HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 11.26.2013 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
The Georgetown City Council will meet on NOVEMBER 26, 2013 at 3:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers at
101 E. 7th St., Georgetown, Texas
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City
Secretary's Office, least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at
113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Discussion and possible direction on an update from the Housing Advisory Board regarding the
implementation of the Housing Element -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
and Tim Todd, Housing Advisory Board Chair
B Presentation and possible direction to staff regarding final design concept of Phase Two of the
Creative Playscape -- Eric Nuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, Kimberly Garrett, Parks
and Recreation Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
C American Traffic Solutions: Crossing Guard School Bus Stop Enforcement System -- Wayne Nero,
Chief of Police
Executive Session
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: Consultation with 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
- Rivery Update
- LCRA Update
Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters
- Discussion and possible action regarding the proposed approval of a Renewable Energy contract
between the City of Georgetown and Energy DeFrance (EDF) -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of
Utilities and Chris Foster, Utilities Financial Analyst
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Westinghouse Road Development
Adjournment
Certificate of Posting
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice of
Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public at all
times, on the _____ day of _________________, 2013, at __________, and remained so posted for at least
72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
__________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
City of Georgetown, Texas
November 26, 2013
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction on an update from the Housing Advisory Board regarding the
implementation of the Housing Element -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator and Tim
Todd, Housing Advisory Board Chair
ITEM SUMMARY:
On July 24, 2012, the City Council adopted the Housing Element as part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
This element provides background on the housing market in Georgetown and policy recommendations for
implementation through further plans and programs.
Through market and demographic study, a defined housing deficit was identified. By the year 2017, the city
will have a deficit of approximately 1,569 owner-occupied units and 2,902 rental units.
Seven recommendations were adopted with the element. They were broken down into three categories by
priority.
High Priority (One to five years)
1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to
provide new units.
2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use
compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing variety within the city.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years)
3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services.
Medium Priority (Seven to ten years)
6. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing
initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects
7. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment.
The Housing Advisory Board has been working on creating implementation steps for the first two high
priority recommendations.
At the August 21, 2013 meeting, the board finalized a map of potential sites for workforce multifamily
development as step towards Priority #2. The board considered four main factors to determine sites that
would serve the City, developers and future residents efficiently.
Distance from retail services. This includes grocery stores, major shopping areas and smaller retail
like Walgreens and CVS. Site should be no more than 2 miles from retail.
Distance from employment areas. This includes areas with one or two major employers (e.g. Tasus,
Williamson County, etc) and areas with many smaller retail and manufacturing (e.g. Georgetown
North Industrial Park). Site should be no more than 2 miles from employment.
Utilities. Sites within the Georgetown water and electric service territories will provide a return
through utility payments.
City limits. All sites are either with the city limits or have an agreement with the City to annex when
development occurs. Future developments will provide income to the city through property taxes.
Other information provided on the map for consideration is the existing and proposed transportation network,
Cover Memo
Item # A
existing sidewalks, and locations of existing apartment and Multifamily zoning districts.
For Priority #1, the board has been examining current development code requirements and required city fees
to determine what incentives would be best utilized to encourage new affordable housing development. By
varying development standards in return for workforce housing units, developers can build with greater
density and decreased construction costs. These standards can include decreased setbacks, increase
impervious cover, and alternative parking options. The primary fees that the city requires are for permit
reviews, inspections and impact fees. The board is considering options that would waive or subside these
fees for housing units that will be set aside for workforce housing.
The Housing Advisory Board is asking for feedback on these implementation steps and direction to staff to
bring the Workforce Multifamily Locations map forward on a future City Council agenda for adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Adopted 2030 Plan Housing Element
Possible Workforce Multifamily Locations study
Cover Memo
Item # A
Basic criteria for desired multifamily sites
In determining a base area to examine potential multifamily sites, there were four main criteria that
were considered.
Distance from retail services. This includes grocery stores, major shopping areas and smaller
retail like Walgreens and CVS. Site should be no more than 2 miles from retail.
Distance from employment areas. This includes areas with one or two major employers
(Tasus, Williamson County, etc) and areas with many smaller retail and manufacturing
(Georgetown North Industrial Park). Site should be no more than 2 miles from employment.
Utilities—the intersecting area of the Georgetown water and electric service territories.
City limits. This looks at areas that are already with in the city limits (gray), or have an
agreement with the City to annex when development occurs (blue).
On the overall map, the orange/tan shaded color represents the area that meets all four of the above
criteria.
Other information provided on the map for consideration is the existing and proposed transportation
network, existing sidewalks, and locations of existing apartment and Multifamily zoning districts.
Attached for each area is a list of various districts and statistics for each area.
Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 21
Item # A
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
^`
^`
^`^`
^`
^`
^`
^`
^`
^`
5
1
3
8
411
13
6
2 14 129
10
7
F M 9 7 1
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
N
B
WILLIAMS DR
CR 152N IH 35 SB
S IH 35 SB
E U N I V E R S I T Y A V E
N IH 35 FWY SB
N IH 35 FWY NB
W U N IV E R S I TY AV E
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
S
H 1
3
0 S
B
S
H 130 S
B
N AUSTIN AVE
S
H
1
3
0
N
B
S
H 130 N
B
S IH 35 FWY SB
S IH 35 FWY NB
S IH 35 FWY NB
C R 1 5 1
S AUSTIN AVE
SCENIC DR
L A K E W A Y D R
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
W
E
S
T
B
L
V
D
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
S IH 35 NB
FM 1460LEANDER R D
W S H 2 9
WOLF RANCH PKWY
N COLLEGE ST
S M
A
IN
ST
BOOTYS CROSSING RD
B O O T Y S C R O S SIN G R D
RAILROAD AVE
SHELL RD
N IH 35 NB
N IH 35 NB
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
R
O
C
K
R
I
D
E
L
N
OLD AIRPORT RD
S M I T H C R E E K R D
S M I T H C R E E K R D S
M
I
T
H
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
E 7 T H S T
IN D U S T RIA L A V E
PATRIOT WAY
P
A
T
R
I
O
T
W
A
Y
SAN GABRIEL VILLAGE BLVD
EXIT 261 NB
E S H 2 9
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±0 1,9 00 3,8 00Feet
Si te In fo rm ati on
Po ssib le ne w MF a re a s
Un d eve lop e d with MF Z on in g
^`Re tail Se rvice s
l Em plo ym e nt Are a s
City Lim its
Pa rks an d Op en Sp a ce
Wa ter & E le ctric S ervice A re a s
An ne xatio n A g re e me nts
Workforce Mul ti-family Locations
Apar tm ents a nd Zoning
Existin g A p a rtme n ts
To w n h o u se D istrict
Mu ltifa m ily D istrict
Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 21
Item # A
Area 1
Area size: 70 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Employment Center, Community Commercial, High Density
Residential, Open Space
Current Zoning: C‐1; Local Commercial, RS; Single‐Family Residential
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks (Section 8), Park Place (HOME)
City Council District: 6
Elementary School Zone: Cooper
Middle School Zone: Benold/Forbes (split)
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.5 miles Employment: 0.33
Utilities: All Georgetown
Area 2
Area size: 11 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Employment Center, Open Space
Current Zoning: AG; Agriculture
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks (Section 8), Park Place (HOME)
City Council District: 6
Elementary School Zone: Frost
Middle School Zone: Benold
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.5 miles Employment: 0.5 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 21
Item # A
Area 1 and 2
Pa rk Pla c e A pt s.
1
2
l
l
l
N IH 35 FWY SB
C R 1 5 1
LAKEWAYDR
OL
D AIRP
OR
T RD
G O L D E N OAKS R D
S H A D Y H O L L O W DR
M E D A S T
FREDD I E D R
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
R
OYALDR
A
S
P
E
N
T
R
L
N IH 35 SB
B E N C H M A R K ST
G
A
N
N
S
T
M
A
H
O
G
A
N
Y
L
N
N AUSTIN AVE
W R I G HTBROTHER S D R
R A N D Y S T
I N D U S T R I A L P A R K C
I
R
O
R
A
N
G
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
NORTHWEST
B
L
V
D
F M 9 7 1
G A R D E N M E A D O WDR
R I O V I S T A D R
AIRPORT
RD
P A R Q U E C I R
E CENTRAL DR
P A R Q U E C VPARQUE C T
P A R Q U E V I S T A D R
NIH35NB
E JANIS DR
NE INNER LOOP
N AUSTIN AVE
GANN ST
NEINNE
R
L
O
O
P
F M 971
N AUSTIN AVE
L A K E W AY DR
C R 1 5 1
N IH 35 SB
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
R
D
N IH 35 SB
N AUSTIN AVE
N IH 35 SB
N IH 35 SB
F M 9 7 1
PAR KS A ND RECR EATIO N ADM I N
KAT Y CRO SSI NG T RAIL PA RK
Transportation Network
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
±
0 700 1,400Feet
Possi bl e new MF areas
Undevel oped with MF Zoni ng
^`Retail Services
l Empl oym ent Areas
Georget own Pa rks
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Shady Oaks
Cedar Ridge Condos
Parkview Place
Georgetown Square
Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 21
Item # A
Area 3
Area size: 51 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Moderate Density Residential, Open Space
Current Zoning: AG; Agriculture
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Park Place
City Council District: 6/7 (split)
Elementary School Zone: Cooper
Middle School Zone: Forbes
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.8 miles Employment: 0.8 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Area 12
Area size: 15 acres
Future Land Use Designation: High Density Residential
Current Zoning: MF; Multifamily
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: None
City Council District: 7
Elementary School Zone: Cooper
Middle School Zone: Forbes
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 2.2 miles Employment: 1.4 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 21
Item # A
Area 14
Area size: 18 acres
Future Land Use Designation: High Density Residential
Current Zoning: TH; Townhouse
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: None
City Council District: 7
Elementary School Zone: Cooper
Middle School Zone: Forbes
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services Retail: 2.2 miles Employment: 1.4 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 21
Item # A
l
3
1
14
12
S
H
1
3
0 T
O
L
L S
B
S
H
1
3
0 T
O
L
L
N
B
C R 1 5 1
E
X
I
T
4
1
3
S
B
F M 971
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
V
W
I
L
DFLOWERL N
M E D A S T
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
FREDD I E D R
L
A
Z
Y
R
D
E A S T D R
NE INNERLO
O
P
I R I S D R
A
S
P
E
N
T
R
L
JUNIPER DR
E
L
K
DR
D
O
G
W
O
O
D
D
R
B A S TIA N L N
STEPHEN LN
M
A
H
O
G
A
N
Y
L
N
RIV E R P A R K L N
B I S O N D RLONNIETHOMASDR
TANNE R C I R
R A N D Y S T
EVE R G R E E N CIR
O
R
A
N
G
E
T
R
E
E
L
N
C
L
A
R
I
S
L
N
J A N A E C TKAJON CV
C O U G A R DR
J A S M I N E T R L
AZALEA DR
R O S E M A R Y C V
B
A
R
B
E
R
R
Y D
R
R I V E R B L U F F C I R
CALADIUM DR
RIV E R P A R K C V
M A Y C V
H I C K O R Y T R E E D R C R 1 5 2
K A T Y C R O S SI N G B L V D
C R 1 5 1
C
R
1
5
2
C
R
1
5
2
C R 1 5 1
B A S TIA N L N
C R 1 5 1
S
H
1
3
0
T
O
L
L
S
B
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
LOOP
F M 971
C
R
1
5
2
N
E
I
N
N
E
R
L
O
O
P
F M 9 7 1
JUNIPER DR
F M 971
C
R
1
5
2
C
R
1
5
2
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±
0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t
Possibl e n ew M F areas
Unde vel op ed wi th MF Zon ing
^`Retai l S ervi ce s
l Emp loymen t A reas
Geo rg etown Parks
Area 3 , 12, and 14
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 21
Item # A
Area 4
Area size: 18 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Community Commercial, Specialty Mixed Use, Open Space
Current Zoning: C‐1; Local Commercial, RS; Single‐Family Residential
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Park Place, Georgetown Square, Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar
Ridge, Apple Creek, San Gabriel Village Condos, Waters Edge,
Two Rivers
City Council District: 6
Elementary School Zone: Cooper
Middle School Zone: Benold
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.2 miles Employment: 0.4 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 21
Item # A
l
l
l
l
l
l
^`
^`
^`
^`
^`
^`
4
S IH 35 FW Y SB
N IH 35 FWY SB
F M 9 7 1
T H O M A S C T
O
A
K L
N
S IH 35 NB
LO WERPARKRD
N IH 35 SB
CLAY ST
E 2 N D S T
R
OYALDR
S IH 35 SB
G
A
N
N
S
T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
C E D A R D R
SHANNON LNWCENTRALDR
S C E N I C DR
P
A
R
K L
N
BLU E H OLE PA RK RD
BRIDG
E
ST A
S
H
S
T
R
I
V
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
W 2 N D S T
MCCOYLN
E
L
M
S
T
J
O
H
N
C
A
R
T
E
R
D
R
N
O
R
T
H
W
ESTBLVD
RIV E R SID E D R
ADA
M
S
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
W
E
S
T
S
T
E 5 T H S T
E 8 T H S T
E 4 TH S T
E 6 TH ST
S
T
A
DIU
M
D
R
DAWN DR
E 3 R D S T
E 9 TH ST
W 5 T H S T
W 7TH S T
W 3 R D S T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
W JANIS DR
B R E N D O N L E E L N
W 6 T H S TRIVER O A K S C V
R I O V I S T A D R
E 9 T H 1 /2 S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
P A R K W A Y S T
N C O LL E G E S T
E VA L L E Y S T
W M O R R O W S T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
R
O
C
K
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
T
I
N
B
A
R
N
A
LY
W 8TH ST
W 4 T H S T
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E M O R R O W S T
WILLIAMS
DR
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
W 9 T H S T
NAUSTINAVE
M
E
S
Q
UIT
E
L
N
WATE R S E D G
E
C
I
R
HIGHKNOLL LN
E 7 T H S T
E
L
M
S
T
DAWN DR
S IH 35 NB
SCENIC DR
E
L
M
S
T
S IH 35 SB
W 9TH ST
PARK LN
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
RIVERY BLVD
E 7 T H S T
GANN ST
N COLLEGE ST
E 3 R D S TSIH35SB
SCENIC DR
E 7 T H S T
WE
S
T
S
T
RIVERY BLVD
W 4T H S T
E 3 R D S T
E
L
M
S
T
E M O R R O W S T
E 3 R D S T
E 4 T H S T
N AUSTIN AVE
RIV
ERYBLVD
E 2 N D S T
N AUSTIN AVE
A
S
H
S
T
S IH 35 NB
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
S IH 35 SB
A
S
H
S
T
W
IL
LIA
M
S
D
R
W 8T H S T
F M 9 7 1
N
C
O
L
L
E
GE
ST
R
O
C
K
S
T
OAK LN
PARK LN
E 4 T H S TS IH 35 NB
S
T
A
D
I
U
M
D
R
N IH 35 SB
N IH 35 FWY SBNIH35SB
E 8 T H S T
SIH35SB E M O R R O W S T
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
Transportation Network
Ex ist ing Sidew alk
Throroughfare Plan
R oad Classification
Pro posed Fr ontage R oad
Exi stin g F rontage Ramp
Exi stin g C oll ector
Exi stin g F reeway
Exi stin g M aj or Arterial
Exi sitin g Minor Arterial
Pro posed C ollector
Pro posed Fr eeway
Pro posed M ajor Arter ial
Pro posed M inor Arter ial
Pro posed R ail l ine
±
0 69 0 1,3 8 0Fe e t
Area 4
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s
Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing
^`Re ta il Se rvices
l Em ployme nt Are as
Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce
Waters Edge
San Gabr iel Village Condos Two River s
Apple Cr eek
Georgetown Square
Cedar Ridge Condos
Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 21
Item # A
Area 5
Area size: 110 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial
Current Zoning: None (In the Extra‐Territorial Jurisdiction under agreement)
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Waters Edge
City Council District: 2 (when annexed)
Elementary School Zone: Carver & Pickett
Middle School Zone: Tippit
High School Zone: East View High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.15 miles Employment: 0.5 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 21
Item # A
l
l
l
l
l
^`
^`
^`
^`
^`
5
11
W
O
L
F
R
D
SIH35FWYSB
S
K
Y
L
I
N
E
R
D
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
RIVERYDRIVE W A Y
O A K L A N D D R
S
T
A
R
V
I
E
W
L
N
W OLFRANCHPKWY
R I V E R H I L L S D R
S P R I N G HOLLOW
RIDGEWOO D DR
S IH 35 NB
RIVERCHASEBLVD
S U N S H IN E D R
OVERLOOK CT
RIVERY BLVD
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
MEMORIAL DR
N
H
I
L
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
S
A
N
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
B
L
V
D
S IH 35 SB
S
IM
O
N
R
D
W
O
LF R
D
W
O
L
F R
D
S
IH
35
SB
W U N IV E R S IT Y A V EWUNIVERSITYAVE
WOLF RD
S IH 35 SB
W
O
L
F
R
D
SIH35SB
M E M O R I A L D R
S IH 35 SB
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
S
I
H
3
5
S
B
WOLF RD
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
RIVERY DRIVEWAY
S IH 35 NB
WOLFRANCHPK W Y
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±
0 77 0 1,5 4 0Fe e t
Poss ible new M F areas
Undeveloped wit h M F Z oning
^`Ret ail Serv ic es
l Employm ent Areas
Parks and O pen S pace
Annexation Agreem ent
Area 5
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 21
Item # A
Area 6
Area size: 11 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Moderate Density Residential, Open Space
Current Zoning: None (In the Extra‐Territorial Jurisdiction under agreement)
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Georgetown Place, The Oaks of Georgetown, San Gabriel Senior
Village, Stonehaven, Victorian Villages
City Council District: 1 (when annexed)
Elementary School Zone: Carver & Pickett
Middle School Zone: Tippit
High School Zone: Eastview High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.3 miles Employment: 0.4 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 21
Item # A
l
l
l
l
l
l
^`
6
W 2 2 N D S T
MADISO N O A K S A V E
S
I
H
3
5
F
W
Y
N
B
E 2 1 S T S TW 2 1 S T S T
KENDALL ST
W 24T H ST
COOPERATIVEWAY
W 15T H ST
L
O
N
D
O
N
L
N
TA S U S WAY
C O T T O N T A I L L N
R A B B I T H O L L O W L N
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
M O
U
R
N
I
N
G
D
O
V
E
L
N
E 2 2 N D S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
W16THST
W 18T H ST
A
L
L
E
Y
P
I
N
E
S
T
T
IM
B
E
R
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E
L
M
S
T
V
I
N
E
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
T
O
W
E
R
D
R
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
A
S
H
S
T
V A L L E Y D R
S
C
E
N
I
C
D
R
PLEASA N T V A LLEYDR
H
O
L
L
Y
S
T
PA
I
G
E
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
E 2 0 T H S T
L
A
U
R
E
L
S
T
F
M
1
4
6
0
S
I
L
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
BRIDGE ST
S AUSTIN AVE
W U N I V E R S I T Y AV E
W 1 3 T H S T
WA
L
N
U
T
S
T
E
U
B
A
N
K
S
T
W 1 9 T H S T
L
E
A
N
D
E
R
S
T
R
A
B
B
I
T
R
U
N
W 1 7 T H S T
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
N
D
R
E 1 9 T H S T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
C
L
O
V
E
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
C
O
F
F
E
E
S
T
RAILROAD AVE
K
N
I
G
H
T
S
T
E 1 3TH ST
L E A N D E R RD
S
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
E 1 8 T H S T
S
U
N
R
I
S
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
L
N
IN D U S T R I A L A V E
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
SNEAD DR
H A R TST
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
E 1 7T H S T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
FM1460
V
IN
E
S
T
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
T
O
W
E
R
D
R
A
S
H
S
T
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
E 2 0 T HST
P
IN
E
S
T
F M 1 4 6 0
E 1 5TH ST
F
M
1
4
6
0
H
A
R
T
S
T
E 1 5 T H S T
W 1 6 T H S T
S
I
H
3
5
N
B
F
M
1
4
6
0
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
S
M
A
I
N
S
T
E 21ST S T
W 16T H S T
O
L
I
V
E
S
T
A
S
H
S
T
P
I
N
E
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
A
U
S
T
I
N
AV
E
S AUSTIN AVE
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
S
A
N
J
O
S
E
S
T
F M 1 4 6 0
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
F
M
1
4
6
0
E
L
M
S
T
SCENICDR
W 17T H ST
R A B B I T H O L L O W L N
SAUSTINAVE
S AUSTIN AVE
F
M
1
4
6
0
LE
ANDE
R
S
T
ASH
ST
EL
M
STH
A
R
T
S
T
W 1 7 T H S T
F
O
R
E
S
T
S
T
E 1 6 T H S T
M
A
P
L
E
S
T
G
E
O
R
G
I
A
N
D
R
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±
0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t
Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s
Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing
^`Re ta il Se rvices
l Em ployme nt Are as
Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce
An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt
Area 6
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Oaks of Georgetown
San Gabriel Senior Village
Georgetown Place Apar tments
Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 21
Item # A
Area 7
Area size: 3.35 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial
Current Zoning: C‐1; Local Commercial
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar Ridge, Mariposa at River Bend,
Westwood Townhomes, Cypress Creek, Whisper Oaks
City Council District: 2
Elementary School Zone: Village
Middle School Zone: Forbes
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.15 miles Employment: 0.08 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Area 8
Area size: 20 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Density
Residential
Current Zoning: AG; Agriculture
Existing Apartments with 1 mile:
City Council District: 3
Elementary School Zone: Village
Middle School Zone: Forbes
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.6 miles Employment: 0.5 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 21
Item # A
l
^`
8
7R
IV
E
R
R
D
A
D
DIELN
O
A
K L
N
W
IL
LIA
M
S D
R
DA
W
N DR
ALG ERITA D R
DUNM A N D R
HIGHVIE
W
R
D
CANYONRD
PARK E R C I R
T I F F A N Y L N
L
O
N
E
S
O
M
E T
R
L
RIDGECREST RD
TE R RY
LN
PARK LN
W
HISPEROAKSLN
OAK RIDGE CIR
JUDY DR
B
R
O
K
E
N S
P
O
K
E T
R
L
R
O
C
K
Y H
O
LL
O
W TRL
WOODLAND RD
KIM BERLY ST
C R E E K D R
SE R E N A D A D R
P
RI
M
R
O
S
E
T
R
L
B
U
F
F
A
L
O S
P
RIN
G
S T
R
L
B RIA R W O O D DR
R A N C H R D
THORNW O O D R D
VERNA S P U R
MELISSA CT
GOLDEN OAKS DR
BOB W
HITE LN
VILL
A
G
E
D
R
KATHI LN
PECOS CT
HED G E W O O D D R
STACEY LN
P A T TI D R
PO W ER RD
B R A N D Y L N
P A R K W A Y S T
M O R S E C V
PARKER DR
B
L
U
E
B
O
N
N
E
T T
R
L
OLD MILL RD
CACTUS TRL
HORSESHOE TRL
MESQ
UITE LN
L A K E W A Y D R
S O U T H C R O S S R D
J O H N T H O M A S D R
HAGEN CT
W
EST
W
OOD LN
R I V E R B E N D D R
W E S T E R N T R L
G
A
B
R
I
E
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
SPRI N G WOO
D
L
N
C
OTTO
N
W
O
O
D D
R
P O W ER R D
L
O
N
ES
O
M
E TRL
WILLIAMS
D
R
R A N C H R D
J U D Y D R
W
IL
LIA
M
S D
R
PAR
KE
R D
R
BRANDY LN
R
O
C
K
Y H
O
L
L
O
W
T
R
L
P O W E R R D
PATTI D R
R I V E R B E N D D R
WILLIA
MS
DR
W
IL
LIA
M
S D
R
RID
GEC
R
E
S
T
R
D
WIL
LIA
M
S
D
R
O
A
K LN
ADDIE
L
N
G A B RIELVIE W D R
O
A
K L
N
PA
R
K
E
R D
R
DAWNDR
D
A
W
N D
RW
IL
LIA
M
S D
R
WILLIAMS DR
G
ABRIELVIEWDR
S E RENAD A D R
W
IL
LIA
M
S
D
R
OAK LN
D
A
W
N D
R
R
I
D
G
ECRESTRD
P A R K W A Y S T
P
RIM
R
O
S
E T
R
L
L A K E W A Y D R
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±
0 65 0 1,3 0 0Fe e t
Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s
Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing
^`Re ta il Se rvices
l Em ployme nt Are as
Geo rg etow n Par ks
An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt
Area 7 and 8
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Mar iposa at Riverbend
Westwood Townhomes
Cypress Cr eek
Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 21
Item # A
Area 9
Area size: 6 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Specialty Mixed Use
Current Zoning: MF; Multifamily
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar Ridge, Apple Creek, Georgetown
Square, Cypress Creek, Mariposa at River Bend, Westwood
Townhomes
City Council District: 6
Elementary School Zone: Frost
Middle School Zone: Benold
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.8 miles Employment: 0.6 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Area 10
Area size: 6 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Specialty Mixed Use
Current Zoning: MF; Multifamily
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Shady Oaks, Northwest, Cedar Ridge, Apple Creek, Georgetown
Square, Cypress Creek, Mariposa at River Bend, Westwood
Townhomes
City Council District: 6
Elementary School Zone: Frost
Middle School Zone: Benold
High School Zone: Georgetown High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 1.0 miles Employment: 0.5 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 21
Item # A
l
l
^`
^`
^`
2
9
10
N IH 35 FWY SB
N IH 35 SB
LAKEWA Y D R
GO L D E N O AKSRD
F M 9 7 1
OL
D AIRP
OR
T RD
S H A D Y H O L L O W DR
AIRPORT
RD
O
A
K L
N
TERRYLN
LOWERPA R K R D
N C O L L E G E S T
S
T
A
D
I
U
M
D
R
CLAY ST
E M O R R O W S T
ROYALDR
C A N YONRD
WHISPER OAKS LN
G
A
N
N
S
T
C E D A R D R
SHANNON LNWCENTRALDR
P
A
R
K L
N
MCCOYLN
RIV E R SID E D R
ADA
M
S
S
T
GOLDEN OAKS DR
DAWN DR
G A R D E N M E A D O W D R
THORNTON LN
W JANIS DR
NORTHWEST BLVD
E JANIS DR
E CENTRAL DR
P A R K W A Y S T
NORTHWOOD DR
R I O V I S T A D R
SILVERLEAF DR
WESTWOOD LN
M
E
S
Q
UIT
E
L
N
WILLIAMS
DR
SIH35SB
RIVERY BLVD
N AUSTIN AVE
RIVERBEND D R
HIGHKNOLL LN
GARDEN VIEW DR
N IH 35 SB
OAK LN
E M O R R O W S T
W
IL
LIA
M
S
D
R
DAWN DR
NO R T H W O O D D R
PARK LN
W
ESTWOODLN
N AUSTIN AVE
GANN ST
GOLDEN OAKS DR
NAUSTINAVE
N IH 35 FWY SBNIH35SB
L A K E W A Y D R
PARK LN
F M 9 7 1
N IH 35 SB
E M O R R O W S T
NORTHWEST
B
L
V
D
DA
W
N DR
N AUSTIN AVE
4
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±
0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t
Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s
Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing
^`Re ta il Se rvices
l Em ployme nt Are as
Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce
An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt
Area 9 and 10
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Cypress Cr eek
Westwood Townhomes
Mariposa at Riverbend
Shady O aks
Nor thwest Apartments
Cedar Ridge Condos
Apple Cr eek
Georgetown Square
Parkview Place
Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 21
Item # A
Area 11
Area size: 20 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial, Specialty Mixed Use
Current Zoning: MF; Multifamily
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Waters Edge, San Gabriel Village Condos
City Council District: 2
Elementary School Zone: Carver & Pickett
Middle School Zone: Tippit
High School Zone: Eastview High
Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.2 miles Employment: 0.2 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 21
Item # A
l
l
l
l
^`
^`
^`
^`
5
11
S IH 35 FW Y SB
W
O
L
F
R
D ENTR 262 SB
O
A
K L
N
S IH 35 NB
A S H W O O D LN
W OLFRANCHPKWY
HIGHVIE
W
R
D
RIVERYDRIVEW A Y
S IH 35 SB
PARKE R C I RRIDGECREST RD
R I V E R H I L L S D R
JUDY DR
S P R I N G HOLLOW
SPRING
VALLEYRD
C E D A R D R
SHANNON LN
FA
W
N LN
BRIDG
E
ST
R
I
V
E
R
Y
B
L
V
D
R A N C H R D
H A R M O N Y LN
CROSSLANDDR
C O U N T R Y C L U B R D
ADA
M
S
S
T
W 9TH ST
WE
S
T
S
T
W JANIS DR
R I V E R O A K S C V
P
O
W
E
R
C
I
R
P A R K W A Y S T
M O R S E C V G
A
B
RIE
L VIE
W
D
R
STARVIEWDR
MEMORIAL DR
N
H
I
L
L
V
I
E
W
D
R
W 8TH ST
HAGEN CT
M
E
S
Q
UIT
E
L
N
RAILROAD AVE
N
OAK
HO L L O W R D
SCENIC DR
WATE R S E D G
E
C
I
R
HIGHKNOLL LN
W
IL
LIA
M
S
D
R
P O W E R R D
S IH 35 NB
M E M O R I A L D R
WIL
LIA
M
S
D
R
C O UNTRY C L U B R D
S IH 35 SB
W
E
S
T
S
T
W
E
S
T
S
T
WE
S
T
S
T
W
O
L
F
R
D
SIH35SB
SCENIC DR
S IH 35 NB
SCENIC DR
SIH35SB
WOLFRANCHPK W Y
R A N C H R D
RIVERY BLVD
P A R K W A Y S T
W
O
L
F
R
D
W
O
L
F
R
D
S IH 35 NB
S IH 35 SB
RIVERYDRIVEWA
Y
W O LF R D
W
O
L
F
R
D
WOLF RD
SP R I N G V ALLEY
R
D
S IH 35 SB
S IH 35 SB
RIVERY BLVD
PAR K W A Y S T
SIH35NB
RIV
E
RYBLVD
C O U NTRYCLUBRD
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±
0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t
Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s
Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing
^`Re ta il Se rvices
l Em ployme nt Are as
An ne xa tion Ag re eme nt
Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce
Area 1 1
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 21
Item # A
Area 13
Area size: 20 acres
Future Land Use Designation: Moderate Density Residential
Current Zoning: MF; Multifamily
Existing Apartments with 1 mile: Oaks at Wildwood Condos
City Council District: 5
Elementary School Zone: McCoy
Middle School Zone: Benold
High School Zone: Georgetown
Distance from work and services: Retail: 0.4 miles Employment: 0.4 miles
Utilities: All Georgetown
Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 21
Item # A
l^`^`
Oa k s a t Wild w oo d C o nd o s
13
WILLIA
M
S DR
W IL D W O O D D R
MIRAMAR DR
VERDE VISTA
LAKE O V E R L OOK RD
MADRID DR
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
RUSTLE CV
SUTTONPL
L A S P L U M A S D R
P E N N Y L N
R I V E R W A L K T R L
TA
S
C
AT
E ST
WINDFLOWER LN
C A P R O CK CANY O N T R L
L O S T M A P L E S T R L
C LIFFWOO D D R
SHELLRD
W OODSTO C K
D
R
LA PALOMA DR
A
C
K
E
R
R
D
B I G T H I C K E T S T
MANZANITA
DR
B O Q U IL L A T R L
H I C K O RYLN
NARANJO DR
S E D R O T R L
MORAL PASS
POPLAR DR
B
RIL
E
Y S
T
ROSEBUD LN
B
L
U
E
H
A
W
D
R
B I R C H D R
W
E
S
P
A
R
A
D
A
D
R
S
O
N
O
R
A
T
R
C
E
W S E Q U O I A S P U R
COUNTRYRD
T
E
R
I
C
T
WESTBURY LN
R
O
W
A
N D
R
ROSEDA L E B L V D
B
I
G
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
WOODLAKE DR PLU M CT
BELLAIRE DR
BIG BEND TRL
VILLAGEPARKDR
WESTBURY LN
BLUEH A WDR
WILLIAMSDR
SHELL R D
WILLIAMS DR
W E S P A R A DADR
SHELLRD
WILD W OODD R
SHELL RD
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
TRL
WILLIAMS DR
B
I
G
B
E
N
D
T
R
L
WILLIAMS DR
W ESPARADA DR
M
ADRID DR
P E N N Y L N
B I G B E N D T R L
WILLIAMS DR
WILLIAMS DR
S H E L L R D
SHELL RD
W S E Q U O I A S P U R
SHELL RD
VERDE VISTA
W
O
O
D
S
T
O
C
K
D
R
D
B
W
O
O
D
R
D
S H E L L R D
Transportation Network
Exi sti ng Sidewalk
Throro ug hf are Plan
Road Classification
Pro p osed Frontage Road
Exist ing Frontage Ramp
Exist ing Collector
Exist ing Freeway
Exist ing Major Arterial
Exisi ti ng Minor Arter ial
Pro p osed C ollector
Pro p osed Freeway
Pro p osed M ajor Arter ial
Pro p osed M inor Arter ial
Pro p osed R ail line
±
0 70 0 1,4 0 0Fe e t
Po ssib le n ew MF ar ea s
Un de ve lop ed with M F Zon ing
^`Re ta il Se rvices
l Em ployme nt Are as
Pa rks a nd O pe n Spa ce
Area 1 3
A pa rtme n ts a nd Z on in g
Ex isting A partments
Town house D istri ct
Multifam ily D ist ri ct
Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 21
Item # A
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element
Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 43
Item # A
Housing Element
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 3
1. Introduction 13
2. Demographic Profile 16
3. Existing and Projected Demand 32
4. Policy Recommendations 40
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
2
(This page left intentionally blank)
Housing Element
3
Executive Summary
Why Study Affordable Housing Needs in Georgetown?
In 2005, the City Council of Georgetown appointed a Task Force to address the issue of
affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Task Force recommended three specific actions,
including the creation of a Housing Advisory Board, hiring a full-time housing coordinator, and
the creation of a Housing Master Plan with emphasis on affordable housing. The Housing Element
of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan represents the fulfillment of a goal to research and analyze
housing needs and to establish a framework for housing policy for the City.
Why should the City analyze its housing needs? Housing is a core community value in
Georgetown. This value is acknowledged in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The vision, as
expressed within the plan, is for Georgetown to become a community with “residential developments
that are well-connected…planned and designed to compliment the heritage and natural character…which offer a
variety of housing types and price ranges.”
What Is Affordable Housing?
For the purposes of this report, affordable
housing is defined as paying no more than
30% of one’s gross household income on
shelter. For tenants, this means paying no
more than 30% of household income
towards rent. For homeowners, this means
paying no more than 30% of household
income towards the cost of principal,
interest, taxes and homeowner’s insurance.
This report is aimed primarily at the
affordability of housing to households at or
below 80% of the median income for the Georgetown area. Using 2010 income data from the
census, this translates to households earning $48,734 or less.
Primary Issues Addressed by this Study
Georgetown’s Housing Advisory Board identified two issues to be addressed by this study:
What is the unmet need for housing?
What positive steps can we take to expand the supply of affordable housing for lower
income households in Georgetown?
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
4
Three Geographic Areas of Analysis
The first geographic area considered in this study is the current municipal boundary of the City of
Georgetown. In spatial terms, the City continues to grow. From 2000 to 2010, the City of
Georgetown annexed almost 17,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits, more than doubling
the geographic size of the City.
The second area is all of Williamson County. This provides reference for the area immediately
surrounding Georgetown. Similar to the City, the County has also experienced significant growth
in the last two decades.
For some statistics, a third area of the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) is included. This provides a larger point of reference for the entire Central Texas
region.
Why do so many people want to live in Georgetown?
Georgetown has evolved from a sleepy, small town to a rapidly growing city that is the center of
county government and an area that provides goods and services to consumers within the region.
Many former Austin residents have migrated to Georgetown and its environs to escape the high
cost of housing and traffic congestion. In 2008, Georgetown was named the second “Best Place
to Live and Launch a Small Business” by Money Magazine. The City’s 2008 Citizen Quality of
Life Survey revealed that residents cherish the community spirit, natural environment and small
town character found in Georgetown.
Sun City Texas has become a retirement destination for over 6,500 older households. A
significant portion of Georgetown’s growth in population can be attributed to the popularity of
Sun City. Younger households have sought out Georgetown as a living environment because of
the lower relative cost of living, the good public school system, and the easy commute to work.
The City has experienced a surge in population. Between 1990 and 2000, Georgetown’s
population grew by 11,673. From 2000 to 2010, the City’s annual population increase averaged
1,906 persons, more than 60% above the annual increase during the 1990s. However, the highest
annual growth rates were observed in Williamson County. There, the annual growth rate exploded
from an average annual increase of 11,042 persons in the 1990s to 21,603 since 2000.
Housing Element
5
Georgetown’s vibrant economy drives the housing market
Fundamentally, the housing market is a reflection of growth in the local economy. New jobs and
increases in household income fuel the demand for housing. Williamson County’s economy is
expanding and its workforce is increasing significantly. As the second fastest-growing county in
Texas, Williamson County experienced a 69% surge in population since 2000. The robust
economy tied to the technology industry, as well as the retail and service sectors, added 42,000
jobs in the county between 2003 and 2007.
Many of Georgetown’s residents commute to employment destinations outside of the county.
Although 56,552 residents both live and work in Williamson County, another 71,087 residents
commute to jobs outside of the county. Traveling in the opposite direction, 32,935 people drive
to Williamson County from areas outside of the county to work. The daily out-migration of
workers characterizes Williamson County as a bedroom community for Austin and Travis County.
Residents are willing to travel longer distances to work in exchange for the advantages of home
ownership in Williamson County.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
6
Every household needs a dwelling
More so than population growth, housing demand in Georgetown is being generated by
household formation. Household growth in Georgetown and its environs is part of a national
trend that involves a number of factors such as longer life expectancy, young people remaining
single for a longer period of time, couples marrying later in life and an increase in divorces. Each
one of these events creates a new household. Demand is created because every household needs a
dwelling.
During the 1990s, household growth outpaced population growth in Georgetown. The household
growth rate of 81% was significantly higher than the population growth rate of 70%. This trend
has continued through the 2000s as households grew by 81% and population by 67%
Housing Element
7
The market responds by adding more than 9,000 new homes
Favorable economic, demographic and
market trends caused the City’s housing
supply to expand dramatically. New
construction added more than 9,000 units in
Georgetown. Sun City accounted for nearly
3,000 of these homes. Overall, Williamson
County witnessed the creation of over 72,000
new housing units between 2000 and 2010.
Not all Georgetown residents
are wealthy
Even in the midst of a relatively steady
economy and housing market there remain a significant segment of Georgetown residents that
struggle to make ends meet. Forty percent of all City households had incomes of less than
$50,000 in 2010. Moreover, 27% of all households in 2010 were cost burdened and paying more
than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. Many of these individuals are employed in
service industries, which provide 73% of the jobs, located in Williamson County. These jobs are
typically among the lowest-skill, lowest wage jobs of the employment spectrum, providing
employment opportunities in retail, arts and entertainment, and food and accommodations. In the
past five years, forty percent of all new jobs added in the county were in the service sector.
Williamson County’s rental housing wage was $18.35 in 2010
In Williamson County, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $954. In
order to afford this level of rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on
housing, a household must earn a monthly income of $3,180. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52
weeks per year, this level of income translates into a Housing Wage of $18.35 per hour. In order
to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner (making $7.25/hour in
2008) must work 101 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must include 2.53
minimum wage earner(s) working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two-
bedroom FMR affordable.
Many occupations such as waiters, retail clerks and construction laborers are necessary for the
economic vitality and success of a community. These “vital community occupations” are generally
found at the lower and mid-range of the income scale, and, therefore, these workers can find it
difficult to rent a decent dwelling unit. Based on the housing wage of $18.35, waiters, cashiers,
retail salespersons, and construction laborers could not afford to rent a one-bedroom unit costing
$783 per month as single-wage earning households. Entry level firefighters could afford the one-
bedroom FMR but not the two-bedroom FMR. Elementary school teachers, accountants and
registered nurses could afford a one-bedroom unit or a two-bedroom unit, even as single-wage
earning households.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
8
Georgetown’s Housing Market
Real median household income has decreased 16% since 2000, meaning overall 50% of
Georgetown households are making less money than they did 10 years ago. In the Georgetown
East market (i.e., east of I-35), the median housing sales price declined 3.9% from 2000 to 2010,
after adjusting for inflation. In the Georgetown West market (i.e., west of I-35), the median sales
price decreased 5.9%, after adjusting for inflation. While the market has registered a decrease in
home prices, the decrease in household income has made the housing market less affordable to
existing households.
Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Stock
The median household income in the City was $60,917 in 2010. With this income, a household
could purchase a home selling for $167,520. In 2010, there were a total of 417 units that sold for
$167,000 or less. This was equivalent to 41.5% of the 1,004 total MLS sales transactions. A
relatively affordable housing market is one in which households at the median household income
could purchase at least 40% of the homes. The Georgetown market currently meets this
threshold.
Between 2010 and 2012, a total of 495 sales transactions involved housing units that sold for
$134,000 or less. This price was affordable to a household earning up to 80% of the City’s median
household income. These 495 units represented 24% of the total 2,083 sales transactions between
2010 and 2012.
Sales Housing in Georgetown is Becoming Unaffordable
Some households in Georgetown with incomes between 60% and 80% of the median area income
can find affordable homes in the marketplace. With respect to sales housing, the total affordable
housing supply (726) is less than the total affordable housing demand (2,295) for the period 2010-
2017. The local housing market is not addressing the need for affordable sales housing as
evidenced by the number of new and existing sales units that sold for $134,000 or less (495 units).
Housing Element
9
Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Deficit Consists of Rental Units
Georgetown made good progress in increasing the supply of affordable rental housing in the
2000s. However, Georgetown still has a higher demand for affordable rental units than supply.
This is due to the growth of lower-wage jobs and, subsequently, lower income households. An
additional 3,082 units will be needed in Georgetown to sufficiently address the rental housing need
for households with incomes at or below 80% of the area’s median income. However, the 180
affordable rental units estimated to be available between 2012 and 2017 will address only a fraction
of the affordable housing deficit. An additional 2,902 affordable rental housing units will be
needed to meet the unmet demand through 2017.
Why address the need
The availability of housing for people at all income levels should be treated as an important issue
in Georgetown. For a city to be viable and sustainable in the long term, housing choices should
be available to those that want to live and work within the same city.
Viability and Support of the Citizens
The provision of work force housing is important for the continued viability of Georgetown. A
readily available pool of service employees is essential for the day-to-day operations required by
the residents of the city. Having teachers, firefighters, police and utility workers able to live
within the community they serve allows the workforce to be more efficient and connected with
the community they serve. In addition, in the event of an emergency or natural disaster,
firefighters, police and utility workers will be onsite to provide immediate assistance. With less
time spent on commuting to and from work, employees will have more free time, be less tired
from travel and be more productive at work.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
10
Economic Stability
The availability of housing at all price levels also provides for a direct economic benefit to the city.
New retail, manufacturing and commercial businesses look at a variety of factors when exploring
new locations for expansion. These prospective employers will be drawn to a community that
already has a readily available local workforce supported by affordable housing alternatives in the
city of their employment. Combined with the many positive economic development attributes
that Georgetown already contains, the city will be in a better position to draw new businesses.
Additionally, with a workforce that is able to live and work within the same location, individuals
and families are able to participate more in community activities, shop locally and contribute to the
tax base, which will greatly benefit Georgetown.
Diversity of Community
Having a variety of housing choices promotes a diverse community that has households of
different sizes, cultures and age groups. Young adults and seniors often desire smaller housing
with easy to manage maintenance, while families with children require more square footage and
yards in which to play. With the changing demographics, different cultures have cross-
generational households that require options that meet their size and structure. A diversity of
households and family structures provides the city with a mix of residents that can bring a variety
of skills and experiences to educate and help each other.
Social Responsibility
It is important to offer reasonable choices to residents as their circumstances change. As heads of
households may find themselves laid-off or temporarily jobless, affordable housing for
economically disadvantaged and temporarily disadvantaged individuals and families becomes
important. It allows current residents to stay in the community where they are already established.
Availability of handicapped accessible homes as well as housing available to fixed income
households is also an issue, especially in an aging community such as Georgetown.
By addressing the current housing deficits and increasing the availability of housing for various
income levels through the following recommendations, Georgetown will continue to provide a
community that adequately supports its existing residents, attracts new economic growth and
fosters an environment in which residents can thrive.
Housing Element
11
Recommendations
These recommendations offer a series of procedures which, when undertaken in whole or in part,
offer the potential to reduce the affordable housing deficit in the City of Georgetown. These
recommendations are ranked in order of their priority with a time frame for considering
implementation.
High Priority (One to five years)
1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to
provide new units.
2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use
compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing variety within the city.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years)
3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services.
Medium Priority (Seven to ten years)
6. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing
initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects
7. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment.
Housing Element
13
1. Introduction
Purpose of the Study
The City of Georgetown is in the constant process of reviewing and updating its Comprehensive
Plan. The City of Georgetown Comprehensive Plan has specific elements that are required by the
City Charter, a Housing Element being one of them. Additionally, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Framework states as vision for the city that “Georgetown residents respond to the needs of all
economic levels of residents through the provision of affordable housing and adequate and
accessible health and social service.” (Quality of Life 1.2.G)
More importantly, however, the City will use the information contained in this report to implement
feasible and practical strategies that address the increasing need for housing at all price points for
households that wish to live and work in Georgetown.
Background
The need for affordable housing in Georgetown was affirmed in 2005 when the City Council of
Georgetown appointed the Affordable Housing Task Force to examine the availability of such
housing and possible strategies that could be implemented. In the spring of 2006, the Task Force
recommended three specific actions to begin addressing the local housing situation. These
recommendations included the creation of a Housing Advisory Board, hiring a full-time housing
coordinator, and the creation of a Housing Master Plan. The City Council adopted all three
recommendations.
In June 2006, the Housing Advisory Board was established. By March 2007, the Housing
Coordinator was employed and the City’s new Housing and Neighborhood Development
Department was established. The primary goals of the Housing Coordinator were to (1) oversee the
development of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, (2) coordinate public/private
affordable housing initiatives, and (3) secure available financial resources, such as CDBG and
HOME Partnership funding from HUD. This study is the first step toward achieving these goals
and will be used to establish a housing policy for the City of Georgetown.
The purposes of the Housing Element are to:
Identify demographic and economic trends that affect the demand for housing
Define the Georgetown housing market area and the supply and demand characteristics of that
housing market
Analyze the demand for housing
Recommend actions and initiatives aimed at expanding the supply of housing at different price
levels.
What is Affordable Housing?
For this study, lower income households are defined as those with an annual income at or below
80% of the area median household income. Affordable housing is defined as paying no more than
30% of gross household income for housing expenses including mortgage or rent, plus utilities,
regardless of income level. One of the goals of this study is to determine whether there is an
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
14
adequate supply of affordable sales and rental housing to meet the needs of households at or below
80% of median household income in the Georgetown housing market area.
Defining the Georgetown Housing Market Area
Three geographic levels were examined for analysis and comparison with the surrounding area. The
corporate city limits of Georgetown is the first geographic level studied. Since 2000, the City of
Georgetown has annexed 17,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits, more than doubling the
geographic size of the City. This action was driven primarily by a City policy that advocated
municipal control over private development and the desire to control land development more
efficiently through zoning.1 The 2010 Census city limits reflected these changes in the new
municipal boundary and no major annexations have taken place at the time of this study that greatly
affect the current city limit numbers.
The second geographic area is the entirety of Williamson County. Comparison to this area provides
insight into trends that are regional versus Georgetown specific.
A third geographic area that is available for some statistics is the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The use of these three geographical regions is based mainly on
data availability. Due to changes in survey methods and data gathering, Census information is
available in different reports, different geographical levels and is released on a different schedule
than in the past. Most tables have been updated using the recent U.S. Decennial Census and 2008-
2010 American Community Survey 3-Year estimates.
1 City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan, pages 3-10.
Housing Element
15
How this Document is Organized
In addition to the Executive Summary and this Introduction section, the Housing Element includes
three sections.
Part 2 includes the Demographic Profile of Georgetown. In this chapter, population and household
growth, the housing and economic profiles and housing affordability are compared and analyzed.
Part 3 includes the step-by-step methodology utilized in determining the total affordable housing
deficit in Georgetown.
The final section of this report, Part4 includes a series of specific public policy recommendations
that can assist the City and community in meeting the City of Georgetown’s affordable housing
needs over the next five years and beyond.
Housing Element
17
2. Demographic Summary
Population and household growth trends are a driving force for the regional housing markets.
Variables such as expanding population, decreasing household size, new household formation, and
migration determine housing demand. While demographics are not the primary determining factor
in future trends of a housing market, they are a key indicator of the size and nature of demand for
housing. The following section examines current population trends as well as population
projections. Subsequent analysis examines household growth projections to 2012 and the resulting
housing demand forecast.
Population
Williamson County was the second fastest-growing county in Texas between 2000 and 2010. Only
Rockwall County, just outside of Dallas, had a higher rate of growth. This trend appears to be
continuing. The July 2011 Census Bureau population estimate ranked Round Rock and Austin
respectively as the second and third fastest-growing U.S. cities with a population over 100,000.
County Population Growth Rates, 2010
Rockwall 81.8%
Williamson 69.1%
Fort Bend 65.1%
Hays 61.0%
Collin 59.1%
Montgomery 55.1%
Denton 53.0%
Guadalupe 47.8%
Kaufman 44.9%
Kendall 40.7%
Source: U.S. Census, Texas Data Center
County
Rate of Population Growth
2000-2010
Central Texas has seen great increases in population for the last two decades. New residents are
relocating to the area from other parts of the nation and state. Williamson County also experience
growth from new residents relocating from Travis County.
Total Population Trends, 1990-2010
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County Texas
1990 16,666 139,547 16,986,510
2000 28,339 249,967 20,851,820
2010 47,400 422,679 25,145,561
Change 1990-
2010 184%203%48%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2010 data;
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
18
Since 2005, Georgetown has exceeded Williamson County on the annual rate of change. All areas
saw decreases in the rate of change from 2002-2004 and 2008-2010, which corresponds to the
economic downturns.
From 2000 to 2010, Georgetown , with an overall growth in population at 67%, kept pace with
Williamson County, which had a 69% growth. The growth rate in both areas exceeded the 37%
population growth of the Austin -Round Rock-San Marcos MSA.
Annual Population Trends, 2000-2010
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County
Austin-Round
Rock MSA
2000 28,339 249,967 1,249,763
2001 31,248 276,661 1,325,305
2002 32,889 289,969 1,355,241
2003 34,367 302,716 1,385,723
2004 35,631 316,508 1,423,161
2005 37,584 332,159 1,469,346
2006 40,306 350,879 1,532,281
2007 43,286 373,363 1,598,161
2008 45,236 395,146 1,654,100
2009 46,492 410,686 1,705,075
2010 47,400 422,679 1,716,289
Change
2000-2010 67%69%37%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for all 2000 & 2010 data; for 2001-
2009 data Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University
Housing Element
19
With the population growth, the trends in age have continued to indicate that the median age of
Georgetown has been increasing faster than the surrounding area.
Median Age, 1990-2010
1990 2000 2010
City of Georgetown 30.6 36.3 44
Williamson County 30.1 32.5 34.2
Austin-Round Rock MSA 29.6 31 32.6
Texas 30.7 32.4 33.6
The 60 to 65 age group increased by 132%, a larger increase than any other age cohort in
Georgetown. In 2010, 38.2% of Georgetown residents were 55 year or older, compared to
Williamson County at 18.4% and the MSA at 17.7%. This is due in large part to the growth of the
Sun City retirement community, which added over 4,000 new homes in the last decade.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
20
Changes in Households
The Census Bureau defines “population” as “all people, male and female, child and adult, living in a
given geographic area.” The term “household” is defined to include “all the people who occupy a
housing unit as their usual place of residence.” When describing housing markets and housing need,
focusing the discussion on households is more relevant and accurate because each household requires
a dwelling unit while several people may comprise the same household and live in the same housing
unit. In other words, calculating housing need on the basis of the number of households in a
geographic area is much more accurate than calculat ing housing need based on the number of
persons.
Over the last two decades, household growth outpaced population growth. From 2000 -2010, the
City’s household growth rate of 81% exceeded the population growth rate of 67%. While this trend
parallels national trends, it is doing so at a higher rate.
Household Growth Trends, 1990-2010
The effect of this growth trend is smaller for average household sizes. Since 2000, the average
household size has decreased by 0.15 persons per household. This statistic is largely due to rapid
growth in the 55 and over age group, which typically have no children. The average household size
for the Census Tracts that cover the Sun City area was 1.8 persons per household.
Trends in Average Household Sizes, 1990-2010
1990 2000 2010
City of Georgetown 2.69 2.53 2.38
Williamson County 2.81 2.82 2.74
Austin-Round Rock MSA 2.50 2.57 2.58
Texas 2.73 2.74 2.75
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
Housing Element
21
It is also interesting to note that a comparison of the rental versus owner average household sizes
show our rental units have more occupants than owner occupied units. This is counter to the trend
in Williamson County, the Austin -Round Rock-San Marcos MSA, and the State of Texas.
Trends in Average Household Sizes, 1990-2010
2010 Rental Owner All Housing
City of Georgetown 2.50 2.34 2.38
Williamson County 2.49 2.85 2.74
Austin-Round Rock MSA 2.32 2.76 2.58
Texas 2.54 2.87 2.75
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
22
Income
Income is broader than wages and represents the total funds available to a household. The Census
defines income as the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage plus i nterest, dividends, or
net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; social security or railroad retirement
income; Supplemental Security Income; public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor,
or disability pensions; and, all other income. The term “real income” refers to income that has been
adjusted for inflation.
Income trends can reveal the financial capacity of a region to support new housing construction,
modernization of older housing units, and regular maintenance of existing units. Lower income
households will have greater difficulty meeting the most basic of needs such as food and clothing,
and generally have less disposable income to save toward a down payment to rent or purchase a
home, or to make necessary repairs on an older housing unit.
Median household income is often the benchmark against which housing affordability is measured.
The median household income is the middle of the income range: one-half of all households in an
area have an income higher than the median and the other half have an income lower than the
median.
The median household income in Georgetown in 2010 was $60,917. This represented a
decrease in real median household income of 16% from 2000. All other areas also registered
decreases, but at lower rates.
Household income growth since 2000 has been very sluggish. The income gains achieved
since 2000 are only a fraction of what they were in the previous decade. Real median household
income increased 5% or less in all areas.
Changes in Real Median Household Income 1990-2010
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County
Austin-
Round Rock
MSA Texas
1990 Real Median Household Income*$39,714 $44,590 $36,930 $35,623
2000 Median Household Income $57,183 $60,775 $49,025 $39,933
% Change 1990-2000 44%36%33%12%
2000 Real Median Household Income**$72,410 $76,959 $62,080 $50,567
2010 Median Household Income $60,917 $67,168 $56,712 $49,585
% Change 2000-2007 -16%-13%-9%-2%
*Adjusted to 2000 dollars
**Adjusted to 2010 dollars
1990-2000
2000-2010
With the decrease in real income, the distribution of households by income was greater at the lower
income ranges, with 41% of Georgetown households making less than $50,000 a year. This is a shift
from 2000 where the distributions were fairly equal.
Housing Element
23
Distribution of Households by Income, 2000-2010
City of
Georgetown,
2000
Williamson
County, 2000
City of
Georgetown,
2010
Williamson
County, 2010
Less than $50,000 31%28%41%34%
$50,000 to $99,999 37%41%37%39%
$100,000 and higher 31%32%22%27%
2000 Census, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Housing Market
The housing market is made up of the sales of new and existing individual housing units, as well as
rental units in the multi-family properties. The availability of a variety of housing types at various
price levels enables a community to respond to changes in households’ economic circumstances.
The Census collects data on the value of all of the owner -occupied units if they were to be sold.
From 2000 to 2010, the real median value of housing units in Georgetown only increased by 3%,
while all other areas increased by a greater amount. This leveled out the difference in home values
in the area, as Georgetown saw a much larger increase in values over the previous decade.
Change in Median Housing Value, 1990-2010
1990 2000
Change
1990-2000 2000*2010
Change 2000-
2010
City of Georgetown $97,053 $141,413 46%$179,071 $183,600 3%
Williamson County $95,150 $120,685 27%$152,823 $175,700 15%
Austin-Round Rock MSA $98,489 $122,866 25%$155,585 $187,700 21%
Texas $78,544 $82,449 5%$104,405 $127,400 22%
US $103,270 $115,194 12%$145,870 $187,500 29%
*In 2010 dollars
Source: US Census
When comparing the change in median housing values and median household income , the gap
between increasing housing values continues to outpace the household income. This trend was
similar for all geographic areas.
Change in Median Housing Value and Median Household Income,
2000-2010 (in 2010 dollars)
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County
Austin-
Round Rock
MSA Texas
2000-2010 3%15%21%22%
2000-2010 -16%-13%-9%-2
Median Housing Value
Median Household Income
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
24
When looking at housing sales data, it is clear that the decrease in value of the housing stock has lead
to a decrease in sales prices. In 2010, houses for sale were staying on the market longer and selling
for less than in previous years.
Overview of Georgetown Housing Sales Data, 2010
Median List
Price
Median Sales
Price Average DOM Transactions
Georgetown East $139,900 $135,250 123 256
Georgetown West $215,450 $208,500 139 748
Total Georgetown Market $192,500 $185,000 135 1,004
Williamson County Association of Realtors® Multiple Listing Service
Over the last decade, the real sales price of houses has decrease 4% on the east side of Georgetown,
and 6% on the west side. While the price of housing has decreased, the decrease in median
household income has been more severe, effectively making ownership opportunities more
expensive.
Changes in Median Sales Price and Median
Household Income, 2000-2010 (in 2010 dollars)
Georgetown East Georgetown West
2000 to 2010 -3.9%-5.9%
2000 to 2010
*Calculated for the City of Georgetown
Change in Median Sales Price
Change in Median Household Income*
-16%
Housing Element
25
Housing Affordablility
For Housing to be considered as affordable to a household, they must pay no more than 30% of
gross household income for housing expenses, including mortgage or rent, utilities, insurance, and
taxes, regardless of income level. When a household pays more than this amount, it is considered
cost burdened.
In 2010, the median sales price of home in Georgetown East was $135,250 and in Georgetown West
was $208,500. Based on these prices, a household would requir e a minimum income of $54,100 in
order to afford a home selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East. This income amount
is equivalent to 89% of the median household income of $60,917. In the Georgetown West area, a
minimum income of $80,192 would be required to purchase the median priced home, equivalent to
132% of the median household income.
The following chart lists the median annual wages paid in 2010 for several job classifications in
Williamson County. Of the 13 occupations listed, only three could afford to purchase a home
selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East, and none could purchase a home in
Georgetown West, as a single-wage earning household.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, City of Georgetown
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
26
The Housing and Urban Development Department annually determines the Fair Market Rent that is
required to rent housing based on the number of bedrooms. In 2010, the FMR for a three bedroom
unit in Georgetown was $1,284. Based on the incomes of the same 13 occupations, only the top
three could afford this rental rate. For a two bedroom unit, the monthly rent was $954, which
would be available to three more workforce categories. A one bedroom unit monthly rent was $783,
which included an additional category. Of the 13 occupations, five of the job classifications would
not be able to afford a market rate unit in Georgetown as a single -wage earning household.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, City of Georgetown, Housing & Urban Development
Housing Element
27
3. Existing and Projected Demand for Affordable
Housing
The demand for affordable housing is comprised of both existing demand and projected demand.
Existing demand for affordable housing is based on the number of households in the study area that
are living in inadequate housing. Projected demand is based on the net increase in the number of
lower income households expected to reside in the study area. The combination of existing and
projected demand provides an estimate of the overall demand for affordable housing units in the
City of Georgetown for 2010 to 2017. The time frame selected for projecting affordable housing
need for this study is 2012 to 2017. Population and household projection data were obtained for
this five-year period from City staff.
In determining the extent of affordable housing need, it is important to identify the type of need in
order to develop an appropriate strategy to address the need. For example, cost burdened renter
households would benefit from rental subsidies while renter households living in substandard
physical conditions would benefit from new construction activities. Cost burdened owner
households, particularly those residing in older dwelling units, may benefit from rehabilitation, which
includes weatherization improvements to lower monthly utility bills, thereby decreasing total
monthly housing costs.
Existing Affordable Housing Demand, 2010
To quantify existing demand, households with housing problems were identified utilizing the U.S.
Census American Community Survey 3-Year estimates. Housing problems included the following
two characteristics: (1) households who were cost burdened and paying more than 30% of income
on monthly housing costs, and (2) households who were living in dwelling units with physical
deficiencies (overcrowded conditions and/or without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities).
The data used for this report is collected by the Census annually and compiled into estimates every
three years that include cost burdened households and households living in physically deficient units.
The American Communities Survey replaces the long-form Census that was previously only sampled
with the decennial Census. Surveying yearly provides more timely data for projection purposes.
This report focuses on households with incomes equal to 80% or less of the median household
income, collectively referred to as lower income households, as defined by HUD. In 2010, the
median household income (MHI) ranged from $60,917 in the City of Georgetown to $67,168 in
Williamson County. Affordable housing demand was calculated according to the following income
groups within each area:
Extremely low income households (0% up to 30% MHI)
Very low income households (30% up to 50% MHI)
Low income households (50% up to 80% MHI).
While median household income is used throughout this document, the following table describes
households with housing problems that are based on the HUD median family income. The HUD
median family income in 2010 was $74,039 for Georgetown and $77,423 for Williamson County.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
28
While this income amount is different from the median household income, the Census data is the only
source describing cost burden households and households residing in physically-deficient units.
The existing affordable housing demand in the City of Georgetown is 2,219 housing units.
This number is comprised of 439 lower income households (350 renters and 89 owners) residing in
physically-deficient housing units. In addition, another 4,883 households (2,327 renters and 2,556
owners) were identified as cost burdened and paying more than 30% of their income on monthly
housing costs. In the remainder of Williamson County, there were 2,425 lower income households
(1,065 renters and 921 owners) living in physically-deficient housing units. Cost burden was
identified for another 42,912 households (18,094 renters and 24,818 owners).
Households with Housing Problems, 2010
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
All Households 5,642 41,515 12,157 88,921 17,799 130,436
Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI)1,460 6,281 767 4,009 2,227 10,290
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)1,316 6,047 599 3,335 1,915 9,382
Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI)619 8,339 1,293 6,424 1,912 14,763
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)458 7,274 781 4,302 1,239 11,576
Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI)1,341 7,561 1,759 10,081 3,100 17,642
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)520 3,016 484 5,902 1,004 8,918
Other Income Households (above 80% of MHI)2,134 17,960 8,338 68,407 10,472 86,367
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)33 1,757 692 11,279 725 13,036
Physical deficiencies to unit 350 1,065 89 921 439 2,425
Renter Households Owner Households All Households
Note: Data is available only for the City of Georgetown and Williamson County.
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates
Projected Demand for Affordable Housing, 2010 to 2012
Household projections by income group were calculated by City staff and clustered into the same
three categories used for existing affordable housing demand. The following figure lists the
projected change in the total number of households by income group between 2010 and 2012.
The increases are projected to occur among higher income households. In the City of
Georgetown, new higher income households will outnumber new lower income households by
more than 2 to 1. The number of new households above 80% of median is projected to increase by
1,751 while the number of new lower income households is projected to increase by 798.
In Williamson County outside of Georgetown, the number of new higher income households is
projected to increase by 22,010 compared to 8,295 new lower income households.
New lower income households will comprise less than thirty percent of all new households
in Williamson County by 2017. Of the 22,010 total new households projected by 2017 in the
County, 8,295 are projected to be lower income. This is equivalent to 27% of the total new
households to be created.
Housing Element
29
Projected Change in Households by Income Category, 2000-2012
Number Percent
City of Georgetown 2,227 2,294 2,466 239 10.7%
Williamson County 12,517 13,124 14,714 2,197 17.5%
City of Georgetown 1,912 1,962 2,091 179 9.4%
Williamson County 14,763 15,796 18,561 3,798 25.7%
City of Georgetown 3,100 3,206 3,480 380 12.3%
Williamson County 17,642 18,283 19,942 2,300 13.0%
City of Georgetown 7,239 7,462 8,037 798 11.0%
Williamson County 44,922 47,203 53,217 8,295 18.5%
City of Georgetown 10,472 10,956 12,223 1,751 16.7%
Williamson County 96,839 102,860 118,849 22,010 22.7%
Very Low Income Households (30% to 50% of MHI)
Low Income Households (50% to 80% of MHI)
All Households above 80% of MHI
2012
Estimate
Change from 2010 to 2017
All Households up to 80% of MHI
2010 American
Communities
Survey
2017
Projection
Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI)
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
The net increase of 1,713 new lower income households in the City of Georgetown
represents the projected affordable housing demand. This number is comprised of 875
extremely low income households, plus 93 very low-income households, plus 745 low-income
households. The increase in total households will occur as a result of new household formation
within the existing population and the migration of new households to Georgetown from elsewhere.
Household changes in income groups may occur for similar reasons. Additionally, resident
households may shift between income categories as a result of changes in individual financial
situations.
The projected demand for 798 units of affordable housing can be further refined to estimate the
demand for renter units and owner units. Trends in the ratio of renters to owners from 1990, 2000,
and 2010 Census data offer reasonable assumptions for future projections.
The following methodology was utilized to estimate the tenure ratios for Georgetown:
Among extremely low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in 1990;
2000, the ratio was 62% to 38%; by 2010 the ratio was 69% to 31%. Given the increase in
housing costs and the potential for stricter mortgage underwriting standards, it is reasonable
to assume that most of the new households in this income category will be renters. As a
result, a ratio of 70% renters to 30% owners is estimated for 2017. Of the 239 households,
167 are projected to be renters and 72 are projected to be owners.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
30
Among very low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in 1990; 60%
to 40% in 2000, and by 2010 the ratio was 37% to 63%. With this shift in trend, a
conservative estimate assumes a ratio of renters to owners in 2017 could be 45% to 55%. As
a result, the 179 households would be comprised of 81 renters and 99 owners.
Among low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 50% to 50% in 1990; 41% to
59% in 2000; and by 2010 the ratio was 52% to 48%. For the same reasons listed above, it is
reasonable to assume a ratio similar to the 1990 rates of 50% renters to 50% owners. As a
result, the 380 households would be comprised of 190 renters and 190 owners.
Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the 798 households can be further classified as 438
renter units and 360 owner units.
Projected Affordable Housing Demand by Tenure in the City of Georgetown, 2000-2012
Renter Units Owner Units Total Units
Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI)167 72 239
Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI)81 99 179
Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI)190 190 380
Total Demand for Affordable Units 438 360 798
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand,
2010 to 2017
The total demand for affordable housing in the City of Georgetown is estimated to be 4,956
units. A combination of existing demand and projected demand is the total affordable housing
demand for the year 2017. Existing demand is defined as the number of households that have
housing problems (cost burden greater than 30% of income, and/or overcrowding, and/or without
complete kitchen or plumbing facilities). The existing affordable housing demand in the City is 4,158
units.
Projected demand for affordable housing is determined by the anticipated increase in the number of
lower income households regardless of housing problems. The projected demand for affordable
housing is 798 units. Note that existing demand exceeds projected demand by 420%.
The following table provides a summary of total affordable housing demand in the City of
Georgetown.
Housing Element
31
Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand, 2010-2017
Renters Owners Renters Owners
Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI)1,316 599 167 72 2,154
Very Low Income Households (31% to 50% of MHI)458 781 81 99 1,418
Low Income Households (51% to 80% of MHI)520 484 190 190 1,384
Total Affordable Housing Demand 2,294 1,864 438 360 4,956
Existing Demand, 2010
Projected Demand,
2000 to 2017
Total
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
Affordable Housing Supply, 2010-2017
The second step in estimating affordable housing need is to determine the extent to which housing
demand is likely to be met through the existing housing inventory and any projected new housing
development. This can be achieved by identifying the extent to which the current housing delivery
system is already providing housing for lower income households. The existing housing inventory,
current building activity, and housing programs already in place must be evaluated.
Recent Housing Activity, 2010-2012
Since 2010, a total of 835 new units have been added to the City of Georgetown housing inventory.
In the Georgetown East market, the median housing sales price decreased 8.2% between 2008 and
2012. The average number of days that a house remained on the market increased 32.9% from 93
to 123 days. A total of 1,056 sales transactions have been completed during the period.
The Georgetown West market has been more active as indicated by a higher number of transactions
(3,092) but registered a decrease (-1.3%) in the median housing sales price between 2008 and 2012.
The average number of days that a house remained on the market, however, has increased 17.3%
from 119 to 139 days and remains higher than in the Georgetown East market.
These indicators suggest that demand will remain relatively stable and the cost of purchasing a home
in Georgetown may decrease slightly in the near future. This is largely due to nationwide economic
conditions and a shift in lending practices. As the economy continues to improve continued
household growth and higher median incomes will fuel the demand for new housing.
Despite increases in housing construction costs, 495 MLS sales transactions in 2010-11 were units
that sold for $134,000 or less—a price affordable to households earning $48,800, equivalent to 80%
of the 2010 median household income of $60,917. These 495 units represented 24% of the 2,083
housing units sold in 2010 and 2011.
Projected Housing Growth, 2012-2017
Projecting net change in the future housing supply can be difficult given the uncertainty of interest
rates, construction costs, mortgage availability, developer behavior, etc. Today, one of the greatest
concerns is the impact of unconventional mortgages. Increases in foreclosures could trigger a
temporary increase in housing supply, but tighter lending standards may make it more difficult for
potential home buyers to acquire their home. However, recent trends as well as projections of
housing demand based on household formation rates provide reasonable benchmarks for likely
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
32
estimates of net change in the housing supply. The following projections are based on the
assumption that no changes are made to local policies and no new policies impacting affordable
housing are adopted.
It is projected that an additional 2,125 housing units will be created between 2012 through
2012. The net change in the existing housing stock in the City of Georgetown between 2010 and
2012 was 832 housing units at an average annual production rate of 418 units. This production rate
is projected for 2012 through 2017 as Georgetown housing market continues to recover. While
lending institutions may tighten their mortgage standards, this may be off-set by the influx of well-
educated and higher income households moving into the area. However, tighter mortgage standards
will more than likely impact lower income households more severely than higher income
households.
Based on these trends and assumptions, it is projected that an additional 2,088 housing units
(approximately 425 units annually over the next five years) will be created between 2012 through
2017. Of these, it is estimated that approximately 1,565 units (75%) will be single family owner-
occupied units and 560 units (25%) will be multi-family renter-occupied units. Furthermore, it is
projected that the private housing market will continue to favor higher income households over
lower income households and owners over renters.
Projected Housing Inventory, 2017
2010 Housing
Inventory
2012 Housing
Inventory
Average Annual
Production Rate
2010 to 2012
(units)
Projected Net
Increase in
Housing Units
2012 to 2017
Projected
2017 Housing
Inventory
City of Georgetown 19,211 20,046 418 2,125 22,171
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
It is estimated that approximately 10% of the projected 2,125 market-rate housing units will
be affordable to households with incomes up to 80% of the median household income. This
estimate of 152 units is a more conservative number than the previous eight years. However, given
the current housing crisis and recent building permit trends, a more conservative approach is
warranted.
City of Georgetown Affordable Housing Deficit, 2012-2017
Affordable housing need is determined by identifying the unmet affordable housing demand (i.e.,
the deficit). The following chart illustrates the number and type of affordable housing units
identified in Georgetown. The affordable housing supply created between 2010 and 2012
included:
3495 residential units that sold for $134,000 or less in the Georgetown MLS market
Housing Element
33
Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County constructed 6 single family housing units in
Georgetown
The affordable housing supply in the “pipeline” or planned for development and occupancy
between 2012 and 2017 was based on the following assumptions as well as information obtained
from local affordable housing providers:
The Texas Housing Foundation will develop 180 units of affordable rental housing at Gateway
Northwest Apartment.
Affordable Housing Need in the City of Georgetown, 2017
Owners Renters Total
Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2010)
Households living in physically-deficient units 89 350 439
Households that are cost burdened:.0
Extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI)599 1316 1,915
Very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI)781 458 1,239
Low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI)484 520 1,004
Total Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2010)1,953 2,644 4,597
Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2010-2017)0
New extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI)72 167 239
New very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI)81 81 161
New low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI)190 190 380
Total Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2010-2017)342 438 780
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND 2,295 3,082 5,377
Supply of Affordable Housing Units Created (2010-2012)
2010-2012
Market sales units that sold for up to $134,000 (affordable to up 80% of MHI)495 495
Habitat for Humanity 6 6
New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI)0 0
Supply of Affordable Housing Units Anticipated to be Created (2008-2012)
2012-2017
Market sales units for <$134,000 (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI)225 225
Habitat for Humanity 0 0
New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI)180 180
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY 726 180 906
TOTAL DEMAND MINUS TOTAL SUPPLY 1,569 2,902 4,471
UNMET AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFICIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY
Sources: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
The local housing market has not addressed the affordable sales housing need for
households earning up to 80% of the area median income. Because the total affordable
housing supply for owner units (726) is less than the total affordable housing demand for owner
units (2,295) for the period 2010-2017. There is an already existing demand in Georgetown due to
cost-burdened households.
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
34
Similarly, the local market has not adequately addressed the affordable rental housing need
in Georgetown. The 180 affordable rental units estimated to be available will not provide sufficient
housing opportunities for the 3,082 lower income households in need of housing. As a result, there
exists a deficit of 12,902 affordable rental housing units in Georgetown. Public policy
recommendations made in Part 11 are tailored to ameliorate this situation.
As stated previously, the projections included in this section are based on the assumption that
current public policies impacting the creation of affordable housing remain unchanged. If, however,
new policies are approved that would provide incentives for the creation of new affordable housing
units, then the total affordable housing supply could be increased, thereby decreasing unmet need.
Housing Element
35
4. Rationale and Policy Recommendations
Rationale
The availability of housing for people at all income levels should be treated as an important issue
in Georgetown. For a city to be viable and sustainable in the long term, housing choices should
be availabl e to people that choose to live and work within the same city .
Viability and Support of the Citizens
The provision of work force housing provides for the continued viability of Georgetown. A
readily available pool of service employees are essential for t he day-to-day operation of services
required by residents of the city. Having teachers, firefighters, police and utility workers able to
live within the community they serve allows the workforce to be more efficient and to be
connected with the community they serve. In addition, in the event of an emergency or natural
disaster, firefighters, police and utility workers will be onsite to provide immediate assistance. With
less time spent on commuting to and from work, employees will have more free time, be less tired
from travel and be more productive at work.
Economic Stability
The availability of housing at all price levels also provides for a direct economic benefit to the city.
New retail, manufacturing and commercial businesses look at a variety of fa ctors when exploring
new locations for expansion. These prospective employers will be drawn to a community tha t
already has a readily available local workforce that is supported by affordable housing alternatives
in the city . Availability of affordable housing, c ombined w ith Georgetown’s many other positive
economic development attributes, places the city in a better position to draw new businesses.
Additionally, with a workforce that is able to live and work within the same location, individuals
and families are able to participate more in community activities, shop locally and contribute to the
tax base, which will enrich Georgetown.
Diversity of Community
Having a variety of housing choices promotes a diverse community with a variety of households
of different sizes, cultures and age groups . Young adults and seniors often desire smaller housing
with easy to manage maintenance , while families with children require more square footage and
yards to play in. With the changing demographics, different cultures have cross -generational
households requiring housing that meets the size and structure. A diversity of households and
family structures provides the city with a mix of residents that can provide a variety of skills and
experiences to educate and hel p each other.
Social Responsibility
It is important to offer reasonable choices to residents as their circumstances change. As heads of
households may find themselves laid-off or temporarily jobless, affordable housing for
economically disadvantage d and temporarily disadvantage d individuals and families become
important to allow current residents to stay in the community in which they are already
established. Availability of handicapped accessible homes as well as housing available to fixed
income households is also an issue, especially in an aging community such as Georgetown.
By addressing the current housing deficits and increasing the availability of housing options for
various income levels, through the following recommendations, Georgetown will continue to
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan
36
foster a community that adequately supports its existing residents, attracts new economic growth
and provides an environment in which residents can thrive.
Housing Element
37
Recommendations
These recommendations offer a series of procedures that, when undertake n in whole or in part,
offer the potential to reduce the affordable housing deficit in the City of Georgetown. These
recommendations are ranked in order of their priority with a time frame for considering
implementation.
High Priority (One to five years)
1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive
incentives to provide new units. Waiving development fees and subsidizing impact fees
is the primary method the City has at its disposal to subsidize affordable housing. These
costs represent a significant portion of the development budget for an affordable housing
initiative and through this program; the City can offer a sliding sc ale of incentives to
encourage affordable development . This development will be dependent upon meeting
quantifiable scoring criteria, which can be established within the program.
Primary criteria to be considered and scored:
Amount of affordable housing included in the project : City will establish a percentage
requirement for the amount of workforce housing to be included in a particular project in
order to be considered for any city subsidy in the form of development and impact fee
credits.
Proximity to employment centers : The goal of workforce housing is to allow low to
middle -income employees the opportunity to live within the community in which they
work, while expanding the available workforce for current and future employers.
Infrastructure availability: Developers applying for the program will demonstrate that they
are efficiently locating the dev elopment to utilize the existing infrastructure such as roads,
electric, water and waste water lines .
Access to the road and pedestrian transportation network : While land located further
from the city center is often cheaper for developers, this will usu ally put a transportation
burden upon the future residents, effectively shifting any savings on housing to increased
transportation costs. Sites to be considered through the program must show the distances
and road network available to public services, re tail centers and employment centers.
Relationship to the surrounding property /Appearance : Projects, whether single or
mu ltifamily, should complement and be complemented by the types of development
adjacent to the site. Single-family residential units should not be out of scale and style with
existing single-family developments. Multifamily projects should not pose an actual
detriment to surrounding business or residences. Individual workforce housing units
included as a component of single or multi-family projects should be architecturally
indistinguishable from the market rate units within the same project. For any
development, it is also important to consider t he demographic of future residents, the
proximity of schools, jobs, retail and civic services .
A basic return on investment analysis : The developer will be required to provide the
Board with a future impact analysis of the project showing what financial returns the City
can expect to see through increased tax and utility revenues. Combined with the overall
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan
38
positive impact an increased population will have on the surrounding business community ,
this will help offset any upfront subsidies the city may provide.
Incentives:
Waiver of development fees : Depending on the score of the project, the deve loper could
receive a waiver of up to 100 percent of Planning and Inspection Fees.
Subsidized impact fees: Impact fees include water, wastewater and electric fees that are
collected to offset the cost incurred by the public infrastructure system. The amount of
subsidy a developer can receive would be set on a graduated scale with the maximum
amount of 75 percent of total fees.
Increased land development densities: The City’s Unified Development Code has several
lot development requirements that limit the amount of units a developer can put per acre.
Impervious cover limits, setback requirements, lot width minimums and height limits can
all be varied in such a way that developers can better utilize the land and develop more
units.
Program Management:
Developers wishing to receive incentives shall present a complete plan to the Housing
Advisory Board, which will be evaluated based on the criteria of the program. The Board
will then make a recommendation to City Council for consideration. Council may seek
evaluation and impact of project by city staff prior to making any final decision. Each case
will be reviewed individually and funding for the program will be dependant upon
budgetary restraints for that year.
Developers considering applying to the program will be able to get a packet of program
requirements with attached sample documents to allow for uniformity of applications and
ensure the ease of applying. The Housing Coordinator will be available to meet with any
developer wishing to take advantage of the program and will present completed
applications to the Housing Advisory Board and City Council with a report showing how
the project meets program requirements. As the project goes through the rest of the City
development processes, t he Housing Coordinator will serve as the case manager.
2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land
use compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing types within the city. The City
of Georgetown is estimated to run a defici t of 2,902 affordable rental units by the year
2017. As the housing market demand is constantly shifting, it is important for the city to
be in a position to help create a new supply of housing to meet the needs of its residents.
In the current economic climate, the need for rental housing has increased, while the
supply and demand for single -family homeownership has leveled off or decreased. With
this shift, the housing market has an increasing demand for multifamily development. A
quick glance at the City ’s Zoning Map indicates a number of sites that have been zoned for
multifamily, however many of these are speculative in nature and will not have the
necessary infrastructure for 5 years or more. If the City is proactively planning for zoning
and determi ning a reas for multifamily development, new development s will be able to find
appropriate multifamily sites. It can also avoid situations where a developer encounters
local resistance that may drive them from the city.
Housing Element
39
There are provisions for medium and high-density residential units as components of
mixed-use developments that are adequately accounted for in the future land use map. It
should be recognized however that it is difficult for a developer of workforce housing to
incorporate commercial space s in their developments due to the structure of financing
methods used to facilitate affordable residential development. It is impractical to think
that providing for medium and high-density residential development in mixed used zoning
classifications alone will adequately address the shortage of workforce housing.
The current multifamily deficit of 2,902 units as identified in this pla n would require
approximately 120 to 160 acres of land. To address this deficit , the first step is to have the
planning staff review the 2030 Land Use Plan for any possible changes to the high -density
land use category. The Board will review these possible alternatives and then forward any
change to City Council during the annual review of the Comprehens ive Plan in the Spring.
This will actively plan for future high-density development sites.
Second, staff will review possible tract s within the city limits conducive for rezoning as
Multifamily to present to the Housing Advisory Board for consideration. In the analysis,
the following criteria should be examined:
Consider sites close to major employment centers .
Consider sites close to planned public transportation hubs .
Consider sites near areas that may be less suitable for higher income housing.
Consider sites close to existing high-density developments .
Consider existing sites that are not conducive to higher income housing and as a
result are undeveloped.
Once a plan for potential rezoning has been made, the item will be forwarded to City
Council for review and direction. Any potential City or developer initiated rezoning of
tracts would still have to go through the public hearing process as mandated by state law.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years)
3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential co nstruction.
The City currently provides a density bonus to development projects that include an
affordable housing component. To date, no developers have taken advantage of this
incentive. Over time, as developers become more familiar with this provisio n in the City’s
zoning code and as development sites become scarce, it is likely that developers will
become motivated to take advantage of this incentive. The City may wish to reevaluate the
incentive or provide public infrastructure support for projects that involve creating
affordable housing. The City may also wish to conduct a developer workshop to expand
awareness and to obtain feedback on how the housing diversity component of the City’s
zoning code can be modified to expand the supply of affordabl e housing.
4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing. As of the 2010
Census, the City’s population was 47,4 00. At the population mark of 50,000 , the City of
Georgetown will become eligible for an annual Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) entitlement grant directly from HUD. By City estimates, this will not happen
until 2014. While we still have time to plan for this , it is important to establish priorities for
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan
40
the use of CDBG funds as a matter of public policy before entitlement s tatus is conferred
on the City. Early prioritization will minimize the confusion and competition to secure
CDBG funds for “pet” projects that inevitably occurs whenever grant money becomes
available in a community.
Rather than using this newfound source of revenue for activities that ease pressure on the
City’s general fund, the community should prioritize the use of CDBG funds for
affordable housing. CDBG funds can be used to acquire property, rehabilitate affordable
housing, provide infrastructure improvements in support of affordable housing and
provide human services to the residents or prospective residents of affordable housing. In
certain circumstances, CDBG funds can be used to finance the construction of new
affordable housing, but only when the funds are funneled through a community based
nonprofit development corporation. Once the City’s CDBG program is operating
smoothly, the City may want to work towards the designation of a neighborhood
revitalization strategy area (NRSA) which is a provis ion in the CDBG regulations that
makes it easier to utilize CDBG funds for mixed income housing initiatives.
5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services. Homebuyer counseling is
aimed at credit repair and building basic home maintenance and budg eting skills. As such,
it is an essential element of the affordable homeownership equation. While there are
certain counseling services already available in Georgetown, these types of services need to
be expanded and promoted. The City should encourage regional providers of counseling
services to create or expand their presence in Georgetown. Commercial lending
institutions and institutions of higher learning also have a vested interest in supporting or
providing homebuyer counseling services. When ext ending public funds for affordable
homeownership activities, the City should require each prospective homebuyer to
successfully complete a certified homeownership counseling program as a condition of
receiving financial assistance.
Medium Priority (Seven to ten years)
6. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable
housing initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects. One
of the important roles of the City in terms of expanding the supply of affordable housi ng
is to use its legal powers to apply for state and federal funds. Once funding approval has
been obtained, the City would act as a pass -through of funds to one or more local
development organizations. These organizations would then assume responsibilit y for
implementation of the project.
Williamson County is a CDBG entitlement urban county entity and the City of
Georgetown may submit project requests to the county’s community development
department. Requests for federal HOME funds must be submitted to the state. The City
and its affordable housing partners should identify and prioritize a series of projects and
activities that would qualify for CDBG and/or HOME funding. Every year, the City
should submit at least one funding request under each program for priority projects.
The City currently administers a homeowner housing rehabilitation program funded by
general fund revenues. The City’s guidelines for this program closely follow federal
requirements, including an income targeting provision that lim its access to financial
assistance for households with incomes below 80% of the area median household income.
Housing Element
41
This housing rehabilitation program can be administered more efficiently by a local
nonprofit organization or the Georgetown Housing Authority. The City may wish to
enter into a cooperation agreement with a local housing organization to administer this
program.
7. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment. Given the limited supply of
resources for affordable housing, the City should select certain areas of the community for
intensive and comprehensive revitalization rather than pursuing a “shotgun” approach to
the development of affordable housing. Thus, it is important to a sk city planners to select
several target areas for intens ive revitalization. Each target area might consist of three or
four blocks. Typically, these areas will require the removal or substantial rehabilitation of
blighted properties, new lighting, sidewalks, streets, utility infrastructure, landscaping and
infill housing. At least some of the infill housing should be affordable to low and
moderate income households. This revitalization will benefit Georgetown as it improves
the tax base and adds to the labor force.
City of Georgetown, Texas
November 26, 2013
SUBJECT:
Presentation and possible direction to staff regarding final design concept of Phase Two of the Creative
Playscape -- Eric Nuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation
Director and Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
The replacement of the creative playscape was identified in 2011 due to deterioration, safety and
accessibility concerns of the existing 20 year old structure. Baker|Aicklen (BA) was selected to assist with
the planning, design and public input process for Phase Two of the Creative Playscape in the spring of 2013.
Staff and BA held several public input meetings and posted an on-line survey over the following months to
gather feedback from the community. A preliminary concept presentation was given to City Council at the
workshop on September 10th that incorporated the information gathered from this public input process.
Staff and BA have refined this preliminary concept plan including an Opinion of Probable Cost (OPCC) to
be presented at the workshop.
This item was presented to the Parks and Recreation Board on November 14, 2013 and had their full support
to move forward. It was approved 5-0.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Director
Cover Memo
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
November 26, 2013
SUBJECT:
American Traffic Solutions: Crossing Guard School Bus Stop Enforcement System -- Wayne Nero, Chief of
Police
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Wayne Nero, Chief of Police
Cover Memo
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
November 26, 2013
SUBJECT:
Sec. 551.071: Consultation with 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
- Rivery Update
- LCRA Update
Sec. 551.086: Competitive Matters
- Discussion and possible action regarding the proposed approval of a Renewable Energy contract between
the City of Georgetown and Energy DeFrance (EDF) -- Jim Briggs, General Manager of Utilities and Chris
Foster, Utilities Financial Analyst
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Westinghouse Road Development
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # D