Setback, minimum feet (Attainable Housing) -- 10 10 10 5 Side Setback, minimum feet 10 6 6 6 10 Side Setback, minimum feet (Attainable Housing) 6 4.5 ⁴ -- 4.5 ⁴ 7.5 Rear Setback, minimum feet 10 10 10 10 15 Rear Setback, minimum feet (Attainable Housing) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 -- Building Height, max. feet 35 40 40 40 45 Acc. Building Height, max. ft. 20 20 20 20 20 Impervious Coverage, max % See Section 11.02 “Impervious Cover” Perimeter Buffer, min. feet See Chapter 8 “Tree Preservation, Landscaping and Fencing” 1. All Standards in Table 6.07.02O.C shall meet any specific requirements of the allowed housing type, as detailed elsewhere in this Chapter. When a conflict occurs between such requirements and the standards of this Table, the Table shall apply. 2. Lots less than 40 feet in width must be alley loaded lots, with the exception of townhouse lots. 3. See Section 6.03.070.C.1.a for clarification. 4. All applicable requirements of the Fire Code must be met. D. Interpretations and Exceptions All dimensional standards in Paragraph (C), above, are subject to the interpretations and  exceptions in Section 6.05.  E. Perimeter Buffer The perimeter buffer applies to the subdivision edge or contiguous area of a Housing Diversity  Development, and not to specific Zoning Districts within the Development. The perimeter buffer  may be counted towards required landscaping if it is within the lot.  F. Alternative Sidewalk DesignAttainable Housing Refer to Section 12.02.040 Alternative Design and Financing for sidewalk options in Housing Diversity  Developments.  Page 40 of 58 Exhibit A Page 51 of 87     1. Housing Diversity Developments that include 10% of the housing units available for those  whose incomes are less than or equal to 80% of the area median income (attainable housing),  and for which the deed for each attainable housing unit lot approved by the City Attorney  and including language that provides that for seven years from the date of the original home  sale to the qualifying buyer any resale shall be to a party whose income is less than or equal  to 80% of the area median income or, absent that, shall require a payment to the City of their  proportionate share of fees that were waived for their lot.  2. Housing Diversity Developments that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (1)  may use the setback adjustments as noted in Table 6.07.020.C.  3. Housing Diversity Developments that meet the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (1)  are exempt from the requirement to pay parkland dedication fees, impact fees, and  connection fees for those units that meet the definition of attainable housing (i.e., for up to  10% of the lots.) These waived fees shall either be used to reduce the price of the home or for  buyer incentives, such as funds to help with closing costs.  6.07.030 Workforce Housing Development A. Purpose To encourage affordable housing for the workforce, this Code allows flexibility to the  development standards and allowable housing types for projects that foster housing  affordability.  B. Dimensional Standards The following Table provides the dimensional standards for each residential district that can be  used in lieu of the dimensional standards otherwise applicable.    Table 6.07.030 Workforce Housing Dimensional Standards Standard RS TF TH MF‐1 MF‐2  Lot Size, Minimum 4,500 6,000 1,750 12,000 2 acres  Dwelling Units per acre, max ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14 24  Dwelling Size, Minimum ‐‐ 3,000 1750 ‐‐    Dwellings per structure, Max ‐‐ 2 8 20 50  Lot Width, minimum feet 35 2 60 20 50 50  Front Setback, minimum feet 10 10 10 15 15  Side Setback, minimum feet 5.5 5.5 7.5 10 10  Side Setback to Residential District,  minimum feet ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 20 30  Rear Setback, minimum feet 7.5 7.5 10 10 15  Rear Setback to Residential District,  minimum feet ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 20 30  Building Height, max feet 40 40 45 35 45  Impervious Coverage, max % See Section 11.02 "impervious Cover"  1. All Standards in Table 6.070 C B shall meet any specific requirements of the allowed housing type,  as detailed elsewhere in the is Chapter.  When a conflict occurs between such requirements and  the standards of this Table, the Table shall apply.  Page 41 of 58 Exhibit A Page 52 of 87     2. Lots less than 40 feet in width must be alley loaded lots, with the exception of townhouse lots.  C. Interpretations and Exceptions All dimensional standards in Paragraph (C), above, are subject to the interpretations and  exceptions in Section 6.05.  D. Alternative Sidewalk Design Refer to Section 12.02040 Alternative Design and Financing for sidewalk options in Workforce  Housing Developments.  E. Workforce Housing 1. Workforce Housing Developments in Single‐Family Residential, Two‐Family and Townhouse  Districts that include 20% of the housing units available for those whose incomes are less  than or equal to 80% of the area median family income (as set by the Department of Housing  and Urban Development) are eligible to use the standards in Table 6.070.030 for all lots  within the subdivision.  The Ddeed resistrictionsrestrictions, approved by the City Attorney,  must include language that requires all workforce housing lots be restricted for ten years  from the date of the original home sale to the qualifying buyer any resale shall be to a party  whose income is less than or equal to 80% of the area median family income or, absent that,  shall require a payment to the City of their proportionate and prorated share of fees that  were waived for their lot.  2. Workforce Housing Developments in Low‐Density Multifamily (MF‐1) and High‐Density  Multifamily (MF‐2) Districts are eligible to use the dimensional standards in Table 6.07.030  with the provision of the following workforce housing units.  a. Dwelling Units per structure maximum can be reached by providing 5% of the total  development as workforce units.  b. Front Setback can be reduced by 5 feet for every 10% of total development set as  workforce units, to the minimum.  c. Impervious cover can be increase by 10 % for every 10 % of the total development set as  workforce units, to the maximum of 70%, with required water quality improvements as  required in Section 11.02.  F. Fee Waivers Workforce Housing Developments are eligible for administrative fee waivers.  For each  workforce housing unit provided, the developer will receive a waiver of $2,500 of review fees, up  to a total of $100,000.  Fee waivers cannot be earned for more than 50% the total development., as  adopted and published by the City of Georgetown.  Page 42 of 58 Exhibit A Page 53 of 87      Chapter 11 Environmental Protection **********  Section 11.02 Impervious Cover These impervious cover limitations are adopted to minimize negative flooding effects from stormwater  runoff and to control, minimize, and abate water pollution resulting from urban runoff of rainwater or  other non‐point specific sources, pursuant to §26.177 of the Texas Water Code.  11.02.010 Impervious Cover Limitation Impervious Cover limitations apply to all properties in the city limits and the city’s extraterritorial  jurisdiction (ETJ).  **********  B. Residential Development Residential Development in the City limits shall follow the provisions below. All development in  the ETJ shall follow the provisions in Section C below.  1. Except as provided in Subsection b and c, below, Impervious Cover for development located  in Residential Zoning Districts shall be calculated on a per subdivision basis and shall not  exceed the limits set forth in Table 11.02.010.B. All maximum percentages are established by  district, regardless of use. The limits in Table 11.02.010.B apply to all development located in  Residential Zoning Districts over any part of the Edwards Aquifer in the table below.  Table 11.02.010.B: Impervious Cover (max. %) for Residential Zoning Districts   Residential Zoning Districts   AG RE RL RS TF TH MF-1 MF-2 MH  All properties 20 40 45 45 45 50 50 50 50  2. Exceptions for Residential Zoning Districts a. Impervious cover credits are established for all properties, regardless of size and  location, in Section D below.  b. For Conservation Subdivisions in Residential Zoning Districts, a bonus of 10% per  subdivision is granted for all properties.  c. For Workforce Housing Development in MF‐1 or MF‐2 Districts, a bonus of up to 20%  per site is granted with the provision of 20% of the units restricted as Workforce  Housing.  **********  Page 53 of 58 Exhibit A Page 54 of 87 Attachment 3 Accessory Dwelling Unit Limitations (UDC Section 5.02): The current UDC limits accessory dwelling units, including garage apartments, from being rented. The problem with the rental condition is that it is not enforceable by the City and, per the limitation, an owner could live in the accessory dwelling unit and rent out the main house, defeating the intent. Related to removal of the rental restriction, an additional parking space requirement was added as well as utility restrictions. Accessory structures (UDC Section 6.06.010): This amendment language addresses challenges staff has experienced applying and interpreting the existing requirements with regard to height and size. The proposed language removes the regulation limiting accessory structures to only 30% of the rear yard and provides a standard that would allow a two car garage on any size lot. Additionally, the proposed amendment changes the maximum accessory building height to be that of the principal structure. Page 55 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Update: Key Takeaways on the 2015 Re-imagining Cities Conference.--Brenda Baxter, Board Member, Walt Doering, Board Chair, and Monica Martin, Board Secretary. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2015 Reimagining Cities Conference Cover Memo Page 56 of 87 2015 Reimaging Cities Conference LBJ School of Public Affairs Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Keynote Speaker Julian Castro, HUD Secretary Key Takeaways Attendees: Brenda Baxter, Walt Doering and Monica Martin HUD Secretary, Julian Castro. was the keynote speaker for the 50th anniversary celebration of LBJ's authorization of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development. It was open to the public though not the rest of the Conference. Here are some of our takeaways: – Julian Castro is an advocate for promoting opportunity for all via a comprehensive approach. LikeLBJ, he seeks to make government an instrument of the good. good. –He addressed the growing gap between the rich and poor, noting one's birth in a given zip code has much to do with determining one's future. For example, in St. Louis County, if you were born in Ferguson, zip code 63105, you life span is 18 years less than if you were born and lived in zip code 63105, that is Clayton, one of the richest areas in the county. --Castro seeks to level the playing field thru housing and reduce the costs of Medicaid and Medicare. He wants to ensure every person has a real shot at the American Dream. The new HUD rules, soon to be rolled out, will help expand opportunity for everyone. --Castro's aware that, despite the richness of our country, many people still are oppressed in America and live in squalor. --The shift in America is from suburbs to cities. By 2050, our population will be 80 million with 60 million living in urban areas. --Per Castro, we cannot afford to engage in benign neglect. We can't afford to let anyone wait anymore for the doors of opportunity to be opened. Page 57 of 87 Page 2 --He focused on three things: 1. We need to lift up our communities through a wholistic approach to improve the quality of life for those living lives that are stressed and oppressed. His wholistic approach to solving problems was a major theme. Government, he said, needs to breakdown the silos which exist among various branches of government and collaborate with each other. Leaders and employees in government, business, transportation, education, healthcare and economic development need to work together to create a new future for our citizens that expands opportunity. 2. In distributing monies, Castro pledged HUD will place a larger emphasis on measuring outcomes. HUD will also do a better job of measuring results. 3. With funds, we need to provide balance. Monies need to be used to support greater opportunity and mobility out of poverty. That would help stressed areas. Also, monies need to help those who want to stay in their neighborhoods and lift up these distressed communities, too. --Castro reminded us we have the chance to improve housing and communities in America. He challenged participants to be difference makers so those who follow us are blessed with opportunity. Page 58 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Updates: Planning topics--Tamiro Phase 2, University Avenue Apartments (old hospital site), and form-based codes.--Richard Glasco, Board Member and Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: Tamiro Plaza Phase 2 (501 S. Austin Avenue): This is the second phase of the Tamiro Plaza project. The plan includes retail spaces and 14 brownstones (for purchase). College View Apartments (605 E. University Avenue): This will be a new 33 unit apartment. Form-Based Code: A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, usually adopted into city law as a zoning district. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Page 59 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Update: Multifamily rental statistics for Austin and Georgetown.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: Multifamily rental statistics for Austin and Georgetown. According to the 2nd Quarter Austin Multi-Family Trend Report, the average rent for the Austin MSA was $1,122 for a 855 sf apartment, while Georgetown was $1,061 for 913 sf. These totals do not include affordable units in the averages. Georgetown Market Comparison The average occupancy is down from the end of 2014's average of 97.16%. This is due to the the influx of newly constructed units that have been coming online over the last six months. The Trend Report and Market Comparison for Georgetown area attached. These are the same attachments from the last meeting. Attached for reference. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Area # of Properties # of Units Average Occupancy Average Size Average Rent per Month Georgetown 20 2,976 85.6% 867 $947 Austin MSA 863 190,609 94.1% 860 $1,143 ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 2nd Quarter Austin Multi-Family Trend Report Backup Material Market Comparison Report for Georgetown Backup Material Page 60 of 87 (877) APT-DATA www.apartmenttrends.com The Austin Multi-Family TTRREENNDD RREEPPOORRTT Just the Facts... Average Occupancy: 93.6% Average Rent: $1,122 Average Square Feet: 855 Average $/SF: $1.31 New Units Added (conventional):2,618 Average Sales Price/Unit:$116,292 Did you know? The statistics in this report are based on conventional properties -unless otherwise noted. For further information, all of our data can be searched on the website. 2Q15 Affordable Housing Stats: 17,465 Units – 98% - $.96 psf 2Q15 Student Housing Stats: 11,563 Units – 95.5% - $1.61 psf We appreciate the cooperation and support that we received from all property managers, assistants and owners. Inside... Occupancy Page 2 Rental Rates Page 2 Absorption Page 3 Unit Mix Averages Page 3 New Construction Page 4 Construction Comparison Page 5 Sales Page 6 Population/Job Growth Page 7 Borders & Parameters Website Published By: The information contained herein was obtained from our industry sources and other third parties, and we have used commercially reasonable efforts to gather, verify, analyze and report such information. NONETHELESS, WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. All information should be independently verified by the user of this report. Reproduction of this report in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written consent of Austin Investor Interests, LLC. New Construction Hits Central Core Although new unit completions have kept occupancy rates stagnant for the past 24 months, the overall market is performing well. During that time, there were approximately 16,300 units added to the market, while absorption figures show 13,169 more occupied units. Occupancy rests at a very respectable 93.6%, while rental rates have continued to rise each quarter during this timeframe, averaging an increase almost 6% per year. Nearly half of this increase is attributable to true rent increases, as opposed to higher priced new supply. While overall averages remain impressive, the Class A inventory has a bigger story to tell. Over 37% of this class’s product entered the market over the last two years, with 21% of these units added in the last 12 months – a total of 9,366 units. Over 25% of these are located within a four mile radius of the inner city core, and there are ~5,800 more units in this area currently under construction. The bulk of these units are found in nine high-rise buildings, which range from 11 to 39 floors, and 14 mid-rise projects, all of which average anywhere from $1.73 to $3.16 psf. This unit type has not previously been a major player in the market. Currently the inner city area has an average occupancy of 82% – a victim of the latest quarter’s arrivals that pushed rates down 8%. This begs the question, how will the impact of another 5,800 units affect this downtown area? For now it seems the true demand is in the more affordably priced Class B and C units that are averaging around $1.23 psf. Occupancy in these units is hovering near 96%. However, these prices are steadily increasing, as over a third of the market has or is upgrading to at least faux wood floors, 2" blinds, brushed nickel hardware, new appliances, ceiling fans, granite counters, cabinets, paint, hardware and lights. The expense seems to be paying off. On the upside, stabilized Class A product currently reflects an occupancy rate near 95%, while Classes B and C are close to 96%. The wildcard is the new product with the excessive price point that has recently entered the market, and those like it that are expected to enter the market over the next 12 months. These units will exceed over 12,000, and nearly half has rent expectations above $1.60 psf. In an effort to provide the most accurate reflection of the new Austin area geographic boundaries that have significantly changed in our 20+ years covering the market, our submarket distribution maps are in process of changing and will be effective next quarter. If you would like to review this map with us and provide your feedback, please reference the attached map at the back of the report. Austin San Antonio (877) APT-DATA or (877) 278-3282 E-mail: customerservice@apartmenttrends.com $500/year 2ND Quarter 2015 COPYRIGHTED REPORT TC 324315 Page 61 of 87 Multi-Family Market OCCUPANCY & RENTAL RATES CLASS A STAB CLASS A CLASS B CLASS C TOTALS QTR CHANGE ANN CHANGE2Q15OCCRENTOCCRENTOCCRENTOCCRENTOCCRENTOCCRENT %OCC RENT % BAS 93.9% $1.13 93.9%$1.13 100.0% $1.14 98.9% $0.76 97.1% $1.00 -0.5%1.3%-0.3%9.0% C 80.9% $1.94 93.1%$1.89 92.5% $1.81 94.1% $1.60 88.1% $1.80 -1.2%0.4%0.6%4.3% CBD 81.4% $2.58 93.7%$2.42 94.2% $2.22 95.2% $1.54 83.2% $2.52 -5.9%-0.2%0.5%2.2% CP/L 96.7% $1.26 96.9%$1.23 97.4% $1.10 100.0% $1.09 97.1% $1.17 1.2%2.9%3.5%4.8% FN 88.6% $1.37 96.9%$1.29 95.8% $1.17 96.6% $1.24 93.6% $1.25 -1.1%3.1%-1.5%7.2% FNW 74.7% $1.15 94.6%$0.96 94.2% $1.08 - - 91.5% $1.09 0.4%2.2%-2.0%5.8% N 95.0% $1.50 95.0%$1.50 - - 97.0% $1.15 96.9% $1.18 0.3%2.6%0.6%5.1% NE 84.7% $1.73 95.9%$1.62 93.6% $1.18 95.9% $1.11 93.0% $1.29 -1.6%4.2%0.0%8.2% NW 91.7% $1.25 96.7%$1.25 96.0% $1.18 96.2% $1.15 95.1% $1.19 0.8%3.0%-0.6%5.2% NWH 80.9% $1.38 94.7%$1.30 95.8% $1.36 96.4% $1.28 94.8% $1.32 1.1%3.9%-0.7%5.7% RR 95.0% $1.17 96.0%$1.16 97.4% $1.12 97.8% $1.11 96.6% $1.14 2.2%3.8%0.4%5.2% S 91.5% $1.41 95.4%$1.35 96.8% $1.20 96.5% $1.39 94.8% $1.37 0.0%3.0%0.5%6.7% SE 88.9% $1.56 89.2%$1.54 95.9% $1.19 94.9% $1.22 94.1% $1.28 -0.3%1.8%1.1%4.6% SM 94.0% $1.25 94.6%$1.26 95.0% $1.22 94.8% $1.08 94.5% $1.17 -1.1%0.7%0.9%4.2% SW 77.7% $1.40 91.5%$1.37 94.8% $1.34 97.2% $1.53 91.2% $1.37 0.7%0.7%-3.1%2.2% WMS 78.6% $1.17 95.6%$1.16 97.8% $1.11 97.1% $1.24 86.5% $1.16 -5.2%2.9%-10.8%4.2% TRAVIS 85.6% $1.62 94.5%$1.54 95.4% $1.27 96.0% $1.26 93.2% $1.36 -0.3%2.5%-0.6%6.1% AUSMSA 87.5% $1.50 94.9%$1.43 95.7% $1.23 96.1% $1.24 93.6% $1.31 -0.2%2.6%-0.6%5.9% % of Total 177 props (25%) 45,144 uts (28%) 121 props (17%) 33,719 uts (21%) 176 props (25%) 53,486 uts (33%) 353 props (50%) 62,824 uts (39%) 706 props 161,454 units HISTORICAL OCCUPANCY By Class HISTORICAL RENTAL RATES By Class Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015Page 2 80.0% 82.5% 85.0% 87.5% 90.0% 92.5% 95.0% 97.5% 100.0% 19 9 8 20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 4 20 0 6 20 0 8 20 1 0 2Q 1 1 4Q 1 1 2Q 1 2 4Q 1 2 2Q 1 3 4Q 1 3 2Q 1 4 4Q 1 4 2Q 1 5 Class A Class B Class C $0.75 $0.85 $0.95 $1.05 $1.15 $1.25 $1.35 $1.45 $1.55 19 9 8 20 0 0 20 0 2 20 0 4 20 0 6 20 0 8 20 1 0 2Q 1 1 4Q 1 1 2Q 1 2 4Q 1 2 2Q 1 3 4Q 1 3 2Q 1 4 4Q 1 4 2Q 1 5 Class A Class B Class C Occupancy fell slightly during the second quarter, down .2%, to rest at 93.6%. Annually, the decrease was .6%. Effective rental rates, rose 2.6% to reach $1.31 psf – an annual increase of 5.9%. Over 3.5% of this annual increase was attributable to the year’s new higher priced additions that average $1.71 psf. However, this new inventory was also accountable for a 1.5% holdback in occupancy. The effects of new unit additions vs. stabilized Class A units is represented in the chart above. Quarterly, rents were up ~3% to reach $1.50 psf for all Class A product. However, new inventory caused a .7% dip in occupancy, dropping the overall rate to 87.5%. Stabilized Class A units, on the other hand, held an impressive and stable occupancy at 94.9% with an average effective rent of $1.43 psf. Much of the new construction and future additions are located within a four-mile radius of the CBD. Currently, this area averages $2.02 psf, with occupancy at 82%. While most of the common central core saw occupancy drop 4-8% over the quarter, some areas fared better than others. Among the CDB high-rises, three new ones have opened over the last 180 days, causing an 8% decline in this unit type, along with a 4% price drop to $2.56 psf. The 78704 area posted a 76% occupancy rate with rents at $1.70 psf, while the central core’s east side stood at 82% and $2.04 psf. The Mueller area reported 85%, with rents at $1.69 psf, while the South Lamar area held the lowest occupancy at 68% and $1.92 psf. The only occupancy gain in the radius of the central core was Class A in the Riverside area at 90%/$1.75. Rates include properties under construction with rentable units. Please refer to www.apartmenttrends.com for property specific information. Stabilized Class A statistics have been broken out and include properties that are less than 12 months old. Totals include all Class A properties. Page 62 of 87 Multi-Family Market UNIT MIX AVERAGES Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4+ Bedroom Overall Concess #2Q15 SF RENT SF RENT SF RENT SF RENT SF Rent SF Rent Adjust Props. BAS - - 684 $792 956 $901 1,224 $1,204 - -883 $880 0.0%7 C 482 $1,079 707 $1,298 1,035 $1,749 1,296 $2,431 1,490 $2,938 812 $1,458 -3.0%72 CBD 565 $1,675 820 $2,067 1,299 $3,228 2,063 $4,946 - -986 $2,481 -1.8%16 CP/L 529 $831 747 $935 1,070 $1,189 1,279 $1,395 1,395 $1,180 924 $1,077 -0.1%17 FN 550 $1,000 713 $955 1,062 $1,216 1,329 $1,497 1,910 $2,024 853 $1,068 -0.3%67 FNW 507 $876 805 $938 1,131 $1,171 1,427 $1,579 2,146 $2,033 1,034 $1,126 -0.4%14 N 411 $616 638 $791 920 $994 1,089 $1,129 - -725 $853 -1.3%57 NE 431 $814 674 $949 981 $1,132 1,299 $1,439 1,500 $1,025 791 $1,022 -1.3%53 NW 447 $672 733 $941 1,065 $1,192 1,429 $1,516 1,910 $2,495 897 $1,068 -0.2%62 NWH 431 $795 713 $994 1,042 $1,293 1,410 $1,880 1,800 $2,267 852 $1,128 -0.5%52 RR 586 $750 743 $906 1,025 $1,102 1,279 $1,410 1,691 $1,713 911 $1,036 -0.5%43 S 449 $897 690 $1,019 1,005 $1,258 1,273 $1,474 1,417 $1,687 820 $1,121 -1.0%74 SE 470 $891 668 $924 991 $1,148 1,278 $1,386 1,266 $1,510 795 $1,018 -1.6%64 SM 428 $678 661 $844 921 $996 1,201 $1,352 1,870 $2,529 816 $955 -1.0%43 SW 438 $871 767 $1,104 1,100 $1,429 1,338 $1,787 - -921 $1,262 -1.4%48 WMS 447 $629 721 $934 1,033 $1,133 1,370 $1,402 1,707 $1,744 913 $1,061 -1.5%17 TRAVIS 457 $886 709 $1,029 1,038 $1,307 1,336 $1,676 1,786 $2,050 844 $1,150 -1.2%538 AUSMSA 467 $873 711 $1,003 1,033 $1,256 1,331 $1,581 1,754 $1,981 855 $1,122 -1.1%706 % of TTL 5,102 Units 3% 88,599 Units 54.9% 60,005 Units 37.3% 7,165 Units 4.4% 583 Units .4%Please refer to Apartmenttrends.com for property specifics. 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% $0.55 $0.65 $0.75 $0.85 $0.95 $1.05 $1.15 $1.25 $1.35 $1.45 Occup 94% 93% 96% 96% 97% 96% 92% 89% 88% 90% 92% 93% 93% 91% 88% 92% 95% 95% 95% 94% 94% 95% 94% 94% 94% Rents $0.77 $0.78 $0.80 $0.85 $0.89 $0.97 $0.98 $0.88 $0.84 $0.81 $0.83 $0.89 $0.94 $0.97 $0.93 $0.96 $1.03 $1.09 $1.16 $1.20 $1.24 $1.26 $1.25 $1.28 $1.31 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1Q14 2Q14 3Q14 4Q14 1Q15 2Q15 Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015Page 3 HISTORICAL RENT & OCCUPANCY Over 60% of Class A properties offered move-in specials, the majority in unstabilized units which gave away an average of 4-6 weeks free. While Class B properties performed well over the quarter with a 2.2% increase in rents and an impressive 95.7% occupancy, market share was still to be maintained. Concessions rose in this class, from 30% to 50% of the market. While all sectors reported rent gains, lower occupancies were found in areas competing with new units and/or student migration in the C, CBD and SM sectors. Concessions in Class C projects were barely existent as this class is currently outperforming even the newer counterparts of the market. Though occupancy hasn’t budged in the last six months, holding at 96.1%, rents are now exceeding their Class B counterparts due to renovations. Quarterly rents were up 2.7% to reach $1.24 psf. Overall, concessions were offered in 31% of properties despite an effective monthly rent increase of 2.7% during the quarter. At $1,122/mo, this represents an annual increase of $69/mo, or 6% over this time last year. All bedroom types reflected the quarterly increase, however there was a noticeable trend of demand moving toward the more affordable suburbs in both efficiencies and four- bedroom units. Both saw an increase of 4% in effective rents. There is an assumption that new development is tapering square footage for the millennial population that is seeking location and social convenience over size. However, the numbers within the Central zone reflect an increased size and price in comparison to the averages seen above. Within the aforementioned four mile radius of the CBD, efficiencies average 559 sf ($2.49), one-beds were 777 sf ($2.10), twos were 1,203 sf ($1.89) and threes ran 1,635 sf ($1.85). Page 63 of 87 Multi-Family Construction Gauging development over the last two years has become somewhat precarious. Just as entry filings for permits and starts begin to slow, the next quarter reaches historical heights The second quarter did reflect the lowest number of new submittals in the last five quarters, as only seven projects, totaling 1,781 units, entered the pipeline. This brings the total of units awaiting permits to 10,435. In lieu of apartments, an extensive rise in filings for condominium development has been seen The second quarter, also reflected the lowest number of starts in the last 2 ½ years, with only nine properties, a total of 1,424 units, breaking ground. These units, coupled with those already in process, total 66 projects, with 18,307 units. Of these conventional units, 2,946 have already completed and have been added to the rentable inventory leaving 15,361 units to come. In addition to the projects listed on the left, there are 11 affordable housing projects, with 1,921 units, and three student housing projects, totaling 554 units, currently under construction. Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015Page 4 Conventional New Construction: Submarket 1,424 units 1 – Affinity Wells Branch (Senior) FN 154 units 2 – AMLI Covered Bridge Ph. II SW 130 units 3 – Ledge Stone Senior SW 180 units 4 – Oaks at Kyle SM 204 units 5 – Standard at Leander Station CP/L 225 units 6 – Thornton Apartments S 104 units 7 – Townes on 10th FN 93 units 8 – Trillium Terrace S 168 units 9 – View at Cedar Town Center CP/L 166 units Continued Conventional Construction: Submarket 16,883 units 1 – 300 Riverside C 264 units 2 – 422 at the Lake C 207 units 3– 7 East NE 186 units 4 – Addison at Kramer Station FN 388 units 5 – Altis at Lakeline CP/L 354 units 6 – AMLI Covered Bridge Ph. 1 SW 230 units 7 – Aria Steiner Ranch FNW 302 units 8 – Arnold, The NE 346 units 9 – Arrington Ridge RR 312 units 10 – Aspen Heights Downtown CBD 200 units 11 – Aspen Heights South Austin SE 346 units 12 – Aura 33Hundred FN 348 units 13 – Belterra Springs SW 152 units 14 – Broadstone 8 One Hundred NW 376 units 15 – Broadstone Arboretum NWH 330 units 16 – Burnet Market Place N 343 units 17 – Carrington Oaks SM 303 units 18 – Catherine C 300 units 19 – Cielo South Lamar S 357 units 20 – Eastside Station NE 332 units 21 – Gallery at Domain FN 316 units 22 – Green at Plum Creek Ph. I SM 246 units 23 – Green Spring SM 100 units 24 – Highline NW 256 units 25– IMT RIATA Ph. IX NW 307 units 26 – IO-Austin FN 351 units 27 – Lakeline West CP/L 344 units 28 – Lakeshore Azul SE 295 units 29 – Lamar Union C 442 units 30 – Landmark Double Creek Ph. II S 276 units 31– Landmark Southpark Ph. II S 285 units 32 – Lantana Pearl SW 444 units 33 – Legacy at Southpark S 250 units 34 – Mansions at Lakeline NW 400 units 35 – Mansions Serene Hills SW 350 units 36 – Michael, The NW 415 units 37 – Millenium Rainey CBD 325 units 38 – MLK & Alexander Multifamily NE 355 units 39 – North Shore CBD 439 units 40 – Post South Lamar Ph. II C 344 units 41 – Republic Square CBD 216 units 42 – Rise SE 338 units 43 – Riverhorse Ranch Ph. II FN 278 units 44 –Rivery Park WMS 228 units 45 – Seven CBD 220 units 46 – Standard at Domain, The (Blk. W & Z) FN 346 units 47 – Still Waters Ph. I SE 256 units 48 – Strand, The SM 160 units 49 – Sur 512 S 352 units 50 – Tecoma Ph. I SW 236 units 51 – UPTown C 269 units 52 – Urban North NW 179 units 53 – Vantage at Georgetown WMS 288 units 54 – Villas at Spring Trails Ph. I FN 270 units 55 – Vista at Plum Creek Ph. II SM 181 units 56 – West Koenig Flats C 210 units 57 – Whitestone NW 340 units For specific developments details please reference the Construction Report on our website CURRENT NEW CONSTRUCTION Per Submarket Units Under Construction, Submitted, Approved and in Pre-Development 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 C CBD CP/L FN FNW N NE NW NWH RR S SE SW WMS SM Ttl. Construction - 15,361 Remaining Approved - 2,341 Submitted - 10,435 Pre-Dev./Proposed - 5,338 Page 64 of 87 -2,000 -1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 3Q 0 4 3Q 0 5 3Q 0 6 3Q 0 7 3Q 0 8 3Q 0 9 3Q 1 0 3Q 1 1 3Q 1 2 3Q 1 3 3Q 1 4 Units Absorbed Net Units Added Multi-Family Construction 2Q15 CNV: New Development Summary CNV HSG: Absorption & Units Added Last 12 Months Next 12 Months2Q15Rentable Units New Uts Added* Net Unit Change* Absrbd Units New Units Added Occ in New Units Est Starts Est Complete BAS 734 - - -4 - - - - C 10,351 388 429 257 2,023 65.2% 408 1,332 CBD 3,436 303 303 68 704 45.8% - 856 CP/L 4,951 - - 60 299 96.2% 981 950 FN 20,814 514 514 251 1,042 65.0% 2,350 1,732 FNW 5,215 17 17 36 275 57.6% 246 251 N 10,760 - -10 21 - - 310 343 NE 10,262 435 431 243 736 60.1% 526 718 NW 17,587 185 206 327 561 61.0% 290 993 NWH 13,566 5 5 149 274 31.8% - 56 RR 10,752 - 0 239 720 91.7% 238 312 S 14,615 149 235 228 567 71.9% 160 1,453 SE 14,885 - 53 2 381 88.1% 1,021 911 SM 6,355 128 -14 -83 368 90.3% 207 822 SW 13,949 160 129 212 941 45.1% 497 1,052 WMS 3,222 334 334 138 475 37.3% 256 279 TRAVIS 124,739 2,156 2,131 1,636 7,504 62.8% 5,624 9,697 TOTAL 161,454 2,618 2,632 2,142 9,366 65.7% 7,490 12,060 Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015Page 5 HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Quarter-by-Quarter Comparisons Activity 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 4Q13 1Q14 2Q14 3Q14 4Q14 1Q15 2Q15 Starts (TTL)2,616 2,659 4,965 1,445 2,170 3,175 1,364 2,140 3,480 2,963 2,639 3,947 1,424 Submittals (TTL)2,883 2,628 5,837 2,441 3,281 2,301 3,061 1,049 798 1,835 2,575 3,766 1,781 New Units Added (CNV)421 1,128 961 1,101 1,645 1,338 1,794 2,081 2,134 2,066 2,507 2,175 2,618 Net Unit Change (CNV)685 1,121 908 823 1,817 1,128 1,727 2,399 2,269 1,504 2,522 2,264 2,632 Absorption (CNV)666 1,901 -345 1,093 1,696 2,028 296 996 2,356 2,431 1,243 1,677 2,142 Occupancy (CNV)95.2 95.8 94.9 95.1 95.1 95.8 94.8 94.0 94.1 94.7 94.0 93.8 93.6 Projected new starts for the next 12 months total 7,490 units in 27 properties. As seen in the chart below, distribution is narrowing. The FN/Domain area and SE will remain hot spots for new product, with CP/L seeing many as well. If delays are not an issue, over 4,700 of these should start within 90 days. Despite the delays due to weather and permitting timelines, 2,618 units were delivered during the second quarter, bringing the 12-month total to 9,366 new units. If completions stay on target, the next year will see over 12,000 new units added. This number may increase considering the plethora of proposed projects gearing up to break ground in the near term. The C, FN/Domain, S (78704/Lamar) and NW areas will receive the bulk of the new supply in the coming year. In addition to conventional units, ~1,723 affordable and ~291 student units expect to complete in the last half of the year. OVERALL ABSORPTION Annually, conventional completions were up 22% over the prior year with 9,366 new units coming online. Absorption was strong, with over 7,493 more units occupied during the same time period. As reflected in the summary chart on page 7, many areas with heightened construction over the last 12-24 months have performed extremely well, with absorption rates nearly equal to, or exceeding, the level of new development. These areas include the CP/L, NE, NW, RR, SE and S submarkets. Conversely, the SW, FN, WMS, C and CBD continued to lag behind, with absorption totals that were quite a bit lower because of recent new additions. The last of true student migration trends is shown with the negative absorption in the SM sector this quarter. *Only conventional numbers are reflected in the charts of this report. New units added reflects only those units that have been added from new construction during the quarter. Net unit change includes new units added and existing units that have been added or deleted from inventory. Completions and starts are rough estimates of developer expectations. Occupancy may include units completed prior to the 12 months shown. Please refer to www.apartmenttrends.com for property specific information. Page 65 of 87 Multi-Family Sales $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 $110,000 $120,000 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 1Q14 3Q14 1Q15 During the second quarter, sales remained quite active from investors throughout. While there were a few locals, the majority of buyers were large, institutional investors. Overall, the second quarter included 21 sales, totaling 4,398 units. Of the sales prices obtained, the average price per unit was $116,292 or $151 psf. Close to 50% of these latest sales were Class C assets that averaged over $81,000 per unit. Classes A and B were fairly evenly divided among the remainder, with averages of $218,766 and $115,000 per unit, respectively. Contrary to the prior quarter’s heightened Class A sales, Class C activity picked up the pace again with value-added deals. However, condo and building conversion are picking up speed among this product type as well. At quarter’s end, there were 26 properties actively listed for sale and nearly a third of these were already under contract. Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015Page 6 2nd QUARTER SALES Project Submarket Units 1 – Bexley at Anderson Mill NW 396 2 – Burnet Flats C 179 3 – Crest at Pearl (SH) CBD 141 4 – Elysian at Mueller (Elements) NE 301 5 – Griffis Lakeline Station NW 232 6 – Kenzie at the Domain FN 279 7 – Landmark at Saratoga Ridge SE 229 8 – Lantana Trace I N 56 9 – Lantana Trace II N 56 10 – Lindys Landing (AHS) S 52 11 – Mission Grace Woods SE 430 12 – Mission James Place S 283 13 – Park at Walnut Creek FN 460 14 – Parkview Place (AH-S) WMS 176 15 – Rustic Creek NE 54 16 – Terrain, The S 100 17 – Terrazzo Apartment Homes NWH 224 18 – Trifecta Square N 52 19 – Uptown Crossing C 88 20 – Villages of Sage Creek FN 450 21 – Violet, The S 160 Due to sales confirmation delays, some sales may not be reported. Access all sales back to the 1990’s at www.apartmenttrends.com through your subscription or on a pay-per-report basis. HISTORICAL SALES PRICE/UNIT ANNUAL SALES PRICE PER UNIT BY SUBMARKET $0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 CBD FN FNW N NE NW NWH RR S SE SM SW Class A Class B Class C Page 66 of 87 Market Snapshot CURRENT CONSTRUCTION CNV COMPLETIONS ABSORPTION OCCUPANCY RENTAL RATES 2Q15 Rentable Units CNV Const Remaining 12 MOS 24 MOS 12 MOS 24 MOS 2Q15 Annual Change 2Q15 Annual Change ANNUAL SALES $ Per Unit BAS 734 - 0 0 -2 -7 97.1% -0.3% $1.00 9.0% - C 10,351 1,604 2,023 2,712 1,804 1,786 88.1% 0.6% $1.80 4.3% - CBD 3,436 1,222 704 1,214 486 807 83.2% 0.5% $2.52 2.2% $240,417 CP/L 4,951 1,089 299 1,108 457 1,271 97.1% 3.5% $1.17 4.8% - FN 20,814 1,796 1,042 2,096 675 1,417 93.6% -1.5% $1.25 7.2% $101,657 FNW 5,215 253 275 393 152 131 91.5% -2.0% $1.09 5.8% $116,554 N 10,760 343 0 246 66 328 96.9% 0.6% $1.18 5.1% $159,742 NE 10,262 1,219 736 1,344 719 1,070 93.0% 0.0% $1.29 8.2% $65,842 NW 17,587 1,712 561 1,347 462 1,268 95.1% -0.6% $1.19 5.2% $106,481 NWH 13,566 56 274 274 -214 -330 94.8% -0.7% $1.32 5.7% 140,795 RR 10,752 312 720 884 738 902 96.6% 0.4% $1.14 5.2% $125,000 S 14,615 1,453 567 1,395 751 1,711 94.8% 0.5% $1.37 6.7% $125,062 SE 14,885 1,235 381 1,178 634 1,306 94.1% 1.1% $1.28 4.6% $119,045 SM 6,355 966 368 780 154 657 94.5% 0.9% $1.17 4.2% $107,452 SW 13,949 1,722 941 1,267 421 554 91.2% -3.1% $1.37 2.2% $137,677 WMS 3,222 279 475 475 191 301 86.5% -10.8% $1.16 4.2% - TRAVIS 124,739 11,957 7,504 13,466 4,599 8,683 93.2% -0.6% $1.36 6.1% $117.714 AUSMSA 161,454 15,261 9,366 16,713 7,492 13,169 93.6% -0.6% $1.31 5.9% $117.714 Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015Page 7 PRODUCTS, SERVICES and PRICING Apartment DataOnline “Our Database at your Fingertips” Annual Subscription $750/Quarter or $1600/year Includes full access to complete apartment information including ▪ comprehensive property details ▪ complete market analysis ▪ historical data ▪ contacts ▪ construction ▪ expansive search and reporting capability on the entire market or specifically chosen criteria. Multi-Family Trend Report Quarterly Publication $200/single issue or $500/year This is a comprehensive and concise view of market conditions. Includes vital market/submarket trend information on occupancy, rental rates, new construction, absorption and sales. Sales Comparables Updated Quarterly $15/Comp or unlimited access $700/year Includes the essentials for both current and historical sales transactions with the ability to define your own search criteria. Property details are integrated and sales specifics include grantee, grantor, total consideration, price per unit and terms (when available). New Construction Updated Quarterly $600/year or $250/Qtr. The all-inclusive and in-depth reporting of properties in the development pipeline. Each property’s known status is reported in quarterly detail with contact information and pertinent dates for the development process. Management or Ownership Data Updated Quarterly $350/Qtr. or $650/year Includes detailed contact information for each management company and owner, the majority include the applicable contact name (Supervisor/Owner/Acq. Dir), address, phone, fax, email and associated property(s). Apartment Map Annual Publication Available with Apartment Data Online Subscription Wall map measures approximately 3’ x 4’ and reflects submarket boundaries and each apartment’s location. Each property is color- coded by class and indexed. Properties within the construction process are also shown on the map. The new web-based Apartment Program will enable users to search by the key code provided per apartment. For additional information, call us or visit our website at www.apartmenttrends.com or (877) APT-DATA Page 67 of 87 Austin - Round Rock MSA (Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, Williamson) Employment by Industry Industry Size Class Size Employees Number Employment % Total May-15 Apr-15 May-14 Actual % Actual % Class per firm of Firms in Size Class Employment Total Nonfarm 947,400 940,600 915,200 6,800 0.7% 32,200 3.5% 9 1000+ 92 267,840 29.7% Mining, Logging, and Construction 51,500 51,500 50,000 0 0.0% 1,500 3.0% 8 500-999 114 79,051 8.8% Manufacturing 58,000 58,300 57,700 -300 -0.5% 300 0.5% 7 250-499 267 91,739 10.2% Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 161,300 160,500 156,000 800 0.5% 5,300 3.4% 6 100-249 826 125,436 13.9% Information 25,800 25,900 24,200 -100 -0.4% 1,600 6.6% 5 50-99 1,297 90,507 10.0% Financial Activities 53,600 52,900 52,100 700 1.3% 1,500 2.9% 4 20-49 3,409 104,509 11.6% Professional and Business Services 155,000 154,100 149,400 900 0.6% 5,600 3.8% 3 10-19 4,485 60,836 6.7% Education and Health Services 111,700 110,900 106,700 800 0.7% 5,000 4.7% 2 5-9 6,341 41,997 4.7% Leisure and Hospitality 116,000 111,700 107,500 4,300 3.9% 8,500 7.9% 1 1-4 21,425 40,287 4.5% Other Services 40,900 40,700 39,600 200 0.5% 1,300 3.3% 0 0 4,496 0 0.0% Government 173,600 174,100 172,000 -500 -0.3% 1,600 0.9% Total 42,752 902,202 100.0% Unemployment Information (all estimates in thousands) Austin - Round Rock MSA C.L.F. Emp. Unemp. Rate C.L.F. Emp.Unemp. Rate C.L.F. Emp. Unemp. Rate May-15 1,060.3 1,027.3 33.0 3.1 13,114.0 12,575.3 538.7 4.1 157,719.0 149,349.0 8,370.0 5.3 Apr-15 1,056.0 1,024.4 31.6 3.0 13,094.5 12,573.1 521.4 4.0 156,554.0 148,587.0 7,966.0 5.1 May-14 1,049.0 1,006.0 43.0 4.1 13,094.8 12,436.9 657.9 5.0 155,841.0 146,398.0 9,443.0 6.1 Annual Growth Rate for Total Nonagricultural Employment Texas (Actual) United States (Actual) Historical Unemployment Rates Available at http://www.tracer2.com May 2015 December 2014 Monthly Change Annual Change 6% 6% 17% 3% 6% 16% 12% 12% 4% 18% Industry Composition $847.2 $1,246.7 $1,885.2 $552.2 $1,086.2 $2,716.3 $1,349.2 $610.1 $362.7 $2,136.7 Wages by Industry (in millions) 4th Quarter 2014 Mining, Logging, and Construction Manufacturing Trade, Transportation, and Utilities Information Financial Activities Professional and Business Services Education and Health Services Leisure and Hospitality Other Services Government -4.0% -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% Ma y - 0 5 Au g - 0 5 No v - 0 5 Fe b - 0 6 Ma y - 0 6 Au g - 0 6 No v - 0 6 Fe b - 0 7 Ma y - 0 7 Au g - 0 7 No v - 0 7 Fe b - 0 8 Ma y - 0 8 Au g - 0 8 No v - 0 8 Fe b - 0 9 Ma y - 0 9 Au g - 0 9 No v - 0 9 Fe b - 1 0 Ma y - 1 0 Au g - 1 0 No v - 1 0 Fe b - 1 1 Ma y - 1 1 Au g - 1 1 No v - 1 1 Fe b - 1 2 Ma y - 1 2 Au g - 1 2 No v - 1 2 Fe b - 1 3 Ma y - 1 3 Au g - 1 3 No v - 1 3 Fe b - 1 4 Ma y - 1 4 Au g - 1 4 No v - 1 4 Fe b - 1 5 Ma y - 1 5 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% Ma y - 0 5 Au g - 0 5 No v - 0 5 Fe b - 0 6 Ma y - 0 6 Au g - 0 6 No v - 0 6 Fe b - 0 7 Ma y - 0 7 Au g - 0 7 No v - 0 7 Fe b - 0 8 Ma y - 0 8 Au g - 0 8 No v - 0 8 Fe b - 0 9 Ma y - 0 9 Au g - 0 9 No v - 0 9 Fe b - 1 0 Ma y - 1 0 Au g - 1 0 No v - 1 0 Fe b - 1 1 Ma y - 1 1 Au g - 1 1 No v - 1 1 Fe b - 1 2 Ma y - 1 2 Au g - 1 2 No v - 1 2 Fe b - 1 3 Ma y - 1 3 Au g - 1 3 No v - 1 3 Fe b - 1 4 Ma y - 1 4 Au g - 1 4 No v - 1 4 Fe b - 1 5 Ma y - 1 5 Austin - Round Rock MSA Texas U.S. Page 68 of 87 Page 69 of 87 MC RARKET OMPARISON EPORT Target Area Parameters City = Georgetown and Includes: Conventional Housing and Affordable Housing Reports Included Overview - Target Area At-A-Glance Comparable Property Summary Historical Rent & Occupancy - Datasheet & Graph Unit Mix Comparison Amenity Summary Amenity Comparison Construction Activity Summary Historical Absorption Historical Sales Analysis Date Produced August 10, 2015 This information was gathered and produced by Austin Investor Interests, LLC, and contains information current for the period of second quarter2015. The information herein was gathered from 992 surveyed properties, totaling 228,569 units, of which 97.38% were successfully updated. Reproduction of this report in whole or part is prohibited without prior written consent of Austin Investor Interests, LLC Page 70 of 87 Overview This report provides a statistical analysis of the specified target area. Included is information on current and historical rent and occupancy rates, unit mix and amenity information per property, current and future construction for the specified area, historical absorption figures and a sales analysis for the past 12 months. Below, you will find highlights of the following reports. If you need further information, please feel free to call us at 877-APTDATA or visit our web site at www.apartmenttrends.com. Target Area Market At-A-Glance # OF # OF AVG AVG AVG AVG % ANNUAL CHANGECLASSPROPS UNITS $/SF OCC % SIZE $/MO CONCESS $/PSF OCC % A 6 906 $1.13 58.1% 947 $1,053 17% - - B 9 1,524 $1.04 97.7% 920 $953 11% - - C 5 546 $1.17 97.4% 676 $757 20% - - Target Mkt Total 20 2,976 $1.09 85.6% 867 $947 15% Overall Mkt Total 863 190,609 $1.30 94.1% 860 $1,143 18% Unit Mix Summary ANNUAL CHANGE FLOORPLAN % TARGET MKT QUANTITY AVG $/MO AVG $/SF AVG SIZE $/MO SIZE Efficiency 2% 47 $629 $1.41 447 1 Bedroom 40% 1,205 $874 $1.28 681 2 Bedroom 45% 1,340 $992 $1.02 969 3 Bedroom 12% 364 $1,054 $0.89 1,180 4 Bedroom 1% 20 $1,172 $0.96 1,222 Amenity Comparison AMENITY % TARGET MKT AMENITY % TARGET MKT AMENITY % TARGET MKT Pool 85% Business Center 45% Microwave 60% Hot Tub 20% Access Gates 15% Fireplace 5% Fitness Center 75% Garage 5% Washer/Dryer 15% Sports Court 25% Intrusion Alarms 0% Washer/Dryer Conn. 70% *A complete list of amenities is included within this report. Area Construction STATUS # UNITS Submitted 256 Approved 0 Under Construction 399 Net Unit Change ( past 12 mo )552 Units Absorbed ( past 12 mo )164 Area Sales # PROJECTS # UNITS AVG $/UNIT AVG $/SF # LISTED FOR SALE 0 $0 0 *Sales figures are reported for the previous 12 months. The information contained herein was obtained from our industry sources and other third parties, and we have used commercially reasonable efforts to gather, verify, analyze and report such information. NONETHELESS, WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. All information should be independently verified by the user of this report. Reproduction of this report in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written consent of Austin Investor Interests, LLC Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015 Page 71 of 87 Property Summary Austin MSA(Criteria: City = Georgetown and Includes: Conventional Housing and Affordable Housing) 2nd Quarter2015 PROPERTY NAME SUBMKT MAP/GRID CLASS YR BLT % OCC # UNITS AVG RENT AVG SF AVG $/SF Anatole at Westinghouse WMS A 2015 43% 250 $1,045 879 $1.19600Westinghouse Rd. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Apple Creek (Georgetown)WMS 256Z C 1987 99% 175 $757 674 $1.12302Apple Creek Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Cypress Creek at Riverbend (AH)WMS 256Q A 2008 99% 180 $878 1,046 $0.84120River Bend Georgetown ,TX 78628 Gateway Northwest (AH)WMS A 2015 4% 60 $911 932 $0.981617Northwest Blvd. Georgetown ,TX 78628 Georgetown Park WMS 286X C 1984 93% 160 $796 629 $1.27209Luther Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78628 Georgetown Place (AH)WMS 287S B 2001 99% 176 $871 1,020 $0.85805Quail Valley Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Georgetown Square WMS 256V C 1979 100% 53 $898 798 $1.13206Royal Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78628 Indian Creek (Gtown)WMS 316B B 1995 98% 240 $916 875 $1.05600Luther Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78628 Mariposa at Riverbend (AH-Senior)WMS 256Q B 2007 100% 201 $886 876 $1.01121Riverbend Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78628 Oaks at Georgetown (AH)WMS 286U B 1997 93% 192 $850 896 $0.9555022nd St. W. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Parkview Place (AH-S)WMS 257N B 1999 95% 176 $993 890 $1.122111Austin Ave. N. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Rivery Park (Summit)WMS A 2015 18% 45 $1,331 999 $1.331400Rivery Blvd. Georgetown ,TX 78628 San Gabriel Senior Village (AH-Senior)WMS 286U B 2007 100% 100 $853 802 $1.062101Railroad St. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Shady Oaks Gtown (AH)WMS 256U C 1968 100% 60 $692 880 $0.79501Janis Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Two Rivers WMS 286C A 2013 99% 179 $1,317 985 $1.34105North Austin Ave. Georgetown ,TX 78626 Vantage at Georgetown WMS A 2015 27% 192 $960 844 $1.142000FM 1460 Georgetown ,TX 78626 Victorian Villages WMS 286Q C 1983 100% 98 $660 400 $1.6570815th St. W. Georgetown ,TX 78628 Waters Edge WMS 286G B 2000 98% 180 $1,113 880 $1.2725Waters Edge Circle Georgetown ,TX 78626 Waters Edge Ph. II WMS 286F B 2002 99% 149 $1,101 922 $1.19200River Oaks Cove Georgetown ,TX 78626 Westwood Townhomes WMS 256J B 1997 100% 110 $1,028 1,119 $0.92200Riverbend Dr. Georgetown ,TX 78628 Total Properties:20 Totals/Averages: 83% 2,976 $943 867 $1.11 The information contained herein was obtained from our industry sources and other third parties, and we have used commercially reasonable efforts to gather, verify, analyze and report such information. NONETHELESS, WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. All information should be independently verified by the user of this report. Reproduction of this report in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written consent of Austin Investor Interests, LLC Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015 Page 72 of 87 Historical Averages Austin MSA(Criteria: City = Georgetown and Includes: Conventional Housing and Affordable Housing) 2nd Quarter2015 QTR/YEAR AVG RENT AVG SF AVG $/SF AVG OCC TARGET AREA OVERALL TARGET AREA OVERALL TARGET AREA OVERALL TARGET AREA OVERALL 1/2003 $655 $699 835 834 $0.78 $0.84 85.27% 87.12% 2/2003 $624 $688 835 837 $0.75 $0.82 86.05% 85.81% 3/2003 $635 $687 835 838 $0.76 $0.82 87.08% 88.54% 4/2003 $640 $681 835 840 $0.77 $0.81 86.41% 88.07% 1/2004 $612 $673 833 841 $0.73 $0.80 87.98% 87.94% 2/2004 $625 $677 833 842 $0.75 $0.80 85.75% 87.72% 3/2004 $655 $681 872 843 $0.75 $0.81 87.43% 90.09% 4/2004 $627 $676 838 843 $0.75 $0.80 87.83% 89.91% 1/2005 $641 $680 844 844 $0.76 $0.81 89.72% 90.19% 2/2005 $639 $691 841 845 $0.76 $0.82 87.73% 90.21% 3/2005 $660 $708 847 845 $0.78 $0.84 89.99% 93.55% 4/2005 $658 $713 841 846 $0.78 $0.84 89.24% 93.26% 1/2006 $683 $734 841 847 $0.81 $0.87 90.82% 93.02% 2/2006 $675 $743 839 848 $0.80 $0.88 90.21% 91.98% 3/2006 $688 $763 840 851 $0.82 $0.90 90.63% 93.57% 4/2006 $676 $770 841 852 $0.80 $0.90 90.21% 93.54% 1/2007 $674 $779 840 852 $0.80 $0.92 90.85% 93.30% 2/2007 $693 $793 840 853 $0.83 $0.93 88.13% 92.15% 3/2007 $704 $810 849 854 $0.83 $0.95 91.03% 94.00% 4/2007 $699 $818 856 855 $0.82 $0.96 86.45% 93.33% 1/2008 $696 $823 858 856 $0.81 $0.96 89.42% 92.72% 2/2008 $693 $832 858 858 $0.81 $0.97 89.91% 91.44% 3/2008 $698 $840 858 860 $0.81 $0.98 94.11% 91.30% 4/2008 $691 $831 858 862 $0.81 $0.96 90.70% 89.43% 1/2009 $702 $819 860 863 $0.82 $0.95 92.62% 87.89% 2/2009 $694 $808 860 864 $0.81 $0.94 90.92% 87.55% 3/2009 $690 $814 860 865 $0.80 $0.94 90.74% 89.21% 4/2009 $688 $803 860 866 $0.80 $0.93 87.72% 89.13% 1/2010 $684 $811 860 867 $0.80 $0.94 90.18% 89.95% 2/2010 $685 $824 860 867 $0.80 $0.95 93.69% 90.96% 3/2010 $694 $853 860 867 $0.81 $0.98 94.00% 93.52% 4/2010 $703 $854 860 868 $0.82 $0.98 93.60% 93.61% 1/2011 $712 $870 860 866 $0.83 $1.00 94.89% 94.02% 2/2011 $720 $897 860 868 $0.84 $1.03 96.04% 94.42% 3/2011 $740 $913 860 870 $0.86 $1.05 97.07% 95.62% 4/2011 $728 $915 860 870 $0.85 $1.05 96.80% 94.90% 1/2012 $722 $918 860 871 $0.84 $1.05 96.18% 95.11% 2/2012 $749 $941 860 871 $0.87 $1.08 97.11% 95.09% 3/2012 $757 $964 860 872 $0.88 $1.11 97.33% 95.79% 4/2012 $772 $961 860 871 $0.90 $1.10 97.07% 94.97% 1/2013 $802 $981 867 873 $0.93 $1.12 94.68% 95.29% 2/2013 $823 $1,004 869 871 $0.95 $1.15 94.20% 95.16% 3/2013 $830 $1,027 869 875 $0.96 $1.17 97.78% 95.73% 4/2013 $839 $1,037 869 875 $0.97 $1.18 98.48% 94.99% 1/2014 $874 $1,052 869 875 $1.01 $1.20 97.32% 94.25% 2/2014 $913 $1,074 870 874 $1.05 $1.23 98.76% 94.52% 3/2014 $958 $1,093 870 876 $1.10 $1.25 98.31% 95.12% 4/2014 $924 $1,092 869 876 $1.06 $1.25 97.16% 94.50% 1/2015 $933 $1,112 871 877 $1.07 $1.27 92.98% 94.25% 2/2015 $947 $1,142 871 877 $1.09 $1.30 85.58% 94.08% The information contained herein was obtained from our industry sources and other third parties, and we have used commercially reasonable efforts to gather, verify, analyze and report such information. NONETHELESS, WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. All information should be independently verified by the user of this report. Reproduction of this report in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written consent of Austin Investor Interests, LLC Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015 Page 73 of 87 Historical Averages Austin MSA(Criteria: City = Georgetown and Includes: Conventional Housing and Affordable Housing) 2nd Quarter2015 The information contained herein was obtained from our industry sources and other third parties, and we have used commercially reasonable efforts to gather, verify, analyze and report such information. NONETHELESS, WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, WITH RESPECT TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. All information should be independently verified by the user of this report. Reproduction of this report in whole or in part is prohibited without the prior written consent of Austin Investor Interests, LLC Austin Investor Interests, LLC (877) APT-DATA Copyright ©2015 Page 74 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Updates: Key takeaways from the Urban Land Institute: Housing Opportunity 2015 conference in Minneapolis, Q&A.--Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ITEM SUMMARY: Key Takeways from the Urban Land Institute Housing Opportunity 2015 conference in Minneapolis, MN July 13-15. See the attached report. This is the same report from the August meeting, attached for reference. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Housing Opportunities 2015 ULI conference Backup Material Page 75 of 87 1 Housing Opportunity 2015 Urban Land Institute Conference Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator Page 76 of 87 2 A-Mill Artist Lofts Page 77 of 87 A-Mill Artist Lofts Reuse of the Pillsbury Mill Location: 301 Main St. S.E., Minneapolis Groundbreaking: Nov. 1, 2013 Expected completion: Oct. 1, 2015 Size: 400,000 square feet (buildings), 3.341 acres (land) Value: $156 million Number of rental units: 251 Average unit size: 1,000 square feet Average rent: $973 (less than $1 per square foot) http://www.a-millartistlofts.com/ 3 Page 78 of 87 4 Page 79 of 87 5 Creating Mixed Income Communities in Minneapolis area Increase the production of affordable housing Resources: Voter approved levies, Multifamily Tax Exemption for AH, City Growth Fund, Flexible Low-cost loans. Zoning and Land Use: Mandatory inclusionary zoning, reduced parking around transit, use public property for AH, increase density in Urban Villages, remove barriers to ADU. Preserve Existing Affordable Housing Resources: establish HTF, acquire existing AH stock, preservation property tax exemption. Zoning and Land Use: Provide flexibility in requirements for adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Page 80 of 87 6 Creating Mixed Income Communities The biggest hurdle Most affordable development is funded with LIHTC. Conventional lending does not want to lend to projects partially funded with tax credits. The private market and LIHTC developers do not intersect and are not experienced with working together. Page 81 of 87 7 Lowering the Cost of Housing Common Cost drivers for affordable housing: Inability to develop at scale Barriers to cost effective project design & construction techniques Challenges in finance and underwriting Program and investor requirements State and local regulations and fees. Page 82 of 87 8 Lowering the Cost of Housing What can be done to bend the cost curve? Promote cost-effectiveness through consolidation, coordination and simplification Remove barriers to reducing construction costs and delays Facilitate a more efficient deal assembly and development timeline Improve and align incentives Improve the flexibility of existing sources of financing and create new financial products to better meet needs. Support the development and dissemination of information and best practices. Page 83 of 87 9 Resources http://HowHousingMatters.org http://www.mnchallenge.com/ http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI- Documents/America-in-2015.pdf http://www.MakeRoomUSA.org http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI- Documents/Bending-the-Cost-Curve-on- Affordable-Rental-Development.pdf Page 84 of 87 City of Georgetown, Texas Housing Advisory Board September 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Reminder that the next regular meeting will be on October 15, 2015. Upcoming topics: Generate and review content for presentation at the November 10, 2015 City Council Workshop. Mini-Information Session: Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (Attachment 1). Information on staff appointments from respective managers relative to teams. Open Meetings Act refresher. ITEM SUMMARY: FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. SUBMITTED BY: Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Information Sheet Cover Memo Page 85 of 87 Page 1 of 2 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program Summary The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) is funded through the U.S. Treasury Department and is overseen by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The program was created under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that gives incentives for the utilization of private equity in the development of affordable housing. The tax credits provide a dollar-for-dollar reduction of a taxpayer’s federal income tax, which is more attractive than a tax deduction, which only provides a reduction in taxable income. Due to specific rules in the tax code for individual use of tax credits, almost all investors in LIHTC projects are corporations. The program is administered at the state level by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA), which receives a fixed allocation of credits annual, based on the state population. The state must prepare a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which determines the process by which to review applications and award credits. This allows each the state to set its own priorities and address specific state housing goals. Credits are award under either the 9% Competitive Program or the 4% Program that is available throughout the year. The 4% credits are funded through tax-exempt bonds. In Texas, the state uses a Regional Allocation Formula (RAF) that allocates 9% credits for new construction between 13 regions, with rural and urban subcategories. There is also a set-aside category that existing at-risk affordable housing developments (Section 8, USDA, etc.) compete in separately. The annual QAP is under review in the fall and the final QAP is published in mid-December. Complete applications must be submitted by the end of February. For the 4% credits, the Notice of Fund Availability is published in October, and eligible projects are funded until the funds are expended. Eligible Grantees Private for-profit and nonprofit multifamily housing developers. Two Times Rule One of the regulations in the QAP under the Housing De-Concentration Factors requires applications for projects in a jurisdiction with more than twice the state average per capita of tax credit units must include a resolution of support from the elected body supporting the project and acknowledging the two times status. The City of Georgetown has created a review process for potential applicants (http://housing.georgetown.org/housing-tax-credit-resolution-of-support/). The developer makes the request to the Housing Advisory Board, which reviews the project and makes a recommendation to the City Council for approval or denial of the project. Eligible Renters Low-income tenants can be charged a maximum rent of 30% of the maximum eligible income, which is 60% of the area's median income adjusted for household size as determined by HUD. There are no limits on the rents that can be charged to tenants who are not low income but live in the same project. Most projects have set-asides at the 60%, 50% and 30% thresholds. For 2015, the chart below shows the maximum incomes for eligible tenants. Page 86 of 87 Page 2 of 2 Existing LIHTC Properties in Georgetown Name Address total Units Low-income Housing Tax Credits Units Mariposa at Riverbend 121 River Bend Drive 201 200 Oaks at Georgetown 550 22nd Street 192 192 Cypress Creek 120 River Bend Drive 180 180 Gateway Northwest 1617 Northwest Blvd 180 177 San Gabriel Apartments 1100 Leander Road 136 136 Georgetown Place 805 Quail Valley Drive 176 106 San Gabriel Senior Village 2101 Railroad Street 100 100 Shady Oaks 501 Janis Drive 60 60 Northwest Apartments 1623 E. Northwest Blvd 24 24 Totals 1249 1175 *Georgetown Square Apartments was recently awarded 2015 Tax Credits for the renovation of the existing apartments at 206 Royal Drive, pending final closing. Websites for further research: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs information: http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/housing-tax-credits-9pct/index.htm Office of the Comptroller of Currency, U.S. Department of Treasury http://www.occ.gov/topics/community-affairs/publications/insights/insights-low-income-housing-tax- credits.pdf Novogradac Affordable Housing Resource Center http://www.novoco.com/low_income_housing/index.php 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 60% Income Limits 32,300 36,900 41,500 46,080 49,800 53,475 57,150 60,860 Very Low (50%) Income Limits ($)26,900 30,750 34,600 38,400 41,500 44,550 47,650 50,700 Extremely Low (30%) Income Limits ($) 16,150 18,450 20,750 24,250 28,410 32,570 36,730 40,890 FY 2015 Income Limit Area Median Income FY 2015 Income Limit Category Persons in Family Austin MSA $76,800 Page 87 of 87