[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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],{"_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",6610370,"mediaKeyId","2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e","parentId",2904501,"title","Georgetown council reviews San Gabriel Park Phase 4 master plan; turf, water and cost trade‑offs take center stage","audioSeconds",1852,"startMs",1053000,"endMs",2905000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e&start=1053&end=2905","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e/thumbnail_1053000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6610370/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-council-reviews-San-Gabriel-Park-Phase-4-master-plan-turf-water-and-cost-tradeoffs-take-center-stage","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610370-ff7f7391f2efc6c260b38d63108aa2b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771120298&Signature=jt3JknzNVoTJcC6MtniZF-nXS1b55ClEI~YhfSNdKGkHXzRcykv6r9uv3h3EMsaqy7ZSXjwMP0RzZOJDjop7R0Gb~ditLQeQUDbMHPwUr9rlcS-bm2uVAQKZmcgZ~-p7qMT88mQvxXZ6ghwvDi2ie0WIKHhEqr8eGulTJWtXWS2dARBkjS4wpCOt7BWPfTfwZ04TgXxkw6P~Z5tqT4cyZXRsZS3ll43VUnwJbu093XSJ2aZ6Ib2Q5U6VcMJVngtIVM9o7VxojoLXWS-2MMfPoQgSdZltRnmXzbNRKzHnY63bCLilOzUWhPd1CO7mfSgo9dGKr4Nwyn7rTEQHrClbDg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgetown","date","2025-04-08T00:00:00Z","article","City of Georgetown City Council heard a presentation on a proposed master plan for San Gabriel Park Phase 4, including field layouts, access changes and an opinion of probable construction costs, during a council workshop.

The plan, presented by Eric Neuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, and Chad Davis of consultant Park Hill, revises an earlier option and adds engineering detail on grades and storm routing, estimated capacities for additional parks and an updated opinion of probable construction cost (OPCC) for the full illustrated plan.

The park design shows a central ball complex with a loop road, distributed parking, restroom and pedestrian spaces, and a mix of field sizes (8U–18U). Davis said the OPCC for the plan as shown is about $58,000,000 and that the estimate “includes everything as illustrated in the master plan including full synthetic turf on seven baseball fields, the infield on one baseball field, and the soccer fields.”

Why it matters: Council and staff focused on practical tradeoffs — whether to use synthetic turf on some fields to increase playing hours and conserve water versus the higher capital cost and different ongoing maintenance profile. That decision affects how many people the existing parks can serve without building new sites, how the city budgets capital and maintenance dollars, and the park’s visual and operational impacts on nearby streets.

Most of the technical discussion centered on three matters: water demand, lifecycle cost and visual/topographic impacts.

Davis presented modeled irrigation demand for the full master‑plan playing surfaces. He told the council the Penman‑Monteith–based model produced an average annual irrigation estimate of about 8,700,000 gallons for the plan’s natural‑grass playing surfaces and clarified that figure represents the entire master plan area (not per field). To make that number more tangible he said that 8.7 million gallons equates to roughly 209 four‑person households’ annual indoor water use.

The consultants contrasted natural grass and synthetic turf. They summarized a 10‑year operations and maintenance (O&M) comparison in which they modeled capital and recurring costs: a 10‑year O&M and replacement view showed natural grass installation costs roughly $1,400,000 and 10‑year O&M components that together produced a 10‑year total in the multimillion‑dollar range; the presentation listed an installation estimate for a synthetic approach of about $8,000,732 and higher capital but lower recurring water and chemical costs. On Davis’s slide the 10‑year combined capital plus O&M for the synthetic scenario was roughly $9,000,000 versus about $4,200,000 for the natural‑grass scenario; Davis noted that the synthetic option also requires another large replacement cost at the 10‑year mark.

Davis and Eric Neuner emphasized differences in usage capacity: natural grass is typically limited to about 24 hours of play per week per field before turf health declines, while synthetic turf supports substantially more hours (a figure Davis described as nearly triple). The consultants and staff flagged that in a fast‑growing community increased field capacity can reduce the need for new parks but requires carrying higher capital costs or long‑term replacements.

Council members and staff discussed secondary issues that would influence any future material decision: the loop road’s effect on views from Weir Road and North Austin Avenue, emergency‑vehicle access, stormwater routing and an embankment that places Weir Road roughly 15 feet above the proposed parking area. Davis said the loop roadway was partly intended to help divert additional stormwater flows produced by nearby TxDOT projects and to provide emergency access to the back of the park.

Heat and safety were raised in council questions. Davis noted synthetic surfaces can reach very high surface temperatures in Texas (he cited measured surface temperatures in some cases between 135 and 150 degrees Fahrenheit on hot afternoons) and said communities generally manage that by scheduling earlier or later activities rather than continuous irrigation to cool the surface. He also said advances in infill materials — for example blends that include cork instead of solely crumb rubber — and newer cushion systems have reduced some past safety concerns compared with older “astro‑turf” systems.

On maintenance, Davis presented 10‑year itemized estimates the team used in comparing options: fuel, equipment, herbicides, seeding, labor and irrigation were the largest recurring natural‑grass line items; synthetic fields carry lower irrigation and herbicide costs but have periodic replacement and brushing/infilling maintenance. The consultants also modeled storm and rain‑loss days — for example, they put average “rain days lost” for natural grass in the ballpark of 39 days per year versus about five days for synthetic fields (lightning and safety clearing still apply to both).

Council questions also covered revenue and program impacts if usage capacity increases, and whether partner organizations (like GYBA) or visiting teams would prefer turf or grass. Staff said programming demand has been growing (they cited year‑over‑year participation increases of about 10–15% in some recreational programs) and that public input received so far prioritized additional playable space; staff also said they are prepared to evaluate facility‑use agreements, fee structures and whether a partner group’s lease should be transitioned to a facility‑use model.

What council directed/next steps: staff and the consultants emphasized the council was not asked to select materials or begin construction; instead, council was reviewing a final master plan concept and the OPCC so the city can move forward with phased implementation when funding is available. The consultants noted that the plan can be built in phases and that grading and drainage design can be done to allow future conversion from grass to synthetic surfaces where desired.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article were limited to those recorded in the council workshop: Eric Neuner, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director (City of Georgetown); Chad Davis, partner, Park Hill (consultant); and Councilmember Parry (Council member who asked questions during the discussion).

Ending: Staff said the master plan will remain a guide; any specific construction or material decisions would return to council later as funding and scheduling are resolved. Councilmembers asked staff to keep bringing detail on budgets, phasing and operational impacts as the city considers capital funding strategies.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Georgetown - Workshop - Apr 08, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City of Georgetown City Council heard a presentation on a proposed master plan for San Gabriel Park Phase 4, including field layouts, access changes and an updated opinion of probable construction cost.","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},6610356,"Pulte seeks guidance on Atkinson Ranch MUD; wastewater timing and annexation for commercial areas are key issues",3166,5731000,8897000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e&start=5731&end=8897","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e/thumbnail_5731000.jpg","/articles/6610356/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Pulte-seeks-guidance-on-Atkinson-Ranch-MUD-wastewater-timing-and-annexation-for-commercial-areas-are-key-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610356-455723191312b7a14715f8b8083c0dbe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771120298&Signature=kTwNVYu5r60qr7N0nDsLcZeIfadOQlXVLV-wJRlsfiT-Utw5Kd9IaDkTEIqKO8WCTkRhvTQuvio2RdxJbatk4-~vtZM6HQScKyyXb~n6s0bKL2da5dUT3gZFYeket7JUyvRzNIcYyUVnCnXf8axAktkzdEMumb1MBj3ydIg25gYfhL74NWvwHNZJPemAqTE9oL~gWKsxQsh1-L6BV0g6xVEkCDd7uk-6rqf1Gi-N~lq0MWPmMGhJh~0mWqPLU62P-3w9l8yMH2lnt1bXjaOBxNCMDHqid0LGg~uPCploEQ8mTxPu7-eHLtjflMbKbHoiUqveTOA1VmYEUqcAUbEVkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Georgetown staff and Pulte Group representatives presented a Municipal Utility District (MUD) proposal and land‑use concept for Atkinson Ranch, a roughly 361‑acre project in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) west of Williams Drive, and requested council feedback on whether to entertain an ETJ MUD application.

Nick (city staff) framed key policy issues — annexation, bond issuance and maturity, master development fee, UDC variances, wastewater availability and site connectivity. Pulte Group (Anaya Johnson, land‑planning manager; Steve Ashlock and Brian Beal, senior land executives) explained a revised land plan that responds to updated Atlas‑14 floodplain mapping and described the project’s proposed product mix, amenities and estimated infrastructure costs.

Why it matters: The decision to allow an ETJ MUD vs. insisting on in‑city MUD or annexation affects tax rates, developer financing, long‑term public infrastructure ownership and whether the city can secure sales tax and regulatory control over commercial areas. Wastewater capacity and schedule at the Northlands plant — and the potential need for an on‑site package treatment plant — materially change project economics.

Project summary and developer presentation

Pulte described a repurposed site plan after Atlas‑14 floodplain updates reduced developable acreage. The company now plans approximately 546 Del Webb (active adult) homes in the southern portion of the tract (a reduction of about 43% from an earlier concept) and commercial and medium‑density residential subdistricts to the north. Pulte said anticipated on‑site amenities include a multi‑acre amenity center, trails and community open space.

Infrastructure costs and wastewater options

Pulte estimated total infrastructure capital outlay near $85,000,000, with an off‑site roadway bill of roughly $3.4–4.0 million and off‑site water infrastructure near $800,000–900,000. Pulte said off‑site wastewater connections to the city would cost roughly $400,000–450,000; as an alternative if city wastewater capacity or timing is not available on the project schedule, Pulte’s engineers estimated a standalone on‑site wastewater solution would cost approximately $11,000,000 (package plant, spray fields, effluent ponds and associated works).

Policy requests and financial terms

Pulte requested ETJ MUD status. Under city MUD policy a MUD inside city limits typically faces different rate/maturity constraints and a maximum developer assessment level; Pulte said the economics “pencil” only under an ETJ MUD with a higher assessment allowance. Specific developer requests included a 30‑year bond maturity and a 20‑year issuance window (the city policy maximums are 25‑year maturity and a 10‑year issuance window), a proposed master development fee of 5% (staff policy figure is commonly 12%), and a 95¢ maximum tax rate for the ETJ MUD structure.

Council feedback and outstanding issues

Council members raised several consistent themes in the discussion:

- Annexation for commercial acreage: several council members said they expect or prefer that commercial parcels be annexed into the city limits so the city can capture sales tax revenue and exercise regulatory control; Pulte and staff responded that portions of the northern commercial/medium‑density area could be annexed if council desired and that would change the MUD footprint.

- Wastewater: multiple councilmembers, and staff, stated a clear preference for connections to the city wastewater system rather than an on‑site package plant adjacent to floodplain where possible. Staff said the Northlands plant timing (currently planned for later years) and procurement/sizing work remains a critical variable; city staff asked council for direction they could use in negotiating contingencies if city wastewater isn’t available within the developer’s timeline.

- MUD policy adherence: councilmembers urged adherence to existing policy on bond maturity and issuance windows, asked for stricter master‑developer fee alignment with city norms (several councilmembers suggested a figure closer to 10% or 12% rather than 5%) and emphasized the need to preserve development standards (architecture and public infrastructure quality). A number of councilmembers said they were open to a higher percentage of age‑restricted units only after seeing more detail but did not oppose Del Webb‑style active‑adult development generally.

- Connectivity and emergency access: council and staff discussed road network constraints, limited existing right‑of‑way on adjoining streets, and the need to plan safe emergency access. Staff and developers said potential solutions include constructing a Tejas Trail connection (where existing right‑of‑way reaches the parcel) and the possibility of crash‑gated emergency links to manage neighborhood traffic.

Next steps: Staff asked council whether to pursue an ETJ MUD application and requested direction on which policy variances council would permit. Council gave mixed feedback: several councilmembers endorsed annexing the commercial portion into the city and insisted on sticking with most MUD policy limits (e.g., 25‑year maturity and 10‑year issuance) and a higher master development fee, while also urging staff to pursue options that allow developers to proceed if city wastewater is delayed (for example, conditional approvals tied to connection timing or interim backstop solutions). Many councilmembers reiterated a preference for municipal wastewater service where feasible.

Speakers: presentation and Q&A were led by City staff (Nick) and Pulte Group representatives (Anaya Johnson and Brian Beal); multiple councilmembers asked technical and policy questions during the workshop.

Ending: Council did not take a final vote at the workshop but provided direction on key principles (prefer commercial annexation, require alignment with core MUD policy on bond windows and fees unless there is a strong justification, prefer city wastewater connection and seek contingencies if the city system is not available). Staff and the developer will continue negotiations and return with technical details and recommended policy adjustments if necessary.","Pulte Group asked City Council to consider allowing an ETJ MUD for Atkinson Ranch, a 361‑acre development, while noting the project’s economics rely heavily on wastewater timing and that developers may need flexibility if city wastewater capacity is not available on their schedule.",{"_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},6610361,"Georgetown Electric presents draft five‑year CIP; meters, voltage conversion and pole work highlighted",1220,3518000,4738000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e&start=3518&end=4738","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e/thumbnail_3518000.jpg","/articles/6610361/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-Electric-presents-draft-fiveyear-CIP-meters-voltage-conversion-and-pole-work-highlighted","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610361-5cdc7a21a547372be71d2549abf172ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1771120298&Signature=SbjVfu8gHhNy6VeG9HatTqfO7UclFENwQEKSwaerACEgLtXd3~B5W63~5GtrNLkko0tO~8tn4zfRjQyvuUk-H59mJ2nBnpAkasjwPl6ERqdnr9xb3G93Pt4ZbxEEW1X3rxPiB7ITzTzGrN03Y~jCGdi3GGakxP9AWnCUsfqIPnJlMnEkkQexGOANXpj9Jb5dHXKF2~isN3Hu-7j8LfZI4SFbsMSzc~IAl6g~LIsoCV9gRA0kvRF1o9XQgcTAzRnVNh2KZk6ljRiVrv-j2FgNNNhqD6pPzp~u8Q-ZSEJ4BVJN-EaVsIH8~Q1Etsoe9CLmvKUhPKdt4OhL8X1qlFk6xQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Georgetown Electric staff presented a draft five‑year capital improvement plan (CIP) and explained how load forecasts, engineering and financial models produce the utility’s capital and staffing priorities.

Jack Daly, chief business officer for the electric utility, told council the plan ties into the utility’s peak load forecast and identifies both system improvement projects and general‑plant investments (vehicles, meters and technology). He said the utility runs three concurrent models — engineering, staffing and finance — to inform project timing and financing choices.

Why it matters: The electric CIP determines near‑term investments in reliability and capacity and influences rate decisions, debt planning and possible customer charges for new development. Daly said the plan is an early input to the budget and bond rating processes.

Key projects and costs highlighted

- Meter upgrade (AMI/line 6 in the slide set): Daly identified a substantial meter replacement and infrastructure program in the 3‑year window; the slides presented amounts in the multi‑million‑dollar range (the presentation itemized a roughly $7–10 million meter program).

- Voltage conversion: The utility plans targeted voltage conversion work (notably in and around the Southwestern area) and overhead‑to‑underground conversion projects in early years; Daly described these as multi‑million dollar investments to improve reliability and simplify sectionalization.

- Substation and feeder work: Daly referenced a partnership with the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) tied to a future substation and noted the need to extend feeders to customers once a substation is available. The staff presentation referenced a facility development agreement with LCRA.

- Pole attachments and make‑ready: Daly said a significant portion of make‑ready costs for pole upgrades is driven by telecom companies applying to attach fiber; the telecom attachers often pay to upgrade poles when necessary but the utility budgets for planned pole replacements.

- Electric operations center and vehicles: Daly said the utility is studying a new electric operations facility and land acquisition (design and build) and is planning for vehicle and specialized equipment replacement cycles.

Daly told council staff had smoothed the CIP’s “lumpiness” and that the utility’s current rates can support the plan “without significant rate changes.” He identified items with more timing flexibility (new development accommodations, the operations center and the AMI meter project) and noted the team is preparing an electric resource‑plan update and plans to present the CIP as part of upcoming budget work.

Public comment and council input: Larry (public commenter) asked the utility to select dark‑sky‑compliant streetlight fixtures during future conversions. Council members asked technical questions about underground vs. overhead outages and life‑cycle replacement planning; Daly and staff discussed inspection and replacement policies and acknowledged that some underground repairs can be more difficult to locate but that the utility has specialized crews to troubleshoot subterranean faults.

Ending: Daly said the draft CIP will feed the budget and bond‑rating processes and staff will return during the budget cycle with a planned, financed CIP and additional details about cost‑recovery, fees and timing.","Chief Business Officer Jack Daly presented a draft five‑year capital improvement plan (CIP) for the electric utility that emphasizes capacity upgrades, a meter program, voltage conversions and pole/pole‑attachment work. Daly said the utility's current rates can support the presented plan and identified projects that have flexibility in timing.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6610365,"City staff outline four CDBG infrastructure applications for drainage and sidewalk work",2717,2988000,5705000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e&start=2988&end=5705","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2904501-b44e4aa06bddcf859c3ac8ce6349e09e/thumbnail_2988000.jpg","/articles/6610365/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/City-staff-outline-four-CDBG-infrastructure-applications-for-drainage-and-sidewalk-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6610365-bf979ee06f50e31c5e650022da7af043/orig.mp4?Expires=1771120298&Signature=P96Z5keJeT2DhiJlbM3jYEfpLat--fSCLL3BZPubgzHXi5GK~MdzT~fi~7JKxqnd0TX3cukYZ8LW0Pm3ShQ7IxLbV5~wm1eu6QRWeqgES4JQa2b9VZRIKVSMQtVIgWGKevRgDBumDSO5vTobSGlo7DwKWOKKSYtSrmBnx-L7G~L4BYqQ~7GSb-GQ6K2IHCfFhOA3~PMo2k6ZZL4mKQcTbL5NjZNjnpvVhuqh8GgToYqNQm6TK2r5RRUka9kPRv~fQ-xp84v4JFssKkuUv6UTebyUj12H7LdG4UFDYCHOmnoNvYvwamRiJkd~BMRa5Hnk7RbXgNBHGVEMVzx2MLnUGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Georgetown staff presented four proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications and asked council for feedback on prioritization and a proposed cost‑share strategy.

Kimberly (staff lead) said the city is a Williamson County subrecipient for federal CDBG funds and outlined the submittal process and project‑selection criteria, emphasizing HUD national objectives, Williamson County funding priorities and alignment with existing small‑area and master plans. She also corrected an earlier agenda map error and supplied the accurate eligibility map used to identify project block groups.

Why it matters: The CDBG program targets low‑ and moderate‑income neighborhoods and can fund infrastructure that improves safety and walkability or corrects localized flooding. Staff proposed projects that would concentrate funds where block groups qualify under the 51%+ low/moderate income standard and that align with prior small‑area planning.

Proposed projects and scope

1) 1401 Pine Street: staff described a site with standing water in the right of way and private‑property flooding where there is no curb along Fourteenth Street; the proposed work would direct stormwater away from the house and correct elevations and drainage.

2) Pine and Hogg Street area: staff said poor drainage between Hog Street and a culvert causes localized flooding; correcting Hogg Street drainage would reduce impacts on the adjacent portion of South Pine Street and the work intersects the San Jose small‑area plan.

3) Haven Lane / Barkus Drive area: staff identified stormwater flowing from the roadway into adjacent residential properties; the request would mitigate roadway and private‑property flooding that affects multiple homeowners.

4) Lakeway Drive sidewalk: staff proposed new sidewalks and repairs between Williams Drive and Northwest Boulevard to close gaps and create walkable connections to schools, a pool and neighborhood businesses. Kimberly stated the scope included both new sidewalk installation on both sides where needed and repair of existing segments, and she said the project would cover roughly 17,000 linear feet of new and repaired sidewalks in the study area.

Funding approach and council feedback: Kimberly said staff prioritized infrastructure projects for this application cycle and would defer a home‑repair application while the city’s home‑repair partner reorganizes. She indicated some projects would be proposed as 50% CDBG funding matched by stormwater or other city funds and clarified the matching dollars would come from existing stormwater funds. Council members asked how matches would be funded; staff said the CDBG money would fill funding gaps alongside stormwater utility dollars already budgeted for those corridors.

Council members raised no objections to forwarding the applications; staff indicated projects would be placed on the consent agenda for formal approval of submittal.

Speakers recorded: the presentation and Q&A were led by Kimberly (city staff coordinating the CDBG submittal); technical staff from public works and systems engineering were available to answer technical questions but did not provide extended quoted remarks during the workshop.

Ending: Council did not object to staff pursuing the four applications; staff will advance the grants for county/CDBG review and prepare the required application materials for the consent agenda.","City staff proposed four Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications focused on drainage repairs and sidewalk expansion in CDBG‑eligible neighborhoods, including targeted projects on Pine Street, Hogg Street, Haven/Barkus and a Lakeway Drive sidewalk gap project.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Georgetown council reviews San Gabriel Park Phase 4 master plan; turf, water and cost trade‑offs take center stage

Pulte seeks guidance on Atkinson Ranch MUD; wastewater timing and annexation for commercial areas are key issues

Georgetown Electric presents draft five‑year CIP; meters, voltage conversion and pole work highlighted

City staff outline four CDBG infrastructure applications for drainage and sidewalk work