Lago Vista taxpayers pay $96 more after two budget cuts fail

A median-valued home is estimated to owe $1,358.06 in city tax for the year. That is $96.12 more than in the current fiscal year.⁸

We did the math for the bill at the $0.446795 rate and how it compares, the $46,000 parks savings, the $67,300 and $29,500 council line totals, the $175,500 breakdown, and the reserve comparison. Every other figure comes from the records we cite.

Our earlier story, Lago Vista's General Fund reserve tripled to $16.5 million, reported the Sept. 17 vote and the $0.451988 rate.⁶ It also reported that the mayor's options page recommended a $0.42 rate and $824,192 in cuts, and that both Sept. 25 motions failed.^1,2 This story adds how the meeting came about, what each member said and proposed, and what the choice could mean for taxpayers.⁹

The city's meeting portal listed no minutes for the Sept. 25 meeting when we checked on Oct. 2, so the Sept. 25 votes here come from our own transcription of the meeting video.¹⁰

What the rate is and who decides it

A city property tax rate is stated in dollars for each $100 of assessed value, and the council's levy ordinance, the local law that sets the tax, fixes it.¹¹ The council is the mayor and six council members, and the mayor votes on every item.¹² They are Mayor Shane Saum, Mayor Pro Tem Norma Owen, and Council Members Jess Hall, Adam Benefield, Amanda Chavarria, Karen Van Ness, and Paul Prince.¹³ The council elects a mayor pro tem from its members, who acts as mayor when the mayor is absent.¹²

The 2026-27 rate is $0.451988, up from $0.4200 the year before.⁶

Sept. 17, the council adopts the budget

The city put draft minutes of the Sept. 17 meeting in its Oct. 1 council packet. The Oct. 1 agenda asks the council to approve them.¹⁴ Those minutes record a budget public hearing from 4:41 p.m. to 5:08 p.m.¹⁵

The budget cover labels the $0.451988 rate the "No New Revenue Rate."⁶ The Texas Comptroller says that rate "would produce the same amount of taxes if applied to the same properties taxed in both years."¹⁶ The budget raises $143,182.44 more in total property taxes than last year, a 1.36 percent increase.⁶

Owen moved to adopt the budget ordinance, and Prince seconded.^4,5,15 The mayor held a roll-call vote, where each member answers aloud, and the motion passed 4 to 3. The council also passed Resolution No. 26-2223, which ratifies the increase in total property tax revenue, by 4 to 3.⁴ The ordinance that levies the tax passed by the same count.¹⁷

Sept. 20, Hall asks for a special meeting

Hall voted for the budget on Sept. 17.^4,5 Three days later, on Sept. 20, he posted on the council's public message board. He wrote, "I have requested that Mayor Saum schedule a Special Called Meeting of the Lago Vista City Council as soon as possible."⁹

Hall wrote that "none of the three that voted against that budget proposed any alternatives." He wrote that he believed residents wanted to hear what budgets those three members would propose.⁹

Saum answered the same day.^9,18 He wrote that he would ask the city attorney and city manager whether the council could still revise the budget and tax rate. "If counsel confirms that path, I am happy to call a special meeting," he wrote.¹⁸

The Sept. 25 meeting was a special called meeting, not one of the council's regular meetings.¹³ Under the city charter, "The Mayor may call special meetings of the Council" and set the agenda.¹²

Saum attached his own revised budget. He wrote that it returns the rate to $0.420000 by cutting about $824,000 in General Fund spending and subsidies.¹⁸ The General Fund is the city's "primary operating fund," its audit says.¹⁹ Saum also wrote, "I also do not believe we need the input of staff."¹⁸

Sept. 21 to 23, members weigh in on the board

On Sept. 21, Owen posted an analysis titled "The Budget Tradeoff." "The central question is not whether Council can mathematically reach $0.42. It can," she wrote. She asked what the city and its residents "are willing to give up or place at risk to reach it."²⁰

Owen laid out three options. The council could adopt the $0.42 rate, keep the adopted rate and control spending, or approve only cuts it had verified. She wrote that the third option "may produce a rate between $0.42 and $0.451988."²⁰

On Sept. 23, Van Ness posted her view. "In my opinion, it would be irresponsible to approve the Mayor's proposed budget at the .42 rate," she wrote. She wrote that she needed "a fuller analysis from the interim city manager and staff" before she could consider it. She also wrote, "I also object to the demotion and defunding of the parks and recreation department."²¹

The mayor's revised budget options

Saum submitted the Sept. 25 item to amend the budget ordinance.²² The packet attaches a file named "Mayor_Saum_FY27_Revised_Budget_Options.pdf" to that item.²³ Its options page recommends a $0.420000 total rate and $824,192 in General Fund reductions. The page leaves a $50,363 General Fund margin at that rate.²

Department line cuts make up $700,192 of the General Fund total. Cuts of $50,000 and $74,000 to the General Fund's subsidies for the aviation and golf funds make up the rest. A worksheet says reaching $0.42 needs $752,737 less revenue.²⁴

The mayor's line-item table cuts the city manager salary line from $225,000 to $200,000.^2,23,25 It removes a $25,000 city manager contingency line, with the note "We should not allow unassigned expenses." Legal services would fall from $450,000 to $350,000. The $115,000 parks director line would go away, and a $69,000 parks manager line would take its place.²⁵

Street materials would fall from $200,000 to $150,000, with the note "Rely more on Phase 3 bond projects." A $28,000 street light installation line would be removed, with the note "Deferred until 2028." The table drops eight of the council's own budget lines to zero, a total of $67,300. It also cuts the General Fund transfer to the golf course from $170,000 to $96,000 and ends a $50,000 transfer to aviation.²⁵

Sept. 25, Hall explains his request

The meeting was set for 4 p.m. in the City Council chambers.¹³ The chair turned to Hall first and said, "This was your request for a special meeting." Hall said the council had only one budget proposal on its Sept. 17 agenda. He said he voted for it because state law required a budget by Sept. 30 and he thought he had no other choice.¹

Hall said he asked the mayor whether the council could meet again to revise the adopted budget and tax rate. He said the city attorney researched it and found that the council could, so the meeting was scheduled. He said he did not know the detail of "questionable line items" when he voted on Sept. 17. "There is no question that budget cuts must be made," he said.¹

Sept. 25, Benefield moves to adopt the $0.42 plan

Benefield said only two choices made sense, the $0.451988 budget or the $0.42 budget. "Anything in between just hasn't been scrutinized," he said. He also said, "I know it's only $100," but called it "a day's worth of wages."¹

Benefield then moved to approve Ordinance No. 26-09-25-01, which amends the budget ordinance.^1,26 His motion cuts budgeted General Fund property tax revenue to $5,495,557 to reflect a $0.42 rate.¹ It adds $50,363 to two aquatics lines, the same amount as the margin on the mayor's options page.^1,2

The motion treats $200,000 in tree replacement fee revenue as restricted. It says $567,449 in omitted debt service costs are "included within and not in addition to the published expenditure." It allows repayable General Fund cash advances to the Aviation Fund and has the Utility Fund reimburse the Golf Fund for documented costs.¹

In our transcription, the chair then said, "I have a second from Councilor Chavarria." The city's transcript stops before the name.¹

Sept. 25, the debate on the $0.42 plan

Chavarria said the reason she voted no was "a fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to fiscal responsibility." She said her household is down to one income. She said, "This increase would increase my taxes almost $190."¹

Van Ness said she was not comfortable voting for any cut in the tax rate "until we hear from staff." She said residents had told her they worried about basic services. "There's just no room for anything to go wrong," she said.¹

Saum said that if members were going to ask the three no votes for a budget, he had just shown them his. He told Hall, "There's no in between." "For me, it's the 42 or it's none," he said.¹

Sept. 25, the first vote

A council member called the question, which is a motion to stop debate. The chair said the vote to end debate was unanimous. The chair then began a roll-call vote on Benefield's motion, starting with Prince. Prince answered, "I'm a nay on the motion."¹

In our transcription, Van Ness answered next, "I'm a nay."³ The chair, the one member not called on, answered, "I'm a yay."^3,12

Owen answered, "I'm a nay."^3,13

Chavarria answered, "I'm a yay." Benefield answered "yes."¹ The chair announced a 3 to 3 count and called on Hall, who answered, "I'm a nay." The chair then said, "the motion fails."³

Sept. 25, the interim city manager and the mayor respond

Interim City Manager Isaac Turner spoke after the vote.^1,3,5 He said council members would have chances over the next year to question staff about the budget. "We hear you loudly," he said.¹

Saum then said the budget he proposed is the one he will use to review all staff budgets.^1,22 He said that even though his budget was "not getting approved tonight," it is his "baseline." "That's where I start next year's budget," he said.¹

Sept. 25, Owen moves a $0.446795 plan

Owen then moved a second plan, for a $0.446795 rate.^1,13 She said she had found "a few things" that could bring the rate to that level.¹

Prince seconded, saying "because I want to discuss it." He then asked her to repeat the line items.¹

Her list would have cut legal services by $100,000.¹ It would have lowered the parks director line from $115,000 to $69,000.^1,25 She said the council could amend the budget later, using reserves, if the city finds someone for the job. The plan also would have dropped the council's lines for training and similar items but kept the information technology line, which she tied to the meeting video service.¹

Owen put the total at $175,500.^1,13 The legal cut would save $100,000 and the parks change would save $46,000.^1,25 The council lines other than information technology total $29,500 in the packet's table.²⁵ Together those three changes add up to her $175,500.^1,25

Sept. 25, the debate and the second vote

Benefield said he would vote no on Owen's plan.^1,13 "I support the 0.42," he said.¹ He called her plan "the least vetted of all the options."^1,13

Hall said he was open to proposals "that would reduce our tax rate, even if it's just a little bit." Prince said the city "actually had a parks director that got things done." He added, "I'm going to be a no on this one."¹

The chair then called the roll, and Prince answered "no."¹ In our transcription, Van Ness and the chair each answered, "I'm a nay," and Owen's answer cannot be made out.^3,13 Chavarria and Benefield each answered "nay."¹

Hall said he was "not clear on what the motion is" and asked for a restatement.¹ Owen restated it as taking $175,500 off the budget to reduce the rate to 0.446795.^1,13

Hall then said, "I will vote in support of that to reduce the tax rate." The chair announced, "The motion fails 2 to 5." The chair then said no other business remained on the action items.¹

How they voted

On Sept. 17, Owen, Prince, Van Ness, and Hall voted yes on the budget ordinance.^4,5,15 Saum, Benefield, and Chavarria voted no.⁴ The same four voted yes, and the same three voted no, on the levy ordinance.^4,17 Those minutes are drafts, and the Oct. 1 agenda asks the council to approve them.¹⁴

The city's portal listed no minutes for the Sept. 25 meeting on Oct. 2, so the Sept. 25 votes below come from our own transcription of the video and are not confirmed.¹⁰ The roll-call form for the budget amendment is blank in the packet.^26,27 The form for the levy amendment is blank too.^11,28

We count the chair's answers as Mayor Saum's, because the charter has the mayor preside and he was the one member the chair did not call on.^3,12,13 On the $0.42 plan, Saum, Chavarria, and Benefield voted yes in our transcription.^1,3,12,13 Owen, Hall, Van Ness, and Prince voted no.^3,13

On the $0.446795 plan, Saum, Van Ness, Chavarria, Benefield, and Prince voted no.^3,12,13 Hall said he would vote in support, and Owen's answer cannot be made out.^3,13 The chair announced that the motion failed 2 to 5.¹

What it means for you

The city estimates the 2026-27 city tax bill on a median-valued homestead at $1,358.06.⁸ That home has a taxable value of $300,463.²⁹ Under the $0.42 plan, the bill would have matched the current $1,261.94. That is $96.12 below the adopted bill.⁸

Under the $0.446795 plan, the same home would have owed about $1,342.45.^1,29 That is $15.61 below the adopted bill and $80.51 above the current bill.⁸ Reaching $0.42 would have meant $752,737 less revenue for the city.²⁴ Of the $0.451988 rate, $0.186463 pays debt service, which is the city's loan payments.^6,11

Renters could feel the rate too. The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, says property taxes on rental units "may be passed onto renters in the form of higher rent payments."³⁰

The city's cushion matters for what a cut could cost later.³¹ The General Fund held $16,244,693 that was not set aside for any purpose on Sept. 30, 2025.¹⁹ The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), a group of government finance officials, recommends keeping at least "two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures."³¹ The mayor's options page lists $13,220,696 in approved General Fund spending.²

Two months of that is about $2.2 million, and the reserve on the audit date equaled about 14.7 months.^2,19

Reserves also affect what the city pays to borrow. GFOA lists a city's bond ratings and "the corresponding increased cost of borrowed funds" among the things to weigh in setting a reserve level.³¹ Moody's, a credit rating firm, says reserves show whether a city's resources "would be sufficient to bridge temporary budget imbalances."³²

Owen wrote that the reserve could shrink. By her count, about $19 million of identified infrastructure repairs and improvements sit outside the current operating budget. In her view, the city was already on a path toward "a very tight reserve position" sometime between 2029 and 2032. The timing, in her words, "cannot be responsibly forecast" until an engineer-validated capital plan is done.²⁰

Putting off road upkeep could cost more later.³³ The $0.42 plan would have cut street materials by $50,000 and put off $28,000 of street light work.²⁵ The Federal Highway Administration says letting pavement wear out until it must be rebuilt leads to "higher costs and more pavements in poor condition."³³ Owen wrote that such cuts "may move costs to bond proceeds or a future budget."²⁰

The golf course and the airport each run their own fund.^2,25 The $0.42 plan would have cut the General Fund's help to golf by $74,000 and to aviation by $50,000.²⁴ GFOA says that when a fee is meant to recover costs, the city should "identify cost recovery goals and how costs are to be calculated."³⁴

Both motions failed, so the lines they would have cut stay as adopted.¹ The mayor's table lists $450,000 for legal services and $115,000 for a parks director in its approved column.²⁵ The rate covers the fiscal year from Oct. 1, 2026, to Sept. 30, 2027.¹¹ The mayor said his plan is where he starts next year's budget.¹

Where it stands

Both Sept. 25 motions to cut the budget failed.¹ The Sept. 17 draft minutes show the budget, the tax-revenue resolution, and the levy ordinance each passing 4 to 3.^4,14,17 The interim city manager said council members will have chances to question staff over the coming year.^1,5

What we could not find

• Minutes for the Sept. 25 meeting. The city's portal listed none on Oct. 2.¹⁰
• Owen's answer on the $0.446795 roll call. Our transcription marks it inaudible, and the city's transcript skips it.^1,3
• A record that names who seconded Benefield's motion. Our transcription hears Chavarria's name, and the city's transcript cuts off before it.¹
• Whether the council approved the Sept. 17 minutes on Oct. 1. The packet only asks for approval.¹⁴
• An explanation of the $565,049 gap. The mayor's options page says the published cover total exceeds the line items plus listed supplemental packages by that amount.² Owen called it "the missing approximately $565,049 Series 2026 bond-interest expense."²⁰
• A worksheet showing how $175,500 in cuts reaches $0.446795. The records we reviewed include none.¹

What you can do

• Ask the City Secretary, Robin Smith, for the Sept. 25 minutes when they are posted.²⁹
• Ask Finance for the reconciliation of the $565,049 gap.²
• Read the council's message board, where members post their views before votes.⁹
• To speak at a council meeting, submit the citizen comments form.¹³
• Read the line items named above when staff bring the next budget.¹

If you have records on this, you can share them with us at /share-records. We protect your identity and publish the evidence when we can do so safely.