Lago Vista's Shoreline Ranch homes could help or cost taxpayers

So would new homes there pay their own way, or would other taxpayers cover part of the cost? It depends on how many get built, and how big the lots are.⁶ We estimated it from county home values and the city's budget.^6,7,8 The cost side uses what the city spent in the year ended Sept. 30, 2025, so it measures today's costs, not what serving new homes may cost years from now.⁷ A typical home on 3 acres or more would pay the city about $1,141 a year more than the city spends, on average, to serve it.^6,7,8 A typical home on the smaller lots the zoning allows, a quarter acre to an acre, would pay $115 to $293 a year less.^5,6,7,8 If all 568 homes were built on those smaller lots, the city could come up $65,000 to $166,000 short each year, a gap other taxpayers or spending cuts would have to cover.^6,7,8 At 1,360 homes, the number a developer asked for in 2021, the shortfall could reach about $398,000.^6,7,8,9

Water is the second question. The city's water plan puts its plants' combined production at 4.0 million gallons a day.¹⁰ With all 568 homes built, the city's highest-use day in a drought year like 2023 would take about 76% of that.^10,11 It would take 80% to 84% of the 3.6 to 3.8 million gallons a day of safe capacity on a 2024 city slide.^11,12 It would be about 101% of the 3.0 million gallons a day that a staff member estimated aloud, a figure we could not check against a posted study.^11,13 Could the owner sue for more homes? In 1998 the Texas Supreme Court sided with a town that refused a landowner's request for more homes. In the cases we reviewed, no court ordered more homes after a refusal.¹⁴ These are estimates built from the records we could find. Missing pieces could change them, such as a city staff study of water plant capacity that is still a draft.¹⁵

What the map does and what the zoning does

A future land use map is a policy guide inside the city's comprehensive plan, which sketches how the city should grow. The staff report says the map "does not rezone property."⁴ State law says a plan "shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries."¹⁶

Shoreline Ranch's zoning is a planned development district, a set of building rules written for one site. Its 2007 ordinance caps single-family lots and multifamily units together at 568, on about 568 acres.⁵ County records list 540.96 acres for the owner inside city limits, and our math uses that figure.²

The map sorts land into labels. Its Rural Residential Tier 1 label guides land to up to about one home for every 3 acres (0.33 homes an acre), on lots of at least 3 acres. Tier 3 guides land to about one home an acre, on lots of at least 1 acre.¹⁷ On 540.96 acres, those guides work out to about 178 homes under Tier 1 and about 541 under Tier 3.^2,17

A 2023 city ordinance requires a plan amendment, a vote to change the map, before the city will consider a zoning request that conflicts with it. That amendment needs "at least three-fourths" of all council members, or six of the seven.¹⁸ So an owner's zoning request for more than 568 homes would first need six council votes to change the map.^17,18

Council Member Adam Benefield warned on Oct. 1 that owners "sue, right? Or they go and advocate to the state legislator."¹⁹ This story tests that warning. It also estimates what five home counts could mean for taxpayers. Three are 178 homes under Tier 1, about 541 under Tier 3, and the 568 the zoning allows.^2,5,17 The other two are 1,360, the number a developer asked for in 2021, and 3,000, a number Benefield raised as a warning.^9,19

What we reported before

Lago Vista land use map has had eight versions since 2016 reported that the ranch's taxable value fell from $34,191,146 in 2023 to $8,454,990 in 2025.^20,21

Lago Vista taxpayers, former mayor's ranch case and $7,952.67 fee traced the ranch's rules from 201 homes in 2002 to 568 in 2007.^5,9 It reported that TerraMark Ventures, a developer, asked in 2021 to raise the cap to 1,360 homes and later withdrew.^9,22 The council voted 6 to 1 on Aug. 3, 2023, to deny a map change for the ranch.²³

Lago Vista council backs rural label for Shoreline Ranch on map covered the Oct. 1 meeting. There, Benefield moved to label the ranch Neighborhood Residential, but no other member seconded it, so it failed.¹

Lago Vista water plan counts 6,455 future hookups in custom zones reported that the city's water plan counts 568 water hookups the ranch's zoning allows, with none active by 2033.²⁴

The Oct. 1 vote and the minutes

Kevin Sullivan, a former mayor who told us he is paid under a contract with Shoreline Ranch, spoke for the owner at the Oct. 1 meeting.^25,26 He said the owners have "held rights to build out" master plan communities since 2007.²⁶

Benefield said the owner "can build 568 homes whether we like it or not." He then said owners sue or lobby the Legislature, and "instead of us being worried about 568 LUEs guess what we're gonna be talking about 3,000."¹⁹ Living unit equivalent (LUE) is a utility term, and the city's plans count one water connection for each single-family lot.¹⁰ The 3,000 homes were his warning about what could follow a lawsuit or a change in state law, not a proposal.¹⁹ Council Member Paul Prince suggested Tier 3, which he said is one acre and "meets the density level of their current entitlements."²⁷

Mayor Shane Saum moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission's draft map with Shoreline Ranch as Rural Residential Tier 1, and Mayor Pro Tem Norma Owen seconded.¹ Saum announced the voice vote as "five to two."²⁸ The city's minutes, posted later, record "Motion Passed: 4- 2." Saum, Prince, Council Member Karen Van Ness, and Council Member Jess Hall voted for the motion. Benefield and Council Member Amanda Chavarria voted against it. Owen is not listed either way, and the minutes do not say why.¹

What each home count could mean for the General Fund

The General Fund pays for many of the city's day-to-day services, such as police, streets, trash pickup, and parks.^7,29 In the year ended Sept. 30, 2025, it paid for public safety, streets, sanitation, parks, and general government. Property taxes were $5,885,401 of its $11,835,997 in revenue. Sales and franchise taxes, permits, charges for services, fines, investment earnings, and other sources supplied the rest.⁷

How we did the math. The figures, home counts, percentages, and fee totals in this story are our calculations from the cited records. Each revenue range runs across the middle half of 2026 city taxable values, leaving out the top and bottom quarters, in a sample of county appraisal records we pulled. Each typical figure uses the median, the middle value. The sample has 175 homes on lots under half an acre, 476 on half an acre to an acre, 153 on one to three acres, and 15 on three acres or more, counting only homes, not businesses, churches, schools, or golf courses. The three-acre group is every such home in the city, only 15, and its values vary widely, so the rural estimates are the least certain.⁶ Values for a new development would depend on what gets built, so existing homes are only a guide. For 1,360 and 3,000 homes, the sampled small-lot homes (median 0.23 acre) sit on bigger lots than the 3,000 and 6,000 square foot minimums TerraMark proposed, so those figures likely run high.^6,9 We use 2.18 people per home and the General Fund part of the 2026-27 city tax rate, $0.265525 per $100.^30,31 Spending per home is an average and an upper end, because fixed costs such as city hall do not grow with each house. Read every figure here as an estimate of what could happen, not a forecast. The figures leave out school, county, and special district taxes, public improvement district fees, one-time permit fees and the Development Services spending they support, and utility rates. This is not legal advice. We did not ask Sullivan, Benefield, the city, or a land-use lawyer for comment.

We left out the $1,302,886 in licenses and permits, which new homes pay mostly once, when they are built.⁷ To match, we also left out the $988,392 the city spent that year on Development Services, the department that reviews plans and inspects new buildings.⁸ That year, permit money more than covered that department's cost.^7,8 Revenue other than property tax, penalties, and permits came to about $958 a year per home.^7,30,32 A home's property tax share depends on its value.³¹

In our sample, the median city taxable value was $307,622 on lots under half an acre. It was $588,213 on lots of one to three acres. On lots of three acres or more it was $847,640, but the middle half of those 15 homes ranged from $448,060 to $2,364,380.⁶

Leaving out Development Services, General Fund operating spending averaged about $2,068 a year per home. We call this average-cost spending.^7,8,30,32 That is an average and an upper end for one added home. The 2007 ordinance requires a funded homeowners association to maintain "all open space, private roads and community amenities," so the city would not maintain those roads.⁵

Today the ranch land pays the General Fund about $22,905 a year in city property tax.^2,31

At 178 homes (the Tier 1 map guide), revenue could run from about $382,000 to $1.29 million a year, with a median near $571,000, and average-cost spending would be about $368,000.^6,7

At about 541 homes (about one home an acre, Prince's Tier 3 idea), revenue could run from about $1.10 million to $1.70 million a year, with a median near $1.36 million, and average-cost spending would be about $1.12 million.^6,7

At 568 homes (the 2007 zoning cap), revenue could run from about $945,000 to $1.28 million a year, with medians of $1.01 million to $1.11 million depending on lot size, and average-cost spending would be about $1.17 million.^6,7

At 1,360 homes (TerraMark's 2021 request, withdrawn in 2022), revenue could run from about $2.26 million to $2.63 million a year, with a median near $2.41 million, and average-cost spending would be about $2.81 million.^6,7 The small-lot values behind that range likely run high.⁹

At 3,000 homes (Benefield's lawsuit warning), revenue could run from about $4.99 million to $5.81 million a year, with a median near $5.32 million, and average-cost spending would be about $6.20 million.^6,7 The small-lot values behind that range likely run high, because 3,000 homes on about 541 acres would need lots smaller than the sampled homes' median of 0.23 acre.^2,6

Each row assumes all homes are built.

What it could mean per home

Set side by side, our revenue and cost estimates suggest which homes would more than pay their average share of city costs.^6,7,8

At typical values, a home on a lot of three acres or more would bring the General Fund about $3,209 a year, about $1,141 more than its average share of operating costs.^6,7,8

At typical values, a home on a lot of one to three acres would bring the General Fund about $2,520 a year, about $452 more than its average share of operating costs.^6,7,8

At typical values, a home on a lot of half an acre to an acre would bring the General Fund about $1,953 a year, about $115 less than its average share of operating costs.^6,7,8

At typical values, a home on a lot of under half an acre would bring the General Fund about $1,775 a year, about $293 less than its average share of operating costs.^6,7,8

At 178 homes (the Tier 1 map guide), the development would come out about $203,000 a year ahead of its average city cost.^6,7,8

At about 541 homes (about one home an acre, Prince's Tier 3 idea), the development would come out about $245,000 a year ahead of its average city cost.^6,7,8

At 568 homes (the 2007 zoning cap), the development would fall about $65,000 to $166,000 a year short of its average city cost.^6,7,8

At 1,360 homes (TerraMark's 2021 request, withdrawn in 2022), the development would come out about $398,000 a year short of its average city cost.^6,7,8

At 3,000 homes (Benefield's lawsuit warning), the development would come out about $879,000 a year short of its average city cost.^6,7,8

Figures use median values for each lot size. Each row assumes all homes are built.

Spending per home is an average. Average cost overstates what one more home adds, because costs such as city hall and the council do not grow with each house, so on that count the shortfalls could be smaller and the surpluses larger.⁷

A shortfall would have to be covered by other city money, such as other taxpayers' property and sales taxes or the utility transfers the General Fund already relies on, or by spending less.³³

The small-lot gaps at 1,360 and 3,000 homes are likely larger than shown, because the sampled homes behind those values sit on bigger lots than TerraMark's request or 3,000 homes on the ranch would allow.^2,6,9

New homes also pay impact fees, charges on new development that fund the roads, pipes, and plants growth requires.^34,35 For water and wastewater, the city counts a home with a standard meter as one service unit. The water fee is $3,486 per service unit and the wastewater fee is $2,630. At $6,116 per home, those two fees would total about $1.09 million at 178 homes, $3.31 million at 541 homes, $3.47 million at 568 homes, $8.32 million at 1,360 homes, and $18.35 million at 3,000 homes.³⁴

The road fee for one single-family home is $7,952.67 in one service area and $1,713.03 in the other, a 2021 staff packet worked out.³⁶ We do not know which area covers the ranch, so road fees are not in the table.

State law says impact fee money may be spent only for purposes "shown by the capital improvements plan," the city's list of planned projects.³⁷ In the year ended Sept. 30, 2025, the General Fund also relied on $3,643,573 moved in from the Utility Fund. The audit says such transfers "subsidize governmental activities."³³

Smart Growth America, a group that advocates for compact growth, surveyed 17 studies at local, regional, state, and national scales and reported that compact development "saves an average of 10 percent on ongoing delivery" of police, ambulance, and fire services.³⁸ A peer-reviewed 2019 study of U.S. urban counties found "it is less costly to provide public services when development is more compact." It also found that higher density "increases per capita expenditures," but that "the effects are small." Both are national findings, not estimates for Lago Vista.³⁹

Water and sewer

The city's plans count one connection for each single-family lot, and we treat one home as one connection.¹⁰ A city ordinance defines that term, and we did not find it.⁴⁰

The Water Master Plan assumes 333 gallons a day per connection. It uses a peak day 1.8 times the average. That is about 599 gallons per home on a peak day.¹⁰

The plan puts combined production at 4.0 million gallons a day (MGD).¹⁰ A June 20, 2024 Public Works slide puts "Total Safe Capacity" at 3.6 to 3.8 MGD.¹² On April 2, 2026, a staff member said the plants can make "maybe around three" MGD.¹³ The transcript does not name that speaker.

On July 2, 2026, staff put the 2023 peak day at 2.7 MGD, "90% of our capacity."¹¹ At the April 2 meeting, staff gave water use as 84% of capacity.¹⁵ Asked how, staff said the plants can safely make "maybe around three" MGD, but did not say the 84% was measured against that.¹³ The same meeting heard of a report that is "just a draft right now." We could not find that capacity study, and it is not in the April 2 or July 2 items we reviewed. Until that study is public, the water figures below are a range, not a single answer.¹⁵

Each line below adds a home count's peak-day use to the 2.7 MGD peak day of 2023, a drought year, and compares the total with all three capacity figures.¹¹

With no new homes, the 2023 drought-year peak day of 2.7 MGD is 90.0% of 3.0, 75.0% of 3.6, 71.1% of 3.8, and 67.5% of 4.0.^10,11,12

At 178 homes (the Tier 1 map guide), the peak day would be 93.6% of 3.0, 78.0% of 3.6, 73.9% of 3.8, and 70.2% of 4.0.^10,11,12

At about 541 homes (about one home an acre, Prince's Tier 3 idea), the peak day would be 100.8% of 3.0, 84.0% of 3.6, 79.6% of 3.8, and 75.6% of 4.0.^10,11,12

At 568 homes (the 2007 zoning cap), the peak day would be 101.3% of 3.0, 84.5% of 3.6, 80.0% of 3.8, and 76.0% of 4.0.^10,11,12

At 1,360 homes (TerraMark's 2021 request, withdrawn in 2022), the peak day would be 117.2% of 3.0, 97.6% of 3.6, 92.5% of 3.8, and 87.9% of 4.0.^10,11,12

At 3,000 homes (Benefield's lawsuit warning), the peak day would be 149.9% of 3.0, 125.0% of 3.6, 118.4% of 3.8, and 112.5% of 4.0.^10,11,12

Each row assumes all homes are built.

The city's state permit lets its wastewater (sewer) plant treat 1.0 MGD. The Wastewater Master Plan assumes 135 gallons per connection per day.⁴¹ Use was 61% on April 2, staff said.¹⁵ The highest three-month average for 2025 was 66%, according to the July 2 meeting.⁴²

At 568 homes (the 2007 zoning cap), added flow would be about 7.7% of the permit.⁴¹ That would lift 66% to about 74%.⁴² At 1,360 homes (TerraMark's 2021 request, withdrawn in 2022), it would reach about 84%. At 3,000 homes (Benefield's lawsuit warning), it would reach about 107% of the permit.⁴¹

State rule says that at 75% of permitted flow for three months, the permit holder "must initiate engineering and financial planning for expansion."⁴³ Our sewer plant loan story covers the city's plan to borrow for plant work. The 2026-27 budget's $10,430,541 plant project is "maintaining the plant's current permitted" capacity, not adding to it.⁴⁴ The wastewater plan lists $90,882,000 in projects.⁴¹

The water plan counts 568 Shoreline Ranch connections as entitled, with none active by 2033. Homes built sooner, or above 568, could fall outside what that plan timed.²⁴

The Water Master Plan prices its short-term Water Treatment Plant 3 expansion at $18,251,000.¹⁰ The 2026-27 budget's five-year capital plan sets aside $1,300,000 for design in 2027-28 and 2028-29, paid from the water impact fee, and nothing in 2026-27. It shows no construction money and lists the total cost as "TBD."⁴⁵ At $3,486 each, 568 homes would pay about $1.98 million in water impact fees, roughly 11% of that project.^10,34

The city's lake water contract allows 4,500 acre-feet a year, and an acre-foot is about 325,851 gallons.^46,47 The city used 1,715 acre-feet from June 2022 to May 2023.¹² At 333 gallons a day, 568 homes would use about 212 acre-feet a year.^10,47 A 2024 city slide said the contract would let the city double in size at current consumption.¹²

Could the owner sue, and win?

This section describes what courts and lawmakers have done in similar fights. It is not a legal opinion, and a lawyer could read these cases differently.

The staff report says the map does not "approve development, create development entitlements, or" authorize specific densities.⁴ The state property rights law lists "an action by a municipality" among those it does not cover, with one exception for land outside city limits.⁴⁸

Chapter 245 of the Local Government Code ties a permit to the rules in effect when it is filed.⁴⁹ The 2007 ordinance says the land "shall be platted subject to compliance with City subdivision and development regulations."⁵ A plat is the map that divides land into lots. We did not find a plat or plan filed under the ordinance.

In Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale (Tex. 1998), a family owning about 1,196 acres asked for 3,650 to 5,025 homes. The council voted 4 to 1 to deny. A trial court awarded $5 million in damages. The Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the family "take nothing."¹⁴

The court said the family had no "reasonable investment-backed expectation" to build 3,600 units where zoning had for twelve years limited land to one unit per acre.¹⁴ Shoreline Ranch differs because its zoning already allows 568 homes, so a cut would raise a different question.⁵

A takings claim says the government took private property's value without paying for it. In Sheffield Development Co. v. City of Glenn Heights (Tex. 2004), a city rezoned a tract to allow "about half the number of houses." A jury found the land fell from $970,000 to $485,000 in value. The court held that "Sheffield cannot recover on either takings claim." It said the rezoning, though "unquestionably severe," "did not approach a taking."⁵⁰

Police power is a government's authority to make rules for public health and safety. In 2025, in Commons of Lake Houston v. City of Houston, the Texas Supreme Court wrote that whether a rule is a valid use of police power is "simply irrelevant to whether the regulation causes a compensable taking."⁵¹ Mayhew had asked whether the town's action advanced its interests.¹⁴ A lawyer could say whether that changes Mayhew. We did not ask one.

Has a lawsuit ever brought more homes?

In Mayhew, the owner who sued lost.¹⁴ A home builders' trade report said the Sheffield developer later "secured the right to develop most of his property as he had originally planned." That report gives no settlement date, terms, or dollar figure. It says the home builders' group helped pay for the case.⁵²

In Austin in 2002, six council members voted to approve a settlement with Stratus Properties.⁵³ The deal was designed to settle the company's "claims to grandfathering provisions" of state law.⁵⁴ Grandfathering lets a project follow the rules in place when it began. The settlement allowed up to 900 apartments and 830 houses.⁵³ Council Member Raul Alvarez, who voted no, cited $15 million in incentives the city would pay "to reduce development intensity."⁵⁴

The Legislature is the other route Benefield named.¹⁹ In 1995, lawmakers passed House Bill 3193, which the Austin Chronicle said "exempts some 8,000 acres" in southwestern Travis County from Austin's water quality laws.⁵⁵ Another 1995 law, Water Code section 26.179, let owners of tracts of at least 500 acres near some cities create "water quality protection zones" under state rules instead of city ones. In 2000, the Texas Supreme Court held that it "unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to private landowners."⁵⁶

In the cases we reviewed, no court ordered more homes.^14,50 The gains we found came through settlements, one of them after the developer lost his takings claims, or through new state laws.^50,52,53,55

The state law route

Senate Bill 15 (2025) bars a city from requiring a residential lot "larger than 3,000 square feet."⁵⁷ As added by S.B. 15, it applies only to a city with more than 150,000 people in a county with more than 300,000.⁵⁸ Lago Vista had an estimated 10,498 residents in 2025.³² Senate Bill 840, which lets apartments and mixed-use buildings go up by right in commercial zones, has the same population limits.⁵⁹

House Bill 24 (2025) changes how neighbors protest some zoning changes in all cities.⁶⁰ For a change that allows more homes, a protest needs owners of 60 percent of nearby land, and then a majority of all council members can approve. The section covers zoning changes, and it does not mention plan maps.⁶¹

Senate Bill 1844 (2025) lets a majority of owners of an area next to a navigable waterway petition for disannexation, or removal from the city. It applies only if the area did not join the city under Subchapter C, one part of the state's annexation law. A court must order it if the city has not connected most of the area's properties to city water and wastewater.⁶²

County parcel maps show nine Shoreline Ranch lots along the mapped edge of Lake Travis.³ The 2007 ordinance says the lake parcel "shall serve to provide access to Lake Travis."⁵ We could not confirm how the land was annexed, whether any lots are on city utilities, or whether Lake Travis counts as navigable under the law. We cannot say it applies. A disannexed area may not be annexed again for 10 years.⁶²

What it could mean for taxpayers

For city taxpayers, our estimate points one way. Fewer homes on bigger lots would more than cover their average city cost, while the zoning's 568 homes and anything denser would fall short.^6,7,8

More homes would also bring the water and sewer plants closer to costly expansions.^10,43 The water plan prices its next treatment plant expansion at $18,251,000, and the wastewater plan prices growing the sewer plant from 1.0 to 1.5 MGD at $16,519,800.^10,41 One-time water and wastewater fees from 568 homes could reach $3,473,888, but only for listed projects, and the records we reviewed do not show how the rest of an expansion would be paid.^34,37

Cutting the zoning below 568 would raise a different legal question than refusing more homes.⁵⁰ Austin's 2002 settlement of a developer's grandfathering claims included "$15 million in incentives the city would pay."⁵⁴

These are estimates, not forecasts. They rest on the records we could find, and a missing piece, such as staff's water study or what a builder actually puts up, could move them.¹⁵

How cities pay for growth

Every per-home cost in this story is the city's cost today.⁷ The city's water plan assumes none of the ranch's 568 hookups will be in use by 2033.²⁴ By then, pay, prices, and services could change what a home costs to serve. Under our estimate, if costs per home rise faster than home values, the shortfalls would grow and the surpluses would shrink.

The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), a national group of public finance officials, recommends that every government keep a long-term financial plan. It says the plan should project "revenues, expenses, financial position, and external factors" at least five years ahead.⁶³

The group also recommends budgets in which "recurring revenues are greater than or equal to recurring expenditures."⁶⁴ It says governments need reserves "to mitigate current and future risks," and it recommends at least two months of General Fund revenue or spending in reserve.⁶⁵

Cities use several ways to pay for growth. Commercial property is one. American Farmland Trust, a farmland conservation group, has gathered cost of community services studies from at least 261 U.S. communities. Those studies compare what each kind of land pays a local government with what it costs in services. In the group's summary, which leaves out an Indiana project, the median cost of public services for homes was $1.16 for each dollar of revenue they raised, and for businesses it was 30 cents.⁶⁶

A 2000 study of nearby Hays County found $1.26 for homes and 30 cents for commercial and industrial land. The group says such studies are "a snapshot in time" and "do not predict future costs or revenues or the impact of future growth."⁶⁶

Businesses also collect sales tax for the city. In the year ended Sept. 30, 2025, sales taxes brought the General Fund $1,244,602, compared with $5,885,401 from property taxes.⁷ The Oct. 1 motion on the land map also called for a special meeting on commercial zoning, and the minutes give no date.¹

Policies that draw businesses are a second. State law lets a city make loans and grants of public money "to stimulate business and commercial activity in the municipality."⁶⁷ On Oct. 16, 2025, the council voted 5 to 2 to approve formation documents for a Type B Economic Development Corporation (EDC), a city-created board for business projects.⁶⁸ Our EDC story covers its first year. The city's Economic Development department, paid from the General Fund, has $457,407 approved for 2026-27.⁶⁹ Incentives also cost the city money.

Renting out something a city holds more of than it uses is a third. The city's contract with the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) reserves 4,500 acre-feet of lake water a year.^12,46 In the 12 months that ended in May 2023, it used 1,715 acre-feet.¹² It budgeted $180,000 at each of its two water plants this year for LCRA's fee to hold that water.^70,71

The council looked at resale in April 2023, while it decided how much water to reserve. Public Works Director Taylor Whichard wrote that LCRA called resale contracts "fairly complicated" and would have to review and approve them. "It is staff's recommendation that we do not pursue this option," he wrote.⁷² The council then voted 6 to 1 to reserve 4,500 acre-feet, 2,000 fewer than before.^46,73 Our lake water story covers that vote.

The 2026 regional water plan shows the city with a surplus of 854 acre-feet a year in 2030 but a shortfall of 1,084 by 2040, so water rented out now could be needed later.⁷⁴

Where it stands

The minutes say council's consensus is to work with staff on the plan "prior to going back to Planning & Zoning."¹ In the records we reviewed, the highest request is TerraMark's 1,360, and none seeks 3,000.⁹

How to weigh in

To speak at citizen comments you must submit a completed form. The council meets in the City Council Chambers at 5803 Thunderbird.¹

What we could not find

• Comment from anyone. We did not ask Sullivan, Benefield, the city, or a land-use lawyer for this story.¹
• Why the minutes leave out Owen's vote.¹
• Staff's draft capacity study, and what capacity figure the 84% for water is measured against.¹⁵
• The city ordinance that defines a living unit equivalent.⁴⁰
• Any plat or plan filed under the 2007 zoning.⁵
• How Shoreline Ranch was annexed, and whether any lots use city utilities.⁶²
• Which road fee area covers the ranch.³⁶
• Any 2026 application from the owner.¹
• Water use of the golf course and clubhouse the 2007 zoning allows.⁵
• Terms of the Sheffield settlement beyond a trade report.⁵²

What you can do

• Read the Oct. 1 minutes on the city's meeting portal.¹
• File a Texas Public Information Act request on the city's records page for staff's capacity study and the ordinance defining a living unit equivalent.⁷⁵
• Ask the same way for any plat or plan filed for Shoreline Ranch.⁷⁵
• Speak at citizen comments at a council meeting.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.