[{"_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",6579361,"mediaKeyId","3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d","parentId",3089032,"title","Developers seek annexation of Shell Road parcel; neighbors urge no apartments, no gas station","audioSeconds",1205,"startMs",6914000,"endMs",8119000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d&start=6914&end=8119","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d/thumbnail_6914000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6579361/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Developers-seek-annexation-of-Shell-Road-parcel-neighbors-urge-no-apartments-no-gas-station","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579361-4b2575adf6c57e5f7157489290a141a8/orig.mp4?Expires=1775254893&Signature=CJaGZ~qWSIEjCQ7RzYgUymhL21LOSua-NZ3KBzFHti~-bD-Hq6uLI-SZuTup~hBB88l2R-fqFJkPxTogN6TduXkQtDyskiuljFhfSHY5zOvpBhLvR3oKmn321PjkbEjpug-vYAMGEseD8qgvi1FH5th5oc0lc0PGfyGkqL2l-ysaBjeK6NWwmplShkgkTMwwKTx0iCd7j4Z-6GqThzvbiIICx3WvxgjfXxkcGamxnrztZON3L8oA4KJJ4WNyB~u1irrHWiS43joDKdThn9eBas77BL~eAswd5eWEIB9lAo1JspGpo4rxAcEWBCcsEJuoWQVhF9faV~rdWnUmstMXJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgetown","date","2025-04-22T00:00:00Z","article","City planning staff presented an applicant’s request to return a property at Shell Road and Shell Spur to the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, with the developer also seeking eventual annexation and PUD zoning. Staff and the applicant described a concept plan that mixes commercial frontage, two tiers of multifamily and lower‑density multifamily meant as a transition to existing large‑lot homes.

Why it matters: the tract borders established estate homes and a future mobility corridor; neighbors emphasized compatibility, tree preservation and road improvements while warning that a county‑permitted on‑site wastewater (TLAP) option would be worse for neighbors than city annexation.

Sophia (planning staff) said the applicant asked to return the tract to the ETJ and pursue annexation and zoning; that request appeared on the council’s consent agenda. She described proposed land uses: a corner commercial area (Tracts 4 and 5), higher‑density multifamily and lower‑density multifamily as transition areas, and a proposed extension of Falling Leaf Lane to Shell Road to improve connectivity. The applicant’s concept would allow up to 434 units across the multifamily tracts under the current proposal, with proposed setbacks and a 125‑foot transition zone adjacent to single‑family lots.

The applicant, Amanda Brown (H.G. Brown Consulting), told council the owners had previously pursued a TLAP (TCEQ on‑site wastewater) approach when annexation seemed unlikely, and that bringing the property into the city would allow city standards, impact fees and utilities rather than a county wastewater permit. \"Every single provision in the PUD is a betterment to the code,\" Amanda said, and she identified several voluntary PUD restrictions on a proposed convenience store site at the corner — a 30‑foot building setback, 6‑foot opaque wall to the south, limits on fueling islands and canopy materials that match the building.

Neighbors urged the council to require lower density and greater buffering. Carol Tharp (neighbor) said residents support annexation but oppose apartments and a convenience/gas station: \"We would like to see the apartments go away,\" she said, and added that the neighborhood does not want a gas station at the corner. Another neighbor, Heath Culp, asked that road and signal improvements be delivered before major construction and expressed concern about spray irrigation under a TLAP permit if annexation did not occur.

Council feedback: a majority of councilmembers said annexation is preferable to the county TLAP permit and supported staff working with the applicant to reduce multifamily density, strengthen buffers and ensure compliance with the city’s Unified Development Code (UDC). Several councilmembers asked staff to prioritize transportation improvements at the Shell Road–Shell Spur intersection and to require the applicant to meet UDC standards for tree preservation (staff suggested using upcoming UDC code updates to calculate tree credits rather than exempting the project entirely).

What’s next: staff sought direction to work with the applicant on buffering, uses allowed in commercial zones, transportation commitments and tree‑preservation credits; staff and the applicant will proceed with municipal‑services‑agreement discussions, a planning‑and‑zoning review and eventual council action on annexation and zoning.

Ending: Council members broadly supported keeping the project under city jurisdiction so city development standards and impact fees apply and asked staff to return with refined PUD language and a transportation plan that addresses turn lanes and signalization needs.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Georgetown - Workshop - Apr 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","An applicant asked to return a tract near Shell Road and Shell Spur to the city ETJ and signaled interest in annexation and PUD zoning; neighbors and council urged reduced multifamily density, compliance with the UDC and strict buffering, and several council members said annexation into the city is preferable to a TCEQ on‑site wastewater permit.","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},6579364,"Electric utility proposes updated line extension rules and a 0.82¢/kWh energy rate rider for very‑large customers",2109,3170000,5279000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d&start=3170&end=5279","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d/thumbnail_3170000.jpg","/articles/6579364/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Electric-utility-proposes-updated-line-extension-rules-and-a-082kWh-energy-rate-rider-for-verylarge-customers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579364-5fccf3a88c156ae6ca190e4155f1f493/orig.mp4?Expires=1775254893&Signature=NjOVIdNOR8hHreH~GfryEVYuGhccba5zRiMo4bZHizaj2uX5COgObtr4jsiCvpuYhZJOj0lzMU4TTQaMxeQISbwB-sC2Ox~dvBuHKCnrk2AFFZ4AEdnL5nZQnitHM4l3QLzYyjPrwYTzn7YibJWiT8yCsLrMIRC-mErNpgF4M79Xp~a2TECx7oyzf9VMp~oNcd~CDKqEGxfChLKZbR9Tncd1fctg2yjxWNnmmJ8ZTkegCyhwCXsgyUznNtGH8NPl5t17jy-rKPOkYC-apRTopvS07dxYcSOKZ0VsfRVjWITinML-LBC3cttC6yDvv74AiAFNDnT-OBx001uCEHsj~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Georgetown Electric Utility staff briefed the council on annual updates to electric line‑extension and meter‑connect policies and proposed a new energy rate rider to manage power‑supply costs from very‑large customers.

Daniel (Georgetown Electric Utility) summarized technical updates to the line‑extension model — including annual labor and material updates, a 5% contingency factor, and a $0 inflation factor for now — and proposed stricter accounts‑receivable controls and larger application fees to recover upfront engineering costs. He said staff will continue to allow adjustments under 5% admin changes without returning to council but will return to the council for any per‑dwelling cost changes greater than 5%.

Why it matters: Georgetown is seeing interest from large commercial and industrial customers whose power use can reach tens of megawatts. That growth affects how the utility procures wholesale power in ERCOT, allocates fixed costs and manages financial risk; the proposed changes aim to assign costs more directly to the customers that drive them.

Daniel described changes to the plant‑investment fee where staff now shows the fee as a separate line item; he said the city’s five‑year projected annual capacity spend rose from roughly $4 million to $12.5 million, which drove a per‑kW plant investment fee increase from $154 to $326 in staff calculations. He said single‑family and multifamily baseline figures remain near those used in 2024 but that the plant investment component per unit rose modestly (staff examples cited increases of roughly $200 for single‑family and about $129 for multifamily, per unit, based on the projected capital spend).

On very‑large loads (those with installed capacity of 10 MW or more), staff presented consultant NewGen Strategies’ recommendation for an energy rate rider to recover the incremental net cost of power‑supply hedges dedicated to serving these customers. Scott Burnham (NewGen) described a proposed formula that would be reviewed quarterly using two months historic plus six months forward projections; using current forward market assumptions the consultants estimated an initial rider of about 0.82¢ per kWh. Revenues from the rider would be deposited into a dedicated over/under account with a proposed cap of roughly $500,000 and a floor of −$500,000; staff would adjust the rider quarterly to maintain the reserve band.

Scott said the rider would sit on top of the city’s existing energy charge (about 5.317¢/kWh) and the PCA and would be structured so hedging costs attributable to these large customers are recovered from those customers rather than allocated across all rate classes. He said the intent is to give customers price certainty, reduce administrative burden from binding long‑term energy forecasts and protect the rest of the rate base from volatile wholesale settlements.

Council members asked technical questions about hedging, demand ratchets and operational controls during scarcity. Staff said the city will monitor materials and tariffs closely, would use the Energy Risk Management program to hedge, and would incorporate minimum‑demand ratchet language with limited first‑year flexibility in the electric‑service agreement so customers can ramp up performance without locking an unnecessarily high ratchet.

What’s next: staff said the utility presented the changes to the Internal Risk Management Committee and the Electric Advisory Board, and would return to council with ordinance language for first reading and implementation; the consultants and staff proposed implementing the rider for bills rendered in June if council approves.

Ending: Council members emphasized the need for strong receivables controls, transparency around fees and the importance of demand‑response options; staff said the proposal aims to balance operational flexibility for large customers with risk protection for other ratepayers.","Georgetown Electric staff proposed annual updates to line‑extension inputs and a new energy rate rider to allocate wholesale power hedging costs to very‑large customers; consultants recommended a quarterly review process and a fund cap to smooth volatility.",{"_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},6579369,"Library consultants propose phased ‘refresh’ then expansion; steering committee to vote May 6",533,2603000,3136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d&start=2603&end=3136","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d/thumbnail_2603000.jpg","/articles/6579369/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Library-consultants-propose-phased-refresh-then-expansion-steering-committee-to-vote-May-6","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579369-54c449f78739215b0b1ae10b1224c734/orig.mp4?Expires=1775254893&Signature=fmDDNtCZW5woJ0VNT8Wqbyz6gGJLHRz7s7GynzGTMz0aqrGZ3HZJsO1S9FQhGlGSVxT-div5SbYRp2t808MvcAzwKhf0bh76wn9f156mvB6QT8LH8W2xzFf14C3M1Od2JuC5PVt8jq6s4xEfthTJf0HiKvZjESBVNgegeOdTb0qd4mKJUFDJsWiKdn6NLOFDWKA3E6fbX617r5YJMkM6X9wT0ptE8lF04J72tD9a2xmyHSApZN~yYNhqh6k5eC5jhZTXKcKoTDCJ4F-O3EviaTrjSTY~xxFWndVAM5USirW8Wblndt2tjzbCjyctWDti67lVhtMAdk7Khjql4GhIkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Consultants from Steinberg Hart updated the Georgetown City Council on a revised long‑range library plan that recommends a smaller, near‑term “refresh” of the existing building followed later by a larger expansion.

Doug (Steinberg Hart, consultant) told council the consultants re‑scoped the plan in response to earlier council feedback, and proposed interior changes that could be implemented within the existing footprint in roughly three to seven years. \"We still think that expansion is gonna be required at some point,\" Doug said, \"but in the interim . . . there are a lot of things that you all can do within the existing footprint that doesn't require an expansion.\"

Why it matters: the plan affects library service delivery, near‑term capital needs and longer‑term facility planning. Consultants said an intermediate, lower‑cost refresh would address many user needs while postponing the higher‑cost full renovation and expansion to a later budget cycle.

Consultants suggested reworking interior spaces to improve children’s and teen areas, relocating the Friends bookstore for easier volunteer access, and repurposing existing covered porch space into usable interior area. About two‑thirds of the needs identified in the study, the consultants said, could be addressed with interior reconfiguration and new furnishings rather than immediate expansion.

The timeline shown to council pushes major expansion and renovation into an 8–15 year window, with branch locations and additional capital farther out in a 20–30 year horizon. Consultants said they will present the final draft to the library steering committee on May 6 and then bring the plan back to the council for adoption and formal next steps.

Council members asked whether refresh investments would be reusable in a later expansion; Doug replied that some elements (notably furniture) could be repurposed, while finishes such as carpet and paint might be replaced during a future renovation.

What’s next: the consultants asked council whether the proposed schedule and the approach to a near‑term refresh followed by later expansion reflects council priorities. Staff said they would proceed toward steering‑committee and council consideration for plan adoption.

Ending: Council members signaled general support for the revised sequencing and asked to see the steering‑committee recommendation when it is available for the council agenda.","Consultants presented a revised long-range plan for the Georgetown Public Library that recommends a short-term interior ‘refresh’ (3–7 years) and delays a full expansion to 8–15 years; the library’s steering committee will vote May 6 on the plan.",{"_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},6579375,"City staff outlines $500M+ five-year water and wastewater capital plan; impact fee update proposed",1689,824000,2513000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d&start=824&end=2513","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3089032-a8ebde9638b17069c0cf0ab8d3fde53d/thumbnail_824000.jpg","/articles/6579375/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/City-staff-outlines-500M-five-year-water-and-wastewater-capital-plan-impact-fee-update-proposed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6579375-329cda5bf2e1cbca170744294ca269ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1775254893&Signature=GhlmdFvEw2KhTVM7sdOh18~T6VH8uqoyQ7EY6-gJ5bGIL7~-KCoUzLjk5hx5lQDRh284zy04EfU8B4ZWbk5cZS5rawv72dRsr4YaD45uCDG4vwaCVKQWko8NZ4ta3NOyxgt25RLlOSkG7rT~zr2GjoBx8EncGdk-nwDH31CkvSvLryfRUxDeidolANxp0sTMRsNwBnwk2CbCOmV7YJDswKotaZggbVr0H~5Awwwdcd1CkNAdPVlxRU04WZzhnUGRe-e7XntMBeaiuaLXVgDBLMMNRHVNQ5wPBpr267CsdSwwsul6KfF5iQnw-C1VBuQrIV4CQ4AHth9ojs4ywyeM7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a Georgetown City Council workshop, city utilities staff presented the proposed FY 2026 capital improvement program for water and wastewater and outlined next steps for updating impact fees and advancing major plant and pipeline projects.

The briefing, led by Wes (staff member), described the near-term commissioning of the South Lake Water Treatment Plant, phased construction of new wastewater capacity at “3 Forks” and Northlands, and multiple off-site pipeline and pump-station projects. Wes said staff will convene an impact-fee advisory committee this summer and bring recommended fee updates to council in August so the city can respond to pending state legislation.

Why it matters: the plan contains large projects and multi-year phasing that will shape service capacity, developer obligations and rate decisions. Staff described more than $500 million proposed in FY 2026 projects and more than $1 billion in FY 2027 projections, with funding expected to come from a mix of impact fees, rates and cash. Changes to impact-fee law at the state level are a driving factor in the city’s proposed schedule.

Wes summarized current work and near-term milestones. “Phase 1, 22000000 gallons of the 44,000,000 gallon plant is scheduled to be online June 2,” he said, adding crews have pushed water through the plant, lab samples have passed and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality review is pending. He told council that if TCEQ approval comes as expected, plant operations could begin in late May or early June.

Staff described the wastewater program as dominated by plant work, interceptors and phasing. A temporary 2,000,000-gallon package plant at Pecan Branch is being bid to provide interim treated capacity while the larger 3 Forks water reclamation facility is designed and built. Wes said staff currently envisions a phased 3 Forks build with a first permanent phase of 7,000,000 gallons per day and future expansions, noting the site is ultimately permitted for 21,000,000 gallons.

Other notable projects discussed included the Berry Creek interceptor (roughly halfway complete), the San Gabriel Park and Dove Springs plant rehabilitations, the Stonewall Ranch pump station coming online soon, and multiple elevated storage tanks and pump-station upgrades to serve higher-elevation development west of town. Staff also described work to address zebra mussels at a lake intake and a proposed pilot for PFAS filtration at the Park water treatment facility.

On funding and fees, staff said the city proposes to update water and wastewater impact fees and to establish an advisory committee that would meet in May–June and return projections in July. Wes said the update is being accelerated in part because pending state changes to impact-fee law could take effect Sept. 1. He gave an approximate current impact-fee baseline (staff comment): \"water is approximately $11,000 per unit and wastewater is approximately $6,000 per unit,\" and warned the final values will be set through the update process.

Council members asked about phasing, buildout timing and the balance between building larger permanent plants versus temporary package plants. One council member urged staff to “be as aggressive as we can be on timing and capacity,” saying earlier-than-expected growth could result in more pressure for sewer service and annexation. Staff said they will prepare scenarios comparing a 1.5 million vs. 3.0 million gallon Northlands option and would return those to council when more data are available.

Staff also outlined proposed delivery methods for large projects. For the 3 Forks plant, they recommended a construction manager at risk (CMAR) procurement to allow early purchase of long‑lead items and speed delivery; staff said the industry response favors CMAR for large plant work.

What’s next: staff requested council consideration of forming the impact-fee advisory committee, return of fee-update materials in July, and formal presentations of specific budget and funding requests during the summer budget process. Staff also referenced an upcoming annual rate study that will incorporate these capital costs and return to council later in the budget cycle.

Ending: Council members said they supported annexation and capacity planning that keeps service in the city’s control, and pressed staff to return with cost scenarios, clarified funding sources and updated growth projections as the city refines the FY 2026 budget.

","City staff presented a proposed FY 2026 water and wastewater capital improvement plan that includes near-term plant commissioning, phased new treatment capacity at 3 Forks and Northlands, multiple large interceptors, and a proposed update to water and wastewater impact fees to be considered this summer.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developers seek annexation of Shell Road parcel; neighbors urge no apartments, no gas station

Electric utility proposes updated line extension rules and a 0.82¢/kWh energy rate rider for very‑large customers

Library consultants propose phased ‘refresh’ then expansion; steering committee to vote May 6

City staff outlines $500M+ five-year water and wastewater capital plan; impact fee update proposed