[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6623943,"mediaKeyId","2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f","parentId",2769255,"title","Georgetown staff asks council for direction on historic‑district demolition rules; HARC seeks stricter criteria","audioSeconds",148,"startMs",6904000,"endMs",7052000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f&start=6904&end=7052","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f/thumbnail_6904000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6623943/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-staff-asks-council-for-direction-on-historicdistrict-demolition-rules-HARC-seeks-stricter-criteria","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623943-ffbcdc5196253e6da2d130452e4872db/orig.mp4?Expires=1770453010&Signature=LMWaV5aImHjQWd2cySfASMs~yWkAZG7UhcDNpll7amH2-zsAf1SvwheCnatF1zL-G7~1ST3Yod6rQqoHpj7GsQbiql25t4gVobvChYQtknzJ9vngOFRhKSUHJU~50AtSCURE5MbpE4ysHtcIZV5XNj~dOtdHknR7UHhDXgMgHWWPt6a4ShTe2ZtBjsYFpI70fGgXooHWeVJMlhr8V7lFTOWEHJP7kTFuDa4ZDRMUzwEefiI3eHV3yuaGI4EgJnfnHcI~mcJyEswCRIRLNqRSYByD2kr--mnGhCh-JpiH9NUBSNhnpSkM4gAtedHbsfDUbKL-pN0du9Khx1HTndQ96w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgetown","date","2025-03-25T00:00:00Z","article","City planning staff asked the council for guidance on proposed updates to the Unified Development Code (UDC) and demolition review criteria for the city’s historic districts. The changes were developed with the Historic and Architectural Review Commission (HARC), which suggested tightening the demolition definition and elevating the “last‑order‑of‑resort” standard in the review criteria.

Proposed changes and HARC’s recommendation: Staff recommended aligning the UDC demolition definition with the design guidelines so the rules are consistent. HARC proposed that a demolition should be defined as either the complete removal of a structure or the complete removal of a street‑facing façade, rather than treating any removal of a portion of the façade (for example, a window bay) as a demolition trigger. HARC also proposed removing “unreasonable economic hardship” as an independent qualifying justification for approving demolitions and instead evaluating demolition requests against a ranked set of criteria emphasizing loss of historic significance and demolition only as a last‑resort option.

Council concerns and discussion: Some council members cautioned that removing economic hardship from the list of qualifying criteria could disadvantage longtime owners of deteriorated properties for whom rehabilitation is infeasible or for whom financing is unavailable. Council members suggested a compromise approach: retain economic hardship as a consideration but link it to objective standards (project cost estimates versus replacement cost, documented financing attempts, or whether adaptive reuse is physically feasible) and consider an implementation sequence that requires owners to secure necessary planning approvals before demolition is allowed.

Process clarifications: Staff said the building inspections unit has already tightened intake and that a demolition worksheet now prompts property owners to disclose the full scope of work — a procedural step meant to reduce surprise demolition requests discovered after displacement of historic fabric. Staff said some casework (for example, a façade taken down and rebuilt) might not meet the stricter definition of demolition HARC proposed, and that the updated procedures would reduce administrative ambiguity.

Next steps: Planning staff will continue to work with HARC to draft specific UDC language that codifies criteria, clarifies the role of economic hardship with objective indicators, and establishes timing rules about what must be in place prior to a demolition permit (staff suggested requiring zoning approvals or project permits before demolition is authorized where a demo is tied to new construction). The council did not vote on ordinance text at the workshop but asked staff to return with red‑line UDC changes for formal consideration.

Ending: Staff said the goal is to preserve historic resources while creating a clear, workable process for property owners and review commissions.

Note: Quotations and points in this story come from a planning presentation and HARC discussion at the council workshop; the council asked staff for additional drafting to balance preservation objectives with owners’ documented hardship claims.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Georgetown - Workshop - Mar 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City planning staff asked council for direction on proposed UDC changes to how demolitions are defined and reviewed inside Georgetown’s historic districts; HARC recommended treating demolition as a last resort and narrowing the demolition definition to full removal of a structure or full removal of a street‑facing façade.","taxTitle","Georgetown, Williamson County, Texas","taxId",2823,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6623947,"Council hears large Heirloom development proposal: 620‑acre PUD, PID request, multimodal trails and water/wastewater constraints",988,3544000,4532000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f&start=3544&end=4532","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f/thumbnail_3544000.jpg","/articles/6623947/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Council-hears-large-Heirloom-development-proposal-620acre-PUD-PID-request-multimodal-trails-and-waterwastewater-constraints","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623947-5347d511b7d68c3f1bcb417cbd6ed7f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770453010&Signature=My~kq2~T9vorlsAAFw7f51qShaZvXfrXrCmcJSbt4TAJI4zfXLvtjTef6iq8apkp493LdmQpj8spEcxlV9yZuODY6b01I6ZUrRqmF0bKyArIOn5-cPckyi4MSLaxYp~6mxxk9G7oz9lEpREd5~gjOl6o4ZNdZiuBA57dxMUFSMfZX3vnWlZ0L-ACeiAfMyX0M-BSo-GX6n5NlJ1KDnn4y3iieh7lrV~OAMROQdVFXsxc2GDjWHM6zh7vRoidzYeq0oS5kEHYJJzSqqH-KbCMueqm3Y3eeFWZVM6F9MMY417YFoF0c6uO4AfTowqfczui9I9Zg~H4IAwggvvqfbhfDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers and city staff presented a high‑level plan for “Heirloom,” a proposed 620‑acre mixed‑use project at the northwest edge of Georgetown’s extraterritorial jurisdiction that would be annexed into the city if the council approves the PUD zoning and a public improvement district (PID) development agreement.

Project overview: Developer representatives described a master plan that includes about 48 acres of parkland, a planned loop trail of about four miles, a mix of housing types (including estate lots, single‑family front‑ and rear‑loaded lots, townhomes, courtyard product and multifamily), roughly 87 acres of commercial/C‑3 land, and an optioned maximum of approximately 1,350 multifamily units. The development team said infrastructure costs could be on the order of about $100 million and that annexation, zoning and the PID would be synchronized at a single council meeting if the council supports the concept.

PID and bond timing: Under the city’s PID policy, the maximum permitted assessment rate the developers requested would conform to the city’s 55¢ per $100 assessed‑value cap but they asked for two specific policy variances: a 15‑year maximum bond issuance period (staff policy is 10 years) and consideration for earlier construction of a collector road across the site. Staff said the city would need to consider the financing implications and risk of reimbursing more of the collector’s cost earlier through PID bonds — staff did not recommend immediate agreement without additional negotiation and modeling.

Parks, trails and public benefits: The developer proposed building a primary 3/4‑mile 10‑foot concrete trail (and staff reported the project contains more trail acreage than shown in the current PUD submittal) and to dedicate parkland beyond the UDC minimum. Staff said additional details on park programming and trail alignment will be documented in the PUD and development agreement; councilors asked for assurance about trail connectivity and the long‑term maintenance plan for those amenities.

Transportation planning: The site sits at the intersection of Ronald Reagan Boulevard, County Road 248 and Williams Drive. Developers said they will provide collector and connector roads that feed the regional nodes; staff noted these roads interact with Williamson County and TxDOT plans, and county schematic work on Ronald Reagan will determine access type for the regional intersection. Council and staff discussed whether the project should build the full collector connection earlier in the phasing to reduce traffic on Ronald Reagan; developers said earlier full‑collector construction increases their upfront cost and they sought PID support to fund some of that earlier work.

Water and wastewater constraints: Staff and developers explained there is not currently full downstream wastewater capacity for the entire build‑out. The parties proposed a 400 LUE (land‑use equivalent) cap on wastewater served until downstream capacity (the Northlands wastewater treatment plant or alternative capacity) is available. City staff said if the city cannot provide that capacity by Q3 2028, the developer should be allowed to pursue a temporary on‑site package‑plant solution (no discharge) to maintain project momentum.

Land use, housing mix and architecture: Planning staff outlined the PUD’s proposed character districts: a town‑center and special district with higher intensity (mixed‑use and urban multifamily), a traditional neighborhood with a range of lot widths, and an estate‑lot area. Staff noted the PUD currently proposes a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum estate lot and would allow front‑loaded single‑family lots at 4,500 square feet and rear‑loaded lots at 3,000 square feet; councilors debated whether to require a minimum number of 45‑foot lots in the traditional neighborhood and asked for clearer architectural/masonry requirements (staff said a customary target in prior special district approvals has been roughly an 85% masonry‑material appearance standard on primary facades).

Council feedback and next steps: Council members generally supported the concept of a mixed‑use node and strong trail connections but asked staff to refine the PID financial model and phasing language so residential and multifamily units do not outpace required commercial space and infrastructure. Staff and the developer agreed to continue working on a detailed PID term sheet, PUD standards for building types and materials, firm phasing and wastewater contingencies before the project is docketed for planning and zoning and formal council action.

No formal action was taken at the workshop; staff asked for council direction on key components (park and architectural standards, minimum commercial commitments, wastewater phasing and PID bond period) and will return with revised documents and additional fiscal modeling.","Developers presented plans for Heirloom, a 620‑acre mixed‑use project seeking annexation, PUD zoning and a public improvement district; council and staff discussed parkland, a proposed 4‑mile trail loop, transportation timing, a 400 LUE wastewater cap until downstream treatment is available, and PID bond term requests.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6623951,"Georgetown finance staff reports solid first‑quarter revenues; clarifies impact‑fee accounting",1175,72000,1247000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f&start=72&end=1247","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f/thumbnail_72000.jpg","/articles/6623951/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-finance-staff-reports-solid-firstquarter-revenues-clarifies-impactfee-accounting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623951-d32d153d5386697ea987b3ab504a3361/orig.mp4?Expires=1770453010&Signature=CaGxdCb~FEAQPkGT5JzLwj3xxA1nWijdo1IkDA6nqenezNuudyJ31JrM0AT3bek0O4rMLvUi6xfV6Mbi5HDuIMHlnSI-4oLbiVZy1PxSqPtexD4xpQUNepj4Pgs17mTKy2LL~d8kKmu3rdAUJl3BaQysAmhHsK~LfLtj5OWijjiaSr708ZfTm408jzBwQXbIqtYdIE--1L~B0bYQ~s-Ri7L04FampHsgdu9INSg4a1Vp8-7ERxuh90GDqb1uP6nhSzObHWm518yDasf5WvdeY92SqogkmzLm~BbsffDn8WXNi9AqKicDEDz7SZlceKb3YDzK0nnS8pJGgDPpu-XWyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City finance staff presented the fiscal year 2025 first‑quarter budget report at a council workshop, reporting higher year‑over‑year revenues in several areas and clarifying how the city accounts for impact fees.

First‑quarter highlights: Budget manager Maury Cantu told the council the general fund’s amended revenue budget is roughly $110.9 million and first‑quarter revenues were about 24.8% of budget — within typical timing expectations. Sales tax accrual timing creates a lag in reported quarterly numbers, but staff said sales taxes were up roughly 7–8% year‑over‑year in the reported period and that total reported sales tax collections for the prior year were about $50.5 million. Staff also reported increases in permits (about 11% over Q1 2024), growth in fire/EMS revenue (about 19% vs. prior year) and higher investment income noted as a substantial year‑over‑year increase in the ACFR presentation.

Electric and water funds: The electric fund’s operating revenue was running around 20% of budget for the quarter, with timing effects related to the ramp‑up of very large electric customers; purchase power is a major line item (about 47% of the electric expense budget). The water fund’s revenues are also tracking in expected seasonal patterns and reflected two rate increases from the prior year; nonoperating transfers that use impact‑fee proceeds were modest in Q1 but expected to be used later for capital projects.

Impact‑fee accounting clarified: Council members asked whether impact fees are commingled with general fund revenue. Staff clarified that impact fees are deposited into a separate impact‑fee fund (fund 41602) and are used only to pay eligible capital projects; the fees are not moved into the city’s general operating fund without an appropriation for an identified CIP project. Staff said transfer‑ins from the impact‑fee fund to project funds are recorded as nonoperating revenue when the project uses the fees. The clarification was made in the context of recent attention at the state level to municipal use of impact fees.

Capital project timing and encumbrances: Staff noted several capital encumbrances carried forward (including a large roll forward for a package plant) and said nonoperating spending as a percent of the water fund budget is elevated this quarter because CIP projects are progressing. City staff also said they would provide council members with more granular lists showing how impact‑fee receipts have been spent or committed over the prior year.

No formal action: The council received the report and asked several follow‑up data requests for the budget process; no formal vote was taken.

Ending: Staff said it will continue to monitor collections and provide more detailed updates in subsequent quarterly budget reports as the city moves through the fiscal year.","City staff reported first‑quarter FY2025 revenues and expenditures across general, electric and water funds, noting sales tax growth and higher interest income; finance clarified that impact fee receipts are held in a restricted fund (41602) and are not moved to the general fund for discretionary spending.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6623955,"Independent auditors give Georgetown an unmodified ACFR opinion, report one significant internal‑control deficiency",0,3173000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f&start=3173&end=3173","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f/thumbnail_3173000.jpg","/articles/6623955/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Independent-auditors-give-Georgetown-an-unmodified-ACFR-opinion-report-one-significant-internalcontrol-deficiency","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623955-fea755c70753b743365240e9a06eeb48/orig.mp4?Expires=1770453010&Signature=kAgxpwKKR9ExOv4yreA68PpMc1tjH1edbeVpIQwdqoCnQL~GsLtYSymeqUSme7o0u1U~a9QtFjyS-qhrYrMCVLRlxD~3hVx1QeCMKeR8oto9-ngrjnvKx76U3EkuLKSh2zKZOHZZOrZAQbUnWeYxUfTJ2nbcmtQacvIsiUBH4xzGbJUzsMnbVDNff67Az8EQ3rjvO-F6opYQ0jVSAL1alSxepV6pG-T3pge3F04kZLR8kUum5L3mBllY3MX1jr3lKN9c47HfX-t5Ml0Dz9IMsE58LRnNOJjYLwbrnfsXdAsrGrfBpcZc7muypSAJFxxhcx6P3H0bous07W-CM12ZuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Auditors from Weaver issued an unmodified (clean) opinion on the City of Georgetown’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the year ended Sept. 30, 2024, and presented the results to council at a workshop. The audit included a single‑audit report for federal funds compliance and concluded with no material misstatements left uncorrected.

Why it matters: An unmodified opinion means the auditors concluded the city’s financial statements are materially free of misstatement under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The ACFR gives the public a detailed, government‑wide view of the city’s finances and includes management’s discussion and analysis, fund schedules, and 10‑year statistical sections.

Key findings and adjustments: Auditors reported two corrected audit adjustments that were incorporated into the ACFR. One adjustment related to the recognition of certain developer contributions in the utility fund; auditors described this as an inadvertent miscommunication between departments and said the amounts will be recognized later when the related projects progress. The other adjustment was the recognition of a legal settlement liability in the water service area that was signed subsequent to year‑end but related to conditions existing before Sept. 30; auditors said the liability needed to be recorded in FY 2024 and the amount was reported confidentially.

Internal control: Weaver’s report on internal control and compliance included one significant deficiency tied to the journal entry recognizing the developer contributions in the utility projects. Auditors characterized the deficiency as significant (but not a material weakness) and said it reflected a control that did not operate as intended; they emphasized the item resulted from communication breakdowns rather than deliberate action. Auditors said they performed additional procedures in response to significant‑risk areas and noted no findings related to revenue recognition, custody of cash and investments, or long‑term debt disclosures.

Financial highlights presented by city staff included increases in sales tax collections (reported as $50.5 million, about 6% over the prior year), higher interest and investment income reported by staff ($49.3 million cited as a year‑over‑year gain figure in the presentation), growth in charges for services in enterprise funds tied to water/wastewater rate changes and large electric customers, and an increase in governmental expenses driven by inflation, pay increases, new positions and capital spending.

Council reaction and next steps: Council thanked city finance staff and the audit team for the comprehensive report and for catching the developer‑contribution timing issue. Auditors and staff said management had adjusted the statements and that staff will continue to tighten interdepartmental communication and controls around project accounting. No formal council action was taken at the workshop; the audit report and ACFR will be part of the city’s financial record and public disclosure.

Speakers quoted in this article include the city controller and the lead audit partner from Weaver, who presented the audit results at the council workshop.","External auditors issued a clean (unmodified) opinion on the City of Georgetown’s annual comprehensive financial report for FY 2024 but identified one significant deficiency related to recording developer contributions; auditors also reported two corrected misstatements in the financial statements.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6623959,"Georgetown council hears TMRS briefing on option to adopt non‑retroactive COLA before legislative deadline",2393,680000,3073000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f&start=680&end=3073","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2769255-188dcf938edafa945bb73c69be7c060f/thumbnail_680000.jpg","/articles/6623959/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-council-hears-TMRS-briefing-on-option-to-adopt-nonretroactive-COLA-before-legislative-deadline","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6623959-0787b90bb089f083679c64b8711a8a51/orig.mp4?Expires=1770453010&Signature=PwMfMYHiBDBJ9MvbcoF46TF1dMc~ajA-~1h8JDVasaK0YUp-mIBkoDHS1bruZm4t9OWbi1gLR9B1nYaFEtmkmhFn3rVbfromXndGlWNOJyGuLfVTB53YE4PaW259SSRLAiNx2h1KFSVxH~Wjk9AhisyZ15kk1qboiGLjYYhzasJ6mfsgJ0ItnTrAvBXn3QIYrK8o8d75kCXVE7YOB74uEbwShPqCuha8JtMKv39bMXDar2oJd1a9IBDD92PAp9Qx4C-U~xmhc3wZ7629JWyFMFR51kZ9FGbKB~vxRWFei3evF8FRc0QNSgsfjr-YEC-KRd9SuikzP~y4kOg1vtF-UQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Georgetown council members received a detailed briefing from actuaries with the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) on a new non‑retroactive cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) option that cities can adopt this year under state legislation known as HB 2464.

The presentation, led by Kenneth Oliver, an actuary with TMRS, explained differences between the traditional retroactive COLA (which applies cumulative inflation to retirees’ original benefit) and the non‑retroactive COLA established by HB 2464 (which applies a single year increase based on the most recent December CPI‑U to retirees’ current benefit). Oliver and TMRS colleagues told the council this is the last year the state law authorizes cities to adopt the non‑retroactive option without further legislative action.

Why it matters: Council members said they want budget‑ready numbers for 2026 because choosing a non‑retro COLA would raise the city’s actuarially determined contribution and be amortized over 20 years. TMRS staff said the non‑retro option tends to be simpler, more equitable across cohorts of retirees and in many scenarios less expensive than adopting a retroactive COLA at the same percent — because non‑retro calculations do not “catch up” retirees to past cumulative inflation.

Key details given to council members included: Georgetown’s TMRS plan uses a 7% employee contribution and a fixed 5% account crediting rate; Georgetown’s funded ratio based on the 12/31/2023 valuation was 87.2% (smooth assets vs. actuarial accrued liability); the city adopted a 2:1 city match and currently has a 30% repeating retroactive COLA on its plan provisions. TMRS actuaries walked through comparable model results for 30%, 50% and 70% non‑retro options and described plan‑change study outputs showing how prior‑service rates (the amortization component) would increase under higher COLA percentages.

Budget and timing questions dominated the discussion. TMRS said adoption of a non‑retro COLA increases the city’s prior‑service amortization ladder and therefore lifts the city’s contribution rate for 20 years; the increased cost is amortized and paid through the actuarially required contribution rather than as a single lump sum. TMRS offered to provide seven‑year projections and more granular plan‑change studies, including a 70% non‑retro modeling that the presenters did not bring to the workshop but said would be included in updated materials.

Council members asked about who pays COLA increases (the city), whether the city could absorb the higher rate without a large one‑time payment (yes — TMRS amortizes the increase), and what would happen to the city’s statutory step‑max for contribution rates. Presenters said the statutory “step‑max” is an older provision in the TMRS Act that limits the employee + city contribution step in some cities; if a chosen option produces a contribution above the statutory cap the city would need to adopt language agreeing to pay the actuarially determined contribution regardless of the step‑max. TMRS staff said many Texas cities have already removed or waived the step‑max in local ordinances and that the Legislature has seen proposals to remove the cap statewide.

Council direction and next steps: Staff said they were presenting the option to inform budget‑year planning and to gather initial council feedback; no formal action was taken at the workshop. Council members generally expressed interest in seeing specific budget‑year impacts and phasing options (for example, adopting a lower option now and paying more immediately toward future liability if the council later chooses to increase the benefit). TMRS agreed to provide the city with detailed plan‑change studies, seven‑year projections and modeled scenarios for the 70% options to support budget deliberations.

What remains uncertain: HB 2464 currently authorizes the non‑retroactive option for a limited period; TMRS staff said bills have been filed to extend or clarify the law but their status was uncertain and cities would be notified if the Legislature acts. TMRS emphasized adoption would be a city policy decision and that its staff’s role is to provide actuarial modeling and explain how different choices affect contribution rates and funded status.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke at the council workshop and included TMRS actuaries and Georgetown council members.

Ending note: Staff requested council feedback and said any decision on whether to include a non‑retroactive COLA option in the 2026 budget would come through the regular budget process after the city receives TMRS’ updated modeling.","TMRS actuaries briefed the City of Georgetown on a new non‑retroactive cost‑of‑living adjustment option that the city can adopt this year under HB 2464; council members asked about budget impacts, service‑ratio effects and timing for including the option in the 2026 budget.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Georgetown staff asks council for direction on historic‑district demolition rules; HARC seeks stricter criteria

Council hears large Heirloom development proposal: 620‑acre PUD, PID request, multimodal trails and water/wastewater constraints

Georgetown finance staff reports solid first‑quarter revenues; clarifies impact‑fee accounting

Independent auditors give Georgetown an unmodified ACFR opinion, report one significant internal‑control deficiency

Georgetown council hears TMRS briefing on option to adopt non‑retroactive COLA before legislative deadline