[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6657910,"mediaKeyId","5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7","parentId",5065256,"title","Transportation update: road bond projects on track; city seeks federal grants for Austin Avenue pedestrian bridges","audioSeconds",359,"startMs",9450261,"endMs",9809655,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7&start=9450&end=9809","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7/thumbnail_9450261.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6657910/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Transportation-update-road-bond-projects-on-track-city-seeks-federal-grants-for-Austin-Avenue-pedestrian-bridges","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6657910-ee86fdc16606d162b932e54c647bf36c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448706&Signature=PwuhQVvX25lxTH9NcxlrCoI770TPhzi93dYrrUHNIrMNvHsR8MKTQWk~iOceiXFkLFmc3j4p23ZZeg6i55cba5Ql1NfqCXGKT54-wOTKdjWiTsXeieMGUOvGnAPO-od0OBsB~AcVfSz43YIY3Wg5h5TqIBIFBzsq7Lwe~d~nC3uBit~VRHteEqlTScnVmL25ViToABtvGr9t23P6Ca8zViGOjfWp-ohZ45IPh~uB2UVBt8sxCioR~upDDJ~0stwdQZtI1bkVBASQtfO5uxSBzphqDpNHHNRXQdAER7-q4d2gPhcaOlvbpm7o98V38oUZXKZdOdI74PVPLrAn0ryQRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgetown","date","2025-06-24T00:00:00Z","article","Transportation staff updated the council on the road‑bond program, reporting that recent bids for Shell Road and Rockride came in significantly under budget, and described grant applications and schedule implications for the Austin Avenue pedestrian‑bridge project.

Nick (transportation staff) said Shell Road and Rockride underbid estimates, improving the program's financial position and creating flexibility in project sequencing. He noted some available funds are still unissued debt and described several levers staff may use (reduce debt issuance, adjust grant matches) to manage cash flow. The Southeast Interloop remains schedule‑sensitive because of utility conflicts and required Corps of Engineers approvals.

Austin Avenue pedestrian bridges: Lou (transportation project manager) said 90% design is nearly complete for the pedestrian bridges and the city has applied for a BUILD grant (about $9.1 million) and a Transportation Alternatives (TA) grant (about $11 million); the BUILD award decision was expected imminently and the TA decision in October. Lou said the estimated city match would be about $6.1 million for the BUILD grant and $7.1 million for TA. He warned that federal grants require environmental and federal review that could add eight months to a year to the timeline.

Aesthetic question: staff showed renderings and asked council to confirm a finish color; the architect recommended a \"light warm\" color to match local stone veneers. \"I like the color,\" said one councilmember. Council confirmed the lighter warm finish for the pedestrian bridges and asked staff to proceed with grant administrative steps as awards are confirmed.

Why it matters: the road bond program funds near‑term capacity projects and safety improvements across the city; successful grant awards would reduce local match and influence construction timing because federal grants require additional review.

Next steps: staff will return with grant outcomes, revised schedules reflecting federal review timelines if awards are accepted, and continued coordination on Southeast Interloop utility conflicts.

Ending: with several bids below estimate and pending grants, staff reported a net positive program position but cautioned financing and federal review will affect the final sequencing and schedule of construction.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Georgetown - Workshop - Jun 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff reported bid savings on two road projects, progress on the road‑bond program and a near‑final design for Austin Avenue pedestrian bridges; the city has applied for BUILD and Transportation Alternatives grants and asked council to confirm a light warm color for the new bridge finish.","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},6657915,"Library proposes raising nonresident card fee and changing meeting‑room policy",746,7676448,8422695,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7&start=7676&end=8422","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7/thumbnail_7676448.jpg","/articles/6657915/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Library-proposes-raising-nonresident-card-fee-and-changing-meetingroom-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6657915-6a175118d24138d594083545c7279c62/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448706&Signature=Adfwyis8iDZl7qWkj3wkCxKHB9LPujaUwYbOKzzFImw8FawEfZhkHgd6O7mHRFf0WbUHG80o2b0zTRe2lw-LMhC0nSouD5HN7KbGsigzE5JXCEe8Odaz8UaYJJvfhtgJUJw3EpLcMI~hVkXaXLdCtS9k5XijCuUzXPqqVq2~wOmVGqeWrZaCHzunYtVX-It3Dln1VdmXQBcUvJmTZN8DFdV5OMnYjTm1gMoopGscfTrhAnlRS~yKUX-fasBeuKDi3NhwceN9i9~foqIfQJU~S3~GXQxKxKEX--AqqvNIELpk-TBpRUx8bk6QAVUzn~HaIXHMAvG-Fg-lit29vkcFxw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sally, the library director, told council the Georgetown Public Library's FY24 revenue was roughly $152,427 and proposed raising the annual nonresident card fee to better align cost recovery with service costs and neighboring libraries' prices.

Sally emphasized legal limits: under Texas State Library and Archives Commission standards, libraries cannot charge for building entry or deny core services to city residents; the library also participates in TexShare, which requires a public‑access reciprocity component for certain statewide services. She said the library currently charges $35 annually for a nonresident card and has about 40,000 active cardholders, and that the cost per active cardholder is roughly $100 per year based on the library's budget.

Proposal details: staff proposed a $100 annual nonresident card, an $80 senior nonresident rate, and 3‑ and 6‑month trial options. Sally said other nearby jurisdictions (Round Rock, Cedar Park) have raised nonresident rates and provide a broader set of digital services to nonresidents. The Georgetown library would not offer all streaming services to nonresidents because some are pay‑per‑use and unpredictable in cost.

Meeting rooms: staff proposed removing a resident/nonresident distinction for meeting‑room rentals and increasing fees for closed, commercial or admission‑charging events while continuing to favor government, nonprofit and community organizations with lower or no fees. Sally said the current resident/nonresident structure led some groups to identify a resident to make a reservation even when the group is not resident‑based.

Why it matters: raising the nonresident card fee would shift more of the library's operating cost to out‑of‑city users while preserving free access for Georgetown residents and state‑required services. Councilmembers asked staff for details about the number of rentals by nonprofits versus commercial users and for comparisons of what services nonresident cardholders would retain versus what would be limited.

Next steps: staff will return with more analysis on peer comparisons, the likely revenue effect and the membership/service bundle associated with a higher nonresident fee, and will include any proposed meeting‑room fee changes in the FY26 draft budget.

Ending: council asked for a small follow up data package on who rents rooms and what services would change under higher nonresident pricing before making a final decision.","Georgetown Public Library staff proposed increasing the annual nonresident card fee and adjusting meeting‑room charges, while noting statutory limits on library fees and the need to balance TexShare participation and equitable access.",{"_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},6657919,"Parks staff propose fee increases and flag River Ridge Pool for potential closure or transfer",1206,6533094,7739804,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7&start=6533&end=7739","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7/thumbnail_6533094.jpg","/articles/6657919/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Parks-staff-propose-fee-increases-and-flag-River-Ridge-Pool-for-potential-closure-or-transfer","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6657919-6c8a8169254fbb2359e8128f89ee9e20/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448706&Signature=IwCh42db1siCacJ3I~EchiwlBfeNsPUJzrvhz4LmAycho~PBJIftAsqsGp6OpDPnH7Nl3zYbxVkqeRPuI2tW06xPV6w8IoSsG4tOrWHwMNplBrAz2ifU-ECv6WWmqe3OnNPElzhCT3~xCiDyqqwXNKTWt8xYBTqgi5qmBlWxtiaUPKgZ6FMRPDKfLV8CCnqPktSwdF4~4rts3hE6usqjSrIErbEtO1TCgTcdKRf2mRdwb9zByldQeRUaJC62gfRk4X5~1TPAuw7lFF~x5y4ehEExYn6vovWcNnsf3xSkDHhuw7YNI66VJZ~-yxUyKs0gRA~rvGETFkairUDxLKCV1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Parks and recreation staff on Tuesday presented a multi‑year cost‑recovery summary and recommended fee changes for fiscal 2026, and raised the River Ridge Pool as a candidate for divestment or alternate operation because of low use and high maintenance needs.

Robert Gaylor, parks and recreation manager, summarized a 2021–2024 cost‑recovery effort that led to a pyramid methodology: broadly used community assets (parks/open space) receive lower cost‑recovery targets while individual‑benefit services (lessons, personal training) are expected to recover a larger share of costs. He said department‑level cost recovery for the division has risen from about 31% in FY21 to about 36% in FY24 and recommended a mix of small fee increases and operational changes to continue progress toward adopted targets.

Proposed fee changes and pilot: staff proposed modest percentage increases by category (typical ranges highlighted in the presentation: tier 2 ≈ 3%, tier 3 ≈ 3%, tier 4 ≈ 12%, tier 5 ≈ 10%) and proposed a pilot to charge 100% nonresident cost‑recovery rates for three high‑demand programs — summer camps (Camp Goodwater), swim lessons and youth basketball — to test price sensitivity and resident access effects. Robert said the pilot would be accompanied by updated cost‑of‑service work and the department will bring a full cost‑recovery study in 2026.

River Ridge Pool: staff said River Ridge Pool is the lowest‑utilized outdoor pool in the city system and carries a relatively high net cost per admission. The city pays roughly $71,000 per year in direct operating expenses for the pool and anticipates up to about $200,000 in near‑term renovation needs. Robert said the pool was originally built and maintained as a neighborhood amenity that the city later accepted; staff suggested options: (1) identify a community or private operator to assume operations; (2) convert the site to a different park amenity; or (3) pursue other legal options if a land sale were proposed (staff noted parkland sales could require voter approval). He said staff would engage the neighborhood and return with a recommendation as part of the FY26 budget package.

Why it matters: parks and recreation services are partially subsidized by the general fund; increasing nonresident fees and improving cost recovery for specialized programs can reduce subsidies and align who pays with who benefits. Councilmembers expressed interest in getting more usage data (by ZIP code) and raw participation counts before deciding on pilots or structural changes. Councilmember Kevin said the city should prioritize residents' access to city facilities that are paid for by local taxes.

Next steps: staff will collect additional data (participant counts and ZIP‑code analysis for facilities such as Gary Park), run the full FY25 cost‑of‑service analysis, implement limited pilots if council directs, and include the recommended fee changes and River Ridge options in the July 8 draft budget for further deliberation.

Ending: councilmembers generally supported further analysis, with some endorsing pilot programs to realign nonresident cost recovery and others urging caution to avoid sudden capacity loss for residents.","Parks and recreation staff recommended a set of department‑wide fee increases to meet cost‑recovery targets, proposed a pilot charging full nonresident cost for selected programs, and raised the possibility of removing the underused River Ridge Pool from city operation unless an alternate operator is found.",{"_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},6657924,"Electric utility recommends 2% rate increase to meet revenue and credit metrics",1354,4163715,5517775,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7&start=4163&end=5517","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7/thumbnail_4163715.jpg","/articles/6657924/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Electric-utility-recommends-2-rate-increase-to-meet-revenue-and-credit-metrics","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6657924-d7e23844921f5fc804bcb4419b7a4e2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448706&Signature=PqaqjRBvxvpQkNjnrS-Btmxp6BslzrR~mnQixLZhDXrcgrWber39X-NQEM3~QEv7kUpvEmWK9CdEqh78~tNek~Q~s7hD9CSI3nEzf4LT8FnitGxm0YtAMUbAt1Y1mgq2TZ-C5NLTaJI3TYO8JfIwFp11D5Uwx92gGeAQaCPvGWj3lI08iZpy3BzIqFsjcU1Z1J138rjb7eCURIraG39188dXrc8inF2JMlQh9qMk4KtVL0UKSvhLHc0ZXrpvNCDYcee0ZX9ZTnAaMjquoI9bviCjeMJBjkscW6hlYTl13gGhk~8byABRNTi-3~1roYERDEE5~q81rbTWZ5eSODaqIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Daniel, an analyst with the electric utility, presented the utility's financial forecast for fiscal 2026–2030 and recommended a modest base rate increase to protect the utility's financial health and credit metrics.

Daniel said revenue growth for the utility will be driven by three load types: organic (residential and typical growth), known large loads (announced industrial or commercial customers) and potential unknown large loads. The forecast assumes conservative ramps for large customers and models purchase‑power costs, capital contributions, operating costs and debt service. He noted that capital contributions from developers have risen year‑to‑date and are helping offset system expansion costs.

Why it matters: the utility must show sufficient revenue to cover operations, fund capital, meet debt service and satisfy credit‑rating covenants. Daniel said, on a standalone basis, the electric utility would not meet key rating‑agency metrics (S&P and Fitch) over several years without an increase; a 1.5% increase would meet S&P metrics and a 2% increase would provide more margin to absorb downside risk if some forecasted large loads do not materialize.

Recommendation and board input: staff recommended, and the Electric Board endorsed, a 2% base rate increase. The presentation estimated the monthly bill effect on a typical residential customer (1,000 kWh): a 1.5% increase would raise the monthly bill by about $1.77; a 2% increase by about $2.40. Daniel and the board said the increase would help meet fixed‑cost coverage and days‑cash targets on a standalone basis and protect the utility against downside growth scenarios.

Questions from council: councilmembers asked why the utility recommended a base rate increase rather than recovering costs through the power‑cost adjustment (PCA). Staff replied that the PCA is intended to recover variable power costs and short‑term volatility while the proposed base increase improves fixed‑cost coverage, which credit rating agencies and bond markets evaluate.

Next steps: staff will complete a cost‑of‑service study with a rate consultant and return with the formal rate ordinance. The electric board's formal recommendation was recorded as supporting a 2% increase; staff said the rate study will provide allocation details by customer class.

Ending: councilmembers broadly supported the board and staff's recommendation to model a 2% increase as part of the FY26 budget development; staff will bring a detailed cost‑of‑service report and ordinance language in upcoming budget sessions.","Electric utility staff and the electric board presented a financial forecast showing revenue pressure from growth and power costs and recommended a 2% base rate increase to meet standalone debt‑coverage and reserve metrics used by credit rating agencies.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6657926,"Georgetown staff outline higher water and wastewater impact fees, present phased increase and rate changes",4131,19645,4151395,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7&start=19&end=4151","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5065256-45a2f530e3c01a9e9249579a464bfcd7/thumbnail_19645.jpg","/articles/6657926/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-staff-outline-higher-water-and-wastewater-impact-fees-present-phased-increase-and-rate-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6657926-5d3b132e61b41748d8e78c6f10be9be9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770448706&Signature=HIrNJQHUbcR9q-hSKUoQsTkpi~aWgQXQ3wfQEDJB03QKXOI5RfMDLNd7rYETEWjThuhZdXaKiMlNY~ingMNhqlyFf1CxFqcq7KQ-vIDojeQTMd-cPfx~phs~pywJ3aCSyPZdBIgu3xpYpEo1g6mA8xQZFowxcQIZbBqCWFxA-U1Csw82Y1DY34wlzN5qt5jt72iao1zMnUOoLhRt60Yq8WFsGm1IOxxbSp9N7y90GkWfNp8jcreoHR4KDN1ZBLjQnrB6xFOOKwjbcvDA0ApPRC4mzELZ-uCEi6Y1u0liQHjnbelWZOe7hfbS6ui9mRcbe2cta5ojAMKwqoYRfJd3aw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Georgetown staff on Tuesday briefed the City Council on revised water and wastewater impact-fee calculations and recommended fee schedules tied to a large capital program that includes water supply from the East and two major wastewater plants.

The update summarized work by the council-appointed impact-fee committee and consultants, outlined a proposed step-in approach to raising fees over multiple years and explained how projected growth, capital projects and financing assumptions determine the maximum assessable fee. \"First item on your workshop is a discussion on water and wastewater impact fees,\" said Wesley, a city utilities staff member who led the presentation.

The presentation said the city's combined impact-fee collections have been roughly $38 million this year (water is the larger share), and that the city is projecting substantial capital needs: nearly $1 billion in water improvements tied primarily to an \"East\" water supply and hundreds of millions for wastewater, including the proposed 3 Forks and Northlands wastewater treatment plants. Wesley said many of the East‑water costs remain speculative and \"nothing's been bid out. So they're high level engineering estimates at this point.\" He also noted impact fees may be recalculated if project costs change.

Why it matters: impact fees are charged to new development to pay a portion of system expansion; higher fees shift a larger share of capital costs to new development and can affect developer decisions about whether to connect to municipal systems or build private package plants. City staff and committee members repeatedly warned that raising wastewater impact fees too high \"would start to get into\" the territory where some developers might choose private package plants, while lower fees shift costs to existing ratepayers.

Key numbers and committee recommendations: the staff memo said the current maximum assessable water fee is $12,215 per service unit and the city is currently collecting $11,000 per service unit; the new calculated maximum is $13,835. The committee recommended holding the $11,000 fee for one year, then increasing it $1,000 the next year and stepping to $13,000 afterward. For wastewater, the current maximum was listed as $6,129 (the city is charging that max); the new calculated maximum is $13,577. The committee recommended a stepped approach for wastewater: immediately set a $7,000 fee, raise to $8,500 the following year and to $10,000 in 2027, stopping short of the new maximum. The committee's recommendation was approved 5–2.

Council timetable and state-law constraint: staff reminded council that state law sets timing and procedural requirements for impact-fee updates and, under recently passed legislation, after Sept. 1 a jurisdiction would be barred from increasing impact fees for three years. Council earlier set a public hearing for July 22; staff asked for consensus so an ordinance could have first reading at the July 22 meeting, second reading on Aug. 12 and an effective date before Sept. 1. Wesley summarized that while the new law prevents increasing fees for three years after Sept. 1, \"you can bring them down\" and the committee's step-up plan was intended to provide flexibility while establishing a new maximum.

Debate and concerns: council members discussed trade-offs between recovering more capital cost from new development and the risk of motivating developers to install private package plants, which could reduce future connection counts and shrink the denominator used to set per-connection fees. Councilmember Jake said he \"would step it up higher, especially on the wastewater,\" arguing for a schedule that reaches a larger portion of the recoverable cost sooner. Other councilmembers said they favored a more gradual approach to avoid sticker shock to developers and recommended revisiting the schedule in August 2026 before implementing later steps. Several members emphasized that lowering impact-fee collections shifts the burden to existing ratepayers.

How the fees were calculated: staff and consultants described the calculation steps: (1) project growth and service units (56,000 new water service units and 30,000 wastewater service units were used in the 10‑year denominator projections), (2) identify capital projects the city realistically expects to construct in the next 10 years and apportion the growth‑related share of those projects, (3) subtract the future contribution of ratepayers (a rate credit) from the total recoverable capital and finance charges, and (4) divide the remaining recoverable amount by the number of expected new service units to compute a maximum assessable fee. Wesley explained an alternate statutory method — dividing by 50% — would produce a different maximum; the staff used the rate‑credit method and estimated a maximum recoverable water cost of about $783 million after crediting future ratepayer contributions.

Other clarifications: staff explained impact fees do not pay for ongoing maintenance (that is funded from water and wastewater rates), that some developer-built regional lift stations can receive credits if they are on the city's eligible project list, and that the city can create geographic fee zones but doing so is complex. Staff also described how service units are assigned (a standard service unit is a 3/4‑inch meter; apartments are counted as a fraction of a unit, typically 67–70 percent).

Next steps: staff sought council feedback and said the council must hold the public hearing on July 22 as already scheduled. The council voiced support for adopting an updated maximum and a step‑up schedule that can be adjusted downward if circumstances change, with a plan to revisit the step to be taken in August 2026 before implementing additional increases.

Ending: council members signaled differing preferences on pace and size of increases but generally endorsed moving forward with the process to adopt updated fees and bring the ordinance back for readings this summer, with staff directed to incorporate council feedback and return on the schedule described.

","City staff presented updated water and wastewater impact-fee calculations, committee recommendations to phase in higher fees over several years, and a companion rate proposal tied to capital projects including large new water supply and two new wastewater plants.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Transportation update: road bond projects on track; city seeks federal grants for Austin Avenue pedestrian bridges

Library proposes raising nonresident card fee and changing meeting‑room policy

Parks staff propose fee increases and flag River Ridge Pool for potential closure or transfer

Electric utility recommends 2% rate increase to meet revenue and credit metrics

Georgetown staff outline higher water and wastewater impact fees, present phased increase and rate changes