HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 07.28.2020 CC-RMinutes of a Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, July 28, 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 6:00 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
Charlie Turner with River Rock Bible Church
Pledge of Allegiance
Pitts led both.
Comments from the Mayor
None.
City Council Regional Board Reports
None.
Announcements
None.
Action from Executive Session
Motion by Pitts to authorize the City Manager to negotiate the sale of City property located
851 FM 970, Florence, Texas 76527 to the City of Florence, Texas, on the terms discussed in
executive session; and, to authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary documents to
complete the sale, second by Triggs.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Not on call.
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 5-0 (District 2 vacant).
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 July 14, 2020 -- Robyn Densmore, City Secretary
C. Consideration and possible action to appoint Debra Meyer to fill a vacancy on the Zoning
Board of Adjustment -- Mayor Dale Ross
D. Consideration and possible action to appoint Melissa Sheldon to fill a vacancy on the
Animal Shelter Advisory Board -- Mayor Dale Ross
E. Forwarded from Georgetown Transportation Enhancement Corporation (GTEC):
Consideration and possible action to approve an economic development agreement with
Titan NorthPark35 -- Michaela Dollar, Economic Development Director
F. Consideration and possible action to approve a contract with ImageTrend, Inc for an
Electronic Health Record (EHR) and Records Management System (RMS) in the amount
not to exceed $61,477.00 for Year One setup and service fees -- John Sullivan, Fire Chief
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting from 6:10 - 6:15 p.m. to allow Council Member Fought to
join the meeting and work through technical issues.
Motion by Pitts to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, second by Triggs.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
Legislative Regular Agenda
G. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance for the voluntary annexation of an
approximately 0.763-acre tract of land out of the William Roberts Survey, Abstract 524, and a
0.109 acre tract of land, being over and across a portion of Shell Road, a right-of-way of
varying width described to Williamson County, Texas, for the property generally located at
3700 Shell Road -- Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Waggoner presented the item and reviewed Location Map, Aerial Map, Property Map,
Annexation Process, and the Tentative Schedule of: July 14th Municipal Services Agreement;
July 28th Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance held at City Council Meeting; and
August 11th Second Reading of Ordinance at City Council Meeting.
Mayor Ross opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:18 p.m. as there were no speakers.
Motion by Pitts, second by Triggs.
Council had no questions or comments.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
H. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a request for a Zoning Map
Amendment to amend the Seven Strand Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development
Plan consisting of Lots 5-7, Village Gate at Sun City Final Plat, generally located at 60 Del
Webb Blvd -- Andreina Davila- Quintero, AICP, Current Planning Manager
Davila -Quintero presented the item and reviewed the Location Map, Aerial Map, Future Land
Use/Overall Transportation Plan Map, Zoning Map, PUD Explanation, and the approved
2019-75-SDP. She then explained the deviations from the existing PUD noting that the current
PUD where all accessory uses are permitted by residents only and parking at the independent
living retirement center use shall be one space per dwelling unit + 1 space per each 15 dwelling
units or fraction thereof for visitor and employee parking. Davila -Quintero stated that the
proposed amended PUD will have barber/beauty shop and restaurant/kitchens open to the
general public and the independent living use shall be one space per dwelling unit; the
assisted living shall be one space per two beds; and the memory care use shall be one space
per 3.5 beds. She stated that based on the approval criteria the request complies in all areas
of UDC Section 3.06.030 and at their July 7, 2020 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the request (7-0).
Davila -Quintero read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m.
Densmore read public comments that were submitted via email in the following order
(comments appear exactly as submitted):
Cheri Alderman
Dear Councilmen and Mayor:
I support your decision on denying low income housing coming into Georgetown. I agree
with you that we have enough low income housing in our City.
Thank you for keeping the vision for Georgetown.
Cheri Alderman
Realtor
J Paul Aubin Compass
William Streeter
Dear Council Members
My wife and I strongly support the current council vote. Georgetown has more than its fair
share of low income housing. On a regional basis the facts speak for themselves. Let the
surrounding communities step up and increase their share. Kind regards,
The Streeter's
Pitts asked for clarification on change and if the only real change being sought out was for the
beauty salon and restaurant to be open to members of the public instead of just residents.
Davila -Quintero yes and to allow for alternative parking for the senior living facility.
Motion by Fought, second by Gonzalez.
Council had no addition comments or questions.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
I. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinanceon for a request for a the voluntary
annexation of an approximate 2.213-acre tract of land, out of the W. Roberts Survey No. 4,
Abstract 524, and a 0.939 acre tract of land, out of the W. Roberts Survey No. 4, Abstract 524,
being over and across a portion of Shell Road, a right-of-way of varying width described to
Williamson County, Texas, with the initial zoning designation of General Commercial (C-
3) upon annexation, for the property generally located southwest of the intersection of Shell
Road and State Highway 195 -- Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager
Waggoner presented the item including the Location Map, Aerial Map, Future Land
Use/Overall Transportation Plan, Zoning Map, Community Center explanation, and the
General Commercial explanation including what is permitted by right, permitted with
limitations, and permitted with a SUP. He noted that the application meets the approval
criteria and complies in all areas regarding UDC Section 3.06.030. Waggoner stated that at
their June 2, 2020 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) in
favor of zoning the property General Commercial (C-3) upon annexation. He then reviewed
the annexation process
Waggoner read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:38 p.m. as there were no speakers.
Motion by Pitts, second by Triggs.
Council had no comments or questions.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
J. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance on a request for a Zoning Map
Amendment to rezone Lots 1 & 2, Saavedra Subdivision (0.459 acres), from the Residential
Single -Family (RS) zoning district to the Townhouse (TH) zoning district, for the property
generally located at 1604 Forest Street -- Andreina Davila- Quintero, AICP, Current Planning
Manager
Davila -Quintero presented the item and reviewed the Location Map, Aerial Map, photos of
two existing homes; photos of surrounding homes, Future Land Use/Overall Transportation
Plan Map, Mixed -Density explanation, Zoning Map, Townhouse explanation, aerial map of
lot, and permitted uses in Townhouse zoning. She stated that the application met the
approval criteria and complied in all areas regarding UDC Section 3.06.030. Davila -Quintero
explained that public notifications were sent to 39 property owners within the 300 foot buffer
area and a notice was placed in Sun Newspaper on May 31, 2020, as well as signs posted on
the property, and to date, staff has received 5 letters in favor and 13 letters opposed. She
added that in the 200-foot State Mandated Notice Area 20% of land area requires a super
majority vote of Council for approval and at time of posting the opposition was 20.28% but is
currently 13.95%. Davila -Quintero stated that at their June 16, 2020 meeting, the Planning &
Zoning Commission recommended disapproval of the request (5-1) based on UDC Sec
3.06.020.F.2 - "...the amendment may not become effective except by a three -fourths vote of
all members of the City Council."
Davila -Quintero read the caption.
Mayor Ross opened the Public Hearing at 6:52 p.m.
Landon Smith, applicant for the project stated prior to the P&Z meeting there were several
letters of objection noting parking, drainage, and some note wanting townhomes. He stated
that he sent out a letter about the project and received some responses that anything would
be better than the current structure. Smith explained the attributes of the project and how the
townhomes would not negatively impact property values. He noted the need for attainable
housing in Georgetown and how few townhomes there are in Georgetown. Smith stated that
the project falls in line with the City's housing plan and noted that the current structures are
low priority structures that are uninhabitable. He stated that sales price per square foot has
increase 78% from 2008-2015. Smith stated that if the item is not approved, could Council
please provide a reason to allow him to adjust his plan.
The following comments were made during the meeting using the Zoom client:
Alton Glenn Trubee stated that he was opposed to project as there are no townhomes nearby.
He noted the lack of support from neighbors.
Jenel Looney stated that she is opposed to the project and deciding between what is there and
townhomes is a false choice as current homes will be demolished. She also noted the need for
a super majority vote by Council.
Mayor Ross closed the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m.
Calixtro noted the possible increased in traffic. She added that even though the drainage was
improved, more needs to happen.
Triggs had no questions.
Fought noted the staff's analysis as being consistent with Council's wishes and he cannot find
a reason to vote against. He added that providing an explanation is appropriate.
Pitts asked what the expected price point is for the units. Smith responded below $350,000.
Pitts asked what the square footage would be. Smith responded from 1300 to 1500 per unit.
Jonrowe asked what for the reason for the P&Z vote. Davila -Quintero responded that is was
based on concerns about character of neighborhood, the location of property, the desire to be
closer to transition zone, and the location being more in middle of block than on the edge.
Jonrowe noted that the structures on the property are from 1900 and 1940 and then asked if
they were on the City's historic survey. Davila -Quintero responded that they are on survey,
but not considered to be contributing structures. Jonrowe asked if the structures were located
in the correct area would they be going to staff for consideration. Davila -Quintero responded
that she would check. Jonrowe asked if the current structures can be demolished with just
building inspector approval. Davila -Quintero responded yes. Jonrowe stated that she has a
hard time with demolition of existing structures and noted the HARC process if the structures
were in the overlay. Davila -Quintero responded that only one structure has something to
document it as historic. Jonrowe noted the scrutiny that the project could possibly receive in
a different area and she doesn't like the demolition of historic structures without review. She
added that if it was infill development, she would approve due to the need for more
affordable types of housing in the downtown area.
Gonzalez stated that he finds it interesting that the project meets the 2030 Plan, but because
of neighborhood it isn't being supported. He added that he's not sure how he fills about the
project.
Mayor Ross asked if the price point would $350,000 or less per unit. Smith responded yes,
between $300,000 to $350,000. Mayor Ross asked if that equals affordable housing. Smith
responded that it would be "attainable" housing and added that the cost of land is
skyrocketing. He noted that construction costs are increasing, and it is hard to build single
family home for under $500,000. Mayor Ross stated that the project has indicated to be
affordable, not attainable. Smith responded that it is both. Mayor Ross asked if Smith
understood the definition of affordable housing and what a household would need to make.
Gary Wang, with the applicant team, stated that the applicant is set to look at workforce
housing which is distinct from affordable housing. He added that the project meets workforce
based on City definition. Wang stated that the project would be more attainable for more
participants of the workforce. Mayor Ross asked for the income levels that qualify as being
able to afford workforce housing. Wang responded that there are strong definitions set out
by the City. Mayor Ross stated that he finds it hard to believe that $350,000 is affordable
housing. He then asked for the comments received about the project. Davila -Quintero
responded that P&Z voted 5-1 for disapproval and staff received 5 letters in favor and 13
against. Ross stated that he drives this area and asked how tall the units will be. Wang
responded two story. Ross asked if the units would be over 35 feet tall. Wang responded no
they are low scale two story buildings. Ross stated that the project doesn't seem like a good
fit.
Pitts stated that for a $350,000 home the minimum income level to qualify for loan, would be
$85,714 gross income with 20% down.
Motion by Fought, second by Triggs.
Pitts responded that he will support the motion. He added that affordable housing doesn't
have to be a tax credit deal and these projects will be below the value of a majority of homes
in the area. Pitts stated that this will make the area more affordable and the project complies
with City policies. Jonrowe called point of order and asked that Pitts speak to the issue at
hand. Pitts responded noted and stated that the current homes are falling down and the
project complies.
Calixtro - No
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - No
Gonzalez - Yes
Fails due to lack of super majority with 4-2 vote in favor (Triggs, Fought, Pitts, and
Gonzalez for; Calixtro and Jonrowe against, and District 2 vacant).
K. Consideration and possible action to approve a Municipal Services Agreement with
Highland Village Georgetown GP, LLC for the provision of municipal services to an
approximately 0.526 acre tract of land out of the L.P Dyches Survey, Abstract No. 171
generally located at 8300 RM 2338 -- Nat Waggoner, PMP, AICP, Long Range Planning
Manager
Waggoner presented the item and reviewed the Location Map, Future Land Use/Overall
Transportation Plan, Zoning Map, Land Use Summary Aerial Map, Annexation Process, and
Tentative Schedule of: July 28, 2020 Council Considers Municipal Services Agreement;
August 18, 2020 P&Z Public Hearing & Recommendation on Initial Zoning; September 8, 2020
City Council Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance; and September 22, 2020 City
Council Second Reading of Ordinance.
Council had no comments or questions.
Motion by Fought, second by Triggs.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
L. Second 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 provided a brief overview of the proposed Ordinance. She
noted the proposed effective date of August 121h and that no changes had been made since the
first reading.
Garrett read the caption.
Motion by Pitts, second by Triggs.
Council had no comments or questions.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe — Yes
Gonzalez — Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
M. Discussion and possible action on a potential City Council Governance Policy violation by
Council Member Rachael Jonrowe at the City Council meeting on July 14, 2020 -- Mike Triggs,
Council Member District 3 and Kevin Pitts, Council Member District 5
Ross introduced item and explained that Triggs and Pitts would have the ability to present
the item and then Jonrowe would be allowed to respond. He added that they the remaining
members of Council will be able to speak on the item and then Council will hear the public
comments.
Jonrowe asked for a clarification and if there would be a motion first. Mayor Ross responded
no, because there may or may not be a motion. Jonrowe stated that she had a question on the
legality of the way the item is presented. Mayor Ross asked that City Attorney, Skye Masson,
answer Jonrowe's question. Jonrowe asked the possibility to strike the words "and public
action" on the item as the Governance Policy only allows for discussion and she did not
believe that action could be taken. Masson responded that the Governance Policy is silent
about what happens after a discussion, and Council can take action as they see fit.
Triggs stated that redlining is basically an infraction against underserved areas that made
lenders responsible for serving underserved areas. He added that this has nothing to do with
redlining, even in a modern-day context. Triggs stated that the decision was a business
decision to deny the tax credit project and he doesn't understand how changing the definition
of redlining, would have this action falls under it. He stated that mortgage lenders that were
charged with redlining were later charged with predatory lending and that there is a fine line
between redlining and predatory lending. Triggs stated that he would have hoped that the
appropriate people would know what Council was looking for and what the applicant should
do. He stated that he would like to see this taken care of and Council go back to work to find
good projects for affordable housing.
Pitts asked that video be played. The video showed Item P from the July 14, 2020 Council
meeting. The video was the vote on the item and then at after vote Jonrowe is heard saying,
"This is modern redlining." Pitts then went through a presentation that started with
explanation of the The Fair Housing Act, which is title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as
amended (42 USC 3601 et seq.), makes it unlawful for any lender to discriminate in its
housing -related lending activities against any person because of race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, handicap, or familial status. He added that anyone who is in the business of
providing housing -related loans is subject to the FHAct. Pitts stated that redlining is the
practice of denying a creditworthy applicant a loan for housing in a certain neighborhood
even though the applicant may otherwise be eligible for the loan. He added that the term
refers to the presumed practice of mortgage lenders of drawing red lines around portions of
a map to indicate areas or neighborhoods in which they do not want to make loans. Pitts
continued that redlining on a racial basis has been held by the courts to be an illegal practice.
He stated that therefore, the Fair Housing Act establishes that Redlining is wrong and illegal.
Pitts then reviewed the City of Georgetown City Council Governance Policy where he
perceived there was a violation of the Governance Guidelines referring to the following
section:
The City Council will govern the City in a manner associated with a commitment to
the preservation of the values and integrity of representative local government and
democracy, and a dedication to the promotion of efficient and effective governing. The
following statements will serve as a guide and acknowledge the commitment being made
in this service to the community.
The City Council shall:
communicate and serve with respect, dignity and courtesy in relations with Staff,
all Councilmembers, members of the boards, commissions, committees, and the public;
be dedicated to the faithful stewardship of the public trust and seek to improve the
quality and image of public service.
Pitts noted that claiming that members of Council committed an illegal act does not respect
or dignity. He added that the claim also disrupts public trust.
Pitts then reviewed the Guidance Principles:
The office of elected official is one of trust and service to the citizens of Georgetown.
This position creates a special responsibility for the Georgetown City Councilmember, and
the following principles shall govern the conduct of each Councilmember. A
Councilmember shall:
be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal
relationships and conduct themselves, both inside and outside the City's service, so as
to give no occasion for the distrust of their integrity, impartiality or of their devotion
to the best interests of the City and the public trust, to merit the respect and confidence
of the citizens of Georgetown;
Pitts stated that stating members of Council are doing illegals violates this section as well.
Pitts then reviewed that at Council meetings each Councilmember shall:
be familiar with and follow parliamentary rules applicable to the Council process and
procedure,
Pitts stated that Jonrowe is very familiar with parliamentary procedure and that all discussion
about an item should have taken place during the item and not via an outburst after a vote
has been made.
Jonrowe began her presentation that she titled, "Redlining from the past to the present" and
provided definitions noting that: in the United States, redlining is the systematic denial of
various services by federal government agencies, and local governments, as well as the
private sector, either directly or through the selective raising of prices; historically, redlining
originated from the practice of loan corporations using color coding to determine which areas
were eligible for loans; red areas were deemed the least worthy, and corresponded with
predominately minority and poor neighborhoods; and more recently, the definition of
"redlining" or "modern-day redlining" has been broadened to include practices which are
less overt, but just as discriminatory such as certain real estate practices, predatory lending or
"reverse redlining," exclusionary zoning, less investment in infrastructure, credit score
algorithms, gentrification, the clustering of subsidized housing in particular geographic
regions, and more. She then played a video from youtube.com called, "Relined, a legacy of
housing discrimination." Jonrowe then reviewed modern-day redlining examples: not only
is it easy to find examples of the term "modern day redlining" in current vernacular, it is easy
to find examples of the effects of historic redlining, and ways in which these discriminatory
practices have taken on new forms, with some businesses and institutions are rising to the
challenges of equity and justice. She continued that Zillow has taken a strong position,
recognizing the inequities in real estate; Zillow believes that all Americans deserve to find a
home free from discrimination; one way Zillow uphold this value is by shining light on
inequities through our economic research; Zillow's intention is to help customers, partners
and policymakers make informed decisions on fair housing guidelines and regulations; since
2015, Zillow has published a growing body of research addressing disparities; the work
demonstrates that housing inequities persist nationwide; and this work has informed media
stories, advocacy groups, and policymakers to drive the public conversation around the
troubling history of blatant racism in real estate, and its lasting effects. Jonrowe discussed
intent versus impact and that intent is about "what I meant" and impact is about "what I did."
She continued that she mentions this because it is vital, when deciding upon policies and their
implementation, to consider both, but also to give appropriate weight to the possibility of
disparate impact, and disparate impact refers to practices in employment, housing, and other
areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than
another, even though rules applied are formally neutral. Jonrowe then reviewed the Texas v.
Inclusive Communities Project and noted that in 2009, the Inclusive Communities Project
sued the State of Texas, alleging that the citing of most Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) properties was in predominately poor and minority neighborhoods; on June 25,
2015, the Supreme Court upheld the disparate impact standard for housing discrimination;
they ruled that the 1968 Fair Housing Standards act applies to BOTH intentional
discrimination AND those that have the effect of discrimination, even if unintended; and
Justice Kennedy wrote, "—antidiscrimination laws must be construed to encompass disparate
impact claims when their text refers to the consequences of actions and not just to the mindset
of actors. Pitts called for point of order, noting that the item at hand is about a policy violation
and not about discrimination and race. Jonrowe responded that she is almost done with her
presentation and that here are multiple ways to explain redlining. Mayor Ross allowed
Jonrowe to continue, but did not the validity of Pitt's comments. Jonrowe then noted that
Texas responded and according to NextCity.org, this court case had the effect of "...notable
improvements in Texas since ICP first brought its original suit. The state agency revised its
process for allocating housing tax credits, now offering greater rewards to developers seeking
to build in higher -income areas ... in Dallas, a housing committee on the city council has been
working on a plan to expand affordable housing units throughout the city ... The Dallas
Morning News editorial board recently praised these efforts to create more mixed -income
neighborhoods, saying this carries 'the potential to make Dallas a more equitable city for all
of its residents."' She continued that in other words, the State of Texas has been encouraging
LIHTC development alongside single-family residential developments, and mixed -use
development, the same as is called for in the Housing Element of our 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. Jonrowe stated that after George Floyd, many difficult conversations are happening,
across the country, not just about our vision for policing in our communities, but about the
myriad ways in which the legacies of slavery, the unfulfilled promise of Reconstruction, black
codes, Jim Crow, racial terror by lynching, segregation, and state -sanctioned discrimination
influence policies and outcomes, even today. Pitt called point of order, again stating that the
current content of Jonrowe's presentation did not apply to the item at hand. Mayor Ross
asked Jonrowe what her current slide had to do with the item at hand. Jonrowe responded
that she may have a difference in opinion on what redlining mean. She also added that she
was not told what the possible policy violations were, so she wanted to show that she was
speaking truth. Mayor Ross stated that he didn't understand what the current slide had to
do with the issue at hand. Jonrowe stated that she did. She stated that you can find numerous
examples of investments being made in community conversations about these topics; Round
Rock is discussing the creation of an Equity Task Force; and 6 days ago, Eanes ISD hired an
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Consultant. Jonrowe provided her final thoughts as follows:
in the decades since the Civil Rights act, we've made the vocabulary of racism and white
supremacy so taboo, that some people react more strongly to the use of these words, than
they do to possible impacts to minority and underprivileged populations; as elected officials,
she would argue that we have a moral obligation to recognize modern forms of
discrimination, and support plans to eliminate such discrimination, as best we can, wherever
and whenever we can; refusing to do engage in good -faith efforts to do so is disrespectful of
the people and communities being impacted, and an abdication of our duties as elected
representatives; she has made a pledge to myself and my constituents to work on recognizing
discrimination stemming from systemic racism and supporting policies that take measurable
steps towards remedying inequities and injustice; and that she does not intend to stop.
Jonrowe then asked that Council have a moment of reflection and consider the following
words from Congressman John Lewis, "When you see something that is not right, not just,
not fair, you have a moral obligation to say something. To do something. Our children and
their children will ask us, 'What did you do? What did you say?'...We have a mission and a
mandate to be on the right side of history. Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and redeem
the soul of America." She then provided her sources for her presentation.
Calixtro stated that she feels similar to Jonrowe. She added that the City had 2030 Plan,
recognizing a need for affordable housing and then Council chose not to approve the Housing
Tax Credit item. Calixtro stated that she has received comments from citizens, so she knew
what to expect and she had to bite her tongue. She continued that she understands there will
be disagreement and understands Jonrowe's passion, but she finds it hard in this day and age
to look at this governance policy where it was violated. Calixtro stated that she feels at times
Pitts has also violated policy, for example by asking Lou Snead to resign and actions of the
Housing Authority Board. Gonzalez called for point of order to stay on topic with the item.
Ross asked that Council stay focused on the topic, and that Council will not rehash past
agenda items. Calixtro stated that there were things that happened where both sides have
violated the Governance Policy in comments and perception. She stated that Council needs
to get to a better place, possibly in face to face discussions.
Fought stated that Council may be at a point where then rather than talking to each other,
Council talks through the Chair, to respect Robert's Rules of Order. He added that Council
could possibly dial back. Fought focused on Jonrowe's comments and that he understands
her feelings on this are intense and over the line. He stated that he wished that when
addressed at the meeting Jonrowe would have noted it then. Fought stated that he believes
in the system and has voted for affordable housing for it in the past but didn't like the
proposed project. He added that Council needs to be careful in how they address each other
and address each other respect and respect each other's views. Fought stated that Council
needs to get on with the people's business and he wishes this didn't have to be dealt with. He
stated that everyone needs a step back.
Gonzalez stated that there have been many votes that are taken where he may be on losing
side and he is just as passionate, but he doesn't lash out. He added that he doesn't appreciate
being called racist based on the vote. Gonzalez stated that Jonrowe had doubled down with
her presentation. He asked if Jonrowe can be in his shoes as someone who did not receive
white privilege. Gonzalez stated that the project had many flaws and he has approved other
projects like this in the past. He continued that using the term redlining is equivalent to
calling all the members of the community who spoke against the project racist as well. Mayor
Ross asked that Gonzalez direct his comments to him, instead of other members of Council.
Gonzalez stated that his comments were in general and not directed at any one person.
Gonzalez stated that not liking the outcome of the votes doesn't equal racism and there is a
system in place to vote on those projects. He added that he felt Jonrowe doubled down on
referring to her colleagues as racists. Gonzalez stated that he is offended by the comment that
was made.
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):
Brian Combs
Dear members of the city council and Mr. Ross, I sat in a previous City council meeting to
request that the KCG development on Bell Gin and Sam Houston be denied. After this vote
to deny it was completed, Mrs Jonrowe blurted out in a disrespectful manner that this was,
and I quote "Modern Day Redlining". This is disrespectful at any time, it is especially in
today's America of racial unrest. I emailed her twice to ask for an apology and only received
a reply after I had correspondence with the Mayor. However no apology was given, instead
she said her comment was towards Council members Pitts, Gonzalez, and Fought because
she said they always vote against affirmative action items. So instead of an apology, she tries
to explain it away and throw others under the bus. Maybe her role as a councilwomen has
ran its course. Thank you for your time
John R. Marler
In stating that the City Council's vote on July 14th on the issue of low income housing, Council
member Jonrowe was disingenuous is stating that the vote was, in her words, "Modern day
Red -Lining!" This was done after the vote was 4-2 to disallow the request!
Ms. Jonrowe disregards the Governance and Council Protocols often when she hands out her
personal business/affiliation cards to attendees, taking the opportunity to have an audience
due solely to her presence on the Council.
I am strongly for the motion by Council members Trigg and Pitts. Decorum and civility
should be the cause of the Council at all times.
Sincerely,
John R. Marler
Robert J. Whittaker Jr
In my opinion" modern day redlining" language used by Rachael Jonrowe in response to the
council's vote not to approve two more low-income apartments for the City of Georgetown is
highly inappropriate, divisive, political and she should be censured for having said it.
Having viewed the data presented at the vote it is apparent to me that the data clearly showed
there is no need for two additional low-income housing apartments in Georgetown.
It appears to me that Georgetown has far to many of these low-income apartments already as
there isn't a large enough job market here to justify them.
The only justification that seems apparent to me is that bringing in low-income apartments is
using taxpayers money to deliberately change the voting demographics of Georgetown. It is
commonly known that through studies done elsewhere like St. Louis, Chicago, and Detroit,
that such housing attracts people who usually vote Democrat and who are dependent upon
the welfare system for assistance.
Linda Austin
Rachael Jonrowe is my Council person but she has not represented me in a long while. Her
comments after the vote at the July 14 meeting about "modern redlining" are tantamount to
calling the members who voted differently from her, racists. Her comments were uncalled for
and reflect poorly in her, Old Town, and our whole town. Public discourse has gotten so
uncivil that we can't watch national or state coverage of it. Now, it seems, she has brought the
same kind of baseless, name calling and divisive tantrums to our city council meetings that
have corrupted the proceedings elsewhere. I hope it doesn't spread!
Lalena Parkhurst
I'm disappointed to see that Council Members Mike Triggs and Kevin Pitts seek to reprimand
Rachael Jonrowe for a potental City Council Governance Policy violation. Ms. Jonrowe's
comment of "this is modern redlining" was a valid critique of the decision made by the
majority of City Council Members on items P & Q regarding an affordable housing
development. I can't find anything in the Governance Policy saying that Council Members
can't offer a minority critique after the vote.
If anyone violated the City Council Governance Policy during the July 14th regular meeting,
it was Kevin Pitts who called for Lou Sneed's removal from the Housing Advisory Board
because he dared enter comments in support of the affordable housing development. Mr.
Pitts' vitriolic attack on Mr. Sneed violates the guideline calling City Council Members to
"communicate and serve with respect, dignity and courtesy in relations with Staff, all
Councilmembers, members of the boards, commissions, committees, and the public;"
If Rachael Jonrowe is to be reprimanded for her comments, then to avoid hypocrisy, Council
also needs to reprimand Kevin Pitts reprimanded for his comments.
Ray Conlan
Council Member Jonrowe's "redlining" comments were flagrantly racist, offensive, and
inflammatory. No one has a right to make such derogatory and an utterly FALSE accusation.
Her comments should not be overlooked and her racist rhetoric is an ugly view into her
underlying hate -filled persona. I recommend that City Council take extreme measures and
reprimand her to the fullest extent for violating City Council's Governance Policy.
Katy Bohls
Members of Council,
I am writing to address Ms. Jonrowe's accusation of her fellow City Council members of
"redlining".
I have been fortunate enough to call Georgetown my home for over 25 years. After college,
my husband and I moved back to Georgetown to put down roots, start businesses, grow our
family and contribute to the community.
Over the past eight years we have opened, or are in the process of opening, four businesses
in Georgetown. We are proud of our city and want to see it thrive.
We live in District 6 and Ms. Jonrowe is our representative.
As her constituent and a voter, I am disappointed by her comment and its implication.
I expect my representative to be a champion of the district and our city. I expect her to conduct
herself in a professional manner while working with council, staff and the citizens to ensure
Georgetown's long term success. What I don't expect from my council person: Unjustly
accusing fellow council members of illegal acts, juvenile outbursts when things don't go her
way, and displaying a general inability to tolerate any view or opinion that doesn't fit her
own.
This pattern of behavior is not only unacceptable, it has proven Mrs. Jonrow's ineffectiveness
as our representative. We deserve better.
Sincerely,
Katy Bohls
Karen S. Darby
To Mayor Ross and City Council:
I write to oppose any act of censure directed at Councilor Rachael Jonrowe, apparently for
her daring to say the quiet part out loud. She analogized the impact of the negative vote on
the proposal for affordable workforce and senior housing to "modern redlining." It did seem
as if some residents were reacting not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of unjustified fear
about the "others" who might move into those properties. Add residents' reactions to the
adamant opposition to multi -family housing expressed by Mr. Pitts and Mr. Gonzalez, and
Ms. Jonrowe can be forgiven for suspecting that some of their objections were driven by
discriminatory animus.
The positions of Mr. Pitts and Mr. Gonzalez in opposition to multi -family affordable housing
also run counter to the policy goal set forth in Georgetown's 2030 plan, to wit: "Increase rental
choices for workforce households through support of LIHTC development and providing
incentives in development regulations, agreements and negotiated standards."
If our honorable Councilors are concerned with promoting effective governance in
Georgetown, then they should perhaps stay attuned to the stated goals and policies that the
community and the Council have jointly agreed upon. They should also refrain from calling
out a fellow councilor for drawing attention to the disparate, negative impact resulting from
their decisions. Please vote against any act of censure against Ms. Jonrowe. Thank you.
LaVonne Lynette Frazier
I vehemently disagree with ANY narrative of redlining as ridiculously claimed against the
Georgetown City Council's legal ruling against supporting additional, disproportionate (per
population) low income housing.
Carolyn Burson Dunk
Dear Council Members,
As a nearly lifelong resident of Georgetown (about 50 of my 64 years), I am ashamed,
embarrassed, and angry over what I heard at your last meeting in regards to the proposed
affordable housing development (Espero Landing and Asperanza Heights). If you, as
representatives of the people of Georgetown, are bound to address the established 2030
comprehensive plan, which identifies affordable housing as the number one priority, I do not
think you are following an ethical path (with the exceptions of Ms. Jonrowe and Ms. Calixtro).
During your discussion I heard many statements that would not lead me to believe that that
is your intention. When a council member states he will "never" approve this type of
affordable housing project and others state it is time for someone else to "step up" and
"Georgetown has done enough", I am appalled! Some seem to forget that the presence of
multi -family housing is not the same as affordable multi -family housing. The supposed
"roadblocks" to approval such as traffic, lack of public transportation, no tax benefits, and
location, appear to be thinly veiled attempts to use the age old reason of "it's good somewhere
else, but not in my neighborhood." It is this kind of thinking that has put our country in the
state that it is in today. It is our responsibility to address the inequities all around us and
affordable housing has already been identified as a major issue. All of my grandparents lived
and worked in Georgetown, my parents were born and raised here. My mother worked for
GISD for 23 years and was active in in many community organizations. My Dad held multiple
terms as a Councilman, like yourselves. And I believe each of them would disagree with your
decision to not approve this housing project. I urge you to reconsider. Although you must be
fiscally responsible your higher calling is to be morally and ethically responsible. And to try
to censure a fellow council member for a comment that was an accurate depiction of the
comments and actions taken during the last meeting is beyond offensive. The truth may be
uncomfortable or inconvenient but it is still the truth.
Thank you for your time,
Carolyn Burson Dunk
Steven Taylor
Mr. Mayor, members of council:
On the issue of affordable housing, and in reference to Ms. Janrowe's comments after the vote
on July 14, it's obvious that a great majority residents of District 7 were opposed to the
affordable housing project. That should spur council to find a solution that is more agreeable
to residents.
Discussion and debates among council and residents have always been civil, even when
viewpoints were diametrically opposed. Open debate is essential.
However I do understand the issue with some people over Ms. Jonrowe's comment after the
vote was taken on the affordable housing project.
My only concern is that this will be taken too far. Sure, I believe she spoke out of turn. Her
comment about "modern redlining" could be taken as inappropriate or offensive. One could
even say she alluded to the members of the council who voted to disapprove as racists or at
least discriminatory, but I'm not going try to guess her motivation.
While this is a social issue, it is also an economic issue, that requires debate and careful
planning, but if we devolve into name calling, shame on all of us.
But let's not take this too far. Ms.Jonrowe spoke out of turn. A lesson for all. Let it go at that.
She is a valuable member of council who sometimes asks the hard questions, as you all do.
Ms.Jonrowe, as some other council members noted, was correct on one point. There should
have been more data on this issue. But let's not let emotions override correct analysis. And
the will of the people should always be the decisive influence, even if we're wrong at times.
Thank you.
P.S. As Dan Crenshaw, Congressional Representative from Houston, famously put it: Try
hard not to offend, but try even harder not to be offended.
Christopher Joyce
Ms. Jonrowe spoke inappropriately by likening the opposition to a proposed housing project
as "modern redlining". Georgetown is a wonderfully inclusive and diverse community. She
mischaracterized this city for all the world to hear and see. Her comment conflates the voting
against the proposal by her fellow city council members with some sort of systemic racism.
She inferred racism where no racism exists. It is insulting and potentially damaging to the
reputation of Georgetown and she should be censured.
Linda Buck
Mr. Mayor and Councilmen,
I am writing in regards to the inappropriate comment Councilwoman Jonrowe made at the
last meeting.
It was disappointing to see a leader of the community behave so poorly because she was not
getting the outcome she wanted.
As if her interjection was not rude enough the comment was far worse. Can she explain how
not wanting another low income community is the same as "modern day redlining"? Is she
saying that low income people are all minorities? As minorities ourselves, my husband and I
found that very offensive. In all of the letters submitted not once did anyone make it about
race.
As a leader and representative for this community she should have behaved better and truly
owes the community and the councilmen committee an apology at the very least.
Colleen Sigley
I am alarmed that Mr. Triggs and Mr. Pitts want to use the important time of the city council
meeting to call out Ms. Rachael Jonrowe for a comment she made on July 14 after a vote was
taken regarding two low income housing units proposed for Georgetown. I am assuming that
the governance policy in question is a fairly recent one that states, "avoid publicly stating an
opinion on an item to be considered by the Council in situations where the Council is serving
as an appellate body". If I understand the policy correctly, I see no infraction with Ms.
Jonrowe's comment as it was made after the votes were taken. If there was indeed an
infraction to this governance policy it was from the councilman who stated in discussion
before the vote that he would never approve any low income housing proposal brought
before the council.
Regarding this governance policy on opinions, it is a very difficult one to understand or
interpret and I would question its purpose. One could look at it as a means of entrapping or
silencing council members. With that in mind, there should be no tolerance for council
members to use this governance policy to punish, suppress, intimidate or harass other city
council members.
Why is this item even on the agenda? We need our city council members to get to work on
the matters that affect the future of our city, not waste council meeting time airing grievances
and bickering.
Keri Smith
The City Council governance guidelines state that the council should have a
"dedication to the promotion of efficient and effective governing" and that the City Council
shall "be responsive to the needs of the citizens and the Georgetown Community." It further
states that Councilmembers shall "communicate and serve with respect, dignity and courtesy
in relations with Staff, all Councilmembers, members of the boards, commissions,
committees, and the public" and "be committed to improve the quality of life for the
individual and the community."
I would like to voice my disappointment with Coucilmember Rachael Jonrowe's divisive,
incendiary and uncharitable remarks following the vote on Items P&Q in the City Council
meeting on July 14th.
Council Members are sworn to represent the interests and needs of the citizens of
Georgetown. Ms. Jonrowe's unbridled hostility towards residents and fellow
Councilmembers who do not share her policy positions does not serve the interests or the
needs of those she was elected to represent. Her ad hominem attacks on the character and
motivations of those who do not share her policy positions undermine the spirit of
cooperation necessary to reach compromise and unity in the best interests of the community.
To impugn the motivations and character of those on the council and in the community who
do not share one's opinions is not the way to communicate with respect, dignity or courtesy,
and it's in violation of the City Council Governing Principles.
I want a City Council that works for me and for the interests and needs of the community,
even when votes do not go the way that I or others want them to. I want a Council that
engages in good faith, rather than in bad faith, and that recognizes that we need opposing
views in order to sharpen our own and to arrive at the best possible compromises and
decisions. I would like to see Ms. Jonrowe censured for her conduct, as a matter of principle
and in the interest of de-incentivizing such divisive and bad spirited communication going
forward. Thank you for your time.
Billye Adams
My question is related to the proposed censure of my District 6 Council Member Rachael
Jonrowe after the 5 to 2 vote to not approve a multi -family housing project at Saddle Creek.
Does that vote by the City Council mean that no further workforce, senior or low-income
housing projects will be approved going forward? Having listened to the Council discussion
that preceded the vote, the primary reasons mentioned for rejecting that project were 1. no
property tax is collected from this type housing so it is not financially viable for the city due
to the cost of city services and 2. Georgetown has more housing credits than neighboring
towns.
If these are indeed the primary reasons, then would City Council please, formally state for
the record that 1. they have decided that no further low-income housing will be approved
until specific financial criteria are met, 2. what these exact financial criteria are, and 3. when
they will again be willing to consider using housing credits?
After the rejection of the multi -family housing project at Saddle Creek, which appears to
negate goals of the 2030 Housing Plan, clearly communicating the current situation to the
public will prevent developers and builders from wasting time and energy.
I am proud that Council Member Jonrowe speaks for all of her constituents, not just the well -
established residents in our District. I give her my full support.
Respectfully,
Billye Adams
Early Johnson
Mayor, Council, City Staff:
So a couple of bankers are angry at a comment about modern red -lining? The ladies doth
protest too much, methinks. The hit dogs holler.
So y'all got offended at a sideways comment? So what? Now you pull out some dusty old
Governance Policy to do some finger -waving?? "Good work, fellers! Nice job! Let's whip out
the Governance Policy boys and get her!! Ew-weee!!! We're really gonna give her what-fer!!!"
What statesmen you both are! How strong and powerful you must have felt while fumbling
for a policy to hide behind and defend your ruffled honor. Why don't you instead detail all
the work you have done to combat red -lining rather than hiding behind a pseudo -righteous
procedural fight. Y'all are weak and hiding, and it's pathetic.
Here's a great idea: Withdraw this ridiculous item and go home for the night. Motion to
adjourn! I know you'll get second on that.
Oooh, Wait, one more thing before you make that motion...
Council member Jonrowe, please grow a spine, and when you call someone out, do it to their
face, so your supporters can get behind something real. I want to support you. You're almost
there.
Johnny Watford
I want to say thank you to Council Members Triggs and Pitts for coming to the defense of the
bankers of this nation. Finally someone has the courage to defend bankers from ever having
to think about not only the racist history of red -lining in America but also the current biases
in lending practices that still favor white folks over minorities. Personally, I thought we didn't
do enough for bankers by bailing out their entire industry back in 2008. Kudos to the two of
you, brave, brave men —heroes, really -- for taking the time to step up and speak out against
a generally accurate, yet vaguely insulting comment that you sort of heard.
If people call you petty for this, shame on them, I say! If people say, "You two fools don't get
it!" you just tell them, "Bankers are people, too," even if they don't extend loans to minorities
or folks with ethnic surnames.
I am sure everyone listening to you this evening will understand completely.
Kimberly Denning
This council claims to be a governing body that honors the past while innovating for the
future. Meanwhile, our city branding claims diversity and inclusivity. But Rachael Jonrowe
and Mary Calixtro are the only members of the council who seem to live up to these values
and you are now attempting to silence one of those important voices. Our councilmen seem
to have forgotten that Georgetown historically has been home to a working-class that brings
diversity and life to this city. The people of Georgetown paid for the consulting and data on
which the affordable housing plans were based, but the current council is suddenly ready to
exclude moderate to low income taxpayers from living there.
For example, you claimed to support our school district but don't seem to care that the
teachers and staff members who work in our schools are the people with income levels who
would most benefit from rent -controlled housing. Your actions state that property tax dollars
are more important than their livelihoods. If you truly cared about attracting talent to our
city's schools, then you would support projects such as this one.
Also, in the July 14 meeting, no one other than our Councilwomen attempted to refute the
inaccurate and biased claims made by citizens who have been misinformed about the purpose
of these housing plans. Instead, you all allowed stereotypes to persist, and this does not align
with the values of inclusivity and diversity that this city claims to uphold.
Finally, the attempt to silence the voice of your fellow councilwoman through
"possible" and vague action underscores your unwillingness to hear the concerns of all
citizens of this city. It highlights a lack of understanding regarding the policies and practices
that bifurcate communities by class and contribute to de facto divisions regarding race and
ethnicity. Concerns about taxes, commercial development, banking interests, all of these
things have historically been used as reasons for exclusivity and discrimination in public
policy. That is not opinion, it is historical fact.
It is not acceptable that many workers are excluded from living in our community as
neighbors and friends while contributing to our economy at the same time. That is not what
makes a community, and she was not wrong when she referred to it as modern-day redlining.
If this truth is so difficult to hear that you must waste council time on agenda item M in your
attempt to silence your colleague, then I suggest that the City of Georgetown invest in equity
and cultural proficiency training. Until then, please be truthful about this city's biases and
remove the claims about diversity and inclusivity from all city council branding.
I end by reminding you all that by asking the hard questions and standing up for
Georgetown's working class and people of color, Rachael Jonrowe was the only council
member who truly attempted to make good on the investment time and money that the City
of Georgetown spent on consultant fees and research for affordability in housing.
Brian K Ortego
Good Evening Mayor and Councilmembers:
I was dismayed to see that an Agenda Item for an alleged City Council Governance Policy
violation being brought by two Councilmembers against another Councilmember did not list
the specific section and line of the City Council Governance Policy being alleged that
Councilmember Jonrowe potentially violated by her alleged comment after the vote. It's
reasonable that everyone knows today that even if a formal accusation or charge is found to
be without merit or dropped, the public knowledge can be very defamatory and damaging to
a persons professional reputation and/or career. This is why such an allegation must contain
the background information to allow a fair perception by the public before the accused has a
chance to rebut the charge being made.
How can this alleged derogatory comment by Councilmember Jonrowe rise to the level of a
violation of the policy and Councilmember Pitts statements made at the same time during the
consideration and deliberation of Item. P & Q at the same July 14th City Council meeting
regarding Housing Advisory Board Chairman Lou Snead's submitted comments not also be
discussed as a potential violation of the City Council Governance Policy?
Is there a provision in the City Council Governance Policy that allows a member of City
Council to publicly admonish and/or ask for the resignation in public session of a Chairman
or Member of a City Council Board or Commission for a comment or statement made to City
Council or based on a procedure or action taken by the Advisory Board or Commission?
I think that we all expect civility and decorum in the public process and that evidence and
opinion expressed during deliberations by Councilmembers be honest and not targeted
towards the body or an individual, but the current policy as written can easily create an
atmosphere of bullying and oppression against a member, which is what I believe we are
seeing here. I watch City Council and if this item is the standard, we could easily see a like
agenda item at every meeting. There's no need to go below the line.
The following comments were made in person via the City Hall viewing room:
Lawrence Ramero stated that the discussion at the July 14, 2020 was good and on both sides.
He added that Jonrowe's comments were not needed. Ramero stated that he agrees with
Calixtro regarding the need for affordable housing and in 2015 or 2016 he sat through
meetings where several apartment complexes were allowed in the City that would provide
affordable housing. He stated that the use of the term redlining in a flippant was is offensive.
The following comments were made during the meeting using the Zoom client:
Ann Seaman stated that she would not address redlining. She stated that she agrees with
Fought and that the Council needs to move on. Seaman stated that she has been to many
meetings and workshops and when Jonrowe wants to question the process, she sometimes
needs resistance. She stated that she has seen Jonrowe attacked many times by the men on
the Council. Seaman stated that there should be no action against Jonrowe.
Pam Mitchell stated that she is a resident of District 6 and that there have been several
descriptions of redlining. She noted that the term now relates to systematic denial of services
and Jonrowe's comment was not directed at anyone. Mitchell stated that she is a little shocked
about the reaction and the view of the comment being a personal attack. She stated that it is
not an affront to not support something that someone sees as racist. Mitchell thanked Mayor
for facilitating the discussion. She stated that this item should be withdrawn and she can
thing of other scenarios where other Council members have been more out of line than
Jonrowe.
Ross Hunter stated that then notice provided didn't show what section of Code that Jonrowe
had violated. He stated that redlining is a systemic issue and Jonrowe's comment is worthy
of a response. Hunter stated that there is nothing that states that the actions were not modern
redlining. He stated that racism is not necessarily the issue, but systematic issues.
Triggs stated that just because the 2030 Plan says something and just because we need this
housing doesn't mean that Council has to approve a high -risk project. He continued that he
was offended by Jonrowe's comments and the film she presented is something everyone has
seen and agrees with. Triggs stated that he doesn't see how that fits in on discussion of a
proposal and he is disappointed that Jonrowe says that she's not going to change. He added
that it is hard to change when Council can't be congenial, and he wants to get back to work.
Pitts stated that the facts are still the same and redlining is still illegal. He added that he will
stick with definition that federal reserve bank put out, and the claim was that Council took
an illegal action. Pitts stated that the video reiterated Jonrowe's position and there is more to
the comment now. He added that he didn't think that the proposed project has anything to
do with race and Jonrowe made an inappropriate comment. Pitt stated that the policy is
written loosely, and this has not been done before, but making a claim that colleagues are
breaking the law is wrong.
Jonrowe stated that she acknowledges speaking out of turn and if point of order had been
raised it would have been appropriate. She continued that speaking out of turn has been done
by others and addressing each other in a formal fashion isn't always done. Jonrowe noted
that there are different definitions of redlining and the historic version is what Pitts is using.
She continued that she was not thinking of those terms, but instead of those used in media.
Jonrowe stated that she was speaking to the potential effect of the Council decision, not to
specific members of Council. She stated that there should have been more dialogue on
affordable housing, and she wants the public to review when governance policy was
discussed. Jonrowe said that on January 22, 2109 Pitts was concerned about having
punishments for this policy, and she asked for the then attorney to weigh in on legalities being
discussed. She continued that Council finally voted on policy on August 13, 2019 she
predicted that the broadness of policy could have a chilling effect on Council dialogue if
misused. Jonrowe stated that she doesn't think this sets good precedent and apologized for
speaking out of turn. She stated that there are systemic issues to be addressed and it is not
okay when members use the policy to humiliate or intimidate her.
Calixtro stated that there is an underlying current here and maybe this type of discussion
should be held when Council can be in front of each other. She continued that it is
embarrassing to be yelling at each other and she would like the conversation to continue to
clear the way. Calixtro noted a possible Executive Session discussion.
Fought stated that she appreciated Jonrowe's tone and supports what she said. He continued
that she is speaking with her heart and using her head, and things got away from her in the
moment which happens to everyone. Fought asked that Council move on and that the mood
has been set right. He stated that he respects Council members stating their feelings and
sometimes you have to work things through in public, it's part of the role.
Gonzalez stated that everyone makes mistakes, and no one is perfect. He stated that he can
accept an apology and wished it had been done a week ago. Gonzalez noted the mounting
rhetoric and that if something is said and you know the intent is different, you should state it
sooner. He stated that as a banker redlining is very specific. Gonzalez said that he was
offended, but he can accept an apology. He stated that he doesn't like being accused of an
illegal act.
Motion by Pitts for Council to reaffirm the Governance Policy and their commitment to follow
it, second by Fought.
Calixtro and Triggs had no additional comments.
Pitts stated that he wants to move forward, and Council has to work together. He continued
that building relationships and effective communication are the most important parts of the
job and those two things would solve most problems.
Jonrowe had no additional comments.
Gonzalez stated that compromise and hearing are important, and Council must build positive
relationships. He added that without that it is hard to move on.
Mayor Ross provided the following final comments: in an
partisanship and volatile political climate, Council Members
Council will move on from this and have better relationships.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 vacant).
Public Wishing to Address Council
environment with extreme
always put citizen first and
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 esfteorgetown.org. Speakers will be allowed up to
three minutes to speak.
N. 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.
O. 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
Sec. 551.072: Deliberations about Real Property
- Sale of Property - CTSUD building
Sec. 551.087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Zeus
Adjournment
Motion by Fought, second by Calixtro.
Calixtro - Yes
Triggs - Yes
Fought - Yes
Pitts - Yes
Jonrowe - Yes
Gonzalez - Yes
Approved 6-0 (District 2 absent).
Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on
1 J,
Dale Ross, Mayor
NtV5t__ft , ZpZa
Date
Attest: City eeretary