Williamson County commissioners are scheduled to vote May 19, 2026, on $135 million in debt financing for a planned justice complex, a project officials estimate could eventually reach $600 million.
The vote proceeds despite arguments from an Austin attorney who contends the county’s initial purchase of the 253-acre site violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA).
The dispute centers on a March 24 vote to purchase four parcels in southeast Georgetown for approximately $75.8 million. Attorney Bill Aleshire, a former Travis County judge, argues the county committed tens of millions of dollars through an agenda item that failed to name the price, location, or purpose of the acquisition, in violation of TOMA.
While the county has not publicly addressed the specific legal arguments, Commissioner Valerie Covey stated that private negotiations were necessary to avoid driving up the landowner’s asking price.
According to county officials, the current justice center and jail were built in 1990 to serve a population of 139,000, which has since grown to more than 734,000.
Sheriff Matt Lindaman and District Attorney Shawn Dick described deteriorating conditions at the existing site, including employee exposure to sewer gas, flooding that damaged evidence, and a shortage of courtrooms for new district courts. Officials argue the proposed 253-acre site in southeast Georgetown is essential for a six-phase expansion to meet the county’s growing needs.
Residents have raised several objections to the development. Speakers at a May 12 commissioners meeting questioned why the county agreed to pay $75.8 million for property the Williamson Central Appraisal District valued at roughly one-eighth of that price.
County officials attributed this disparity to preferential agricultural tax valuations, which reflect a specific assessment method rather than current market value. Further, residents expressed safety concerns regarding the site’s proximity to two Georgetown school campuses and neighborhoods built between 2018 and 2023.
The legality of the March vote remains a central point of contention. Aleshire’s May 6 letter requested the county repost the item and hold a new vote to comply with descriptive notice requirements.
Commissioner Covey defended the agenda language—titled “Assignment of Commercial Contract, Unimproved Property”—by citing state laws that permit private real estate negotiations. Commissioners pulled the financing items from the May 12 agenda following public pressure but are set to revisit the certificates of obligation—a debt instrument that does not require voter approval—on May 19.
“There’s been no decision about the jail and the jail site,” County Judge Steve Snell stated at the May 12 meeting, adding that he is “still gathering information”.