[{"_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",6533468,"mediaKeyId","3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42","parentId",3755263,"title","City staff review 2025 Texas legislative session outcomes and next steps for Georgetown advocacy","audioSeconds",1576,"startMs",6405000,"endMs",7981000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42&start=6405&end=7981","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42/thumbnail_6405000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6533468/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/City-staff-review-2025-Texas-legislative-session-outcomes-and-next-steps-for-Georgetown-advocacy","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533468-c4cb6d84bac26fbf81744a86424403db/orig.mp4?Expires=1771129463&Signature=SMivk2kWxspC-U-yuP7kMA1izA7e-5xpdHX7fC3F8XCTMUCRuKQ-kMaMRVnX8qcvbsQE6fe7eXzAMlNWxHP-g7CuMAxdvRnCDVk~lPJczTXQ1Ft~MWcsjUxXUFLTHh9xUnXE2IuzNbqYLB5WioaK60l628GF1xjyjSFUp0GHJyZAkdUsp10R~AvLvvyRu5lrRxPMYE2nnZFmAA-vbTdtPLqULjKqjnaHvMu407THu4u4r1k3WzIWcB9Wxr1aFYlgTlOdcvoqZrUOfEBx0rWgg-N0egloo2tLY6jIf7VFGYLLUJm51mexPrxbtP8EzUeDTFJVfJ4MarzrGg3QLocZsA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgetown","date","2025-06-10T00:00:00Z","article","Leah (city legislative lead) presented a high-level recap of the 2025 Texas legislative session, described the city's advocacy activities and summarized bills of local interest that passed or stalled.

City staff said they tracked more than 1,300 bills and engaged in written comments, testimony and constituent outreach. The presentation credited the city's legislative-ambassador communications work and partnerships with groups such as the Capital Area Council of Governments and Texas Municipal League for amplifying Georgetown's positions. Staff reported that some priority items succeeded, including legislation regarding alternative-sourced rainfall/HOA watering (House Bill 517 was cited as enacted) and a city-requested automatic-sprinkler/ASR-related change (staff said an ASR bill is already in effect). Staff described an at-large win in which several potentially far-reaching preemption bills and finance bills did not pass, and they said other items of interest (hotel-qualification projects, a package-plant permitting bill) will require further work during the interim.

Leah summarized bills of particular municipal relevance and their status: several bills concerning housing and zoning passed in bracketed form or with population thresholds that exempted Georgetown (for example, a small-lot bill and some apartment-site provisions were limited to cities over specified population sizes); Senate Bill 1883 (impact-fee changes) was discussed in relation to TIF timing and a three-year pause that staff said would affect local impact-fee authority; and multiple utility and water bills advanced or stalled with possible future impact (the state appropriated one-time funding for water infrastructure and established new programs for water and energy matters). Staff emphasized the need to continue work on the package-plant permitting issue with TCEQ during the interim and to ask legislative committees for interim study charges.

Council members and staff discussed next steps: staff will continue interim outreach, prepare to present at the Texas Municipal League conference, expand the legislative ambassadors mailing list and provide more targeted materials so residents know which offices to contact on specific bills. Staff said they will return with requests for any interim hearings the council wishes to pursue and with recommendations for focused advocacy and possible budget allocations to support sustained engagement ahead of the next session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Georgetown - Workshop - Jun 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City legislative staff gave council a recap of the 2025 Texas legislative session, summarizing enacted measures relevant to Georgetown, bills that failed or stalled, and follow-up work planned for the interim.","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},6533473,"Quarter 2 financial report: city reports sales-tax growth, rising utility revenues and proposed CIP with tax-supported borrowing capacity",3050,4293000,7343000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42&start=4293&end=7343","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42/thumbnail_4293000.jpg","/articles/6533473/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Quarter-2-financial-report-city-reports-sales-tax-growth-rising-utility-revenues-and-proposed-CIP-with-tax-supported-borrowing-capacity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533473-45336bee3d92590e8521a3beb9ad590c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771129463&Signature=b0rPb1K~Z0bJHPWLDifOWZU5HLfGnM6YiCARbGRG~HmXTy5bsq4~aqHwQjHMbjqeSRAhpakcgc0-ytupxpWYCjBfeigWeXVPL1nDBIEQzhdIgjWTCU073sBhMk94-YJziKR0W~i5FpTaXksM~XtsIdp8-u9BY8frFLFDVEBh1e~1IZbi4cQWCCCi5pdEbSw2xjcFTLS526kErBgdgnhnkF~d1SQ9l3brZfHogwam2iwmWyKYwI6NVk3jmLz6K0C8zrjoc34BHSnS8KLUjFDX-bJLW-JQlA77SbsaaZQjME3UTeEfCcugCaq-Yvp2uKhm1OCN7NyjtoJcGVMg674bAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Myra Cantu, the city budget manager, presented the city's second-quarter financial report covering the general fund, electric fund and water fund and summarized an updated tax-supported capital improvement and debt model for fiscal 2026 and beyond.

Cantu said general-fund revenue through the roll-forward budget totaled about $110.9 million, driven by sales tax and property tax. Sales tax was reported up about 10.5% compared with the same period in FY 2024; property-tax collections were reported at roughly 92% of billed amounts and up 2.5% year over year. Cantu noted planning-and-development revenue has tapered and fire/EMS revenue rose about 12.5% year over year due to increased calls for service.

In enterprise funds, the electric fund's operating revenues were about 41.2% of budget through the second quarter; net purchased power was up compared with the prior year and purchase-power costs represented a substantial line item in the electric budget. The water fund showed strong impact-fee receipts year to date; Cantu said impact fees were roughly $7 million above last year at about 81% of plan for the budget period. Water charges were up materially (Cantu cited a 50% increase versus the same quarter in 2024) due to customer growth and rate changes.

Cantu and finance staff presented a draft tax-supported CIP and debt model for FY 2026 that assumed continued assessed-value growth in the near term, a 50/50 split of frozen revenue between O&M and interest-and-sinking (I&S) in the model, and modest assessed-value growth thereafter. Under those assumptions the model shows capacity to issue approximately $247.3 million in debt over the next five years; after accounting for projects already programmed, staff said approximately $34.2 million of additional capacity remains under the current modeled tax rate (preliminary total tax-rate estimate ~0.36). The draft FY2026 tax-supported CIP items presented included, among others, Fire Station 8 design, Leander Road work, a customer-service center and a proposed customer-service center general-obligation item.

Council members asked for clarification on several items that will affect the final budget and potential debt planning: the composition of assessor/valuation growth assumptions (staff said the model uses city estimates and historical growth, and that WCAD provides the certified roll on July 25), the accounting treatment of capitalized labor and non-operating expense timing, the proposed sidewalk and intersection funding levels, and whether the city should plan for a potential election to increase the operational tax rate to cover recurring costs associated with new facilities (for instance staffing a new fire station). Staff said they will return with refined bond/tax-rate scenarios, cost estimates and options for voter-authorized rate changes if council wishes to pursue an election timeline.","Budget staff presented second-quarter financials showing sales-tax and utility revenue growth, higher water impact-fee receipts, and a draft FY2026 tax-supported CIP and debt model that holds the current interest-and-sinking rate while identifying capacity for additional borrowing in later years.",{"_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},6533478,"Blue Hole master plan draft prioritizes nature preservation, adds parking and safety features; council raises floodplain and maintenance questions",2385,1951000,4336000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42&start=1951&end=4336","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42/thumbnail_1951000.jpg","/articles/6533478/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Blue-Hole-master-plan-draft-prioritizes-nature-preservation-adds-parking-and-safety-features-council-raises-floodplain-and-maintenance-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533478-8ef2c5c2234f147b28e5fdb25b6b7c20/orig.mp4?Expires=1771129463&Signature=QEUyaaLCszbH~VL8CXEjiN2OJdsi2TdKqX-XGUfw9cuxSsqfMb9FD2mv9sJh0neeI5Fd3eHifr~EJ2889J8Q~xUKF0SRSoNTloJwDSsnrr4rEpuhDTCPohS9FBDQnX3HEX-ZTG~bWXZXAOH3n~V4rxpXxc6v3Dp5Yu787lgNuCkHDbCLR7Mzc2~x-j4kFNGlZIehjPQ6POM~C3IR~ELr8onyeLG6TJX83LGgxlHT0y0olxLxdF7hk0TcwRB8snlE8uxxqV0~tIYhNTq0emg7XCGZ8t~m3V-j05UuULEg92xr6FlHNLp7PWYZtvvOxUe~6xwzvPjpZGy0dL7tHMMXyQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kimberly Garrett, Georgetown parks and recreation director, and Aaron Cooper of HAF presented a draft master plan for Blue Hole Park that emphasizes preservation of natural areas while adding wayfinding, restroom facilities, a new park entrance and more structured parking options.

The draft concept, shaped by two earlier designs and public engagement, reflects input from a spring survey of 578 participants and in-person outreach at the city's Red Poppy Fest. Consultants said most respondents live more than two miles from the park, visit one to three times a month and favor improving existing activities rather than adding new high-intensity uses.

Key elements of the draft plan include a redesigned Rock Street terminus with a one-way circulation roundabout and diagonal parking intended to add about 20 stalls in the north-of-Second-Street area; a new restroom near the main entrance; terraces and stabilized shorelines on the south San Gabriel River bank to provide safe water access and paddlecraft entry; a trailhead and parking on Scenic Drive for the South San Gabriel Trail; removal of the asphalt drive through the cemetery to restore contiguous cemetery space; and a proposed pedestrian bridge and enhanced north-bank access.

Consultants and staff stressed that the concept is preliminary and will be refined with topographic survey, hydraulic (H&H) analysis and coordination with Texas Parks and Wildlife for permitting if the city pursues sand, gravel and marl removal to restore swimming areas. Staff said they currently hold a small dredging/river permit but are pursuing a larger permit to address sediment along the San Gabriel River from San Gabriel Park to Blue Hole.

Council members and staff debated design details and trade-offs. Questions and concerns raised during the workshop included:

- Floodplain and hydraulics: Several council members said picnic nodes and concrete pads depicted in the concept fall within mapped floodplain and could impede flow or create hazardous currents; consultants said engineering and permitting will refine siting and avoid creating 'no-rise' conditions but that solutions to protect amenities from repeated flood damage can be expensive.

- Parking and cost trade-offs: Several council members said they prefer spending on park amenities rather than surface parking and suggested structured parking (a parking garage) as a future option; staff said Rock Street improvements are intended to create a visible, safe park entrance and capture overflow rather than large surface lots.

- Public safety and maintenance: Council members requested clearer plans for lighting, emergency access (design shows removable bollards and an emergency gate), surveillance/camera use and ongoing maintenance costs. Staff said toilet options under consideration include self-contained Portland Loos that reduce loitering and would be sited near the new entrance for visibility and maintenance access.

- Water access and user safety: The draft shows terraces and steps (roughly 12'18 inches per riser envisioned in discussion) to provide safer river access and a paved shelf zone to facilitate paddlecraft launch and landing; staff said ADA access and handrail needs will be assessed in schematic and engineering phases to avoid placing rails in the floodway when possible.

Staff said they will return to the community with a final round of engagement in July, refine the concept in August and present a final plan, cost estimate and phasing recommendations to council in early September. No formal action was taken; council members asked staff to provide engineering-level responses on floodplain impacts, a clearer lighting and public-safety plan, a precise count of total parking added citywide, and the status and feasibility of a larger TPWD permit for sediment removal.","Parks staff and consultants presented a draft master plan for Blue Hole Park that preserves natural areas, adds parking and a new roundabout entrance, restrooms and a trailhead, and proposes phased park improvements. Council members sought more detail on floodplain impacts, maintenance, lighting and public-safety measures.",{"_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},6533483,"Georgetown staff outline transportation impact fee update, seek council direction on collection rates and service areas",1935,4000,1939000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42&start=4&end=1939","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3755263-0cd1dc8a3c8bb3ea2d4f8f97fa416c42/thumbnail_4000.jpg","/articles/6533483/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-staff-outline-transportation-impact-fee-update-seek-council-direction-on-collection-rates-and-service-areas","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533483-5dcb0da1fa97bc9bb9a9f95ed88288db/orig.mp4?Expires=1771129463&Signature=Y5qPk31PU4spA6yYXlG4lP4cfu902KOaXkND1cQeZ0vLCiMvfrrZegQAbf~B2OChgq42KpZRwmQGuatm0dcL8js5eqN8iXiqhZokSogE7lXPGesxOMkrP14erNnXP8hFOH~kS5ODVR-ZhDJA30QcsNNgkPUIrPlre1D6NtRte3XBLp-G1ow7qaLUiS8g2zXpvUrIMNne4qKZoXvK8UJwxBaiJ0Nsrz2KAgAXzLJtrHVDwraCAhP~PePJ4JAfpUz~lQfWNcgb7L5-gZ4P6tbbKqfEmpDVPyWfvlB8D9~pj3Jr5ya-ZAVguLRVBV6l5~eSRkrsCWe7m2ufFBkUGkvolg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Georgetown staff and consultants briefed the city council on an update to the Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) study, saying the work will recalibrate fees to reflect a 10-year capital improvement plan and recent changes in construction costs.

The presentation, led by Matt Wagner of Engineering Services with consultant support from Ben (consultant) and staff member Nat, reviewed the legal basis (Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395), the methodology for calculating maximum assessable fees, and several numerical results from the 2021 study that staff plan to recost and revalidate for the 2025 update.

The consultants described the calculation method: the numerator is the recoverable cost of projects in the 10-year CIP; the denominator is the projected growth expressed in service units (vehicle miles). They noted the city's 2021 study used a $246 million CIP numerator (costed at that time), roughly $123 million of which was considered within the five-year horizon, and that the city has collected about $994,000 to date under a phased collection policy. Staff said if Georgetown had collected the maximum assessable fees instead of the reduced collection rates, receipts to date would be roughly $4.2 million.

Consultants summarized current collection policies adopted in 2021: single-family collection rates are set at 50% of the maximum assessable fee in some service areas, multifamily at 75%, and nonresidential at lower percentages (commercial at 20% in some areas). They showed the city's adopted schedule escalates collection rates on March 1, 2026, and offered sample dollar figures: for example, a Georgetown single-family maximum in service area A is shown as $3,621 in the current calculation and would escalate to $5,428 on March 1, 2026 under the existing schedule. Council members asked how the schedule applies per dwelling unit and were reminded the fee is multiplied by vehicle miles (service units) and therefore varies by land use and trip length.

Staff explained statutory timing requirements: Chapter 395 requires a five-year update; staff said they aim to complete and adopt the update by Dec. 1 to remain under the prior rule set while a state Senate bill (noted by staff but not identified by number in the presentation) is changing aspects of Chapter 395 and carries a grace period. The team said the city has discretion in some ordinance-level settings, such as the point of assessment (the draft proposes continuing assessment at preliminary plat) and whether to maintain existing zero-fee service areas (the downtown and Lake Georgetown areas were set as no-fee in 2021 because they are largely built out or lack projects in the CIP).

Council members pressed staff on several policy choices: whether downtown should remain a no-fee service area given ongoing downtown growth; whether renovation or reuse that changes land use should trigger fees (staff said a change in land use that requires a building permit would be assessed); and whether different industrial uses (warehouse/distribution versus retail or manufacturing) should face different collection rates to reflect trip generation differences (consultants said trip-generation rates from ITE are used and that types of vehicles are not directly reflected in the standard trip-based methodology, but council could select different collection-rate breakouts for specific use types up to 100% of the maximum assessable fee).

Next steps staff outlined include recosting the CIP in current dollars, updating land-use assumptions from the 2023 Future Mobility Plan to identify the portion of growth in the next 10 years, and returning in August/September with recommendations on maximum assessable fees and proposed collection rates. Staff asked council for direction on whether to keep the downtown no-fee area, whether to keep assessment at preliminary plat, and whether to adjust the planned 2026 escalation of collection percentages.

Council members and staff also discussed operational details raised by applicants during the 2023'2024 grace period, including timing of fee assessment (staff said fees are assessed at preliminary plat and payable at building permit). No formal motions or votes were recorded during the workshop discussion.","City staff and consultants reviewed how Texas law and the city's 2021 ordinance shape the Transportation Impact Fee update, presented cost and collection figures from the 2021 study, explained a required five-year update and an expiring legislative grace period, and asked council for direction on collection-rate policy and service-area changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City staff review 2025 Texas legislative session outcomes and next steps for Georgetown advocacy

Quarter 2 financial report: city reports sales-tax growth, rising utility revenues and proposed CIP with tax-supported borrowing capacity

Blue Hole master plan draft prioritizes nature preservation, adds parking and safety features; council raises floodplain and maintenance questions

Georgetown staff outline transportation impact fee update, seek council direction on collection rates and service areas