Georgetown, TX Residents

This is a jail. Not a prison.
People are released every day — a third of a mile from two schools.

County jails process same-day bookings and release people around the clock. Williamson County unanimously paid $75.8 million for a site that puts that daily release population next to two campuses serving nearly 1,700 students, on a corridor with limited walkable services and no fixed transit.

Make Your Voice Heard → Follow on Facebook →
Save the Date

Public input sessions. August 22 and 27.

Save the date. Twice, actually. Williamson County is holding two public input sessions on the Justice Complex project. Show up. Bring a neighbor.

Saturday, Aug 22
9:30 to 11:30 AM
Thursday, Aug 27
5:30 to 7:30 PM

Both at Williamson County EMS North Campus, 3189 S.E. Inner Loop, Georgetown, TX 78626.

See the official county flyer →

Here's why you need to be there.

I spoke at commissioners court this Monday. The county wanted to move $420,000 into what they're calling "community engagement" for this project. I pointed out that $300,000 of that was actually site design work, not engagement. Adjacency diagrams, building layouts, where the holding cells go. I also brought up that when they scored potential sites, Community Impact only counted for 3.5% of the decision, and that 3.5% only measured traffic. Not schools. Not neighborhoods. Traffic.

There's a real divide on that court right now. Boles, Snell, and Cook all raised concerns about the process and said they need to hear from the public before pushing any further. Boles went further than that. He questioned whether the county needs to build a new jail at all right now, and said it on the record: "I don't think we need a new jail."

The full $420,000 request failed. What passed instead was a smaller version, about $140,000, for listening sessions only, with the design consultants kept out of the room.

Don't play the design game.

On August 22 and 27, the county is going to ask you to weigh in on what the site should look like. Building design. Layout. Landscaping.

Don't play that game.

The question was never how this jail should look. The question is whether it belongs a third of a mile from Wagner Middle School and half a mile from Mitchell Elementary.

The city of Georgetown has already said inmate release is a major problem downtown, where there's transit, businesses, and services to support it. CR 110 has none of that. Moving that problem next to two schools full of kids doesn't get better because the building has nice landscaping.

They have other options. On the record. Sites that don't require this fight.

If they want the courthouse and the Sheriff's office on this site, fine. That's a different conversation. But not a jail that releases people into a neighborhood with no infrastructure, a short walk from an elementary school and a middle school.

Show up on the 22nd or the 27th. Bring a neighbor. Don't get pulled into a conversation about paint colors and parking lots. Tell them clearly: this site doesn't work for a jail. No compromise.

Sign up for updates →
8.3x WCAD appraised value
$75.8M Paid for this site
⅓ mile From two schools
1,700 Students nearby
The Location

Why this site is wrong

Two campuses. Nearly 1,700 students. A jail facility with a daily release population. A corridor with limited walkable services and no fixed transit. Every claim below is sourced from official county documents, local news coverage, or statements from public officials.

The site is about a third of a mile from two schools — and a proposed third school

George Wagner Middle School (969 students) and Mitchell Elementary (719 students) are both approximately a third of a mile from the proposed site at 1200 CR 110. Together, nearly 1,700 students attend these two campuses — an 8 to 10 minute walk from the facility entrance. A proposed IDEA Public School campus, shown on county planning maps in the same corridor, is also about a third of a mile away.

Aerial site plan showing the Phase 1 Justice Campus development area (orange), the purchased property (green), and the proximity to the Elementary and Middle School campuses (red box) and a proposed IDEA Public School campus.
County site plan. Orange: Phase 1 Justice Campus development area. Green: purchased property (253 acres, $75.8M). Blue: existing Wilco government facilities. Red boxes: Elementary & Middle School campuses and proposed IDEA Public School site. Source: Williamson County Justice Complex Strategic Planning →

This is a jail, not a prison — people are released daily

County jails hold individuals awaiting trial and process same-day bookings. Unlike state prisons, they have a daily release cadence. People leave at all hours. The operational reality of a county jail is fundamentally different from a state correctional facility.

Georgetown officials have already confirmed inmate release is an issue

Georgetown City Manager David Morgan and Police Chief Cory Tchida have publicly described inmate release at the current downtown jail as a documented issue. Morgan called it a "dynamic" affecting the surrounding area. Tchida called the cycle of arrest, jail, and release a "vicious cycle." The CR 110 corridor offers limited walkable services and no fixed transit. Moving the facility next to two schools relocates a dynamic the city has already acknowledged, rather than resolving it.

Process Concerns

How the County Reached a $75.8M Vote Without the Public in the Room

A chronology of every public touchpoint — and every closed-door step — leading up to the May 19, 2026 financing vote on a 255-acre jail site a third of a mile from two schools in Georgetown's District 7.

1 Pre-vote public info session
28 Days from "rescheduled" to land vote
15 Days into option period before public learned
$75.8M Approved on a cloaked agenda line
Public engagement happened Decision point Public locked out
  1. 2024 – 2025 Phase 1 begins

    Kitchell launches the site search — behind the scenes

    The county's project manager evaluates 35–37 candidate sites and narrows to a short list of approximately 10 that "meet the criteria." The list, the scoring methodology, and the criteria themselves are not released to the public.

    Residents No way to see which sites were considered, ranked, or rejected — or on what grounds.
    Elected Officials City Council and GISD trustees, whose constituents bear the impact, are not briefed on candidate parcels inside Georgetown.
  2. July 15, 2025 Cheaper option dies 2–2

    The $7M / 481-acre Florence site fails on a tie vote

    Commissioners deadlock 2–2 on entering due diligence for a rural 481-acre tract near Highway 195 priced around $7 million — one of the qualifying sites. The motion dies. No replacement direction is given publicly.

    Residents Eight months before CR 110, the county walked away from a site that was rural, cheaper, and far from any school — without a recorded rationale.
    Elected Officials A 2–2 deadlock on a $7M tract leaves the search direction unsettled — yet there is no public re-scoping or community input session afterward.

    Source: Community Impact, July 15, 2025

  3. Six months of silence. No public information sessions. No published short list.
  4. January 15, 2026 Only pre-vote info session

    The single public information session before any vote

    The county holds one public information session. No specific site is named. The CR 110 parcels are not disclosed. It is the only in-person engagement opportunity residents will get before a 5–0 land-purchase vote.

    Residents The one chance to ask questions in person came before there was anything specific to ask about.
    Elected Officials A single advance briefing is not a public-engagement program for a $75M, generational siting decision.
  5. March 3, 2026 Rescheduled — never rescheduled

    Second public session rescheduled. No new date is set.

    A second public information session is quietly postponed via a county CivicAlert. No replacement date is announced. The next session the public learns about is not posted until after the land vote.

    Residents The engagement track was effectively shut down weeks before the decision — without explanation.
    Elected Officials An open-ended postponement immediately before a major procurement is the kind of signal a council member should be told about. Georgetown leadership was not informed.
  6. March 9, 2026 $75.8M contract signed in private

    Purchase contract executed — with no public announcement

    A purchase contract for the four CR 110 parcels (~255 acres) is signed at $75,819,874. The named buyer on the contract is the county's paid real estate consultant, Scott Stribling, who will later assign the contract to the county. No press release. No agenda. No notice to neighbors.

    Residents The financial decision was effectively made before anyone in the surrounding neighborhoods even knew the parcels were in play.
    Elected Officials The contract structure — consultant signs, county later assigns — obscures the buyer of record at the moment of decision.
  7. March 10, 2026 Executive session

    Commissioners go behind closed doors — one day after the contract

    A closed executive session is convened the day after the contract is signed. The public is not told what is being discussed. There is no public deliberation on the record before the vote that follows.

  8. March 24, 2026 The cloaked vote

    $75.8M passes 5–0 on an agenda line that names nothing

    The agenda item reads only: "Assignment of Commercial Contract — Unimproved Property." No price. No jail. No mention of the schools. A resident in the room has to ask out loud what is being purchased. The response: "We'll talk about it when we get to that item." The vote passes 5–0.

    Residents No reason to attend. No way to comment. No mention of a jail next to a middle school on the public notice.
    Elected Officials The Texas Open Meetings Act requires agenda notices specific enough to inform the public on matters of special interest. A $75.8M jail siting is exactly that.
  9. March 25, 2026 Press release — after the fact

    The county finally describes what it bought — one day after the vote

    A county press release the next morning details the price, address, parcel numbers, and Justice Complex purpose. All of that information existed the day before. None of it appeared on the agenda the public was supposed to read.

  10. March 25, 2026 Engagement, now announced

    A "public information session" is posted — for four weeks later

    The next CivicAlert sets a public information session for April 21, 2026 — the day after the cloaked land vote. The first meaningful chance for residents to weigh in is now scheduled for nearly a month after the contract was approved.

    Residents "Public engagement" arrives in the calendar only after the binding decision is already made.
    Elected Officials The sequencing of communication after the vote — rather than before — is what County Judge Snell later described in terms of avoiding "sticker shock."
  11. April 21, 2026 First real public session

    Residents finally get to ask questions — 28 days late

    The public information session is held 28 days after the land was bought. By this point the option period is already a third gone. Affected neighborhoods — Carlson Place, Saddle Creek, Pinnacle, Churchill Farms, Summercrest, University Park — learn the scale of the project for the first time.

  12. May 6, 2026 TOMA letter filed

    Attorney Bill Aleshire formally calls out the cloaked vote

    A formal letter to County Judge Snell and County Attorney Hobbs asserts the March 24 vote violated the Texas Open Meetings Act and warns that the defect gives the Attorney General grounds to refuse approval of any public securities issued to finance the purchase. The county can't build a jail without financing it.

    Source: Aleshire letter (PDF)

  13. May 12, 2026 The public shows up

    Standing-room neighbors. 11 against, 1 in favor. Financing pulled.

    More than 30 neighbors pack Commissioners Court. Eleven speak against the site on the record; one speaks in favor. The financing vote is pulled from the agenda. Commissioner Boles and Judge Snell both say publicly the conversation with neighborhoods is not finished.

    Residents The first time the public participated at full strength, the county moved.
    Elected Officials The pull signals the agenda framing was insufficient on its own — engagement only happened once neighbors organized themselves.
  14. May 19, 2026 The 4–0 vote

    Commissioners voted 4–0 to proceed. The fight moves to City Hall.

    Commissioners Court voted 4–0 to proceed with the CR 110 site — ratifying the March 24 land vote via Item 44 and approving the related financing under Item 45. The financing was recharacterized from $135M certificates of obligation to $150M limited tax notes — a Chapter 1431 instrument that bypasses the public-notice and petition rights of Chapter 1271. The land deal is done. But the project is not: the site is inside Georgetown city limits and requires a zoning change from Georgetown City Council.

    Residents The decision sits with the city now. Any development needs a zoning change — with full public notice and a real hearing.
    Elected Officials The switch from certificates of obligation to limited tax notes is not cosmetic — it changes which statutory rights the public has to object. That choice deserves to be named on the agenda.

One info session. One cloaked vote. One ratification. That is the engagement record.

From the start of Kitchell's site search to the May 19 financing vote, residents of Georgetown's District 7 had exactly one in-person opportunity to ask questions about the Justice Complex before the county committed $75.8 million to a 255-acre site a third of a mile from two schools.

Every binding step happened on an agenda that did not name the project. Every meaningful chance to comment came after the decision was already made. That is not how a generational public-safety decision is supposed to be made.

Email Georgetown City Council →
The Price

$75.8 million for land WCAD values at $9.2 million

Williamson County paid 8.3 times what the appraisal district says these four parcels are worth. They paid more than ten times what a 481-acre rural alternative would have cost. They picked the most expensive option Kitchell put in front of them — and put it next to two schools.

The county is paying 8.3 times the appraised market value

Williamson County paid $75,819,874 for four parcels the Williamson Central Appraisal District values at $9,160,289 combined. That is a $66.66 million premium over appraised value — roughly 8.3 times the WCAD valuation.

The four parcels are R038820 (1200 CR 110, $4,908,531), R519352 (CR 110, $48,588), R432645 (3011 Maple St, $426,301), and R519356 (2180 Sam Houston Ave, $3,776,869).

All four parcels carry active agricultural exemptions, which can hold appraised values below open-market sale prices. WCAD market value is not identical to fair-market sale value. But an 8x gap warrants scrutiny — particularly when commissioners declined to even investigate a 481-acre rural alternative priced at approximately $7 million eight months earlier.

Source: Williamson Central Appraisal District (search.wcad.org) →

Kitchell identified 10 qualifying sites — the county paid $75.8M for this one

Kitchell, the county's project manager, evaluated 35-37 candidate sites and identified 10 that met the county's criteria. In July 2025, commissioners split 2-2 on entering a contract to begin due diligence on a Florence property near Highway 195 in the Georgetown ETJ — 481 acres priced at approximately $7 million, one of those 10 qualifying sites. The motion failed. Eight months later, commissioners unanimously approved a contract to purchase 253 acres on CR 110 for $75,819,874. That is a $68 million difference in land cost, for less acreage, placed next to two schools.

To be precise: the July vote was specifically against entering a contract to begin due diligence on the Florence site — not a vote against the location itself. Commissioners disagreed on whether a contract was needed before doing site evaluation.

Source: Community Impact, July 2025 →
Voices From City Hall

Georgetown's own officials confirm the problem

When Williamson County moves the jail next to Wagner Middle School and Mitchell Elementary, it is not theoretical that inmate release will create challenges. Two senior Georgetown officials have already said it does.

At the March 12, 2026 State of the City address, Georgetown City Manager David Morgan acknowledged what the current jail location creates downtown:

"Just think about it, everyone arrested in Williamson County is released in our downtown. I'm not saying all of them are homeless or experiencing homelessness, I'm not suggesting that. It just creates a dynamic."
David Morgan — Georgetown City Manager

Georgetown Police Chief Cory Tchida went further, describing the cycle of arrest, jail, and release as a "vicious cycle" — someone gets booked, held, and then released back onto the street still facing the same circumstances that led to the arrest.

Both statements are reported in a Community Impact article published April 23, 2026.

The county's answer just moves the problem

In the same article, Morgan said relocating the jail will "help alleviate the number of unhoused individuals" downtown.

That is honest. It is also exactly the issue.

The county is taking a documented dynamic, one that the City Manager and the Police Chief both publicly acknowledge, and relocating it to a corridor with limited walkable services, no fixed transit, no shelter capacity, and two schools serving roughly 1,700 children within walking distance.

The jail capacity is not staying the same either. Williamson County has confirmed an ultimate build-out of 3,000 to 3,500 beds. Whatever release dynamic exists today at a smaller downtown facility will scale up at the new location.

Moving a problem is not solving it. And when the new address sits a third of a mile from a middle school and under half a mile from an elementary school, the people most affected by that decision are the ones with the least say in it.

Yes, Williamson County's jail must be inside Georgetown city limits or its ETJ because Georgetown is the county seat. That requirement does not point to CR 110. The county's own consultant identified ten sites that met its criteria. They picked this one.

Source: Community Impact, April 23, 2026 →
News Coverage

Georgetown residents speak out

KVUE Austin covered community pushback on the proposed Williamson County Justice Complex site — including concerns about school proximity and the site selection process.

Source: KVUE Austin — Georgetown residents push back on proposed Williamson County Justice Center

Note: KVUE's report referenced a distance of approximately one mile. Based on map measurement, both George Wagner Middle School and Mitchell Elementary are approximately a third of a mile from the site entrance.

Our Position

We support the county. We're asking for better answers.

Williamson County needs a modern jail. The current downtown facility is outdated. This is not a campaign against the project itself.

What we're asking is why commissioners unanimously approved a site next to two schools and residential neighborhoods, when there is so much open land available in the county. And what the county's plan is for daily inmate releases into neighborhoods with limited services, no fixed transit, and students walking by.

"County convenience shouldn't take precedence over resident safety. There is plenty of open land in Williamson County that meets every criteria without being next to schools."
Georgetown resident and concerned parent
Why This Moment Matters

The land deal is done. The site question is not.

Commissioners approved the CR 110 land purchase in May. Since then, Georgetown's Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denying the Future Land Use Map change for the site (June 16, 5–1). City Council pulled that item from its July 14 agenda before it came to a vote.

The next public moments are the county's input sessions on August 22 and 27, and eventually a full zoning application to the city. Council members and the mayor need to hear from constituents before the next round begins, not for the first time at a hearing.

Email your council member. Share this page with your neighbors. Subscribe so you know the moment the next item lands on an agenda.

Email City Council → Get Notified When Filed Follow on Facebook →
Take Action

Email Georgetown City Council. The zoning fight is next.

The county approved the land purchase in May. Since then, the site question has shifted to Georgetown City Council, which controls the zoning changes required for any development at the CR 110 site. That is the next front, and it is where your voice carries the most weight right now.

The most useful thing you can do right now: email City Council and the Mayor so they know where you stand before the next hearing. Council Member Ben Stewart is already engaged. The rest of council and the mayor should hear from constituents now, not for the first time when an item hits the agenda.

Written emails go on the record and carry more weight than phone calls. Keep yours short, factual, and polite. Use your own words.

City of Georgetown

The proposed site sits in District 1, less than a mile from neighborhoods across Districts 1, 6, and 7. Council members and the Mayor will weigh in on the zoning change required for any development at this location.

A few sentences in your own words carries more weight than anything copied and pasted.

Mayor Josh Schroeder

Mayor, City of Georgetown
Email

Council Member Amanda Parr

District 1, proposed site falls within this district
Email

Council Member Shawn Hood

District 2
Email

Council Member Ben Butler

District 3
Email

Council Member Ron Garland

District 4
Email

Council Member Kevin Pitts

District 5
Email

Council Member Jake French

District 6
Email

Council Member Ben Stewart

District 7, represents the affected school and residential corridor
Email
Georgetown ISD

Dr. Devin Padavil

GISD has confirmed it is actively engaging with county commissioners on this issue. The district has no authority over the land purchase, but community pressure matters. Let Dr. Padavil know you expect that engagement to continue.
Email
What to include: Your name and address so they know you're a constituent. Your specific concerns about school proximity and inmate-release infrastructure on the CR 110 corridor. Ask Council to scrutinize any zoning change request for this site with full public notice and a real hearing. Your own words carry more weight than a form letter.
Your Own Words

Write your own short email. Here's what to include.

Our city councilor told us form letters are usually ignored. A short, personal email in your own words carries far more weight than anything copied and pasted. It does not need to be long. A few sentences is enough.

Pick the points that matter most to you and write a brief email. Be polite. Be specific. Sign your name and include your address so they know you are a constituent.

What to include

  1. Your name and address. This tells them you are a real constituent in their district or city.
  2. Why you are writing. One sentence. Example: "I am writing about the proposed Williamson County Justice Complex at 1200 CR 110."
  3. The specific concern that matters most to you. Pick one or two from the points below. You do not need to list all of them.

Points you can draw from

Close with a polite ask

End with a clear, courteous ask. A few examples:

Thank them for their time and service.

Show up in person

Speak at Planning & Zoning and City Council.

The CR 110 site is inside Georgetown city limits, and any development requires city approval. That happens through the Planning & Zoning Commission and then City Council, both with public hearings on the record.

P&Z already voted 5–1 in June to recommend denying the Future Land Use Map change for this site, and Council pulled that item from its July 14 agenda before it came to a vote. Both items can return, and the county's full zoning application still has not been filed. When either lands on an agenda, that is the moment to be in the room.

Agendas and the sign-up process for public comment are posted on the city's site.

What you can do now: Subscribe to updates below so you know the moment a related zoning item is posted, and email your council member ahead of time so they hear from constituents before staff briefings start.
Georgetown City Council → Planning & Zoning →
Previous Updates

The story so far

Key developments in this fight, in the order they happened. The evidence is spelled out in The Case above. This is the chronology.

  1. March 9, 2026
    Purchase contract signed. County commits $75.8 million for 253 acres at CR 110 and Sam Houston. No public notice.
  2. March 24, 2026
    Public vote passes 5-0 on an agenda item labeled "Assignment of Commercial Contract, Unimproved Property." No mention of a jail, a price, or nearby schools. Full timeline →
  3. May 6, 2026
    Open-meetings letter delivered. Attorney Bill Aleshire sends County Judge Snell and County Attorney Dee Hobbs a formal letter citing the March 24 vote as a Texas Open Meetings Act violation and requesting a re-vote with a corrected agenda.
  4. May 12, 2026
    Commissioners Court agenda includes Items 42, 44, and 45 on Justice Complex financing and reimbursement. No re-vote on the land purchase itself.
  5. May 19, 2026
    Commissioners vote 4-0 to proceed with the CR 110 site after over an hour of resident testimony. Next stop is Georgetown City Council for a zoning change.
  6. May 21, 2026
    Community meeting at Carver Elementary hosted by Council Member Ben Stewart. Neighbors gathered to organize for the zoning fight ahead.
  7. June 16, 2026
    Georgetown Planning & Zoning Commission votes 5-1 to recommend denying the Future Land Use Map change for Area 4, the CR 110 site.
  8. July 14, 2026
    City Council's Area 4 vote was pulled from the agenda before the meeting. The Future Land Use Map change did not come to a vote.
  9. August 4, 2026
    Court splits on the $420,000 "community engagement" request. $300,000 of it was site design work, not engagement. A $140,000 listening-sessions-only version passed instead, with design consultants kept out of the room. Boles, Snell, and Cook all raised concerns about the process before public input.