HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 07.14.2020 CC-RNotice of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday.july 14, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 6:00 PM at the Council
Chambers at 510 West 91h St., Georgetown, Texas 78626.
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined
under the ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon
request. Please contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled
meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King, Jr Street for additional
information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 6: p.m. The following Council Members were in
attendance: Mayor Dale Ross; Mary Calixtro, Council Member District 1; Mike Triggs, Council
Member District 3; Steve Fought, Council Member District 4; Kevin Pitts, Council Member District
5; and Rachael Jonrowe, Council Member District 6; and Tommy Gonzalez, Council Member
District. Council District 2 is vacant. All Council Members present via videoconferencing and a
roll call was performed.
Regular Session
(This Regular session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Call to Order
Invocation
Charles Moran with Faith Impact Church led the invocation.
Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Pitts led both pledges.
Comments from the Mayor
Mayor Ross the additional mask guidelines that have gone into place since the last Council
meeting.
City Council Regional Board Reports
Mayor Ross had no reports.
Announcements
There were no announcements.
Action from Executive Session
No motions out of Executive Session.
Statutory Consent Agenda
The Statutory Consent Agenda includes non -controversial and routine items that may be acted upon
with one single vote. An item may be pulled from the Consent Agenda in order that it be discussed
and acted upon individually as part of the Regular Agenda.
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes of the Workshop and Regular
Meetings held on June 23, 2020 -- Robyn Densmore, City Secretary
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the membership of a Bond Citizen Committee
to determine a potential Mobility Bond package targeting the May 2021 election date --
Bridget Hinze Weber, Assistant to the City Manager
D. Consideration and possible action to approve a purchase with Stonhard, a division of
StonCor Group, for floor coverings, supplies, and services at the Georgetown Animal
Shelter utilizing The Interlocal Purchasing System (TIPS) RFP 171103 in the amount of
$81,961.00 -- Jack Daly, Community Services Director
E. Consideration and possible action to approve a Task Order for Professional Services with
Lone Star Appraisals and Realty, Inc. in the amount of $83,000.00 for the Berry Creek
Interceptor Project, Phases 1-3 -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
F. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution abandoning a 10' wide public
utility easement across Lot 1, Block 1, Re -subdivision of East 1/2 of Block 37 of the Snyder
addition; and, authorizing the Mayor to execute all necessary documents -- Travis Baird, Real
Estate Services Manager
G. Consideration and possible action to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for the maintenance and operation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Leander Road and Southwest Bypass -- Ray Miller,
Director of Public Works
H. Consideration and possible action to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for the mowing and maintenance of certain
rights of way along IH-35 within the City Limits of Georgetown -- Ray Miller, Director of
Public Works
I. Consideration and possible action to approve a Task Order SBE-20-001 with Steger-Bizzell
Engineering, Inc. for engineering and design of Drainage Improvements at various
locations within the City of Georgetown in the amount of $109,558.00 -- Ray Miller, Director
of Public Works
J. Consideration and possible action to approve lease rate reduction, on a T-Hangar, for the
Apollo Composite Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol, a United States Air Force Auxiliary --
Joseph A. Carney, C.M., Airport Manager and Ray Miller, Director of Public Works
K. Consideration and possible action to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the
City of Georgetown, the City of Round Rock, and the Brazos River Authority for a Water
Resource Evaluation Project for Williamson County -- Glenn W. Dishong, Director of Water
Utilities
Motion by Pitts to approve the entire consent agenda as presented, second by Fought.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro — Yes
Triggs — Yes
Fought — Yes
Pitts — Yes
Jonrowe — Yes
Gonzalez — Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
Legislative Regular Agenda
L. Public Hearing and possible action on a proposed determination of no feasible or prudent
alternative to the use of a portion of public parkland, being a portion of San Gabriel Park
located along the southside of FM 971 between Riverhaven and Austin Ave. for the
relocation of an existing water line -- Travis Baird, Real Estate Services Manager
Baird presented the item and reviewed the background information noting that Northwest
Blvd is being extended from the west side of IH-35 to the west line of Austin Avenue with the
purpose of the extension to enhance mobility across the IH-35 corridor between east and west
Georgetown, and the extension and new intersection will create an offset intersection with
existing FM 971 at Austin Ave. He explained the FM 971 realignment and provided a map of
proposed realignment. Baird explained the key considerations which are: FM 971 is being
adjusted to meet the NW Blvd/Austin Ave. intersection; this adjustment will cause the right
of way to overtake and displace the City's existing waterline on the south side of FM 971,
between Riverhaven and Austin Avenue; and leaving the existing waterline in place would
cause future conflict with TXDOT, cause potential future conflict with area utilities,
complicate maintenance of the line, and require damaging TXDOT facility, closing lanes, etc.
He then noted that moving waterline to north side existing TXDOT right of way would:
require additional easement; have unknown impacts on use of that property; and complicate
service connections to the Park. Baird stated that CIP staff has worked with Parks staff to
adjust line to limit impacts of: little impact from construction; any damage caused by
construction will be repaired; and no impact to current use of the area by the park regarding
open space, landscaping, trails, etc.
Baird read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened and closed the at 6:12 p.m. as there were no speakers.
Motion by Pitts to have the Council make a finding of no feasible and prudent alternative to
the use of a portion of the public parkland known as San Gabriel Park, owned by the City of
Georgetown, for the relocation of a waterline, second by Fought.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
M. First Reading of an Ordinance amending Section 12.20.050 of the Code of Ordinances
entitled "Prohibited Practices" relating to the prohibition of consumption of alcoholic
beverages in certain City Parks -- Kimberly Garrett, Parks and Recreation Direction
Garrett presented the item and explained the need for amending Section 12.20.050 by
explaining the history and current usage of Blue Hole Park. She noted the need for safety and
negative behavior at Blue Hole Park.
Garrett read the caption.
Motion by Pitts, second by Fought.
Council had no questions or comments.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
N. Forwarded from General Government & Finance Advisory (GGAF):
Consideration and possible action to award JP Morgan Chase Bank as the City's depository
bank for a one year and eight month term beginning September 1, 2020 to April 30, 2022
with no options for renewals and to authorize staff to negotiate a depository services contract
with JP Morgan to bring back to Council for approval -- Elaine Wilson, Controller
Before the presentation of the item began, Mayor Ross noted that Council Member Gonzalez
was recusing himself from this item.
Wilson presented the item and reviewed the Bank Depository RFA and selection process. She
noted the background and terms stating that Texas Local Government code, Chapter 105
requires that the City solicit applications every 5 years and the current bank depository is
JPMorgan Chase. Wilson stated that JPMorgan Chase has been the City's depository since
2006 and the current contract expires August 31, 2020 with no renewal options remaining,
and due to certain factors considered, the City is looking to change the new initial contract
term from a typical two-year term. She continued that Valley View Consulting provides
depository evaluation services as part of the City's Investment Advisory Services agreement.
Susan Anderson with Valley View Consulting thanked the Council for the opportunity to be
the City's financial advisor and reviewed services they provide.
Tim Pinon with Valley View Consulting noted the experience that the firm brings to the City
and the process of reviewing applicants for depository services.
Wilson continued the presentation and noted that Valley View's knowledge in this area gives
the City an apples to apples comparison in all aspects of the evaluation including but not
limited to cost of service, compensating balances and earnings credit, to better compare the
banks' bids and make a recommendation. She stated that approximately 12 City departments
make deposits to the bank either daily or every other day; approximately 20-30 employees
interact with the depository daily or weekly through deposit services, image cash letter
services, online -reporting services, positive pay services, wire transfers and ACH
transmission services; and additionally, the City's IT department helps to support
integrations with the different systems citywide. She reviewed the services requested which
are: on-line banking services; controlled disbursement account; zero balance account; positive
pay; account reconciliation service; ACH; ACH debit blocking; BAI2 file transmission; wire
transfers; remote deposit capture/image cash letter; consumer bill pay processing; funds
availability; employee check cashing; returned check reprocessing; account analysis; and
audit confirmations. Wilson noted the evaluation criteria which consists of: ability to perform
and provide the requested services; reputation and quality of service; cost of services;
transition costs, retention/transition offers and incentives; funds availability; interest paid on
interest bearing accounts; earnings credit rate on compensating balance; physical location
within municipal boundaries; convenience of location(s); completeness of application;
financial strength and stability of institution; and previous service relationship with the City.
She then reviewed additional factors and risks of: the City just spent $33,840 in setup and
testing of bank integrations between the Workday Financial system and JPMorgan Chase
(Incumbent bank); staff is still working through Workday conversion related issues to
stabilize the system prior to fiscal year and audit. Bank integrations are stable at this time;
transition to a new bank will require 8-12 weeks of transition set up and testing which will
crossover into fiscal year-end; this will be the first year-end close in the new Workday
financial system which will require staff dedication to the close process to ensure a timely and
accurate year end close and a successful audit; staff turnover; and the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Wilson stated that the applications received were from JPMorgan Chase, BBVA, Independent
Financial, and Verabank, and while Independent Financial and Verabank submitted
applications with overall lower costs, they were not able to provide all the required services
requested. She then reviewed the fees for cost of service with JPMorgan Chase waiving three
months of fees as a retention incentive; BBVA waived 2 months fees plus $11,000 for transition
costs, with $2,000 in set up fees (net $9,000 to cover transition); estimated transition costs for
BBVA $36,000; and transition costs include $16,740 in consulting fees for banking integrations
and $19,260 in City staff time/materials costs.
Est. 1 Yr 8 Mo.
Est. 1 Yr 8 Mo.
Fees for Svcs
Est. Monthly
Fees for Svcs
w/Incentives &
Fees for Svcs
only
Transition costs
BBVA Compass
Bank
($3,356)
($67,120)
($89,253)
JPMorgan
Chase
$4,090
$81,800)
($74,073}
Wilson reviewed the earning potential noting that both banks offered a hybrid earnings credit
rate (ECR), which includes both soft and hard interest earnings and while costs for services
are locked in for the term of the contract, ECR and actual hard interest earnings are "bank
managed" and subject to change at the bank's discretion, and since the evaluation started,
rates have lowered at some banks. She stated that hybrid ECR rates bid have no floor (no
guaranteed minimum), so staff included them in the evaluation, but they are not an
overriding factor; fees net of Earning Potential; and ECR/interest earnings based on initial bid
rates.
Est. 1 Yr 8 Mo.
Est. 1 Yr 8 Mo.
Fees for Svcs
Potential
w/Incentives &
ECR/Interest
Est. 1 Yr 8 Mo.
Transition Costs
Earnings
Net Fees
BBVA Compass
Bank ($89,253)
$72,834
($16,419)
JPMor an Chase ($74,073)
$40,787
$33,286
Wilson noted the differences in service provided and that JPMorgan Chase requires a bank
assessment paid by City and free deposit bags, and BBVA Bank provides bank assessment
waived and free deposit bags, endorsement stamps, and deposit slips. She noted that the
recommendation from General Government and Finance Committee (GGAF) is stay with the
City's incumbent, JPMorgan Chase with a limited term to allow the City to overcome the
following factors/risk: opportunity costs of transition to be used for the items below; Workday
system stabilization during year end; year-end close of new financial system brings new
processes and requirements for staff; filling staff vacancies; and COVID-19 reimbursement
support.
Wilson read the caption.
Council had not questions or comments.
Motion by Pitts, second by Fought.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Recused
Approved 5-0 (District 2 vacant and Gonzalez recused).
O. Consideration and possible action to approve a Municipal Services Agreement with The
Annunciation Maternity Home, Inc. and Shell 105 Joint Venture, for
the provision of municipal services to an approximately 0.763 acre tract of land out of the
William Roberts Survey, Abstract No. 524 and a 0.109 acre portion of Shell Road, a right-of-
way of varying width of record described to Williamson County, Texas, generally located
at 3700 Shell Road-- Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning Director
Nelson presented the item and reviewed the Location Map, Aerial Map, and tentative
schedule of: July 14th Municipal Services Agreement; July 281h Public Hearing and First
Reading of Ordinance held at City Council Meeting; and August 111h Second Reading of
Ordinance at City Council Meeting.
Nelson read the caption.
Council had no comments or questions.
Motion by Pitts, second by Triggs.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
P. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of no objection and two times the
state average per capita acknowledgement for KCG Development, LLC, to apply for
Housing Tax Credits for the construction of 206 units of affordable housing for families to
be known as Espero Landing located at Sam Houston Ave. and Bell Gin Rd. -- Susan
Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator
Watkins presented the items P&Q together. She noted that staff had received the HTC
Resolution application and it included the following: application form; zoning verification;
Public Outreach Plan; draft Resolutions (Two-times and Support); and Letter of Intent with
detailed information. Watkins provided the THC Process Overview noting that the
application was submitted 6 weeks prior to the Housing Advisory Board (HAB) meeting on
May 4, 2020; HAB provided review and recommendation on June 15, 2020; neighborhood
meetings were held, two with one three weeks prior to Council action; City Council review
and approval are scheduled for June 23 and July 14, 2020; and Resolution of Support or No
Objection for inclusion in application. She stated that Public Meeting #2 was held Friday, July
10, 2020 virtually via Zoom. Watkins said that the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
income -restricted units per 100,000 residents and Texas ranks 23 out of 57 states and
territories. She noted the number of residential properties in City Limits with Local Option
Freeze:
% of Total Assessed
Over 65 Freeze Assessed Value 2,941,956,209 33%
DP Freeze Assessed Value 85,448,648 1%
Frozen AV Total 3,027,404,857 34%
Total Assessed 8,797,580,558
Watkins reviewed the possible action and motion options which are for Council to approve
resolutions of no objection and two times acknowledgment or deny resolutions of no objection
and two times acknowledgment. She added that there is a consideration where the Governor
granted waivers on certain resolutions for Housing Tax Credit Applications with disaster
declaration in place.
Watkins read the caption for Item P.
Mayor Ross noted that because there are 20+ speakers each speaker will be allowed 2 minutes.
Densmore read public comments that were submitted via email in the following order
(comments appear exactly as submitted):
Lou Snead
As the chair of the Housing Advisory Board for the City of Georgetown, I am asking the City
Council to vote in favor of the two KCG development projects at Saddlecreek that rely on
federal housing tax credits in order to get built. In seeking to address the need for additional
workforce housing in our community our Housing Advisory Board has found that:
1. These low-income housing tax credit projects are among the only means available today
to encourage developers to build needed workforce housing at below -market prices.
2. There is no cost to the City of Georgetown for approving this project; only a commitment
to increasing housing options for our essential workers- school teachers, public safety
employees, health care workers, and retail workers.
3. Recent research conducted on the last three housing tax credit projects completed in
Georgetown in 2019 indicates that all the below -market housing units were filled within
months and there is a substantial waiting list for these units to come open.
4. Increased housing density in the Saddlecreek area will encourage future commercial
development in that part of the City.
5. The high cost of land in Georgetown severely restricts where developers can build
workforce housing that will provide optimal public transportation, shopping, and easy access
services.
6. Property development that allows for property tax exemptions, as the Sun City
development provides for seniors, suggests that the City of Georgetown has long appreciated
the value that certain tax exemptions provide in creating a diverse and economically stable
community.
For these reasons, I encourage the City Council of Georgetown to approve the KCG
development plan as submitted.
Lou Snead, Chair
Housing Advisory Board
Heather Castro
We bought our home 2 years ago in Saddlecreek and were not told there could be apartments
within the border of the neighborhood. This will drastically devalue our home potentially.
Also the increase in traffic will lower our quality of life, as right now it is very peaceful and
very little traffic on our side of the neighborhood (which is right around the corner from the
proposed apartments.) Please also consider that Mitchell Elementary is already very full and
is projected to be over capacity very quickly again even with Williams giving us some relief
this school year.
Richard Glasco / Georgetown Housing Initiative
Thank you Mayor and Council for this opportunity to address you tonight on this very
important issue. Let me begin by pointing out the obvious about this alleged issue. Whether
KCG builds on this parcel or not, the fact remains that apartments will still be built there.
Secondly, the taxation issue with the property is a interesting one since council has seen fit to
bestow multi millions of dollars in tax abatements to retail companies to move here. Now it
seems some members have got " religion" on this subject to oppose this project because we
can't afford the loss of tax revenue! Now let's move on to probably the most disturbing of all.
As I drive around town, I can't help but see the signs saying " Heroes work here ". What a
noble and kind gesture to honor those who put their lives on the front lines of this pandemic.
Those heroes happen to be workers at our hospital and nursing facilities here in town who
are essential to those businesses. Heroes operating on the front lines in a pandemic. We will
find out tonight what kind of heroes a majority of the Council think they are. I support KCG's
application to build.
Brian Combs
I would like to ask the Council to block the development of tax credit housing and senior
housing at Bell Gin and Sam Houston. We moved into SaddleCreek with no knowledge of
this development and we now fear for our home values, aesthetics of our neighborhood and
rising crime rate that statistically comes with low income housing. We also would have the
addition of lots of added traffic. We already have traffic from Mitchell Elementary and
Wagner Middle schools in addition to the Idea school being built at our entrance, which is
another project we had no knowledge of upon the purchase of our home. There are many
plots of land throughout Georgetown that could accommodate this project without
encroaching on an existing neighborhood.
Thank You for your consideration
Suzy Pukys
As a 22-year resident of this wonderful community and a member of the Steering Committee
for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, I was honored to take part in a process that created
policy recommendations to achieve the City's 2030 goal to "ensure access to diverse housing
options and preserve neighborhoods, for residents of all ages, backgrounds, and income
levels." Through this process, City staff provided substantive research that pointed to the need
to diversify and expand housing options in this community, particularly for low-income,
workforce, and senior residents.
While Council has already provided strong leadership and support for affordable housing
over the last 5 years, the data suggests that we will need to extend the inventory for all types
of housing to accommodate our growth over the next 10 years. This includes affordable
housing for workforce and senior residents, which is why I support the proposed
development of Espero Landing and Asperanza Heights at Saddlecreek.
This proposed development has the potential to allow many of our essential workers to live
where they work, thereby becoming full contributors to this community and improving their
quality of life. Additionally, it has the potential to help our seniors living on fixed incomes
who are cost -burdened by their housing. It also aligns with policies adopted by Council
earlier this year, specifically Policy H.5 - Support and increase rental choices for low-income
and workforce households and Policy H.6 - Support rental choices for senior households.
Given the impact COVID-19 has had and will continue to have on employment and job loss,
coupled with the expectations placed on essential workers to provide this community with
critical resources and services, I respectfully ask that Council consider this development as a
pathway to accommodate the basic need of housing for some of the many individuals who
work here while earning less than our area's median income, so that they may have the
potential to thrive and make Georgetown their home.
Neil Grobler
Good evening Council,
As I did last month, I am once again writing in to express my concern about the proposed
affordable housing project in the Saddle Creek neighborhood. The proposed location for this
project is illogical and will help neither party - the current residents of Saddle creek nor the
future potential residents of this proposed housing community. There is no proximity to
potential employment, no consistent public transit, nor shopping/grocery within a reasonable
vicinity. This affordable housing project would thrive in an area closer to a city center, not in
a newly developing suburban area that only has access to one major road - a toll road. I also
believe that the division of economic development is apparent at i35. Saddle creek is
providing Georgetown with an opportunity for continued positive growth on the East side of
i35 - in comparison to the West of i35 from Wolf Ranch continuing down 29. This lot would
better serve as a light commercial area to promote further economic growth in this part of our
beautiful city of Georgetown. I strongly encourage all of you to oppose this project for the
betterment of OUR city as a whole. Thank you for your time.
Ashley Hawkes
Dear City Council,
We would like it to be known that an approval given to KCG to build their tax exempt
community is not beneficial to our community or the city of Georgetown. To add additional
people to the city who will use its resources but not add to the taxes will create a heavy burden
on the school systems and the essential systems such as our law enforcement. The public
records prove that these tax exempt communities that already exists in Georgetown have high
crime and traffic rates according to the 911 call records.
KCG has attempted to pull the wool over our eyes by statements that the people who will be
living in these "rental only" apartments are the very people who put taxes provide salaries
for. If you talk directly to those people many of whom already have purchased homes in
Saddlecreek they will agree that they are not interested in the community. And that they
themselves wouldn't fee comfortable living in a tax free place where they didn't contribute to
the economy and they own fellow salaries. The actual consumers of these rentals will not be
essential employees that want what's best for our city but instead those who try to live off the
"handouts" instead burdening our infrastructure within Georgetown. These same people also
should be able to live in a location that would better suite them, easy access to public transit
which doesn't exist out here at Saddlecreek, or commuting to work with ease considering the
closest option here is a costly toll road.
For us personally this would devalue and undermine and future growth to our home values
as well as our school ratings. We are invested in this home and were not informed ahead of
time that this land would be used for such a negative impact apartment complex. We know
that the land will and should be developed and we understand that and just desire that it be
something that will add value to our community and share in the same ways we do such as
paying taxes or increasing value to properties.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our Saddlecreek community.
Julia Hoy
Mayor Ross and Council Members,
My name is Julia Hoy and I am a resident of the SaddleCreek neighborhood in District 7 in
Georgetown. I am writing to you hoping that you will support our neighborhood by voting
against the construction of 206 units of affordable family housing to be known as Espero
Landing and the additional 144 affordable housing units for seniors to be known as
Asperanza Heights, as detailed in Items P and Q on the July 14, 2002 agenda. The construction
of said housing developments by KCG Developments raises several concerns for the residents
of SaddleCreek.
Most residents of SaddleCreek purchased in this neighborhood due to its rural location. We
are able to enjoy a rural lifestyle, while still residing within the Georgetown city limits. Upon
speaking with many of the residents in the neighborhood, we found that most were told by
our respective builders' representatives and the developer that the parcel of land on which
KCG is proposing the housing units was zoned as "light commercial" and would most likely
be developed as small office centers or a small shopping center. I was told this in 2018 when
I purchased here, only later to find out that this parcel of land was rezoned as multi -family in
2015. The residents of the neighborhood feel that we were deceived by our builders in order
to sell property.
An additional concern of SaddleCreek residents includes the fact that Espero Landing and
Asperanza Heights are to be built on property that is within the boundaries of an HOA
neighborhood. We are very proud of our neighborhood and have worked hard to build a
strong community. Residents are concerned with the impact that will have on the
SaddleCreek neighborhood, including increased traffic on Sam Houston Avenue, Rock Ride
Lane and within the boundaries of the SaddleCreek neighborhood itself, a potential increase
in undesirable activity such as graffiti and theft, a potential increase in non-SaddleCreek
residents using the amenities that residents pay HOA fees for.
We are concerned that the impact to area services will be a burden to the City of Georgetown,
including the Georgetown Police Department. KCG is requesting to be 100% exempt from
paying property taxes, which, as you know, helps fund area schools and other services. We,
as residents of single-family homes within the SaddleCreek community, are required to pay
property taxes on our homes. This should be a requirement for KCG as well. Using a non-
profit as a cover for a 100%exemption is not in the best interest of the City of Georgetown,
Georgetown ISD or any of the other entities that depend upon tax dollars for operational
funding. We understand that the Georgetown area is a hotbed for growth and realize the
potential of such growth, but we also know that increased growth requires additional
funding. By granting 100% tax -exemption for KCG, we are allowing our city and county
resources to be further strained, without providing the necessary funding. KCG must be
willing to pay their part in order to help Georgetown grow in a positive, progressive manner.
We trust that you will support the residents of SaddleCreek and will do what is in the best
interest in the City of Georgetown. Please vote against the KCG developments.
Respectfully,
Julia Hoy
Stephen and Mary Bugg
Council,
I write today to please ask your consideration to not pass the KCG Development in
Saddlecreek. You will have those that say everyone deserves affordable housing and a chance
to live in these areas. While this is true a 100% tax exemption is not the answer for this
development. Georgetown has its share of affordable housing and the surrounding cities
should be an area these developers look at. We in Saddlecreek have worked hard and saved
to have our homes that we pay taxes on and pay for the upkeep to ensure Georgetown stays
an inviting city. Why should we foot the bill for our public services such as fire and police
since these would be services that they would also be entitled to. We as a community do our
part to pay into our taxes to ensure these public services are available. But, you have a
developer looking for a large tax exemption while they make money off our city and not give
us anything back in return? Last meeting someone on council mentioned they would pay
sales tax when visiting businesses, etc and put into our local economy. Well that's not good
enough.
Please protect our home values and our city and please vote no.
Thank you for your time.
Eric Nanez
Good Afternoon Council,
I live in the Saddlecreek neighborhood and I oppose the KCG development. Thank you,
Jessica Wells
As a single mom on a fixed income, I worked extremely hard to invest in a home and
community where I would feel safe and and sure of my investment. The news of affordable
housing, at the end of my block creates a gut wrenching blow to myself and I am sure to
everyone else. I have worked to provide programming that they mention they will offer, to
these types of affordable housing and have seen first hand the negative impacts on the
community. As a result of feeling unsafe at work or even parking my vehicle, I resigned from
programs and activity director. Now imagine the feeling of finding out this same type of
affordable housing will be down the block.
Keely and Derek Wolf
Georgetown City Council,
Thank you for a short minute to hear my family out regarding the affordable housing/senior
living complex being proposed.
I will make this to the point. Our family is against this development in many ways.
Almost two years ago I uprooted our family in order to take a job in Georgetown, because
this is where I've ALWAYS wanted to work. Little did I know I would love it so much that
we would sell our quaint little home in Granger, to live in this community We both work for.
This process took over a year and we finally settled on our humble little home in Saddlecreek.
We couldn't have been happier with this decision. We even plan on placing our future
children in GISD because of the school system as well as our love for our school resource
officers from GPD.
This was almost uprooted when we heard about the plans to place this development, literally
in our back yard. We live directly off Bell Gin and this would set across the street from our
back fence. This was devastating to us because we planned for this to be a 10 year (at least
home) and if this development is placed here, we cannot financially afford for our investment
to lose value. We would have to sell again and relocate in order to maintain our ability to
maintain some sort of equity. We poured our savings into this home and we continue to love
it and this city.
This development will definitely bring a significant rise in crime and lower the property value
for everyone within this subdivision, who like us, have spent so much to purchase and
maintain a very beautiful subdivision.
The largest issue we see with it, is in the strain this tax exemption will place on our beloved
public safety professionals. We are both first responders, so this increase in stress, workload,
and calls for service hits close to home. There will be no tax compensation from this
development for the city, however it will add to the strain our public safety men and women
face every day. There will be no increase in personnel for Fire/EMS/Police to cover this
additional (very large) complex either, on top of an already strained public safety system.
I could also touch on how there is ZERO convenience in this area for public transportation or
daily life needs (groceries within walking distance).
As stated before by other council members, it is time for other cities to take their share and
develop these in their cities. Georgetown holds a very high percentage of affordable housing
developments with very little tax assistance to afford the increase in public safety needs. I
understand all citizens deserve the right to affordable housing, and I support that completely.
I just understand there are better areas and cities for developments like this to be placed,
without all of the negative consequences the City and many of the citizens will have to bear.
Thank you for the time taken today to listen to our concerns.
Christina Maloof
My husband, Christopher Maloof, and I oppose allowing KCG to build approximately 350
tax-exempt apartments in the Saddlecreek subdivision. Our reasons include:
1. Because the project is tax exempt, the owner will not be adding to the tax base to help
cover the cost of schools and other essential services for their residents. This cost will then be
borne by existing taxpayers.
2. Because the majority of the residents will have jobs, and there is no public transportation
or the ability to walk to work, there will be the possibility of at least 350 more cars on our
neighborhood streets.
3. Adding affordable apartments will negatively affect the value of our homes and the
quality of life in our neighborhood.
We encourage the Council to rezone the property in question either for single family homes
or light commercial, such as office or food service.
Thank you for your consideration.
Courtney Merchant
Dear council,
My husband and I love being a part of the Georgetown community and we love our
neighborhood, Saddlecreek. It has been brought to our attention that affordable housing is
being proposed within our neighborhood. We were not informed of this decision when we
purchased our home here, so we were blind sighted by this proposal. This is extremely
disappointing for us and our growing family. We were first drawn to Saddlecreek
neighborhood because of multitude of single-family homes; we specifically chose Saddlecreek
to get away from apartment buildings. Apartments, especially over time, bring about more
crime. My husband is a State Trooper and can concur to this fact.
While there are already many affordable housing and apartment complexes within
Georgetown, I believe that our neighborhood would benefit for the area to be re -zoned to a
retail property. Retail would bring about more value to homes while apartments will only
devalue our homes, especially overtime.
I really appreciate your time and consideration for opposition of this proposed property
development.
Donald Merchant
Afternoon Council,
My name is Donald Merchant, I am emailing you to voice my personal concerns with a
affordable housing complex that is being proposed for Saddle Creek by KCG. My wife and I
our building a house in the neighborhood. Sir, I have lived in various apartment complexes
for the past tenish years. I have even been a courtesy officer in one for the last three years.
Mostly, I handle noise complaints, domestic disturbances, and narcotics calls; these calls
happen almost daily. What I have to say about apartment complexes is not positive, in my
personal and professional opinion apartment complexes are a breeding ground for crime.
Majority of my arrests come from people that reside at apartment complexes. This is the
unfortunate truth. I don't believe compromising safety of the community for this proposed
development is worth any benefits KCG could offer. In the long run, I believe Georgetown
PD will have to spend a lot of time and resources to ensure public safety around this area if
the affordable housing proposal is approved. Council, if you would like, I can compile crime
statistics to prove to you that approving this development would be unwise for the greater
good of the Saddle Creek community and furthermore for the greater good of Georgetown. I
believe a better solution for the land is to develop the land into a business center. We can both
agree the area of Saddle Creek will boom with development in the next few years, wouldn't
it be better to introduce consumer economy with small businesses?Council, if there is
anything I can do to help gain support for disapproval of KCGs affordable housing complex
please let me know.
Thank you for your time.
Pedro Abundis
Completely opposed Q y P I live in muster bend affordable housing makes no sense in saddle
creek being neighborhood so far from bus lines or anything and completely oppose to the
idea of them getting 100% off property tax exemption.
Emma Rosales
Completely oppose q and p.
I do not agree on them getting 100 tax exemption.
Dan Bonner
From: Rev. Dan Bonner
Vice President for Development Emeritus of Wesleyan Homes Member Emeritus of the City
of Georgetown's Commission on Aging
Subject: Current proposal on two new affordable housing developments for SE Georgetown
Dear Friends,
I write as a grateful citizen of Georgetown. You and your predecessors have done so much in
my sixteen years here to provide economic and social public policy and support to keep pace
with our fast-growing and increasingly diverse community. We are well along the path to
realizing our aspirational goal: To becoming A City of Compassion and Excellence for all of
our citizens.
Last year my wife, Sue, and I moved into a cottage home in The Wesleyan at Estrella campus
of Williams Drive. We are happily now living among the approximately 450 senior adults
who live on our Estrella campus. To help us all, Estrella's campus today employs a staff of
455, the vast majority of whom work in essential positions and receive an hourly wage.
Shortly before we moved, I accepted Wesleyan Homes' invitation to serve part-time as the
Chaplain of our Assisted Living Community (ALC). This home for 81 senior adults sits at the
entrance to our Estrella campus at the intersection of Williams Drive and Estella Crossing.
Two year ago The Live Oak Apartments (LOA) opened next door to our ALC, between the
ALC and The Catfish Parlor on Williams Drive. This modern apartment complex provides,
based on availability and income qualifications, all of its apartments on a 30-50% reduction
from LOA's published market rates rents.
In informal one-on-one conversations between me and several AL teammates, when asked
about the LOA, most expressed an interest. I learned one of these teammates already moved
into the LOA complex and happily now walks to work. Prior to his/her move into LOA, this
employee drove a considerable distances to and from work at Estrella. Now he/she expresses
higher job satisfaction because he/she can work and live in Georgetown.
I share this story to give you an "on -the -ground case" of the positive difference affordable
housing makes in hourly wage earners' quality of life and job satisfactions. I believe that many
hourly employees in Georgetown who can make this choice are likely to be more stable
employees and productive citizens. For this reason, I urge you, our city's leaders, to support
the two proposed new affordable apartment projects before you, Espero Landing and
Asperanza Heights.
Erin Hall
I venomently oppose low cost housing to be built in saddle creek. I moved my elderly mother
there in her own house, I moved behind her, and i about to purchase my 3rd house within the
development. If this low cost housing is approved ... i will be moving out, move my mother
out and pull out on the 3rd property. U don't spend $500k on two etirement homes to lose
value on it due to low cost housing 3 yrs after u move in. Find another place in Georgetown
that doesn't have an hoa. I am appalled that this is even a consideration. You wouldn't want
low cost housing to be placed two streets over from your home would you.? If I move, I
moving completely out of Georgetown. Please do not approve this low cost housing in
saddlecreek.
Jolene and Andrew O'Brien
We are in support of affordable housing in Georgetown. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was
something that council and experts in our community put In many hours to develop. I would
like to note that affordable housing was a key need for Georgetown and Williamson County.
This will assist those who work in the service industry making sure our parents are cared by
CNAs and our childcare workers have a safe place to call home. The data on the housing
needs are detailed in the United Ways of Texas ALICE report and our health district data. As
the CEO of United Way I support affordable housing and giving all families the ability to
thrive. I would also like to share my support for the KCG project personally as a resident of
SaddleCreek. We need to continue to welcome those in our neighborhoods who are trying to
improve their lives and get ahead as they serve us our coffee and bring us our meals. Thank
you for your service.
Paul Huehlefeld
Hello members of the council,
I am writing to express my opposition of KCG's affordable housing project known as
Asperanza Heights located at Sam Houston and Bell Gin. Please vote no on KCG's proposed
affordable housing project, Asperanza Heights. Thank you!
Robin Jepsen
I ask the City Counsel of Georgetown to reconsider the development by KCG OF "low
income" housing for the following reasons:
1. Tax credits in excess of the standard. They are asking for 100%.
2. Excessive traffic flow into a development off an arterial road at 55 mph.
3. High density housing does not fit with the surrounding development.
Many of the Saddlecreek residents, including myself have sought The Saddlecreek
development because of its country feel and sense of community. We are fully invested
financially and feel this type of development, high density apartments, will lower our
property values. I ask that you reconsider. This is not the original zoning for this local.
Original zoning was for "light commercial". May I suggest:
1. Senior housing
2. Small strip mall providing amenities for the surrounding area
Thank you for your reconsideration in this important decision.
Shannon O'Shea
Hello members of the council,
I am writing to express my opposition of KCG's affordable housing project known as
Asperanza Heights located at Sam Houston and Bell Gin. As a Saddle Creek and Georgetown
resident, I have several concerns tied to such housing, both for our immediate area as well as
Georgetown as a whole. Everything from the tax burden (KCG is requesting 100% tax
exemption), to the increased traffic, to the strain on the ISD is concerning. In terms of assisting
those in need in our community, the Saddle Creek area is simply not an ideal location for low
income families. We have no public transposition, no retail in walking or biking distance,
limited -to -no job opportunities, and unless you have reliable transportation, this area is a food
desert for -4-5 miles. Saddle Creek is still too rural to fully support low income individuals
and families that will likely need assistance in addition to subsidized rent. Please vote no on
KCG's proposed affordable housing project, Asperanza Heights. Thank you!
Norman A. Uhl II
My wife and I are building a house in Saddle Creek close to our grandkids. It was meant to
be our retirement home. We are leaving an area north of Houston in Harris County that is in
decline. Crime is on the rise to the point that we are afraid to take a walk in our own
neighborhood. Much of the decline comes from once trendy upscale apartment complexes
that declined to affordable housing and then to Section 8. It did not take long for that to
happen. I currently work in EMS and was a police beat reporter for years for the local CBS
affiliate. I have learned over the years that most police and EMS calls in our area for shootings,
stabbings, rapes, assaults, etc are in apartment complexes that used to be upscale. People want
the newest thing so the first group that would move into the proposed development would
move to the new complex leaving the old complex to reduce standards to fill apartments.
Renters do not take care of property like owners do, so in just a matter of years a complex can
go from nice to crime ridden. In my career I've seen this play out over and over. We are
moving to Georgetown to escape that and we sure don't want to go through that again. Please
protect the safety of your tax paying citizens and protect their property values by voting NO
on this proposal. They aren't even paying taxes like the rest of us. Georgetown has the bulk
of this type of housing. It's time for other areas of Williamson county to do their part. If this
goes through we will seriously have to consider selling our brand new house to find a more
secure retirement property. We thought we had found that at Saddle Creek.
Lori Brutlag
I strongly oppose the "affordable homes" KCG Developers have proposed.
1- There is no down side for the Developer, they will get a 100% tax break and wash their
hands of it and move on to the next one.
2- As stated previously Georgetown already has 2x the number of affordable housing Let
other cities do their share in an area that has established public transportation & employment
opportunities.
3- In the proposed area along Sam Houston there is already going to be an IDEA school, yet
a elementary & middle school is within a mile & the twin homes. Do we have to have every
scenario in a 2 mile radius?
4- That we, as new home owners were not made aware of this, yet we will be dealing with
negative repercussions for years to come. Yes negative repercussions.
Would you want this in your front yard or have multiple apartment units looking into your
backyard without forewarning of this being a possibility?
I can't image that your answer would be yes. Help this developer locate another more viable
location for this proposal.
Please vote no.
Thomas Roberts
This affordable housing apartments are a bad idea for us homeowners in Saddlecreek.
Coming from a retired law enforcer, I personally know what comes with affordable housing
units and it's nothing good. There will be a high rate of criminal activity.And with that being
said, we have a few police officers that live in Saddlecreek community and will be a security
risk. We need to protect the hard workers that planned and saved to be able to move into a
community like Saddlecreek. I think it would be more profitable to place a commercial
businesses. We are all hoping that when a decision is made, that it really hears and considers
the homeowners in Saddlecreek, most of have moved away from areas that had an affordable
housing near by and knows that this a disaster in the making. Thank you for your time.
Scotty Hardway
The Residents of Saddle Creek have an online petition to OPPOSE the KCG Development of
Affordable Housing within the Saddle Creek Community Confines at the NW corner of
BellGin & Sam Houston.
As of July 13, 2020 @ 5:30pm, we have 226 signatures:
htW:Ldm .i# jrWzStkp
Peggy Quinn
I am opposed to having affordable housing literally in my backyard. I have a tiny courtyard
and would have no privacy withonly a 6 ft privacy fence seperating me and the 2 and 3 story
projects. Saddle creek is a small subdivision with already duplexes and a charter school at one
entrance and now affordable housing at our other entrance. We will feel the pressure from
this sandwich. Increased crime, excessive traffic flow throw our neighborhood. Property
values will drop, making it impossible to sell. There must surely be a more suitable location
for this project. Something like a small strip center with a convience store and gas would
greatly benefit all of us here in Saddle creek. this is many of our forever homes. PLEASE help
us keep our homes "SAY NO" to this affordable housing project in my backyard. I am to old
and cannot afford to relocate. Thank you.
Jennifer Brown
Why on the East side again? Please do not build this complex adjacent to Saddle Creek.
Robert Niederhauser
Our family is extremely against any time of government adjusted, low income, whatever
name you want to put on it, apartments to be placed in the backyard of our neighbors and
WITHIN the Saddle Creek community! We have paid $200K to$400K for our homes in this
neighborhood. Some of these are forever homes for the residents here. Bu allowing this
development you WILL drop the home value drastically! Loom what happened to Georgian
Place. This began as a great little couple block community and then the low income
apartments were built when the buyers there were told there would be a park built. Only a
few years later and that neighborhood is trash.
We were not told buy any of the builders that the land at the corner of Bell Gin and Sam
Houston would be used for apartments. We were told commercial!
There is plenty of land closer to 130 that is not inside of a neighborhood to drop these into.
Please keep Georgetown beautiful and don't destroy this community for greed and tax
dollars! Move this development!
Sheldon Brutlag
I'm greatly opposed to the affordable housing proposed for the Saddle Creek neighborhood.
The little sign they put out in the field 35ft off the road at an entrance most of the
neighborhood doesn't use can hardly be called notification. We checked with our builder,
Chesmar, about what else was being built here before buying our house. We weren't told
affordable housing was going in. I have a picture of their community map and that area is
listed as parcel D employment center. We would have never bought here if we were aware of
the possibility. Funny how the builders signs are large yet there is no signs for the affordable
housing, must not be a selling point for our neighborhood nor is it displayed on the
community map in the sales office.
I would propose building this housing in the community in an existing area beneficial to
improving their lives.
Please oppose this.
Brandon Moore
I just bought a home in Saddlecreek and do not support the low income apartments planned
to be built. Why don't y'all put them down Williams dr by the lake, or down Highway 29 by
Cimarron Hills. Lets get some sustainable development in the rich communities. Lets really
be inclusive. Sun City could use some low income apartments to house your maids and lawn
people. We already have enough crime in this neighborhood.
Skylar West
My husband and I are new members and we oppose the complexes moving in. We came here
for the open space around the neighborhood and it is beautiful. We would hate to see it
blocked by the apartments and complexes. We would also like to keep the value of our home
and not lose money on the house in a few years. Again, greatly oppose. Thank you.
Chris Hoy
I am a homeowner in Saddlecreek, the proposed location for Espero Landing and Asperanza
Heights...... the two phases of the tax credit, reduced rent apartments KCG wants to build. I
am asking you today to vote "no" on the two resolutions of no objection. This proposed project
is not good for the Saddlecreek community or the City of Georgetown. KCG is asking for a
100% tax exemption while creating additional strain on resources provided by the city. As
more resources are need with no increase in revenue from the proposed 100% tax exempt
community, I see the possibility that my already high taxes will increase to make up for the
needed additional resources. This project is not just near our community, it would be within
an already established HOA community of currently 868 families, and will be growing to over
1200 families as the community fills.
Please consider how this proposed complex will affect the existing community with the
possibility of lower home value, increased need of city and county resources, increased crime,
and addition traffic that the current roads can not handle.
Georgetown holds one of the highest percentages of affordable housing commitments. It's
time for other communities to do the same. This is not the place for an affordable housing
complex. The negative impact on the existing community will be devastating to their
investments as well as the future ability to recover that investment.
Again, I ask that you vote "no" to these two resolutions of no objection. This project should
not be built here, where it will have the devastating negative impact it will have on our
existing community.
Thank you for your time.
Georgina Mena
Good afternoon City Council. As one of the first buyers in the Saddlecreek community, I have
seen Saddlecreek quickly grow and welcome so many families who made the investment to
call Saddlecreek home. While I believe affordable housing should be available to those that
need it, I do not believe it should be developed in a community where there is already an
established price point of entry. I would have chosen NOT to buy here had we known that
affordable housing would be down the street from our home. I would like to ask the council
to consider the hundreds of families who have bought into this community with that
understanding and vote against this development. I stand with 234 other Saddlecreek
residents who have signed a petition opposing this development.
Clayton West
This is right behind our home and we strongly oppose it. We just moved here for the open
space and to get away from the tall buildings. We do not want an apartment or complexes
behind us. Strongly oppose! Please do not put this in here. This will decrease our value in our
home.
Tracey Arguelles
I would like to express my opposition to the proposed affordable housing project at the
secondary entrance for Saddlecreek subdivision. As I'm sure you've heard from numerous
other residents, the negative impact to our property values will be significant. While I am a
supporter of more affordable housing in Georgetown, I am not in support of the rural
placement or the attaching it directly to a subdivision.
1. This type of affordable housing only benefits those who live there when in close proximity
to support services such as grocery stores, drug stores, child care or medical care or with
access to public transportation to services. The location doesn't meet this criteria and the 2030
plan has no accommodation to meet that criteria.
2. We have not only other Texans who have moved to Saddlecreek but countless families
from other states who came he for what Georgetown provides - a safe city, solid housing
investment and a family friendly town. That investment would be flushed away with
approval of this proposal. We already have people financially impacted by Covid-19 that need
to sell and cant because there is a chance this could be approved. And that's just based on the
chance.
3. I have to ask why ANY apartment community of any kind would be placed at the mouth
of any subdivision? I realize zoning was approved 5 years ago when there wasn't a
subdivision with residents who would have objected. Growth in Saddlecreek Development
zone should complement the primary occupants of the land being developed - that is the
subdivision. Small commercial should be considered rather than apartments. Affordable
housing and a neighborhood of
$250k - 400k homes do not compliment each other. We recently discovered that a permit has
been issued for a charter school at the mouth of the main entrance to our subdivision.
Although that may be more complimentary, I'm still at a loss for why the subdivision is being
zoned this way. I believe most of the Saddlecreek residents are in support of this type of
housing for Georgetown and likely the charter school, as well. The issue is placing these
entities INSIDE of a subdivision.
I would ask that you vote against this proposal and move toward rezoning of this segment of
the development.
Thank you.
Thomas and Kirsten Morava
We disapprove the building of apartments on Sam Houston and Bell Gin. Our last home in
Las Vegas, Nv was by apartment complexes and the neighborhood constantly had helicopters
flying over and heavy police present due to criminal activity. We understand that its a
different people, state, and town. We up rooted our roots of 28 years for our family grow in
safer welcoming community such as Saddle Creek showed us. Most common problems found
in apartment complexes is criminal activity and heavy drug tracking. If any of our neighbors
decide to move we/they have lost money in their investment and their home went down in
value. The building of the apartments is not fair for our fellow neighbors and the amount of
money and time they have spent in building their homes.
Shawn O'Shea
I do consent to affordable housing IN Saddle Creek community.
Vote NO.
Bring in some much needed commercial small business.
Samantha Cotharn
Thank you City Council for hearing my concerns today.
My name is Samantha Cotharn and I am a 5th generation from Georgetown, TX. I take a lot
of pride in being from this community and the opportunity to raise my children here near my
family. Over the years I have seen Georgetown grow, and with that growth there have been
challenges for affordable housing options. While I do agree the need for more affordable
options to help those who keep our hometown thriving, I do NOT believe this location is the
right place. We keep hearing from the developer that if they build it will bring businesses,
when in fact they have no proof or business proposals that ensure that will happen. My family
owns the property directly across Bell Gin from this proposed lot, and there is no confirmation
of light commercial businesses coming any time soon.
Another concern I have is the accessibility to the city's amenities, stores, and businesses. I have
seen other tax credit housing, and their community members frequently use the City bus
system or they are located in a reasonable proximity to local stores, hospitals and food
establishments. I believe both the multifamily housing and senior living will need to have
access, and there is not even a bus route that comes out to Saddle Creek. I grew up in a part
of town that was right next to section 8 housing, and other tax credit style homes, and I can
promise you I understand the need, but I think Georgetown can find a better plot of land for
this development.
Finally, the idea that we would approve a development that would not pay any taxes into our
city and schools is truly unacceptable. Those of us who have bought homes in this area are
investing in not only our homes but the schools and surrounding area. It is so important to
me that every child have an equal and diverse opportunity for an education! With increasing
student populations, there will be a need, and I believe the development should help support
those needs just as local tax payers.
In closing, I truly hope the city council will consider my objection to the building of both P
(Espero Landing) and Q (Asperanza Heights) on the lot off of Bell Gin and Sam Houston.
Thank you for your time.
Ricardo Gonzalez, Jr.
Thank you to all the members who opposed the construction of the KCG Apartments. When
we purchased our home on Daisy Cutter Crossing the information we were provided on the
plans for this area were that of a small shopping area. That was one of the selling points of
why we purchased in Saddlecreek. We hope and look forward to your responses on the
development of this area.
Laura Higgins
To the members of the board,
Please do not approve the affordable housing complex for Saddle Creek.
As many have stated, Georgetown currently has more affordable housing than any of our
neighboring cities. We need to bring in companies that will help Georgetown grow financially
and will positively impact us. We were told that plot of land would be a small strip center,
not a housing complex. Please do not allow our brand new homes values to drop with the
hope of a nonprofit to receive a donation.
We all want Georgetown to prosper but in the correct way.
Thank you for your time and support in saying no to KCG proposal.
Jose Anthony Ramirez
My wife and I are against the affordable housing apartment complex proposed in the Saddle
Creek neighborhood. Having closed on our house at the end of June, we are so far very happy
with our neighbors and neighborhood. We moved from North Austin to Georgetown to buy
a beautiful new home away from the city. Now we are very worried that our home will lose
property value and the other potential changes that come along with affordable housing. The
increase in traffic and potential for increased crime in the area are the things we wanted to
leave in Austin.
My wife and I both work with the public for our careers and absolutely believe everyone has
the right for a chance at nice affordable housing. We also believe there are plenty of other
places that the Affordable housing could go elsewhere in Williamson county. It would make
more sense for affordable housing to be near the services needed by families who live in
affordable housing. Social services and such are not convenient to Saddle Creek, therefore the
developers may actually be doing a disservice to residence who would live in those
apartments.
Please consider these concerns as I know many of my neighbors have the same concerns.
Thank you.
Alexandra Gonzalez
Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is Alexandra Gonzalez and I as well as my husband, Ricardo Gonzalez are residents
of the Saddle Creek community since October 2019. We were distraught when we heard about
the future plans for the land that is right across the street from our brand new home that we
worked so hard to buy. When we came to this community, we asked what where the future
plans for this lot and were never even given a hint at the possibility of there being senior or
low income apartments across from us.
Having these apartments in such close proximity is very concerning due to many different
factors. Factors such as high turnover tenants, crime, traffic and most important to our family
the impact on the two schools near by.
This type of low housing is not fit for an area that has no job commuter transportation, job
opportunity within close range of this housing and with much more lower housing
availability within Georgetown. We have taken the lead compared to other neighboring cities
such as Cedar Park & Hutto in order to ensure we are being fair and equal to those that need
senior & lower income housing. Now it's time for them to step up.
Thank you kindly for your time.
Debbie Weber
I am in agreement with the majority of the comments that were read at the June 23rd Regular
Session Meeting of the Georgetown City Council, contained in the Agenda for today's
meeting.
As a homeowner in Saddle Creek, I purchased my home here because it is a nice new
neighborhood of single-family homes in a quieter area of Georgetown, distanced from the
city noise, traffic and apartment complexes. With an increase of 350 residences in apartments
and senior units into our subdivision, the traffic problems alone would create major problems,
plus there is a potential for increased crime and the devaluation of our home property values.
There is no apparent benefit to those of us who are homeowners here to welcome this type of
project into our neighborhood.
PLEASE VOTE NO on the KCG Development Proposal.
The following comments were made during the meeting using the Zoom client:
Michelle Klingemann expressed the need for this type of housing as it is alignment with the
City's housing plan. She also noting the rising home costs in the area which negatively impact
working class people. Klingemann stated that this is hand up, not a hand-out.
Ina Spokas with KCG gave a presentation on Espero Landing and Asperanza Heights the
proposed developments at Saddlecreek. She gave background on KCG as a company
founded in 2015 and ranked 16th in Affordable Housing Finance Top 50 Affordable Housing
Developers of 2019 with developments in 5 states with several in Texas in Austin, Houston,
Lago Vista, and Leander. Spokas stated that KCG does development, design, and
construction of multifamily and mixed -use development with long term owners and
investors in their communities. She then reviewed their projects in Lago Vista and Austin.
Spokas reviewed why the projects are needed by using data from the City's comprehensive
plan. She also noted the future need for affordable housing. Spokas noted the City
Commissioned 2017 Workforce Analysis and the disparity between wages and cost of living
with 75% of Georgetown workers do not live in the community and that housing affordability
is an impediment to local businesses which provides challenges in hiring/retaining lower -
income workers. She continued that lower -income wages in Georgetown are relatively the
same as across Austin MSA and there is no incentive to commute to Georgetown for work
and the aging population being 25% of the population over 65 years and 50% is over 47 years.
Spokas stated that there is a small young professional population and low workforce
participation rates, and the long-term growth concerns if the above affordability issues aren't
addressed. She then explained why this site was chosen because the site is already zoned to
allow for MF-2 within the PUD and no change in Land Use is being requested, and the site
comports with Georgetown's 2030 Comprehensive Plan for diversity in housing options for
both workforce and age restricted seniors (55+). Spokas continued that the site is already part
of concept planned employment centers, commercial, and retail within PUD and the high
demand for workforce and senior housing in Georgetown due to existing developments that
are fully leased with waiting lists. She also noted the proximity to schools, proximity to
highways, and that the east side of Georgetown is growing and few apartments are in this
area. Spokas then showed the Site Location Map. She then provided details about Espero
Landing and Asperanza Heights which will be a multigenerational community which: allows
families and their older relatives to live side by side; enhances seniors independence and
ability to age -in -place; and enables synergies between resident supportive services and
activities while fostering community integration. She continued that it is an approximately
206 family units and 144 senior (55+) units with rents at a variety of income levels and
provided the currently proposed amenities at each community. Spokas showed the
Preliminary Site Plan and contemplated design and finishes. She explained how rent limits
are determined: in relation to Area Median Income (AMI), i.e. the average household income
in an area; for a given AMI level, rents are set to a limit that equals no more than 30% of
household income; the average income (100% AMI) for a 4 person household in Georgetown
is $97,600 ($46.92/hour); communities will offer units at 30%, 50%, 60% and 80% of AMI - as
well as Market Rate units at Asperanza Heights; and provided a table. Spokas noted that the
people who would live there would be tenants that have verifiable income; tenants that pay
100% of their rent; pass stringent background checks; and will be essential, valuable members
of the community you rely on every day. She then reviewed the projected rent and nit mix.
Spokas noted the property management policies which includes: background checks to
review criminal background, sex offender background, and financial background;
background checks are performed at initial leasing and at lease renewal; typically more
stringent requirements than at conventional apartments or single family housing; no drug
policy; no smoking policy; and apartments are inspected on a regular basis by management
staff. She then reviewed the approvals requested.
Motion by Pitts to deny the proposed Resolutions, second by Gonzalez.
Gonzalez asked if this project is approved is there a guarantee that that the residents moving
in will live in Georgetown. Watkins responded no. Gonzalez asked if there was a guarantee
that the residents would work in Georgetown. Watkins responded no. Gonzalez stated that
even if built, the project may not resolve the City's workforce housing needs. David Morgan,
City Manager, responded that is correct. Gonzalez asked if this proposal was heard at the
Housing Advisory Board (HAB). Watkins responded yes, on June 15, 2020. Gonzalez asked
about the outcome. Watkins responded that board wanted more information and did not feel
that they could recommend the resolution of no objection but could recommend the two times
resolution. Gonzalez noted that it wasn't entirely approved by the HAB.
Triggs noted that there is no public transportation and asked how many parking spaces will
be available. Spokas responded approximately 400 per what is required by Code. Triggs
stated that there are several different types of tax credits, some where the State will pay the
City, and asked what types are being applied for. Spokas responded federal housing tax
credits. Triggs asked what will they pay. Spokas responded that if awarded the tax credits
are then sold to a large institution that has a large income tax burden. Triggs stated that the
City will receive nothing. Spokas responded no the City won't. Triggs noted the need for a
non-profit partner and asked what type of partner is being sought. Spokas responded a
housing finance corporation or a corporation whose mission is to provide affordable housing.
Triggs asked if it would be a partner already in existence. Spokas responded yes. Triggs
asked if it will be something not newly formed. Spokas responded yes. Triggs asked if it will
be a single asset entity. Spokas responded it will be a single purpose entity. Triggs noted that
the developer wants to be around for 10-15 years and asked what happens after that. Spokas
responded that KCG would re -syndicate and reapply for tax credits. She added that 15 years
is the useful like for most systems and appliances. Triggs asked about the life of the tax credit.
Spokas responded 10 years for the tax credits. Triggs asked who takes risks for upkeep.
Spokas responded KCG. Triggs about financing type. Spokas responded they are proposing
Fannie MTAB. She added that she does not have a finance background and could not provide
thorough information, but she could provide more information. Triggs asked if there would
be performance statements. Spokas responded yes. Triggs asked when KCG would be
processing performance statements. Spokas responded November of this year, possibly
December. Triggs stated that he would feel better about the project if Council could see the
performance statements. Spokas responded that they could share, but there are privacy
concerns. Triggs asked about possible commercial development for the area. Spokas
responded that rooftops drive commercial development and it was a general statement and
not a personal guarantee.
Fought asked about forming a non-profit and related impact data. Spokas responded that
there is no data that she is aware of. Fought stated that he is sympathetic to the cause, but
other tows in the area need to contribute, and he will vote against.
Pitts stated that he is not supportive for multiple reasons. He said that according to an article
from a national news source Georgetown ISD is the second best to buy an affordable home.
Pitts added that he doesn't understand the huge push. Pitts stated that the didn't like the
2030 policies then and he doesn't like them now. He noted that the City is above the average.
Pitts stated that he doesn't understand the assumption that everyone has to live in
Georgetown. He added that he is not in favor of this or any other affordable projects coming
forward. Pitts then asked how many board members were at the HAB meeting and was there
a quorum. Watkins responded yes, there was a quorum. Pitts asked about a vote taken on
the project that was 3-2 against. Watkins responded yes. Pitts then stated that he didn't
understand why the first public comments was from Lou Snead, Chair of the Housing Board,
who was not in attendance at the meeting, saying that the HAB supported the proposal and
provided several points in favor. He continued that there was a quorum of the board present
and he cannot come forward as the Chair in support of the project when action by the board
has already been taken. Pitts then suggested that the Chair should step down or be removed.
He had no additional comments.
Jonrowe asked about the waivers granted by Governor and why they were granted. Watkins
responded that according to a Teresa Morales with the Texas Department of Housing and
Community Affairs it is to allow application in process to continue during COVID-19.
Jonrowe asked if the waivers would that apply to this project. Watkins responded that is the
intent and the developer could apply without the Resolutions. Jonrowe asked if based on the
current PUD apartments would be allowed by right. Watkins responded that MF-2 is allowed
in the PUD. Jonrowe asked about the possible number of units that could be built by right.
Watkins responded that she would need to verify. Jonrowe asked if it would be more than
proposal. Watkins responded that she would need to verify, but she believes it would be the
number proposed by KCG. Jonrowe asked if the project didn't need Council approval,
another non -tax credit apartment could go in. Watkins responded correct. Jonrowe asked if
the City has a need for an increase in affordable housing based on the pandemic. Morgan
responded that staff doesn't have data on that, but the Comp Plan process did show a need
based on income ranges and affordability. Jonrowe asked what percentage of housing units
are affordable. Watkins responded that she would need to bring up the study. Jonrowe stated
that she feels like there is a requirement to acknowledge the two times metric may not be best
to use for the City. She continued that based on the City's current growth, she's curious how
many affordable housing units of any type would the city need to see build each year to
maintain what is needed. Watkins responded this is addressed in the Housing Element of the
Comp Plan. Jonrowe asked if the City was behind in achieving the goals set in the Housing
Element. Morgan stated that he didn't feel that staff could answer that directly. Morgan
asked Watkins if the City has maintained a level of affordable housing in recent years.
Watkins stated that there has been increases in affordable housing and that information is
available, but not necessarily provided is the way that it is being asked for. Jonrowe stated
the Council adopted the Plan and should try to promote things that are addressed in the Plan.
Jonrowe then asked for demographic information regarding affordable housing. Morgan
responded that he believes the City does have that information, but it is not available off the
cuff, but staff could get it to Council. Jonrowe noted the discussions at all levels of
government about equity issues and that minorities tend to be overrepresented when looking
at affordable housing. Jonrowe asked that the community often expresses the same types of
concerns and has staff worked on a FAQ sheet to address those. Morgan responded that the
application process requires applicants to reach out to nearby residents that will be most
directly impacted. Jonrowe noted that in the past the City has added FAQs when receiving
similar questions over and over about different things. She noted that there is research on
criminality and home values related to proximity to affordable housing. Jonrowe asked if it
is legal require someone living in the proposed project to be from Georgetown or work in
Georgetown. Morgan responded that he does not believe that is legal. Jonrowe asked if this
project was supposed to go back to the HAB based on technical difficulties and confusion at
the meeting where it was discussed. Morgan responded that when staff brought forward this
item at Council Workshop they asked specifically if Council wanted this item to go back to
the HAB and Council did not feel the need to send it back to the board. Jonrowe asked if
there were, in fact, difficulties at the meeting. Morgan responded that there were some
communication challenges in the virtual meeting. Jonrowe stated that she didn't feel that
Council could use the vote to justify the project when there were communication issues.
Calixtro asked if not now, then when? She stated that the need is part of 2030 plan and data
sometimes blinds us. Calixtro stated that she knows that the City is behind and will be behind
if nothing is done. She added that the applicant was ready. Calixtro noted the concerns about
crimes and property values, but also the high cost of homes in the area. She added if not now,
when will the time be right to act on affordable housing issues.
Mayor Ross asked for clarification and if the project was built the City would receive zero tax
dollars. He asked if the property would pay no real estate taxes. Spokas responded correct.
Mayor Ross noted that other affordable housing projects did not a tax-exempt partner and
asked if the City will have no revenue on real estate taxes, but additional costs related to
providing City services. Spokas responded 8 of the 14 existing affordable housing
developments that were approved by Council do not pay property taxes because they have
abatements. Mayor Ross stated that the projects he is familiar with pay some sort of taxes to
the City, County, and State. Spokas responded that she has a list of those that don't pay taxes
which is a majority of the affordable housing developments.
Fought asked that the Mayor clarify what a yes or no vote would be on the item. Mayor Ross
stated that the motion was to deny the Resolution, so a yes vote would be a vote to deny the
Resolutions.
Jonrowe asked that Council be allowed to make final comments. Mayor Ross responded that
final comments from Council would be limited to two minutes because there has already been
so much discussion.
Gonzalez made a motion to call the question, second by Fought.
Discussion by Council about if Roberts Rules should be suspended or the question called. No
vote or additional action was taken on the matter.
Calixtro noted that there are different types of exemptions for homeowners and that she
wants this development to happen.
Triggs stated that the development is needed, but he doesn't like location. He added that
there is lot of information that council should get prior to the vote and he doesn't understand
the procedure. Triggs stated that it feels like a cart looking for a horse are there are too many
things up in the air.
Fought stated that there is too much of a burden and he doesn't like fact that it wouldn't
produce any taxes. He added that he doesn't like comparison to frozen taxes and will vote
against the project.
Pitts had no further comments.
Jonrowe stated that multi -family is misrepresented based on gut feelings versus facts. She
then noted that a Harvard study stated that 100 new single-family homes have on average 64
children while 100 new apartment average 29 children; apartment complexes in general are
assessed at commercial property rates and apartment dwellers can actually pay more in
property taxes; higher density developments are more efficient and it cost less to provide
many infrastructure services; every single family house have on average two cars vs. one car
for apartments; every single family house generates more car trips with 32% more on up to
50% more weekends; neighborhoods that have a mix of housing units including multi -family
and low-income multi -family actually have an increase in property values over time;
apartment dwellers are just as likely to be socially engaged with their neighbors as any other
single family housing development and are just as interested in local and national politics; are
only a little less likely to attend religious services; and are just as likely to identify closely with
the town that they live in. Jonrowe stated that people tend to have bias towards they types
of people they think will live in multi -family and these decisions need to be based on
information that is factual. She added the need for inclusive housing and Council has a duty
to do their part to approve projects like these.
Gonzalez stated that a fallacy is that multi -family unit are more dense than single family units,
and he is not opposed to multi -family. He added that the City has 6,000 multi -family coming
on and 4,000 in the area and the City is still waiting on retail amenities. Gonzalez stated that
if the issue was easy to resolve other surrounds cities would be adding them also.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro - No
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - No
Gonzalez - Yes
Motion to deny passed 4-2 (Triggs, Fought, Pitts, and Gonzalez for; Calixtro and Jonrowe
against; and District 2 vacant).
After the vote was made, Jonrowe commented that this was "modern red -lining." Gonzalez
responded that the comment was inappropriate.
Q. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution of no objection and two times the
state average per capita acknowledgement for KCG Development, LLC, to apply for
Housing Tax Credits for the construction of 144 affordable and market rate units for seniors
to be known as Asperanza Heights located at Sam Houston Ave. and Bell Gin Rd. -- Susan
Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator
Item Q was presented with Item P.
Watkins read the caption.
All comments for Item Q were read during Item P since the projects were presented together.
Motion by Pitts to deny the Resolutions, second by Gonzalez.
Triggs stated that he felt the presentation was poorly done and there should have been more
information give to Council prior to the meeting.
Pitts stated that he had no comments unless Jonrowe would like to elaborate on the comment
made at the end of Item P.
The remaining Council Members had no further comments or discussion.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro - No
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - No
Gonzalez - Yes
Motion to deny passed 4-2 (Triggs, Fought, Pitts, and Gonzalez for, Calixtro and Jonrowe
against; and District 2 vacant).
R. Consideration and possible action to approve a Resolution implementing the Unified
Development Code (UDC) General Amendments List for 2020 -- Sofia Nelson, Planning
Director
Nelson presented the item and reviewed the UDC direction on amendments and that the
UDC identifies review shall occur on an annual basis. She stated that the amendments shall
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and may be made in support of one of the
following circumstances: to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development
within the jurisdiction of the City; or to correct errors in the text; or to address changed or
changing conditions in the City. Nelson reviewed the UDC annual review process and noted
that: topics are introduced by City staff and public; City Council presentation and discussion
on initial list of amendments; P&Z provides recommendation on UDC list of amendments;
City Council reviews and approves list of topics to be amended, which is the current place in
process; UDCAC and City Staff begin to prepare draft amendments; and given the COVID-
19 pandemic the UDC Advisory Committee has not been meeting and have not been included
in the review of the annual list of amendments and should the Council want to include them
the proposed process can be amended. She noted that the recommendations for amendments
from staff 2020 are: regarding the Sign Ordinance address legal compliance of ordinance and
use of electronic signs; tree preservation and landscape conflicts to improve readability and
usability of ordinances; group homes regarding addressing the legal compliance of ordinance;
and conflicts with Fire Code regarding the street cross -sections for parking on both sides.
Nelson noted that there has been public request for review for the use of artificial turf in lieu
of grass in single-family developments. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommendation was to explore the following in addition to staff recommended amendments
and public request for review was to: review of sidewalk exceptions for industrial areas
within the ETJ; and review of residential and commercial landscaping requirements for the
purposes of encouraging native and drought resistant landscaping and minimizing water
consumption.
Nelson read the caption.
Motion by Pitts, second by Fought.
Mayor Ross asked that it be clear that the artificial turf would be green. Nelson responded
that staff will take that to committee.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
Public Wishing to Address Council
On a subject that is posted on this agenda: Please fill out a speaker registration form which can be
found on the table at the entrance to the Council Chamber. Clearly print your name and the letter
of the item on which you wish to speak and present it to the City Secretary on the dais, prior to the
start of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Council considers that item.
Only persons who have delivered the speaker form prior to the meeting being called to order may
speak. Speakers will be allowed up to three minutes to speak.
On a subject not posted on the a enda: An individual may address the Council at a regular City
Council meeting by contacting the City Secretary no later than noon on the Wednesday prior to the
Tuesday meeting, with the individual's name and a brief description of the subject to be addressed.
Only those persons who have submitted a timely request will be allowed to speak. The City
Secretary can be reached at (512) 931-7715 or cs@georUtown.org. Speakers will be allowed up to
three minutes to speak.
S. At the time of posting no one had signed up to speak.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in
the regular session.
T. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which
the attorney has a duty to advise the City Council, including agenda items
- Litigation Update
- PEC Franchise
- Net Metering
Sec. 551.086: Certain Public Power Utilities: Competitive Matters
- Purchase Power Update
Adjournment
Motion by Fought, second by Pitts.
Roll Call Vote
Calixtro — Yes
Triggs — Yes
Fought — Yes
Pitts — Yes
Jonrowe — Yes
Gonzalez — Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
Meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on L �7
Date
Dale Ross, Mayor
JDLt�1
Attest: Cit ecretary