Lago Vista council leaves charter rewrite off November ballot

Lago Vista voters will not see any city charter changes on the November 3, 2026, ballot.¹ On August 6, 2026, the City Council took no action on a draft ordinance that would have put 20 charter amendments on that ballot.^2,3 The state deadline to order a November election was August 17, the city attorney said on the meeting video.⁴ The amendments would have limited growth in General Fund operating spending. They would have required a plain-language Taxpayer Impact Statement and an effort to hold an advisory vote before certificates of obligation and other tax-supported debt.³ They would have required the largest homestead exemption state law allows, which the mayor said the city already grants.^3,5 The draft ordinance listed the estimated fiscal impact of the amendments as "zero at this time."³ The last time voters changed the charter was November 2, 2021, when all 14 proposed amendments on the ballot passed.^3,6,7,8 The records we reviewed do not show what the 2024-26 review has cost in legal fees, or what a stand-alone charter election would cost.^9,10

What the 20 proposals would have done

The draft ordinance split the rewrite into 20 ballot questions, labeled A through T, so voters could approve or reject each one.³

Taxes, spending and debt

Proposition O would cap General Fund operating-spending growth at the lesser of 3.5%, combined population growth and inflation, or any state limit, with stated exceptions. Going over the cap would take five council votes after a separate public hearing and written findings.³

Proposition P would require a plain-language Taxpayer Impact Statement and an effort to hold a non-binding advisory referendum before the city issues certificates of obligation or other tax-supported debt that does not already need voter approval. It would also require findings and an Emergency Financing Report for debt issued in an emergency.³ The draft charter says the advisory vote would guide the council but would not limit its power to issue debt. The advisory-vote rule does not apply to refunding bonds that do not add to the city's debt, or to emergencies "requiring immediate action to protect the public health, safety, or welfare."¹¹

Proposition P's rules would apply to future certificates of obligation like the ones an earlier Watchdog story examined.³ That story, Lago Vista's golf course got $2.8 million in public subsidies, found the city spent $2,284,692 of its 2006 certificates of obligation on "Golf Course Acquisition" in the 2007-08 budget year.¹² It also found that the city's Series 2024 certificates of obligation list "effluent dispersal irrigation" among their uses.¹³ Property taxes collected for the city's Debt Service fund repay both.¹⁰

• Proposition Q would require the city to grant the maximum homestead exemption state law allows.³
• Proposition N would rewrite the budget and finance article and require the council to adopt a financial reserve policy for the General Fund and Utility Fund.³

Voters and elections

Proposition L would set initiative and referendum petitions at 10% of registered voters.³ It would also cut the recall petition threshold to 5%, half the 10% voters approved in 2021.^3,6,14 Its ballot language describes a new petition for an "advisory" property-tax-rate referendum, signed by 15% of registered voters.³ The draft charter section it would add describes a petition for an election on adopting a property tax rate, if state law allows one, signed by 15% of voters or the state minimum, whichever is greater.¹⁵

• Propositions J and K would require a majority vote to win a council seat or the mayor's office, with a runoff between the top two candidates.³
• Proposition F would make terms for the mayor and council members three years instead of two, with staggered terms phased in.³
• Proposition R would keep the charter's voter-approval rule for selling or leasing a city utility but drop parks and swimming pools from it.^3,8

The council and city staff

Proposition E would rewrite the council article, letting 18-year-olds run for office, requiring 12 months of residency before the filing deadline and making any four members a quorum.³ Under the draft charter, it would fill vacancies by special election within 120 days, allowing an appointment to a council seat only when 12 months or less remain in the term.¹⁶

Proposition E would also rewrite the rules the council used to censure the mayor in 2024.^3,17 Per the chart, signature authority would extend to the mayor pro tem as well as the mayor.³ Removal hearings would be public by default, a change the council declined to take up in 2021.^3,18 Removing a council member would take five votes instead of four. Lesser penalties could include a suspension of up to 30 days or a loss of voting rights for up to 90 days, with the fine option removed.³

Proposition I would rewrite the article on the city manager, city secretary, municipal court, city attorney and police department. It would add provisions to that article on an ethics policy and code of conduct, limits on political activity by city officers and employees, and whistleblower protection.³ The charter already has sections on the first two, which Proposition T would move into that article.^3,8

Proposition I would also change which positions need council approval to be hired or removed. Instead of "department heads," the rule would cover a defined list of "Municipal Officers," the city manager, city secretary, city attorney, police chief and municipal court judge.³ An earlier Watchdog story, Lago Vista agreed to pay $210,291 to settle with its city manager, reported on an October 17, 2024, agenda item about the city's practice on separation agreements. The agenda item said that practice "lacks fiscal transparency and potentially circumvents the City Charter's requirement for Council approval for the termination of department heads."¹⁹

• Proposition G would let a member abstain without stating a reason unless law requires one.³
• Proposition H would set procedures for adopting and publishing ordinances and resolutions, including emergency ordinances.³
• Proposition M would keep the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Adjustment and write a Building and Standards Commission into the charter.³ The city already has that commission, and the council appointed members to it in December 2024.²⁰

Structure

• Proposition A would add a definitions section. Proposition B would set the city's boundaries by ordinance and an official map kept by the city secretary.³
• Proposition C would keep the council-manager form of government and the city's home-rule powers, including eminent domain and zoning. Proposition D would move the charter's general provisions on general laws, exemption from execution and garnishment, and reservation of defenses to Article II. Proposition T would move those and other general provisions to Articles II, III and V, retitle the rest as Article XII and renumber the charter, without changing the substance of any moved provision.³
• Proposition S would require a charter review at least every five years by five or seven members.³

2021, the last review and the last charter changes

Charter Section 11.14 requires the council to appoint a citizens committee of three to six residents, serving 12-month terms the council may extend, to review the charter at least every four years. The committee can compel city officers and records, and must give the council a written report of its findings and proposed amendments.⁸

On March 18, 2021, Resolution 21-1879 appointed six residents to the Charter Review Committee, with terms set to expire in March 2022. The committee members were Frank Robbins, Paul Roberts, Gage Hunt, Christina Lucero, Carter Tannehill and Robert Durbin.²¹ Council Member Kevin Sullivan moved the resolution and Council Member David Williams seconded it.^21,22 Per the committee's February 5, 2025, minutes, the 2021 committee's recommendations went to the council on July 22, 2021, with 52 items.²³ The council's July 22, 2021, agenda packet lists the committee's proposed changes section by section in a "Change Table."²⁴ On July 22, the council discussed the recommendations and took no action.²⁵ On July 29, the council took up the recommendations item by item. Mayor Ed Tidwell's motion that night to move the start of the fiscal year from October 1 to December 1 died for lack of a second.¹⁸

• The council voted 5 to 1, with Sullivan voting no, to move forward with cutting the recall petition threshold from 20% to 10%.¹⁸
• It voted unanimously to move forward with two readings for debt ordinances, and 5 to 0 to have staff draft petition language for Sections 8.10 and 8.11 consistent with state law.¹⁸
• The council declined several other changes, including one to Section 3.05 on pay. It voted 4 to 2 to take no action on changing Section 3.08 about open or executive session. Sullivan, Mayor Pro Tem Arch Davila, Council Member Dick Weatherly and Mayor Tidwell voted yes, and Council Member Chelaine Marion and Council Member Paul Prince voted no.¹⁸

On August 4, 2021, the council approved final ballot language for 13 substantive items and one non-substantive item.^23,26 It approved the language for each item unanimously, one at a time.²⁶ On August 10, the council voted unanimously for Ordinance 21-08-10-02, ordering a November 2, 2021, special election on 14 charter amendments, on a motion by Sullivan and a second by Prince.^22,27 The ordinance noted that the election would be held more than 78 days after the ordinance was adopted.²⁷

In a letter dated August 24, 2021, Mayor Tidwell and Davila filed a written complaint against committee chairman Robert Durbin. It alleged Durbin violated Charter Section 11.14 by requesting information from a department head beyond his role as chair, in an attempt to change duties of the Board of Adjustment he also chaired. It also alleged he violated Section 3.23 by trying to direct two city staff members.²⁸ On September 2, the council voted unanimously to table the complaint and had staff schedule a preliminary hearing.²⁹ On September 22, the council held that hearing, heard comments from four people, and voted unanimously to dismiss the complaint, on a motion by Marion and a second by Prince. The records we reviewed do not say what, if anything, the complaint cost the city.³⁰

On November 2, 2021, voters approved all 14 amendments.^6,7

• Proposition A, letting the city annex city-owned land that does not touch the city limits, as state law allows, passed 819 to 433.⁷
• Proposition B, making the city secretary the judge of candidates' qualifications, as state law provides, passed 775 to 475.⁷
• Proposition C, clarifying that a required ordinance may regulate people, property or both, passed 753 to 458.⁷
• Proposition D, aligning the rules for enacting ordinances with state law, passed 864 to 318.⁷
• Proposition E, requiring the city secretary to codify and keep all amendments to a Code of Ordinances, and providing access to other adopted codes without requiring the city to provide printed copies, passed 882 to 327.⁷
• Proposition F, requiring five affirmative council votes to appoint the city manager or change the manager's compensation, passed 1,069 to 169.^6,7,14,27
• Proposition G, correcting a cross-reference about council investigations, passed 956 to 233.⁷
• Proposition H, aligning the appointment of municipal judges and court clerks, and judges' pay, with state law, passed 968 to 224.⁷
• Proposition I, deleting an outdated sentence about earlier council terms, passed 1,013 to 188.⁷
• Proposition J, cutting the recall petition threshold from 20% to 10% of registered voters, passed 659 to 573, the closest of the 14 votes.^6,7,14,27
• Proposition K, applying limits on recall petitions equally to newly elected and re-elected officials, passed 1,039 to 193.⁷
• Proposition L, requiring two readings for debt ordinances and putting bond petitions and elections under state law, passed 968 to 204.^6,14,27
• Proposition M, cutting the threshold for a petition protesting new debt from 10% to 5% of registered voters, passed 691 to 517.^6,7,14,27 Under that section, if enough voters sign such a petition in time, the city cannot issue the debt unless voters approve it at an election.⁸
• Proposition N, correcting grammar and typing errors, passed 1,071 to 139.⁷

The charter's petition rules cover certificates of obligation as well as bonds. Under the charter, general obligation bonds other than refunding bonds need voter approval, while certificates of obligation need a public hearing and go to a vote only if enough voters petition.⁸

On the November 2 ballot, three of the 2021 committee's own members also won council seats. Gage Hunt won Place 1 unopposed, and Paul Roberts won Place 5 over two write-in candidates.^6,21 Robert Durbin, listed on the ballot as Rob Durbin, won Place 3 over a write-in candidate.^6,21,31 On November 15, 2021, the council made the results official by canvassing them in Ordinance 21-11-15-01.⁷

The city's 2022 election notice lists a Capital Metro continuation question and a conditional sales tax measure, not charter items, and the 2023 notice lists only the mayor's seat and three council seats.^32,33

2024, the mayor's censure and an ethics complaint

On April 4, 2024, the council voted 5 to 1, with Mayor Kevin Sullivan opposed, to adopt Resolution 24-2056. The resolution stated facts the council found to be true, to be used in seeking a federal exemption that would allow immediate FAA and TxDOT funding for maintenance and capital projects at Rusty Allen Airport.³⁴ The later censure resolution says 24-2056 directed Sullivan not to tell TxDOT or the FAA that he spoke for the city on airport matters. Sullivan did not sign Resolution 24-2056. On April 18, the city secretary received a sworn complaint that Sullivan had violated Charter Section 3.06 by refusing to sign the resolution, and the council took it up under Section 3.08.¹⁷ On May 2, the council voted 5 to 1, with Council Member Stephanie Smith opposed and Sullivan abstaining, to investigate and hold a hearing.³⁵ At the May 13 hearing, the council found unanimously that Sullivan had not violated Section 3.06(d), then voted 5 to 1, Smith opposed, that he had violated Section 3.06(i) by not signing the resolution. One censure motion that night died for lack of a second, another tied 3 to 3, and a third was withdrawn. A fourth passed 4 to 2, with Smith and Council Member Rob Durbin opposed, directing the attorney to draft censure language.³⁶

On June 20, the council passed Resolution 24-2062, which publicly censures Sullivan "for willfully and knowingly violating Charter Section 3.06." The vote was 5 to 1, with Smith opposed, on a motion by Durbin and a second by Council Member Shane Saum. The resolution ordered the censure posted on the city's website and published in the Austin American-Statesman.^17,37 On the meeting video, one speaker asked what publishing the censure would cost, and the reply gave no figure but said the Hill Country News costs less.³⁸ Another speaker said the Statesman had a bigger readership, and the resolution the council passed kept the Statesman.^17,38

Later in 2024, Council Member Paul Roberts, a member of the 2021 committee, was the subject of an ethics complaint filed August 15, and the city's agenda packet listed its financial impact as "N/A."^21,39,40 The records we reviewed do not say what it alleged.³⁹ On August 29, a motion to move it to a final hearing tied 3 to 3 and failed. The council then voted 5 to 1, Saum opposed, to have the city attorney write to the person who filed it. The letter was to give the filer 10 days to refile an amended complaint.⁴¹ On October 3, the council voted 5 to 0 to direct the city attorney to act as discussed in closed session on hiring outside counsel for an ethics complaint. The minutes say hiring outside counsel was "as required by Section 1.1811 of the City Code of Ordinances." The minutes do not name the complaint, but a note printed just above that item says Roberts "recused himself during the executive session discussion of this item and during the vote on this item."⁴² On November 7, the council voted 5 to 0 to dismiss the Roberts complaint "because it fails to allege violation of the ethics policy."⁴⁰

The 2024-26 review

On December 5, 2024, the council voted 7 to 0 for Resolution 24-2095, naming Council Members Paul Prince and Shane Saum as liaisons to a new Charter Review Committee.⁴³ On December 19, it voted unanimously to appoint six residents to the committee under Resolution 24-2097, chosen from 13 applications.^20,44 At the committee's first meeting on January 13, 2025, members elected Lynda Aird chair, Jennifer Minton vice chair and Robert Owen secretary, with Gene Harris, Tracey Pitts and Mike Slaughter rounding out the panel. The committee aimed for recommendations "for inclusion in the 2025 General Election, if so recommended."⁴⁵ At the next meeting, Chair Aird said the committee had until the end of June or early July for a more thorough review.⁴⁶

On June 5 and June 26, 2025, the council heard the committee's first recommendations, including three-year terms and new gift rules.^47,48 Members raised questions about special elections and runoffs and agreed to decide ballot items at the second July meeting.⁴⁸ For the June 26 meeting, the committee sent the council a letter saying it "hereby transmits a written report of its findings and recommendations to the council." Its presentation listed 29 numbered recommendations.⁴⁹

• They included three-year terms, phased in with staggered seats, and majority-vote elections with runoffs.⁴⁹
• They called for five council votes to remove a council member. They added lesser penalties of censure, suspension of up to 30 days or loss of voting rights for up to 90 days.⁴⁹
• They would extend signing authority to the mayor pro tem.⁴⁹
• They would lower the referendum petition threshold from 15% to 10% and cut the recall threshold from 10% to 5%.⁴⁹
• They would add whistleblower protections for city employees and a charter section for the Building and Standards Commission.⁴⁹
• They would allow gifts that state law and the city's ethics policy permit, noting the charter bans gifts while the policy allows gifts of up to $50.⁴⁹
• The committee advised against putting term limits on the same ballot as longer terms. It suggested that if voters approved longer terms, the 2027 council consider putting term limits on the ballot.⁴⁹

On July 17, the charter changes were listed for discussion only, with no action taken.⁵⁰

On August 21, 2025, the council appointed Jen Grunewald and Mark Douglas to the committee and struck a clause that would have renamed it. Council Member Norma Owen had raised concerns the new language would make the committee subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act.⁵¹ No Lago Vista charter measure appeared on the November 4, 2025, joint election ballot, on which Saum ran unopposed for mayor.⁵² On December 4, the council voted 7 to 0 to name Council Member Jess Hall the committee's 2026 council liaison. For several votes that night, the minutes record an abstention by Council Member Adam Benefield with "no reason given." Two of those votes were on removing him as the council's liaison to the Planning and Zoning Commission and naming a replacement.⁵³

The city's committee page lists Lynda Aird as chair, Gene Harris as vice chair, Robert Owen as secretary, and Jen Grunewald and Mark Douglas as members, all with terms ending December 31, 2026. It lists Jess Hall Jr. and Paul Prince as council liaisons.⁵⁴

On January 28, 2026, City Manager Charles West told the committee the window to place a rewritten charter on the May 2026 ballot had already closed, leaving November as the next option.^55,56 At the same meeting, the committee voted 3 to 2, Aird and Harris dissenting, to add a section letting the council fund a nonprofit's public purposes with tax money, later struck from the draft.^55,57

At its February 11, 2026, meeting, the committee took up three proposals from Mayor Saum. It voted unanimously to recommend his proposal on certificates of obligation, with "Financial convenience" and "market timing" moved to the proposal's list of "declared emergencies."⁵⁸ In his draft, those two had been listed among reasons that do not count as an emergency.⁵⁹ It deadlocked 2 to 2, Aird and Harris again dissenting, on excluding the mayor's "Responsible Budgeting" proposal, so it took no position on it. It voted unanimously to recommend his homestead exemption proposal, changing "shall be no less than ten percent" to "shall be no less than [TBD]." That leaves the council to set an amount after "fiscal due diligence on the actual impact to tax revenue."⁵⁸ On the meeting video, members weighed a percentage of appraised value against a flat dollar amount before they voted.⁶⁰

Travis County Tax Office records show the city's homestead exemption at 20%, with a $5,000 minimum, in every year on record from 2000 through 2025.⁶¹

On February 19, 2026, Chair Aird and Secretary Owen presented the committee's full rewrite to the council. That day the council also met in closed session on a notice of claim and demand from Benefield and took no action.⁵⁶

At a March 2, 2026, hearing, the council took up separate complaints that Committee Vice Chair Gene Harris and Secretary Robert Owen had filed against Benefield.^62,63 Harris alleged Benefield's conduct at the June 26 and July 17, 2025, meetings broke council rules and the ethics policy. Both he and Owen alleged Benefield violated the charter's voting rule, Section 3.14, by abstaining without a stated reason at the December 4, 2025, meeting.⁶³ Section 3.14 lets a member abstain only on a vote about that member's own conduct or a conflict of interest, with the reason noted in the minutes.⁸ Before a closed session, Benefield objected to the participation of council members whose impartiality he said could reasonably be questioned. He asked Mayor Pro Tem Norma Owen, whom he called "the wife of the complainant," Mayor Shane Saum and Council Members Jess Hall and Karen Van Ness to recuse.^62,64 The city attorney said recusal in this setting is each member's personal decision and is not addressed in the charter or the ethics ordinance.⁶⁴ Outside counsel called the rules complaints too late and the ethics complaint improperly sworn. Counsel said the meeting video and minutes supported the charter allegation. Benefield renewed his objection and said he had acted in good faith.⁶³ The council voted 6 to 0 to take no action on the rules and ethics allegations, and 6 to 0 to dismiss the charter allegation, with no reason given in the minutes. Norma Owen voted on all four allegations and seconded the motion to dismiss the charter allegation.^62,63 The meeting's record also lists a January 26, 2026, notice of claim by Benefield "related thereto."⁶²

On March 5, City Attorney Brad Bullock told the council his office would send comments on the charter review "in the next couple of weeks."⁶⁵

On March 19, 2026, separately from the rewrite, the council voted unanimously that boards and committees use their council liaison or staff for legal opinions. The vote came under a closed-session item on "procedures for communication with the City Attorney."⁶⁶ An earlier Watchdog story, Lago Vista's outside legal bills grew 17 times in two years, reported that vote and the council's closed sessions on Benefield's notice of claim on February 19 and March 19.^56,66 That story found that spending in the Legal department's legal services account, part of the General Fund, rose from $27,383 in 2021-22 to $468,390 in 2023-24.⁶⁷

The council held charter work sessions on June 12 and June 26.^68,69 On the June 12 video, the city attorney said majority-vote elections bring runoffs with "direct costs to the city." Another speaker put the cost of a stand-alone runoff for a city this size at $10,000 to $25,000.⁷⁰ On the June 26 video, the mayor said staff had found the city already gives the maximum exemption state law allows. Another speaker said the city could not find the ordinance that set it at 20%. That speaker proposed an ordinance to formalize the 20% instead of locking the exemption into the charter, saying the state could act in ways that would then require a charter amendment.⁵ The review continued in a July 16 work session.⁷¹

By August 6, 2026, the rewrite reached the council as a draft ordinance that would have ordered a November 3, 2026, election on the charter, with 20 separate propositions, A through T, and an attached comparison chart.³ Unlike the committee's February version, the draft's section on certificates of obligation does not list financial convenience or market timing as emergencies.^11,58

On video, the city attorney said he built the chart himself, that state law requires each proposition to cover one subject, and that August 17 was the last day to call a November election. He said the council could act that night, call a special meeting by August 17, or miss the deadline and push the question to a May 2027 election.⁴ Council Member Adam Benefield said he found "discrepancies between what we had previously found consensus on versus what version is in this document."⁷² Council members said the budget needed their attention first and agreed to return to the charter once it passed.⁴ Council Member Paul Prince suggested finishing the charter "before a new council is seated in November."⁷³ The minutes for that night read, "No Action, place item on a future agenda."²

Minutes for the council's August 20, August 24 and September 3 meetings list no charter review item.^74,75,76 The council adopted the 2026-27 budget 4 to 3 on September 17, 2026.^10,77 Its agendas for that meeting and a September 25 special meeting list none either.^78,79 Three council seats are on the November 3 ballot.¹ Paul Prince, whom the council named a liaison to the committee in December 2024, is not a candidate for his Place 6 seat, whose term ends in November.^43,80 By our count, using the same 78-day rule the council followed in 2021, a May 1, 2027, charter election would have to be ordered by about February 12, 2027.²⁷

What we could not find

• The legal cost of the 2024-26 charter review, and any bills for the outside counsel who reviewed the Benefield complaints.^62,63 The city's budget shows the Legal department's legal services account, part of the General Fund, spent $422,844 in 2024-25, as the earlier legal-spending story reported, but it does not show how much of that, if any, went to charter work.⁹
• Whether Benefield's notice of claim was resolved, and what it cost the city.⁶⁶
• What a stand-alone charter election would cost apart from a regularly scheduled one. The city's elections account, inside the General Fund, spent $6,346 in 2022-23, $12,776 in 2023-24 and $8,813 in 2024-25, and the 2026-27 budget sets $18,000.¹⁰ Each of those budget years included the regular November city election the charter requires.^8,10
• The ordinance that set the city's 20% homestead exemption, which a speaker at the council's June 26, 2026, work session said the city could not find.⁵
• Whether the city published the 2024 censure in the Austin American-Statesman, as Resolution 24-2062 ordered, and what that cost.^17,38

What you can do

• Ask for the bills from the city's outside attorneys for charter review work and for the 2021, 2024 and 2026 ethics and charter complaints. State law makes information in an attorney-fee bill public unless it is privileged.⁸¹
• Ask for any invoice or proof of publication for the 2024 censure, which Resolution 24-2062 ordered published in the Austin American-Statesman.¹⁷
• Ask for the ordinance, if one exists, that set the city's current homestead exemption.⁵
• Watch City Council agendas for the charter item the council said it would bring back.²
• File requests through the city's open records page.⁸²

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.