Affordable/Workforce Housing
Two new Affordable/Workforce Housing proposals came to Council on 23 February; both were on the West side of I-35 and in the Williams Drive corridor. The Developers' were requesting a resolution of support from the City Council for their projects in order for them to compete for Federal Tax Credits.
After a protracted and sometime contentious, discussion both proposals were defeated 4-3. I along with Council Members Hesser, Gipson and Gonzalez voted against both proposals; Council Members Eby, Brainard and Jonrowe voted in favor of both proposals. (Please click here to see the presentations -- you can scroll ahead as necessary. They are Items "Y" and "Z".)
This is in contrast to the outcome of the 9 February Council Meeting when 3 similar proposals came before the Council and were approved (I voted against all 3).*
Those latter 3 proposals now move ahead to a State-Level Board to determine which of the projects will receive the tax credits. That Board may approve all of the projects, some of the projects, or none of the projects. (Please click here to see a map of all 5 proposals as well as other existing similar units.)
That is personally disconcerting because we are turning this important, and impactful, aspect of Georgetown's development over to a State-Level Board, with no knowledge of the Board's inclinations or intentions, and no obvious way to have an input to their deliberations. The link to this program is
Now, hopefully having clarified the decisions the Council made, and the process which lies ahead, let's turn to clear up some confusion about whether these projects are "low income housing" or "Affordable/Workforce Housing" of it we should be using some other term. This is easily resolved with the opening statement on the web site for the tax credits (references just above). The narrative states:
"The TDHCA Housing Tax Credit (HTC) Program is one of the primary means of directing private capital toward the development and preservation of affordable rental housing for low-income households."
In other words, these are proposals for low-income housing.
Further, and contrary to what some advocates have offered, and with very few exceptions, our Firefighters and Police would not qualify for these units under the income parameters.
The projects in question focus on providing rental housing for those below the Annual Median Income for the surrounding area (AMI). The categories for residents, by income, are:
"X" number of units for "less than 60% AMI"
"Y" number of units for "less than 50% AMI" and
"Z" number for "less than 30% AMI."
The AMI baseline used in the Housing Advisory Board's presentation are based on a family of 4 ($76,800 annually) -- making the first threshold (60% AMI) is $46,000. In other words, in order to qualify for the income restricted units, a family of four would have to earn less than $46,000 per year.
The salary of an entry-level police officer is $51,022 ($5,000 above the 60% AMI level) and after 6 years the salary is over $60,000. The police pay scale is at
The pay scale for our Fire Department personnel starts at $43,000 (slightly lower than for the Police Department) but within 3 years it is over the 60% AMI level at $47,000. The rates can be viewed at
Therefore, with the exception of entry-level Fire personnel during the first 3 years of their career, none of our Police and Fire personnel meet the criteria of 60% AMI, which is the entry-point into the Affordable/Workforce Housing realm.**
However, none of this negates the need for low income (or Affordable/Workforce Housing -- or whatever other term you might want to use.) Low income families deserve the opportunity to have decent, safe housing -- but because they have lower incomes, it's obviously more difficult for them to achieve that objective.
In my opinion there is a legitimate role for government to play in this -- but the role of government is not to provide that housing directly. That approach has failed, miserably, for years. Instead, there is a role for government to play in providing incentives for the private sector to participate and make the opportunities available. In that regard, this particular financial/business model for low-income housing is the best I have seen.
The model under consideration is for a public-private partnership in which the federal government provides tax incentives to the investors, making it possible to obtain private financing at more favorable rates -- lowering the investor's and developers costs, and making it possible to offer lower rents. The arrangement also requires the developer to retain and manage the property for a considerable period of time (15 years), which hopefully assures the ongoing quality of the real property. That seems like a good arrangement -- and I would like to see us explore it more.
But we also need to explore some of the collateral impacts of having more of these types of units. Recall from the previous newsletter that we already have nearly 3 times the state average of these sorts of units while our surrounding communities have considerably less. Here are the comparisons:
- Georgetown has 2.77 times the state average
- Pflugerville, 2.27 times
- Austin, 1.84 times
- Cedar Park, 1.80 times
- Leander, 1.48 times
- Round Rock, 0.78 times (i.e., less than the average)
- Hutto, 0.33 times
- Jarrell has no units of this type.
Georgetown has nearly 3 times as many units as the state average, and considerably more than the surrounding cities, especially Round Rock and Hutto which are below the state average -- and Jarrell has none. In the face of this, we have no idea if the residents who occupy these units work in Georgetown, or if we are providing a repository of "Affordable/Workforce Housing" for Round Rock and beyond.
There is also a potential relationship between the number of these types of units and the free/reduced-price breakfast/lunch program in our public schools. The Texas Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Division administers the National School Lunch (NSLP) and
School Breakfast Programs (SBP) for Public Schools.
According to their website (http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1990) a family of 4 with an income of less than $44,863 would qualify for the free/reduced-price breakfast/lunch program. Thus a significant percentage of the members who qualified for the reduced rent provisions at the 60% threshold ($46,000) would also qualify for
these additional benefits.
Georgetown currently has 44% of our students in these programs, Round Rock has 26%, Hutto has 46%, and Pflugerville has 52% (I did not find data for Cedar Park). In my opinion, the impact on schools, both in terms of free/reduced-price breakfast/lunch as well as classroom loading (which can drive a requirement for more schools and facilities) has to be part of the deliberation process on Affordable/Workforce Housing.
As part of my considerations, I asked the City Staff if the any of the surrounding communities had been asked to consider proposals of this sort in the last 18 months, and if so how those City Councils voted. The response was that: "For the projects on the current Pre-Application list that we are competing against, the projects in Cedar Park, Round Rock and Pflugerville have all dropped out. None of them went before the respective City Councils. All of the projects for Austin were approved". In other words, Cedar Park, Round Rock and Pflugerville opted out even before their Councils could consider it.
As things now stand, the three proposals to which we gave our support at the 9 February Council Meeting will compete with the projects from Austin and the State-Level Board will decide their fate.
In the end, I believe this is an issue which has become far more contentious than it should have been. The reasons for the additional animosity are:
- The way the original 3 proposals were put forth (on the Consent Agenda), giving an appearance that the proposals were being advanced "under the radar";
- The appearance of a "rush job" which frustrated Council's ability to absorb the information, ask questions, and make a policy determination;
- The fact that all 5 proposals were West of I-35 and in the Williams Drive corridor, despite the obvious difficulties with traffic and Council's clearly stated intention to concentrate public transportation on the East side of I-35.
Plus, all of this is in the face of the Council having agreed, during our November visioning sessions, to tackle this specific problem.
I believe we need to slow the process down. The Council needs to think it through and provide some solid policy guidance to the staff. We do not need a consultant to do our thinking for us. We need to think this through ourselves. We need to do what Dr. Ron Swain (one of the premier leaders in Georgetown) suggests and have the courage to have a conversation about this -- one dealing with the facts, people's perceptions (right or wrong), and costs, not one that is rushed to judgment along a path filled with smoke and mirrors.***
Given an opportunity, I would vote to rescind the Council's previous votes to "support" in exchange for a commitment to have a policy in place by a date in the near future. But rather than me taking that step -- a step which would undoubtedly lead to further acrimony -- I would rather have those who voted in favor of the proposal put the offer on the table to rescind the agreements, in exchange for a commitment to put this issue forward at a special session with the expressed purpose of reaching agreement on a comprehensive, City-wide policy with regard to Affordable/Workforce Housing -- an objective we have clearly stated and to which we have agreed.
I'll give it some time. In the meantime I welcome your comments.
_______________________
All three proposals had been placed on the consent agenda for the 9 Feb meeting. John Hesser and I pulled them off the consent agenda and placed them on the regular legislative agenda so they could be discussed. All three passed -- I voted against all three for reasons explained in my previous newsletter.
** The point about these projects not being available at the 60% AMI level for Fire/Police personnel is even more obvious if you look at AMI for a family of two, or a single-person, or if you include a second wage-earner in the family of 4.
*** There are a number of fairly obvious policy frameworks that might be fleshed out. For instance, an Age-Restricted (Senior) Affordable Housing complex might be added in the vicinity of St David's hospital, on or very near the fixed-route bus system Council is currently contemplating. That would not impact our schools, nor increase traffic by any significant amount as well as increase the viability of the proposed public transportation system.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment