The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 07.09.2019 WorkshopN otice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the C ity of Georgetown, Texas J uly 9 , 20 19 The Georgetown City Council will meet on J uly 9, 2019 at 3:00 P M at City Council Chambers, 510 W 9th Street Georgetown, TX 78626 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the AD A, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Policy De ve lopme nt/Re vie w Workshop - A P resentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding Housing P olicies for the 2030 Comprehensive P lan and process for updating the Land Use Element -- Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director B P resentation and discussion regarding the function, membership and focus of the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board -- J im Briggs, General Manager, Utilities C P resentation and discussion of the year end revenue projections in the general fund, F Y2020 assessed value trends, and the projected tax impact of five year capital improvement plan -- P aul Diaz, Budget Manager Exe cutive Se ssion In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session. D Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Litigation Update - P olice and Fire Meet and Confer Update Sec. 551.086: Certai n P ubl i c P ow er Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters - P urchased P ower Update Sec. 551.087: Del i berati on Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons - P roject C - P roject Matrix Sec. 551:074: P ersonnel Matters City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal J udge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal Adjournme nt Page 1 of 119 Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily ac cessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2019, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 2 of 119 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 9, 2019 S UBJEC T: P resentation, discussion, and possible direction regarding Housing P olicies for the 2030 Comprehensive P lan and process for updating the Land Use Element -- Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director I T EM S UMMARY: Item Overview The P lanning and Zoning Commission and City Co uncil met on April 10 , 20 19 to re vie w the housing policy recommendations of the 2030 Steering Co mmittee. As part o f the April 23 , 2 01 9 City Council wo rksho p the City Council requested the policies drafted by the J oint Session be reviewed by the Steering Co mmittee and a vote taken on each policy. Staff will present the City Council a summary of the reco mmendatio ns o f the J o int Se ssio n and Ste e ring Co mmittee and seek direction from the Council to finalize the policy statements. Staff will also present the steps necessary to update the Land Use Element o f the 2030 P lan and seek Council’s feedback on the development of growth scenarios. P ublic Input Input re lated to ho using has been gathered thro ugh a city wide survey and engagement day, two real estate professional specific events and fro m the Steering Co mmittee o f the 2030 P lan Update. Detailed results of each engagement are outlined in the attached exhibit. Requested Feedback: Staff is seeking direction on the drafted Housing policies. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: n/a S UBMI T T ED BY: Sofia Nelson, P lanning Director AT TAC HMENT S : Description presentation Hous ing Memo Hous ing Input R eport Hous ing P olic y G uide S teering C ommittee R ecommendaton P rogres s ion of Hous ing P olic y R ecommendations S teering C ommitee Hous ing P olic y Vote Page 3 of 119 2030 PLAN UPDATE City Council Workshop | 2030 Plan Update | June 25, 2019 Page 4 of 119 PURPOSE 1.Share the 2030 Steering Committee’s Recommendation on Housing Policy statements 2.Seek the City Council’s direction on the Housing Policy statements 3.Update the Council on process to update Land Use Element including the development of growth scenarios and public input efforts Page 5 of 119 FEEDBACK WE ARE SEEKING •Direction on the drafted 2030 Plan Update Housing Element policies. •Do the policy statements accurately capture your feedback and direction from previous workshops? •If yes, we will move onto the Housing Toolkit and finalizing the Housing Element. •If no, what additional support can we provide? •Direction on the update of the Land Use Element. •What development trends should be addressed in the Land Use Element update? Page 6 of 119 AGENDA •Part 1 -Comprehensive Plan Process Overview •Part 2 -Housing Recommendations •Part 3 -Update on Work Since 4/23/2019 •Part 4 -Introduction of Land Use Element Page 7 of 119 Part 1- 2030 Plan Update Process What have we accomplished? Page 8 of 119 COMPONENTS OF 2030 PLAN •Public Involvement •Alignment •Housing •Low income •Workforce •Senior •Growth scenarios •Williams Drive Sub Area Plan •Gateways •Future Land Use City Council Direction Provided October 2017 Page 9 of 119 UPDATE PROCESS Technical Advisory Committee Steering Committee Joint Sessions P&Z/Council General Public City Council Confirmed Process August 2018 Page 10 of 119 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN •2030.Georgetown.org •Goals •Engagement strategies •Engagement opportunities •Public meetings •Virtual participation •Meetings-to-go •Surveys •Idea boards •Outreach events •Request a Planner City Council Confirmation Provided August 2018 Page 11 of 119 Confirmed Public Outreach Themes •Maintain the family-oriented, small-town feel •Continue to encourage quality urban design •Enhance citizen participation and engagement •Focus on housing and affordability •Enhance economic development opportunities •Maintain and expand existing parks and recreation amenities •Improve and diversify the transportation network Confirmed with City Council December 2018 Page 12 of 119 Confirmed 2030 Plan Goals Promote development patterns with balanced land uses that provide a variety of well-integrated housing and retail choices, transportation, public facilities, and recreational options in all parts of Georgetown. Reinvest in Georgetown’s existing neighborhoods and commercial areas to build on previous City efforts. Provide a development framework that guides fiscally responsible growth, protects historic community character, demonstrates stewardship of the environment, and provides for effective provision of public services and facilities. Guide, promote, and assist the preservation and rehabilitation of the City’s historic resources. Confirmed with City Council February 2019 Page 13 of 119 Ensure effective communication, outreach, and opportunities for public participation and community partnerships to foster a strong sense of community. Ensure access to diverse housing options and preserve existing neighborhoods, for residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels. Maintain high quality infrastructure, public safety services, and community facilities. Actively partner with GISD, Williamson County, other governmental agencies, and local organizations to leverage resources and promote innovation. Maintain and add to the existing quality parks and recreation. Improve and diversify the transportation network. Confirmed 2030 Plan Goals Page 14 of 119 HOUSING ELEMENT Policies Affordability Diversity Preservation Goal Ensure access to diverse housing options and preserve existing neighborhoods, for residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels. Confirmed with City Council February 2019 Page 15 of 119 HOUSING STRATEGY •Council seeks policy statements encouraging a diversity in housing options and a range of density •Council seeks policy statements with the identified elements of preservation (aging in place, naturally occurring affordable housing, home rehabilitation) •Council seeks policies that address the needs of Low income, workforce and seniors Affordability DiversityPreservation Confirmed with City Council February 2019 Page 16 of 119 Part 2- Housing Policies •Background -Housing Goal, Outreach Feedback, and Policy Formation •Recommendations by Steering Committee and Joint Session Page 17 of 119 PUBLIC INPUT + TECHNICAL STUDIES 566 participants Survey #1 Survey #2 1,450 participants Boards & Commissions Outside Organizations + Page 18 of 119 PROGRESSION OF HOUSING POLICIES 2018/19 State of Housing in Georgetown w/ Steering Committee, City Council and P&Z March 7th April 4th Assessment of draft Housing Policies w/ Steering Committee April 10th Assessment of draft Housing Policies w/ Joint Session April 23rd Request to have a Steering Committee vote on each housing policy w/ City Council Workshop May 16th June 17th Review of housing policies, public input, implementation tools, & vote on each policy w/ Steering Committee Page 19 of 119 PROGRESSION OF POLICY –PRESERVATION Policy Number 3/7 & 4/4 Steering Committee Recommendations Policy Number 4/10 Joint Session Recommendation Preservation P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods.P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas. P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.Page 20 of 119 PROGRESSION OF POLICY -AFFORDABILITY Policy Number 3/7 & 4/4 Steering Committee Recommendations Policy Number 4/10 Joint Session Recommendation Affordability A1 Support existing rental choices for low-income households. A1 Support and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households unless they are substandard.A2 Increase rental choices for workforce households. A3 Increase rental choices for senior households.A2 Support rental choices for senior households. A4 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households.A3 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households. A5 Support community housing choices for all residents.A4 Support community housing choices for vulnerable residents including families and individuals experiencing homelessness.Page 21 of 119 PROGRESSION OF POLICY -DIVERSITY Policy Number 3/7 & 4/4 Steering Committee Recommendations Policy Number 4/10 Joint Session Recommendation Diversity D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture of housing types, densities, and price points. D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community. D3 Provide opportunity to create complete neighborhoods across Georgetown that have a mix of housing types and land uses, affordable housing and transportation options, and access to healthy food, schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and recreation options. D3 Promote development of complete neighborhoods across Georgetown. D4 Support choice Provide enough housing options and services to allow people to stay in Georgetown as they grow older age in the community. D4 Encourage housing options and services to allow people to thrive in Georgetown as they grow older.Page 22 of 119 PROGRESSION OF POLICY-COORDINATED HOUSING Policy Number 3/7 & 4/4 Steering Committee Recommendations Policy Number 4/10 Joint Session Recommendation Coordinated Housing Programming (global policies) C1 Actively seek and build partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. C1 Actively seek and build public and private partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans.C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans. C3 Ensure opportunity for stakeholder community engagement through outreach and communication. C3 Provide opportunity for community engagement through outreach and communication. Page 23 of 119 PART 3- Steering Committee Work Page 24 of 119 WORK WITH STEERING COMMITTEE Surveyed Education Provided Recommendation to City Council Page 25 of 119 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL •Activity: Each member of the Steering Committee was asked to raise a green, yellow or red card as individual policies were presented: • Green = keep policy as is • Yellow = support policy idea, but modifications are needed • Red = eliminate policy Page 26 of 119 POLICY LANGUAGE •Lead –City plays main role in enacting policy •For example, development regulations and incentives •Partner –City partners with other organization(s) to further policy •For example, Home Repair program with Habitat for Humanity •Support –City supports other efforts to further policy •For example, support non-profit volunteer efforts Page 27 of 119 COORDINATED POLICIES RECOMMENDATION Coordinated Housing Programming (global policies)Vote Findings Comments C1 Actively seek and build public and private partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. •10 green •0 yellow •0 red 100% of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans. •9 Green •0 Yellow •1 Red 90% of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. C3 Provide opportunity for community engagement through outreach and communication. •6 Green •4 Yellow •0 Red 60% of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. Committee members generally supported the policy but expressed concern on why it was being included as it is best practice for all elements of the comprehensive plan not just housing. Page 28 of 119 AFFORDABILITY POLICY RECOMMENDATION Affordability Vote Findings Comments A1 Support and increase rental choices for low- income and workforce households unless they are substandard. •6 green •4 yellow •0 red •60% of steering committee members recommended keeping the policy as written •Comments were expressed that the policy is too broad and needs to be specific, not sure how the city will fund this work. •Wording change suggested included utilizing the word “support” but not increase. A2 Support rental choices for senior households. •6 green •3 yellow •1 red •60% of steering committee members recommended keeping the policy as written •Funding support for this policy was concerning. Page 29 of 119 Affordability Vote Findings Comments A3 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households. •8 green •0 yellow •2 red •80% of steering committee members recommended keeping the policy as written •Concern expressed about whether we should “support” rather than “increase”. •Concern was expressed about the monetary role the city should be providing to increase homeownership. A4 Support community housing choices for vulnerable residents including families and individuals experiencing homelessness. •5 green •1 yellow •4 red •50% of the steering committee members recommended keeping the policy as written, •40% recommended elimination of the policy Comments shared included: •Recommendation to build partnerships with city non-profits rather than taking a lead on efforts to implement this policy •Concern was expressed if this policy through implementation will increase the population of vulnerable residents. AFFORDABILITY POLICY RECOMMENDATION Page 30 of 119 DIVERSITY POLICY RECOMMENDATION Diversity Vote Findings Comments D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. •6 green •5 yellow •0 red •55% of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. •Some expressed the use of the word “reinventions” was challenging. •Some felt the word “encourage” was not needed and could be duplicative. D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community. •9 green •2 yellow •0 red •82%of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. •Be proactive in where you want density and diversity •Suggestion to possibly use “support” in place of “encourage” Page 31 of 119 Diversity Vote Findings Comments D3 Promote development of complete neighborhoods across Georgetown. •4 green •4 yellow •3 red Approximately 72% of the steering committee found they supported the policy idea. However,½ of those that voted in support of the policy identified modifications were needed. Committee members expressed the following concerns: •Concern regarding the definition of a “complete neighborhoods”. •Concern that the concept of complete neighborhoods may work for new development (master planning) vs existing neighborhoods. •The policy should be reviewed as a land use policy rather than a housing policy. D4 Encourage housing options and services to allow people to thrive in Georgetown as they grow older. •3 green •6 yellow •2 red Approximately 55% of steering committee members recommended support for the policy idea, but felt modifications are needed. •Committee members expressed concern that we were doing well in terms of providing senior housing. •However the issue of aging in place was a service issue and therefore not a housing issue. DIVERSITY POLICY RECOMMENDATION Page 32 of 119 PRESERVATION POLICY RECOMMENDATION Preservation Vote Findings Comments P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. •6 green •3 red •2 yellow •55% of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. •Some committee members expressed concern that this was a affordability concern rather than preservation •Safety should always take precedence over affordability •Desire to see the following specified in the policy “ lower cost” to specify the type of housing we are seeking to preserve. P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas. •7 green •4 yellow •0 yellow •64% of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. •Care should be taken when examining transition zones so that we do not limit property development and property rights. Page 33 of 119 Preservation Vote Findings Comments P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. •4 green •6 yellow •1 red •55% of steering committee members recommended support for the policy idea, but felt modifications are needed •Members expressed concern that implementing the policy would be difficult. •Members expressed the word “support” was too vague in this policy. P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality. •9 green •1 yellow •1 red •82% of steering committee members recommended keeping the keep policy as written. •Concern was expressed about the neighborhoods ability to limit redevelopment of the properties within a neighborhood. PRESERVATION POLICY RECOMMENDATION Page 34 of 119 FEEDBACK REQUESTED •Do the policy statements accurately capture your feedback and direction from previous workshops? •If yes, we will move onto the Housing Toolkit and finalizing the Housing Element. Page 35 of 119 PART 4- Introduction of the Land Use Element Page 36 of 119 PART 4 -OUTLINE •Review steps in the update of the Land Use Element. •Share an inventory of on-going development policy conversations that will be examined as land use policies are evaluated. •Review feedback from Gateways survey. •Seek feedback from City Council on process, needs for information, and direction to staff and/or steering committee as the land use element is reviewed. Page 37 of 119 LAND USE ELEMENT Land Use Goal “Promote development patterns with balanced land uses that provide a variety of well- integrated housing…” Land Use Policy “Promote more compact, higher density, well- connected development within appropriate infill locations” Land Use Category Action: Modify density ranges in appropriate residential categories Growth Scenarios Action: Propose densities in anticipated or desired locations FLU Map Action: Compare results. Revise map & categories as needed Completed In Progress Upcoming Upcoming Upcoming Page 38 of 119 LAND USE CONVERSATIONS •Review the use of subarea/corridor plans for the city's transit corridors to ensure maximum coordination of land use, transportation and other infrastructure in support of higher-density development in key locations. •Prioritization of a mixture of land uses within close proximity of each other (e.g.neighborhood services and/or amenities) •Coordinate with GISD and Williamson County in the placement of schools and facilities. •Utilize the downtown corridors to retain and enhance Georgetown's historic/ small-town charm •Establish historic preservation policy and goals in order to sustain Georgetown's small town charm. •Support appropriate buffers and transitions (land use, form and/or landscaping) between residential neighborhoods and commercial or high density neighborhoods. Page 39 of 119 LAND USE CONVERSATIONS –w/SC •Leverage the city's highway corridors to promote economic development •Support of infill development •Prioritization of corridor or neighborhood plans within transitional neighborhoods •Prioritize and leverage the use of active parks and open space in key locations when densifying housing. Page 40 of 119 GATEWAY OVERLAY DISTRICTS •Intended to enhance the entry corridors to Georgetown. •14 corridors into the city are designated for the purpose of applying additional landscaping and design standards. •This part of the 2030 update will identify goals and policies for the location, character, design, streetscape, and signage of our city’s gateways and image corridors. Page 41 of 119 GATEWAY SURVEY •Participation •Total participants: 335 •Live dates: April 24-May 15 (22 days) •Purpose •Gather broad public input to prioritize gateways and input on what characteristics should be sustained or improved (land use, signage, walkability, building design/scale, streetscape) •Results will be used to develop recommendations for goals to the Steering Committee and City Council Page 42 of 119 Corridor Corridor Segment % Ranked as “Important” 1 SH 29 Univ. Ave. Central 94% 2 Williams Drive 92% 3 SH 29 Univ. Ave. West 87% 4 North Austin Ave.86% 5 South Austin Ave.71% 6 I-35 62% 7 Far South Austin Ave.59% 8 Spur 158 North Austin Ave.58% 9 SH 29 Univ. Ave. East 49% 10 FM 2243 Leander Road 49% 11 FM 1460 Leander Road 43% 12 SH 130 36% 13 FM 971 Weir Road 28% 14 SH 195 24% Downtown Overlay Highway Overlay Scenic/Natural Overlay MOST IMPORTANT SEGMENTS INDENTIFIED BY PUBLIC Page 43 of 119 TOP ISSUES BY CORRIDOR Rank of Importance Highway Corridors Scenic Corridors Downtown Corridors 1 Land Use Land Use Walkability 2 Building Scale/Design Streetscape Streetscape 3 Streetscape Building Scale/Design Land Use 4 Signs Signs Building Scale/Design 5 Walkability Walkability Signs Page 44 of 119 FEEDBACK WE ARE SEEKING •What development trends should be addressed in the Land Use Element update? •What updates are needed for the future land use map? •What development trends, concerns and issues you have experienced in the Gateway Overlay Zoning Districts? •Is there additional data/information you seek? •Do you seek a vote from the Steering Committee on land use policies? Page 45 of 119 NEXT STEPS •July-September : •Steering Committee –Present growth scenario results, make recommendations •Joint Meeting –Present draft FLU map with land use scenarios •Public Meeting #3 –Present scenarios, Gateways, and Williams Drive Subarea •City Council –Final direction on Land Use Element Page 46 of 119 1 2/26/19 Re: State of Housing Background Materials Background On May 24, 2016 Council directed completion of an update to the Housing Element and also a Housing Feasibility Study. Council asked to evaluate the City’s housing needs of three populations: low income, workforce and senior. City Council appropriated funds in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget and approved a contract for services which included an update to the Housing Element and Housing Feasibility Study, hereinafter referred to as the “Housing Toolkit” or ‘Toolkit”. The update to the Housing Element and the development of a Toolkit within the overall 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update will align the City’s development, fiscal and land use strategies. Figure 1 - Housing's Role in Future Land Use 2030 Plan Update goal development During the December 11, 2018 City Council workshop, the project team presented Council a review of the existing land use goals and a summary of the public input to date. Council recommended that a housing specific goal be considered. At the January 3, 2019 Steering Committee meeting, after reviewing the existing land use goals, the committee found that recent public input themes related to housing were not included and therefore not reflective of recent community input. At the January 10, 2019 Joint Session of City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission, the group arrived at consensus on a Housing specific goal: “Ensure access to diverse housing options and amenities and preserve existing neighborhoods for residents of all ages, backgrounds and income levels.” Page 47 of 119 2 2030 Housing Element Update Included in the newly formed housing goal are three specific themes: affordability, diversity and preservation. Together, the three themes provide a fuller community housing strategy that preserves existing housing stock and accommodates future needs by creating greater consumer choice by 2030. The 2030 Housing Element uses the data from the technical study and concerns from the public input to inform the policies for each of the areas. Figure 2- Comprehensive Housing Plan Key Terms Used in this Report • Affordable housing - regardless of income level, affordable housing is housing for which all combined expenses—mortgage or rent, utilities, insurance and taxes—cost no more than 30% of gross household income. • Area Median Income (AMI) – used by HUD to determine eligibility for housing programs. This calculation is used in this report to reflect regional conditions and the household incomes eligible for federally subsidized units. The AMI for Williamson County is used to calculate eligibility in Georgetown. • Median Household Income – half of households earn below and half earn above • $81,818 WilCo (2016 US Census ACS 1 year estimate) • $67,379 Georgetown (2016 US Census ACS 1 year estimate) • Cost Burden – paying more than 30% of gross income toward housing Affordability DiversityPreservation Support existing Neighborhoods Increase consumer choice Figure 3- Household expenses Page 48 of 119 3 • Low-income (Industry standard)- Often households that make 50% or 30% or less than AMI • Workforce (City of Georgetown UDC) - Workforce Housing Developments are available for those whose incomes are less than or equal to 80% AMI • Senior (Industry standards) - Can be age restricted at 55 or 62, Census data addresses 65+ • Planning Area - Geographical study area that includes the City limits of Georgetown and the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) Technical Studies Community Development Strategies (CDS) was hired as a sub-consultant to Freese & Nichols, the prime consultant for the 2030 Plan Update, to complete a technical study of housing. The components of the technical study consisted of a a) Housing Inventory, b) Subarea Profiles and an c) Affordability Analysis as detailed below. Housing Inventory Purpose The Housing Inventory serves as a full accounting of housing units and households in the City’s planning area. The inventory provides the type, age, lot size, tenure, and household composition of the city’s housing stock. This report tallies and catalogues the various types of housing existing in Georgetown. The Inventory has two primary data sources: (1) the Williamson Central Appraisal District (WCAD) and (2) Nielson / Claritas, a private sector provider of demographic data estimates based on recent data available from the Federal Bureau of the Census and other sources. The geographic Planning Area covered includes the entirety of the City’s incorporated jurisdiction plus its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). While the Nielsen / Claritas data is ascribed generally to the year 2018, the WCAD data is specifically ascribed to a download period of June-July 2018. The inventory includes maps for comparison of the characteristics across the city. CDS delivered a Housing Inventory in July 2018. The information was presented to the Housing Advisory Board on July 23, 2018. Additional information was presented to the Comp Plan Steering Committee on November 1, 2018. Key Findings The report concludes that housing product options not evenly distributed across the planning area and there are decreasing options among lower price points. The Planning area has the following characteristics: Page 49 of 119 4 Housing Unit Characteristics • 16.6% MF/83.4% SF • Median home size 1,994 sq ft., Average home size 2,159 sw. ft. • Median lot size .23 acre, Average lot size 1.17 • 33,842 total units • Median Homes Value (excluding multi-family) $269,593 • Average Value (excluding multi-family) $309,797 • $146 per sq./ft. (median 2018) • Median Year built (all units) 2004 Household Characteristics • 22.4% Renters/77.6% Owners • Average size 2.47 persons • Homeowner average of 9 years, Renter occupied 3 years • Median Household income is $81,219 (94% AMI), Average is $103,384 Subarea Profiles Purpose The subarea profiles provide a basis for making policy recommendations through an understanding of housing as it exists across the city. The granularity of the subarea profiles allows the City to make recommendations for specific geographies or recommendations that may apply to the entire study area: •Housing diversity (type, lot size) •Housing choice (square footage, price point) •Historic cost trends (MLS sales and rental data 2008-2018) •Existing affordable housing stock (market rate and subsidized) The Subarea map consists of 14 areas. The map was developed using housing characteristics of housing age, type, density and value. Other considerations included well known boundaries such as neighborhoods Sun City (age-restricted), zoning overlays such as the Old Town / Downtown, Census Block Group boundaries and elementary school zones although the zones had limited impact on the subarea boundaries. The subareas are not intended to define “neighborhoods”. The review of housing characteristics for the subareas included Multiple Listing Service (MLS) sales information from the Austin Board of Realtors, US Census data and field research. The Subarea information was presented at: • August 20, 2018 Housing Advisory Board meeting • September 6, 2018 Steering Committee meeting #4 • September 18, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Page 50 of 119 5 Findings • Some subareas have no or little housing product diversity or rental options. Other subareas such as those in the center city have a wide variety of housing types and ages. • Older duplexes, four-plexes and multi-family properties play an important role in affordable housing stock. • Neighborhood change is a concern for some existing residents. • Household characteristics are depicted geographically and varies widely across subareas. A summary for each of the subareas is attached to this memo (Attachment 1 – Subarea Profiles). Affordability Analysis Purpose The Affordability Analysis provides a general picture of the need for affordable rental and for- sale housing in the Georgetown Planning Area defined as the City of Georgetown City Limits and its extra-territorial jurisdiction. The report is broken into three parts: Affordable Housing Demand (including regional employment data), Affordable Housing Supply, Analysis and Recommendations. Housing Demand and Supply information was presented at the following meetings: • September 24, 2018 Housing Advisory Board meeting • October 15, 2018 Housing Advisory Board meeting • November 1, 2018 Steering Committee #5 • November 6, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting Findings The bullets below represent the generalized findings of the 11/1 Steering Committee: • Rental Demand Housing is an economic development issue Surprised by high renter cost burden Surprised Georgetown AMI is lower than WilCo Surprised that there are a significant amount of more renters are cost burdened than owners The data suggests there is a segment of the population for whom Georgetown is unaffordable • For Sale Demand Do Sun City numbers skew planning area numbers? Lower income is more cost burdened Surprised that anyone under $20K could own a home Not enough houses for $50K incomes When looking at regular employment you can’t afford the job Income does not equal ownership Page 51 of 119 6 • Rental Supply Send to Council: Georgetown needs more 2 plex, 4 plex Used to be no more than 20% class A, we have 40% because of cost to build Lower rents for single family than expected Duplexes = affordability Surprising that more subsidized units than Class B • For Sale Supply Surprised nothing under $399K west of I-35 Townhouses/condos play a role in the market Density is the answer # of units under $275K in next 12-18 months, making some progress Surprised to know wages not growing as fast as housing costs 2008-2018 Wages not growing as fast as housing costs increase UDC, increase cost Demand Housing demand is influenced by regional employment trends, household income, age, ability and desire to rent or own, among other factors. CDS analyzed employment data for the region using the Williamson County geography. Regional Employment trends Nearly half of all jobs (81k/165k) in Williamson County are in industry sectors with lower average wages, these sectors are exhibiting growth in overall jobs (Texas Workforce Commission Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) – August 2018) • Retail Trade • Educational Services • Accommodation and Food Services • Health Care and Social Assistance Strong growth in high-wage sectors in Williamson County (Texas Workforce Commission Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) – August 2018) • Manufacturing • Professional and Technical Services Life Sciences, including Health Care, has been identified as a target industry for Georgetown to pursue. While success in this pursuit would bring a number of higher-wage jobs, it will also grow the number of lower-wage jobs associated with Health Care, which has a wide range of wages for that sector. (City of Georgetown, Target Industry And Workforce Analysis, 2017) Page 52 of 119 7 Rental Supply The last four years since 2014 have included generally rising rents in the greater Austin region, though the increases appear to be plateauing since 2017. This may be because overall supply has been increasing with new property deliveries, nearly all of which have been considered Class A, since land and construction costs generally limit the financial feasibility of new unsubsidized development to only upscale projects. The market rate (non-subsidized or income-restricted) multifamily properties in Georgetown that supply more affordable rental units either fall into the Class “B” designation by the real estate investment community or are unrated. They tend to be older properties (the newest dates to 2001). Lease rates for one-bedroom units tends to range from $750 to $900 per month. Two-bedroom units range from approximately $900 to $1,100, with such units at a few properties slightly higher priced. The total number of units in the listed properties is 1,293. Georgetown also has a significant supply of multifamily properties that have been publicly subsidized in some fashion (federal tax credits, public housing, etc.) and have income restrictions on tenants to remain affordable to lower income residents. Three such projects are under construction, two of which will offer market rate units. Some properties are age-restricted to seniors. The total number of units in these properties is 1,916, including the under construction properties, and of which 1,697 units are income-restricted. Multifamily apartments are not the only source of rental units in the Georgetown Planning Area. Housing consumers also look for individual or small-scale rentals. Unfortunately, comprehensive data is not available to summarize and analyze these transactions. A particular type of rental unit in Georgetown for which no large transaction or listing sample was available is the small-scale multi-unit property (mostly quadplexes) and duplexes. These are mostly concentrated in neighborhoods on just south of the historic core, just west of I-35 off Leander Road, and in Figure 4 – Regional industry trends, wages and percentage of employment Page 53 of 119 8 relatively older residential areas off Williams Drives also just west of I-35. A small sample of listings from field research indicates that typical rents in these properties may be comparable to Class B market rate multifamily units for the same number of bedrooms. Type Percentage of Units Class A 37% Class B 20% Rent Restricted 27% Duplex 10% Fourplex 6% For Sale Supply Market data for the Georgetown Planning Area from the MLS transactions in recent years show that there is very little excess inventory of existing homes available; this is evident from the relatively small difference between listing price and sales price, and also the short average days on market (less than 40, down from a typical 70 to 90 a few years earlier). The sales volumes in the bottom two price ranges, below $275,000 (1,230 total sales), are a dramatic drop from previous years. In the 2014-2016 period, sales in these two categories totaled 3,087. These lower price categories represent “entry level” prices for first-time buyers at or below area median income (approximately $67,000 and $82,000 for Georgetown and Williamson County respectively as of the 2016 American Community Survey – see the analysis in the next section). However, the area housing market is rapidly shrinking the available inventory of such homes. Figure 5 – Multi-family rental percentages by product type Figure 6 – Multi-family rental percentages by product type Page 54 of 119 9 Sun City Factor One of the frequently asked questions when housing data was presented in 2018 was how much Sun City skewed any city wide statistics. CDS ran a report that was able to separate the geography that approximately encompasses Sun City (eight Census block groups) from the rest of Georgetown. The findings are below: • The age restriction for living in Sun City is that one person in the household must be at least 55 years of age. Of the 7,787 households represented in the eight Census block groups, 6,419 (or 82%) of the households are headed by persons 65 years or older as of 2016. • Included in the overall Georgetown tally, 65 and older households account for approximately 44% of total households. Removing Sun City, this share drops to approximately 25%. • Because Sun City is dominated by owner households, its impact on renter data for the city overall is small. A similar share of total renter households in the Sun City Block Groups are cost-burdened as compared to the city excluding Sun City. • A lower share of Sun City owner households have a mortgage than in Georgetown overall. This is likely because many Sun City residents purchased their homes with cash, having equity from previous homes they owned. Interestingly, a higher share of Sun City owner households with mortgages were estimated to be cost-burdened than in the rest of the city. • Sun City accounted for a very high share, 69%, of all over-65 owner households in Georgetown. Of these households, a higher share were cost-burdened than in the remainder of the city – approximately 25% to 18%. Page 55 of 119 10 Analysis & Recommendations The current housing needs for the three groups requested by Council are presented below. The chart above illustrates the number of Georgetown households at each of the HUD defined income levels using the Williamson County Area Median Income of $77,800 for 2016. The American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the Census provides the number of households by income level for the City of Georgetown. That figure can then be apportioned to the AMI levels to provide an estimate of number of households by AMI level. The ACS 2016 1 Year estimate for the City of Georgetown was a total of 25,235 households, with 10,271 of those households headed by a householder over the age of 65. Low Income households The findings for the approximately 3,000 low income households with incomes less than 30% of the Area Median Income were that: • 69% of renters (1,100/1,600 HHs) are cost burdened • 68% of owners (950/1,400 HHs) are cost burdened Possible policies to address this high cost burden include policies to increase rental inventory and preserve homeownership for low income households. Workforce households The findings for the approximately 8,000 workforce households with incomes between 30% and 80% of the Area Median Income were that: • 80% renters (2,000/2,500 HHs) are cost burdened • 42% owners (2,300/5,500 HHs) are cost burdened • Limited supply for sale under $250K Page 56 of 119 11 Possible policies to address this high cost burden and limited supply of affordable for sale housing include policies to increase rental inventory, preserve homeownership, and increase homeownership opportunities for workforce households. Senior households The findings for the approximately 10,000 senior households with incomes between 30% and 80% of the Area Median Income were that: • 67% renters (1,000/1,500 HHs) are cost burdened • 24% owners (2,000/8,500 HHs) are cost burdened Possible policies to address this high cost burden include policies to increase rental inventory and preserve homeownership for senior households. Future Housing Need The future needs for housing are projected using the anticipated growth rate for Williamson County from the Texas State Data Center for the year 2030. Page 57 of 119 12 The above chart provides a simple analysis of possible housing units needed in 2030 to accommodate the City’s 2016 household population by income based a 55% growth rate, as described in the preceding figure. Public Input One of the seven themes that emerged from the extensive public input conducted during 2018 was to focus on housing & affordability. A summary of the public input from the various outreach opportunities can be found in the attached Housing Public Input Report (Attachment 2). Page 58 of 119 1 Public Input Report – Housing Community input related to housing has been gathered through a city wide survey and engagement day, two real estate professional specific events and from the Steering Committee of the 2030 Plan Update. The input is summarized by event below. Future opportunities for additional input on housing will be available. On the Table Georgetown The City hosted a citywide Engagement Day on Tuesday, October 2, 2018, which coincided with National Night Out to provide residents an opportunity to give their ideas about the future of Georgetown’s growth and development. Facilitated discussion groups were planned throughout the day across the city so that individuals could participate at their convenience. Materials were also made available online so that people could host discussions at their home or business. Each discussion table was asked to consolidate their ideas into a one page summary sheet. Of the 858 total comments collected, 71 addressed housing and affordability. A sample of the housing related comments are below categorized by the three Housing Element themes. Affordability • A need for affordable housing in Georgetown. • Rising housing prices have aided in creating a high cost of living, increasing to the point where many residents feel they might not be able to live in Georgetown in the near future. • Use of incentives to help create a more affordable community. • Providing incentives to developers to provide more affordable housing. • Providing incentives to City employees to encourage and allow them to live in the City. • Affordable housing with rental and home buying is not only affecting low income but also medium income individuals and families • Hard to live in Georgetown on a single income. Preservation • Gentrification is creating affordability issues • Gentrification has impacted current residents in a negative manner • Cost of living is increasing in town and it is difficult for people who have been here to stay. • Concerned too expensive to live here for much longer Diversity • Not enough variety of housing types within the City. • Townhomes and apartments are housing developments that could be implemented in the City. • More diverse housing types are needed. Page 59 of 119 2 • There is slow growth of multi-resident/high density residential buildings. Need more of these. Survey #1 – Question #5 The City conducted an online survey as initial outreach of the 2030 Plan Update asking participants what Georgetown should look like in the year 2030. This question allowed an open field for the respondent to enter their own comments. A sample of the housing related comments are below categorized by the three themes addressed by the Housing Element. Of the 1,323 open ended comments, 18 addressed housing and affordability directly. Affordability • Affordable housing needed to make sure everyone feels welcome, not the case currently • Affordability has changed in 10-15 years Preservation • Maintain existing core neighborhoods and downtown areas. Infill and expansion construction should be compatible with neighboring properties. Diversity • Afford to purchase a home and stay their whole life • Mixed use development like Mueller • Embrace everyone • Expand with mixed-use and a variety of housing types/sizes. • More dense but still a welcoming community. Pride for historic assets, and a place for people of all ages. Page 60 of 119 3 Real Estate Roundtable On June 26, 2018, the City of Georgetown met with members of the local real estate, development and finance community to discuss housing trends in the City and region. The following five topic areas emerged from their discussions: Affordability •Rising costs of development •Issue for first-time home buyers •Demand for <$50k income •Austin MSA sprawl Amenities •Downtown appealing •Sense of place •Neighborhood retail/services •Aesthetics, amenities, and character •Trails, parks, and natural areas are desirable Infrastructure •Continue to address traffic congestion •Walkability, bikeability, and connectivity are considerations •Regulations make (re)development difficult Housing Types •Higher density is a potential solution to affordability •Not currently priced for the target renter/buyer •Demand for duplex, townhomes, condos, patio homes Healthcare/Seniors •Large supply for seniors currently •Rising healthcare costs make affordability more important •Medical access is important Page 61 of 119 4 WilCo Realtors Association On September 18, 2018, the City of Georgetown met with 67 members of the Williamson County Association of Realtors to discuss relevant elements of the 2030 Plan, present key trends from the State of the City, and solicit input on existing conditions within the real estate market. About half (49%) of the participants have been in the real estate industry for at least 10 years, and over a third (35%) have worked in the Georgetown market for at least 10 years. Participants were asked to identify the top three characteristics that their clients request from a list of eight options. The most requested characteristics include: 1. Affordability (47%) 2. Schools (37%) 3. Regional access (jobs and medical) (26%) 4. Neighborhood aesthetics and “character” 5. Neighborhood retail and services Affordability The price points with the highest demand in Georgetown are $200,000 to 250,000 (41%) and $250,000-300,000 (32%). When desirable housing options cannot be found within Georgetown, clients most frequently turn to Hutto and Jarrell. Diversity The most difficult housing product to find in Georgetown is condominiums (63%), while 18% of realtors said townhomes are the most difficult to find. • 84% said there is not enough housing to meet demand • 79% said Georgetown’s housing quality meets client expectations Page 62 of 119 5 Preservation The realtors were not asked questions related to preservation of existing neighborhoods. Steering Committee #5 Following a presentation of the supply and demand of for-sale and rental housing, the Steering Committee was asked to note their findings and key takeaways. Many of the findings from the rental demand data related to affordability. Affordability • Surprised by high renter cost burden • Surprised Georgetown AMI is lower than WilCo • Surprised that there are a significant amount of more renters are cost burdened than owners. • Regional demand cannot be completely addressed by local supply • The data suggests there is a segment of the population for whom Georgetown is unaffordable • Lower income is more cost burdened. • Surprised that anyone under $20K could own a home • Not enough houses for $50K incomes • Income does not equal ownership • Lower rents for single family than expected • 2008-2018 Wages not growing as fast as housing costs • Surprised to know wages not growing as fast as housing costs Preservation • Duplexes = affordability Diversity • Send to Council: Georgetown needs more duplex, fourplex • Surprising that more subsidized units than Class B • Townhouses/condos play a role in the market • Density is the answer • Housing is an economic development issue • Surprised nothing under $399K west of I-35 • # of units under $275K in next 12-18 months, making some progress • increase UDC, increase cost Page 63 of 119 6 Page 64 of 119 7 BOARD AND COMMISSION INPUT Following Council direction given in February, the Housing Advisory Board (HAB) gave input on the housing themes of diversity, affordability and preservation at their March 18, 2019, meeting. The HAB stated that preservation policies should support and strengthen neighborhoods, preserve existing neighborhoods, protect and retain existing housing stock through public policy, and include revitalization of neighborhoods. For affordability, the HAB would like to see terms that say “Create more, support existing” for policies addressing low income and workforce households. The Board would like policies to be specific on homelessness, include the idea of “working poor” or underserved” populations, and have an education component. At the March Commission on Aging meeting, the Commission gave input on the housing goal themes and were specifically asked to give input on ideas of “aging in place” and “aging in the community”. The Commission shared that financial assistance is important to many aging adults who want to remain in their home and in the community. Home modification is often necessary and services including transportation, medical and nutritional assistance are critical. HOUSING (SURVEY #2) Participation information • 566 people participated in the survey between March 1 – March 29, 2019 • 9% of respondents rent their homes • 43% have lived in Georgetown at least 11 years; 34% have lived in Georgetown 5 years or less • 94% live in a traditional single-family detached home Diversity Which housing types are needed? Single-family homes, townhomes, mixed-use development are needed. Less preference for apartments or condos. No clear conclusion on duplexes. Which densities are needed? Low density rural lots, small homes on small lots are needed. Less preference for large homes on small lots, medium to high density, or accessory dwellings. What is needed to support aging-in-place? All options were highly rated – support services, accessibility, healthcare, transportation, and range of housing types Page 65 of 119 8 Affordability What are housing challenges for owners? Property tax (by a large margin) What are housing challenges for renters? Rent prices and housing availability (note that many homeowners also responded to this question) Who could benefit from additional housing options? Mid-income people, families, and young professionals What types of housing affordability support are needed? Focus on providing a range of housing prices, particularly lower housing prices Preservation What might cause you to leave your neighborhood? Participants were asked to select their top five concerns from a list of eight choices. The following table indicates how many times each concern was selected as a priority, and how high each concern was ranked. Number of Times Ranked Highest Ranking 1. Property tax increases 1. Property tax increases 2. Cost to maintain 2. Public safety 3. Public safety 3. Inability to age in place 4. Walkability and access 4. New development 5. Inability to age in place 5. Walkability and access 6. New development 6. Cost to maintain 7. Variety of housing types 7. Variety of housing types 8. Not enough amenities 8. Not enough amenities Page 66 of 119 Draft Housing Policy Guide Policy Public Input Technical Studies Possible Tools (* indicates current tool) Specific example Intent/ Council Direction Outcome Role Preservation P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. "Concerned too expensive to live here for much longer." "Cost of living is increasing in town and it is difficult for people who have been here to stay." Affordability Analysis ‐ Three general classes of units appear to be candidates for preservation as affordable housing stock: (1) small‐scale, multi‐unit rental structures, older, (2) Class B and unrated apartment complexes, (3) subsidized properties serving very low income and low income residents. Planning area inventory data: 2% Duplex, 1% Fourplex, 1.4% Mobile home, 13% MF, 83% SF Percentage of multi‐family by type: 37% Class A, 20% Class B, 27% Income Restricted, 10% Duplex, 6% Fourplex • Multi‐Family/home rehabilitation for small scale multi‐family, quad and duplexes. • Multi‐Family energy efficiency rebate and incentive programs • Support GHA's maintenance of units/infrastructure. • Affordability term extensions for existing tax credits ‐ support property owners with renovations that use Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Olde Georgian (1700 S Austin Ave), Apple Creek (302 Apple Creek Dr), Cedar Ridge (1500 Northwest Blvd) unsubsidized affordable multi‐ family Preservation Affordability Diversity Protect existing affordable housing stock/prevent loss of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Existing units remain available to residents. Partner or Support P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas. "Maintain existing core neighborhoods and downtown areas. Infill and expansion construction should be compatible with neighboring properties." Analysis of development near existing neighborhoods Subarea profiles ‐ age of units, percentage renters • Zoning and future land use map • Policies to ensure compatibility, transition zones (Old Town and Downtown Design Guidelines) • Defined set of criteria to identify areas to target (ex: using data of age of units or percentage of renters) • Small area, neighborhood plans TRG, Rivery and San Jose neighborhood residents have attended several P&Z hearings regarding development requests in the neighborhood but lack formal policies in the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Master Plan to address redevelopment. Preservation Enable P&Z and Council to preserve character of targeted neighborhoods. Particular aging neighborhoods may need special protections as redevelopment occurs. Lead P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. Concern about ability to stay in neighborhood and new development. Subarea Profiles ‐ age of units, owner tenure, price increase from 2008‐2018 Planning area ‐ 2008‐2018 home price increase of $101 to $146/SF (44%) Subarea 1 ‐ 2008‐2018 home price increase of $111 to $191/SF (72%) 2008‐2018 • Ridge • San Jose • Railroad • Home Rehabilitation* • Utility billing assistance* • Homestead exemption education • Partnerships with non‐profits that assist existing home owners with maintenance • Property tax abatement for reinvestment areas for homeowners meeting specific criteria • Neighborhood Empowerment Zones Ridge, San Jose, Railroad neighborhoods have seen construction of homes that raise property values. A Neighborhood Empowerment Zone, state enabled city‐created zone for purpose of rehabilitation or creation of affordable housing, could be established for specific geographies. Preservation Affordability Support homeowners experiencing property value increase due to development in established neighborhoods to preserve homeownership. Partner or Support P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality. "Keep neighborhoods as neighborhoods." Desire to maintain Georgetown small town feel. "Maintain neighborhoods as viable commodities." Evaluate surrounding uses for neighborhoods using existing land use analysis Subarea profile ‐ age of units • CDBG for capital improvements (lighting, sidewalks)* • Neighborhood traffic management program, street maintenance* • Home repair for homeowners* • Promote neighborhood capacity (vitality, services) building ‐ HOA training/education • Partner with banks to meet Community Reinvestment Act requirements • Education/outreach. Neighborhood registration program* • Identify opportunities for small area plans • Neighborhood cleanup day • Urban park programs for infill Deer Haven or River Chase concern about proximity of commercial and impact to adjacent single family subdivisions; roadway planning. Parkview Estates desire to have neighborhood amenities to build neighborhood brand. Preservation Ensure neighborhoods are maintained and valued. Neighborhood viability/maintenance/enhanceme nt Partner or Support DRAFT 05.16.19Page 67 of 119 Draft Housing Policy Guide Policy Public Input Technical Studies Possible Tools (* indicates current tool) Specific example Intent/ Council Direction Outcome Role Affordability A1 Support and increase rental choices for low‐income and workforce households unless they are substandard. "Affordable/low‐income housing is lacking." "Workforce is lacking due to high living prices." • 69% of low‐income renters are cost burdened • 80% of workforce renters are cost burdened • Aff. Analysis ‐ Older duplexes, four‐plexes and multi‐ family properties play an important role in affordable housing stock. (Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)) Percentage of Multi‐family by type: 37% Class A, 20% Class B, 27% Income Restricted, 10% Duplex, 6% Fourplex • Aff. Analysis ‐ Employment growth trends and the identified target industries for Georgetown indicate that the prospects for increased demand in this rent rage are strong. • Development incentives* (Workforce Housing standards in UDC‐ impervious cover, setbacks, # of units/building, smaller lot size) • Support GHA programs (landlord outreach and education to accept vouchers to maximize available units, CDBG funds, energy efficiency upgrades through GUS) • Support LIHTC development that meet City defined process • Define metrics for affordability goals • Development agreements • TIF/TIRZ • Affordability term extensions for existing tax credits • Review of multi‐family development standards to encourage infill development • Incentivize multi‐bedroom housing options for families with children or aging parents Stone Haven is almost 50 years old and in need of infrastructure and structural improvements to continue to safely house its residents. The Housing Authority will need to pursue revenue sources to make the improvements. The City can support the HA in this effort to retain the asset that serves households with incomes less than 30% of the AMI through improvements using CDBG or energy efficiency funds. Three tax credit properties are over 20 years old and their affordability term will expire after 35 years. Affordability Preservation Diversity Maintain rental housing stock available to low‐income households. Greater rental housing choice for workers. Support or partner A2 Support rental choices for senior households."Affordable housing is needed." • 67% senior renters are cost burdened • Approx 55% of Sun City renters over 65 cost burdened • 7‐8% total renters in Sun City • 301 units income & age restricted (122 opening soon) • Define metrics for affordability goals • Support GHA programs • Support LIHTC development • TIF/TIRZ At no cost to City, a LIHTC resolution of support or no objection for age restricted housing. Affordability Preservation Maintain available age and income restricted units. Rental choices for seniors who need them. Support or partner A3 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households. Realtor and resident input on limited options. "Affordable housing with rental and home buying is not only affecting low income but also medium income individuals and families." • 68% of low‐income owners are cost burdened • 42% workforce owners are cost burdened • Limited supply of for sale product under $250K • Limited options for home sales under $250K. (Annual Household income needed approx $65K for 3% down FHA loan for $250K home purchase) • Development incentives* (Workforce Housing standards in UDC) • Development fee exemptions • Development agreements • Development regulations (density bonus on a per acre basis) • Municipal Utility Districts • Public Improvement Districts • Land Bank or Land Trust like tool • Down payment assistance Mueller: Development agreement ‐ public private partnership with publicly owned land, mixed use community with affordability terms on approximately 25% of units (owner and rental options) Affordability Diversity Have workforce housing units as an incentive tool available for negotiation opportunities. Greater owner housing choice for workers. Lead A4 Support community housing choices for all residents vulnerable residents including families and individuals experiencing homelessness. Homelessness is not well understood in Georgetown. Could become an increasing issue with growth. Library board brought up need for needs assessment. Inventory ‐ did not study homeless households, no emergency housing in Georgetown • Health and Human services element in the Comprehensive Plan as required by City Charter • Needs assessment • County point in time count Support or partner for development of a needs assessment.Affordability Acknowledge and define community housing need for vulnerable residents. Support or partner DRAFT 05.16.19Page 68 of 119 Draft Housing Policy Guide Policy Public Input Technical Studies Possible Tools (* indicates current tool) Specific example Intent/ Council Direction Outcome Role Diversity D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. "We suggest to plan for a better mix of housing." "More diverse housing types is needed." "The biggest issue facing Georgetown is a lack of housing affordability and variety." "Many want a better variety of housing types in the City." Subarea Profiles ‐ Two main housing options currently in planning area Inventory data: 2% Duplex, 1% Fourplex, 1.4% Mobile home, 13% MF, 83% SF • Incentives for diversity of housing products* • Low Income Housing Tax Credit process* • Promote and evaluate existing incentives for diversity of housing products • Define metrics for diversity goals • Incentives for density (density bonus) • TIF/TIRZ • Incentivize multi‐bedroom housing options for families with children and aging parents Establish outcomes for diversity of housing in Municipal Utility District policy or development agreements. Diversity Affordability Tools for greater housing diversity. During negotiation opportunities, consider producing various housing types for new and infill development as option. Lead D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community. "Apartments are clustered into same areas. Spread them around." "Plan for a better mix of housing types/medium density (Condo, Garden homes, small homes)" Existing land use analysis ‐ table for residential categories Subarea profiles ‐Planning area: median lot size ‐ .23 acres, average lot size 1.17 acres • Evaluate regulatory barriers to density • Review regulations to improve diverse housing options (such as ADUs). • Development regulations (zoning standards (density bonus will be the most effective)) , subdivision standards, building standards) while maintaining compatibility. • Create a zoning district that allows tri‐plexes and four‐plexes Unified Development Code requires Special Use Permit by City Council for accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Development Code is not equipped to handle condo regime. Diversity UDC supports and allows diversity of housing types and densities. Lower/evaluate regulatory barriers to housing diversity. Lead D3 Provide opportunity to create Promote development of complete neighborhoods across Georgetown that have a mix of housing types and land uses, affordable housing and transportation options, and access to healthy food, schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and recreation options. "There is a need to have better walkability and possibly smaller, affordable grocery stores." "Create more mixed use neighborhoods so we don't have to clog the main roadways to get to the grocery store, wine shop, restaurants, etc. near housing developments" City/school district shared amenities Subarea profiles notes existing and anticipated development in each subarea, but did not measure amenities. • Incentives for amenities • School dedication • Land Use Element: Encourage a balanced mix of uses • Incentivize linkage of housing choices with transportation choices Some recent developments have not included access to parks, library and retail. Regulations could include incentives for amenities. Diversity Balanced development across city. Promote access to amenities for all neighborhoods. Lead D4 Support choice Provide Encourage housing options and services to allow people to thrive in Georgetown as they grow older age in the community. Desire to age in place Greater range of housing options, transportation, support services needed to age in place. Inventory ‐ current stock of age restricted units • Support services (transportation, healthcare, food service, utility billing assistance) • Strategic Partnership grants focused on agencies that promote aging in place/community • Health and human services Increased diversity of housing product may allow someone to stay in community if aging causes need for different housing product. Diversity Accommodate diverse housing needs through development code and connection to services. More people have choice to stay in home/community as they age. Support DRAFT 05.16.19Page 69 of 119 Draft Housing Policy Guide Policy Public Input Technical Studies Possible Tools (* indicates current tool) Specific example Intent/ Council Direction Outcome Role Coordinated Housing Programming (global policies) C1 Actively seek and build public and private partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. Suggestion of school sites reserved ‐ school dedication idea Alignment Study • Partnerships with non‐profits, county, school district* • Comm. Development Block Grant (WilCo and/or HUD)* • HOME (TDHCA) ‐ down payment assistance • Housing Trust Fund (TDHCA + HUD) • Health and Human Services element of Comprehensive Plan • Point in Time count (County effort) • Partnerships with employers CDBG funds through County to partner with HFHWC for Home Repair for neighborhood preservation. Preservation Affordability Diversity Secure outside funding and partnerships to maximize results. Should be used for all policies where possible. Partner C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans. Aging in place/community needs to be coordinated with more than housing Economic development strategy affects ability of households to choose housing Alignment Study • Land use policies* • Economic development strategies involve housing discussion with employers. • Public works ‐ Overall Transportation Plan Housing diversity policies coordinated with land use policies, economic development strategic studies Preservation Affordability Diversity Coordinate plans and policies. Applies to all policies. Effective and efficient governance. Lead C3 Provide ensure opportunity for community engagement through outreach and communication. "Make sure to include community in planning efforts." "Improve communication with residents." Alignment Study • Education and promotion of available housing programs and incentives. • Communication about housing options for residents. Surveys, open house and speaking in community about 2030 Plan update. Development community outreach. Preservation Affordability Diversity Involve public/community in planning and decision making. Applies to all policies. Residents can provide input on neighborhood and city planning process. Lead DRAFT 05.16.19Page 70 of 119 Housing Policy recommendation of the 2030 Update Steering Committee 1 Policy Number Policy Specific Achievable Preservation P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. X X P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods. X Not P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. X Not P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality. X X Affordability A1 Support existing rental choices for low-income households. X X A2 Increase rental choices for workforce households. X X A3 Increase rental choices for senior households. X X A4 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households. X X A5 Support community housing choices for all residents. Not X Coordinated Housing Programming (global policies) C1 Actively seek and build partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. X X C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans. X X C3 Ensure opportunity for stakeholder community engagement through outreach and communication. X X Page 71 of 119 Housing Policy recommendation of the 2030 Update Steering Committee 2 Policy Number Policy Specific Achievable Diversity D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. X X D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture of housing types, densities, and price points. X X D3 Provide opportunity to create complete neighborhoods across Georgetown that have a mix of housing types and land uses, affordable housing and transportation options, and access to healthy food, schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and recreation options. X Not D4 Support choice Provide enough housing options and services to allow people to stay in Georgetown as they grow older age in the community. Not Not Page 72 of 119 Policy Number 3/7 & 4/4 Steering Committee Recommendations Drafted from SC Recommendations for 4/10 JS Policy Number 4/10 Joint Session Recommendation P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. P1. Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability.P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability. P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods.P2. Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas.P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas. P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. P3. Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases.P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases. P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.P4. Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality. A1 Support existing rental choices for low-income households.A1. Support existing rental choices for low-income households. A2 Increase rental choices for workforce households.A2. Increase rental choices for workforce households. A3 Increase rental choices for senior households.A3. Support rental choices for senior households.A2 Support rental choices for senior households. A4 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households.A4. Increase homeownership choices for workforce households.A3 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households. A5 Support community housing choices for all residents.A5. Support community housing choices for vulnerable residents including families and individuals experiencing homelessness.A4 Support community housing choices for vulnerable residents including families and individuals experiencing homelessness. A1 Support and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households unless they are substandard. Preservation Affordability DRAFT 05.30.19 Page 73 of 119 Policy Number 3/7 & 4/4 Steering Committee Recommendations Drafted from SC Recommendations for 4/10 JS Policy Number 4/10 Joint Session Recommendation Policy Number 3/7 & 4/4 Steering Committee Recommendations Staff Drafted from SC Recommendations for 4/10 JS Policy Number 4/10 Joint Session Recommendation D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. D1. Encourage and incentivize new housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points.D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture of housing types, densities, and price points. D2. Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture of housing types and densities across the community. D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community. D3 Provide opportunity to create complete neighborhoods across Georgetown that have a mix of housing types and land uses, affordable housing and transportation options, and access to healthy food, schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and recreation options. D3. Provide opportunity to create complete neighborhoods across Georgetown.D3 Promote development of complete neighborhoods across Georgetown. D4 Support choice Provide enough housing options and services to allow people to stay in Georgetown as they grow older age in the community. D4. Provide housing options and services to allow people to thrive in Georgetown as they grow older.D4 Encourage housing options and services to allow people to thrive in Georgetown as they grow older. C1 Actively seek and build partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. C1. Actively seek and build partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation.C1 Actively seek and build public and private partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation. C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans.C2. Align housing policies with other city policies and strategic plans.C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans. C3 Ensure opportunity for stakeholder community engagement through outreach and communication. C3. Ensure opportunity for community engagement through outreach and communication.C3 Provide opportunity for community engagement through outreach and communication. Coordinated Housing Programming (global policies) Diversity DRAFT 05.30.19 Page 74 of 119 06.17.19 Activity: Each member of the Steering Committee will be asked to raise a green, yellow or red card for as individual policies are presented: • Green = keep policy as is • Yellow = support policy idea, but modifications are needed Po l i c y Nu m b e r Policy Vote Taken P1 Preserve existing housing stock that contributes to diversity and affordability.6 green, 3 red, 2 yellow P2 Preserve existing neighborhoods in targeted areas.7 green, 4 yellow P3 Support owner ability to stay in their home in neighborhoods with rapid value increases.4 green, 6 yellow, 1 red P4 Maintain and promote neighborhood character and quality.9 green, 1 yellow, 1 red A1 Support and increase rental choices for low-income and workforce households unless they are substandard.6 green, 4 yellow A2 Support rental choices for senior households.6 green, 3 yellow, 1 red A3 Increase homeownership choices for workforce households 8 green, 2 red A4 Support community housing choices for vulnerable residents including families and individuals experiencing homelessness 5 green, 1 yellow, 4 red D1 Encourage and incentivize new housing and reinventions or additions to existing housing to provide a mixture of housing types, sizes and price points. 6 green, 5 yellow D2 Ensure land use designations and other policies allow for and encourage a mixture housing types and densities across the community. 9 green, 2 yellow D3 Promote development of complete neighborhoods across Georgetown.4 green, 4 yellow, 3 red Preservation Affordability Diversity Page 75 of 119 06.17.19 Po l i c y Nu m b e r Policy Vote Taken D4 Encourage housing options and services to allow people to thrive in Georgetown as they grow older.3 green, 6, yellow, 2 red C1 Actively seek and build public and private partnerships to leverage resources and promote innovation.10 green C2 Align housing goals with other city policies and strategic plans.9 green, 1 red C3 Provide opportunity for stakeholder community engagement through outreach and communication.6 green, 4 yellow Coordinated Housing Programming (global policies) Page 76 of 119 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 9, 2019 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion regarding the function, membership and focus of the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board -- J im Briggs, General Manager, Utilities I T EM S UMMARY: During the February 26, 2019 City Council meeting, City Council discussed the GU S Adviso ry Board and the process for selectio n of membership. The resulting directio n to staff was to refrain from changing membership of the Board until after the completion o f the Management Study and furthe r clarity relate d to the directio n for the Board. We have now completed the M anagement Study and recommendations have be e n shared with City Council. The G US Board members have continued to serve on the Board but J uly will be the end of the hold over period requested. This workshop item will discuss with staff the direction and actions that need to be co mpleted in o rder to move forward with the reorganization of the G U S Board and its mission. The workshop is inte nde d to provide clarity of City Council vision for the G U S Board to both the staff and Board members still serving temporary status. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: N O N E S UBMI T T ED BY: J im Briggs - General Manager, Utilities AT TAC HMENT S : Description G US Board Members hip P res entation Page 77 of 119 GUS Board Discussion City Council Workshop 7/8/2019 Page 78 of 119 Agenda •Prior City Council Action •Board Composition History •Bylaws •Management Assessment Discussion •Future Direction •Council Feedback Page 79 of 119 2019 City Council Activity •Council moved (2/26/19) to delay decision on GUS Board membership until there was time to review the purpose and mission and determine the appropriate function of the board •Reopen the application process for 60 days once final directive was established •Schneider Report Delivered May 2019 •Opt-In or Sale Discussion June 2019 Page 80 of 119 2/26/2019 City Council Meeting Directive •GUS is an advisory board, GUS is not an oversight board •GUS does not have the responsibility and was not structured to look at the business financials •GUS reviews rates, rate structure, infrastructure plans and CIP budget •Council wanted to review roles, mission and composition of members •Reopen the application process for 60 days to meet composition •Ask current GUS Board members to extend to provide City Council time to evaluate and discuss with the current GUS Board members Page 81 of 119 Board History •Established in 2002 along with GTAB to provide advice to City Council on major CIP expenses/fees/rates •Initially, (2) Council Members and (5) industry specific membership •Bylaws changed three times since 2002 but industry specified membership and Board size has remained unchanged •Council membership changed in 2015 to no less than (1) no more than (2) members •Typical business has been project specific CIP expense (over $50,000.00), impact fees and rates every three years Page 82 of 119 GUS Board Bylaws; Section 1.2 Purpose •The Board is established to review and analyze the policies and resources of the Georgetown Utility Systems concerning the business aspects of such policies and resources as they relate to the City funded capital improvement projects, utility services, resource supplies, water, wastewater, stormwater, electric rates, impact fees and other Council-assigned projects, and to report recommendations to the City Council Page 83 of 119 GUS Board Bylaws; Section 2.2 Eligibility •Each Member shall reside in the City of Georgetown corporate limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction. At least one Member, but not more than two Members shall be members of the City Council. Whenever possible, Members shall have expertise in the areas of: •Water/wastewater; •Construction standards; •Electricity; or •Environmental engineering/stormwater drainage. Page 84 of 119 Management Assessment Recommendation •Study the installation of separate governance structure for Georgetown Utility Systems. While any changes to GUS governance structure will not impact past decisions, this issue is worth considering for future management of GUS power and other electric utility management •Separate governance structure would shift from Advisory to more Direct Oversight and business unit specific financial responsibility Page 85 of 119 Future Direction Consideration •Focus GUS Board to include Water/Wastewater and Electric Utilities •Environmental & Stormwater shifted to other board review, such as GTAB •Consistent with Public Works reporting structure •Membership expertise enhanced with Energy Market experience •Membership in City and ETJ continues with broad Water exposure outside of the City Page 86 of 119 Future Direction Consideration •Enhance the City’s Energy Risk Management policy with the assistance of a Risk/Energy Management Consultant •Develop a Risk Management Committee that would include the review of utility business financials •Long-term: Review the pro’s an con’s of establishing the GUS Board as an oversight body vs. an advisory body (Consistent with Management Assessment) Page 87 of 119 Timeline to Administer Changes •July 2019 Council Workshop providing Staff with input for change •July 2019 Staff prepares draft ordinance for review •August 2019 New ordinance published for 1st reading •August 2019 1st Reading •September 2019 2nd Reading and adoption •September/October 2019 Recruit new members •November 2019 Select new membership Page 88 of 119 Council Feedback Requested •Confirm focus of GUS Board •Water/Wastewater and Electric Only •Add membership with Energy Market experience •Confirm timeline for ordinance development/adoption •Confirm board recruitment timeline •Confirm future development of Risk Management Committee •Confirm long-term interest to review governance structure of the GUS Board Page 89 of 119 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 9, 2019 S UBJEC T: P resentation and discussion of the year end revenue projections in the general fund, F Y2020 assessed value trends, and the projected tax impact of five year capital improvement plan -- P aul Diaz, Budget Manager I T EM S UMMARY: Annually in the Budget process, staff bring forward an analysis from the Five Ye ar Debt Model. This to ol helps to better understand the impacts of issuing debt and allows for scenario testing and the adjustment of multiple variables including assessed value, sales tax, tax rate distribution, and debt service requirements. F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: N/A S UBMI T T ED BY: P aul Diaz, Budget Manager AT TAC HMENT S : Description F ive Year C I P P resentation Page 90 of 119 Tax Supported Five Year CIP Project Name Category Funding FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Beyond 5 Years Leander Road (Norwood to South West Bypass)Streets 2015 GO 3,200,000 - - - - - Southwestern Blvd.Streets 2015 GO 2,650,000 - - - - - Public Safety Vehicles - Fire Fleet CO 2,200,000 2,830,000 2,685,000 1,520,000 985,000 8,115,000 Intersection Improvements Streets 2015 GO 1,400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Regional Trail Development Parks CO 1,275,000 - 1,500,000 3,000,000 2015 Road Bond Priority 1 - Sidewalks Streets 2015 GO 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Austin Avenue Bridges Streets CO 1,000,000 7,000,000 - - Body Cam Public Safety - Police DepartmentCO 814,038 Northwest Blvd Bridge - ROW Streets 2015 GO 750,000 - - - - - Public Safety Vehicles - Police Fleet CO 740,200 1,044,000 879,000 821,500 989,400 5,100,000 San Gabriel Park Parks CO 600,000 3,000,000 2,250,000 - - 8,700,000 Westinghouse & Scenic Lake Traffic Signal Streets 2015 GO 600,000 - - - - - Cardiac Monitors Public Safety - Fire DepartmentCO 290,000 290,000 300,000 - - - GMC Remodel Facilities CO 250,000 Neighborhood Park Development Parks CO 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 - Public Safety Vehicles - Police New Fleet CO 246,000 SCBA Replacement Public Safety - Fire DepartmentCO 225,000 225,000 - - - - Parks Master Plan Parks CO 200,000 - - - - - ADA Transition Plan Parks CO 150,000 150,000 150,000 - - - Radio Replacement Other CO 129,000 234,278 - - - - Tennis Center Pool Demolition Parks CO 70,000 - - - - - Berry Creek Drive Streets 2008 GO - - - - - 5,550,000 Blue Hole Park Improvement Parks CO - - - - - 1,200,000 D.B . Wood (SH 29 to Oak Ridge)Streets 2015 GO - 5,000,000 10,000,000 3,400,000 - - Festival/Public Space - Downtown West Facilities CO - - - - - 5,400,000 Fire Station 4 - Relocation Facilities CO - - - - - 6,300,000 Fire Station 8 Facilities CO - - - - - 6,300,000 Georgetown Municipal Complex Renovation Facilities CO - - - - - 8,500,000 Historic San Gabriel River Park Parks CO - - - - 250,000 - Leander Road Bridge @ IH35 Streets 2015 GO - - - - - 4,600,000 Mixed Use Parking Garage Facilities CO - - - - - 12,000,000 North Bound Frontage Road Streets 2015 GO - - - - - 7,000,000 North East Inner Loop/Stadium Drive Streets 2015 GO - - - - - 2,000,000 Preliminary Engineering Pool Streets 2015 GO - - - - - 2,050,000 Public Facilities Master Plan Facilities CO - - - - - 150,000 Public Safety Operation and Training Center Phase II Facilities CO - - - - - 10,000,000 SH29 (Haven to SH130)Streets 2015 GO - - - - - 4,100,000 Signature Gateway Facilities CO - - - - - 200,000 South West Bypass (3)Streets 2015 GO - 3,700,000 - - - - Southeast Community Park Parks CO - - - - 4,000,000 9,200,000 Westside Park Development Parks CO - - - - - 10,000,000 Westside Recreation Center Parks CO - - - - - 18,500,000 18,039,238 17,723,278 18,514,000 16,491,500 8,474,400 138,965,000 Five Year Total 79,242,416 17,000,000 Average 15,848,483 Page 91 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget FY2020 Budget Revenue Forecast, Debt Modeling, and Five Year Tax Supported CIP Page 92 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Agenda •General Fund Revenue Projections •FY2020 Assessed Value Trends •Debt Modeling/CIP Capacity Page 93 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Sales Tax Projection •Sales Tax –Largest revenue in the General Fund at 22% of the budget. –Primarily driven by the retail, food, information, and manufacturing sectors. These sectors make up about 75% of total sales tax revenue. Food 11% Information 8% Manufactu ring 10% Other 14% Real Estate 2% Retail 46% Utilities 1% Wholesale 8% SALES TAX Page 94 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Retail Sector Breakdown 25% 21% 13% 9% 5% 5% 5% 5% 12% Building Material General Merchandise Stores Food and Beverage Stores Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers Clothing and Clothing Accessories StoresMiscellaneous Store Retailers Electronics and Appliance Stores Nonstore Retailers Other Page 95 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget 13,183,592 14,120,402 15,330,818 16,734,375 17,859,375 FY2016 Actual FY2017 Actual FY2018 Actual FY2019 Projected FY2020 Budget General Fund Sales Tax Page 96 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Sales Tax Projection •Sales Tax –General Fund –FY2019 Budget: $ 15,924,475 –FY2019 Projection: $16,734,375 (5% increase) –FY2020 Budget: $17,859,375 (6.7% increase) •Continued strong growth in the core sectors •New development like Holt Cat, Wolf Crossing, and Academy Sports + Outdoors. Page 97 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Sanitation Projection •Sanitation Revenue represents 13% of total revenues. •Projected to finish FY2019 at budget. •FY2020 is budget at $9.75 million, an increase of 3% over FY2019 projections. $8.76 $9.45 $9.45 $9.75 $8.20 $8.40 $8.60 $8.80 $9.00 $9.20 $9.40 $9.60 $9.80 $10.00 FY2018 Actuals FY2019 Budget FY2019 Projected FY2020 Base Budget Mi l l i o n s Sanitation Revenue Page 98 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Return on Investment (ROI) •ROI Revenue represents 11% of total general fund revenues. •ROI is comprised of a transfer from the Electric, Water, and Stormwater funds. •ROI is projected to end FY2019 at $7.27 million, or 6.4% less than budget. –Staff is proposing transferring only $3.825 M from the Electric Fund instead of the full budgeted amount of $4.325 M. •FY2020 Budget: –Accounts for natural growth in Water and Stormwater (3% increase) –Continues to lower ROI transfer in Electric for FY2020 Page 99 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Fire/EMS Revenue Projection •This revenue group represents 10% of the general fund. •It is comprised of ESD 8 Contract ($3.5 M), EMS transport revenue ($2.6 M), and SAFER & TASPP grants ($826,000) •FY2019 is projected to end less than 1% below budget due to slightly less grant revenue being received. •FY2020 is budgeted at a 4% increase over FY2019 projections due to an increase in the ESD 8 contract and growth in the EMS system. Page 100 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Franchise Fees Projections •Franchise Fees represent 8% of the general fund revenues. •The City collects franchise fees on electric, water, cable TV, gas, telephone (land lines), stormwater, and irrigation. •Franchise fees in FY2019 are projected to end 3% higher than budget. The FY2020 Budget totals $5.89 M, or an increase of 5% from FY2019 projections. $5.27 $5.43 $5.59 $5.89 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 FY2018 Actuals FY2019 Budget FY2019 Projected FY2020 Base Budget Mi l l i o n s Franchise Fees Page 101 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Development Revenue Projections •Development revenue represents 5% of the general fund revenues. •Dev. Revenues in FY2019 are projected to end 13% higher than budget due to a one time payment of Master Development fees from MUDs in FY2019 of about $400,000. •The FY2020 Budget totals $3.52 M and continues growth in permits and planning fees. •After normalizing for the one-time payment, development fees overall are budgeted to increase by 5% relative to FY2019 $2.86 $3.31 $3.73 $3.52 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 FY2018 Actuals FY2019 Budget FY2019 Projected FY2020 Base Budget Mi l l i o n s Development and Permit Fees Page 102 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Parks and Rec Projections •Parks and Rec revenues represent 4% of the general fund revenues. •FY2019 is projected to end at $2.7 M, less than budget by $251,000. The variance in primarily due to Garey Park revenue which is projected to come in $175,000 less than budget (1st year of operations) •The FY2020 Budget totals $2.83 million. Page 103 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Property Tax Revenue •Property tax revenues represents 20% of the general fund revenues. •FY2019 is projected to end at budget. Page 104 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Property Tax Process •Assessed Value is certified on July 25th by Williamson County Central Appraisal District (WCAD). •After the certification date, City Staff meets with the Tax Assessor Collector’s Office and verifies the Truth in Taxation form. –This form calculates the effective rate and the rollback rate. –State requirement and must be published in the local paper. Page 105 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Truth in Taxation •The effective rate is the rate the City would need to charge in order to produce the same amount of property tax revenues as last year while using the new valuations of the current year. Typically, property values appreciate from year to year. In most years, the increased value of a property means a lower tax rate could produce the same amount of revenue. For example, a home valued at $100,000 with a tax rate of 42 cents would produce $420 in property tax revenue. If in the following year, the home is now valued at $105,000, the effective rate would be 40 cents to produce the same $420 worth of revenue. The effective rate enables the public to evaluate the relationship between taxes for the prior year and for the current year. •The rollback rate is the maximum tax rate the City can set before the taxpayers can petition for an election to reduce the tax rate. After adjustments for debt calculations, the rollback rate is equal to the effective rate times 8%, or in this example 43.2 cents. Page 106 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Page 107 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget 3.95 4.49 4.91 5.41 5.90 6.35 0.97 1.04 1.16 1.23 1.33 1.46 0.45 0.52 0.51 0.48 0.51 0.55 0.18 0.25 0.30 0.33 0.40 0.61 - 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 Market Value by Segment (in billions) Residential Commerical Land Multi-Family Page 108 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Market Value in Billions Fiscal Year Residential Commercial Land Multi-Family FY2015 3.95 0.97 0.45 0.18 FY2016 4.49 1.04 0.52 0.25 FY2017 4.91 1.16 0.51 0.30 FY2018 5.41 1.23 0.48 0.33 FY2019 5.90 1.33 0.51 0.40 FY2020 6.35 1.46 0.55 0.61 Page 109 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Property Tax Process •Beginning in late April, WCAD starts posting the Assessed Values for the City. (Open to the public) •Typically, protest are at their highest in late May Page 110 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget What’s Changed Since Last Year? ***Not Certified Values*** Segment FY2019 FY2020 % Var. Taxable Value 5,434,192,282 5,652,225,161 4.01% Tax Ceiling Value 2,602,161,482 2,783,483,757 6.97% New Value 251,898,659 375,002,284 48.87% TIRZ Value 234,588,009 356,041,024 51.77% Page 111 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Tax Impact Debt Model •Developed in FY2016, the Five Year Debt Model is a tool to better understand the impacts of issuing debt. •Allows for scenario testing and the adjustment of multiple variables including assessed value, sales tax, tax rate distribution, and debt service requirements. Page 112 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget How the Model Works Page 113 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Assumptions •Small changes can have big impacts. –Example: •$17,000,000 in revenue. •1% variance is $170,000. •$1 Million of Debt Capacity = $67,000 of debt service •$170,000/$67,000 = 2.53 million of debt capacity. •Assumptions –$275 M –$200 M of new growth and 4 -3% growth in AV. Combined growth is 5 to 6 % growth year over year. –3.5% growth in tax ceiling revenue –Distribution of O&M and I&S tax ceiling remains constant. Page 114 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget What’s Changed Since Last Year? •Last Year: –A fiscally constrained CIP which would not have a tax rate impact needed to be sized at $75 million over five years or about $15 million a year. •Current Year: –A fiscally constrained CIP with no tax rate impact would be $85 million over five years or about $17 million a year. Page 115 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Project Name Category Funding FY2020 Leander Road (Norwood to South West Bypass)Streets 2015 GO 3,200,000 Southwestern Blvd.Streets 2015 GO 2,650,000 Public Safety Vehicles - Fire Fleet CO 2,200,000 Intersection Improvements Streets 2015 GO 1,400,000 Regional Trail Development Parks CO 1,275,000 2015 Road Bond Priority 1 - Sidewalks Streets 2015 GO 1,000,000 Austin Avenue Bridges Streets CO 1,000,000 Body Cam Public Safety - Police DCO 814,038 Northwest Blvd Bridge - ROW Streets 2015 GO 750,000 Public Safety Vehicles - Police Fleet CO 740,200 San Gabriel Park Parks CO 600,000 Westinghouse & Scenic Lake Traffic Signal Streets 2015 GO 600,000 Cardiac Monitors Public Safety - Fire De CO 290,000 GMC Remodel Facilities CO 250,000 Neighborhood Park Development Parks CO 250,000 Public Safety Vehicles - Police New Fleet CO 246,000 SCBA Replacement Public Safety - Fire De CO 225,000 Parks Master Plan Parks CO 200,000 ADA Transition Plan Parks CO 150,000 Radio Replacement Other CO 129,000 Tennis Center Pool Demolition Parks CO 70,000 18,039,238 Tax Supported Five Year CIP Row Labels Sum of FY2020 Sum of FY2021 Sum of FY2022 Sum of FY2023 Sum of FY2024 Public Safety - Fire Department 515,000 515,000 300,000 - - Public Safety - Police Department 814,038 Streets 10,600,000 9,700,000 12,000,000 12,400,000 2,000,000 Grand Total 18,039,238 17,723,278 18,514,000 16,491,500 8,474,400 Page 116 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Next Steps •Estimate on the effective and the rollback rate at the Budget Workshop. •Certified tax roll on July 25th. Page 117 of 119 FY2020 Annual Budget Questions? Page 118 of 119 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Workshop July 9, 2019 S UBJEC T: Sec. 551.071: Consul tati on w i th Attorney Advice fro m attorney about pending or co ntemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items - Litigation Update - P olice and Fire Meet and Confer Update Sec. 551.086: Certai n P ubl i c P ow er Uti l i ti es: Competi ti ve M atters - P urchased P ower Update Sec. 551.087: Del i berati on Regardi ng Economi c Devel opment Negoti ati ons - P roject C - P roject Matrix Sec. 551:074: P ersonnel Matters City Manager, City Atto rne y, City Secretary and M unicipal J udge: Consideration of the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal I T EM S UMMARY: F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: N/A S UBMI T T ED BY: Robyn Densmore, City Secretary Page 119 of 119