HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda CC 09.28.2010 WorkshopNotice of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
The Georgetown City Council will meet on SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 at 4:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers at
101 E. 7th Street
If you need accommodations for a disability, please notify the city in advance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop -
A Consideration and possible action to provide direction to the Housing Advisory Board and staff regarding
the completion of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP,
Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
B Discussion and possible action regarding the City Council employee performance appraisal process --
Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 and Danny Meigs, Councilmember District 3
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.
C 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 this week's agenda items
D Sec 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Discussions or deliberations regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body
has received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near
the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development
negotiations; or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect that the City
Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City
Council is conducting economic development negotiations
- Update regarding incentives as it pertains to Project Blue Sky
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 _________________, 2010, 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
September 28, 2010
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible action to provide direction to the Housing Advisory Board and staff regarding the
completion of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan -- Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP,
Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth A. Cook, Community Development Director
ITEM SUMMARY:
Item History:
On January 22, 2008, the City Council approved a $55,000 contract to prepare an affordable housing study,
which was included in the 2007-08 Annual Budget. In February 2008, the Housing Advisory Board (HAB)
began work on the Housing Element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. On March 24-26, 2008, consultants
with Mullin & Lonergan Associates met with the Housing Advisory Board, who acted as the steering
committee for the Element. Over the week, they met with key people in the community who provided
housing and had knowledge of the housing market. With this information and analysis of demographic
trends and market conditions, the Housing Element was drafted. On June 25, 2008, City Council voted to
include an additional geographic area to expand in the housing market study. This added an area measured
an 11-mile radius from the city center and required a change order to the contract with the consultants.
In September 2008, the consultants presented the preliminary draft of the Element at the City
Council Workshop and held public meetings to receive comment on the document. After completing these
steps, the final draft of the Housing Element was presented by the consultant at the December 9, 2008 City
Council meeting. The public hearing for the adoption was opened; however, the first reading of the
ordinance to adopt the Element was postponed to further review the document and its findings. On March
23, 2009, the Board presented the finished plan at the City Council workshop session so Council could
review and discuss the findings within the document. The Board was advised to place an action item on the
Council agenda to receive direction from Council and the Board stated they would like to have a
subcommittee meeting with Council to resolve outstanding issues. An item requesting direction from City
Council was placed on the agenda for the April 14 and June 23, 2009 regular meetings, but on both occasions
staff was advised to pull the item from the agenda. To date, no action has been taken on this Element.
Item Summary:
The Georgetown City Charter has fourteen required long range planning elements, which include elements
such as land use, economic development, and a parks plan. To date, eight of the fourteen elements have been
developed. A housing element is one of the required items that has never been adopted. In January 2005, the
City Council formed an Affordable Housing Task Force to study housing affordability within the city. In
January 2006, the Task Force recommended to City Council that a housing study be completed and adopted
as the Housing Element. The Housing Advisory Board was created by Council to oversee the creation of the
element and advise Council on affordable housing matters. Once the Housing Element is adopted, it will
serve as a guide for the Housing Advisory Board and City Council when considering City initiated projects,
or when considering requests from housing developers and non-profit housing providers.
The Housing Element draft completed in 2008 consisted of a study of housing, population and economic
profiles in Georgetown, as well as factors that influence the housing market and existing housing supply.
With the background demographics, the HAB and the consultants projected the future demand for housing
and used this information to form policy recommendations. These policy recommendations include general
policies for the city to consider as well as specific programs and funds that the City Council may create in the
future.
High Priority (One to five years):
1. Treat affordable housing as a major policy issue in Georgetown.
2. Waive all municipal impact fees and development fees for housing units affordable to 80% of the area
median income and below.
3. Increase the amount of land zoned specifically for multi-family housing development.
4. Treat nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers as a special class of developer.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years): Cover Memo
5. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
6. Strengthen the development skills of local nonprofit housing developers.
7. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
8. Strengthen homebuyer counseling and support services.
Medium Priority (Seven to ten years):
9. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing initiatives;
subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects.
10. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment.
11. Encourage the creation of a local Community Land Trust.
Low Priority (as resources permit):
12. Capitalize a local Housing Trust Fund with a dedicated revenue stream.
13. Fund the proposed fixed-route transit system.
14. Adopt universal design standards.
15. Use the City owned and operated electrical utility to finance affordable housing.
At this point, the City has spent a total of $68,000 on the development of the Housing Element, the Housing
Advisory Board has been working on adoption of the element for over two and a half years, and the finished
draft has been completed for over a year and a half.
Recommendation:
Provide direction to the Housing Advisory Board and staff to move the draft Housing Element
forward toward adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jennifer C. Bills, AICP, LEED AP, Housing Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes for Housing Element items at Council
Draft Housing Element
Cover Memo
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date
with Mayor Gary Nelon presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Gabe Sansing, Keith Brainard,
Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman, Farley Snell, Ben
Oliver
Council Absent:
All Council present
V Consideration and possible action to approve a professional services contract with Mullin & Lonergan
Associates, Inc. to complete the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan in an amount not to
exceed $55,000 -- Jennifer C. Bills, Housing Coordinator and Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
Bills explained the item, sayng the Housing Element is a continuation of the Comprehensive Plan,
saying the previous Century Plan called for a Housing Element, but it was never done. She said the
element will look at the current housing stock and programs and decide whtat the city should do and
guide in housing matters. She said she solicited qualifications, and a selection committee narrowed
them down to three firms that were interviewed, and Mullin & Lonergan was selected because they had
the most experience. She said this was a budgeted item of $55,000.
Sansing said the City has been saying for a long time that we want affordable housing, but apparently
have been going about it the wrong way. He asked if the City has given up and now decided to "go
outside" and spend $55,000 for a consultant in order to accomplish affordable housing. Yantis
responded this "going outside" is a part of the overall plan from the beginning in order to complete a
broad range of policy proposals for the City to consider to address housing for all levels. He said
diversity is one piece, and preparation of appropriate plans that allow the City to be eligible to compete
for CDBG and HUD funds is a major part of it. Yantis said previously the Council was to consider a
specific project, but had no way to measure the project against a strategy or set of policies. He said this
is not just about housing affordable to low incomes, but about housing addressable to all incomes,
saying by the time the City has 50,000 population, after the next census, these policies will be ready.
He said he was on the interview team and he feels this firm is a quality firm that can accomplish what is
needed.
Sattler thanked Bills for her presentation on affordable housing at Sun City recently. He asked how
much more past $55,000 it would take to get to the documents prepared to compete for funding. Bills
estimated an additional $20,000. Sattler asked and Bills responded that the timeframe for completion is
10 months. Oliver asked that the financial information on the item cover sheet be in descriptive words,
not just account numbers for the line item budget to be used. Yantis said this is the first fiscal year
where there is an actual housing department for this purpose. Motion by Sansing, second by Eason to
approve the contract. Approved 5-2. (Berryman and Brainard opposed)
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date
with Mayor George Garver presiding.
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 6
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Gabe Sansing, Keith Brainard,
Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman, Dale Ross, Ben
Oliver
Council Absent:
All Council present
V Consideration and possible action to provide policy direction to the City's consultant preparing the
Housing Element of the 2030 Plan -- Pat Berryman, Councilmember District 5
Berryman read the Item Summary on the Agenda Item Cover Sheet. She said it is almost impossible to
build affordable housing in Georgetown because of the high cost of land.
Speaker, Hartley Sappington, said he agrees that it's not just a problem within Georgetown. He quoted
statistics and said the issue needs to be looked at carefully to do collaborative planning with all
surrounding cities. He said, however, that additional affordable housing is definitely needed.
Motion by Berryman, second by Ross to expand the parameters of the study to an 11-mile
circumference around the City. Motion by Oliver, second by Eason to amend that the limit should not
be a radius but the ultimate boundary in which the City would ever have control. Berryman said
Georgetown is surrounded by affordable housing within 11 miles of our city limits. She said there is a
finite amount of money available to the City, and she thinks it should be used for economic development
and not for affordable housing.
Eason said she served on the 2030 Plan Task Force, and it was determined by the majority of the
Committee that the City be committed to be supportive of attainable housing. There was further
discussion. Sansing suggested that more clarification might be needed before a vote is taken on this.
He suggested that staff study the different boundaries. Berryman asked and Yantis displayed maps
that indicate the various boundary limits such as the extraterritorial jurisdiction, and proposed future
boundaries. There was further discussion and debate. Eason asked Housing Coordinator Jennifer Bills
to comment, and she explained that 52% of the employees of the City now live outside the Georgetown
city limits. Berryman said until the City put 4B money into affordable housing, she wouldn't have
objected. She said the money that was dedicated to affordable housing should have been used toward
incentivizing economic development projects to bring a companies to hire Georgetown citizens as
employees. Vote on the motion to amend: Denied 4-3 (Ross, Berryman, Brainard and Sattler
opposed) Eason said she would vote against this because it would be $9500 to expand a study to an
area over which the City has no control. Yantis explained that it would be less than $9500, saying that
was the quote for a 15-mile area, and the cost is for purchasing the data and evaluating it. Vote on the
original motion: Approved 5-2 (Eason and Oliver opposed)
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, September 8, 2008
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular
Session on the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Gabe Sansing, Keith
Brainard, Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman,
Dale Ross, Ben Oliver
Council Absent:
All Council present
B Joint Workshop with the Housing Advisory Board regarding the Housing Element of the 2030
Plan -- Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator and Tom Yantis, Assistant City Manager
The following Housing Advisory Board members introduced themselves: Debbie
Hoffman, Hartley Sappington, Cindy Anderson, Janis Cowman-Arteaga, Emily Northrop,
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 6
Larkin Tom, and John Gavurnik. Bills noted there is a draft of the Housing Plan in the
Council Agenda packet and gave Council a brief history, noting that in 2006 a Housing
Task Force made three recommendations to the Council: (1) establish an advisory board
on housing policies, (2) hire a full-time housing coordinator, and (3) develop a housing
master plan. Bills introduced consultants from Mullin and Lonergan Associates, Marjorie
Williams and Eric Fulmer.
Williams told Council told their primary focus was to determine if there was enough
affordable housing in Georgetown to meet the needs of households earning $57,600,
equal to 80% of median income of Georgetown in 2007. With a slide presentation,
Williams reviewed the housing needs in Georgetown. She said In 2000, 27% of all
households were paying more than 30% of their income on monthly housing costs,
saying there is no more recent data, but chances are the numbers would now be higher.
There were comments and questions from the Council. Eason reviewed the history of the
efforts to provide affordable housing in Georgetown.
Consultant, Eric Fulmer, presented to Council the following Preliminary
Recommendations:
1. Increase the area zoned for multi-family housing
2. Identify revitalization aeras for concentrated investment
3. Treat nonpofit and for-profit affordable housing developers as a special class of
developer
4. Waive all municipal impat fees and development fees for housing units affordable to
80% of media and below
5. Continue housing diversity density incentives
6. Capitalize a local housing trust fund with a dedicated revenue stream
7. Create a local community land trust
8. Treat CDBG funds as a windfall for affordable housing
9. Stenghten the development skills of local nonprofit housing developers
9. Strengthen existing home buyer counseling support
10. Seek out State CDBG and HOME Funds in support of affordable housing initiatives;
subcontract with local nonprofits to implement programs
There were questions and comments from the Council.
5:00 p.m. -- Mayor Garver left the building in order to attend
a CAMPO Transportation Policy Board Meeting in Austin
Mayor Pro Tem Berryman conducted the remainder of the meeting
Berryman asked if there were comments from the Housing Advisory Board. John
Gavurnik said there are a number of people who work at Wolf Ranch and at other
businesses in Georgetown, but cannot afford to live in Georgetown.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on
the above date with Mayor George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Patty Eason, Gabe Sansing, Keith
Council Absent:
All Council present
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 6
Brainard, Bill Sattler, Pat Berryman,
Dale Ross, Ben Oliver
CC Public Hearing/First Reading
Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to adopt the Housing Element of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan -- Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth Cook,
Planning and Development Director
Garver suggested no action be taken on this item at this meeting and, instead, staff
would bring this item forward as a "study" item in January.
Bills explained the proposed Housing Element of the 2030 Plan. She said from this plan
there are no direct quantifiable costs. She asked Chair of the Housing Advisory Board,
Hartley Sappington, to come forward. He said he appreciates the Mayor's concern and
he welcomes further deliberation at a future less-formal opportunity. He said the
consultants have identified specific items for future discussion. He introduced Marjorie
Williams.
Williams noted that her colleague Eric Fulmer is here also. With an overhead display,
Williams said they were tasked with finding suitable housing for families receiving a
median income or $57,574. She said there is an adequate supply of houses available for
incomes from 43,180 to 57,574. However, below 60% of median income, for example,
elementary school teachers, would have a difficult time purchasing a home. She said
what this means is those people will be renters. She said job growth is occurring in lower
wage service sectors. Mayor confirmed that statistic is for the entire County, not just for
the City of Georgetown. She said many people are priced out of rental units in
Georgetown, saying there is a projected deficit of 1400 units. Berryman took exception to
the statistics being presented.
Williams said there are 15 policy recommendations, but listed only some key policies.
Brainard asked how the money from the local housing trust fund is spent. Williams said
the local municipality can decide how it would be spent, and whether to focus on home
ownership or rental. Oliver asked and Williams explained the difference between the use
of data for "household" and "individual" incomes.
Sansing asked and Williams said the data was from an eight-county region obtained in
2007 from the Texas Workforce Commission. Sansing asked but Williams wasn't able to
explain how many households are single-wage earners.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:56 p.m. There were no comments. Mayor
announced that the Public Hearing would remain open until such time as Council could
continue their deliberations and vote on the first reading.
Garver thanked the consultants.
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Monday, March 23, 2009
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date
with Mayor George Garver presiding.
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 6
Council Present:
Keith Brainard, Gabe Sansing, Dale Ross,
Ben Oliver, Pat Berryman, Bill Sattler, Patty
Eason
Council Absent:
All Council Present
B Joint Meeting with the Housing Advisory Board to discuss the Housing Element of the 2030 Plan --
Jennifer Bills, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth Cook, Acting Community Development Director
Bills introduced the Housing Advisory Board Chair, Debbie Hoffman, who is the director of Habitat for
Humanity of Williamson County. Hoffman described the history and role of the Housing Advisory Board.
She said the Board's goal is to find an agreeable Housing Element for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
She said, in coming up with the plan, the Board looked at the housing market and demographics of the
City. She described the process of developing the Housing Element. Hoffman asked and Bills reviewed
the Housing Element of the 2030 Plan. Bills went over the definition of a Housing Element . She said
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2008 with the Land Use Element. She said the next two
elements are the Parks and Housing Elements. She said the Housing Element includes demographics,
the housing market in Georgetown, affordable housing, and policy recommendations. She gave
Council a timeline of the creation of the Housing Element. Mayor asked and Bills said the draft of the
Housing Element which was given to Council in December has not changed. Bills said the area median
income for a family of four in 2007 was a little over $71,000. She noted about 42% are single wage
earning households. She said, in this process, the Board discovered that the affordable rental market is
underserved. Bills spoke about the rental market in Georgetown and said there are about 766 units.
She noted, by 2012, Georgetown will need about 2,179 affordable rental units.
Mayor asked and Bills clarified the meaning of "affordable" housing by saying they are units which are
income restricted. She said the affordable units must remain at a certain rate. Mayor said the 766 units
the City currently has are classified as affordable and are limited in how high they can raise their rent.
Bills spoke about high-density and multifamily residences in Georgetown. She said there are no
apartment complexes in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. She gave Council a slight view of the rental
market in Georgetown. She spoke about the current policy recommendations and said there are fifteen
that were found. She noted these recommendations cover policies that are supposed to guide the City
over the next 15-20 years. She noted the Housing Advisory Board desires the Council to approve
policies that they find meaningful and applicable to Georgetown. Bills spoke about the responses to the
Draft Housing Element survey which was given to Council. She listed what was considered the least
and most important to the Council. She explained why the transit system is included in the Housing
Element.
Speaker, Tim Todd, a new Housing Advisory Board member, said the goal of the Board is the adoption
of the Housing Element of the 2030 Plan. He said, in order to accomplish that goal, they would like to
work with the City Council on some of the outstanding issues with the draft Element and form a
subcommittee that includes members of the Council. He said they are requesting to receive direction
from the Council on priorities of the Housing Element. Mayor said it is the Board's recommendation to
have a subcommittee of the Council to work with the Housing Advisory Board and work through the
policies include in the Housing Element draft. Todd agreed.
Mayor asked and Bills said there is no item on Tuesday's agenda. Eason asked and Carls said the
Board is looking for direction to put an item on a future agenda. Eason asked and Bills said the Board
is in the middle of a Public Hearing and it will remain open until the Element is brought forward for a first
reading. Oliver said and Todd agreed they have received too many conflicting views from Council and
the Board would like to have a subcommittee research the issues in greater detail. Hoffman said the
Board recommended adoption and that did not happen and added these are the steps the Board would
like to take in order to move forward and adopt the Housing Element. Todd said the Board feels that, in
light of current economic times, certain elements of the Housing Plan are becoming more urgent. He
said they would like to move on as quickly as they can to develop the issues that are important to the
City and the Council.
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 6
Minutes of the Meeting of the Governing Body
of the City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The City Council of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met in Regular Session on the above date
with Mayor George Garver presiding.
Council Present:
Keith Brainard, Dale Ross, Gabe Sansing,
Ben Oliver, Pat Berryman, Bill Sattler, Patty
Eason
Council Absent:
All Council present.
H Consideration and possible action to appoint members of the City Council to a subcommittee with the
Housing Advisory Board to review and revise the draft Housing Element of the 2030 Plan -- Jennifer
C. Bills, AICP, Housing Coordinator and Elizabeth Cook, Acting Director of Community Development
This item was pulled by staff.
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 6
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 118
Housing Element
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 3
2. Introduction 11
3. Population and Housing Profile 19
4. Housing Profile 33
5. Economic Profile 49
6. Non-Housing Factors that Influence the Housing Market 67
7. The Affordable Housing Market 79
8. Housing Affordability Analysis 83
9. Barriers to Affordable Housing 97
10. Existing and Projected Demand for Affordable Housing 101
11. Policy Recommendations 111
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 118
2
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(This page left intentionally blank)
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 118
3
Housing Element
1. 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.
These recommendations included 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 2007 income data from the
census, this translates to households earning $57,500 or less.
Three Primary Issues Addressed by this Study
Georgetown’s Housing Advisory Board identified three issues to be addressed by this study:
x What is the unmet need for affordable housing?
x What factors prevent the City from fully meeting the need for affordable housing?
x What positive steps can we take to expand the supply of affordable housing for lower
income households in Georgetown?
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 118
4
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Four 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. Since 2000, the City of Georgetown
annexed 16,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits, doubling the geographic size of the City.
The second geographic area considered by this study extends beyond the current municipal
boundary and includes Georgetown’s “extra-territorial jurisdiction” or “ETJ”, an area where the
City already provides or is expected to provide essential services. A significant amount of newer
residential development has taken place within the City’s ETJ during the past decade. For the
purposes of this study, this area of analysis is referred to as the Georgetown Housing Market
Area.
Within the Georgetown Housing Market
Area is Sun City Texas, which is the third
geographic area of analysis. Sun City is a
Del Webb residential community for active
adults 55 years and older. Initially
developed in 1995, over 6,200 residential
units have been constructed in Sun City to
date. Because it is an age-restricted
neighborhood, the Sun City area is analyzed
as a separate housing market in order to
avoid skewing the demographic analysis for
the remainder of the City.
Finally, the fourth geographic area of analysis approximates an 11-mile radius from the Williamson
County Courthouse in Georgetown. This level of analysis is included for the purpose of
identifying the degree to which the area outside of the City provides affordable housing for
households located within a reasonable commuting distance to jobs in Georgetown.
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 6,000 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 and the easy commute to work.
Both the City and the Georgetown Housing Market Area have experienced surges in their
population. Between 1990 and 2000, Georgetown’s population grew by 11,673 while the
Georgetown HMA grew by 20,591. From 2000 to 2007, the City’s annual population increase
averaged 2,674 persons, more than double the annual increase during the 1990s. The HMA
population growth rate has also accelerated to 2,740 persons annually, while the rate in the 11-mile
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 118
5
Housing Element
radius increased from 5,802 persons annually during the 1990s to 9,372 annually since 2000.
However, it was in Williamson County where the highest annual growth rates were observed.
There, the annual growth rate exploded from an average annual increase of 11,042 persons in the
1990s to 17,628 since 2000.
Population Growth
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
1990 2000 2007
City of Georgetown
Georgetown HMA
11-mile radius
Williamson County
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 third fastest-growing county in
Texas, Williamson County experienced a 40% 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.
Attachment number 2
Page 6 of 118
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%. Since 2000,
however, this trend has reversed as population growth has surpassed household growth. These
trends suggest a pent-up, or future, housing demand as indicated by a lagging household growth
rate, a surge in school-age children and an increasing household size.
Attachment number 2
Page 7 of 118
7
Housing Element
The market responds by adding more than 4,000 new homes
Favorable economic, demographic and
market trends caused the City’s housing
supply to expand dramatically. New
construction added more than 4,000 units in
Georgetown. Sun City accounted for nearly
3,000 of these homes. Almost 7,000 new
units were constructed in the Georgetown
Housing Market Area while slightly more than
21,000 were built within the 11-mile radius.
Overall, Williamson County witnessed the
creation of over 37,000 new housing units
between 2000 and 2007.
Not all Georgetown residents are wealthy
Even in the midst of a robust economy and vibrant housing market, however, there remains a
significant segment of Georgetown residents that struggle to make ends meet. Nearly one-third of
all City households had incomes of less than $50,000 in 2007. Moreover, 27% of all households in
2000 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. Forty percent of all new jobs added in the county in the past five
years were in the service sector.
Williamson County’s rental housing wage was $17.98 in 2008
In Williamson County, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $935. 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 $3,117. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52
weeks per year, this level of income translates into a Housing Wage of $17.98 per hour. In order
to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner (making $5.85/hour in
2008) must work 123 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must include 3.1
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 vital to 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, can find it difficult to affordably rent
a decent dwelling unit. Based on the housing wage of $17.98, waiters, cashiers, retail salespersons,
and construction laborers could not afford to rent a one-bedroom unit costing $766 per month as
single-wage earning households. 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.
Attachment number 2
Page 8 of 118
8
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Georgetown’s Housing Market
Real median household income has increased 4.5% since 2000, surpassing the median sales prices
of homes. In the Georgetown East market (i.e., east of I-35), the median housing sales price
declined 1.7%, after adjusting for inflation. In the Georgetown West market (i.e., west of I-35),
the median sales price increased only 3.5%, after adjusting for inflation. This scenario is indicative
of a fairly-valued housing market.
Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Stock
The median household income in the City was $71,967 in 2007. With this income, a household
could purchase a home selling for $198,000. In 2007, there were a total of 703 units that sold for
$198,000 or less. This was equivalent to 56% of the 1,263 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 compares favorably to this
threshold.
Between 2000 and 2007, a total of 3,127 sales transactions involved housing units that sold for
$142,000 or less. This price was affordable to a household earning up to 80% of the City’s median
household income. These 3,127 units represented 38% of the total 8,335 sales transactions
between 2000 and 2007.
Hourly Wage Needed to Afford the HUD Two-Bedroom Fa ir Market Rent, 2008
$6.80 $7.62 $8.24 $8.91
$10.78
$14.73
$17.51 $17.98
$19.90
$25.16
$26.78
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00Waiterd Prep Worker/ServerCashierRetail SalespersonConstruction Laborere Needed for 1-bd FMRFirefightere Needed for 2-bd FMRentary School TeacherAccountantRegistered NurseFooHourly WagHourly WagElem
Sales Housing in Georgetown is Reasonably Priced
Most households in Georgetown with incomes between 60% and 80% of the median area income
can find homes in the marketplace that are affordable. In the case of sales housing, the total
affordable housing supply (3,308) is greater than the total affordable housing demand (1,753) for
Attachment number 2
Page 9 of 118
9
Housing Element
the period 2000-2012. The local housing market has addressed the need for affordable sales
housing as evidenced by the number of new and existing sales units that sold for $142,000 or less
(3,127 units).
Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Deficit Consists of Rental Units
Georgetown has made good progress in increasing the supply of affordable rental housing in
recent years. However, there is still more demand for affordable rental units in Georgetown than
supply. This is due to the growth of lower-wage jobs and, subsequently, lower income
households. An additional 2,179 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 766 affordable rental units estimated to be available between 2000 and 2012 will
address only a fraction of the affordable housing deficit. An additional 1,413 affordable rental
housing units will be needed to meet the unmet demand through 2012.
Key Findings Related to Housing Affordability in Georgetown
The ability of a household to pay its monthly housing expenses is dependent upon several factors.
Generally, these include household income, household expenses (including debt such as car loans
and credit cards), and the amount of mortgage or rent for the housing unit. Key findings
identified in Georgetown relative to housing affordability included the following:
x Housing value slightly outpaced household income in the City of Georgetown between
1990 and 2000.
x Income is rising faster than sales prices in the City, indicating a fairly-valued housing
market.
x The highest median sales price in 2007 was found in Georgetown West, where the market
remains vibrant with significantly more sales transactions and higher median sales prices.
The median sales price of homes located west of I-35 has increased steadily, and exceeded
$200,000 for the first time in 2006.
x Overall, the sales market is slowing slightly as evidenced by the increase in the average
number of days that a house remains on the market before sale.
x A family earning 78% of the median household income in the City in 2007 ($56,061) could
afford to purchase the median priced sales home in Georgetown East ($136,200).
x There were 70 housing units that sold for less than $100,000 in 2007 compared to nearly
1,200 that sold for $100,000 or more.
x Rents outpaced income during the 1990s.
x Increasing income did not provide significant relief from cost burden for renters with
incomes below 50% of the area median income.
x The rental housing wage in Williamson County was $17.98 in 2008. This was the hourly
wage that an individual or household needed to earn to afford a two-bedroom unit renting
for the HUD Fair Market Rent. Minimum wage was only $5.85/hour in 2008.
Attachment number 2
Page 10 of 118
10
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Policy Recommendations
There are many steps that the City of Georgetown can take to expand the affordability of housing
to its residents. Some of these measures are directly related to housing production while others
are aimed at the creation of a social infrastructure in support of affordable housing. Each of these
15 recommendations is described in greater detail in Part 11. They include:
High Priority (One to five years)
1. Treat affordable housing as a major policy issue in Georgetown.
2. Waive all municipal impact fees and development fees for housing units affordable to 80%
of the area median income and below.
3. Increase the amount of land zoned specifically for multi-family housing development.
4. Treat nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers as a special class of
developer.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years)
5. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
6. Strengthen the development skills of local nonprofit housing developers.
7. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
8. Strengthen homebuyer counseling and support services.
Medium Priority (Seven to ten years)
9. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing
initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects.
10. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment
11. Encourage the creation of a local Community Land Trust.
Low Priority (as resources permit)
12. Capitalize a local Housing Trust Fund with a dedicated revenue stream.
13. Fund the proposed fixed-route transit system.
14. Adopt universal design standards.
15. Use the City owned and operated electrical utility to finance affordable housing.
Attachment number 2
Page 11 of 118
11
Housing Element
2. Introduction
Purpose of the Study
The City of Georgetown is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. This Housing
Element of the 2030 Plan is one of the Comprehensive Plan elements required by the City
Charter.
Furthermore, the City will use this study to prepare the jurisdiction’s Five-Year Consolidated Plan and
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for fiscal years 2010-2014 as Georgetown becomes a
newly designated federal entitlement community under the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development. These are planning documents required by HUD to fulfill the programmatic
requirements of the federal Community Development Block Grant entitlement that the City will
begin receiving annually, presumably in 2010. 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 affordable housing 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
affordable 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 housing policy for the City of Georgetown.
To assist with the preparation of this document, the City of Georgetown selected the firm of
Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc., a housing and community development consulting firm with
offices in Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
The purposes of the Housing Element are to:
x Identify demographic and economic trends that affect the demand for housing
x Define the Georgetown housing market area and the supply and demand characteristics of
that housing market
x Analyze the demand for affordable housing
x Determine if there are any barriers to affordable housing
x Recommend actions and initiatives aimed at expanding the supply of affordable housing.
Attachment number 2
Page 12 of 118
12
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
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
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
Since 2000, the City of Georgetown has annexed 16,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits,
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 Subsequently, a significant amount of newer residential
development has occurred beyond the municipal boundaries of 2000 when the U.S. Census
Bureau conducted its decennial survey.
In order to more accurately calculate the affordable housing deficit in Georgetown, the
Georgetown Housing Market Area (HMA) was defined for the purposes of this study. The HMA
was defined as those census tracts and census block groups that were most closely aligned with the
Georgetown extra-territorial jurisdictional (ETJ) boundary. Within this study, the distinction is
made between the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Housing Market Area, where
appropriate.
Within the Georgetown Housing Market Area is Sun City Texas, a Del Webb residential
community for active adults 55 years and older. Begun in 1995, over 6,200 residential units have
been constructed to date. Build-out is expected to occur between 2012 and 2015 and will include
a total of 7,500 units. Currently, the Sun City census area population represents approximately
26% of the total 2007 population of the entire Georgetown Housing Market Area and
approximately 32% of its existing housing stock. As such, a residential community of this
magnitude has an enormous impact on the demographic profiles of the City of Georgetown and
the Georgetown Housing Market Area. Where appropriate in this analysis, the demographic
characteristics of the Sun City census area will be reported separately from the City of Georgetown
and the Georgetown Housing Market Area to illustrate their impact on such trends as median age,
household size and composition, median household income, and housing sales prices.2
1 City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan, pages 3-10.
2 Sun City Texas lies within two census block groups: census tract 201.01, block group 1 and census tract 202, block
group. These two census areas include areas outside of Sun City Texas but Sun City residents comprise the vast
majority of residents within these two census blocks.
Attachment number 2
Page 13 of 118
13
Housing Element
Sun City Census Area, City of Georgetown
Finally, a fourth geographic area was identified and analyzed. An additional analysis area that
approximates an 11-mile radius from the Williamson County Courthouse in Georgetown is
included for the purpose of identifying the degree to which the area outside of the City provides
affordable housing for households located within a reasonable commuting distance to jobs in
Georgetown. Referred to as the 11-mile radius, Census data and other informational sources are
presented for this designation where available.
Attachment number 2
Page 14 of 118
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
14
Attachment number 2
Page 15 of 118
15
Housing Element
Methodology
Data included in this report has been gathered from a variety of statistical sources and interviews.
Statistical information from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Texas State
Data Center, the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University and similar sources has been
collected, organized and analyzed. Face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with a
broad range of housing practitioners in the region to supplement the statistical data. Interviews
were conducted with nonprofit affordable housing developers, for-profit builders and land
developers, real estate professionals, and human service organizations.
In addition, two local surveys were conducted for this report. First, the City conducted an
employee housing survey to identify why employees of the City of Georgetown live where they
choose to live. More importantly, the survey attempted to identify any barriers that prevented
employees and their families from living in Georgetown if they preferred to live in the City.
Second, the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey among major employers to
the area to identify the degree to which housing and the cost of housing impacted their decision to
locate their business or industry to the Georgetown area. The results of these two surveys are
included in Part 6. In addition, results from the City’s 2008 Citizen Quality of Life Survey are
included.
As a point of beginning, this report defines the consumers of affordable housing in terms of
household income characteristics. In this report, the target population consists of all households
with an annual income up to 80% of the area median household income. This population
segment was further categorized into the following subgroups as defined by the U.S. Department
of Housing & Urban Development (HUD):
x Extremely low income households with incomes up to 30% of the median household income
x Very low income households with incomes from 30% up to 50% of the median household
income, and
x Low income households with incomes from 50% up to 80% of the median household
income.
There are two components used to identify the affordable housing deficit of a geographic area:
demand and supply. The degree to which the housing supply meets the demand will determine the
housing deficit. The affordable housing deficit is the target number of housing units that will need
to be achieved in order to create a diverse and healthy housing market for a variety of household
types and income ranges.
The first component, affordable housing demand, can be further categorized into existing demand
and projected demand. For this report, existing demand covers the period from 2000 to 2007. The
base year of 2000 is used because it is a decennial census year for which reliable and accurate data
exists from the U.S. Census Bureau.
To determine existing demand for affordable housing, the following households were identified:
x Households living in physically deficient housing units (i.e., were overcrowded and lacked
complete plumbing or kitchen facilities), and
x Households paying more than 30% of gross income for monthly housing costs.
Attachment number 2
Page 16 of 118
16
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Projected demand is defined as the net increase in lower income households between 2008 and
2012. This estimate was determined using data projections produced by DemographicsNow,
which are based on Census 2000 data and updated with demographic data from many sources,
including local governments, consumer databases, postal delivery counts and credit reports.
Projected affordable housing demand covers the five-year period of 2008 to 2012. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan provides a long-range vision for land use and physical development to 2030.
However, affordable housing deficit is more appropriately addressed on a short-range basis for
two reasons. First, data projections of any type do not take into account cataclysmic events, such
as the current mortgage crisis facing the U.S. housing market. Events such as this may be
predicted by economic experts years in advance but specific data projections do not include their
impact because the extent of their impact is unknown. For example, the Austin metropolitan
statistical area (which includes Georgetown) was recently cited as having escaped from the worst
of the current housing crisis.3 While new and unexpected economic events with far-reaching
impacts may occur in the future, limiting the range of this study to five years provides a more
realistic time frame during which modifications can be made to the strategic plan.
Second, the value of money is not as easily projected as population and housing units. The
number of persons who are expected to reside in Georgetown can be estimated based on past
trends and current conditions. This same process can estimate the number of households and
housing units in a future year. However, the amount of income a household will earn in the future
is much more difficult to estimate given the fluid dynamics of the national and world economies
and their impact locally. For example, the recent rise in the price of oil (an international event) has
caused the price of gasoline to surge to almost $4 a gallon (a national impact), resulting in the
dramatic increase in the cost of transportation for goods and services. This event alone has caused
some housing policy analysts to modify their methodology of defining the cost of housing to
include mortgage or rent, plus utilities, plus transportation. As a result, only five-year income
projections are used in this report.
Total demand for affordable housing was then calculated as the sum of existing demand plus
projected demand.
The second component of the local housing market is supply, which can be further categorized
into existing supply and projected supply. Existing supply includes housing data from Census 2000.
This data source is updated to 2007 with local building permit data, real estate sales data, data from
local builders and developers of affordable housing, and projections prepared by
DemographicsNow.
The projected affordable housing supply is the sum of all housing units (rental and owner) expected
to be constructed and occupied between 2008 and 2012 and that are affordable to households
earning less than 80% of the median household income. Identifying the projected housing supply
reveals the degree to which the local market and current affordable housing initiatives will meet
the affordable housing demand. Finally, the unmet demand is the affordable housing deficit.
3 Clifford Krauss and Ron Nixon, “Some Cities are Spared the Slide in Housing,” The New York Times, 15 February
2008, online.
Attachment number 2
Page 17 of 118
17
Housing Element
How this Document is Organized
In addition to the Executive Summary and this Introduction section, the Housing Element includes
nine sections, each with numerous subsections.
Part 3 includes the Population and Household Profile of Georgetown. In this chapter, growth in
population and households is discussed, as well as racial, age, and educational characteristics.
Where appropriate, comparisons are made between the City, Williamson County, the Austin-
Round Rock MSA and the State of Texas.
In Part 4, the Housing Profile includes detailed characteristics of the physical housing inventory
including supply, type, tenure and condition.
The Economic Profile in Part 5 provides an overview of the local labor market, including an
analysis of the civilian labor force, employment sectors, employment projections, wages and
income.
Part 6 focuses on the non-housing factors that influence the housing market and consists of a
discussion of elements that typically impact a regional housing market. Issues such as land use
regulations and real estate taxes are discussed in terms of how they influence residential
development. The results of a City employee survey and a major employer survey are presented in
this section, in addition to the City’s bi-annual Citizen Quality of Life Survey.
The extent to which affordable housing developers are meeting current demand is discussed in
Part 7, The Affordable Housing Market.
Part 8, Housing Affordability Analysis, is a key section of the report, clearly defining how persons
working in vital community occupations can or cannot afford housing in the Georgetown
Housing Market Area.
Local barriers to affordable housing are identified in Part 9. These include the public policies,
market issues, physical characteristics and other elements that impede the production of affordable
housing in the Georgetown Housing Market Area.
Part 10 includes the step-by-step methodology utilized in determining the total affordable housing
deficit in Georgetown.
The final section of this report, Part 11, includes a series of specific public policies that are
recommended to assist municipal officials in meeting the City of Georgetown’s affordable housing
needs over the next five years and beyond.
Attachment number 2
Page 18 of 118
18
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(This page left intentionally blank)
Attachment number 2
Page 19 of 118
19
Housing Element
3. Population and Housing Profile
Georgetown, Texas is located in Williamson County, about 30 miles north of Austin. As part of
the Austin-Round Rock, TX metropolitan statistical area (MSA), Georgetown’s population growth
has been driven by the regional high-tech industry and an increase in retail employment, as well as
an influx of new households relocating to the region. New housing starts have risen significantly,
resulting in a higher-cost housing market. Many of the newer residents are finding more
affordable housing in Georgetown and Williamson County, just a short drive from their jobs in
Austin. Nearly one-third of all residents who moved to Williamson County between 1995 and
2000 relocated from Travis County.
Population and household growth trends are a driving force of 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 population trends up to the present as well
as population projections. Subsequent analysis examines household growth projections to 2012
and the resulting housing demand forecast.
Population Growth
Williamson County was the third fastest-growing county in Texas between 2000 and 2006.
By 2006, the population had increased just over 100,000 persons in six years to 349,982 from
249,967. Only Rockwall County and Collin County (both outside of Dallas) had higher rates of
growth.
Figure 1. County Population Growth Rates
Rockwall 61.7%
Collin 41.6%
Williamson 40.0%
Fort Bend 37.4%
Hays 37.2%
Rate of Population Growth
2000-2006County
Denton 36.3%
Montgomery 36.1%
Kaufman 31.5%
Comal 30.8%
Kendall 28.7%
Source: Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University
Both the City and the Georgetown Housing Market Area (HMA) have experienced surges
in their population. Between 1990 and 2000, Georgetown’s population grew by 11,673 for an
average annual increase of 1,167 residents. By comparison, the Georgetown HMA grew by 20,591
or 2,059 persons annually. From 2000 to 2007, the City’s annual population increase averaged
2,674 persons, more than double the annual increase during the 1990s. The HMA population
growth rate has also accelerated to 2,740 persons annually, while the rate in the 11-mile radius
Attachment number 2
Page 20 of 118
20
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
increased from 5,802 persons annually during the 1990s to 9,372 annually since 2000. However, it
was in Williamson County where the highest annual growth rates were observed. There, the
annual growth rate exploded from an average annual increase of 11,042 persons in the 1990s to
17,628 since 2000.
Figure 2. Total Population Trends, 1990-2007
City of
Georgetown Georgetown HMA 11-mile radius
Williamson
County Texas
1990 16,666 24,708 66,848 139,547
16,986,510
2000 28,339 45,299 124,871 249,967
20,851,820
2007 47,056 64,481 190,476 373,363 23,904,380
Change
1990-2007 182% 161% 185% 168% 41%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for 11-mile radius and all 2007 data
Since 2000 the City of Georgetown’s annual population has increased at a faster
percentage rate than the County and the MSA. All three areas experienced a dramatic
decrease between 2001 and 2002, which paralleled the national economic downturn. After
stabilizing over the next couple of years, Georgetown rebounded to a greater degree than the
County and the MSA and approached near-2001 growth levels by 2007.
Figure 3.
Annual Rate of Change in Population, 2000-2007
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0%
2%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
City of Georgetown
Williamson County
Austin-Round Rock MSA
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for all 2000 data and for 2001-2006 data for City of Georgetown and Williamson
County; Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University for 2001-2006 data for Austin-Round Rock MSA;
DemographicsNow for 11-mile radius and all 2007 data
Note: Annual population estimates are available only for the areas included.
New residents are relocating to Williamson County from elsewhere in Texas and across
the country. Nearly one-third of all new residents to Williamson County relocated from Travis
County between 1995 and 2000. Residents are also relocating from other Texas counties, such as
Harris, Dallas, Bexar and Tarrant. In addition, they are relocating from places such as Phoenix,
Attachment number 2
Page 21 of 118
21
Housing Element
Palm Beach and Los Angeles. Most notably, more than twice as many people are moving into
Williamson County than are moving out. In 2000, there was a total in-migration of 90,110
persons, which exceeded the out-migration of 42,441 persons, resulting in a net in-migration of
47,669 persons.
Figure 4. County-to-County Migration Patterns, 1995-2000
County, State Number Percent County, State Number Percent
Travis County, TX 28,193 31.3% Travis County, TX 14,090 33.2%
Harris County, TX 3,866 4.3% Harris County, TX 1,457 3.4%
Dallas County, TX 2,630 2.9% Bell County, TX 1,454 3.4%
Bexar County, TX 2,562 2.8% Burnet County, TX 1,068 2.5%
Tarrant County, TX 1,777 2.0% Bexar County, TX 829 2.0%
Bell County, TX 1,697 1.9% Tarrant County, TX 782 1.8%
Nueces County, TX 975 1.1% Dallas County, TX 780 1.8%
Hays County, TX 973 1.1% Hays County, TX 741 1.7%
Brazos County, TX 898 1.0% Brazos County, TX 723 1.7%
Maricopa County, AZ 850 0.9% Bastrop County, TX 701 1.7%
Palm Beach County, FL 813 0.9% Denton County, TX 588 1.4%
Lubbock County, TX 774 0.9% Lubbock County, TX 554 1.3%
El Paso County, TX 728 0.8% Milam County, TX 468 1.1%
Burnet County, TX 728 0.8% McLennan County, TX 450 1.1%
McLennan County, TX 674 0.7% Maricopa County, AZ 377 0.9%
Los Angeles County, CA 673 0.7% Fort Bend County, TX 369 0.9%
Cameron County, TX 608 0.7% Collin County, TX 327 0.8%
All Other Places 40,691 45.2% All Other Places 16,683 39.3%
Where Williamson County Residents
were Living In 1995
Where Former Williamson County Residents had
Moved to by 2000
Total Inflow 90,110 100.0% Total Outflow 42,441 100.0%
Source: Census 2000 County-to-County Migration Data
Almost 98% of the population growth in the Georgetown HMA has occurred within the
City of Georgetown. Between 2000 and 2007, the Georgetown HMA increased by 19,182
residents of which 18,717 were City residents. This indicates that nearly all of the population
growth within the HMA is occurring within the City limits.
Figure 5. Annual Population Trends, 2000-2007
City of
Georgetown Georgetown HMA
Williamson
County
Austin-Round
Rock MSA
2000 28,339 45,299 249,967 1,249,763
2001 31,940 na 276,661 1,325,305
2002 33,474 na 289,969 1,355,241
2003 35,086 na 302,716 1,385,723
2004 36,607 na 316,508 1,423,161
2005 39,312 na 332,159 1,469,346
2006 42,467 na 350,879 1,532,281
2007 47,056 64,481 373,363 1,598,161
Change
2000-2007 66% 42% 49% 28%
Note: Annual population estimates are available only for the areas included.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for all 2000 data; for 2001-2007 data for City of Georgetown
and Williamson County; Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University for 2001-2007 data for
Austin-Round Rock MSA; DemographicsNow for 2007 data for Georgetown HMA
Attachment number 2
Page 22 of 118
22
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The Sun City census area accounted for more than one-third of all population growth in
the Georgetown HMA. In 2000, the population of the Sun City census area was 9,576. By 2007,
it had increased to 16,677 residents and accounted for fully 26% of the entire HMA population.
Furthermore, the increase in population in the Sun City census area accounted for 37% of all
population growth in the HMA since 2000.
Figure 6. Population Trends, 2000-2007
City of
Georgetown Georgetown HMA
Sun City census
area*11-mile radius
2000 28,339 45,299 9,576 124,871
2007 47,056 64,481 16,677 190,476
Change
2000-2007 66% 42% 74% 53%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 2000 data; DemographicsNow for the Sun City census area, the 11-mile radius and 2007 data
The population of the Georgetown HMA is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse.
Between 2000 and 2007, white residents increased in number by 16,494 but decreased slightly as a
percent of total population from 87.8% to 87.3%. Blacks increased 69% from 1,253 to 2,091
residents, the largest percent increase among racial minorities. This group increased from 2.8% to
3.2% of the population. Persons of all other minority groups increased 43% from 4,276 to 6,126.
Hispanics increased from 6,770 residents in the HMA in 2000 to 11,101 by 2007, when they
represented more than 17% of the total population.
By 2007, however, the City was more racially and ethnically diverse than the Georgetown
HMA. Non-whites, other than Hispanics, accounted for 14.7% of the City’s population
compared to only 12.7% of the HMA’s population. Hispanics comprised 20.3% of the City’s
population compared to 17.2% of the HMA population.
Attachment number 2
Page 23 of 118
23
Housing Element
Figure 7. Population Trends by Race and Hispanic Origin, 1990-2007
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
City of Georgetown 14,842 12,882 86.8% 768 5.2% 1,192 8.0% 3,105 20.9%
Georgetown HMA na nananananananan
11-mile radius 66,848 58,861 88.1% 2,772 4.1% 5,215 7.8% 10,522 15.7%
Williamson County 139,551 121,914 87.4% 6,861 4.9% 10,776 7.7% 20,004 14.3%
Austin MSA 781,572 600,023 76.8% 72,254 9.2% 109,295 14.0% 159,942 20.5%
Texas 16,986,510 12,774,762 75.2% 2,021,632 11.9% 2,190,116 12.9% 4,339,905 25.5%
City of Georgetown 28,339 24,200 85.4% 960 3.4% 3,179 11.2%5,121 18.1%
Georgetown HMA 45,299 39,770 87.8% 1,253 2.8% 4,276 9.4% 6,770 14.9%
11-mile radius 124,871 103,040 82.5% 6,088 4.9% 15,743 12.6%22,507 18.0%
Williamson County 249,967 205,994 82.4% 12,790 5.1% 31,183 12.5% 42,990 17.2%
Austin MSA 1,249,763 905,970 72.5% 99,432 8.0% 244,361 19.6% 327,760 26.2%
Texas 20,851,820 14,799,505 71.0% 2,404,566 11.5% 3,647,749 17.5% 6,669,666 32.0%
City of Georgetown 38,580 32,917 85.3% 1,444 3.7% 4,219 10.9% 7,819 20.3%
Georgetown HMA 64,481 56,264 87.3% 2,091 3.2% 6,126 9.5% 11,101 17.2%
11-mile radius 190,476 154,858 81.3% 10,564 5.5% 25,054 13.2% 39,866 20.9%
Williamson County 365,549 296,276 81.0% 20,734 5.7% 48,539 13.3% 74,597 20.4%
Austin MSA 1,521,851 1,130,644 74.3% 99,754 6.6% 291,453 19.2% 456,655 30.0%
Texas 23,624,214 17,076,262 72.3% 2,543,514 10.8% 4,004,438 17.0% 8,546,298 36.2%
1990
2000
2007
Race HispanicTotal
Population
White Black Other Race
a
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (1990 STF1, Census 2000 SF1); DemographicsNow for 11-mile radius and all 2007 data
Figure 8.
Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2007
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%y of Georgetownorgetown HMA11-mile radiusliamson Countyound Rock MSATe xasCitGeWilAustin-RWhite
Bla c k
Other Race
Hispanic
Source: DemographicsNow
Attachment number 2
Page 24 of 118
24
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The median age of Georgetown residents has increased rapidly since 1990 as a result of new
residents relocating to the Sun City census area. In 1990, the median age of City residents was
30.6; for all County residents it was 30.1 years. Within the Sun City census area, the median age
was significantly higher at 34 years.
By 2000, the City’s median age had increased to 36.3 while Williamson County’s population had
aged only slightly to 32.5 years. In the Sun City census area, the median age had increased 48% to
50.4 in just ten years. This was due to the 55-plus age demographic of the Sun City Texas
residential community.
The median age of City residents has continued to increase; by 2007, it was 40.7 compared to 33.7
for the County. But in the Sun City census area, the median age continued to rise sharply,
reaching 56.1 years. These trends are expected to continue with the median age of Georgetown
projected to increase to 45.0 by 2012 and the County’s increasing to only 35.4 years. The median
age of residents in the Sun City census area is projected to increase to 59.3 years in 2012.
In the following graph, it is evident that the higher median age of the Sun City census area has
resulted in a higher median age for the City, but this effect is less notable in the County overall. In
fact, the median age trends for Williamson County are closely aligned with the same trends for the
MSA and the state.
Figure 9.
Trends in Median Age, 1990-2007
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
1990 2000 2007
Sun City census area
City of Georgetown
11-mile radius
Williamson County
Austin-Round Rock MSA
Te xa s
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for 11-mile radius and all 2007 data
For the purposes of calculating housing need, it is important to identify and isolate trends that are
abnormal or strikingly distinct from all other trends. For example, the significantly higher median
age among Sun City census area residents increases the median age for the City of Georgetown
population. By isolating this particular population characteristic, one is able to recognize that it
does not characterize the City of Georgetown or the Georgetown HMA, only a portion of it. In
Attachment number 2
Page 25 of 118
25
Housing Element
this way, findings and conclusions can be developed that more accurately reflect the affordable
housing needs of the overall population.
The impact of the Sun City census area became clearly evident in 2000 when the 55 and
older age cohort comprised almost half of that area’s population. Elsewhere in the City and
the HMA, the 55 and older age cohort comprised no more than 25% of the total population. By
2007, the older age group had surpassed 50% of the population in the Sun City census area, and
further reflected a noticeable increase in the percentage of persons 55 and older in both the City
and the HMA.
Figure 10.
Comparison of Age Cohorts, 1990-2007
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ci
t
y
HM
A
Su
n
C
i
t
y
mi
l
e
r
a
d
i
u
s
Co
u
n
t
y
MS
A
Ci
t
y
HM
A
Su
n
C
i
t
y
mi
l
e
r
a
d
i
u
s
Co
u
n
t
y
MS
A
Ci
t
y
HM
A
Su
n
C
i
t
y
mi
l
e
r
a
d
i
u
s
Co
u
n
t
y
MS
A
11
-
11
-
11
-
1990 2000 2007
Und e r 55
55 & Older
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for 11-mile radius and all 2007 data
Georgetown’s population is aging faster than the HMA and the County. City residents 55
and older represented 18.7% of the population in 1990. By 2007, this segment of the population
increased to 31.1%. Throughout the HMA, residents 55 and older comprise only a slightly lower
percentage of the population: 17.5% in 1990, increasing to 28.8% by 2007. By comparison,
County residents 55 years and older comprised 13.2% of the population in 1990 but only grew to
16.8% by 2007.
While the age cohort of 55 years and older is growing as a percentage of the population, all age
cohorts are increasing in number. The following three charts illustrate the number of persons by
age cohort in the City, the HMA, the 11-mile radius and the County. In all areas, each age cohort
has increased in number since 2000.
The highest increases in all areas occurred in the school-age population and the 35-64 age
cohorts. The school-age population of persons 5-19 years old increased most significantly since
2000 in the City of Georgetown, growing by 3,255 persons in just seven years. The increase in this
segment of the population will also be reflected in an increase in household size.
City residents ages 35-64, including Sun City census area residents, collectively grew by 4,750
persons in the same span of time. This age cohort includes the baby boomer generation of
Attachment number 2
Page 26 of 118
26
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
persons born between 1946 and 1964, who would have been 43 to 61 years old in 2007. As the
highest-paid and most-educated generation, this segment of the population is a key demographic
group that will remain an influential component of the owner-occupied housing market.4 The
demand for market-rate housing that may be attributed to the baby boomer segment in the
Georgetown Housing Market Area must be considered in the context of affordable housing as it
will impact the availability and cost of land, labor and materials needed for the development of
more moderate-priced housing.
Figure 11.
Number of Persons by Age Cohort
City of Georgetown
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Und e r 5 to 19 20 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85 &
5 24 34 44 54 64 74 84 older
1990
2000
2007
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for all 2007 data
The 25 to 44 year age cohort increased but at a slower pace than the 45 to 64 age cohorts.
Persons within the age range of 25 to 44 years are typically getting married, starting families and
purchasing homes. From 1990 to 2007, this group within the City grew by 3,858 persons.
4 Cynthia Angell and Clare D. Rowley, “The Demographics of Housing Demand,” FDIC Outlook, Spring 2006.
Attachment number 2
Page 27 of 118
27
Housing Element
Figure 12.
Number of Persons by Age Cohort
Georgetown Housing Market Area
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Unde r
5
5 to 19 20 to
24
25 to
34
35 to
44
45 to
54
55 to
64
65 to
74
75 to
84
85 &
older
1990
2000
2007
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for all 2007 data
Figure 13.
Number of Persons by Age Cohort
11-mile radius
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
0
10,000
Und e r
5
5 to 19 20 to
24
25 to
34
35 to
44
45 to
54
55 to
64
65 to
74
75 to
84
85 &
older
1990
2000
2007
Source: DemographicsNow
Attachment number 2
Page 28 of 118
28
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 14.
Number of Persons by Age Cohort
Williamson County
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Und e r
5
5 to 19 20 to
24
25 to
34
35 to
44
45 to
54
55 to
64
65 to
74
75 to
84
85 &
older
1990
2000
2007
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for all 2007 data
The primary labor force age cohort has continued to grow as a result of the regional
economy. Persons between the ages of 25 and 54 comprise the majority of a region’s labor force.
In Georgetown, this labor force cohort expanded 113% from 6,544 to 13,972 persons since 2000.
Within the larger Georgetown HMA, the labor force age cohort increased 144% from 10,289 to
25,055 persons. Within the 11-mile radius, this group increased 46% from 58,363 to 85,490.
Overall, Williamson County expanded 62% from 64,729 persons in 1990 to 168,737 in 2007.
Household Growth
Every household needs a dwelling. 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 much
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 calculating housing need based on the number of persons.
During the 1990s, household growth outpaced population growth. The City’s household
growth rate of 81% exceeded the population growth rate of 70%. In the Sun City census area, a
phenomenal household growth rate of 328% exceeded a staggering population growth rate of
248%. These local trends paralleled national trends, although at much higher rates, in high growth
areas and reflected smaller households. In the Georgetown Housing Market Area (excluding the
Sun City census area), the 11-mile radius and Williamson County, household and population
growth rates grew in tandem.
Attachment number 2
Page 29 of 118
29
Housing Element
Since 2000, this trend has reversed and population growth has exceeded household
growth. The population in all areas has grown at a faster rate than the number of households. In
the City of Georgetown, for example, population increased 36% while households increased 32%.
In the HMA (excluding the Sun City census area), population increased 34% while households
grew 26%. Within the 11-mile radius, population increased 53% compared to a 43% increase in
households. Projected growth trends reveal smaller margins between population and household in
all areas by 2012. As a result, growth will continue but at a slower pace.
Figure 15. Change in Population and Household Growth Rates, 1990-2012
City of
Georgetown
Sun City census
area
Georgetown HMA
minus Sun City
census area 11-mile radius
Williamson
County
1990 to 2000 70% 248% 63% 87% 79%
2000 to 2007 36% 74% 34% 53% 46%
2007 to 2012 (projected) 18% 29% 17% 21% 19%
Population Growth Rates
Household Growth Rates
1990 to 2000 81% 328% 63% 89% 78%
2000 to 2007 32% 65% 26% 43% 37%
2007 to 2012 (projected) 16% 26% 14% 18% 16%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for Sun City census area, 11-mile radius, and all 2007 and 2012 data
These trends suggest a pent-up, or future, housing demand as indicated by a lagging household
growth rate, a surge in the school-age cohort of persons 5-19 years old, and an increasing
household size. Between 1990 and 2000, the average household size decreased in the City, the
HMA, the Sun City census area, and the 11-mile radius. But these trends appeared to have been
reversed by 2007 with average household size increasing in all areas. In the HMA, the 11-mile
radius and the County, the average household size exceeded the 1990-levels. By 2012, average
household size in these areas is projected to reach or exceed 3.00 persons per household, in
contrast to the City, the Sun City census area, the MSA, and the state where it will remain below
3.00 persons.
Figure 16. Trends in Average Household Size, 1990-2012
1990 2000 2007 2012
City of Georgetown 2.69 2.53 2.65 2.70
Georgetown HMA 2.78 2.75 2.93 3.00
Sun City census area 3.00 2.44 2.57 2.63
11-mile radius 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.16
Williamson County 2.81 2.82 3.04 3.13
Austin-Round Rock MSA 2.50 2.57 2.62 2.65
Texas 2.73 2.74 2.81 2.84
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for Sun City census area, 11-mile radius, and all 2007 and 2012 data
Attachment number 2
Page 30 of 118
30
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
ly
arried-
e
eir
omen in higher paying managerial and professional
specialty occupations is growing. Women earning higher incomes will support increased
household formation by single women.
In addition to increasing household size, the composition of households is changing from
traditional married-couple families to single-parent households and non-family households.
Overall, households containing both a husband and wife with children are declining while non-
family households (in which the members of a household are not related to each other) and single-
parent households are increasing. This trend has important implications for housing, particular
for those headed by a single parent. Single-parent households will have less income than m
couple households, thus impacting their ability to secure housing that is within their economic
means. The growth in single-parent family households creates the need for units that are
affordable to households with only one income. In addition, different household types have
different tenure patterns with married-couple households having the highest rate of hom
ownership followed by male-headed households. Female-headed households tend to own th
units at significantly lower rates. While women have traditionally worked in lower wage
occupations than men, the number of w
Figure 17.
Trends in Household Types, 1990-2012
City of Georgetown
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Married Couple
w/ Children Children w/o Children Ho
Single Parent w/Married Couple Non-family
useholds
1990
2000
2007
2012
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for all 2007 and 2012 data
Attachment number 2
Page 31 of 118
31
Housing Element
Figure 18.
Trends in Household Types, 1990-2012
Georgetown HMA
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Married Couple
w/ Children
Single Parent w/
Children
Married Couple
w/o Children
Non-family
Households
1990
2000
2007
2012
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for all 2007 and 2012 data
Figure 19.
Trends in Household Types, 1990-2012
11-mile radius
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0%
5%
Married Couple
w/ Children
Single Parent w/
Children
Married Couple
w/o Children
Non-family
Households
1990
2000
2007
2012
Source: DemographicsNow
Households are forecasted to continue to increase through 2012 but only at about half the
rate as in the previous five years. Over the next five years it is projected that household
growth in the City will increase 16% compared to an increase in population of 18%. In the Sun
City census area, population growth will outpace household growth 29% to 26%. Within both the
HMA (excluding the Sun City census area) and Williamson County, population growth will exceed
household growth by three percentage points.
Attachment number 2
Page 32 of 118
32
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 20. Household Growth Trends, 1990-2012
1990 2000
Average
Annual
Change
Percent
Change
from
1990-2000 2007
Average
Annual
Change
Percent
Change
from
2000-2007 2012
Average
Annual
Change
Percent
Change
from
2007-2012
City of Georgetown 5,730 10,389 466 81%13,748 480 32%15,999 450 16%
Sun City census area 917 3,922 301 328%6,481 366 65%8,142 332 26%
Georgetown HMA 8,391 16,102 771 92%21,860 823 36%25,695 767 18%
11-mile radius 22,665 42,784 2,012 89%61,145 2,623 43%72,006 2,172 18%
Williamson County 48,790 86,766 3,798 78%118,518 4,536 37%137,283 3,753 16%
Austin-Round Rock MSA 325,996 471,855 14,586 45%565,006 13,307 20%623,057 11,610 10%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for Sun City census area, 11-mile radius and all 2007 and 2012 data
Since 2000, new households have been added to the City and the HMA at higher annual
rates than during the 1990s. Between 1990 and 2000, the HMA increased by 7,711 new
households for an average annual rate of 771. Since 2000, this rate has increased to 823 new
households. In the City of Georgetown, households increased by 4,659 during the 1990s for an
average annual rate of 466. This rate also has increased since 2000 to 480 units annually. In
Williamson County, the rate of increase has risen from 3,798 households during the 1990s to
4,536. Household projections for 2012 forecast slower rates in all three areas. Still, significant
numbers of new households are expected.
About 60% of all new household growth since 1990 has occurred in the City of
Georgetown. Of the 7,711 households added to the HMA between 1990 and 2000, 4,659 (60%)
were located in the City of Georgetown. Of the 5,758 new households added since 2000, 3,359
(58%) were in the City.
Forecasts through 2012 anticipate a continuing increase in household growth, adding fuel to the
demand for housing. However, the rate of household growth is projected to slow to 16% in the
City and 18% in the HMA.
Attachment number 2
Page 33 of 118
33
Housing Element
4. Housing Profile
Housing Inventory
The driving force behind the construction industry in the Georgetown HMA is Sun City
Texas. New housing construction in the Sun City census area accounted for 70% of all new
residential units in the City and 41% of all new units in the Georgetown HMA between 1990 and
2000. Within the City of Georgetown, over 4,500 housing units were added to the total inventory.
Of these, 3,159 units were developed in the Sun City census area. The total housing inventory in
the Georgetown HMA increased more than 82% between 1990 and 2000 with the creation of over
7,600 units. The Sun City units represented 41% of all new units in the HMA.
Within the Georgetown 11-mile radius, a total of 19,324 units were added to the housing stock
during the 1990s. This represented an average annual gain of 1,932 units and an increase of more
than 77% in the total housing inventory. New construction within the Georgetown HMA
represented 40% of all new housing within the 11-mile radius.
Estimates for 2007 reveal a regional housing market that has continued to expand.
Between 2000 and 2007, more than 4,000 units were added to the City of Georgetown’s housing
stock, almost as many as were added during the entire decade of the 1990s. Similar trends were
noted in the Georgetown HMA and the Sun City census area. Overall, new housing construction
within the 11-mile radius and across Williamson County added more units to the regional
inventory than was added during the entire previous decade. This was also the case within the
Austin-Round Rock MSA.
Figure 21. Growth in Housing Inventory, 1990-2007
Number
Average
Annual
Gain Percent Number
Average
Annual
Gain Percent
Change 1990-2000 Change 2000-2007
1990 2000 2007
City of Georgetown 6,344 10,878 4,534 453 71.5% 14,931 4,053 579 37.3%
Georgetown HMA 9,232 16,870 7,638 764 82.7% 23,745 6,875 982 40.8%
Sun City census area 1,016 4,175 3,159 316 310.9% 7,153 2,978 425 71.3%
11-mile radius 25,050 44,374 19,324 1,932 77.1% 65,836 21,462 3,066 48.4%
Williamson County 54,466 90,325 35,859 3,586 65.8% 127,934 37,609 5,373 41.6%
Austin-Round Rock MSA 370,307 496,004 125,697 12,570 33.9% 625,887 129,883 18,555 26.2%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data for City of Georgetown, Georgetown HMA, Williamson County and Austin-Round Rock MSA; DemographicsNow
for all other data
The continued demand for new housing has been driven by the expanding economy and
new residents relocating to the area. Since 2000, the labor force age cohort consisting of
persons between the ages of 25 and 44 more than doubled from 10,289 to 25,055 persons in the
Georgetown HMA. As a result, the demand for new housing remained high to accommodate
these households. In addition, the demand for new units in Sun City Texas continued to reflect
the relocation of new residents 45 years and older from outside the region.
The single family detached housing unit remains the predominant housing type available.
Detached single family dwellings represented more than three-quarters of the housing inventory in
Georgetown, the HMA and within the 11-mile radius. In the City of Georgetown, attached single
family homes (duplexes) accounted for only 2.3% of the housing stock while all multi-family units
Attachment number 2
Page 34 of 118
34
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
represented 17.6% of the inventory. As a percentage of the total housing stock, Georgetown had
the most multi-family units. The number of multi-family units in the City (1,901) comprised 79%
of the total number of multi-family units in the HMA (2,394). Of the 6,980 multi-family units
within the 11-mile radius, 5,014 (72%) are located in Round Rock.
Figure 22. Types of Housing Units, 2000
1-unit, detached 8,590 13,549 34,441 68,604
% of Total 79.0% 80.3% 77.6% 76.0%
1-unit, attached 245 320 1,308 2,187
% of Total 2.3% 1.9% 2.9% 2.4%
2 to 4 units 855 1,022 2,587 4,992
% of Total 7.9% 6.1% 5.8% 5.5%
5 to 9 units 354 474 1,253 2,785
% of Total 3.3% 2.8% 2.8% 3.1%
10 to 19 units 282 384 1,057 2,866
% of Total 2.6% 2.3% 2.4% 3.2%
20 or more units 410 514 2,083 4,222
% of Total 3.8% 3.0% 4.7% 4.7%
Mobile home units 123 564 1,579 4,571
% of Total 1.1% 3.3% 3.6% 5.1%
Boat, RV, van 19436698
% of Total 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
Total Units 2000 10,878 100.0% 16,870 100.0% 44,374 100.0%90,325 100.0%
City of
Georgetown
Georgetown
HMA
Williamson
County11-mile radius
Total Units 1990 6,344 9,232 25,050 54,466
% Change 1990-2000 71.5% 82.7% 77.1% 65.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Much of the housing need in
the Georgetown Housing
Market Area has been
addressed through the
development of new single
family residential
subdivisions.
Attachment number 2
Page 35 of 118
35
Housing Element
More than two-thirds of all new housing is owner-occupied. Of the 37,609 new housing
units constructed across the County between 2000 and 2007, 21,476 were identified as owner-
occupied while 10,276 were identified as rental units. This ratio of two owner units to every rental
unit was also found in the City of Georgetown, in the Georgetown HMA and within the 11-mile
radius. In the Sun City census area, however, owner units accounted for 85% of the net increase
in housing.
Figure 23. Net Increase in Housing Units by Tenure, 2000-2007
Net Increase
Owner-Occupied
Units
Net Increase
Renter-Occupied
Units
Total Occupied Total Total
City of Georgetown 4,053 3,359 2,310 1,049
Georgetown HMA 6,875 5,758 4,037 1,721
Sun City census area 2,978 2,559 2,178 381
Net Increase
Housing Units
11-mile radius 21,462 18,360 12,821 5,539
Williamson County 37,609 31,752 21,476 10,276
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 2000 data for City of Georgetown, Georgetown HMA and Williamson County; DemographicsNow for all other data
More than half of the increase in the rental housing inventory is comprised of assisted
units developed for lower income family and elderly households. Since 2000, four new
multi-family residential communities have been constructed in Georgetown. These include San
Gabriel Senior Village (100 age-restricted units), Georgetown Place (106 family units), Mariposa
(201 age-restricted units) and Cypress Creek (180 family units). These 587 new rental units
account for 56% of the increase in the rental housing inventory over the last seven years. All of
these units were developed through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program,
which provides quality and affordable housing to households earning less than 80% of the area
median income.
New townhouses have been
constructed in Old Town, adjacent
to downtown Georgetown. These
units reflect an overall design that
is compatible with local
architecture and a pedestrian
scale.
Attachment number 2
Page 36 of 118
36
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The vibrant housing market of the 1990s met the demands of an expanding labor force and
new residents. As a result, the homeowner vacancy rate decreased from 3.5% to 2.1% in
the City of Georgetown. This occurred in spite of an increase in the number of vacant-for-sale
units in the City. By comparison, the housing market for Williamson County overall tightened
substantially with a decrease in the homeowner vacancy rate from 4.5% to 1.2% during the same
period. Conditions during the 1990s, including affordable home prices, a growing economy and
higher wage jobs, converged to create more homeowners and eliminate many of the vacant units
on the market.5
Generally, a homeowner vacancy rate between 3% and 5% of the sales housing inventory is
preferable because it allows some mobility and flexibility for households that are moving. A low
rate of vacant-for-sale-only units impacts the affordability of housing because of a lower number
of available units on the market at any given time, which causes a rise in home prices due to
demand exceeding a limited supply.
Figure 24. Trends in Homeowner Vacancy Rates, 1990-2000
Total Occupied Total Percent
Vacant Units
For Sale
Only
Homeowner
Vacancy Rate
City of Georgetown 6,344 5,730 3,554 62.0% 131 3.5%
Sun City census area na na na na na na
Georgetown HMA na na na na na na
11-mile radius na na na na na na
Williamson County 54,463 48,792 31,210 64.0% 1,499 4.5%
City of Georgetown 10,878 10,389 7,573 72.9% 160 2.1%
Sun City census area 4,175 3,922 3,755 95.7% 120 3.1%
Owner-occupied Units
1990
2000
Housing Units
Georgetown HMA 16,870 16,102 12,474 77.5% 236 1.8%
11-mile radius na na na na na na
Williamson County 90,325 86,766 67,939 78.3% 820 1.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The rental vacancy rate also decreased, falling more than 50% during the 1990s even with a 30%
increase in the rental housing inventory in the City of Georgetown. In other words, renter
households absorbed a significant portion of the existing vacant units as well as many of the newly
constructed units. This tightening of the rental market occurred as a result of new job growth that
stimulated significant in-migration of new households. By 2000, only 121 vacant rental units were
identified in Georgetown. A similar trend occurred in the County overall where the rental vacancy
rate fell more than 50% while the rental housing inventory increased 27%.
Generally, a rental vacancy rate of 5% to 9% is preferred because it allows mobility and greater
choice for households that are moving. A lower rental vacancy rate exerts upward pressure on
rents, negatively impacting the ability of lower income households to find affordable housing
5 U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Analysis of the Austin-Round Rock, Texas Housing Market
(Washington, D.C., 2004).
Attachment number 2
Page 37 of 118
37
Housing Element
because of a small number of available units in the marketplace at any given time. By 2000, the
rental housing market in all areas of Williamson County had tightened substantially with only 876
units identified as vacant and for rent.
Figure 25. Trends in Rental Housing Vacancies, 1990-2000
Total Occupied Total Percent Vacant Units
Rental
Vacancy
Rate
City of Georgetown 6,344 5,730 2,176 38.0% 225 9.1%
Sun City census area na na na na na na
Georgetown HMA na na na na na na
11-mile radius na na na na na na
Williamson County 54,463 48,792 17,582 36.0% 1,699 8.6%
City of Georgetown 10,878 10,389 2,816 27.1% 121 4.0%
Sun City census area 4,175 3,922 167 4.3% 13 6.3%
Georgetown HMA 16,870 16,102 3,508 21.8% 132 3.5%
1990
2000
Rental UnitsHousing Units
11-mile radius na na na na na na
Williamson County 90,325 86,766 22,386 25.8% 876 3.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The tight housing market of 2000 and an expanding economy spurred increased housing
production that outpaced demand. Amidst such low vacancy rates in the housing market, it is
not unexpected that housing construction would increase to produce more units to address pent-
up demand. However, 2007 estimates of the overall number of vacant housing units indicate an
increasing inventory.
The rapidly expanding housing inventory, coupled with a lagging household growth rate, produced
vacancy rates that moved towards historic norms in the region. An overall vacancy rate of 4.5%
was reported in 2000 in both the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown HMA. The Sun City
census area accounted for one-third of all vacant units within the HMA and represented the
highest overall vacancy rate in the region at 6.1%. Rates were slightly lower in both the 11-mile
radius and Williamson County. However, these overall vacancy rates are approaching the historic
norms for 1990, and in some cases, 1980. Furthermore, the local rates remain lower than the
overall vacancy rates for the MSA and the state.
Attachment number 2
Page 38 of 118
38
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 26.
Housing Vacancy Trends, 1980-2007
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
1980 1990 2000 2007
City of Georgetown
Williamson County
Austin MSA
Te xa s
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1980-2000 data; DemographicsNow for 2007 data
Estimates for 2007 indicate a softening housing market with higher overall vacancy rates
in all areas. In the City of Georgetown, the total number of vacant units rose 142% from 489 to
1,183 units. In the HMA, vacancies increased 149% from 758 to 1,885 units. In the Sun City
census area, where the rate rose 166%, the number of vacant units increased from 253 to 672
units. A similar rate was noted in the County. Within the 11-mile radius, the housing vacancy rate
nearly tripled in seven years from 1,589 to 4,691 units.
Attachment number 2
Page 39 of 118
39
Housing Element
Figure 27. Overall Housing Vacancies, 2000-2007
#%
City of Georgetown 10,878 489 4.5%
Georgetown HMA 16,860 758 4.5%
Sun City census area 4,175 253 6.1%
Georgetown 11-mile Radius 44,374 1,589 3.6%
Williamson County 90,325 3,559 3.9%
Austin-Round Rock MSA 496,004 24,149 4.9%
Texas 8,157,575 764,221 9.4%
City of Georgetown 14,931 1,183 7.9%
Georgetown HMA 23,745 1,885 7.9%
Sun City census area 7,153 672 9.4%
Georgetown 11-mile Radius 65,836 4,691 7.1%
Williamson County 127,934 9,416 7.4%
Austin-Round Rock MSA 625,887 60,881 9.7%
Texas 9,357,245 1,156,392 12.4%
Notes:
1. Vacancy status of units (owner versus renter) is not available with 2007 data estimates.
2. Total vacancy rate is calculated as the total number of vacant units divided by total
housing units.
3. Total vacancy rates, while calculated differently than rental or homeowner vacancy rates,
can provide an indication of the increase or decrease in the total number of vacant housing
2000
2007
Total Housing Units
Total Vacant Units
units in a market.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 2000 data for City of Georgetown, Georgetown HMA and Williamson County; DemographicsNow for all other data
A softening housing market is further indicated by a decrease in new single family
building permits. Between 2000 and 2003, the annual number of residential building permits
issued by the City of Georgetown (within the City limits) decreased from a high of 892 to 568.
Beginning in 2004, the market picked up as indicated by a rapid increase in permits, issued
primarily in Sun City. This level of activity peaked in 2006 with the issuance of 1,177 permits.
Activity fell sharply in 2007 when a total of 874 permits were issued. Preliminary data for 2008
reveal a continuing decline with only 275 permits issued during the first five months of the year.
This is significantly lower than the number of permits issued for the first five months in 2007
(411) and 2006 (561).
Attachment number 2
Page 40 of 118
40
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 28.
Single Family Residential Permits Issued
City of Georgetown, 1990-2007
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007
Source: City of Georgetown
High vacancy rates will exert more downward pressure on home prices. Rising vacancy
rates are also evidence of a potential slowing in the home-building industry as developers try to sell
their stock of vacant units. For homebuyers, particularly those of more modest means, an
oversupply of sales homes can translate into more affordable housing opportunities. Renters can
also benefit from this situation as some for-sale units may be placed on the rental market, thereby
exerting more downward pressure on rents in the region as the rental inventory increases.
Detailed analysis of the affordability of housing units is included in Part 8.
The situation in Georgetown is mirroring national trends. On a national level, builders
constructed far more homes between 2002 and 2006 than could possibly be absorbed by the
normal growth in households. Now, with tightening credit standards, most homebuilders do not
want to get caught with too much product on the market. As a result, housing construction
activity has slowed significantly. This, according to some analysts, is the beginning of a housing
market ripe for first-time homebuyers. As first-time homebuyers enter the market, they purchase
not only new homes but existing homes, which, in turn, enable the sellers to move up to bigger
homes. And many of those bigger homes have lower sales prices than a year ago. As sales begin
to exceed new production, homebuilding activity will pick up.6
6 Shawn Tully, "On the Path to a Housing Rebound," CNNMoney.com, 2 July 2008.
Attachment number 2
Page 41 of 118
41
Housing Element
Housing Tenure
Home ownership rates have fallen across the region in spite of an increase in the number
of home owners. Without exception, the home ownership rates have simultaneously declined in
all areas while the number of home owners has increased between 2000 and 2007. This trend is
further evidence of increasing vacancies, as well as increasing rental inventories, in the housing
market. For example, the total housing inventory in the City of Georgetown increased by 4,053
units. Of these, 2,310 were owner units and 1,049 were rental units. The remaining 694 units
(17% of the increase) were identified as vacant units in 2007.
The number of total vacant housing units has more than doubled since 2000. The
expanding housing market has produced higher numbers of vacant housing units in all areas. In
the Sun City census area and the Georgetown 11-mile radius, the total number of vacant housing
units has nearly tripled since 2000.
Figure 29. Tenure, 2000-2007
Total Occupied Number Percent* Number Percent* Number Percent**
City of Georgetown 10,878 10,389 7,573 72.9% 2,816 27.1% 489 4.5%
Georgetown HMA 16,870 15,982 12,474 78.1% 3,508 21.9% 758 4.5%
Sun City census area 4,175 3,922 3,755 95.7% 167 4.3% 253 6.1%
11-mile radius 44,374 42,784 32,134 75.1% 10,650 24.9% 1,589 3.6%
Williamson County 90,325 86,766 64,380 74.2% 22,386 25.8%3,559 3.9%
City of Georgetown 14,931 13,748 9,883 71.9% 3,865 28.1% 1,183 7.9%
Georgetown HMA 23,745 21,860 16,511 75.5% 5,349 24.5% 1,885 7.9%
Sun City census area 7,153 6,481 5,933 91.5% 548 8.5% 672 9.4%
Vacant Units
2000
2007
Housing Units Renter-Occupied UnitsOwner-Occupied Units
11-mile radius 65,836 61,145 44,956 73.5% 16,189 26.5% 4,691 7.1%
Williamson County 127,934 118,518 85,856 72.4% 32,662 27.6% 9,416 7.4%
*Calculated as a percent of total occupied units.
**Calculated as a percent of total units.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 2000 data for City of Georgetown, Georgetown HMA and Williamson County; DemographicsNow for all other data
Rental occupancy rates are highest in the City of Georgetown while home ownership rates
are highest in the Sun City census area. Characteristics of home owners and renters by age of
the householders include the following:
x The youngest households are predominantly renters.
x Typically, as householders complete their education, obtain full-time employment and age
into their 30s, the rate of homeownership begins to rise. This is the trend in all areas
except the City of Georgetown where more renters than owners are found among the 25-
34 age cohort.
x By age 35, homeownership rates are higher than renter rates in all areas.
x By age 45, renter rates begin to fall significantly and continue decreasing as householders
age.
Attachment number 2
Page 42 of 118
42
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
x Homeownership rates are highest in the Sun City census area. More notably,
homeownership among householders 55 to 84 is higher than among older age cohorts
elsewhere. This can be attributed to the age-restricted concept of the Sun City
development.
x Rental rates are highest in the City of Georgetown and are most notably higher among
householders age 45 to 74 within the City than the other geographic areas. This could be
attributed to the assisted rental housing available in the City for persons 55 and older.
Figure 30. Tenure by Age of Householder, 2000
% Own % Rent % Own % Rent % Own % Rent % Own % Rent
15 to 24 0.5% 4.8% 0.6% 3.2% 0.3% 0.1% 1.1% 3.4%
25 to 34 6.8% 8.9% 9.0% 6.4% 5.7% 0.9% 14.2% 8.5%
35 to 44 12.5% 7.3% 17.6% 5.3% 15.1% 0.8% 22.8% 6.6%
45 to 54 12.6% 4.4% 16.9% 3.3% 14.8% 0.9% 16.7% 3.7%
55 to 64 12.5% 2.1% 13.4% 1.6% 20.6% 0.7% 9.2% 1.5%
65 to 74 13.8% 1.7% 11.9% 1.2% 25.4% 0.5% 6.0% 0.9%
75 to 84 8.8% 1.6% 6.9% 1.1% 12.9% 0.3% 3.4% 0.8%
%0.9%0.1%0.7%0.4%
95.7% 4.3% 74.2% 25.8%
Williamson CountyAge of
Householder
City of Georgetown Georgetown HMA Sun City census area
85 and older 1.3%0.6%1.0%0.4
All Households 72.9% 27.1% 78.1% 21.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
White households were more likely to be home owners than minority households.
Hispanic households had the highest rates of home ownership among all minorities in all areas,
with higher rates in the City of Georgetown. The lowest minority home ownership rate was found
in the Sun City census area.
Many older residential structures
in Georgetown have been
rehabilitated, thereby preserving
local historical architecture and
structurally-sound housing units.
Attachment number 2
Page 43 of 118
43
Housing Element
Figure 31. Tenure by Race and Ethnicity, 2000
% Own % Rent % Own % Rent % Own % Rent % Own % Rent
White 64.5% 24.5% 72.5% 18.1% 93.4% 4.0% 65.2% 20.5%
Black 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2% 0.4% 0.0% 2.9% 1.9%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%
Asian 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 1.5% 0.5%
Native Hawaiian 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Some Other Race Alone 2.6% 3.3% 2.3% 2.5% 0.8% 0.1% 3.3% 2.2%
Two or More Races 0.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.9% 0.5%
Hispanic 5.9% 6.7% 5.5% 4.7% 3.2% 0.3% 7.9% 5.0%
Note: Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Williamson County
Race of Householder
City of Georgetown Georgetown HMA Sun City census area
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Assisted Housing Inventory
In addition to the private housing market, there is a substantial privately assisted housing inventory
in the Georgetown HMA. Privately assisted housing is privately-owned but affordable due to the
funding source used to develop the housing units. (This type of subsidized housing differs from
public housing that is owned by a government entity.) Eligible resident households typically
include those who are elderly (either 55 or 62 years of age or older), low income (80% of median
income or less), or disabled. Financing for these affordable units typically comes from state and
federal sources such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC); the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Section 515 Program; HUD’s Section 202 (elderly), Section 811
(disabled), and Section 236 and Section 221(d) (family) Programs.
As previously stated, there are 587 units of privately assisted housing for family and elderly
households in the Georgetown HMA.
Public housing is also available in Georgetown through the Georgetown Housing Authority. The
Authority administers and manages 158 units of public housing, 60 units of Section 8-funded
units, and 87 vouchers through the Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly the Section 8
Rental Assistance Program).
Stonehaven Apartments, the only public housing community in Georgetown, is comprised of
158 units on 25 acres located in the heart of the City. The complex provides both family and
elderly units in an attractive and quiet neighborhood environment. The unique stone exteriors of
the buildings were designed by a professor at Southwestern University and feature locally quarried
stone. The complex is very well-maintained. There is a waiting list of approximately 190
households for Stonehaven.
Shady Oaks Apartments was acquired by the Authority in 1970 and was originally developed
under the former Section 8 New Construction Program. There are 60 units of family housing with
a waiting list of approximately 80 families. Currently, the Authority is renewing the rental
assistance contract with HUD to operate and manage the units for another 20 years, thereby
preserving 60 units of affordable housing in the City. The Authority is also preparing for the
major rehabilitation of all 60 units. This project will be financed from tax equity at a cost of
approximately $60,000 per unit. Each unit will be completely renovated and updated with the
project occurring in five phases of 12 units each.
Attachment number 2
Page 44 of 118
44
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The Housing Choice Voucher Program administered by the Housing Authority provides rental
assistance vouchers to 87 low income households. The vouchers enable the households to find
rental apartments throughout the area and pay no more than 30% of their monthly income for
rent. Currently, there are 30 participating landlords and the Authority is trying to increase this
number. The demand for this housing assistance program is demonstrated by its lengthy waiting
list of approximately 190 households and its low annual turnover of about 9 households. As a
result, the Authority accepts applications from new households only every two years.
Nearly one-third of the rental housing inventory in the City of Georgetown is privately
assisted housing. There are 3,418 privately assisted rental housing units throughout Williamson
County. Of these, 1,164 units are located in the City of Georgetown and the remaining 2,254 are
located within the 11-mile radius and across the County. These units comprise 30% of the City’s
total rental inventory and 10% of the County’s total rental inventory, respectively.
Stonehaven Apartments is a 158-
unit public housing community in
Georgetown located in a quiet
neighborhood. Locally quarried
stone is a distinguishing feature of
the family and elderly units.
(Photo provided by Georgetown
Housing Authority)
Attachment number 2
Page 45 of 118
45
Housing Element
Figure 32. Privately assisted Housing Inventory in Williamson County
Total Units
Affordable
Units** Program
Georgetown Place Apartments 176 106 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Georgetown Square Apartments 55 55 Section 8; Section 236
Hill Country Apartments, Georgetown 60 10 Farmers Home Administration
Northwest Apartments, Georgetown 24 24 Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Farmers Home Administration
The Oaks at Georgetown 192 192 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Parkview Place 176 176 HOME
San Gabriel Senior Village 100 100 Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Farmers Home Administration
Mariposa 201 201 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Cypress Creek 180 180 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Totals 1,164 1,044
Apple Creek, Round Rock 176 62 Resolution Trust Corporation
Burnett Place Apartments, Taylor 72 54 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Poetzsch Street, Bartlett 6 6 Farmers Home Administration
Cedar Park Townhomes, Cedar Park 220 132 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Cedar Ridge Apartments, Leander 80 80 HOME
Chisolm Trail, Round Rock 50 50 Section 8; Section 221 (d)(3)
Crystal Falls Village, Leander 36 36 Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Farmers Home Administration
Cypress Creek at Lakeline Apts, Cedar Park 236 236 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Florence Hearthstone, Florence 10 7 Farmers Home Administration
Grace Place Apartments, Taylor 40 40 Farmers Home Administration
Harmon Oaks, Leander 24 24 Texas Low Income Housing Trust Fund
Henna Townhomes, Round Rock 161 160 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Main Street Square Apts, Round Rock 100 35 Resolution Trust Corporation
Mallard Run Apartments, Round Rock 40 14 Resolution Trust Corporation
Meadow Ridge Apts, Round Rock 232 95 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Pecos Street Apartments, Granger 14 14 Farmers Home Administration
The Ranch at Cedar Park 180 180 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Red Hills Villas, Round Rock 168 168 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Rock Terrace Apartments, Jarrell 12 3 Farmers Home Administration
Round Rock Oak Grove Apts. 24 24 Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Farmers Home Administration
Stepping Stone Apartments, Taylor 44 44 Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Farmers Home Administration
Tamaric Apartments, Cedar Park 24 24 Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Farmers Home Administration
Taylor Square Apartments 52 52 Farmers Home Administration
Trinity Place, Round Rock 68 68 Section 8; Section 202
Village Oak Apartments, Round Rock 23 23 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Volente Villas, Cedar Park 90 90 Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Whitestone Apartments, Cedar Park 40 40 Low Income Housing Tax Credit; Farmers Home Administration
Sunrise Road, Round Rock 32 32 HOME
Totals 2,254 1,793
**Rent paid by tenant is equal to or less than 30% of income.
City of Georgetown
Williamson County *
*Includes all assisted housing units located in Williamson County outside the City of Georgetown; this area approximates the 11-mile radius.
Source: Guide to Affordable Housing in the Greater Austin Area (2007); U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Low Income Housing Tax Credit
Database (2008)
Physical Condition of Housing
Census data provides certain indicators relative to the condition of the local housing stock. Three
factors can be evaluated: age of the structure, degree of overcrowding and lack of complete
plumbing facilities.
The age of a residential structure demonstrates the time the unit has been in the inventory and the
duration of time over which substantial maintenance is necessary. The age threshold commonly
used to signal a potential deficiency is represented by the year built with units that are 50 years old
or over (i.e. built prior to 1960) used as the threshold. However, the age of the structure alone
cannot be used exclusively to determine the condition of housing. Many older units are well-
maintained. Older units, however, have a greater need for maintenance, including replacement of
Attachment number 2
Page 46 of 118
46
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
expensive building systems. Newer housing units that have bigger rooms and modern amenities
generally have higher sales values reflecting a preference for newer units. Geographic locations
with a variety of new housing types are more attractive to new households, but generally less
affordable to lower income households.
Another variable used to identify housing condition is overcrowding, which is directly related to
the wear and tear sustained by the residential structure. Occupancy at levels greater than one
person per room (1.01) is used by the Census Bureau as the threshold for defining living
conditions as substandard. Finally, a lack of complete plumbing facilities is identified as a variable
with the sharing of facilities between households used as an index of deficient housing conditions.
The housing inventory of Georgetown is relatively new. Only 10.5% of the housing stock in
the City of Georgetown was built prior to 1960. In the Georgetown HMA and the Sun City
census area, recent new housing developments are reflected in lower rates of units built before
1960.
Figure 33. Housing Units Built Prior to 1960
City of
Georgetown
Georgetown
HMA
Sun City
census area
Williamson
County
Total Occupied Units 10,430 16,113 3,898 86,766
Owner Occupied Units 7,241 12,474 3,721 64,391
Built Prior to 1960 682 791 52 4,280
Renter Occupied Units 3,189 3,639 177 22,375
Built Prior to 1960 410 495 51 2,159
Total Occupied Units Built Prior to 1960 1,092 1,286 103 6,439
% of Total Occupied Units 10.5% 8.0% 2.6% 7.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
More rental units than owner units are overcrowded. Across the Georgetown HMA, 636
units were identified as overcrowded, accounting for 3.9% of the occupied housing stock. Renter-
occupied units were almost twice as likely as owner-occupied units to be overcrowded. The City
of Georgetown had the highest rate of overcrowded units at 5%; overcrowded rental units
outnumbered overcrowded owner units by almost three to one. Lower rates of overcrowding
occurred in the same areas with newer housing units. In the Sun City census area, where only
2.6% of the units were built prior to 1960, only 1.3% of the units were overcrowded.
Attachment number 2
Page 47 of 118
47
Housing Element
Figure 34. Overcrowded Housing Units, 2000
City of
Georgetown
Georgetown
HMA
Sun City
census area
Williamson
County
Total Occupied Units 10,430 16,113 3,898 86,766
Owner Occupied Units 7,241 12,474 3,721 64,391
Overcrowded Units 134 219 29 1,651
Renter Occupied Units 3,189 3,639 177 22,375
Overcrowded Units 383 417 20 2,053
Total Overcrowded Units 517 636 49 3,704
% of Total Occupied Units 5.0% 3.9% 1.3% 4.3%
Note: Overcrowded units are occupied housing units with 1.01 or more persons per room.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Only a handful of housing units lacked complete plumbing facilities. Only 0.1% of the
occupied housing stock within the Georgetown HMA was identified as lacking complete plumbing
facilities. Most notably, only owner-occupied units were identified as deficient within the entire
HMA. Across Williamson County, only 0.3% of all occupied units were deficient, and within this
category, owner-occupied units outnumbered renter-occupied units by more than two to one.
Figure 35. Occupied Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities, 2000
City of
Georgetown
Georgetown
HMA
Sun City
census area
Williamson
County
Total Occupied Units 10,430 16,113 3,898 86,766
Owner Occupied Units 7,241 12,474 3,721 64,391
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 5 18 7 175
Renter Occupied Units 3,189 3,639 177 22,375
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 0 0 0 83
Total Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 5 18 7 258
% of Total Occupied Units 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3%
Note: Complete plumbing facilities include (a) hot and cold piped water; (b) a flush toilet; and (c) a bathtub or shower.
All three facilities must be located in the housing unit.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
The following chart summarizes the housing conditions in 2000 (i.e. units built prior to 1960,
overcrowded units, and units lacking complete plumbing facilities) for owner- and renter-occupied
housing units within the Georgetown HMA.
Attachment number 2
Page 48 of 118
48
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 36. Summary of Housing Conditions, 2000
City of
Georgetown
Georgetown
HMA
Sun City
census area
Williamson
County
Total Occupied Units 10,430 16,113 3,898 86,766
Owner Occupied Units 682 791 52 4,280
Renter Occupied Units 410 495 51 2,159
Owner Occupied Units 134 219 29 1,651
Renter Occupied Units 383 417 20 2,053
Owner Occupied Units 5 18 7 175
Renter Occupied Units 0 0 0 83
Total 1,614 1,940 159 10,401
% of Total Occupied Units 15.5% 12.0% 4.1% 12.0%
Units Built Prior to 1960
Overcrowded Units
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Locally, the City of Georgetown enforces a property maintenance code and a dangerous structure
ordinance. As a matter of enforcement, the City issues a written notice of violation to a property
owner which describes the deficiency and establishes a date when the deficiency must be
corrected. If the deficiency is not corrected by the deadline, the City issues a citation and the
complaint is heard in municipal court. The City’s emphasis is on customer service and keeping
neighborhoods safe, therefore, citations are rarely issued. It is more often a matter of owners not
being able to afford to make the code corrections than a matter of resisting compliance.
The process is complaint-driven but code officers will look for additional code violations in the
immediate neighborhood when following through on a complaint. Frequently, locating an
absentee landlord to serve notice of a violation can be an obstacle to timely resolution of
complaints. The City now provides bilingual notices in English and Spanish.
Code violations are typically concentrated in several neighborhoods: San Jose, from 15th Street
south to 20th Street in the south end, the area of Hart Street/Forest Street/Timber Street
(exclusive of public housing), Creekside/Katy Lane, Hedgewood/Algerita Drive and Scenic Drive.
Code enforcement staff has observed steady decline in these neighborhoods as more absentee
landlords acquire investment properties but are not interested in quality long-term investment in
the neighborhoods.
Attachment number 2
Page 49 of 118
49
Housing Element
5. Economic Profile
Economic trends are important to the understanding of the housing market because of the
relationship between jobs, income and housing. An area that is adding jobs attracts new
households. Conversely, an area that is declining as an employment center might lose population
and households over time. Trends in employment and wages impact housing demand and supply.
The following discussion of the Georgetown area’s current economic trends and projections for
future employment and income growth provides the basis for later discussion of housing
affordability.
Labor Force and Unemployment
The regional economy of Williamson County is stronger than the state and national economies.
For the past decade, the County’s annual unemployment rate has been lower than the national rate
and significantly lower than the state rate. However, nearly three-fourths of the jobs in
Williamson County are in the service sector industries that pay the lowest wages. Moreover,
projections indicate future job growth will occur in the sectors that have experienced minimal
increases or actual decline in wages over the last five years. Growth in lower-skill, lower-wage jobs
will continue to exert demand for lower cost housing to support the area’s predominantly service
industry workforce.
Williamson County’s labor force has expanded to accommodate a growing economy, but
the number of unemployed persons has also increased. Between 1998 and 2007, Williamson
County’s civilian labor force increased 42% from 136,000 to 194,200. The number of employed
persons increased 40% from 134,000 to 187,000. However, the number of unemployed persons
more than doubled, increasing 177% from 2,600 to 7,200. Beginning in 2000, the number of
unemployed persons began increasing annually until peaking at 9,600 in 2003. Since that time,
unemployment has fallen to 7,200. Similarly, the unemployment rate peaked at 5.7% in 2003 and
has since fallen to 3.7% in 2007.
Figure 37. Williamson County Civilian Labor Force, 1998-2007
Civilian Labor Force Total Employed Total Unemployed Unemployment Rate
1998 136,600 134,000 2,600 1.9%
1999 148,500 146,000 2,500 1.6%
2000 144,800 140,800 4,000 2.8%
2001 153,600 147,300 6,300 4.1%
2002 160,500 151,400 9,100 5.6%
2003 165,600 156,000 9,600 5.7%
2004 172,000 164,000 8,000 4.7%
2005 180,700 172,500 8,200 4.6%
2006 189,400 181,400 8,000 4.2%
2007 194,200 187,000 7,200 3.7%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Attachment number 2
Page 50 of 118
50
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
While Williamson County’s unemployment rate has paralleled trends in the U.S. and
Texas since 2001, the County’s rates have consistently been lower than national and state
rates. The margin below the national rate has been as high as 2.6% in 1999. After peaking at
5.7% in 2003, the County’s unemployment rate has slowly been receding once again, falling to
3.7% in 2007. This recent downward trend also paralleled national and state trends.
Figure 38.
Unemployment Trends, 1999 to 2007
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Williamson County
Te xa s
U.S.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Regionally, Williamson County had one of the lowest unemployment rates in 2007. With
the exception of Bell and Caldwell counties, the counties adjacent to Williamson County as well as
those included in the Austin-Round Rock MSA had lower unemployment rates than the state rate
of 4.3% and the national rate of 4.6% in 2007.
Attachment number 2
Page 51 of 118
51
Housing Element
Figure 39.
Comparison of County Unemployment Rates, 2007
3.6%3.7% 3.7%
4.1%4.2%4.3%4.5%
3.5%3.5%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%BurnetLeeTra visWillia msonHaysBastropMilamCaldwellBellSurrounding Counties
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
U
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Employment by Industry
Georgetown’s largest major employers include county and local governments, education services
(Georgetown Independent School District and Southwestern University), health care (St. David’s
Hospital and Wesleyan Homes), manufacturing (Airborn, Inc.) and construction (Del Webb’s Sun
City). Total employment in Williamson County increased 42.5% between 2003 and 2007. Over
42,000 jobs were added during that period, bringing total employment up to 141,219.
Almost three-quarters of all employment involves service-providing jobs. In Williamson
County, 73% of all employment is found in the service-providing sectors of private business.
Within the private sector, which provides 87% of all jobs, service-providing industries account for
84% of employment compared to goods-producing industries which account for 16%.
Retail Trade employs the highest number of persons (17,251) and accounts for 14% of all private
sector jobs. The Arts/Entertainment/Recreation sector employs 12,437 persons and accounts for
10.2% of all private sector jobs, while Wholesale Trade employs 12,142 persons and accounts for
another 10% of private sector jobs. Local, state and federal government employ nearly 19,000
persons in the County.
Attachment number 2
Page 52 of 118
52
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 40. Total Employment by Industry for Williamson County, 2003-2007
Number Percent
Total Employment: All Industries 99,102 103,179 120,192 127,216 141,219 42,117 42.5%
PRIVATE BUSINESS 84,578 88,020 104,243 110,506 122,338 37,760 44.6%
Goods-Producing Industries 14,678 14,560 16,966 18,040 18,985 4,307 29.3%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 542 608 725 806 893 351 64.8%
Mining, Quarrying, Oil/Gas Extraction 509 461 621 708 794 285 56.0%
Construction 7,177 7,063 8,399 9,400 10,176 2,999 41.8%
Manufacturing 6,450 6,428 7,221 7,126 7,122 672 10.4%
Service-Providing Industries 69,900 73,460 87,277 92,466 103,353 33,453 47.9%
Wholesale Trade 11,267 11,146 11,509 10,871 12,142 875 7.8%
Retail Trade 10,213 10,776 14,822 15,895 17,251 7,038 68.9%
Transportation, Warehousing 474 511 581 801 841 367 77.4%
Utilities 271 275 272 268 279 8 3.0%
Information 747 689 794 852 1,070 323 43.2%
Finance, Insurance 3,546 3,681 6,064 6,310 6,885 3,339 94.2%
Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 870 987 1,275 1,175 1,514 644 74.0%
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 7,115 7,825 8,849 10,367 11,901 4,786 67.3%
Management of Companies, Enterprises 1,292 645 128 145 624 -668 -51.7%
Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation 3,602 4,414 4,650 5,126 5,595 1,993 55.3%
Education Services 7,455 7,332 8,591 8,835 9,269 1,814 24.3%
Health Care, Social Assistance 6,713 6,502 7,622 7,815 8,246 1,533 22.8%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 7,081 8,093 9,514 10,455 12,437 5,356 75.6%
Accommodation & Food Services 6,484 7,351 8,739 9,598 11,149 4,665 71.9%
Other Services (except Public Admin.) 2,770 3,233 3,867 3,953 4,150 1,380 49.8%
GOVERNMENT 14,524 15,159 15,949 16,710 18,881 4,357 30.0%
State 636 487 470 431 498 -138 -21.7%
Local 13,888 14,239 15,035 15,792 16,775 2,887 20.8%
Federal*na 433 444 487 1,608 1,175 271.4%
Note: Total employment is the average annual employment for the first quarter in each year.
2006 2007
Change from 2003-2007
2003 2004 2005
*The percent change is calculated between 2004 and 2007.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
The highest job growth has occurred in the lowest-skill sectors of Retail Trade,
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation, and Accommodation & Food Services. Together, these
three service industries added over 17,000 jobs between 2003 and 2007. This represented 40% of
all new jobs added in the past five years. Other high-growth industries included
Professional/Scientific/Technical Services (4,786) and Finance/Insurance Services (3,339).
Within the goods-producing industries, the Construction sector added nearly 3,000 jobs. This
level of growth in lower-skill, lower-wage jobs contributes to the demand for lower cost housing
to support the area’s workforce.
Job losses numbered only 806 and occurred in the Management of Companies & Enterprises
sector (668) and state government (138). However, these losses were more than offset by the
impressive gains in all other industries.
Service-providing industries are the largest employers in the Georgetown area. The
Georgetown Independent School District and Williamson County government are the two largest
employers in the Georgetown area, providing jobs for a total of 3,125 persons.
Attachment number 2
Page 53 of 118
53
Housing Element
Figure 41. Major Employers in the Georgetown Area – 2007
Employer Product or Service
# of Employees
Georgetown Independent School District Educational Services 1,575
Williamson County Government County Government 1,550
St. David's Georgetown Hospital Health Care 600
Southwestern University Educational Services 450
City of Georgetown Local Government 370
Airborn, Inc.Manufacturing 300
Sun City (Del Webb) Construction 260
Wesleyan Homes Health Care 233
Source: City of Georgetown
The Georgetown Chamber of Commerce conducted a survey among major employers to the area
to determine if housing, and specifically the cost and availability of housing, impacted their
decision to locate to the Georgetown area. The results of this survey are included in Part 6.
Employment Projections
The Education Service sector is projected to expand by the largest number of jobs by 2014.
Employment projections by industry are produced for the entire nine-county Rural Capital
Workforce Investment Area. Other significant employment gains in the nine-county region are
projected for Retail Trade, Accommodation & Food Service, Health Care/Social Assistance,
Construction and Wholesale Trade. All of these sectors are among the sectors with minimal
increases or actual declines in real wages over the past five years.
Attachment number 2
Page 54 of 118
54
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 42. Employment Projections by Industry for the Rural Capital Workforce Investment
Area, 2004-2014
Number Percent
Total: All Industries 212,200 273,350 61,150 29%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 1,150 1,200 50 4%
Mining, Quarrying, Oil/Gas Extraction 1,750 2,500 750 43%
Construction 14,050 19,400 5,350 38%
Manufacturing 14,350 15,800 1,450 10%
Wholesale Trade 13,850 17,650 3,800 27%
Retail Trade 26,450 34,700 8,250 31%
Transportation, Warehousing 3,150 4,050 900 29%
Utilities 1,350 1,750 400 30%
Information 2,050 2,400 350 17%
Finance, Insurance 7,950 9,700 1,750 22%
Real Estate, Rental, Leasing 2,100 2,500 400 19%
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 5,500 8,650 3,150 57%
Management of Companies, Enterprises 400 450 50 13%
Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation 6,850 9,600 2,750 40%
Education Services 26,950 38,200 11,250 42%
Health Care, Social Assistance 17,650 23,550 5,900 33%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 1,900 2,600 700 37%
Accommodation & Food Services 17,000 23,050 6,050 36%
Other Services (except Public Admin.) 7,600 10,000 2,400 32%
State 500 500 0 0%
Local 1,850 2,100 250 14%
Federal*8,800 10,500 1,700 19%
2004
Estimated
Employment
2014
Projected
Employment
Change from 2004-2014
*The Rural Capital Workforce Investment Area (WIA) includes Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee,
Llano, and Williamson Counties.
GOVERNMENT
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Goods-Producing Industries
Service-Providing Industries
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
Attachment number 2
Page 55 of 118
55
Housing Element
Figure 43.
Employment Projections by Industry, 2004-2014
Rural Capital Workforce Investment Area
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000Agriculture et alMining et alConstructionManufacturingWholesale TradeRetail TradeTransp., WarehousingUtilitiesInformationFina nc e, InsuranceReal Estate, Rental, LeasingProf., Scientific & Tech ServicesMgmt of Companies, EnterprisesAdmin., Support et alEducation ServicesHealth Care, Social AssistanceArts, Entertainment, RecreationAccommodation & Food ServicesOther Services (except Public Admin.)State GovtLocal GovtFe de ra l Govt2004
2014
*The Rural Capital Workforce Investment Area (WIA) includes Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee,
Llano, and Williamson Counties.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
Commuter Trends
Most workers travel outside of Williamson County to reach their place of employment. A
total of 32,935 residents of outlying counties made the daily commute in 2000 to Williamson
County to their place of employment. Meanwhile, 71,087 residents of Williamson County
commuted out to other counties to reach their jobs. This cross-commutation resulted in a net
worker outflow of 38,152 workers.
Residents of Williamson County are very dependent upon jobs in Travis County. Of the
71,087 commuters who worked outside of the County, 66,756 (94%) traveled to Travis County.
On the reverse commute, of the 32,935 persons who drove in to Williamson County for work,
24,646 (75%) came from Travis County. In other words, Travis County provides almost three
times as many jobs for Williamson County residents as Williamson County provides for Travis
County residents.
Residents who lived and worked in Williamson County totaled 56,552. They comprised 63% of
the total number of persons who worked at jobs in the County.
Attachment number 2
Page 56 of 118
56
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 44. Commuter Trends – 2000
Williamson County 56,552
Travis County, TX 24,646 Travis County, TX 66,756
Bell County, TX 2,198 Bell County, TX 1,201
Burnet County, TX 974 Bastrop County, TX 349
Milam County, TX 919 Milam County, TX 318
Bastrop County, TX 851 Hays County, TX 317
Hays County, TX 711 Harris County, TX 237
Coryell County, TX 323 Bexar County, TX 199
Bexar County, TX 240 Dallas County, TX 166
Lee County, TX 235 Burnet County, TX 163
Caldwell County, TX 168 Tarrant County, TX 115
All Other Places 1,670 All Other Places 1,266
Total In-Commuters 32,935 Total Out-Commuters 71,087
IN-COMMUTERS
(People who live elsewhere and commute
to Williamson County for work)
OUT-COMMUTERS
(People who live in Williamson County but
commute elsewhere for work)
LOCAL RESIDENT WORKERS
(People who live and work in Williamson County)
Source: Census 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files
Wages
Wages are the sum of income received regularly by people 16 years and older before deductions
for personal income taxes, social security, union dues, and Medicare deductions. The term “real
wages” refers to wages that have been adjusted for inflation.
Despite a rapidly expanding economy, real wages for all industries fell 8.2% over the past
five years. Between 2003 and 2007, real wages declined from $47,346 to $43,472. The decrease
was even greater within the private sector, which employs 87% of all persons. Real wages fell
more than 10% among private industry sectors. The highest declines were in the
Agriculture/Forestry and Wholesale Trade sectors. Other sectors with falling wages included
Retail Trade, Administration/Support and state government. Real wage increases were highest in
the high-growth sectors of Mining/Quarrying, Transportation/Warehousing, and Other Services.
Attachment number 2
Page 57 of 118
57
Housing Element
Figure 45. Trends in Real Wages by Industry for Williamson County, 2003-2007
2003 2007
% Change
2003-2007
Total: All Industries $47,346 $43,472 -8.2%
PRIVATE BUSINESS $50,217 $44,980 -10.4%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting $34,689 $19,188 -44.7%
Mining, Quarrying, Oil/Gas Extraction $37,560 $52,780 40.5%
Construction $38,908 $41,236 6.0%
Manufacturing $46,877 $52,052 11.0%
Wholesale Trade $79,105 $59,072 -25.3%
Retail Trade $27,365 $26,728 -2.3%
Transportation, Warehousing $30,939 $48,880 58.0%
Utilities $50,335 $56,628 12.5%
Information $48,284 $52,468 8.7%
Finance, Insurance $57,953 $59,124 2.0%
Real Estate, Rental, Leasing $31,466 $40,144 27.6%
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services $37,209 $43,732 17.5%
Management of Companies, Enterprises $34,572 $46,332 34.0%
Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation $31,466 $30,368 -3.5%
Education Services $31,701 $33,072 4.3%
Health Care, Social Assistance $31,349 $33,072 5.5%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $14,063 $14,196 0.9%
Accommodation & Food Services $13,770 $13,988 1.6%
Other Services (except Public Admin.) $25,724 $34,268 33.2%
State $44,240 $42,276 -4.4%
Local $33,869 $34,372 1.5%
Federal*$25,372 $83,616 229.6%
*The percent change is calculated between 2004 and 2007.
Goods-Producing Industries
Service-Providing Industries
GOVERNMENT
Note: Average annual wages calculated by multiplying the average weekly wage for the first quarter in
each year by 52.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
Attachment number 2
Page 58 of 118
58
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 46.
Trends in Real Wages, 2003-2007
Williamson County
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000All IndustriesAgriculture et alMining et alConstructionManufacturingWholesale TradeRe ta il TradeTra nsp., WarehousingUtilitiesInformationFina nc e, InsuranceReal Estate, Re ntal, LeasingProf., Scientific & Tech ServicesMgmt of Companies, EnterprisesAdmin., Support et alEducation ServicesHealth Care, Social AssistanceArts, Entertainment, RecreationAccommodation & Food ServicesOther Services (except Public Admin.)State GovtLocal GovtFederal Govt2003
2007
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
At least 20% of all employed persons work in industries with the lowest median level
wages. At least 20% of workers in the nine-county WIA region were employed in industries with
median level wages of less than $21,600 annually. This wage is approximately equivalent to 30%
of the median household income of $71,967.7 These employees included waiters, cashiers, child
care workers, retail salespersons and bank tellers, among others. Moving up the income range to
$21,600 and $36,000 (or between 30% and 50% of the median household income), positions such
as construction laborer, school bus driver, carpenter and machinist can be found.
Higher-skilled jobs pay wages equivalent to between 50% and 80% of the median
household income. Positions requiring a high skill level and/or education degree such as
elementary school teacher, librarian, loan officer, accountant, judge/magistrate and registered
nurse earn median wages of less than $57,600 annually. Persons employed within these higher-
skilled jobs and earning the median wages would be categorized as lower income persons.8
Workers earning below area median household income are essential to the continued expansion of
Georgetown’s economy. Those who work in lower paying but faster growing job sectors create
demand for affordable sales and rental housing. In later sections of the Housing Element, the
relationship between income and housing costs is discussed and housing affordability issues are
explored in greater depth.
7 For the purposes of this calculation, the 2007 median household income for the City of Georgetown was used
(Source: DemographicsNow).
8 The U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) considers a person or household as lower income
if their total household income is less than 80% of the area median household income.
Attachment number 2
Page 59 of 118
59
Housing Element
The following chart illustrates that at least one-third of all employed persons work for wages that
are equal to less than 80% of the Georgetown median household income of $71,967 in 2007.
Figure 47. Annual Median Wages for Selected Occupations in the Rural Capital Workforce
Investment Area (WIA), 2007
Number Percent
Waiter / Waitress $13,299 $14,142 $16,908 4,230 1.8%
Food Prep / Server $13,324 $15,842 $19,853 21,360 9.1%
Maid / Housekeeper $13,315 $16,331 $17,848 1,120 0.5%
Cashier $13,526 $17,145 $19,286 6,830 2.9%
Home Health Aide $15,380 $17,586 $18,982 990 0.4%
Child Care Worker $15,028 $18,483 $20,857 1,120 0.5%
Retail Salesperson $14,273 $18,542 $26,757 9,070 3.8%
Teacher's Assistant $14,597 $20,198 $23,843 2,640 1.1%
Bank Teller $17,232 $21,272 $23,571 1,150 0.5%
48,510 20.6%
Construction Laborer $18,462 $22,419 $25,706 4,580 1.9%
School Bus Driver $17,427 $25,316 $27,806 1,220 0.5%
Carpenter $23,621 $29,713 $33,799 1,000 0.4%
Machinist $22,639 $33,300 $39,319 860 0.4%
7,660 3.3%
Firefighter $23,123 $36,426 $44,704 570 0.2%
Paralegal / Legal Assistant $29,701 $37,188 $46,772 280 0.1%
Food Service Manager $29,108 $40,246 $49,185 320 0.1%
Elementary School Teacher $36,160 $41,399 $45,651 4,800 2.0%
Postal Carrier $34,864 $43,961 $49,425 630 0.3%
Librarian $37,969 $49,142 $54,266 370 0.2%
Loan Officer $35,081 $50,696 $69,964 220 0.1%
Accountant / Auditor $32,033 $52,326 $65,772 3,850 1.6%
Judge / Magistrate $18,745 $55,226 $64,926 90 0.0%
69,150 29.4%
MEDIAN WAGES BETWEEN $36,001 AND $57,600 (between 50% and up to 80% of median household income)
TOTAL
MEDIAN WAGES LESS THAN $21,600 (up to 30% of median household income)
Sub-total
MEDIAN WAGES BETWEEN $21,600 AND $36,000 (between 30% and up to 50% of median household income)
Sub-total
Total Persons Employed
Occupation Categories
Entry
Wage
Median
Wage
Experienced
Wage
Registered Nurse $44,668 $55,702 $61,248 1,850 0.8%
12,980 5.5%Sub-total
*The Rural Capital Workforce Investment Area (WIA) includes Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee,
Llano, and Williamson Counties.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission
Attachment number 2
Page 60 of 118
60
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
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 interest, 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 2000 was $57,183. This represented a
significant increase in real median household income of 44% from 1990. Increases in all other
areas were 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.
Figure 48. Change in Real Median Household Income, 1990-2007
City of
Georgetown
Sun City
census area 11-mile radius
Williamson
County
Austin-Round
Rock MSA Texas
1990 Real Median Household Income* $39,714 $53,697 $45,269 $44,590 $36,930 $35,623
2000 Median Household Income $57,183 $68,188 $62,778 $60,775 $49,025 $39,933
% Change 1990-2000 44% 27% 39% 36% 33% 12%
1990-2000
2000 Real Median Household Income** $68,853 $82,104 $75,590 $73,178 $59,030 $48,082
2007 Median Household Income $71,967 $83,759 $79,184 $75,924 $61,456 $49,476
% Change 2000-2007 5% 2% 5% 4% 4% 3%
*Adjusted to 2000 dollars
**Adjusted to 2007 dollars
2000-2007
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for the Sun City census area, the 11-mile radius and all 2007 data; U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics for inflation calculations
The following two charts illustrate the change in real median household income between 1990-
2000 and 2000-2007.
Attachment number 2
Page 61 of 118
61
Housing Element
Figure 49.
Change in Real Median Household Income, 1990-2000
(in 2000 dollars)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
City of
Georgetown
Sun City census
area
11-mile radius Williamson
County
Austin-Round
Ro c k MSA
Te xa s
1990
2000
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for 11-mile radius and 2007 data; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for inflation calculations
Figure 50.
Change in Real Median Household Income, 2000-2007
(in 2007 dollars)
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
City of
Georgetown
Sun City census
area
11-mile radius Williamson
County
Austin-Round
Ro c k MSA
Te xa s
2000
2007
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for 11-mile radius and 2007 data; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for inflation calculations
The distribution of households by income was fairly equal in the City of Georgetown. The
distribution was about one-third of all households with incomes below $50,000, between $50,000
and $99,999, and $100,000 and higher. Elsewhere, there were slightly larger segments with
incomes between $50,000 and $99,999 and $100,000 and higher.Figure 51. Distribution of
Households by Income in 2007
Attachment number 2
Page 62 of 118
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
City of
Georgetown
Sun City
census area
Georgetown
HMA 11-mile radius
Williamson
County
Less than $50,000 31% 22% 29% 26% 28%
$50,000 to $99,999 37% 40% 37% 40% 41%
$100,000 and higher 31% 38% 34% 35% 32%
62
Source: DemographicsNow
Household projections indicate a net increase of 3,835 new households in the Georgetown
HMA by 2012. The vast majority (87%) of these gains are expected to occur among households
with incomes of $100,000 and higher. In the City of Georgetown, households below $50,000 are
projected to decrease slightly and gains are expected in the higher income categories. The most
significant increases in households are projected to occur in the larger areas of the 11-mile radius
and Williamson County.
Projected high employment growth in the lower-skill, lower-wage sectors of Retail Trade
and Accommodation & Food Services is reflected in the projected number of households
with incomes below $50,000. Although the number of households with incomes below $50,000
is expected to decrease slightly by 2012, approximately one-fourth of all households in the City
and the HMA will remain below $50,000. The increasing number of retail and related service jobs
expected to be created over the next several years, and the lower wages associated with these jobs,
will keep the income level of many households below $50,000.
This seemingly contradictory situation – growth in lower-wage jobs coupled with an
increase in higher income households – is indicative of increasing affluence in the
community. The higher income households drive the demand for more retail and
personal service establishments, most of which create the bulk of lower-wage jobs.
Attachment number 2
Page 63 of 118
63
Housing Element
Figure 52. Projected Number of Households by Income, 2007-2012
2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012 2007 2012
Less than $15,000 984 995 183 193 1,286 1,316 2,519 2,549 5,162 5,138
$15,000 to $24,999 862 873 252 272 1,228 1,248 2,854 2,843 6,035 5,994
$25,000 to $34,999 997 927 345 373 1,456 1,409 3,488 3,268 7,410 6,713
$35,000 to $49,999 1,464 1,486 614 620 2,301 2,284 6,768 6,464 13,994 13,521
Projected Number of
Households below
$50,000
4,307 4,281 1,394 1,458 6,271 6,257 15,629 15,124 32,601 31,366
$50,000 to $74,999 2,881 3,029 1,407 1,544 4,397 4,665 12,799 13,442 25,716 26,674
$75,000 to $99,999 2,249 2,451 1,210 1,399 3,703 3,961 11,580 12,493 22,408 24,146
Projected Number of
Households between
$50,000 and $100,000
5,130 5,480 2,617 2,943 8,100 8,626 24,379 25,935 48,124 50,820
$100,000 to $149,999 2,531 3,445 1,267 1,897 4,518 6,000 12,808 17,619 23,754 32,626
$150,000 & higher 1,780 2,791 1,203 1,844 2,971 4,812 8,329 13,327 14,039 22,471
Projected Number of
Households above
$100,000
4,311 6,236 2,470 3,741 7,489 10,812 21,137 30,946 37,793 55,097
Total Households 13,748 15,997 6,481 8,142 21,860 25,695 61,145 72,005 118,518 137,283
City of Georgetown Sun City census area Georgetown HMA 11-mile radius Williamson County
Source: DemographicsNow
Additional income data and analysis, as they relate to housing affordability, are provided in Part 8,
Housing Affordability Analysis.
Educational Attainment
An educated workforce supports economic development. Decisions by employers regarding
where to locate are based in part on the availability of a qualified workforce. The availability of a
qualified workforce will support the location of jobs that require higher skills that are likely to pay
higher wages. A higher-skilled, higher-wage workforce will have more housing options.
National statistics reveal that there is lower unemployment and higher earning capacity among
higher-educated individuals. For example, the median weekly earnings for a person with a
Master’s degree were $1,165 in 2007; the unemployment rate among all persons with this level of
education was only 1.8%. On the bottom end of the scale, unemployment among persons without
a high school diploma was exceptionally high at 7.1% and median weekly earnings were only
slightly above $400.
Attachment number 2
Page 64 of 118
64
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 53. Education Pays in the U.S.
Doctoral degree
Professional degree
Master's degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate degree
Some college, no degree
High-school graduate
7.1% Less than a high school diploma
$604
$428
Unemployment Rate in 2007:Median Weekly Earnings in 2007 Dollars:
1.8%
2.2%
1.3%
1.4%
4.4%
3.8%
3.0%
$1,497
$1,427
$1,165
$987
$683
$740
Note: Data are 2007 annual averages for persons age 25 and over in the U.S. Earnings are for full-time wage and salary workers.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey
The following three graphs illustrate the educational attainment levels of the population for 1990
through 2007.
Figure 54.
Educational Attainment, 1990
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0%
Le ss tha n a
high school
diploma
High school
graduate
So m e
college, no
degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Graduate
degree &
higher
City of Georgetown
Sun City census area
Georgetown HMA
11-mile radius
Williamson County
Source: DemographicsNow
Attachment number 2
Page 65 of 118
65
Housing Element
Figure 55.
Educational Attainment, 2000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Le ss tha n a
high school
diploma
High school
graduate
So m e
college, no
degree
Asso c ia te
degree
Ba c he lo r's
degree
Graduate
degree &
higher
City of Georgetown
Sun City census area
Georgetown HMA
11-mile radius
Williamson County
Source: DemographicsNow
Figure 56.
Educational Attainment, 2007
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Le ss tha n a
high school
diploma
High school
graduate
Some college,
no degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor's
degree
Graduate
degree &
higher
City of Georgetown
Sun C ity c e nsus a re a
Georgetown HMA
11-mile radius
Williamson County
Source: DemographicsNow
Persons who are moving to the Georgetown area tend to be higher-educated. In 1990,
nearly one in four Georgetown residents (25 years and older) did not have a high school diploma
and almost one in three had a college degree. By 2007, only one in ten did not have a high school
diploma and one in two had a college degree. Within the Georgetown HMA, the trends are
similar. Notwithstanding the quality of local schools, this significant gain in the level of
educational attainment in only 17 years is indicative of an influx of well-educated persons who are
relocating to the Georgetown area.
Attachment number 2
Page 66 of 118
66
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Poverty
The rate of poverty in Williamson County is less than half the poverty rate for Texas.
Between 1997 and 2004, the poverty rate in Williamson County paralleled the state and national
trends but at a significantly lower rate. In 1997, the poverty rate in the County was 6.7%
compared to 16.7% for the state and 13.3% for the U.S. This trend continued through 2004. In
2005, however, a decrease in the County poverty rate to 6.0% was a noticeable dip when the state
and national rates were beginning to increase after a two-year period of stability.
Figure 57.
Trends in Poverty Rates, 1997-2005
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
0.0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Williamson County
Te xa s
U.S.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates
Attachment number 2
Page 67 of 118
67
Housing Element
6. Non-Housing Factors that Influence the Housing
Market
There are several non-housing factors that influence the local housing market. Some of these
include local planning policy, land use and development regulations, and real estate taxes to name
a few. Each of these issues is discussed below as it relates to the Georgetown Housing Market
Area.
In addition, the results of three surveys were incorporated into the Housing Element because of their
potential impact on local housing policy. The first survey was the Citizen Quality of Life Survey
which was completed in February 2008. This bi-annual initiative assists Georgetown City Council
in identifying community needs and assessing how well the City manages community resources.
The second survey was conducted in June 2008 specifically for the Housing Element to determine
where City employees resided and their housing preferences. The third survey was a joint effort
between the City and the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce to explore the relationship between
the cost of housing and the labor needs of local employers. Summaries of all three surveys are
included in this section.
Citizen Quality of Life Survey
In February 2008, the City of Georgetown released the results of its Citizen Quality of Life Survey.
The survey is undertaken every two years in an effort to assess how the City manages community
resources and to identify community needs. The results assist City Council in allocating public
resources. Of the 400 respondents, more than half were older than 55 years of age, 70% had no
children living with them, 33% had lived in Georgetown less than 5 years, and 44% stated they
were unemployed or retired.
Highlights from the survey included:
x Growth management, traffic and education continue to be the top issues as they were in
2006
x When asked what would make Georgetown a better place to live, respondents replied (in
descending order of importance):
o improve traffic
o manage growth
o provide public transportation
o improve employment opportunities
o affordable housing
o improve entertainment opportunities
o expand retail selection
x When asked to prioritize a list of transit options, responses included:
o Commuter rail service (34.5%)
o HOV lanes to Austin (26.3%)
Attachment number 2
Page 68 of 118
68
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
o Fixed route bus system within Georgetown (16.3%)
o Bus service to Austin (16.3%)
x To finance transportation improvements, a majority of respondents stated they would
support increased taxes or fees of $25 annually for public transportation (58.5%) and the
expansion of sidewalks and bike paths (55.1%)
x When asked about their willingness to pay $5 each month to fund specific initiatives, a
majority of respondents indicated they would support such an initiative for new and
improved roads (86.3%), new city parks and recreational opportunities (70.8%), more
green and open spaces (65.1), added public safety personnel and equipment (79.8%), and
affordable housing (65%)
x About 8% of survey respondents indicated that affordable housing would make Georgetown
a more desirable place to live. Resident concern about affordable housing has been on the
rise since 2002.
Growth management and its associated issues such as increased traffic and rising housing
prices were identified as the primary concern of survey respondents. For respondents to
indicate a willingness to increase taxes or fees to finance solutions to these challenges
demonstrates a high level of public interest in those elements that contribute to the overall quality
of life in Georgetown. This public interest, in and of itself, is a desirable community asset—to
make sure that one’s neighbors are adequately housed and have adequate transportation resources.
City of Georgetown Employee Survey
The second survey was conducted in June 2008 for the purpose of determining how many City
employees reside in Georgetown and, for those who live outside of the City, what were their
reasons for living where they did. Responses were received from 212 current employees,
representing 46% of the full-time and part-time City workforce.
Of the 212 respondents:
x 79% have lived at their current residence for 10 years or less
x 77% own their home
x 58% spend less than 15 minutes commuting to their City job each day; 33% spend 15-30
minutes commuting, and 9% drive longer than 30 minutes.
Respondents were asked to indicate the most important factor for choosing to live at their present
location. Listed factors included lifestyle, location, schools, safety, convenience, appearance,
friendliness, cost of housing and increased value of housing.
Of the 212 respondents:
x 29% stated that the cost of housing was the most important factor
x 11% reported lifestyle and 9% reported location as the determining factors
x 8% of respondents said schools were their primary concern while 7% said the convenience
of where they lived drove their decision.
Attachment number 2
Page 69 of 118
69
Housing Element
One of the survey questions asked “If cost were not a factor, would you want to live in the Georgetown area?”
Of the 166 employees who responded to this question, 58% responded “yes” and added the
following comments:
x Housing/land is too expensive
x Housing is not affordable for households earning less than $50,000; very few options for
single parents, young couples, and young families; no affordable townhomes
x Rent in Georgetown is more than my mortgage payment outside of the City
x Value disparity is growing with lower cost homes found in lower quality neighborhoods
with decreasing values
x There are quality schools, parks, shopping, City employees
x I was able to buy in the City only because we purchased a foreclosed home
x There is not enough housing choice east of I-35 selling for more than $200,000
x The City should consider more affordable single family homes; recommended a
downpayment assistance program for City employees who move into Georgetown
x Maintain the architectural style of Old Towne
x I would love to be able to afford to live in the same City where I work.
Of the 20% who responded “no” to this question, the following reasons were given:
x Houses are too expensive in Georgetown; there is no housing available for middle income
households or young professional households
x There is a need for nice affordable housing in existing neighborhoods
x Prefer a country setting with fewer land restrictions than in Georgetown
x Prefer a greater diversity in each development/subdivision
x The City is growing too fast
x Taxes are too high and prices too inflated in Georgetown
x There are too many multi-family units in the City
x Yards are too small and houses are too close to one another
x Working spouses need to live about midway between employment.
Major Employers Survey
In May 2008, the City of Georgetown and the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce conducted a
survey among major employers in an effort to explore the relationship between the cost of
housing and the labor needs of local employers. Five responses were received and represented a
total of 2,439 employees. Of these 2,439 employees, 984 had annual incomes of less than $31,000.
Two of the responding employers (representing 1,624 employees) reported problems among
Attachment number 2
Page 70 of 118
70
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
employees securing decent and affordable housing in Georgetown and offered the following
comments:
x Rental houses (as opposed to apartments) are generally not available
x There are very limited apartments available, most of which have restrictions (i.e., age or
income)
x Many employees with only one income drive from surrounding areas to their jobs in
Georgetown
x Sales housing is often unaffordable for new employees with 1 to 5 years of experience and
support staff
x Employees would like to live in Georgetown but housing costs too much
x Employees cannot afford to rent in Georgetown
x “Affordable” housing in Georgetown is in places they wouldn’t want to live in at any price
x Younger employees find it difficult to find affordable starter homes; many employees must
rent first, but outside of Georgetown.
The results from these surveys demonstrate that decent and affordable housing (both rental and
sales housing) is an important issue to many individuals who work in the Georgetown area. For
low and moderate income households, the options are very limited and may often involve a
lengthy commute from home to work.
Real Estate Taxes
Real estate taxes are levied on land and buildings and provide primary revenue streams for
counties, municipalities, and school districts throughout Texas. These are local taxes based on the
value of a property that help to pay for public schools, streets, police, fire protection, and other
services. The Williamson Central Appraisal District (CAD) decides what property is to be taxed
and its appraised value, grants exemptions, and identifies what taxing jurisdictions can tax a
property. The Williamson CAD is a separate local agency and is not part of County government or
the Williamson County Tax Assessor’s Office.9
The Williamson CAD determines the January 1 market value of all taxable property, and the
property is appraised at that value unless it is a primary residence subject to a cap. Once a
property’s appraised and market values are equal, further increases (or decreases) in value will
depend on the market in that neighborhood. The appraisal process allocates the tax burden to
ensure that no one property pays more or less than its fair share.
The governing bodies of the various local government jurisdictions (county, school districts, cities,
municipal utility districts, college districts, hospital districts, etc.) set an annual tax rate which,
when applied to the total appraised value of all taxable property within that unit, generates the
amount of money needed to fund that governmental unit’s operations for the year.
9 Williamson County Tax Assessor’s Office website.
Attachment number 2
Page 71 of 118
71
Housing Element
There are several types of exemptions available to eligible property owners. These include the
following:
x School taxes: All residential home owners may qualify to receive a $15,000 homestead
exemption from their home's value for school taxes.
x County taxes: If a county collects a special tax for farm-to-market roads or flood control, a
residential home owner may qualify to receive a $3,000 exemption for this tax.
x Age 65 or older and disabled exemptions: Individuals 65 and older and/or disabled
residential home owners may qualify for a $10,000 homestead exemption for school taxes,
in addition to the $15,000 exemption for all homeowners. If the owner qualifies for both
the $10,000 exemption for 65 and older homeowners and the $10,000 exemption for
disabled homeowners, the owner must choose one or the other for school taxes.
x Optional percentage exemptions: Any taxing unit, including a city, county, school, or
special district, may offer an exemption of up to 20% of a home's value or a property tax
freeze for homeowners who are 65 or older or disabled. Some restrictions apply.
x Optional 65 or older or disabled exemptions: Any taxing unit may offer an additional
exemption amount of at least $3,000 for taxpayers age 65 or older and/or disabled.
The amount of property taxes that a residential home owner must pay to each taxing body is
calculated by multiplying the assessed value of the property by the millage rate set by each taxing
body. A millage rate of 1 mill translates to a payment of $1.00 in taxes for every $1,000 of assessed
value. For example, if a home has an assessed value of $100,000 and a taxing body has established
a millage rate of 5 mills, the property tax payment would be $500.
To illustrate the financial impact that property taxes have on housing affordability in the
Georgetown area, the annual real estate tax payment for a hypothetical house selling for $150,000
was calculated as shown below.
Figure 58. Real Estate Property Taxes in the Georgetown Area, 2007
City ISD ESD Total Taxes
Georgetown (Georgetown ISD) 0.356590 1.290000 na 1.646590 $2,470
Leander (Leander ISD) 0.607591 1.333400 0.098511 2.039502 $3,059
2007 Taxing District and Tax Rates
Municipality
Estimated Taxes
on a $150,000
Home
Cedar Park (Leander ISD) 0.508070 1.333400 na 1.841470 $2,762
Round Rock (Round Rock ISD) 0.365220 1.323805 0.100000 1.789025 $2,684
Weir (Georgetown ISD) 0.260187 1.290000 0.100000 1.650187 $2,475
Source: Williamson County Tax Assessor's Office
Planning and Land Use Regulations
In February 2008, the City of Georgetown adopted a new comprehensive plan which includes
public policies for future land use and development. Stated goals and adopted policies included
within the plan advocate for “sustainable and compact development,” a variety of housing
choices,” “improved development standards,” and “a wider array of affordable housing choice.”
One of the primary implementation tools of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan will be the City’s
Unified Development Code (UDC).
Attachment number 2
Page 72 of 118
72
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
The UDC was adopted by the City Council in March 2003 and is the primary guide to
development within the City of Georgetown. The UDC incorporates procedures, standards and
regulations for zoning as well as subdivision applications. Amendments to the UDC have been
adopted through March 2008.
All development, including residential development, in the City of Georgetown must comply with
the land use and development standards adopted in the UDC. Zoning regulations in the UDC
regulate where and how different land uses can be developed. To varying degrees, these types of
regulations increase the cost of development. For example, lot sizes and setbacks contribute
directly to the cost of a dwelling unit because the price of the lot is a major component of housing
cost.
There is a relative absence of developable land currently zoned for multi-family housing
within the City of Georgetown. According to the Land Use Element in the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, only 1.6% of the total acreage within the City of Georgetown is zoned for
two-family, multi-family, townhouse and mobile homes. This represents 421 of the 27,392 total
acres. However, only 294 acres are currently used for such land uses, equivalent to 1.1% of the
total City acreage.
By comparison, single family residential land uses occupy 13.2% or 3,618 acres. In terms of the
number of parcels, single family detached homes occupy 12,558 parcels of land compared to only
467 parcels with multi-family units. Over 39% of the City’s acreage is zoned for single family
residential use.
While multi-family housing is a permitted use in the City’s commercial districts, and more than
half of the multi-family housing developments have been constructed in commercial or
commercial planned unit development (PUD) zoning districts, this circumstance places a high
financial burden on nonprofit housing developers. Land located within these commercial zoning
districts typically carries a higher cost per acre, particularly if it is located at an intersection of a
major thoroughfare. In addition, a nonprofit housing developer would need to partner with a
commercial developer if a commercial component was required as part of the overall
development. Nonprofit housing developers generally do not have the experience or the financial
capacity to develop commercial space.
A wide range of lot sizes and housing types are permitted. Minimum lot sizes for single
family residential development range from 4,500 square feet up to 1 acre. Housing types
permitted range from the traditional single family unit to townhouses and two-family units in
addition to multi-family units. Accessory residential structures are permitted in any residential
district as a special use. With only one exception, these units cannot be rental units. Georgetown
also allows apartments above ground floor commercial uses in several commercial zones.
Attachment number 2
Page 73 of 118
73
Housing Element
Figure 59. Residential Development Standards, City of Georgetown, 2008
Minimum Area per
DU
Uses Permitted
by Right Limited Uses
Agriculture (AG)1 acre 1 acre 1 du SFD
Residential Estate (RE)1 acre 1 acre 1 du SFD SFA
Residential Single Family Limited (RL)10,000 sf 10,000 sf 4 du SFD SFA
Residential Single Family (RS) 10,756
4,500-5,500 sf 4,500-5,500 sf 8-9 du SFD SFA
Two-Family (TF) 60
4,500-7,000 sf 3,500-4,500 sf 9-12 du SFD, SFA, TF
Townhouse (TH) 17
7,000-12,000 sf 2,000 sf 21 du SFA, TF, TH
Multi-family (MF) 266 10,000-12,000 sf 2,000 sf 21 du SFD, SFA, TF, TH, MF
Minimum Area per
DU
Uses Permitted
by Right Limited Uses
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) na 10,000 sf
Upper-story residential
Local Commercial (C-1) 567 none TH, MF Upper-story residential
Mixed Use Downtown (MU-DT) 60
none SFD, SFA, TH, MF Upper-story residential
General Commercial (C-3) 1,175
none TH, MF Upper-story residential
Notes:
SFD: single family detached dwelling unit MH: manufactured house
SFA: single family attached dwelling unit MHP: manufactured housing park
TF: two-family dwelling unit sf: square feet
TH: townhouse du: dwelling unit/s
13,196
Total Acres
Zoned
Residential Zoning District
Minimum
Lot Size
Residential Dwelling Units Permitted
Maximum
Density per Acre
Total Acres
Zoned
Minimum
Lot Size
Maximum
Density per Acre
Residential Dwelling Units Permitted
Non-Residential Zoning District
MF: multi-family dwelling unit
Source: City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan; City of Georgetown Unified Development Code
Recently, the City amended its UDC to incorporate “residential housing diversity”
development standards. These new regulations provide incentives for the development of a
greater variety of housing types and a minimum level of “attainable housing” that is affordable and
made available to households at 80% of the area median income. In order to benefit from the
incentives, a developer must propose designating at least 10% of the housing units as attainable
housing. A seven-year period of affordability is required and recorded with the deed. In exchange
for developing affordable units, the City will waive the parkland dedication, impact and utility
connection fees associated with the attainable housing units. To date, no developments have
utilized these standards.
The City of Georgetown has taken a proactive approach to encouraging the development
of affordable housing in the private market. In growth areas such as Georgetown, market rate
developments offer higher profit margins to builders and developers, thereby reducing the supply
of labor and number of firms interested in affordable housing. Furthermore, market rate
transactions offer fewer challenges to builders and developers and higher commissions to Realtors
than do affordable housing developments. The incentives offered to develop affordable housing,
including the fee waivers, demonstrate the City’s commitment to addressing affordable housing
demand.
Public Transit
The movement of people and goods throughout the Georgetown area is key to the economic
vitality of the area. More than 92% of all employed persons in Texas drove to work in 2000,
either alone or in a carpool. In the Georgetown HMA, the rate was comparable, but increased at
the 11-mile radius and for all of Williamson County. Households without a vehicle, which in most
cases are primarily low and moderate income households, are at a disadvantage in accessing jobs
and services in this type of environment. Access to public transit is critical to these households.
Without convenient access, employment is potentially at risk and their ability to remain housed is
greatly impacted.
Attachment number 2
Page 74 of 118
74
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Public transportation is very limited in Georgetown, exclusively providing on-demand
service. Less than 1% of all employed persons used public transportation in 2000 to travel to
their jobs.
Figure 60. Method of Transportation to Work, 2000
City of
Georgetown
Georgetown
HMA
11-mile
radius
Williamson
County
Austin-
Round Rock
MSA Texas
Carpooled 11.8% 12.5% 11.5% 11.8% 13.7% 14.5%
Drove alone 78.7% 80.2% 82.4% 82.2% 76.5% 77.7%
Public transit 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 2.5% 1.7%
Walked or biked 3.9% 2.0% 1.5% 1.2% 2.7% 2.1%
Worked from home 4.4% 4.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 2.8%
Other means 1.1% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: DemographicsNow
Workers in the Georgetown HMA and beyond spent more time commuting to work than
their counterparts in the City, the MSA and the state. The greater the distance from the City
increased the travel time to work. Within Georgetown, the median travel time was 22 minutes
compared to 27 for the county.
Figure 61. Travel Time to Work, 2000
City of
Georgetown
Georgetown
HMA
11-mile
radius
Williamson
County
Austin-
Round Rock
MSA Texas
Less than 10 minutes 16.6% 11.7% 10.7% 10.3% 10.5% 13.3%
10 to 19 minutes 27.1% 25.0% 24.0% 21.9% 28.9% 30.4%
20 to 29 minutes 12.1% 14.6% 18.4% 19.7% 21.4% 19.2%
30 to 39 minutes 16.6% 16.9% 19.7% 20.7% 18.1% 16.7%
40 to 59 minutes 15.9% 18.4% 16.7% 17.0% 11.6% 10.7%
60 to 89 minutes 5.6% 7.4% 5.0% 5.0% 4.2% 4.6%
90 minutes or more 1.7% 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.4%
Worked at home 4.4% 4.8% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 2.8%
Median 22 26 26 27 23 22
Source: DemographicsNow
The need for public transportation was identified in the 2008 Quality of Life Survey where
traffic was listed as one of the top three issues. Since 2002, the percentage of respondents
indicating that public transportation would make Georgetown a better place to live has increased
from less than 5% to almost 20% in 2008. And, 16.3% of respondents stated that a fixed bus
route within Georgetown would improve transportation.
In February 2008, the City completed its Public Transportation Implementation Plan. Prepared in
conjunction with the Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS) and the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT), the plan includes a fixed route action plan for the City.
Attachment number 2
Page 75 of 118
75
Housing Element
Transit-dependent riders, including households without vehicles, low income persons, persons
with disabilities, seniors over age 65 and youth between the ages of 12 and 17, comprise the vast
majority of riders necessary to make public transit feasible and viable.
The City’s Public Transportation Implementation Plan includes the recommendation that
a proposed bus service be initiated, operating four buses on six routes. Proposed schedules
would include a 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. range for Monday through Friday routes and an 8:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. range for Saturday routes. Four fully-accessible vehicles would be utilized, operating
on one-half hour and one-hour frequencies. Bus stops would be located approximately every
quarter of a mile with benches, bicycle racks and shelters as appropriate. Proposed fares will be
$1.00 with half fares for seniors, persons with disabilities and students. The proposed routes
include most neighborhoods, businesses, schools, medical facilities, shopping, human service
agencies and recreational amenities.
A fixed-route transit system in Georgetown could significantly improve employment
opportunities for lower income persons who typically rely on public transit to access jobs,
thus increasing their potential success for better housing, including home ownership.
Current research indicates a strong connection between housing and transportation costs. A
recent study conducted by The Center for Housing Policy found that there is a clear trade-off
between affordable housing and transportation expenses among working families.10 The research
revealed that families who spend more than 50% of their income on housing spend only 7.5% on
transportation, while families who spend 30% or less of their income on housing spend almost
25% on transportation. This equates to more than three times the amount spent than those in less
affordable housing.
The rationale behind this seemingly reverse equation is that many working families are moving
further out into the suburbs where they may be able to afford housing, but then must spend much
more of their income commuting to and from their jobs. Others may live in urban neighborhoods
but are forced to cross-commute out to jobs in the suburbs. In both cases, the study found that in
their attempt to save money on housing, these families spent disproportionately higher amounts
on transportation. The study concluded that at about 12 to 15 miles in commuting distance, the
increase in transportation costs outweighs the savings on housing.
10 Center for Housing Policy, “A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burden of Working
Families,” October 2006 <http://www.nhc.org/index/heavyload>.
Attachment number 2
Page 76 of 118
76
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
76
Attachment number 2
Page 77 of 118
77
Housing Element
Housing Element
77
Attachment number 2
Page 78 of 118
78
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(This page left intentionally blank)
Attachment number 2
Page 79 of 118
79
Housing Element
7. The Affordable Housing Market
Affordable Housing Developers
In addition to collecting hard data (household projections, housing inventories, etc.) for this
report, local housing developers were interviewed. These organizations (both nonprofit and for-
profit) were identified as playing critical roles in the planning, financing and development
measures associated with creating new affordable housing units for low and moderate income
households in the Georgetown area.
A total of three affordable housing developers in the area were identified and interviewed. The
information provided below summarizes the responses from these entities.
x Georgetown Housing Authority owns and manages two affordable housing
developments in the City: Stonehaven, a 158-unit public housing community, and Shady
Oaks Apartments, a 60-unit Section 8 community. The Authority also manages the
Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program)
through which 87 low income households are assisted.
The Authority is also actively engaged in creating new affordable housing opportunities for
lower income households. The Authority has proposed the development of Sierra Ridge, a
188-unit family rental community at the corner of Northwest Drive and Washam Drive off
Interstate 35. Of the 188 units, 179 will be rent-restricted for households earning less than
60% of median income.
x Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County is a nonprofit organization that provides
home ownership opportunities for lower income households. In July 2007, the Habitat
chapter of Georgetown merged with the Round Rock chapter to create Habitat for
Humanity of Williamson County (HFHWC). In addition to providing home ownership
opportunities, the chapter also operates ReStore which sells building supplies to the public
in order to raise funds for new homes and to provide discounted building supplies to low
income families. Habitat also prepares eligible applicants, called partner families, for home
ownership. This involves working with the partner family to help insure long-term success
in their new home and neighborhood.
Habitat’s focus is on households with incomes in the 30% to 50% range of median
income. Currently, a three-bedroom house sells for $60,000 and a four-bedroom unit sells
for $70,000. Eligible home buyers receive 20-year interest-free mortgages and pay no
more than 30% of their income toward monthly housing costs. The local chapter
estimated about 25% of persons who attend the initial meeting will express interest in
submitting an application. Of those, about 50% typically apply, and only 50% of the
applicants are accepted as home buyers. The two most common reasons for denying an
application are insufficient income and poor credit history.
Habitat’s primary project is the build-out of Old Mill Village, a 20-lot development located
on land owned by the organization. Construction is currently underway on lots 13 and 14,
and full build-out is anticipated within two years. Since 2000, Habitat has completed 15
single family owner units in Georgetown; another 14 are projected for completion by
2012.
Attachment number 2
Page 80 of 118
80
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Habitat also owns six additional lots in the Smith Branch Park area. According to the local
chapter, this is a transitional neighborhood and multi-family housing is more predominant
in the area. Habitat would prefer to sell the parcels to another entity or swap the 6 parcels
for a comparable amount of developable land in a location better suited for single family
owner units.
Habitat offers financial management classes that are open to the general public. The
organization partners with the Georgetown Housing Authority, local churches and other
groups who identify persons in need of financial management skills.
The greatest challenge facing Habitat is the rising prices of lumber and concrete, which
may force the chapter to raise the sales prices of their homes. In addition, Habitat is
required to pay all municipal impact fees that are associated with the development of each
single family housing unit. The approximate cost of the fees is $5,500 to $5,700 per unit.
x Gavurnik Builders, LP is a family-owned for-profit development company that has
constructed many affordable market units in Georgetown. Several of the residential
communities developed by Gavurnik are affordable to moderate income households. The
developer is able to keep overall costs down by minimizing land costs and installing
modest interior finishes while offering many upgrades. Affordable communities
developed by Gavurnik Builders include:
o Windridge Village—42 single family units ranging from 1,027 to 1,265 square
feet with one- and two-car garages. These units are priced from $120,000 to
$130,000 each.
o Townhomes at Katy Crossing—40 townhomes (single family attached units)
ranging from 905 to 1,440 square feet. These units are priced between
$106,000 to $132,000 each.
o Holly Street Village—44 units of detached and attached single family homes
priced between $127,000 and $161,000. To date, two units have been
constructed and sold in this development begun in 2007.
The single family homes in Holly
Street Village, developed by
Gavurnik Builders, LP, are
affordable and well-designed.
(Photo by Gavurnik Builders, LP)
Attachment number 2
Page 81 of 118
81
Housing Element
Additionally, there are several affordable housing communities that have been constructed and
occupied since 2000 in the Georgetown area. These include:
x Georgetown Place Apartments (106 of the 176 family units are low income housing tax
credit units)
x San Gabriel Senior Village (100 age-restricted units)
x Mariposa (201 age-restricted units)
x Cypress Creek (180 family units).
In addition to the three nonprofit and for-profit organizations, the City of Georgetown also
impacts the local affordable housing market through its housing rehabilitation program. Through
the Housing & Neighborhood Development Department, the City has established a public policy
of guiding long-term housing goals “to ensure that a variety of housing is available and provides a
safe and quality place to live for those that live and work in Georgetown.” The department was
created in 2007 and given several directives, one of which is to administer the Home Repair
Program for low income households. The program activities are financed by the City general fund
with some contributions by the applicants.
The City participates in the Williamson County Consolidated Plan, making it eligible to compete
for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. To date, the City has financed street
and infrastructure improvements with its CDBG dollars.
Pipeline Projects
In an effort to identify new affordable housing units that are expected to be made available to
lower income households for occupancy over the coming years, housing providers were asked to
identify projects that are in the development pipeline. The “pipeline” refers to proposed
affordable housing projects that are in various stages of pre-development or construction. It is
important to note that the pipeline projects list is a fluid one, constantly changing as housing units
are completed and occupied, and as new projects are planned, financed and initiated.
The following chart summarizes the pipeline projects that are expected to be developed identified
in Georgetown. This information was compiled during the second quarter of 2008.
Figure 62. Pipeline Projects, 2008-2012
Development 1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q
Total
Units
2008 2009 2010 2011 2011
Habitat for Humanity 11111111 8
Gavurnik Builders 222222222220
Sierra Ridge 179 179
TOTAL UNITS 0313131318020202020202 207
OWNER UNITS
RENTAL UNITS
Sources: Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County, Gavurnik Builders, LLC and Georgetown Housing Authority
Attachment number 2
Page 82 of 118
82
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
While a significant number of family and elderly affordable rental units have been
developed in Georgetown, there remains demand for additional units. A total of 207 new
units of affordable housing were identified. All but 20 of these units are being developed by
nonprofit organizations that operate on shoe-string budgets with limited staff.
These units will be used to calculate the affordable housing need for the study area in Part 10,
Existing and Projected Demand for Affordable Housing. The projected affordable housing need
creates a simultaneous need for local affordable housing developers in Georgetown. To address
the projected increase in household growth, more housing units will have to be constructed.
Attachment number 2
Page 83 of 118
83
Housing Element
8. Housing Affordability Analysis
Introduction
Affordable housing means paying 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 30%, the household is considered cost
burdened. This section of the report analyzes the cost of housing for owners and renters in the
Georgetown HMA and the degree to which owners and renters are cost burdened.
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 for renters is defined as paying no
more than 30% of gross household income for housing expenses including rent and utilities,
regardless of income level. Affordable housing for home owners is defined as paying no more
than 30% of gross household income for housing expenses including mortgage, utilities, insurance
and taxes, regardless of income level. The primary goal of this study is to determine whether there
is an 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 HMA.
When households pay higher proportions of their incomes for housing, they are forced to sacrifice
other basic necessities such as food, clothing and health care. Additionally, households that are
cost burdened may have trouble maintaining their dwelling, which generally results in deferred
maintenance and repair. Eventually, cost burdened households may be living in deficient dwelling
units. Cost burden is of particular concern among lower income households who have fewer
housing choices.
Figure 63.
Cost Burdened Homeowners in U.S., 2006
37%
15%
35%
56%
79%
97%
All Homeowners
$75,000 or more
$50,000 to $74,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$20,000 to $34,999
Less than $20,000
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Percent of U.S. Homeowners with Mortgages
Paying more than 30% of Income on Housing
Source: USA Today (September 12, 2007)
Attachment number 2
Page 84 of 118
84
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Nationally, one in three home owners was cost burdened in 2006. While housing costs have
risen over the past two decades, the situation has significantly worsened since 2000. Nationally,
27% of all home owners with mortgages in 2000 were paying 30% or more of their before-tax
income on housing. By 2006, this rate increased to 37% of all home owners. Understandably,
home owners with the lowest incomes have been impacted the most. For example, 97% of all
home owners with mortgages earning $20,000 or less spent at least 30% of their income on
housing. As income rose, cost burden steadily decreased. Seventy-nine percent of home owners
with mortgages earning between $20,000 and $34,999 spent at least 30% of income on housing
while the rate fell to 56% for those earning between $35,000 and $49,999.11
Nationally, the percentage of home owners paying more than 50% of their total household income
on housing is also increasing. In 2000, only 10% of all home owners with mortgages were paying
more than 50%; by 2006, the rate increased to 14%.
The increasing disparity between the cost of housing and income is indicative of an increase in
lower-wage and part-time employment, the increasing costs to operate and maintain a home, and
the pressure on construction costs created by local land use and development regulations.12
The number of cost burdened households (both owners and renters) residing in the Georgetown
HMA can be identified using HUD-formulated data based on Census 2000. Although this
information is slightly dated, it is the only available source of reliable data that describes the degree
to which households are cost burdened by income group.
Housing Values, Sales Prices and Gross Rents
Housing value slightly outpaced household income in the City of Georgetown between
1990 and 2000. The median housing value in 2000 in the City of Georgetown was $141,413, an
increase of 46% since 1990, after adjusting for inflation. Real median household income increased
44% during the same period. Outside of the City, however, income far outpaced housing value.
Within the 11-mile radius, for example, median household income increased 49% while median
housing value increased 31%. Income also rose faster in the County and the MSA.
11 Noelle Knox and Barbara Hansen, "Paying for a Roof Over Your Head—But Not Much Else," Money Section,
USA Today, September 12, 2007.
12 Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, “The State of the Nation’s Housing 2008,” page 4.
Attachment number 2
Page 85 of 118
85
Housing Element
Figure 64. Change in Median Housing Value, 1990-2000 (in 2000 dollars)
1990 2000
Change
1990-2000
City of Georgetown $97,053 $141,413 46%
Sun City census area $124,058 $183,922 48%
11-mile radius $99,678 $130,751 31%
Williamson County $95,150 $120,685 27%
Austin-Round Rock MSA $98,489 $122,866 25%
Texas $78,544 $82,449 5%
US $103,270 $115,194 12%
Note: Median values not available for Georgetown HMA.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; DemographicsNow
Figure 65. Change in Median Housing Value and Median Household Income, 1990-2000 (in 2000
dollars)
City of Sun City Georgetown Williamson Austin-Round
Georgetown census area 11-mile radius HMA County Rock MSA
1990 to 2000 46% 48% 31% na 27% 25%
1990 to 2000 44% 27% 49% na 36% 33%
Median Housing Value
Median Household Income
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; DemographicsNow
A more accurate method of determining whether a particular housing market is over-valued or
under-valued is to compare median sales price to median household income.13 Recent housing
price data was obtained from the Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service (MLS).
Interstate 35 divides the local market into two distinct areas: Georgetown East and Georgetown
West. The MLS represents approximately 80% of all housing units sold in Williamson County.
Many builders sell directly to homebuyers and do not list their properties with the MLS. However,
the MLS remains a credible and reliable source of data with which to evaluate the current housing
market.
Income is rising faster than sales prices in the City of Georgetown, indicating a fairly-
valued housing market. In the Georgetown East area, the median sales price declined 1.6%
between 2000 and 2007, after adjusting for inflation, while prices in the Georgetown West area
increased 3.5%. Both of these rates were less than the increase in median household income of
4.5% during the same period. This scenario is indicative of a fairly-valued housing market.
Conversely, when market prices rise significantly faster than incomes, the market is overvalued and
a downturn in the real estate market is likely. In either situation, the affordability of the housing
market for households at various income levels is not addressed.
13 Brad Reagan, “After the Bust,” SmartMoney December 2007: 82-88.
Attachment number 2
Page 86 of 118
86
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 66. Change in Median Sales Price and Median Household Income, 2000-2007 (in 2007
dollars)
Georgetown East Georgetown West
2000 to 2007 -1.6% 3.5%
2000 to 2007
Change in Median Sales Price
Change in Median Household Income*
4.5%
*Calculated for the City of Georgetown
Source: DemographicsNow
A second method used to determine the inherent affordability of a housing market is to calculate
the percentage of homes that could be purchased by households at the median income level.14
The median household income in the City of Georgetown was $71,967 in 2007. With this income,
a household could purchase a home selling for $198,000. In 2007, there were a total of 703 units
that sold for $198,000 or less. This was equivalent to 56% of the 1,263 total sales transactions in
Georgetown reported by the Williamson County Board of Realtors. A relatively affordable
housing market is one in which at least 40% of the homes could be purchased by households at
the median household income. The Georgetown HMA compares favorably to this threshold.
The highest median sales price in 2007 was found in Georgetown West, which was 20%
higher than in Sun City. Homes in the Georgetown East market were much more affordable
with a median sales price of $136,200 and sold more quickly. The market appeared to be fairly
priced as the median sales prices were no less than 97% of the median list prices in any one area.
Figure 67. Overview of Georgetown Sales Housing Data, 2007
Median List Price
Median Sales
Price Average DOM Transactions
Georgetown East $138,000 $136,200 75 401
Georgetown West minus Sun City $240,000 $238,500 93 592
Sun City $205,250 $199,250 95 270
Total Georgetown Market $189,777 $185,000 88 1,263
Source: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service
14 Joe Light, “Last of the Red-Hot Markets,” Money Magazine December 2007: 53-56.
Attachment number 2
Page 87 of 118
87
Housing Element
Figure 68.
Trends in Median Sales Prices, 2000-2007
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Georgetown East
Georgetown West
(excluding Sun City)
Sun City
Source: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service
Overall, the sales market is slowing slightly as evidenced by the increase in the average
number of days that a house remains on the market before sale. In 2000, a house remained
on the market for an average of 40 days in Georgetown East and 48 days in Georgetown West.
By 2007, the length of time had increased to 62 days and 73 days, respectively. However, since
2000, the difference between the median list price (what the buyer is asking) and the median sales
price (what the house actually sells for) has been less than 2% in Georgetown East and less than
3.5% in Georgetown West. This indicates a housing market in which homes are retaining their
value. According to the local Board of Realtors, 2008 is expected to be similar to 2003 in terms of
the number of sales transactions, average days on the market and sales pricing.
Attachment number 2
Page 88 of 118
88
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 69.
Trends in Average Number of Days on the Market, 2000-2007
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Georgetown East
Georgetown West
(excluding Sun City)
Sun City
Source: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service
The Georgetown West market remains vibrant with significantly more sales transactions
and higher median sales prices. In Georgetown East, the soil content is poorly suited for
development. As a result, this situation has created conditions that make residential development
west of I-35 much more convenient and profitable.
Figure 70.
Trends in Housing Sales Transactions, 2000-2007
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Georgetown East
Georgetown West
(excluding Sun City)
Sun City
Source: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service
Attachment number 2
Page 89 of 118
89
Housing Element
The median sales price of homes located west of I-35 has increased steadily, and exceeded
$200,000 for the first time in 2006. Overall, MLS data indicate a relatively healthy sales housing
market in the Georgetown HMA where sales transactions have risen since 2002. After peaking in
2006, sales have dipped slightly in Georgetown East and Georgetown West excluding Sun City,
where sales were slightly higher.
Figure 71.
Trends in Median Sales Prices, 2000-2007
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Georgetown East
Georgetown West
(excluding Sun City)
Sun City
Source: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service
In addition to sales housing, the rental housing market is a significant part of the Georgetown
HMA. Since 2000, the rental housing inventory has increased 52%, gaining more than 1,800 units.
With the exception of the Sun City census area, rents outpaced income during the 1990s.
The median gross rent in the Sun City census area in 2000 was $727, an increase of 14% from
1990, after adjusting for inflation. During the same period, real median household income
increased 27%. Although this area experienced the lowest increase in median gross rent, the Sun
City census area continued to have the highest rents in the region. Elsewhere, rents rose faster
than income in the City of Georgetown, the 11-mile radius, Williamson County and the MSA.
Generally, when rents outpace income, it is an indication of a growing demand for rental units
accompanied by a lack of inventory. This demand was addressed with the development of more
than 1,800 new rental units in the Georgetown HMA during the period 2000 to 2007.
Attachment number 2
Page 90 of 118
90
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 72. Median Gross Rent, 1990-2000 (in 2000 dollars)
1990 2000
Change
1990-2000
City of Georgetown $373 $582 56%
Sun City census area $640 $727 14%
11-mile radius $432 $660 53%
Williamson County $461 $680 48%
Austin-Round Rock MSA $456 $633 39%
Note: Median values not available for Georgetown HMA.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; DemographicsNow
Figure 73. Change in Median Gross Rent and Median Household Income, 1990-2000 (in 2000
dollars)
City of
Georgetown
Sun City
census area 11-mile radius
Williamson
County
Austin-Round
Rock MSA
Median Gross Rent
1990 to 2000 56% 14% 53% 48% 39%
1990 to 2000 44% 27% 49% 36% 33%
Note: Median values not available for Georgetown HMA.
Median Household Income
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; DemographicsNow
Cost Burdened Home Owners
Two-thirds of all extremely low income home owners were cost burdened in 2000. Of the
390 home owners with incomes up to 30% of median and residing in the City of Georgetown, 262
(67%) were paying more than 30% of gross income on monthly housing costs. The rate was 68%
for all of Williamson County.
The degree of cost burden among home owners decreased only slightly as income
increased. As income rose, the degree of cost burden for home owners with incomes between
30% and 50% of median declined to 64% in the City and 55% in the County. Greater declines
were more noticeable among owners in the 50% to 80% income bracket; however, 46% of low
income home owners in the City and 49% in the County were still paying more than 30% of their
income on housing costs. For home owners above 80% of median, only 7% were cost burdened
in the City compared to 8% in the County. It is highly likely that the rates of cost burden in the
City of Georgetown and Williamson County have risen since 2000 as a result of the rising costs of
housing, gasoline and food prices.
Attachment number 2
Page 91 of 118
91
Housing Element
Figure 74.
Cost Burdened Home Owners, 2000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
0% to 30% MHI
30% to 50% MHI
50% to 80% MHI
Above 80% MHI
Williamson County
City of Georgetown
Source: U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, State of the Cities Data System
Purchasing a Home
Who are the households unable to purchase a home in the Georgetown Housing Market Area?
Many of them are members of the regional workforce such as teachers, police officers, nurses, and
residents who work in retail jobs. They are employed at the corner market, the local auto body
shop and own the small business down the block. They are the folks we rely on everyday to keep
our community thriving. They fill vital community occupations.
A family earning 78% of the median household income in the City of Georgetown could
afford to purchase the median priced sales home in Georgetown East. In 2007, the median
sales price of housing ranged from $136,200 in the Georgetown East market up to $239,450 in the
Georgetown West market. Based on these prices, a household would require a minimum income
of $56,061 in order to afford a home selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East. This
income amount is equivalent to 78% of the median household income for the City of Georgetown
in 2007 ($71,967). In the Georgetown West area, a minimum income of $82,571 would be
required to purchase the median priced home, equivalent to 115% of the City median household
income.
The following chart lists the median annual wages paid in 2007 for several job classifications in
Williamson County. Of the nine occupations listed, none of the employees in these positions
could afford to purchase a home selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East or
Georgetown West as a single-wage earning household.
Attachment number 2
Page 92 of 118
92
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 75.
Annual Income Needed to Afford Median Sales Priced Home, 2007
$17,145 $18,542
$36,426 $41,399
$14,142
$15,842 $22,419
$52,326 $55,702 $56,061
$82,571
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000WaiterFood Prep Worker/ServerCashierRetail SalespersonConstruction LaborerFirefighterElementary School TeacherAccountantRegistered NurseIncome Needed in Georgetown EastIncome Needed in Georgetown West
Sources: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service; Texas Workforce Commission; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
To calculate the price range in which these households could look for sales housing, one must first
calculate the maximum amount of house each household could afford to purchase. The following
chart lists the maximum sales price that each of these households could afford based on the
following assumptions:
x A 30-year fixed rate mortgage at 6.5%
x A down payment of 5% of the purchase price plus 5% for closing costs for a total down
payment equal to 10% of the sales price
x Home owners insurance of $600 per year ($50 per month)
x Mortgage insurance of $360 per year ($30 per month)
x Calculation of property taxes based on the sales price of the house and the total millage
assessed for a property in the City of Georgetown (1.64659 mills in 2007)
x Household consumer debt of $500 in total monthly payments (e.g., car loan, school loan,
and/or credit card payments)
x Total amount of principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI) equal to no more than 30%
of gross monthly household income, and
x Total amount of all household debt (PITI plus consumer debt) equal to no more than 33%
of gross monthly household income.
Attachment number 2
Page 93 of 118
93
Housing Element
Figure 76. Maximum Sales Prices Affordable to Vital Community Occupations, 2008
Occupation
Annual
Salary/Income
Income as a % of
City Median
Household
Income (2007)
Amount
Available for
PITI
Maximum
Mortgage
Amount
(90% of sales
price)
Maximum
Sales Price
Number of Units
Sold at this Sales
Price or Lower
(2007)
Waiter $14,142 20% $354 -- -- --
Food Prep Worker $15,842 22% $396 -- -- --
Cashier $17,145 24% $429 -- -- --
Retail Salesperson $18,542 26% $464 -- -- --
Construction Laborer $22,419 31% $560 -- -- --
Firefighter $36,426 51% $911 $54,000 $60,000 14
Elementary School Teacher $41,399 58% $1,035 $71,100 $79,000 33
Accountant $52,326 73% $1,308 $108,900 $121,000 144
Registered Nurse $55,702 77% $1,393 $121,500 $135,000 264
Sources: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service; Texas Workforce Commission; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
Based on the assumptions listed above, five of the nine occupations listed (waiter, food prep
worker, cashier, retail salesperson and construction laborer) could not afford to purchase a home
in Georgetown in 2007. According to the Williamson County MLS, the least expensive house sold
for $25,100, which would have required an income of at least $27,535 based on the stated
assumptions. These five occupations did not earn sufficient income to qualify for a mortgage to
purchase such a home.
A firefighter and an elementary school teacher would appear to have very limited options with the
ability to purchase homes in the $60,000 to $79,000 range. Even at these prices, only 47 houses
were sold within this price range in 2007.
For accountants and registered nurses, the options would be much greater with possible sales
prices in the $121,000 to $135,000 range. While the argument is made here using single-wage
earning households, total household income would be used to compute the maximum purchase
price that a household could afford.
Of the nine occupations listed in the chart above, all occupations listed were paid salaries less than
80% of the City of Georgetown median household income. In other words, even the accountant
and registered nurse (i.e. full-time employed persons with professional degrees) were defined as
lower income households with incomes less than 80% of the City median household income of
$71,967 in 2007.
There were 70 housing units that sold for less than $100,000 in 2007. Only 3 units sold for
less than $40,000; another 10 units sold in the $40,000 to $59,999 price range. As sales price
increased, the options improved only minimally. A total of 21 units sold for between $60,000 and
$79,999; another 36 units sold for $80,000 to $99,999. These 70 units were equivalent to only
5.5% of all units sold in 2007. By comparison, there were nearly 1,200 units that sold for $100,000
or more.
Attachment number 2
Page 94 of 118
94
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 77. Residential Home Sales Transactions in Georgetown, 2007
Price Range Single Family Units Condominiums Total % of Units Sold
Under $40,000 3 0 3 0.2%
$40,000 to $59,999 10 0 10 0.8%
$60,000 to $79,999 19 2 21 1.7%
$80,000 to $99,999 36 0 36 2.9%
$100,000 to $119,999 56 11 67 5.3%
$120,000 to $139,999 161 2 163 12.9%
$140,000 to $159,999 158 0 158 12.5%
$160,000 to $179,999 133 2 135 10.7%
$180,000 to $199,999 114 4 118 9.3%
$200,000 to $249,999 175 7 182 14.4%
$250,000 & over 370 0 370 29.3%
Total 1,235 28 1,263 100.0%
Source: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service
Two factors that impact significantly the ability to purchase a home is a household’s long-term
debt and monthly living expenses. Lenders typically underwrite home mortgage applications on
the basis of a household income ratio of 30% in addition to a total debt-to-household income
ratio of 33% to 36%. Many households are encumbered with consumer debt (such as car loans,
school loans, credit cards, etc.) and monthly living expenses that cause them to exceed permitted
total debt-to-income ratios even if their annual household income is within an acceptable housing
payment to household income ratio of 30%. For example, a typical expense for many working
families is child care, which can be a considerable amount of household monthly income.
Households without health insurance may pay as much per month for health insurance as they pay
for their housing. And, the recent spike in gasoline and grocery prices is impacting lower income
households at a disproportionately higher rate than middle and higher income households. As a
result, while the Georgetown Housing Market Area is demonstrated to be a fairly-valued and
affordable market, there remain many lower income households who cannot afford to purchase a
home.
Cost Burdened Renters
Increasing income did not provide significant relief from cost burden for renters with
incomes below 50% of median. All renters below 50% of median income experienced the
highest rate of cost burden. In Georgetown, 66% of extremely low income and 66% of very low
income renters were paying more than 30% of their income on housing. The rates fell
significantly for renters in the 50% to 80% income category, decreasing to 28% in the City and
41% in the County. Only 3% renters above 80% of median income in both the City and County
were cost burdened.
Attachment number 2
Page 95 of 118
95
Housing Element
Figure 78.
Cost Burdened Renters, 2000
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
0% to 30% MHI
30% to 50% MHI
50% to 80% MHI
Above 80% MHI
Williamson County
City of Georgetown
Source: U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, State of the Cities Data System
Renting a Dwelling Unit
One of the most credible and widely used sources of information about rental housing cost and
affordability is the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s (NLIHC) annual publication Out of
Reach. The Out of Reach publication provides housing cost data for counties, metropolitan areas,
non-metropolitan areas and states.15
The 2008 Housing Wage in Williamson County is $17.98. In Williamson County, the Fair
Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $935. In order to afford this level of rent and
utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn $3,117
monthly or $37,400 annually. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, this level of
income translates into a Housing Wage of $17.98 per hour. In order to afford the FMR for a two-
bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner (making $5.85/hour in 2008) must work 123 hours
per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must include 3.1 minimum wage earner(s) working
40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two-bedroom FMR affordable.
Using the same annual salaries calculated to determine home ownership affordability, the financial
ability to afford a rental unit was also calculated for the same occupations. Based on this analysis,
waiters, cashiers, retail salespersons, and construction laborers could not afford even a one-
bedroom unit renting for the HUD FMR of $766 per month as single-wage earning households.
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.
15 Accessed at http://www.nlihc.org/oor/oor2006/?CFID=17649154&CFTOKEN=99855577.
Attachment number 2
Page 96 of 118
96
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 79.
Hourly Wage Needed to Afford the HUD Two-Bedroom Fair Market Rent, 2008
$6.80 $7.62 $8.24 $8.91
$10.78
$14.73
$17.51 $17.98
$19.90
$25.16
$26.78
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
$30.00WaiterFood Prep Worker/ServerCashierRetail SalespersonConstruction LaborerHourly Wage Needed for 1-bd FMRFirefighterHourly Wage Needed for 2-bd FMRElementary School TeacherAccountantRegistered Nurse
Sources: National Low Income Housing Coalition; Texas Workforce Commission; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
The Georgetown area needs people who need affordable housing. Communities need
police officers to keep their towns and cities safe. They need teachers to educate their children.
They need people to work the counters at municipal offices, the local grocery store, coffee shop
and dry cleaners. They need janitors to clean local businesses, schools and libraries. The human
infrastructure of our communities is vital to the economic sustainability of communities, yet many
of these workers cannot afford to live where they work. In order to find affordable housing, they
are forced to move further away from employment centers, enduring longer commutes and
contributing to increased traffic congestion and pollution. Rising transportation costs are making
commuting less feasible for all income groups. In the case of lower-wage workers, these costs can
easily lead to a shortage of employees for Georgetown if there are insufficient local affordable
housing options.
Attachment number 2
Page 97 of 118
97
Housing Element
9. Barriers to Affordable Housing
Barriers to affordable housing are obstacles that impede the development of affordable housing
units. Some barriers to affordable housing, such as local public policies, can be modified or
eliminated. Regulatory policies, such as zoning regulations that limit or prohibit multi-family
housing or the development of single family units on smaller lots, can be changed by local
government officials. Physical constraints, such as the condition of soils or severe topography, are
barriers that cannot be reasonably modified. There also are barriers that are driven by local market
conditions such as rising construction costs or a demand for housing that outpaces the available
supply. This type of barrier typically requires public incentives to ameliorate its impact on
affordable housing.
In the Georgetown HMA, the following barriers to affordable housing were identified. Many of
these barriers were identified through interviews and focus group meetings, while others were
revealed through primary research.
Public Policy Barriers
x Zoning
There is a relative absence of developable land zoned for residential options other than
single family housing. Only 1.6% of the total acreage within the City is zoned for two-
family, multi-family, townhouse and mobile homes. However, only 294 acres are currently
used for such land uses, equivalent to 1.1% of the total City acreage. Consequently, if a
developer wishes to build multi-family units, he or she would be required to apply for a
rezoning and endure the public hearing process, where NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard)
may defeat such a project.
While multi-family housing is a permitted use in the City’s commercial districts, and more
than half of the multi-family housing developments have been constructed in commercial
or commercial planned unit development (PUD) zoning districts, this circumstance places
a high financial burden on nonprofit housing developers. Land located within these
commercial zoning districts typically carries a higher cost per acre, particularly if it is
located at an intersection of a major thoroughfare. In addition, a nonprofit housing
developer would need to partner with a commercial developer if a commercial component
was required as part of the overall development. Nonprofit housing developers generally
do not have the experience or the financial capacity to develop commercial space.
x Impact Fees
Impact fees are one-time fees paid to off-set the cost of infrastructure or public facilities
associated with new residential development. These fees are usually paid when a building
permit is issued and are dedicated to financing the costs of new roads, water lines, sewer
lines, schools, parks, and playgrounds made necessary by new residents. In Georgetown,
an impact fee is assessed on every residential unit constructed in the City, regardless of the
cost to construct the unit or the sales price of the unit. On a $250,000 home, impact and
development fees totaling $5,000 equal 2% of the sales price. However, on a $75,000
home, the fees would represent 7% of the sales price. For a nonprofit housing developer
with a 100-unit development proposal, the total amount of impact and development fees
could exceed $500,000. The amount of this development budget line item could make the
Attachment number 2
Page 98 of 118
98
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
difference between going forward with the project, significantly scaling back the number
of units to reduce the budget, or canceling the project altogether.
x Other
State and federal funding resources have continuously declined over the past several years
with fewer resources made available to finance affordable housing projects.
Market Barriers
x The rising cost of land and construction places new housing development beyond the
reach of most affordable housing developers.
x In growth areas such as the Georgetown HMA, market rate developments offer higher
profit margins to builders and developers, thereby reducing the supply of labor and
number of firms interested in affordable housing.
x Market rate transactions offer fewer challenges (to builders and developers) and higher
commissions (to Realtors) than do affordable housing developments.
x There is a relative lack of available vacant housing units that are affordable and available
for purchase and/or rehabilitation for lower income households. This situation places
more pressure on affordable housing developers to construct new units, a more costly
alternative.
x There is a relative lack of vacant non-residential structures available for purchase and
conversion into rental housing.
x The vibrant housing market in the Georgetown HMA has caused property values to
increase and housing units to be highly marketable. As a result, there are relatively few
areas that are suitable for redevelopment initiatives, which could help to create new
affordable housing opportunities.
Physical Barriers
x The area east of I-35 is generally poorly suited for development. According to the City’s
Land Use Element, the soil in this are “can present difficulties for excavation for utilities,
foundations, or traffic ways, having a high potential for shrink-swell and corrodibility of
underground steel pipelines and may add to development costs.”
x The Land Use Element also cited the City’s location in the designated protection zone of
the Edwards Aquifer as “perhaps the most important long-term consideration for the
management of future growth” as the aquifer is the sole drinking-water supply for the
population of San Antonio and the surrounding areas.
x The Land Use Element also identified the following factors as physical limitations for
future development: the quarries to the north and southwest of the City, the runway
protection zones over and around the Georgetown Municipal Airport, and the Courthouse
View Protection Overlay District, which protects view sheds toward the Georgetown
landmark.
Other Barriers
Attachment number 2
Page 99 of 118
99
Housing Element
x There is a need for increased capacity within nonprofit organizations that develop
affordable housing. Nonprofit organizations typically operate on limited budgets. Without
ready access to pre-development assistance, nonprofit developers are very limited in their
ability to explore the feasibility of a project. The number of experienced staff dedicated
exclusively to housing development indicates how much time and effort a developer can
devote to creating new housing.
x The ability to successfully make the transition from renting to home ownership can be
daunting. Learning how to budget, allowing for home maintenance, keeping a credit
history in good shape—all of these elements are key components of home ownership
counseling which must be available to first time homebuyers to help them achieve long-
term stability and avoid default or foreclosure.
Identification of these barriers establishes the foundation upon which a reasonable set of strategic
actions can be recommended to increase the supply of affordable housing in the Georgetown
HMA.
Attachment number 2
Page 100 of 118
100
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(This page left intentionally blank)
Attachment number 2
Page 101 of 118
101
Housing Element
10. 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
who 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
demand plus projected demand provides an estimate of the overall demand for affordable housing
units in the Georgetown Housing Market Area for 2008 to 2012. The time frame selected for
projecting affordable housing need for this study is 2008 to 2012. Population and household
projection data were obtained for this five-year period from DemographicsNow, Inc.
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 that
includes weatherization improvements to lower monthly utility bills, thereby decreasing total
monthly housing costs.
Existing Affordable Housing Demand, 2000
To quantify existing housing demand, households with housing problems were identified utilizing
HUD’s State of the Cities Data System. 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 HUD data used for this report is based on Census 2000 and includes cost burdened
households and households living in physically-deficient units. While this data source may seem
dated, it is the only available data from a reliable source that identifies the degree to which
households are impacted by these two primary housing problems. This particular dataset also
identifies the households by income level. Furthermore, using 2000 data establishes a firm
baseline from which to project future household growth.
This report focuses on households with incomes equal to 80% or less of median household
income, collectively referred to as lower income households, as defined by HUD. In 2000, the
median household income (MHI) ranged from $57,183 in the City of Georgetown to $60,775 in
Williamson County. Affordable housing demand was calculated according to the following
income groups within each area:
x Extremely low income households (0% up to 30% MHI)
x Very low income households (30% up to 50% MHI)
x 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 was $58,900 in 2000 for Williamson County. While this income amount is
Attachment number 2
Page 102 of 118
102
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
different than the median household income, the HUD 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 236 lower income households (179 renters and 57 owners) residing
in physically-deficient housing units. In addition, another 1,983 households (998 renters and 985
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 985 lower income households
(599 renters and 386 owners) living in physically-deficient housing units. Cost burden was
identified for another 12,068 households (5,697 renters and 6,371 owners).
Figure 80. Households with Housing Problems, 2000
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
All Households 3,182 19,206 7,250 57,136 10,432 76,342
Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI) 638 2,326 390 1,879 1,028 4,205
Physical deficiencies to unit 25 34 8 47 33 81
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)418 1,749 262 1,285 680 3,034
Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI) 583 2,678 396 2,933 979 5,611
Physical deficiencies to unit 39 199 14 115 53 314
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)387 1,954 253 1,575 640 3,529
Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI) 702 4,633 1,015 7,092 1,717 11,725
Physical deficiencies to unit 115 366 35 224 150 590
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)193 1,994 470 3,511 663 5,505
All HouseholdsRenter Households Owner Households
Other Income Households (above 80% of MHI) 1,259 9,569 5,449 45,232 6,708 54,801
Physical deficiencies to unit 124 634 81 932 205 1,566
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%)35 279 360 3,492 395 3,771
Note: Data is available only for the City of Georgetown and Williamson County.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, State of the Cities Data System
Projected Demand for Affordable Housing, 2000 to 2012
Household projections by income group were obtained from DemographicsNow 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 2000 and
2012.
The largest 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 3,898 while the number of new lower income households is projected to increase by 1,713.
In Williamson County outside of Georgetown, the number of new higher income households is
projected to increase by 28,273 compared to 16,603 new lower income households. And in the
11-mile radius, new higher income households will number approximately 16,362 compared to
12,858 new lower income households.
New lower income households will comprise more than one-third of all new households in
Williamson County by 2012. Of the 50,487 total new households projected by 2012 in the
County, 18,316 are projected to be lower income. This is equivalent to 36% of the total new
households to be created.
Attachment number 2
Page 103 of 118
103
Housing Element
Figure 81. Projected Change in Households by Income Category, 2000-2012
Number Percent
City of Georgetown 993 1,386 1,868 875 88.1%
Georgetown HMA 1,315 1,927 2,653 1,338 101.7%
11-mile radius 3,785 5,373 5,392 1,607 42.5%
Williamson County 8,233 11,197 11,132 2,899 35.2%
City of Georgetown 1,371 1,457 1,464 93 6.8%
Georgetown HMA 1,928 2,134 2,442 514 26.7%
11-mile radius 3,220 5,413 5,225 2,005 62.3%
Williamson County 7,019 11,554 15,107 8,088 115.2%
City of Georgetown 2,093 2,747 2,838 745 35.6%
Georgetown HMA 3,157 4,398 5,307 2,150 68.1%
11-mile radius 8,703 10,305 17,949 9,246 106.2%
Williamson County 18,194 20,766 25,523 7,329 40.3%
City of Georgetown 4,457 5,590 6,170 1,713 38.4%
Georgetown HMA 6,400 8,459 10,402 4,002 62.5%
11-mile radius 15,708 21,091 28,566 12,858 81.9%
Williamson County 33,446 43,517 51,762 18,316 54.8%
City of Georgetown 5,932 8,160 9,830 3,898 65.7%
Georgetown HMA 10,149 14,509 16,820 6,671 65.7%
11-mile radius 27,077 40,054 43,439 16,362 60.4%
Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI)
Very Low Income Households (30% to 50% of MHI)
Low Income Households (50% to 80% of MHI)
All Households above 80% of MHI
All Households up to 80% of MHI
Change from 2000 to 20122000
Census
2007
Estimate
2012
Projection
Williamson County 53,320 75,001 85,491 32,171 60.3%
Source: DemographicsNow; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
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 1,713 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 and
2000 Census data offer reasonable assumptions for future projections.
The following methodology was utilized to estimate the tenure ratios for Georgetown:
x Among extremely low income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in
1990; by 2000, the ratio was 62% to 38%. Given the increase in housing costs and the
Attachment number 2
Page 104 of 118
104
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
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 65%
renters to 35% owners is estimated for 2012. Of the 875 households, 569 are projected to
be renters and 306 are projected to be owners.
x Among very low income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in 1990;
by 2000, the ratio was 60% to 40%. For the same reasons stated above, it is reasonable to
assume that the ratio of renters to owners in 2012 could be 65% to 35%. As a result, the
93 households would be comprised of 60 renters and 33 owners.
x Among low income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 50% to 50% in 1990; by
2000 the ratio was 41% to 59%. 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
745 households would be comprised of 373 renters and 372 owners.
Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the 1,713 households can be further classified as
1,002 renter units and 711 owner units.
Figure 82. 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) 569 306 875
Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI) 60 33 93
Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI) 373 372 745
Total Demand for Affordable Units 1,002 711 1,713
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; DemographicsNow, Inc.; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand,
2000 to 2012
The total demand for affordable housing in the City of Georgetown is estimated to be
3,932 units. A combination of existing demand and projected demand results in total affordable
housing demand for the year 2012. 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 2,219 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 1,713 units. Note that existing demand exceeds projected demand by 23%.
The following table provides a summary of total affordable housing demand in the City of
Georgetown.
Attachment number 2
Page 105 of 118
105
Housing Element
Figure 83. Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand, 2000-2012
Renters Owners Renters Owners
Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI) 443 270 569 306 1,588
Very Low Income Households (31% to 50% of MHI) 426 267 60 33 786
Low Income Households (51% to 80% of MHI) 308 505 373 372 1,558
Existing Demand, 2000
Projected Demand,
2000 to 2012
Total
Total Affordable Housing Demand 1,177 1,042 1,002 711 3,932
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; DemographicsNow, Inc.; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
Affordable Housing Supply, 2000-2012
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, 2000-2007
Since 2000, a total of 4,053 new units have been added to the City of Georgetown housing
inventory. The increase represents 59% of all residential development in the Georgetown HMA
between 2000 and 2007. In the Georgetown East market, the median housing sales price
decreased 1.6% between 2000 and 2007, after adjusting for inflation. The average number of days
that a house remained on the market increased 39% from 54 to 75 days. A total of 2,965 sales
transactions have been completed during the period.
The Georgetown West market has been more active as indicated by a higher number of
transactions (5,370) and an increase (3.5%) in the median housing sales price between 2000 and
2007, after adjusting for inflation. The average number of days that a house remained on the
market, however, has increased 58% from 59 to 93 days and remains higher than in the
Georgetown East market.
All of these indicators suggest that demand will remain relatively strong and the cost of purchasing
a new home in Georgetown will continue to rise. In addition, higher material and transportation
costs translate to continued increases in the cost of construction. Continued household growth
and higher median incomes will fuel the demand for new housing.
Despite increases in housing construction costs, 320 MLS sales transactions in 2007 were units
that sold for $142,000 or less—a price affordable to households earning $57,600, equivalent to
80% of the 2007 median household income of $71,967. These 320 units represented 25% of the
1,263 housing units sold in 2007.
More than one-third of all MLS sales transactions between 2000 and 2007 were affordable
to households up to 80% of the area median income. A total of 3,127 MLS sales transactions
were housing units that sold for $142,000 or less. This number represented 38% of the 8,335
MLS sales transactions during this eight-year period. This included new units as well as existing
units.
Projected Housing Growth, 2008-2012
Attachment number 2
Page 106 of 118
106
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
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
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 1,520 housing units will be created between 2008 through
2012. The net change in the existing housing stock in the City of Georgetown between 2000 and
2007 was 4,053 housing units at an average annual production rate of 507 units. A lower annual
production rate is projected for 2008 through 2012 as a result of the current mortgage industry
situation and the overall economy. 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 1,520 housing units
(approximately 304 units annually over the next five years) will be created between 2008 through
2012. Of these, it is estimated that approximately 1,140 units (75%) will be single family owner-
occupied units and 380 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.
Figure 84. Projected Housing Inventory, 2012
2000 Housing
Inventory
2007 Housing
Inventory
2000 to 2007
(units)
Average Annual
Production Rate
60% of Average
Annual Production
Rate
Projected Net
Increase in Projected
2000 to 2007
(units)
Housing Units
2008 to 2012
2012 Housing
Inventory
City of Georgetown 10,878 14,931 507 304 1,520 16,451
Georgetown HMA 16,870 23,745 859 516 2,578 26,323
11-mile radius 44,374 65,836 2,683 1,610 8,048 73,884
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Calculations by Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
It is estimated that approximately 10% of the projected 1,520 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, 2008-2012
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
Attachment number 2
Page 107 of 118
107
Housing Element
identified in Georgetown. The affordable housing supply created between 2000 and 2007
included:
x 3,127 residential units that sold for $142,000 or less in the Georgetown MLS market
x Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County constructed 15 single family housing units in
Georgetown
x The construction and occupancy of 587 new affordable rental units including:
o San Gabriel Senior Village – 100 units
o Georgetown Place—106 units
o Mariposa—201 units
o Cypress Creek—180 units.
The affordable housing supply in the “pipeline” or planned for development and occupancy
between 2008 and 2012 was based on the following assumptions as well as information obtained
from local affordable housing providers:
x A total of 152 market-rate new construction single family and/or condominium units
projected to be available for sale up to $142,000 (includes 20 units at Holly Street Village
developed by Gavurnik Builders, LP)
x Habitat for Humanity in Williamson County will construct another 14 single family
housing units
x The Georgetown Housing Authority will develop 179 units of affordable rental housing at
Sierra Ridge.
Attachment number 2
Page 108 of 118
108
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Figure 85. Affordable Housing Need in the City of Georgetown, 2012
Owners Renters Total
Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2000)
Households living in physically-deficient units 57 179 236
Households that are cost burdened:0
Extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI)262 418 680
Very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI)253 387 640
Low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI)470 193 663
Total Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2000)1,042 1,177 2,219
Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2000-2012)0
New extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI)306 569 875
New very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI)33 60 93
New low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI)372 373 745
Total Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2000-2012)711 1,002 1,713
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND 1,753 2,179 3,932
Supply of Affordable Housing Units Created (2000-2007)
2000-2007
Market sales units that sold for up to $142,000 (affordable to up 80% of MHI) 3,127 3,127
Habitat for Humanity 15 15
New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI)587 587
Supply of Affordable Housing Units Anticipated to be Created (2008-2012)
2008-2012
Market sales units for <$142,000 (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI) 152 152
Habitat for Humanity 14 14
New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI)179 179
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY 3,308 766 4,074
UNMET AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFICIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY
TOTAL DEMAND MINUS TOTAL SUPPLY -1,555 1,413 -142
Sources: Affordable Housing Developers; Williamson County Board of Realtors; Mullin & Lonergan Associates, Inc.
The local housing market has 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 (3,308) is greater than the total affordable housing demand for owner units (1,753) for
the period 2000-2012, there is no affordable housing deficit of owner units for this period. In
other words, the local housing market has addressed the need for affordable sales housing as
evidenced by the number of new and existing sales units that sold for $142,000 or less (3,127
units).
By comparison, the local market has not adequately addressed the affordable rental
housing need in Georgetown. The 766 affordable rental units estimated to be available will not
provide sufficient housing opportunities for the 2,179 lower income households in need of
housing. As a result, there exists a deficit of 1,413 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.
Attachment number 2
Page 109 of 118
109
Housing Element
The affordable housing deficit for the City of Georgetown is projected to be 1,413 rental
units. This number represents the total number of housing units that will be required to meet the
demand of affordable housing for lower income renter households.
Attachment number 2
Page 110 of 118
110
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(This page left intentionally blank)
Attachment number 2
Page 111 of 118
111
Housing Element
11. Policy Recommendations
Recommendations
These recommendations offer a series of techniques that, when undertaken in whole or in part,
offer the potential to reduce the affordable rental housing deficit in the City of Georgetown.
These recommendations are ranked in order of their priority with a time frame for considering
implemenation.
High Priority (One to five years)
1. Treat affordable housing as a major policy issue in Georgetown. Each January when
the City is establishing its overall policy and programmatic goals for the coming year, the
City and its appointed Housing Advisory Board should review affordable housing
achievements from the prior year and establish new goals for the year ahead. The City
may wish to define specific point-in-time benchmarks against which performance in
implementing the Housing Element’s recommendations can be judged. The Housing
Advisory Board in conjunction with the City’s Housing Coordinator should prepare an
annual report of accomplishments.
One very important task that should be added to the Housing Coordinator’s to-do list
involves updating the calculation of the City’s affordable housing deficit. Using the
methodology described in Part 10, the City should update its affordable housing deficit
when 2010 census data is made available. In particular, HUD data on cost-burdened
households is needed to perform this calculation. Unfortunately, this information is
generated by HUD only once every ten years. Given the magnitude of growth and change
in Georgetown during the past decade, it can reasonably be assumed that there will be
significant changes in the factors that influence affordable housing demand. The City’s
affordable housing deficit is by nature a fluid phenomenon and efforts should be
undertaken to monitor the production of affordable housing on an annual basis. This
calculation will be made easier by including affordable housing production in the annual
report of accomplishments.
2. Waive all municipal impact fees and development fees for housing units affordable
to 80% of the area median income and below. Waiving impact fees and development
fees is the sole method the City has at its disposal to finance affordable housing. These
costs represent a significant portion of the development budget for an affordable housing
initiative. As a matter of policy, the City should continue this practice for all projects that
involve the creation of affordable housing as defined in the Housing Element of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The waiver of municipal impact fees and development fees is not an
issue that should be debated on a project-by-project basis. Affordable housing developers
should be able to rely on this support from the City when they prepare their financing
plans.
3. Increase the amount of land zoned specifically for multi-family housing
development. One of the public policies that affect the development of affordable
housing is zoning. If the City wishes to put a meaningful dent in the affordable rental
housing deficit identified in Part 10, additional housing units affordable to residents below
80% of median household income will need to be constructed. In order for units to be
Attachment number 2
Page 112 of 118
112
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
constructed, the proposed development must be consistent with the City’s zoning
ordinance. A quick glance at the City’s zoning district map reflects few undeveloped land
areas designated specifically for multi-family housing development. A deeper investigation
of the ordinance reveals provisions for medium and high density residential units as a
component of mixed use developments, which, to its credit, the City encourages.
Expanding the supply of affordable housing means accepting the need for a higher level of
residential density.
There are two ways for the City to expand the quantity of land zoned for medium and high
density residential development. The indirect approach is to encourage developers to seek
rezoning, variances and other forms of relief from the zoning district regulations.
However, these actions typically require public hearings. Neighboring property owners are
often fearful that higher density development patterns will lead to lower property values.
It is not uncommon for neighboring residents to organize vocal opposition to site-specific
development proposals that involve higher density living arrangements. Most developers
prefer to avoid the time, expense and potential humiliation of a public hearing and will not
actively pursue higher density projects. Relying on developers to rezone the City is not an
effective method of expanding the supply of land zoned specifically for multi-family
development.
A more direct and proactive method of expanding the amount of land zoned for higher
density residential development would entail an internal evaluation of the zoning
ordinance. The City’s planning staff should be asked to identify additional land areas that
would be suitable for higher density residential development and prepare a report to City
Council. This self-evaluation serves as the foundation for future amendments to the City’s
zoning regulations and zoning map. Once land is rezoned, developers proposing medium
and high density residential development should understand that their proposals will be
reviewed more favorably if they provide a certain percentage of affordable units in the
overall unit mix.
Mixed use projects represent a beneficial addition to the City and as such, the City should
be commended for encouraging this type of development. However, the City should
recognize that it is very difficult for an affordable housing developer to incorporate
commercial space in their developments due to the nature of the financing mechanisms
typically used to create affordable housing. It is impractical to think that providing for
medium and high density residential development in mixed use zoning classifications, in
and of itself, will significantly expand the supply of affordable housing in the City.
4. Treat nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers as a special class of
developer. Whenever a development proposal is presented to City officials that involves
an affordable housing component, it should be identified as such and treated with special
care and attention. The City’s housing coordinator should be assigned as an internal
advocate to shepherd the project through the land use approval process. The City’s review
process for projects involving affordable housing should be streamlined in a way that
results in a fast track towards approval and permitting. The City’s planning staff should be
asked to identify an abbreviated critical path for such projects to move through the
approval process. Reducing the time period required to obtain local land use approvals will
significantly enhance the feasibility of these special projects. Certain developers of
affordable housing may not be oriented to the rigors of the approval process. The City’s
Attachment number 2
Page 113 of 118
113
Housing Element
internal advocate will not only speed the process, but make it more understandable and
user friendly to non-traditional developers who may be confused and overwhelmed by the
complexity of the process.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years)
5. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
To its credit, 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 provision in
the City’s zoning code and as development sites become scarce, it is likely that developers
will become motivated to have a second look at this incentive. The City may wish to
tweak the incentive or provide public infrastructure support for projects that involve the
creation of affordable housing. The City may also wish to conduct a developer workshop
to expand awareness and to obtain developer feedback on how the housing diversity
component of the City’s zoning code can be modified to expand the supply of affordable
housing.
6. Strengthen the development skills of local nonprofit housing developers. The City
is blessed with several public agencies and nonprofit housing organizations within its
boundaries that develop affordable housing, including Habitat for Humanity and the
Georgetown Housing Authority’s nonprofit affiliate. These organizations are valuable
assets to the City since most of the affordable housing production in the nation is carried
out by the nonprofit sector. Under certain circumstances, nonprofits find it beneficial to
form strategic alliances with for-profit development entities in order to gain access to
public funding. These types of relationships should be encouraged because they make
projects happen in the short term while providing valuable experience to the nonprofit.
But over the longer term, the City would benefit from the involvement of seasoned
nonprofits that are familiar with the development process. There is no substitute for local
nonprofit organizations that have the innate ability to obtain control of key properties,
secure financing, form development teams, oversee construction and lease-up or sell
properties upon the completion of construction. This ability is referred to in the industry
as “development capacity”. The City should do everything in its power to support and
expand the development capacity of its nonprofits. Every successful project contributes to
a nonprofit’s development capacity. Nonprofits should also be encouraged to create at
least one local Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) that also
qualifies as a Community Based Development Organization (CBDO). CHDOs and
CBDOs are very special types of nonprofits that have access to federal HOME and
CDBG funds to carry out development projects.
7. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing. Based on 2007
estimates, the City’s population has eclipsed 47,000. When its population estimates reach
the magic number of 50,000, the City of Georgetown will become eligible for an annual
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement grant from HUD. This will
be an important windfall event in the City of Georgetown. The City would be well-
advised to establish its priorities for the use of CDBG funds as a matter of public policy
before entitlement status 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.
Attachment number 2
Page 114 of 118
114
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
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. The revitalization planning effort described in
recommendation #2 should provide the City with plenty of good ideas for the use of
CDBG funds. 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 provision in the CDBG regulations that makes it easier to utilize CDBG funds
for mixed income housing initiatives.
8. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services. Homebuyer counseling is
aimed at credit repair and building basic home maintenance and budgeting 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 extending 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)
9. 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 housing
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 responsibility 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 limits the provision of financial
assistance to households with incomes below 80% of the area median household income.
This housing rehabilitation program would be administered more efficiently by a local
nonprofit organization or the Georgetown Housing Authority. The City may wish to
Attachment number 2
Page 115 of 118
115
Housing Element
enter into a cooperation agreement with a local housing organization to administer this
program.
10. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment. Given the limited supply of
resources for affordable housing, it only makes sense for the City to select certain areas of
the community for intensive and comprehensive revitalization rather than pursuing a
“shotgun” approach to the development of affordable housing. City planners should be
asked to select several target areas for intensive 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.
11. Encourage the creation of a local Community Land Trust. A community land trust
(CLT) acquires and holds land for the benefit of others. Perhaps the most popular type of
CLT is a conservation trust which acquires and protects open space and agricultural land.
But CLTs can also be used to expand the supply of affordable housing. CLTs hold land
for the common good and make it available to individuals and/or organizations through
long-term land leases.
Community land trusts typically acquire and hold land, but sell off any residential or
commercial buildings which are on the land. In this way, the cost of land in the housing
equation is minimized or eliminated, thus making the housing more affordable. The land
leases, in addition to being long-term (typically ninety-nine years) and renewable, are also
assignable to the heirs of the leaseholder. Most CLTs adopt "limited equity" policies and
formulas that restrict the resale price of the housing in order to maintain its long-term
affordability. Properties developed by land trusts pay local property taxes. Community
land trusts, though often allied with City Hall, operate outside and independent of
municipal government. The City may wish to convene a workshop with its nonprofit
community to explain the land trust model and provide seed money for the formation of a
CLT that is unique to Georgetown.
Low Priority (as resources permit)
12. Capitalize a local Housing Trust Fund with a dedicated revenue stream. A housing
trust fund is a pool of funds that is irrevocably committed to the development of
affordable housing. This pool of funds is capitalized through a dedicated revenue stream.
For example, the City may permanently commit to the housing trust fund a percentage of
its electric utility revenues or a percentage of its ad valorem (value added) tax revenues
from economic development projects. Using a recurring revenue stream that is somehow
linked to growth and expanded real estate development to capitalize the fund would be
particularly appropriate. In this manner, the City would symbolically devote a percentage
of its growth dividend to finance the construction of workforce housing needed to sustain
the local economy. The City’s Housing Advisory Board would develop criteria for the use
of housing trust fund proceeds and extend grants, loans and guarantees in support of
affordable housing. A local housing trust fund is likely to become a useful tool with which
to leverage proceeds from the national housing trust fund that is currently gaining
legislative support in Congress.
Attachment number 2
Page 116 of 118
116
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
13. Fund the proposed fixed-route transit system. As stated previously, there is a
significant amount of cross-commuting taking place in Georgetown as City residents leave
the community to work at jobs in Travis County while residents of outlying areas
commute in to Georgetown to fill local jobs. Many residents have expressed concern
about increased traffic volumes on Georgetown’s highways as evidenced by the results of
the City’s Citizen Quality of Life Survey. In light of continued population growth in the
City and the absence of public transportation, it is a forgone conclusion that traffic
volumes will continue to rise. The City recently invested a significant amount of resources
to identify the most cost-effective and efficient method to initiate a fixed route public
transit system in Georgetown. While the proposal was not approved by Council, it makes
serious economic sense to reconsider such a project in light of the affordable rental
housing deficit of 1,413 units and the projected increase in lower-wage, lower-skill jobs—
both of which involve the primary ridership of public transit.
14. Adopt universal design standards for accessibility. Universal design standards would
require residential new construction to incorporate features that make dwellings more
accessible to persons with mobility impairments. The City should modify its building code
requirements to require:
x wall reinforcement to provide grab bars adjacent to a toilet, bathtub or shower
x 32-inch minimum clear opening of interior doors
x wall switches at a height not to exceed 32 inches
x no-step entrances
The adoption of universal design standards will provide older residents with an expanded
opportunity to age in place while improving the visitability of the dwelling to persons with
mobility impairments. These expanded design standards add minimally to the cost of
construction. Such provisions will help to insure that the City’s housing stock becomes
accessible to a wider range of consumers. The City should conduct a workshop with
contractors and the local builders’ association to obtain input on this issue as part of the
process of amending its building code to incorporate universal design standards.
15. Use the City owned and operated electric utility to finance affordable housing. In
rent-restricted affordable housing developments, it can sometimes be a financial challenge
to generate sufficient revenue to meet operating expenses. Since the City operates its own
electric utility, it has the flexibility of offering preferred rates to certain types of consumers
that further the City’s policy objectives. For example, the City currently offers preferred
electric utility rates to stimulate economic development. Likewise, the City should offer
preferred rates to affordable housing developments. This type of subsidy is particularly
appropriate in light of the fact that these developments house the labor that is needed to
expand the local economy. A preferred electrical rate should also be offered to households
at or below 80% of the area median household income that complete a certified
homebuyer counseling program and purchase a Habitat for Humanity or other affordable
for-sale property in the City.
Another method of stimulating affordable housing development is to use energy savings to
finance the cost of construction. The City’s electric utility or its subcontractor would
install energy improvements and equipment during the construction process that would
have the effect of reducing the consumption of electrical power within affordable housing
Attachment number 2
Page 117 of 118
Housing Element
117
developments over the long term. The City’s electric utility could undertake an energy
audit to determine the potential reduction in operating costs that will accrue to the project
through the use of energy efficient construction techniques and equipment. The City’s
utility or its subcontractor would then install the prescribed energy improvements and
equipment and enter into a lease-purchase agreement with the developer. The
developer/owner would be responsible for making the lease-purchase payments from
operating revenues. At the end of the lease period, the improvements will be owned by
the developer/owner and the project will enjoy a permanent reduction in operating costs
due to the energy savings.
Attachment number 2
Page 118 of 118
City of Georgetown, Texas
September 28, 2010
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible action regarding the City Council employee performance appraisal process --
Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 and Danny Meigs, Councilmember District 3
ITEM SUMMARY:
Please see attached for a draft of the performance appraisal form as well as the City Manager evaluation form
that has been used in the past.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
ATTACHMENTS:
DRAFT Council Employee Performance Appraisal Form
City Manager Evaluation Form
Cover Memo
Item # B
Associate Review Process:
1. Associate will perform a self evaluation using the standard form. The form will be due on or
before the anniversary date of hire. This form will be received by the Mayor Pro Tem and
forwarded in its entirety to the Mayor, in addition to the completed performance review
package. No other action will be needed on this form. Council may use the self evaluation
while conducting conversations with the associate.
2. The City Manager will allow for department heads that work with the associate on a regular
basis to complete a standard draft evaluation of the associate. These will be due to the City
Manager within one week of the associate’s hire anniversary. The City Manager will then
combine these responses into one evaluation based on the same criteria stated for the Mayor
Pro Tem. This final draft will be due at the same time as the Council’s reviews are due. This
will provide a 360 appraisal for the Associate from their peers.
3. Each council member will have two weeks from the anniversary date of an employee’s hire, or
an agreed upon date, to complete a draft review. Any draft review submitted after two weeks
will not be included in the final review.
4. For any rating of exceeds expectations or below expectations, council members will list
succinct comments in the areas provided next to those ratings for clarity and reasoning.
5. Completed draft reviews will be received initially by the Mayor Pro Tem. The Mayor Pro Tem
will then tally all results for each category reviewed. The average in each category will be the
final number entered for that category. If the average rating is exceeds or below expectations,
then the Mayor Pro Tem will transfer those comments listed by individual council members in
verbatim, while only eliminating duplicate statements. The Mayor Pro Tem will have one week
to complete the process. Upon completion, the Mayor Pro Tem will forward the complete
package to the Mayor.
6. The Mayor will be responsible for reviewing the accuracy of the final tally and the transfer of
relevant comments. Any discrepancies will be jointly reviewed by the Mayor and Mayor Pro
Tem to correct any errors. One week will be set for this process.
7. Once step 6 is completed, the Mayor will place an item on the next available executive
session agenda to discuss and review the final result of the associate review. The complete
performance review documents will be made available for council review at executive session.
8. After ratification of the review, the associate will be given the complete package to allow for an
opportunity to add any desired comments to the review. The associate will have until the next
executive session to complete their comments, prepare ideas for goals and have those items
ready for discussion. An agenda item will then be set for the following executive session to
discuss and finalize the associate review.
9. The associate will return the review package with their comments now included. Council will
jointly discuss goals with the associate and, once those goals have been set, the review
process is over and the final draft will be placed in the employee’s personnel file.
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 4
Item # B
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
Name: Title:
Department: Division:
Reviewer: Hire Date:
Type of Appraisal (circle one) Review Period
Three-Month Performance Appraisal
Six-Month Performance Appraisal
Annual Performance Appraisal
Special Appraisal
From:
To:
Next Review Due:
Instructions: Carefully evaluate the employee’s work performance in relation to the essential functions
of the job and the demonstrated competencies as listed in their job description. Check rating box to
indicate the employee’s performance. Assign points for each rating within the scale and enter that
number in the corresponding “points” box. Points will be totaled and averaged for an overall score.
Definition of Performance Ratings:
EX-Exceeds- Exceeds position achievement
factors; achievement which exceeds that of most
other similar positions.
NI- Needs Improvement- With few exceptions,
meets position achievement factors; however,
some improvement is desirable.
MT- Meets- Meets position achievement factors;
achievement which is expected from experienced
and qualified individuals.
BE- Below Expectations- Does not meet position
achievement factors; clearly below acceptable.
Areas of Measurement Rating Scale Points Supportive Details or Comments
“X” (optional)
1. Serving the Public-Courtesy in dealing with
the public and effectiveness in meeting the
public’s needs. Applied feedback to improve
quality and demonstrates thoroughness.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
2. Planning and Organization- Establishes a
course of action, structuring or arranging
resources, and setting priorities for self and
others to accomplish specific goals. Demonstrated
ability to plan ahead, schedule work, align work
with strategic goals, anticipate and prepare for
future assignments, set logical priorities and use
time wisely. Adapts to changing conditions.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
3. Leadership- Measurement of getting
employees to willingly work to accomplish an
objective. Uses interpersonal styles and
methods to guide individuals toward effective
task accomplishment. Evaluates performance,
provides effective employee development and
counseling, and shares leadership when
appropriate.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 4
Item # B
Areas of Measurement Rating Scale Points Supportive Details or Comments
“X” (optional)
4. Communication- Communicates changes
and progress. Delegates clearly and without
excessive restrictions. Rarely interferes in
subordinate’s area of assigned authority.
Expresses ideas orally and in writing providing
relevant and timely information to coworkers and
citizens; listening to/understanding others.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
5. Personnel Management- Selecting,
managing, motivating and developing
employees, following core beliefs, prescribed
personnel policies and practices, including
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).
Effectiveness and utilization of personnel
resources. Supports efforts to succeed.
Promotes harassment free environment.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
6. Achieving Goals- Effective organizational
management to achieve defined goals and
objectives. Establish realistic goals for
employees. Produce a reasonable volume of
work on schedule, demonstrating accuracy,
thoroughness and dependability.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
7. Policy Development- The development and
implementation of sound departmental policy and
procedure which identifies and analyzes
problems effectively and develops alternative
solutions. This encompasses overall job
knowledge of assigned department(s). Supports
goals and values of the organization. Exhibits
proactive management of safety and security
conditions.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
8. Financial Management- Effective
development and implementation of financial
budgets and controls, operating with prescribed
fiscal limits established for the City of
Georgetown operation. Gathers and analyzes
information skillfully and demonstrated attention to
detail.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
9. Dependability- Reliability on the job;
maintains confidentiality; focusing on solving
problems, not blaming; takes responsibility for
own actions; responds to requests; and commits
to long hours of work when necessary to meet
goals.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
10. Personal Relations/Sensitivity-
Cooperation, tact, and overall effectiveness in
handling situations of people-oriented nature with
supervisors, co-workers, general public, and/or
subordinates both individually and in groups.
Ability to cope with conflicting points of view,
which may involve utilizing tolerance and
patience, compassion and understanding.
Courtesy in dealing with the public and
effectiveness in meeting the public’s needs.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
11. Judgment- The extent to which this
employee demonstrates proper judgment and
decision making skills when necessary.
Supports and explains reasoning for decisions
and includes appropriate people in the decision
making process.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 4
Item # B
Expectations Rating Scale Points Supportive Details or Comments
“X” (optional)
1. Accurately advises the City Council, City
Manager and Departments, while abiding by
Federal, State and local laws.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
2. Timely communication with the City Council
and the City Manager on the legal impact that
may occur on issues the Legal Department is
working on.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
3. Provide bi-weekly succinct reports to the City
Council on projects being handled by the legal
department.
EX 4
MT 2
NI 1
BE 0
TOTAL POINTS
Overall Point Summary:
38+: Exceeds Expectations
25-37: Meets Expectations
18-24: Needs Improvement
Less than 18: Below Expectations
Goals
1.
2.
3.
4.
Associate Comments:
(If more area is required for additional response you may attach comments to this review.)
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 4
Item # B
Page 1 of 1
City of Georgetown, Texas
City Manager Performance Evaluation
as of March 2005
PURPOSE
In order to establish and maintain effective City Council and City Manager relations, it is essential that the
City Council establish an ongoing evaluation process that offers an opportunity for each party to review
the performance of the City Manager. This evaluation should focus on how effectively the City Manager
is accomplishing the goals established by the City Council and how the responsibilities in key performance
areas are being carried out.
Specifically, the evaluation should serve the following needs:
1. Allow the City Manager and the City Council to test, identify, and refine their respective roles,
relationships, and expectations of responsibilities to each other.
2. Allow discussion of the City Manager's strengths and opportunity areas as demonstrated by past
performance with the objective of increasing the City Manager's effectiveness; that is, give the
City Council the opportunity to provide positive feedback in areas that have been handled well
and to clarify areas where the City Manager could become more effective through improved
performance.
PROCESS
1. One month before the evaluation is scheduled, the City Manager shall complete the City
Manager's Self-Evaluation Form and return it to the Mayor.
2. One month before the evaluation is scheduled, those City Staff members that directly report to
the City Manager and those City Staff designated by the Mayor, shall complete the Staff
Evaluation Form and return it to the Mayor.
3. Three weeks before the evaluation is scheduled, the Mayor will provide each Councilmember with
a copy of the City Council Evaluation Form along with a copy of the completed City Manager's
Self-Evaluation Form.
4. Each Councilmember, and the Mayor, shall complete the City Council Evaluation Form, sign it,
and return one copy to the Mayor no later than two weeks prior to the evaluation meeting.
5. The Mayor shall tabulate the results of the City Council and City Staff Evaluation forms.
6. The Mayor, prior to the executive session evaluation meeting, shall distribute the composite
evaluations of the Mayor and City Council, and City Staff along with the City Manager's Self-
Evaluation Form to the City Council. The Mayor shall provide a copy of the composite evaluations
to the City Manager prior to the executive session evaluation meeting.
7. The Mayor and City Council shall meet with the City Manager in executive session to jointly
review the evaluations.
8. The Mayor and City Council shall establish the operating ground rules prior to the executive
session evaluation meeting including, but not limited to, such considerations as location, time, or
time considerations for any particular subject matter.
9. The Mayor shall consolidate the agreed upon goals/priorities into an executive summary
document that shall be used as the foundation for the next year’s evaluation.
10. The evaluation shall occur in April of each year, except that the City Council may require an
additional evaluation at any time during the year.
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 7
Item # B
Page 1 of 1 - City Manager Self-Evaluation Form
CITY MANAGER SELF - EVALUATION FORM
The response to the questions on this form should be completed and provided to the Mayor one month
prior to the City Council's evaluation of the City Manager. Additional pages may be added as
needed. Your comments on these self-evaluation questions will be attached to the performance
evaluation.
1. What progress have you made in accomplishing the Council mandated goals?
2. In the absence of Council mandated goals and objectives, what goals have you set and what
progress have you made in accomplishing these goals?
3. What other job-related accomplishments have you had that were not part of the goals set at your
last evaluation?
4. What obstacles or setbacks did you encounter during the year?
5. What do you see as your major goals for this next evaluation period?
6. What can the Council do to help you accomplish these goals?
7. What suggestions do you have for improving the effectiveness between you and the Council?
8. Do you have specific training needs, which the Council can facilitate, and how will these needs
help you in meeting your goals?
9. Are there any other issues or comments you wish to share?
City Manager's Signature ___________________________________________ Date _______________
Attachment number 2
Page 2 of 7
Item # B
Page 1 of 3 - City Council Form - City Manager Evaluation
CITY COUNCIL FORM - CITY MANAGER EVALUATION
The response to the questions on this form should be completed and provided to the Mayor no later than
Friday, May 2, 2008, which is one week prior to the City Council's evaluation of the City Manager.
Additional pages may be added as needed.
Each member of the City Council should complete the form, sign, and forward it to the Mayor who will be
responsible for compiling the comments. The forms and accompanying summary shall then be presented
to the City Manager and become a part of the permanent file.
QUESTIONS
1. Accomplishments: Has the City Manager accomplished or worked toward accomplishing the
goals established by the City Council? Please explain.
What has been the City Manager's most important accomplishments this year?
2. Strengths: Based upon your evaluation, what areas would you list as the City Manager’s strong
points as a City Manager?
3. Improvements: Based upon your evaluation, in what specific areas or situations can you offer
constructive, yet positive ideas, to the City Manager to work on to improve their skills to be more
effective in their performance.
What impressed you the most about the City Manager's performance this year? In what area has
the City Manager shown exceptional improvement?
4. Goals for the next year: What are the major goals and priorities on which the City Manager
needs to focus in the coming year?
5. Concerns: What is your major area of concern regarding the City Manager's performance this last
year?
6. Comments: Do you have any additional comments regarding your City Manager that have a
bearing on the evaluation?
Attachment number 2
Page 3 of 7
Item # B
Page 2 of 3 - City Council Form - City Manager Evaluation
CITY COUNCIL FORM - CITY MANAGER EVALUATION
CHECKLIST
This area of the evaluation form shall be used by each member of the City Council to evaluate the City
Manager's performance in fulfilling each of the roles played in the city's government.
The City manager is graded 1 - 5, with the following scale:
1 = Does not Meet Expectations
2 = Needs Improvement
3 = Meets Expectations
4 = Exceeds Expectations
5 = Outstanding
N/A = Not enough information to evaluate
A. Personal
_____ Invests sufficient efforts toward being diligent and thorough in the discharge of duties.
_____ Composure, appearance, and attitude fitting for an individual in their executive position.
_____ Treats public and staff with professional courtesy.
B. Professional Skills and Status
_____ Knowledgeable of current developments affecting the management field.
_____ Has a capacity for innovation and new ideas.
_____ Anticipates problems and develops effective approaches for solving them in a proactive fashion.
_____ Willing to consider new ideas proposed by council members or staff.
C. Relations with City Council
_____ Carries out directives of the City Council as a whole rather than those of any one councilmember.
_____ Assists the City Council in resolving problems at the administrative level to avoid unnecessary City Council action.
_____ Assists the City Council in establishing policy while acknowledging the ultimate authority of the City Council.
_____ Responds to the requests for information or assistance by the City Council.
_____ Informs the City Council of administrative decisions.
_____ Receptive to constructive criticism and advice.
D. Policy Execution
_____ Implements City Council action in accordance with the intent of the City Council.
_____ Supports the actions of the City Council after a decision has been reached.
_____ Enforces city policies.
_____ Understands city's laws and ordinances.
_____ Reviews enforcement procedures periodically to improve effectiveness.
_____ Offers workable alternatives to the City Council for changes in the law when an ordinance or policy proves
impractical in actual administration.
E. Reporting
_____ Provides the City Council with reports concerning matters of importance to the city.
_____ Reports are accurate and comprehensive.
_____ Reports are generally produced through own initiative rather than when requested by the City Council.
_____ Prepares a sound agenda, which prevents trivial, administrative matters from being reviewed by the City Council.
Attachment number 2
Page 4 of 7
Item # B
Page 3 of 3 - City Council Form - City Manager Evaluation
City Council Form - City Manager Evaluation
CHECKLIST - continued
The City manager is graded 1 - 5, with the following scale:
1 = Does not Meet Expectations
2 = Needs Improvement
3 = Meets Expectations
4 = Exceeds Expectations
5 = Outstanding
N/A = Not enough information to evaluate
F. Citizen Relations
_____ Accommodates complaints from citizens.
_____ Dedicated to the community and to its citizens.
_____ Skillful with the news media - avoiding political positions and partisanship.
_____ Has the capacity to listen to others and to recognize their interest - works well with others.
_____ Willing to meet with citizens and members of the community and discuss their concerns.
_____ Cooperates with neighboring communities.
_____ Cooperates with the county, state and federal governments.
_____ Cooperates with the governmental units within the city such as city boards, commissions and the school board.
_____ Responds to customer issues in a timely manner.
G. Staffing
_____ Recruits and retains competent personnel for city positions.
_____ Aware of weak or inefficient administrative personnel and works to improve their performance.
_____ Committed to the City Council's Equal Employment Opportunity policy.
_____ Accurately informed and concerned about employee compensation, benefits, promotions, and pensions.
_____ Impartially administers the merit system.
H. Supervision
_____ Encourages department heads to make decisions within their own jurisdictions without City Manager approval, yet
maintains general control of administrative operations.
_____ Instills confidence and initiative in subordinates and emphasizes support rather than restrictive controls for their
programs.
_____ Has developed a friendly and informal relationship with the work force as a whole, yet maintains the prestige and
dignity of the City Manager's office.
_____ Evaluates and works to develop employees.
I. Fiscal Management
_____ Prepares a balanced budget to provide services at a level intended by the City Council.
_____ Makes the most efficient use of available funds, conscious of the need to operate the city efficiently and
effectively.
_____ Prepared budget in an intelligible format.
City Council member Signature __________________________________________ Date: ____________
Attachment number 2
Page 5 of 7
Item # B
Page 1 of 2 - City Staff Form - City Manager Evaluation
GEORGETOWN CITY STAFF FORM - CITY MANAGER EVALUATION
The response to the questions on this form should be completed and provided to the Mayor no later than
one month prior to the City Council's evaluation of the City Manager. Additional pages may be added
as needed.
In the space provided, please use the above key to give us feedback on the degree to which the City
Manager demonstrates the following behaviors:
Key: 1=Always 2=Almost Always 3=Sometimes 4=Rarely 5=Never
_____ gives clear directions and instructions
_____ plans, organizes, and monitors staff schedules and workloads so that adjustments can be made when necessary
_____ understands my job
_____ gives timely feedback on my performance
_____ gives constructive feedback on my performance
_____ delegates duties and responsibilities based on my skills
_____ involves me in identifying and solving problems
_____ encourages creativity and innovation
_____ fosters an environment, which supports constructive risk taking
_____ is open to alternative strategies, methods, and/or techniques for achieving results
_____ respects an individual's method to achieve results (as long as the methods do not conflict with city policy)
_____ holds me responsible for my performance
_____ seems to hold others responsible for their performance
_____ supports City Council goals, objectives, and adopted policies
_____ effectively utilizes the available resources
_____ emphasizes quality customer service as a top priority
_____ recognizes staff who provide good customer service
_____ makes decisions, which are consistent with city policy and values
_____ is accessible, visible, and available
_____ is a good listener
_____ promotes a two-way flow of information and communication
_____ is responsive and flexible in addressing my concerns
_____ explains the reasons for decisions made
_____ communicates effectively - verbally
_____ communicates effectively in writing
_____ reacts calmly and appropriately to situations
_____ is honest
_____ treats individuals with respect and dignity
_____ resolves work conflicts
_____ acts to achieve a non-discriminatory and harassment-free work environment
_____ seeks objective solutions to problems
_____ is fair and equitable
_____ sets an example/model commitment to the city's values
_____ provides recognition and positive reinforcement
_____ makes personnel decisions based on equity and fairness
_____ demonstrates personal commitment to teamwork
_____ is sensitive to cultural differences
Attachment number 2
Page 6 of 7
Item # B
Page 1 of 2 - City Staff Form - City Manager Evaluation
City Staff Form - City Manager Evaluation
Scoring Cont'd
Key: 1=Always 2=Almost Always 3=Sometimes 4=Rarely 5=Never
_____ effectively uses my skills and talents to accomplish the work in our office
_____ knows my career goals
_____ helps identify the training I need to improve my skills
_____ assists in obtaining the training or opportunities I need to improve my skills
_____ has sufficient technical expertise to assist in solving work-related problems
_____ makes periodic visits to my office
_____ keeps me informed on city initiatives, directions, and policies
_____ makes individuals feel a part of the City of Georgetown team
A. Strengths: Based upon your overall evaluation, what areas would you consider as the City Manager’s strong points as a City
Manager?
B. Improvements Suggested: Based upon your evaluation, what areas would you suggest the City manager work on to improve
their skills and to be more effective in specific areas or situations?
Date: ____________________________________
Attachment number 2
Page 7 of 7
Item # B
City of Georgetown, Texas
September 28, 2010
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 this week's agenda items
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Cover Memo
Item # C
City of Georgetown, Texas
September 28, 2010
SUBJECT:
Sec 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Discussions or deliberations regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has
received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the
territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting economic development negotiations; or to
deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have
locate, stay or expand in or near the territory of the City and with which the City Council is conducting
economic development negotiations
- Update regarding incentives as it pertains to Project Blue Sky
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Cover Memo
Item # D