[{"_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",6499640,"mediaKeyId","5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e","parentId",5742151,"title","Council updates strategic goals and schedules December retreat to scope 2040 comprehensive plan","audioSeconds",508,"startMs",4488000,"endMs",4996000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e&start=4488&end=4996","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e/thumbnail_4488000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6499640/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Council-updates-strategic-goals-and-schedules-December-retreat-to-scope-2040-comprehensive-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6499640-863d1c89568475da097b06b5c34ce09d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770521256&Signature=kyRzq4YaBcKEIGoRh2TB04YrTAOprYmwStnLZX6bATbRZUTgYFcqbnnH5wxHii3FIG2aj3sbP-R5QdRI8mTS7p0N48q7gCUELbbHYVEio1d--4kjSkfkrej19-MrRLNCJQs4T5gyqizKq0PR-1ub6RfCn4DDUspzqwhpHgKZWvgRDm45unijaKEtGOIKqXuNdnwRMNFircZJ3VzQ8mmIestYNEzxgGQmHD7cNMLPsuiC9G~wM8twuH1e4RknVIgYXhTSHnuTudyZArVA7exnJ2Z9xQDjeW-mWg~XwSV1n1YJdjGyB5D1jlKhdfZMzScoLjPaLoE5TA5J0ARgxQn3~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Georgetown","date","2025-09-09T00:00:00Z","article","Jessica Clark, assistant to the city manager, briefed the council on progress against the city’s strategic goals and previewed the agenda for the annual council retreat, proposing Friday, Dec. 5 as the retreat date and an outside facilitator for the session.

The nut graf: The council’s strategic plan (adopted previously) contains six priority areas — growth, economy, downtown, governance and transparency, housing, and risk management — and staff asked the council to confirm the retreat date and agenda that will include facilitated discussion of council-staff roles, selection of goals for the coming year, and an introductory discussion about scoping a 2040 comprehensive-plan update.

Clark summarized recent progress (examples: launch of an Ask GTX service-requests portal and monday.com for enterprise work plans, continued downtown master-plan implementation projects such as Austin Avenue and historic square enhancements, and ongoing water-resiliency efforts). She said the city has multiple ongoing projects to align with council priorities and will provide a final strategic‑plan update at the December retreat.

Council members did not object to the Dec. 5 date and supported bringing an external facilitator and background materials. Staff said they would confirm facilitator availability, finalize retreat materials and return with the retreat agenda and supporting documents.

Ending: Staff will prepare retreat materials, confirm the facilitator, and report back to council with a final retreat agenda; council flagged long-range planning as an agenda topic, including initial scoping for a 2040 comprehensive-plan update.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Georgetown - Workshop","oneSentenceSummary","Staff reviewed progress on council strategic goals and proposed a retreat on Dec. 5 to update priorities and begin scoping a 2040 comprehensive-plan update; council offered no changes to the proposed agenda and directed staff to finalize facilitator and materials.","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},6499645,"Council leans toward higher tree-mitigation fee tied to planting costs; draft code streamlines credits",1356,3238000,4594000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e&start=3238&end=4594","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e/thumbnail_3238000.jpg","/articles/6499645/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Council-leans-toward-higher-tree-mitigation-fee-tied-to-planting-costs-draft-code-streamlines-credits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6499645-15cdb46f3cf2b4049772b97bd5c70c13/orig.mp4?Expires=1770521256&Signature=Vn35NVWvN4aWrIuH6-CGOHD070FwisULG7QU0CaWlJr4R58wIDGdlKcY2Jl2NRNcSv~sOkEUV-Gw9EI8Cl8jQp5l6jlPlp~BKvUuB~Gs9~~S~EuiUnyF3NX1dkE4WzMGLnMK3~u9DCPaQKFn~YtVm2f8bS6IH8qKPW8PLhbpJjeg~8TjRpJN-funGo~JPH3JEx7B5nW~bmPguF0nM1ox90j83KX~doGrfI3~eBFtbK2P0ua7cXqerLPLLd5Keuocn4qLw2KX3xjL9FU21YqOCEtbwKyqe~17r0rfe-0MH3NNvhbfXOxZiJBOAmdsk2ecxJ~lA5OxgLyrWZ4JM12nzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Zane Brown, development support manager, presented a revised tree ordinance and a proposed change to how the city calculates tree-mitigation fees. The draft replaces multiple per-tree fee categories with a single mitigation-inch approach and expands credit opportunities for preserving and planting trees on private lots.

Why this matters: The draft aims to simplify fee calculations, incentivize preservation and on-site planting, and better align fee amounts with the real cost of replacing trees. Council input was requested on which mitigation-inch fee to bring forward.

Brown explained the mechanics: after measuring removed trees, staff would convert inches removed to mitigation inches using a ratio (heritage trees 3:1, very large protected trees 2:1, other protected 1:1), aggregate mitigation inches across the site, then subtract credits for preserved or newly planted trees to produce remaining mitigation inches that could be satisfied by on-site planting or a fee-in-lieu. The draft also widens the list of activities that can earn credit (residential plantings, credits for south/west planting locations for energy benefits, floodplain and common-area plantings, infrastructure expenditures to support trees).

Staff provided two fee options based on an analysis of recent planting projects. Option 1A: $450 per mitigation inch (installation cost only). Option 1B: $550 per mitigation inch (installation plus a rough allowance for irrigation equipment and maintenance). Brown said planting cost data varied widely across projects and that irrigation infrastructure added materially to replacement costs.

Several councilmembers and steering-committee participants said they favored the higher fee that better reflected the total cost to establish trees and would make fee-in-lieu less attractive compared with on-site preservation and planting. Councilmember Jake explicitly recommended option 1B; multiple councilmembers endorsed bringing option 1B as the staff-recommended figure for a resolution.

The draft also removes “order of last resort” language that previously allowed the urban forester to rank mitigation options; the steering committee and staff said removing that provision increases predictability by letting applicants choose from the menu of mitigation options and credits so long as requirements and species lists are met.

Public-comment speaker Brian Birdwell, a local developer and steering-committee member, urged council to reduce subjectivity in the ordinance so developers and residents could plan with certainty. Brown said staff will bring a resolution to adopt a fee schedule amount for council consideration.

Ending: Council directed staff to return with a resolution reflecting the preferred fee option (option 1B, $550 per mitigation inch), to include clarified credit provisions and to continue refining the preferred-plant list and administrative procedures for inspections and enforcement.","Staff presented an updated tree ordinance that replaces per-tree fee categories with a pooled \"mitigation-inch\" approach, increases credit opportunities for on-site preservation and planting, and offered two fee options; council favored the higher option that approximates planting plus irrigation costs.",{"_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},6499650,"Georgetown leaders favor policy changes to speed airport development; council backs flexible fuel pricing and longer leases",4006,1324000,5330000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e&start=1324&end=5330","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e/thumbnail_1324000.jpg","/articles/6499650/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-leaders-favor-policy-changes-to-speed-airport-development-council-backs-flexible-fuel-pricing-and-longer-leases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6499650-172895e0998385a5c17496e85d82b9fa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770521256&Signature=aV0bArxi7en241L2ldvRVBDUri-R1CEmeK6ZN2ZEArssGf1CHpp7rest6~e7C-YFDRuLDdort9Vqdf3IJZvgOg6svpuY5kNw25nez1iEm9B8WpmsieJ6vBJAWQdkPtDFm3EwH28OUQmBUNQqDMMOXenEyilAW~rrLVItJhqIu1Ud0Az2dXvU3glRWutpL1-MQaiFLd05YVpNGRbXUWrH5y9gOVagF-P68dkP-NLZ~nVMdPbx2SHguEVizk0oyo6ayiM4WB-P1q4430Yq9Xjpjkyk~3ZIHcrZp80D4JDlsZ-xgnbAAllkpGE8aiVCeFmF~8huXRxVjGWhX7gn0uPcHA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Eric Johnson, public works director, and Matthew Summerfield, airport manager, briefed the City Council on the Georgetown Executive Airport’s operations, capital program and draft policy changes aimed at encouraging private investment and modernizing airport administration.

The nut graf: Staff asked council for feedback on three linked items — (1) amending the city’s ordinance to permit longer land-lease terms in some cases, up to 50 years; (2) adopting a retail self‑serve fuel pricing policy that delegates modest daily price adjustments to the airport manager; and (3) pursuing a city-initiated update to the airport PUD to remove conflicts with federal aviation requirements and to better distinguish taxiways and roads.

Johnson and Summerfield described the airport as a FAA-designated “national reliever airport,” with roughly 333 based aircraft and an active FBO, Cutter Aviation. Summerfield noted the field’s role in medical flights, organ transport, EMS, flight training and business aviation, and described recent investments: fuel sales growth, a maintenance-building project expected to break ground within months, and terminal improvements planned in the coming 3–4 years.

On leases, staff said the current city ordinance limits lease terms to 30 years (20 years plus two 5‑year extensions). Texas law now permits up to 50‑year leases for certain transportation facilities; staff asked whether the council would allow up to 50 years in specific cases tied to amortization of tenant improvements. Johnson said developers and lenders have told staff that a 30‑year cap makes financing larger hangar developments difficult. “Conversion of LOIs to actual leases is largely contingent upon the length of the agreement versus rate of return,” Johnson said.

Council members expressed broad support for allowing longer-term leases where appropriate. Multiple councilmembers urged staff to move quickly to revise the ordinance and leasing policy to encourage private hangar construction and other investment; one councilmember said private financing will accelerate terminal and maintenance-facility upgrades without tapping tax revenue.

On self‑serve fuel pricing, staff proposed a retail markup model: keep the city’s cost-per-gallon base, set a retail margin (proposed 80¢ per gallon), add the existing 15¢ flowage fee, and delegate authority to the airport manager to adjust the retail margin up or down by 20% to respond to local market conditions. Under the example shown (a base cost of $3.68 plus retail margin), a retail price of about $4.63 per gallon was proposed, with a possible range of $4.47–$4.79 under manager discretion. Council members generally supported giving the manager limited flexibility to keep Georgetown competitive while avoiding direct competition with the FBO.

Staff also proposed a city‑initiated PUD update to resolve conflicts with federal regulations, clarify differences between taxiways and roads and enable a broader mix of aeronautical and compatible non‑aeronautical uses; developers and one speaker on the LOI list urged the council to open the PUD to remove barriers to feasible development. Johnson said the airport has several tracts available for development, including a 50‑acre and a 100‑acre tract; some tracts have LOIs and others are under contract.

Next steps and directions recorded at the workshop included staff returning with an ordinance package in October to: adopt self‑serve retail fuel pricing, propose ordinance revisions to permit longer land leases in eligible cases, update fee schedules (including hangar rates), and begin a city‑led PUD update. Councilmembers also asked staff to accelerate hangar‑rate analysis and to bring a complete package soon so private investment can move forward.

Ending: Johnson told council the airport’s real-estate portfolio currently generates about $1.3 million in annual revenue and that unlocking additional private investment was the key to funding larger capital needs such as terminal reconstruction and a maintenance facility.","Public works and airport staff sought council input on leasing terms, self-serve fuel pricing and a possible PUD update for Georgetown Executive Airport; council members generally supported allowing longer land leases and delegating limited fuel-price flexibility to the airport manager.",{"_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},6499655,"Georgetown budget report: revenues generally tracking, water impact fees top budgeted expectations",513,790000,1303000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e&start=790&end=1303","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742151-817d163ebbb629915a0a55d089eeb22e/thumbnail_790000.jpg","/articles/6499655/Georgetown/Williamson-County/Texas/Georgetown-budget-report-revenues-generally-tracking-water-impact-fees-top-budgeted-expectations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6499655-dbedc6ace197e46f4f36e1e7442eb114/orig.mp4?Expires=1770521256&Signature=opwuz747oiErz00WlyRkmPZrnOV-PIN5re2IkY9BBK1Fg65KMcwLl2dPWPksSlTMqsStUh-s1k3XXusPLqazd7DTekH~DOJMLRyWUmCFaURHc~3r-zfm3VjkKnBb1HBaGEVZQMAX4NXyUmkE0NDtjXFR-aNiBkENXurlphIT-LXQpcQjZO27xOTE~7TLgC7TzPPoewncDk7fYurosyeX0WUzFsP-oUf2~gh-omghBhRZS0QuhKAonOwIYc98IcBCVsxcDLwbltnBg-AywTtWKUllLVG~AklWKqqJsLy4I1aEjQCbH8eC2CkMzH1fsm~JP-VV1y3LFO90edP7EmJZNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Myra Cantu, the city’s budget manager, presented the City of Georgetown’s third-quarter fiscal-year report, saying the city’s three largest funds — the general fund, electric fund and water fund — were generally tracking near projections but with important variances.

Cantu told the council the FY25 general fund revenue budget totaled $110.9 million and that year-to-date actuals were about 73% of budget and 71% of projections. “Sales tax is trending at 7.51% over the previous year,” she said. She added staff revised the sales-tax projection to be about 5% over budget to reflect recent collections and a two-month reporting lag.

The nut graf: The update showed mixed results by revenue source. Impact fees and irrigation charges in the water fund came in substantially above budget, while development permit revenue has slowed; staff said unreceived grant revenue and timing of franchise-fee remittances also affected year-to-date totals.

Cantu highlighted several figures the council and public should know: property-tax collections were near 90% of budget but are subject to year-end reconciliations; sales tax year-to-date is up roughly 7.5% compared with the same period last year; franchise fees were slightly down (about 0.6%) because of timing for receipts such as an Atmos payment.

On the general-fund expense side, total expenditures were about $115.5 million in the adopted budget, with public safety (police and fire) the largest share. Personnel costs were running near 71.6% of budget with expected vacancy savings and some market/merit adjustments; operations were roughly 36–37% of general-fund expenses.

For the electric fund, Cantu reported a revenue budget of about $160.1 million and operating revenue at roughly 69–72% of budget depending on the metric; electric retail sales were up 7.9% year over year and staff said mid‑year budget amendments have kept projections and budget closely aligned. She noted some operating cost centers (transmission and distribution, electrical engineering) appeared over 100% in the current actuals because labor capitalization entries occur at year end and will adjust final figures.

On the water side, the fund’s revenue total was reported at $273.9 million with operating revenues at about 81% of budget. Cantu said impact-fee receipts were well above expectations: the city budgeted $29.5 million in impact fees and had collected about $37.4 million to date (about 126% of budget). Irrigation charges were at about 108% of budget, and overall operating revenue for water was outpacing last year’s third quarter.

Council questions addressed one unreceived line item: a $10 million grant referenced in the water revenue budget. Cantu and staff said they would follow up on the grant’s status. Councilmembers also asked about construction timing for a Florence-area waterline project and whether that revenue would arrive this fiscal year; staff said design is underway and revenue may carry over to the next year.

Ending: Cantu said staff will continue to monitor receipts and departmental projections monthly and roll forward any unspent multi‑year capital budgets into FY26, and council members asked staff to return with follow-up detail on the $10 million grant and planned timelines for large regional water projects.","City budget staff presented the third-quarter fiscal update showing most major funds running near projections; water impact fees exceeded expectations while development permit revenues fell and some grant revenue remains unreceived.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council updates strategic goals and schedules December retreat to scope 2040 comprehensive plan

Council leans toward higher tree-mitigation fee tied to planting costs; draft code streamlines credits

Georgetown leaders favor policy changes to speed airport development; council backs flexible fuel pricing and longer leases

Georgetown budget report: revenues generally tracking, water impact fees top budgeted expectations