Docstoc

Housing Element - City of Georgetown Texas

Document Sample
Housing Element - City of Georgetown Texas Powered By Docstoc
					                City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
                                        Housing Element




Draft November 24, 2008
                                                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
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan




                    (This page left intentionally blank)




 2
                                                                                   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:
    •   What is the unmet need for affordable housing?
    •   What factors prevent the City from fully meeting the need for affordable housing?
    •   What positive steps can we take to expand the supply of affordable housing for lower
        income households in Georgetown?




                                                                                                        3
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




 4
                                                                           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

  400,000
  350,000

  300,000
                                                               City of Georgetow n
  250,000
                                                               Georgetow n HMA
  200,000
                                                               11-m ile radius
  150,000
                                                               William son County
  100,000
   50,000
        0
                1990           2000           2007



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.




                                                                                             5
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan




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.




 6
                                                                             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.




                                                                                                 7
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 Fair Market Rent, 2008


  $30.00
                                                                                                                                                           $26.78
                                                                                                                                               $25.16
  $25.00
                                                                                                                                 $19.90
  $20.00                                                                                             $17.51         $17.98
                                                                                      $14.73
  $15.00
                                                                       $10.78
                                         $8.24          $8.91
  $10.00                    $7.62
                   $6.80

      $5.00

      $0.00
                                                                                                                                                t
                r




                                        er




                                                                                                                    R
                                                                                      R
                                                   on




                                                                                                      er




                                                                                                                                             an
              te




                                                                                                                                                           se
                                                                                                                              er
                                                                        r
                           er




                                                                      re



                                                                                    FM




                                                                                                                  FM
                                      hi
            ai




                                                                                                   ht




                                                                                                                             h
                                                 rs




                                                                                                                                                         ur
                                                                                                                                          nt
                         rv




                                                                   bo
                                    as




                                                                                                                           ac
           W




                                                                                               fig
                                               pe




                                                                                                                                      ou
                       Se




                                                                                                                                                     N
                                                                                 d




                                                                                                              d
                                C




                                                                La




                                                                                                                         Te
                                                                               -b




                                                                                                             -b
                                                                                             re




                                                                                                                                                     d
                                             es




                                                                                                                                    cc
                    r/




                                                                                                                                                   re
                                                                             r1




                                                                                                           r2
                                                                                            Fi
                  ke




                                                           n




                                                                                                                          l
                                             al




                                                                                                                                   A
                                                                                                                       oo




                                                                                                                                                 te
                                                           io



                                                                            fo




                                                                                                       fo
                or




                                           lS




                                                                                                                                               is
                                                        ct




                                                                                                                    ch
               W




                                                                       d




                                                                                                       d
                                         ai




                                                                                                                                            eg
                                                      ru




                                                                                                                   S
                                                                     de




                                                                                                     de
                                      et
              ep




                                                    st




                                                                                                                                           R
                                                                                                                y
                                                                  ee




                                                                                                  ee
                                     R




                                                                                                              ar
                                                  on
           Pr




                                                                 N




                                                                                              N




                                                                                                             t
                                              C




                                                                                                          en
        od




                                                             e




                                                                                              e


                                                                                                        em
                                                          ag




                                                                                           ag
      Fo




                                                         W




                                                                                          W



                                                                                                      El
                                                       y




                                                                                        y
                                                     rl




                                                                                      rl
                                                   ou




                                                                                    ou
                                                  H




                                                                                 H




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




  8
                                                                              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:
   •   Housing value slightly outpaced household income in the City of Georgetown between
       1990 and 2000.
   •   Income is rising faster than sales prices in the City, indicating a fairly-valued housing
       market.
   •   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.
   •   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.
   •   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).
   •   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.
   •   Rents outpaced income during the 1990s.
   •   Increasing income did not provide significant relief from cost burden for renters with
       incomes below 50% of the area median income.
   •   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.




                                                                                                   9
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:
   1. Increase the amount of land zoned specifically for multi-family housing development.
   2. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment
   3. Treat nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers as a special class of
      developer.
   4. Waive all municipal impact fees and development fees for housing units affordable to 80%
      of the area median income and below.
   5. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
   6. Use the City owned and operated electrical utility to finance affordable housing.
   7. Capitalize a local Housing Trust Fund with a dedicated revenue stream.
   8. Encourage the creation of a local Community Land Trust.
   9. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
   10. Strengthen homebuyer counseling and support services.
   11. Strengthen the development skills of local nonprofit housing developers.
   12. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing
       initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects.
   13. Adopt universal design standards.
   14. Fund the proposed fixed-route transit system.
   15. Treat affordable housing as a major policy issue in Georgetown.




 10
                                                                               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:
    •   Identify demographic and economic trends that affect the demand for housing
    •   Define the Georgetown housing market area and the supply and demand characteristics of
        that housing market
    •   Analyze the demand for affordable housing
    •   Determine if there are any barriers to affordable housing
    •   Recommend actions and initiatives aimed at expanding the supply of affordable housing.




                                                                                                   11
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




1City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan, pages 3-10.
2Sun 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.




    12
                                                                            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.




                                                                                               13
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan




 14
                                                                              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):
   •   Extremely low income households with incomes up to 30% of the median household income
   •   Very low income households with incomes from 30% up to 50% of the median household
       income, and
   •   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:
   •   Households living in physically deficient housing units (i.e., were overcrowded and lacked
       complete plumbing or kitchen facilities), and
   •   Households paying more than 30% of gross income for monthly housing costs.




                                                                                                 15
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.




3Clifford Krauss and Ron Nixon, “Some Cities are Spared the Slide in Housing,” The New York Times, 15 February
2008, online.




    16
                                                                             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.




                                                                                                 17
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



                    (This page left intentionally blank)




 18
                                                                            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
                         Rate of Population Growth
        County                    2000-2006
Rockwall                            61.7%
Collin                              41.6%
Williamson                          40.0%
Fort Bend                           37.4%
Hays                                37.2%
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




                                                                                               19
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                                              Williamson
                   Georgetown        Georgetown HMA     11-mile radius     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


  14%

  12%

  10%
                                                                               City of Georgetown
    8%
                                                                               Williamson County
    6%
                                                                               Austin-Round Roc k MSA
    4%

    2%

    0%
            2001     2002      2003     2004    2005     2006    2007


Note: Annual population estimates are available only for the areas included.
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

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,




 20
                                                                                               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

Where Williamson County Residents                       Where Former Williamson County Residents had
were Living In 1995                                     Moved to by 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%

             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                               Williamson        Austin-Round
                 Georgetown     Georgetown HMA            County            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




                                                                                                            21
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                      Sun City census
                      Georgetown     Georgetown HMA       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.




   22
                                                                                                                      Housing Element

Figure 7. Population Trends by Race and Hispanic Origin, 1990-2007
                                                                             Race
                                                                                                                            Hispanic
                            Total                White                       Black                Other Race
                          Population       Number      Percent         Number     Percent      Number     Percent      Number      Percent

1990
City of Georgetown             14,842          12,882         86.8%          768      5.2%          1,192     8.0%         3,105       20.9%
Georgetown HMA                     na              na             na          na         na            na        na           na           na
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%

2000
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%

2007
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%
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

       100%
           80%
                                                                                                              White
           60%                                                                                                 la
                                                                                                              B ck
           40%                                                                                                Other Ra ce
           20%                                                                                                Hispa nic

           0%
                                       A
                    n




                                                                               SA




                                                                                                  s
                                                     s




                                                                                y
                   w




                                                   iu
                                 HM




                                                                              nt




                                                                                               xa
                                                                             M
                 to




                                                   d



                                                                            ou




                                                                                            Te
                                                ra
                 e




                                                                          ck
                                wn




                                                                          C
              rg




                                             ile




                                                                        Ro
                             to




                                                                        n
           eo




                                                                      so
                                           -m
                          e




                                                                     nd
          G



                        rg




                                                          m
                                        11
       of




                                                                   ou
                      eo




                                                       ia
                                                    ill



                                                                 -R
     ity




                     G




                                                   W



                                                               in
   C




                                                            st
                                                          Au




Source: DemographicsNow




                                                                                                                                                23
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

    60


    50
                                                                                                        un
                                                                                                       S City census area
    40                                                                                                 City of Georgetown
                                                                                                       11-mile radius
    30
                                                                                                       Williamson County

    20                                                                                                 Austin-Round Rock MSA
                                                                                                       Texas
    10

     0
                     1990                           2000                           2007


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




   24
                                                                                                                                                                  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


   100%
    90%
    80%
    70%
    60%
                                                                                                                                                                                 Under 55
    50%
                                                                                                                                                                                 55 & Older
    40%
    30%
    20%
    10%
     0%
                                   11-mile radius




                                                                                           11-mile radius




                                                                                                                                                 11-mile radius
                   HMA




                                                               A




                                                                           HMA




                                                                                                                       A




                                                                                                                                  HMA




                                                                                                                                                                             A
            City




                         S City




                                                    County




                                                                    City




                                                                                 S City




                                                                                                            County




                                                                                                                           City




                                                                                                                                        S City




                                                                                                                                                                  County
                                                             MS




                                                                                                                     MS




                                                                                                                                                                           MS
                          un




                                                                                  un




                                  1990                                                    2000                                           un  2007



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




                                                                                                                                                                                              25
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


     8,000

     7,000
     6,000

     5,000                                                                                                    1990
     4,000                                                                                                    2000
     3,000                                                                                                    2007

     2,000
     1,000
         0
               Under 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


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.




    26
                                                                                                                  Housing Element

Figure 12.

                                          Number of Persons by Age Cohort
                                          Georgetown Housing Market Area

    14,000

    12,000

    10,000
                                                                                                                    1990
     8,000
                                                                                                                    2000
     6,000
                                                                                                                    2007
     4,000

     2,000

           0
                Under 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


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

    50,000

    40,000


    30,000                                                                                                           1990
                                                                                                                     2000
    20,000                                                                                                           2007

    10,000

           0
                 Under 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


Source: DemographicsNow




                                                                                                                               27
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 14.

                                           Number of Persons by Age Cohort
                                                 Williamson County

    90,000
    80,000
    70,000
    60,000
                                                                                                                1990
    50,000
                                                                                                                2000
    40,000
                                                                                                                2007
    30,000
    20,000
    10,000
           0
                Under 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


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.




   28
                                                                                                                          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

                                                                                  Georgetown HMA
                                         City of            Sun City census        minus Sun City                                  Williamson
                                       Georgetown                area               census area           11-mile radius            County
Population Growth Rates
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%
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




                                                                                                                                                 29
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

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, particularly
for those headed by a single parent. Single-parent households will have less income than married-
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 home
ownership followed by male-headed households. Female-headed households tend to own their
units at significantly lower rates. While women have traditionally worked in lower wage
occupations than men, the number of women in higher paying managerial and professional
specialty occupations is growing. Women earning higher incomes will support increased
household formation by single women.


Figure 17.

                                  Trends in Household Types, 1990-2012
                                            City of Georgetown

    40%
    35%
    30%                                                                                               1990
    25%
                                                                                                      2000
    20%
                                                                                                      2007
    15%
    10%                                                                                               2012
     5%
     0%
             Married Couple          Single Parent w/         Married Couple             Non-family
              w/ Children                Children              w/o Children              Households


Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2000 data; DemographicsNow for all 2007 and 2012 data




   30
                                                                                                        Housing Element

Figure 18.

                                  Trends in Household Types, 1990-2012
                                             Georgetown HMA

    40%
    35%
    30%
                                                                                                      1990
    25%
                                                                                                      2000
    20%
                                                                                                      2007
    15%
                                                                                                      2012
    10%
     5%
     0%
             Married Couple          Single Parent w/         Married Couple             Non-family
              w/ Children                Children              w/o Children              Households


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

    45%
    40%
    35%
    30%                                                                                               1990
    25%                                                                                               2000
    20%                                                                                               2007
    15%
                                                                                                      2012
    10%
     5%
     0%
             Married Couple          Single Parent w/         Married Couple             Non-family
              w/ Children                Children              w/o Children              Households


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.




                                                                                                                     31
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Figure 20. Household Growth Trends, 1990-2012
                                                               Percent                             Percent                              Percent
                                                  Average      Change                 Average      Change                   Average     Change
                                                  Annual        from                  Annual        from                    Annual       from
                              1990       2000     Change      1990-2000      2007     Change      2000-2007       2012      Change     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.




   32
                                                                                                                  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
                                                               Change 1990-2000                                 Change 2000-2007
                                                                     Average                                          Average
                                                                     Annual                                           Annual
                                  1990        2000       Number       Gain       Percent       2007       Number       Gain       Percent
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




                                                                                                                                               33
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


                                City of         Georgetown                         Williamson
                             Georgetown            HMA          11-mile radius       County
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                   19                 43               66                98
     % 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%
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.




   34
                                                                                                                       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                 Net Increase
                                                Net Increase                    Owner-Occupied              Renter-Occupied
                                               Housing Units                        Units                        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
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.




                                                                                                                                             35
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

                               Housing Units                       Owner-occupied Units

                                                                                Vacant Units
                                                                                  For Sale    Homeowner
                             Total      Occupied        Total      Percent         Only      Vacancy Rate
1990
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%
2000
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%
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

5U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Analysis of the Austin-Round Rock, Texas Housing Market
(Washington, D.C., 2004).




    36
                                                                                          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

                               Housing Units                           Rental Units

                                                                                                Rental
                                                                                               Vacancy
                             Total      Occupied        Total      Percent      Vacant Units     Rate
1990
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%
2000
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%
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.




                                                                                                            37
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Figure 26.

                                     Housing Vacancy Trends, 1980-2007

    16%

    14%

    12%

    10%                                                                           City of Georgetown
                                                                                  Williamson County
     8%
                                                                                  Austin MSA
     6%                                                                           Texas
     4%

     2%

     0%
                  1980               1990               2000               2007


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.




   38
                                                                                                                        Housing Element

Figure 27. Overall Housing Vacancies, 2000-2007

                                                                                 Total Vacant Units
                                           Total Housing Units                    #                   %

2000
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%

2007
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
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).




                                                                                                                                             39
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 28.

                             Single Family Residential Permits Issued
                                  City of Georgetown, 1990-2007

     1,400

     1,200

     1,000

       800

       600

       400

       200

          0
           97



           99

           00

           01

           02

           03

           04

           05

           06

           07
           96
           90

           91

           92

           93

           94

           95




           98




         20

         20
         19

         19

         19

         19

         19

         20

         20

         20

         20

         20

         20
         19

         19

         19

         19

         19




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.




    40
                                                                                                                       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

                                      Housing Units           Owner-Occupied Units        Renter-Occupied Units             Vacant Units
                                    Total       Occupied       Number        Percent*      Number        Percent*       Number       Percent**
2000
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%
2007
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%
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:
      •     The youngest households are predominantly renters.
      •     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.
      •     By age 35, homeownership rates are higher than renter rates in all areas.
      •     By age 45, renter rates begin to fall significantly and continue decreasing as householders
            age.




                                                                                                                                                    41
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

      •     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.
      •     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
                             City of Georgetown    Georgetown HMA       Sun City census area   Williamson County
Age of
Householder                  % 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%
85 and older                     1.3%      0.6%        1.0%      0.4%       0.9%       0.1%        0.7%      0.4%
All Households                 72.9%       27.1%     78.1%      21.9%      95.7%        4.3%      74.2%      25.8%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau




                                                                               Many older residential structures
                                                                               in Georgetown have been
                                                                               rehabilitated, thereby preserving
                                                                               local historical architecture and
                                                                               structurally-sound housing units.



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.




   42
                                                                                                         Housing Element



Figure 31. Tenure by Race and Ethnicity, 2000
                                   City of Georgetown       Georgetown HMA        Sun City census area    Williamson County

Race of Householder                % 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.

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.




                                                                                                                                43
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan




                                                             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)



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.




 44
                                                                                                                          Housing Element



Figure 32. Privately assisted Housing Inventory in Williamson County
                                                                     Affordable
                                                       Total Units    Units**                                  Program

City of Georgetown
     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

Williamson County *
     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
*Includes all assisted housing units located in Williamson County outside the City of Georgetown; this area approximates the 11-mile radius.
**Rent paid by tenant is equal to or less than 30% of income.

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



                                                                                                                                                         45
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       Sun City      Williamson
                                           Georgetown         HMA         census area      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.




   46
                                                                                                     Housing Element

Figure 34. Overcrowded Housing Units, 2000

                                              City of        Georgetown        Sun City            Williamson
                                           Georgetown            HMA         census area            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           Sun City        Williamson
                                                          Georgetown        HMA            census area         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.




                                                                                                                             47
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 36. Summary of Housing Conditions, 2000

                                               City of      Georgetown       Sun City     Williamson
                                             Georgetown        HMA         census area     County
Total Occupied Units                               10,430         16,113          3,898         86,766
Units Built Prior to 1960
  Owner Occupied Units                               682            791             52           4,280
  Renter Occupied Units                              410            495             51           2,159
Overcrowded Units
 Owner Occupied Units                                134            219             29           1,651
 Renter Occupied Units                               383            417             20           2,053
Units Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities
  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%

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.




   48
                                                                                          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




                                                                                                       49
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

                            8.0%

                            7.0%
     Percent Unemployment




                            6.0%

                            5.0%                                                  Williamson County
                            4.0%                                                  Texas

                            3.0%                                                  U.S.

                            2.0%

                            1.0%

                            0.0%
                                   1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


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.




   50
                                                                                                                                Housing Element

Figure 39.

                                              Comparison of County Unemployment Rates, 2007


                            5.0%                                                                                                    4.5%
                                                                                                               4.2%        4.3%
                                                                                                 4.1%
     Percent Unemployment




                            4.0%                         3.6%            3.7%      3.7%
                                    3.5%      3.5%

                            3.0%

                            2.0%


                            1.0%

                            0.0%
                                                         is




                                                                                   ys
                                   t




                                                                          n




                                                                                                p



                                                                                                           m




                                                                                                                            l
                                              e




                                                                                                                                    ll
                                    e




                                                                                                                          el
                                                       av



                                                                       so




                                                                                                ro




                                                                                                                                  Be
                                           Le
                                 rn




                                                                                Ha




                                                                                                         ila



                                                                                                                        dw
                                                                                             st
                                                                  m
                                                     Tr
                               Bu




                                                                                                        M
                                                                                          Ba




                                                                                                                      al
                                                                  ia
                                                               ill




                                                                                                                  C
                                                              W




                                                                          Surrounding Counties


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.




                                                                                                                                             51
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Figure 40. Total Employment by Industry for Williamson County, 2003-2007
                                                                                                                          Change from 2003-2007
                                                            2003           2004          2005        2006      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.
*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.




   52
                                                                                 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.




                                                                                              53
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 42. Employment Projections by Industry for the Rural Capital Workforce Investment
Area, 2004-2014

                                                           2004             2014           Change from 2004-2014
                                                         Estimated        Projected
                                                        Employment       Employment        Number          Percent

Total: All Industries                                         212,200          273,350          61,150               29%
   PRIVATE BUSINESS
      Goods-Producing Industries
       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%
      Service-Providing Industries
        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%
   GOVERNMENT
      State                                                        500             500               0                0%
      Local                                                      1,850           2,100             250               14%
      Federal*                                                   8,800          10,500           1,700               19%
*The Rural Capital Workforce Investment Area (WIA) includes Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee,
Llano, and Williamson Counties.

Source: Texas Workforce Commission




   54
                                                                                                 Housing Element

Figure 43.

                                     Employment Projections by Industry, 2004-2014
                                       Rural Capital Workforce Investment Area


     45,000
     40,000
     35,000
     30,000
     25,000                                                                                                     2004
     20,000                                                                                                     2014
     15,000
     10,000
      5,000
            0




       Ac ts, a re c a po se s




                                    ub erv n
                                               ist s
                                                Ut g




                                                          t
                                             le ing
                                 ho ufa tion




                        om & T l, L ce
         M ., Sc ta te c e ma s




                m ta i c ia Se r a l
                                  M nstr a l
                                             in t a l




                                                          t
                        Ad nie Se ng

                                  ., nte es




                                              Ad e s
                        nt Re Insu on




                                                e .)


                                                        vt
                                            ec ce
                                  ., ta il de
                                            e h de




                                             ca ov


                                                      ov
                                             S tio
                                                        n




             rv da me Ass ic e
                                           fo ilitie




                                          St min



                                         de G o
                   f C ific nta ra n
                                                     si




     th om ter So on e t
                                                      i


           Ar h C Edu up rpri
                                                      t



                                                      r




                            m s, E rvic
                                                     ti




                                         lic ic
                             n t, R a n
                            pa ec e a s




                                         Lo G


                                                  lG
                                      Re Tra

                                         a r Tra
                                     C ge



                                     le ctu




                            ep ood re a
                                       M ee



                                     a n uc




                                                 ou




                                                   v
                                                 rt




                                                 l
                                              ra
                                               r




                                             at
                                              r
                                            tu
                                           in




                                          sa




                                          h
                                         ul



                                         o




                   a l Fin In

                                         ,
                                     W




                                    Fe
                                    ric




                                       l
                                      ti
                                     S




                         tio n

                                   F
                                tP
                                Ag




                       Es a n




                               &
                              sp




                               in
                              W




                              ,
                           an




                            n
                            ,




                         xc
                        Tr




                      (e
           g m ie




                  es
          c En

                   o
                to
               Re




                 t




               ic
               al
            of




           He
          Pr




          Se
       er
   O




*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.




                                                                                                                       55
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 44. Commuter Trends – 2000


LOCAL RESIDENT WORKERS
(People who live and work in Williamson County)
Williamson County                                                             56,552

IN-COMMUTERS                                OUT-COMMUTERS
(People who live elsewhere and commute      (People who live in Williamson County but
to Williamson County for work)              commute elsewhere for work)
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
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.




 56
                                                                                                 Housing Element



Figure 45. Trends in Real Wages by Industry for Williamson County, 2003-2007
                                                                                          % Change
                                                                2003           2007       2003-2007

Total: All Industries                                             $47,346       $43,472         -8.2%
   PRIVATE BUSINESS                                               $50,217       $44,980        -10.4%
      Goods-Producing Industries
        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%
      Service-Providing Industries
        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%
   GOVERNMENT
      State                                                       $44,240       $42,276        -4.4%
      Local                                                       $33,869       $34,372         1.5%
      Federal*                                                    $25,372       $83,616       229.6%
Note: Average annual wages calculated by multiplying the average weekly wage for the first quarter in
each year by 52.
*The percent change is calculated between 2004 and 2007.

Source: Texas Workforce Commission




                                                                                                              57
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Figure 46.

                                     Trends in Real Wages, 2003-2007
                                            Williamson County


    $90,000
    $80,000
    $70,000
    $60,000
    $50,000                                                                                      2003
    $40,000                                                                                      2007
    $30,000
    $20,000
    $10,000
         $0




                                                                 s




                                                 Se ion
                                    e n ssis e s
                                                              es




                                         Fe a l G t
                                                 le ing




                                                              ng
                                                                n




                                                  Le ce
                          Es a n form ie s




                                                  Se a l
                                     M stru a l




                                                                t
                                                                l




                           Ad nie Se r g
                                                              es




                                                  Ad s
              gm cie e, R , In ion




                                                 a t n .)



                                                                t
                                               ec ce
                                 sp e ta a de

                                                               e




                                                               v
                                                            ise




                                                            ov
                                              in e t a




                                                           ov
                                 W nuf tio




                                                              n




                                             lic vice



                                            Lo Go
                                             a r ra d
                                             ul stri




                                                          si




                                                           n




            c o nt , So ion e t

                               nm l A rvic



                               ep ood e a t
                               pa ec h a si
                                                           t



                                                           r




                               m s, E vic




                                                            i
                      es ion t, R ta n
                                                        ilit

                                                       at




                              Ed Sup rpr




                                                      lG
                                                       m
                                          C ge



                                         le ctu
                                                        c




                                                     ou




                   t o ntif e n ura
                                                      Tr

                                                      T
                                        ric du




                                                    Ut




                                                     rt




                                                    e
                                                     r
                                                   re




                                                    r
                                     ., nte




                                                  ra
                                                eh




                          a uc a po
                                                  s
                                                  il
                                                 in



                                    ho a
                                                tu
                                   Ag l In




                                                 c
                                             de
                                             on




                                               l,




                                              St
                                             sa




                                            ta
                                 n In
                                           M
                                          Al




                                         W
                                          R




                                        ce




                                        ub
                                         a




                                          t

                                        a
                           om T




                                      F
                                    ci




                                   tP
                                     .,




                                   &




                                  &
                                  in
                       f C ic
                              an




                              Fi

                               t




          er mm ta i
          Ac s, E re
                            ta




                            xc
                           Tr




                            t
                         er

               rv da

                         (e
                        C
             Pr a l




                       o
                     th
                      S
                  Re




                  ic
                  al
                  .,
               of




                t
             He

             Ar



            Se
            M




       th
     O

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.




    58
                                                                                                 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

                                                                                           Total Persons Employed
                                                 Entry       Median      Experienced
Occupation Categories                            Wage        Wage           Wage           Number           Percent

MEDIAN WAGES LESS THAN $21,600 (up to 30% of median household income)
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%
                                                                              Sub-total         48,510       20.6%

MEDIAN WAGES BETWEEN $21,600 AND $36,000 (between 30% and up to 50% of median household income)
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%
                                                                              Sub-total           7,660      3.3%

MEDIAN WAGES BETWEEN $36,001 AND $57,600 (between 50% and up to 80% of median household income)
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%
Registered Nurse                                  $44,668      $55,702         $61,248            1,850      0.8%
                                                                              Sub-total         12,980       5.5%
                                                                                TOTAL           69,150       29.4%

*The Rural Capital Workforce Investment Area (WIA) includes Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee,
Llano, and Williamson Counties.

Source: Texas Workforce Commission




                                                                                                                      59
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           Sun City                          Williamson      Austin-Round
                                               Georgetown        census area     11-mile radius       County          Rock MSA             Texas
1990-2000
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%
2000-2007
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

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.




   60
                                                                                                                             Housing Element



Figure 49.

                                    Change in Real Median Household Income, 1990-2000
                                                                   (in 2000 dollars)


    $80,000
    $70,000
    $60,000
    $50,000
                                                                                                                                                 1990
    $40,000
                                                                                                                                                 2000
    $30,000
    $20,000
    $10,000
          $0
                   City of            un
                                     S City census 11-mile radius                Williamson         Austin-Round             Texas
                 Georgetown              area                                     County             Rock MS  A


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)
    $90,000
    $80,000
    $70,000
    $60,000
    $50,000                                                                                                                                      2000
    $40,000                                                                                                                                      2007
    $30,000
    $20,000
    $10,000
          $0
                   City of           un
                                    S City census 11-mile radius               Williamson          Austin-Round            Texas
                 Georgetown             area                                    County              Rock MS  A


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




                                                                                                                                                               61
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan


                               City of        Sun City     Georgetown                   Williamson
                             Georgetown     census area       HMA      11-mile radius    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%

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.




  62
                                                                                                                 Housing Element



Figure 52. Projected Number of Households by Income, 2007-2012
                          City of Georgetown      Sun City census area    Georgetown HMA        11-mile radius        Williamson County
                           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             4,307       4,281        1,394       1,458     6,271      6,257    15,629      15,124      32,601     31,366
$50,000

$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           5,130       5,480        2,617       2,943     8,100      8,626    24,379      25,935      48,124     50,820
$50,000 and $100,000

$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             4,311       6,236        2,470       3,741     7,489     10,812    21,137      30,946      37,793     55,097
$100,000

Total Households            13,748      15,997        6,481       8,142    21,860     25,695    61,145      72,005     118,518    137,283

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.




                                                                                                                                            63
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 53. Education Pays in the U.S.

                 Unemployment Rate in 2007:                                                  Median Weekly Earnings in 2007 Dollars:
                                   1.4%                        Doctoral degree                                                    $1,497
                                          1.3%               Professional degree                                                         $1,427
                                      1.8%                     Master's degree                                                  $1,165
                                   2.2%                       Bachelor's degree                                               $987
                              3.0%                            Associate degree                                         $740
                          3.8%                            Some college, no degree                                 $683
                       4.4%                                 High-school graduate                                $604
            7.1%                                      Less than a high school diploma                    $428


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

    35%

    30%

    25%                                                                                                                    City of Georgetown

    20%                                                                                                                    Sun City census a rea
                                                                                                                           Georgetown HMA
    15%
                                                                                                                           11-mile ra dius
    10%                                                                                                                    Willia mson County
      5%

      0%
             Less than a High school  Some                           Associate     Bachelor's        Graduate
             high school graduate college, no                         degree        degree           degree &
               diploma               degree                                                           higher


Source: DemographicsNow




   64
                                                                                             Housing Element

Figure 55.

                                               Educational Attainment, 2000


   35%

   30%

   25%                                                                                       City of Georgetown
                                                                                              un
                                                                                             S City census area
   20%
                                                                                             Georgetown HMA
   15%
                                                                                             11-mile radius
   10%                                                                                       Williamson County
    5%

    0%
            Less than a   High school       Some         Associate   Bachelor's   Graduate
            high school    graduate      college, no      degree      degree      degree &
              diploma                      degree                                  higher


Source: DemographicsNow



Figure 56.


                                        Educational Attainment, 2007

   35%

   30%

   25%                                                                                       City of Georgetown
                                                                                              un
                                                                                             S City census area
   20%
                                                                                             Georgetown HMA
   15%
                                                                                             11-mile radius
   10%                                                                                       Williamson County

    5%

    0%
            Less than a   High school    Some college,   Associate   Bachelor's   Graduate
            high school    graduate        no degree      degree      degree      degree &
              diploma                                                              higher


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.




                                                                                                                  65
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

  20.0%
  18.0%
  16.0%
  14.0%
  12.0%                                                             Williamson County
  10.0%                                                             Texas
   8.0%                                                             U.S.
   6.0%
   4.0%
   2.0%
   0.0%
           1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates




 66
                                                                             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:
   •   Growth management, traffic and education continue to be the top issues as they were in
       2006
   •   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
   •   When asked to prioritize a list of transit options, responses included:
           o Commuter rail service (34.5%)
           o HOV lanes to Austin (26.3%)




                                                                                                 67
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

           o Fixed route bus system within Georgetown (16.3%)
           o Bus service to Austin (16.3%)
   •   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%)
   •   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%)
   •   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:
   •   79% have lived at their current residence for 10 years or less
   •   77% own their home
   •   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:
   •   29% stated that the cost of housing was the most important factor
   •   11% reported lifestyle and 9% reported location as the determining factors
   •   8% of respondents said schools were their primary concern while 7% said the convenience
       of where they lived drove their decision.




 68
                                                                                   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:
    •   Housing/land is too expensive
    •   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
    •   Rent in Georgetown is more than my mortgage payment outside of the City
    •   Value disparity is growing with lower cost homes found in lower quality neighborhoods
        with decreasing values
    •   There are quality schools, parks, shopping, City employees
    •   I was able to buy in the City only because we purchased a foreclosed home
    •   There is not enough housing choice east of I-35 selling for more than $200,000
    •   The City should consider more affordable single family homes; recommended a
        downpayment assistance program for City employees who move into Georgetown
    •   Maintain the architectural style of Old Towne
    •   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:
    •   Houses are too expensive in Georgetown; there is no housing available for middle income
        households or young professional households
    •   There is a need for nice affordable housing in existing neighborhoods
    •   Prefer a country setting with fewer land restrictions than in Georgetown
    •   Prefer a greater diversity in each development/subdivision
    •   The City is growing too fast
    •   Taxes are too high and prices too inflated in Georgetown
    •   There are too many multi-family units in the City
    •   Yards are too small and houses are too close to one another
    •   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




                                                                                                         69
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

employees securing decent and affordable housing in Georgetown and offered the following
comments:
       •   Rental houses (as opposed to apartments) are generally not available
       •   There are very limited apartments available, most of which have restrictions (i.e., age or
           income)
       •   Many employees with only one income drive from surrounding areas to their jobs in
           Georgetown
       •   Sales housing is often unaffordable for new employees with 1 to 5 years of experience and
           support staff
       •   Employees would like to live in Georgetown but housing costs too much
       •   Employees cannot afford to rent in Georgetown
       •   “Affordable” housing in Georgetown is in places they wouldn’t want to live in at any price
       •   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.




    70
                                                                                          Housing Element

There are several types of exemptions available to eligible property owners. These include the
following:
    •   School taxes: All residential home owners may qualify to receive a $15,000 homestead
        exemption from their home's value for school taxes.
    •   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.
    •   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.
    •   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.
    •   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
                                             2007 Taxing District and Tax Rates          Estimated Taxes
                                                                                          on a $150,000
          Municipality                City          ISD          ESD       Total Taxes        Home
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
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).




                                                                                                           71
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.




  72
                                                                                                                                     Housing Element

Figure 59. Residential Development Standards, City of Georgetown, 2008
                                                                                                                    Residential Dwelling Units Permitted
                                            Total Acres      Minimum         Minimum Area per    Maximum           Uses Permitted
      Residential Zoning District             Zoned          Lot Size               DU        Density per Acre        by Right             Limited Uses
Agriculture (AG)                                              1 acre              1 acre            1 du       SFD
Residential Estate (RE)                       13,196          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
                                                                                                                     Residential Dwelling Units Permitted
                                            Total Acres      Minimum         Minimum Area per    Maximum          Uses Permitted
    Non-Residential Zoning District           Zoned          Lot Size              DU         Density per Acre        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
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.




                                                                                                                                                                    73
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
                                                                                           Austin-
                             City of      Georgetown        11-mile       Williamson     Round Rock
                           Georgetown        HMA            radius         County           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
                                                                                                 Austin-
                                 City of       Georgetown       11-mile        Williamson      Round Rock
                               Georgetown         HMA           radius          County            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.




  74
                                                                                  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.




10Center for Housing Policy, “A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burden of Working
Families,” October 2006 <http://www.nhc.org/index/heavyload>.




                                                                                                        75
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan




 76
Housing Element




             77
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



                    (This page left intentionally blank)




 78
                                                                            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.
   •   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.
   •   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.




                                                                                                79
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.
  •   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)




 80
                                                                                                                        Housing Element

Additionally, there are several affordable housing communities that have been constructed and
occupied since 2000 in the Georgetown area. These include:
      •     Georgetown Place Apartments (106 of the 176 family units are low income housing tax
            credit units)
      •     San Gabriel Senior Village (100 age-restricted units)
      •     Mariposa (201 age-restricted units)
      •     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
                                2008                  2009                   2010                  2011                  2011          Total
Development             1Q    2Q    3Q   4Q    1Q   2Q    3Q    4Q   1Q    2Q    3Q   4Q    1Q   2Q    3Q     4Q   1Q   2Q   3Q   4Q   Units

OWNER UNITS
Habitat for Humanity           1     1    1     1    1     1     1    1                                                                 8
Gavurnik Builders              2          2          2           2          2          2          2           2         2         2     20

RENTAL UNITS
Sierra Ridge                                                         179                                                               179

TOTAL UNITS              0     3     1    3     1    3     1     3   180    2    0     2     0    2     0     2    0    2    0    2    207

Sources: Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County, Gavurnik Builders, LLC and Georgetown Housing Authority




                                                                                                                                               81
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.




 82
                                                                                                     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 Hom eow ners in U.S., 2006


                         Less than $20,000                                                     97%
     Household Income




                        $20,000 to $34,999                                          79%

                        $35,000 to $49,999                               56%

                        $50,000 to $74,999                    35%

                          $75,000 or more           15%

                          All Homeowners                       37%

                                            0%      20%       40%       60%       80%       100%     120%
                                                    Percent of U.S. Hom eow ners w ith Mortgages
                                                    Paying m ore than 30% of Incom e on Housing


Source: USA Today (September 12, 2007)




                                                                                                                  83
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.




  84
                                                                                                 Housing Element



Figure 64. Change in Median Housing Value, 1990-2000 (in 2000 dollars)
                                                                   Change
                                 1990            2000             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

Median Housing Value
1990 to 2000                          46%         48%            31%              na          27%           25%

Median Household Income
1990 to 2000                          44%         27%            49%              na          36%           33%

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.




                                                                                                                       85
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
Change in Median Sales Price
2000 to 2007                               -1.6%                      3.5%
Change in Median Household Income*
2000 to 2007                                               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 Sales
                                                   Median List Price        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.




     86
                                                                                              Housing Element

Figure 68.

                                 Trends in Median Sales Prices, 2000-2007

    $300,000

    $250,000
                                                                            Georgetown East
    $200,000

                                                                            Georgetown West
    $150,000
                                                                                        un
                                                                            (excluding S City)
    $100,000                                                                 un
                                                                            S City

      $50,000

             $0
                   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


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.




                                                                                                           87
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 69.

                         Trends in Average Number of Days on the Market, 2000-2007


    160

    140

    120
                                                                                                   Georgetown East
    100
                                                                                                   Georgetown West
      80
                                                                                                               un
                                                                                                   (excluding S City)
      60                                                                                            un
                                                                                                   S City
      40

      20

        0
              2000       2001       2002       2003       2004      2005    2006   2007


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

    800
    700

    600                                                                                   Georgetown East
    500
                                                                                          Georgetown West
    400
                                                                                                      un
                                                                                          (excluding S City)
    300                                                                                    un
                                                                                          S City
    200

    100
        0
             2000     2001      2002      2003      2004     2005    2006   2007


Source: Williamson County Board of Realtors Multi-List Service




   88
                                                                                              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

    $300,000

    $250,000
                                                                            Georgetown East
    $200,000

                                                                            Georgetown West
    $150,000
                                                                                        un
                                                                            (excluding S City)
    $100,000                                                                 un
                                                                            S City

      $50,000

             $0
                   2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


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.




                                                                                                           89
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Figure 72. Median Gross Rent, 1990-2000 (in 2000 dollars)
                                                                           Change
                                         1990             2000            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            Sun City                        Williamson   Austin-Round
                                    Georgetown         census area      11-mile radius    County       Rock MSA
Median Gross Rent
1990 to 2000                             56%              14%               53%             48%           39%
Median Household Income
1990 to 2000                             44%              27%               49%             36%           33%
Note: Median values not available for Georgetown HMA.

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.




  90
                                                                                                         Housing Element

Figure 74.

                                            Cost Burdened Home Owners, 2000



    Above 80% MHI



    50% to 80% MHI
                                                                                                  Williamson County
                                                                                                  City of Georgetown
    30% to 50% MHI



      0% to 30% MHI


                         0%      10%      20%       30%      40%      50%       60%   70%   80%


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.




                                                                                                                       91
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 75.

                                             Annual Income Needed to Afford Median Sales Priced Home, 2007

   $90,000                                                                                                                                                                                          $82,571
   $80,000
   $70,000
                                                                                                                                                                                $56,061
   $60,000                                                                                                                                                   $55,702
                                                                                                                                         $52,326
   $50,000                                                                                                                  $41,399
                                                                                                         $36,426
   $40,000
   $30,000                                                                              $22,419
                                   $15,842       $17,145               $18,542
   $20,000       $14,142
   $10,000
          $0




                                                                                       er
                                                 er
                                      r
                    r




                                                                                                        er




                                                                                                                                            nt




                                                                                                                                                              se




                                                                                                                                                                                                    t
                                                                      n




                                                                                                                          er




                                                                                                                                                                                  st




                                                                                                                                                                                                  es
                                   ve
                 te




                                                                  rso




                                                                                     or
                                               hi




                                                                                                                                                            ur




                                                                                                                                                                               Ea
                                                                                                     ht




                                                                                                                                         ta
                                                                                                                       ch
                ai




                                 er




                                                                                                                                                                                                 W
                                             as




                                                                                    b




                                                                                                                                      un




                                                                                                                                                        N
                                                                                                   fig
               W




                                                                   e
                              r/S




                                                                                                                                                                            n
                                                                                                                        a
                                                                                 La




                                                                                                                                                                                                n
                                                                sp
                                             C




                                                                                                                                                                           w
                                                                                                                                                      ed
                                                                                                                      Te




                                                                                                                                   co




                                                                                                                                                                                               w
                                                                                                re
                            ke




                                                                                                                                                                        to
                                                              le




                                                                                 n




                                                                                                                                                                                            to
                                                                                              Fi




                                                                                                                                                    er
                                                                                                                                 Ac
                                                                                                                   ol
                                                                               io
                          or




                                                                                                                                                                         e
                                                           Sa




                                                                                                                                                                                             e
                                                                                                                                                 ist
                                                                                                                ho
                                                                             ct




                                                                                                                                                                      rg
                         W




                                                                                                                                                                                          rg
                                                        il




                                                                                                                                                g
                                                                           ru




                                                                                                                                                                   eo
                                                                                                             Sc




                                                                                                                                                                                       eo
                                                     ta
                        ep




                                                                                                                                             Re
                                                                         st




                                                                                                                                                               G
                                                  Re




                                                                                                                                                                                   G
                                                                                                          ry
                      Pr




                                                                       on




                                                                                                                                                              in
                                                                                                       ta




                                                                                                                                                                                 in
                 d




                                                                       C




                                                                                                     en
                  o




                                                                                                                                                         d




                                                                                                                                                                               d
                                                                                                                                                       de
               Fo




                                                                                                                                                                             de
                                                                                                    em




                                                                                                                                                        e




                                                                                                                                                                           e
                                                                                                                                                     Ne
                                                                                                  El




                                                                                                                                                                        Ne
                                                                                                                                                   e




                                                                                                                                                                     e
                                                                                                                                                 m




                                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                                              co




                                                                                                                                                                co
                                                                                                                                            In




                                                                                                                                                              In
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:
      •        A 30-year fixed rate mortgage at 6.5%
      •        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
      •        Home owners insurance of $600 per year ($50 per month)
      •        Mortgage insurance of $360 per year ($30 per month)
      •        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)
      •        Household consumer debt of $500 in total monthly payments (e.g., car loan, school loan,
               and/or credit card payments)
      •        Total amount of principal, interest, taxes and insurance (PITI) equal to no more than 30%
               of gross monthly household income, and
      •        Total amount of all household debt (PITI plus consumer debt) equal to no more than 33%
               of gross monthly household income.




   92
                                                                                                                           Housing Element



Figure 76. Maximum Sales Prices Affordable to Vital Community Occupations, 2008
                                                                                               Maximum
                                                     Income as a % of                          Mortgage                              Number of Units
                                                        City Median          Amount             Amount                               Sold at this Sales
                                     Annual              Household         Available for     (90% of sales         Maximum            Price or Lower
Occupation                        Salary/Income        Income (2007)           PITI              price)           Sales Price             (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.




                                                                                                                                                               93
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.




   94
                                                                                                    Housing Element



Figure 78.

                                             Cost Burdened Renters, 2000


      Above 80% MHI



     50% to 80% MHI
                                                                                           Williamson County
                                                                                           City of Georgetown
     30% to 50% MHI



      0% to 30% MHI


                            0%              20%              40%              60%    80%


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.




                                                                                                                 95
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



Figure 79.

                          Hourly Wage Needed to Afford the HUD Two-Bedroom Fair Market Rent, 2008


   $30.00
                                                                                                                                                           $26.78
                                                                                                                                               $25.16
   $25.00
                                                                                                                                 $19.90
   $20.00                                                                                            $17.51         $17.98
                                                                                      $14.73
   $15.00
                                                                       $10.78
                                         $8.24          $8.91
   $10.00                   $7.62
                  $6.80

     $5.00

     $0.00




                                                                                                                                                t
                r




                                        er




                                                                                                                    R
                                                                                      R
                                                   on




                                                                                                      er




                                                                                                                                             an
              te




                                                                                                                                                           se
                                                                                                                              er
                                                                        r
                          er




                                                                      re



                                                                                    FM




                                                                                                                  FM
                                      hi
           ai




                                                                                                   ht




                                                                                                                             h
                                                 rs




                                                                                                                                                         ur
                                                                                                                                          nt
                        rv




                                                                   bo
                                    as




                                                                                                                           ac
          W




                                                                                               fig
                                               pe




                                                                                                                                      ou
                      Se




                                                                                                                                                     N
                                                                                 d




                                                                                                              d
                                 C




                                                                La




                                                                                                                         Te
                                                                               -b




                                                                                                             -b
                                                                                             re




                                                                                                                                                     d
                                             es




                                                                                                                                    cc
                    r/




                                                                                                                                                   re
                                                                             r1




                                                                                                           r2
                                                                                            Fi
                  ke




                                                           n




                                                                                                                          l
                                             al




                                                                                                                                   A
                                                                                                                       oo




                                                                                                                                                 te
                                                           io



                                                                            fo




                                                                                                       fo
                or




                                           lS




                                                                                                                                               is
                                                        ct




                                                                                                                    ch
               W




                                                                       d




                                                                                                       d
                                         ai




                                                                                                                                            eg
                                                      ru




                                                                                                                   S
                                                                     de




                                                                                                     de
                                      et
             ep




                                                    st




                                                                                                                                           R
                                                                                                                y
                                                                  ee




                                                                                                  ee
                                     R




                                                                                                              ar
                                                  on
          Pr




                                                                 N




                                                                                              N




                                                                                                             t
                                              C




                                                                                                          en
        od




                                                             e




                                                                                              e


                                                                                                        em
                                                          ag




                                                                                           ag
     Fo




                                                         W




                                                                                          W



                                                                                                      El
                                                       y




                                                                                        y
                                                     rl




                                                                                      rl
                                                   ou




                                                                                    ou
                                                  H




                                                                                 H




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.




   96
                                                                             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
   •   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.
   •   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




                                                                                                 97
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.
  •   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
  •   The rising cost of land and construction places new housing development beyond the
      reach of most affordable housing developers.
  •   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.
  •   Market rate transactions offer fewer challenges (to builders and developers) and higher
      commissions (to Realtors) than do affordable housing developments.
  •   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.
  •   There is a relative lack of vacant non-residential structures available for purchase and
      conversion into rental housing.
  •   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
  •   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.”
  •   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.
  •   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



 98
                                                                             Housing Element

   •   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.
   •   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.




                                                                                                 99
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan



                    (This page left intentionally blank)




 100
                                                                             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:
   •   Extremely low income households (0% up to 30% MHI)
   •   Very low income households (30% up to 50% MHI)
   •   Low income households (50% up to 80% MHI).
While median household income is used throughout this document, the following table describes
households with housing problems that are based on the HUD median family income. The HUD
median family income was $58,900 in 2000 for Williamson County. While this income amount is




                                                                                                 101
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
                                                                        Renter Households                Owner Households                  All Households

                                                                                     Remainder of                     Remainder of                   Remainder of
                                                                     City of          Williamson       City of         Williamson       City of       Williamson
                                                                   Georgetown          County        Georgetown         County        Georgetown       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
  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.




   102
                                                                                                           Housing Element

Figure 81. Projected Change in Households by Income Category, 2000-2012

                                                    2000             2007           2012        Change from 2000 to 2012
                                                   Census          Estimate       Projection    Number          Percent

Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI)
                        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%

Very Low Income Households (30% to 50% of MHI)
                        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%

Low Income Households (50% to 80% of MHI)
                        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%

All Households up to 80% of MHI
                        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%

All Households above 80% of MHI
                        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%
                        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:
      •     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




                                                                                                                              103
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.
      •     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.
      •     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.




   104
                                                                                                                        Housing Element

Figure 83. Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand, 2000-2012
                                                                                                          Projected Demand,
                                                                    Existing Demand, 2000                    2000 to 2012
                                                                    Renters          Owners              Renters      Owners      Total
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
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




                                                                                                                                              105
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
                                                                                          60% of Average
                                                                    Average Annual       Annual Production   Projected Net
                                                                    Production Rate            Rate            Increase in       Projected
                           2000 Housing          2007 Housing         2000 to 2007         2000 to 2007      Housing Units     2012 Housing
                             Inventory             Inventory             (units)              (units)         2008 to 2012       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




   106
                                                                             Housing Element

identified in Georgetown. The affordable housing supply created between 2000 and 2007
included:
   •   3,127 residential units that sold for $142,000 or less in the Georgetown MLS market
   •   Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County constructed 15 single family housing units in
       Georgetown
   •   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:
   •   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)
   •   Habitat for Humanity in Williamson County will construct another 14 single family
       housing units
   •   The Georgetown Housing Authority will develop 179 units of affordable rental housing at
       Sierra Ridge.




                                                                                                 107
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Figure 85. Affordable Housing Need in the City of Georgetown, 2012

AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
                                                                                                       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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY
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
                                                 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.




   108
                                                                          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.




                                                                                             109
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan




                    (This page left intentionally blank)




 110
                                                                            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.
   1. 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
      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
       rezonings, 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.




                                                                                               111
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

  2. 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.
  3. 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
     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.
  4. 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.
  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.




 112
                                                                            Housing Element

6. 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
    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.
7. 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.
8. 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.




                                                                                                113
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

       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.
  9. 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.
       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.
  10. 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.




 114
                                                                        Housing Element

11. 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.
12. 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
   enter into a cooperation agreement with a local housing organization to administer this
   program.
13. Adopt universal design standards for accessibility. Universal design standards would
    require residential new construction to incorporate features that make dwellings more




                                                                                            115
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan

       accessible to persons with mobility impairments. The City should modify its building code
       requirements to require:
       •   wall reinforcement to provide grab bars adjacent to a toilet, bathtub or shower
       •   32-inch minimum clear opening of interior doors
       •   wall switches at a height not to exceed 32 inches
       •   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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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




 116
                                                                    Housing Element

calculation will be made easier by including affordable housing production in the annual
report of accomplishments.




                                                                                       117