Lago Vista taxpayers, former mayor's ranch case and $7,952.67 fee

The impact-fee totals, the home counts for each map label, the homes-per-acre figures, the map fee totals, the lake water savings, and the ETJ population counts in this story are our calculations from the cited records.

Quotes from the interview come from our recording, which Sullivan agreed we could publish. For the full context of his remarks, listen to the whole interview in the player near the top of this page, or read the transcript. We removed details that identify a private home.

What these terms mean

The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) is a city map that guides where the city wants homes, shops, and open land.¹¹ The map does not rezone land, but under a 2023 city rule, a zoning request that does not fit it cannot be considered until the map is first amended.^11,12 The city's draft comprehensive plan says, "The Future Land Use Plan is not a zoning map and does not grant development rights or entitlements. It does not predetermine specific land uses, densities, or development outcomes."¹³ The council decides the map, after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).¹⁴ Shoreline Ranch's zoning is a planned development district (PDD), a custom set of building rules for one site, and it caps the ranch at 568 single-family lots and multifamily units together.¹⁵

Each area of the map gets a label called a place type. Rural Residential Tier 1 guides land to 0.33 homes an acre or fewer, on lots of at least 3 acres. Neighborhood Residential guides land to 1 to 4 homes an acre.¹⁶ Under the 2023 rule, an amendment to change a label needs at least three-fourths of all council members, which is six of seven votes.^2,12,14

County appraisal records name Shoreline Ranch Texas LP as owner of 130 parcels covering 540.96 acres inside city limits.¹⁷ TerraMark Ventures is the developer that has applied for changes on the ranch's behalf.¹⁸ Kevin Sullivan was on the Lago Vista City Council in 2021 and 2023.^19,20 He was mayor by January 2024.²¹ He told us he served on the council from June 2016 to November 2018 and from November 2020 to November 2023, and as mayor from November 2023 to November 2025.²²

What we reported before

Our story before the vote, Lago Vista land use map has had eight versions since 2016, found at least eight city maps since 2016.^{23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30}

Our Oct. 2 story, Lago Vista council backs rural label for Shoreline Ranch on map, reported that Council Member Adam Benefield's motion to label the ranch Neighborhood Residential died without a second.³¹ Our Oct. 3 story, Lago Vista taxpayers pay $360,000 for lake water, could face gap, looked at the city's lake water reserve.³² This story adds Sullivan's on-record account, the zoning ordinances and letters he provided, and our check of each claim against city records.

How the land was zoned and mapped

Two city ordinances set the ranch's zoning, and both are now posted as an exhibit with this story. The first, Ordinance 02-09-26-01, rezoned about 530.52 acres called Marshall's Vista to a planned development district.¹⁵ A city staff report later described that 2002 ordinance as approving 201 homes.¹⁸

The second, Ordinance 07-10-18-01, passed on Oct. 18, 2007. It caps the total of single-family lots and multifamily units at 568. It sets minimum lot sizes of 0.25 acres for the smallest single-family lots, 0.50 acres for the next size, and 1.0 acre for the largest. It also allows an 18-hole golf course and a golf clubhouse.¹⁵

The records differ on the ranch's size, and the 2007 ordinance describes about 568 acres.¹⁵ County records total 540.96 acres for the owner inside city limits.¹⁷ That puts the 568-home cap at one home an acre on 568 acres, or about 1.07 homes an acre on the 528.54 acres the county lists under the 2007 ordinance.^15,17

The council adopted the Lago Vista 2030 Comprehensive Plan on May 5, 2016.²³ Its map labels the ranch land Rural Residential, which the plan defines as fewer than 0.2 homes an acre.^33,34 A 2023 staff report described the plan's label for the ranch as "Estate Residential" or "POA Park," the map's label for a private park.³⁵

Sullivan said the city made that choice "of their own accord."³ The plan was a joint effort of city staff, an advisory committee, the commission, the council, residents, and a consultant.²³ Sullivan said a former development services director told him in a conversation that the owners at the time asked for a correction in 2016. The records we reviewed do not include that request.³⁶

He also said the land was not Rural Residential on an earlier plan, but he added that "I do not have that documentation."³

2021 and 2022, a request and a letter

TerraMark Ventures applied on Aug. 19, 2021, to raise the ranch's cap from 568 homes to 1,360.¹⁸ Sullivan told us the request was for "like 1360 units" and that he did not recall whether it was denied or withdrawn.³ The council's April 7, 2022, minutes record that the applicant withdrew the request.³⁷

A 2021 staff report said an entity tied to the applicant bought the golf course lots by a deed executed on July 14, 2019.¹⁸ County records carry a deed dated Jan. 11, 2022, on most of the ranch's parcels.¹⁷ Sullivan said the owner finished buying the land in about January 2022.³

On Aug. 17, 2022, the city's development services director at the time emailed the owner's representatives a "Sample Future Land Use Map amendment request."³³ Sullivan said that director advised the owner to seek a map change first. He said the director told them, "just send me a letter of support."³ The exhibit of that exchange does not include a message asking for a letter of support.³³ Sullivan wrote to us that the owner's Aug. 19 letter was that letter of support.^33,36

On Aug. 19, 2022, TerraMark wrote to the mayor and the P&Z chair for the owner. The letter asked the city to revise the map to the "low density" label. It said the 2030 plan "incorrectly shows" the land as Rural Residential. It also said the PDD caps single-family and multifamily homes at 568 within a residential area of 322 acres.³³

On Oct. 13, 2022, the six commissioners present voted unanimously to recommend low-density residential for the land.^35,38

2023, a new rule and a denial

On Jan. 19, 2023, the council passed Ordinance 23-01-19-03 by a vote of 4 to 3.^12,20 Council Member Gage Hunt moved, and Sullivan seconded.^20,39

Council Members Rob Durbin, Chelaine Marion, and Paul Roberts voted no.^20,39

The ordinance bars a zoning request that does not match the plan unless the plan is first amended. An amendment needs the vote of at least three-fourths of all council members. The ordinance lets an owner seek an amendment by showing "a demonstrable error, oversight, or omission," among other grounds. It also provides that a complete application "shall in no way bind the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan."¹²

The ordinance created a fee for map change requests covering more than 1 acre of $250 plus $50 an acre.¹² At 568 acres that fee comes to $28,650, so Sullivan's "$28,000+" matches the 2007 ordinance's acreage.^12,36 At 540.96 acres the fee would be $27,298.^12,17

Sullivan said the owner's request "took almost a year" to reach the council. He said part of that time was spent in closed session, and part came from a city staff member he described as "allegedly involved with the death of someone." He said the body "was dumped on the land right where we had the water treatment plant."³

News reports from 2023 and 2024 describe a case with a narrower charge.^40,41 An Austin television station (CBS Austin) reported that a former city employee was "charged with tampering with physical evidence of a human corpse." The police chief said she was "terminated from the city's public works department after an arrest warrant was issued for her." In March 2023, investigators went to "a field in the Marshalls Vista Subdivision" and found the remains. The reports we read do not say she was charged with causing the death.⁴⁰

An Austin news station (KXAN) reported that she was convicted on Nov. 12, 2024, of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and sentenced to five years.⁴¹ The owner's 2022 letter said the ranch's subdivision was "previously known as Marshall's Vista."³³ We have not confirmed where the field lies, including whether it is ranch land or the water plant site, and we do not name the employee.⁴⁰

The staff report for the Aug. 3 hearing cited "delays unrelated to the substance of the request." The records we reviewed do not tie those delays to the death.³⁵

The same staff report said the council would hear the owner's request under the rules in place when it was filed. The new ordinance, it said, "established a formal process, application, and fee." So the 2023 rule did not bar that hearing.³⁵

On Aug. 3, 2023, Sullivan moved to deny the map change, Marion seconded, and the council voted 6 to 1, with Mayor Ed Tidwell voting no.³⁹ At the hearing Sullivan said "it just seems like a naked attempt to increase the density on that parcel."^42,43 He also said that until the city upgraded its water and wastewater plants, "it would be criminal on our part to approve more than that."⁴⁴

On Oct. 26, 2023, the council voted 6 to 0 to ratify "the purchase of the property where water treatment plant 3 is located" and to settle "the association claim." Council Member Paul Prince moved, and Durbin seconded.⁴⁵ Sullivan told us the owner "donated the rest of it."³ The minutes call it a purchase and name no seller, price, or fund. The minutes we reviewed record no vote to accept a donation of land from the ranch's owner.⁴⁵

2024 to 2026, new maps and a new push

On Dec. 19, 2024, the council and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee met for a "Presentation and discussion" by the plan's consultant, Halff Associates.⁴⁶ Sullivan wrote that the group agreed that day that the eastern area should be Neighborhood Residential.⁵ He told us it was not an action item and that no official action took place.³⁶ The minutes record no map vote.⁴⁶

On the video, the consultant said "we want to downgrade this lifestyle neighborhood to perhaps the low-density residential neighborhood or lower."⁴⁷ At the same meeting, Roberts said, "I desire to not see a future land use map that's abundantly in conflict with underlying zoning that's already in place."⁴⁸

On Feb. 12, 2026, TerraMark's director of development wrote to P&Z that "I would request that no action be taken" on the place types until they could be reviewed with the map.⁴⁹ Draft minutes record that on July 9, 2026, P&Z voted 4 to 1 to base the new map on one marked up by commissioners Gene Harris and Dave Stewart.⁵⁰

Sullivan told the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 13, 2026, that "Shoreline Ranch representatives have engaged me."⁵¹ In a Sept. 29 email to the council, he wrote that he planned "to speak on behalf of Shoreline Ranch."⁵

The Oct. 1 meeting

The council took up the map as Item VIII.3 on Oct. 1.¹⁴ Sullivan spoke first in citizen comments, said he was "representing Shoreline Ranch," and asked for the Neighborhood Residential label.⁵² Roberts, a former council member, spoke later and said, "I support the P&Z's recommended 11 place type framework and map including retaining rural residential tier one for Shoreline Ranch."⁵³

Early in his remarks, Roberts asked the room to "raise your hand if you want to replicate on the east side of Lohman Ford what's on the west." He then said, "Not a single hand went up."⁵³

Mayor Shane Saum's motion kept Tier 1 for the ranch and added a "prominent disclaimer" stating "this does not reflect entitlements."¹ City Attorney Brad Bullock said the city's ordinances "have a provision that allows for variance from that."⁵⁴ Our Oct. 2 story covers the council's debate and what each member said.

His claims, checked

The rest of this story takes Sullivan's claims one at a time and sets each against the record.

Sullivan's view of his 2023 votes

Sullivan seconded the 2023 rule and moved to deny the ranch's map change that August.^20,39 In his slide deck he wrote, "I believe I made the wrong decision on 8/3/2023."⁵⁵ In his written statement he said, "The main reason I agreed to help them is the catch 22 the city has put them in."⁵⁶

In the interview, he put our emailed question in his own words, "Why are you changing your tune at this point?" He answered, "I did not recognize the catch 22 that was being implemented with the law change and with the refusal to change the FLUM." He said the 2023 packets run "anywhere from 100 pages up to 1,000 pages" and that "I just don't think I processed the information very well."³

He said the council in 2023 "conflated the two issues" of the map and the PDD.³ He made a second point in the interview and again in his Oct. 5 notes, that council members insisted a developer live with its existing rights and never use the city's process for amending a PDD.^3,22 He wrote, "If you are not going to allow developers to take advantage of the PDD amendment process, remove it so investors will know what they are buying and the limitations they will experience."²² He said a Neighborhood Residential label "doesn't give them any additional rights."³ The label guides land to 1 to 4 homes an acre, and the ranch's zoning stays capped at 568 units unless the council changes it.^15,16

Sullivan said the owner now has "2 options available to them." One is to build under the old zoning, and he said "there are two development companies that went bankrupt trying to do that." The records we reviewed do not say that.³ The other is a plan with lots of at least 3 acres, which the Tier 1 label guides toward.¹⁶

He also said a PDD amendment would need six of seven votes, so "it only takes 2 council members to stop" one.³ Benefield said on Oct. 1 that an ordinance "requires six council members to approve any amendment to a PDD."⁵⁴ Sullivan later pointed us to the city's zoning chapter.^22,57 The city code confirms the rule. It says the approval or amendment of a PDD "shall not become effective except by the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths (3/4) of all the members of the governing body." That is six of the seven votes.⁵⁷ The section Sullivan named, 13-30, covers changes to the chapter's own text and calls for six votes only when the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends against them.^22,58

Road impact fees

Sullivan said Shoreline Ranch "is roughly cut in half between service area 1 and service area 2" for road impact fees. He said 568 homes "would generate 186,000 dollars in just roadway impact fees." He gave "1.6 million dollars" for 1,100 homes and "227,000 dollars" for 150 homes.³ On Oct. 5, he wrote that the totals should be $860,000 for 568 homes, $1,666,500 for 1,100 homes, and $227,000 for 150 homes.⁴

The city's rates are $2,493 and $537, but they are charged per service unit, not per home.⁷ The city counts a single-family home as 3.19 service units.⁸ City staff worked out the result in 2021 as $7,952.67 in Service Area 1 and $1,713.03 in Service Area 2 for each home.⁶

The council adopted those rates on Dec. 2, 2021, by a vote of 5 to 2, on a motion by Hunt that Mayor Pro Tem Sullivan seconded.¹⁹ The rates are unchanged in the city's May 21, 2026, fee schedule.⁸ A Feb. 5, 2026, council packet included a contract with Freese and Nichols for an update of the impact fees, so the rates could change.⁵⁹

The line between the two areas runs along Shoreline Ranch Drive. The records we reviewed do not draw the ranch's boundary on that map, so we could not confirm the split.⁶⁰

At those rates, 568 homes would pay from $973,001.04, if all are south of the line, to $4,517,116.56, if all are north of it. An even split would bring $2,745,058.80. For 150 homes, the range is $256,954.50 to $1,192,900.50. An even split of 150 homes would bring $724,927.50. For 1,100 homes, the range is $1,884,333 to $8,747,937. An even split of 1,100 homes would bring $5,316,135.⁶ His corrected totals are still below the lowest amounts, which are $973,001.04 for 568 homes, $1,884,333 for 1,100 homes, and $256,954.50 for 150 homes.^4,6

His figures for 150 and 1,100 homes match about $1,515 a home, the average of the two per-unit rates.^3,7 His figure for 568 homes matches neither reading.³ His larger point holds, because more homes mean more fee money, and the gap between 150 and 1,100 homes is bigger than he said.⁶

Water and wastewater fees add to that. The smallest water meter, 5/8 by 3/4 inch, counts as one unit, so for a home with that meter those two fees total $6,116.⁸ State law defines an impact fee as a charge on new development to pay for the capital projects that growth requires.⁶¹

State law limits what a city may spend that money on. Impact fee funds "may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was imposed." So these fees pay for projects in the fee plan, not for the city's general budget. State law also requires the money to be kept in accounts for the service area where it was collected.⁶²

Lohman Ford Road

Sullivan said "we're going to have to expand Lohman Ford between Boggy and Dawn."³ The city's 2021 road fee plan agrees, making that widening Project 1. The plan would add two lanes over 1.59 miles. Its cost sheet puts the project at $7,212,670.⁶

The city's five-year capital plan for 2025-26 puts no dollars toward "ST-2 Lohman Expansion Dawn to Boggy."⁹ The street section of the 2026-27 plan covers street rehab and a "Pedestrian Safety Initiative," not the widening.¹⁰ The widening is a Service Area 1 project.⁶

State law limits what impact fees can buy. They can pay only to build new capital improvements or add capacity, covering construction, surveying and engineering, land, and the outside engineer or consultant who prepares the fee plan.⁶³ The project must be in the city's adopted capital improvements plan, and the city's 2021 road fee ordinance adopted that plan under the same state law.^7,61 Because the Lohman Ford widening is Project 1 in that plan, road impact fees could help pay for it, as Sullivan said.^6,22

Sullivan also said a light is needed near the high school, "one of the things that they've asked for."³ A draft traffic study in the council's May 2, 2024, packet recommended signals at the high school's two driveways for $600,000.⁶⁴ At a joint meeting with the school district's board on April 24, 2024, the city manager "briefly addressed the recent traffic report." The minutes record no request from the district for a signal.⁶⁵

So the need Sullivan describes appears in city records, and the money does not.⁹ We could not confirm that the district asked for the light.⁶⁵

Residents outside city limits

Sullivan said many people who spoke or wrote to the council "live in the ETJ" and so pay "no taxes towards the infrastructure needs that we have."³ The extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) is the unincorporated area next to a city's limits.⁶⁶ Under state law, being in the ETJ does not by itself let a city tax that land.⁶⁷

State law also bars a city from charging a roadway impact fee on ETJ land. It lets a city charge other impact fees there only by following the state impact fee chapter.⁶⁸ We did not verify where any speaker lives, so we cannot say how many of them live in the ETJ.

The 2020 Census counted 8,896 people in 4,478 homes in the city of Lago Vista.⁶⁹ We added up the 2020 Census blocks in the ETJ outside today's city limits, as Travis County maps them.^70,71 Those blocks held 1,078 people in 666 homes. Some blocks cross the line, so the ETJ count could be as low as 872. About 9 of every 10 people in the city and its ETJ lived inside the city.⁷⁰ The city's March 2025 draft comprehensive plan put the 2020 total for the city and ETJ at 9,941, close to our 9,974.^70,72

Plant capacity and the budget

Sullivan said the city was told wastewater "might be as high as 85% capacity."³ In April 2026, the city's capital projects manager said wastewater was "only at 61%" of capacity.⁷³ On July 2, 2026, staff put the highest three-month average for 2025 at 66%.⁷⁴ The staff capacity figures we reviewed run from 61% to about 70%, and none is 85%.^73,74

Under Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) rules, a sewage plant at 75% of its permitted flow for three months must start planning an expansion. At 90% it must get state approval to start building.⁷⁵ Sullivan described the same two steps.³

At the same April meeting, the capital projects manager said, "we're at 84% with water."⁷³ On July 2, 2026, staff said the 2023 peak day was "90% of our capacity."⁷⁶ Sullivan said the water issue "is probably a little bit more pressing than the wastewater."³

Sullivan said the budget approved "within the last couple of months" has "not one penny allocated for the expansion of either the wastewater or the water treatment plant."³ The 2026-27 budget does carry $0 for both expansion lines.^77,78 The city's capital improvement plan (CIP) is its five-year plan for large projects.⁷⁹ That plan sets aside $1,300,000 to design an expansion of water treatment plant 3 in 2027-28 and 2028-29.^10,80 It pays for that design from water impact fees.⁸⁰ So "not one penny" holds for this budget year but not for the five-year plan.¹⁰

Sullivan said the city has "9 million dollars in the CIP" to rebuild a clarifier at the wastewater plant.³ The plan does carry $9,000,000 for wastewater plant construction in 2027-28 and 2028-29.^10,81 It lists the source of that $9,000,000 only as "Future Funding." The project sheet describes work "while maintaining the plant's current permitted treatment capacity" and does not name a clarifier.⁸¹ An engineering scope from October 2025 did call for the "Design of a new Clarifier No. 1."⁸²

Sullivan said he told a council member the five-year CIP was missing from the final budget packet.³ The city charter requires a five-year plan "at the same time each year" as the proposed budget.⁷⁹ The proposed budget files posted Aug. 19 and Sept. 2 have no capital plan section.^83,84 The Sept. 15 file has one.⁸⁵ A summary draft of the plan went to the council as a separate attachment on Aug. 20.⁸⁶

In 2023, Sullivan tied approving more homes to water and wastewater upgrades.^43,44 In 2026 he said "there is no evidence that I can find" that capacity prevents the developments proposed.³

Lake water

An acre-foot is enough water to supply two to three homes for a year.⁸⁷ The city's old contract with the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) reserved 6,500 acre-feet a year.⁸⁸

Sullivan said the council cut the city's lake water reserve from 6,500 to 4,500 acre-feet and that "Everybody agreed."³ The vote was 6 to 1, with Tidwell voting no. The motion was Sullivan's own, and Prince seconded it.³²

Sullivan said the cut would save "200,000 dollars a year." He said the city uses about "a third of the raw water capacity" available to it.³ LCRA now charges $82.50 a year for each acre-foot a city reserves.⁸⁹ For the 2,000 acre-feet the city gave up, that comes to $165,000 a year, less than he said.^32,88,89 Our lake water story has more on the reserve and its risks.

The cost of low density

Sullivan said Kevin Shepherd, whose firm is Verdunity, argues that "extremely low density can actually be one of the most expensive development patterns for a municipality to sustain over the long term."³ Shepherd's company bio calls him "a vocal advocate for the non-profit group Strong Towns," so his work comes with a policy viewpoint.⁹⁰ We did not find that sentence in the Verdunity study we read.⁹¹ It appears word for word in a ChatGPT answer about Shepherd that Sullivan sent us on Oct. 5.^22,92 Verdunity's own website makes a similar point. Its summary of its study for New Braunfels says, "Traditional mixed-use and compact residential developments consistently outperform sprawling subdivisions, producing higher tax revenue per acre while requiring fewer costly services."⁹³ That 2024 study for the city of Bryan did find that "Some development patterns produce sufficient property tax" revenue to cover their costs, and others do not.⁹¹

A 2002 national study for the Transportation Research Board projected that more compact growth could save "9.2 percent in local lane-miles and 11.8 percent in local road costs." The study noted that its model "does not project the costs associated with land acquisition, bridges, or the repair or upkeep of roads."⁹⁴ Smart Growth America, a group that advocates for that approach, reported that "smart growth development saves an average of 38 percent on upfront" infrastructure costs.⁹⁵

The peer-reviewed studies are mixed. A 2019 study of U.S. county areas 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."⁹⁶ A 1992 study found "a U-shaped relationship between spending and density."⁹⁷ A 2008 study found that "Infrastructure expenditures tend to decline with increases in population density for cities smaller than 500,000."⁹⁸

Taken together, the research supports his direction, that spread-out land costs more to serve, but not how large he says the effect is.^94,96,97 "One of the most expensive" is his view, and the studies find effects from small to large.^95,96

On the ranch's 540.96 acres, Tier 1's guide works out to about 178 homes.^16,17 The label is a guide, and the zoning still allows 568 homes.^11,15

Cities of Lago Vista's size

Sullivan said he asked ChatGPT about Texas cities of 10,000 to 30,000 people and learned "There's 140." He said Lago Vista is the only city of the 140 that will not even consider a zoning change application that does not match the map. He added that "somewhere between 5 and 10" others also require a match with the map but let an owner file a map change and a PDD change at the same time. He said that lets a city "at least hear from the developer about what they're going to propose."³ The Census Bureau's 2025 population data count 140 Texas cities in that range, so his count matches. We could not confirm that Lago Vista is the only one.⁹⁹ On Oct. 5, Sullivan sent us the chatbot's answer, which says it found "only one of the 140 municipalities with the same kind of rule Lago Vista has." It names Fredericksburg, Granbury, and Nederland as the closest.⁹² We did not check the chatbot's review of the city codes, and we found no other survey of all 140.⁹⁹

A 2016 paper by a city attorney says that a city seeking a zoning change that conflicts with its plan "must first amend the comprehensive plan before it can amend its zoning ordinance."¹⁰⁰ State law requires that zoning follow "a comprehensive plan" but lets each city set how closely.^101,102

Sullivan said ChatGPT told him the American Planning Association (APA) has no policy calling for a buffer between multi-acre lots and other homes, and "kind of the opposite."³ We found no recommendation for such a buffer in the APA's 2019 and 2022 policy guides.^103,104 The group's 2022 guide, a statement of its own positions, describes "neighborhoods with broad mixes of lot sizes and housing that maintain very high" quality of life.¹⁰³

State law changes

Sullivan said he understands the Legislature will consider applying Senate Bill 15 and Senate Bill 840 to all cities. He said "they're going to consider going back and applying that to all cities."³ Senate Bill 15 bars a covered city from requiring lots larger than 3,000 square feet on new home tracts of 5 acres or more.¹⁰⁵ Senate Bill 840 bars a covered city from setting tighter density, height, or parking limits on apartments and mixed-use housing than the law allows. Senate Bill 840 applies only to a city "with a population greater than 150,000" in a county of more than 300,000.¹⁰⁶ Senate Bill 15 has the same limits.¹⁰⁵

The Census Bureau puts Lago Vista at 10,498 people for 2025.⁹⁹ The Lieutenant Governor's 2026 interim charges ask for a report on the "implementation of Senate Bill 15, Senate Bill 840," and other laws. We found no bill to extend either law to small cities.¹⁰⁷

Turnback Ranch

Sullivan pointed to Turnback Ranch, a project he said the council cut to 349 homes.³ City records back the 349-home cap, which the council approved on Sept. 21, 2023, on Sullivan's motion.¹⁰⁸ In 2023 the council also created a public improvement district (PID) for the project, which uses bonds to pay for public improvements.^109,110

Sullivan said the PID assessments would be "north of six figures."³ A preliminary draft analysis from September 2023 put the assessment at $47,147 to $72,635 a home, averaging $57,822. That draft is below $100,000.¹¹¹ On Oct. 5, Sullivan pointed to a larger number, the $40,000,000 in PID bonds the developer's petition contemplated.^22,110 Divided by 349 homes, that is $114,613 a home, which he called the average assessment.²² The city report describes that amount as a limit, saying the district could issue "up to $40,000,000 of bonds."¹¹⁰

Sullivan on Roberts and the opponents

Roberts took no part in our interview. Sullivan spoke about him and about the people who opposed his request.³ We report his words here, then Roberts's own words from the record.

Sullivan said Roberts asked the Oct. 1 room who wants "the east side of Lago to look like the west side." He called it "just an offensive question." He added, "you're too hoity-toity to have those, you know, next to you."³ Roberts's own question, quoted above, referred to "the east side of Lohman Ford."⁵³

Sullivan said many of those who spoke and wrote against his request live in the ETJ, outside the city limits, and that they want to preserve their quality of life "by not having the hoi polloi near them." He called the argument that large lots need a buffer "hubris on their part." He also asked, "how un-American is it that you won't even listen to a landowner about what they want to do with their property?"³

Roberts answered in a statement he sent us on Oct. 5. He wrote, "Mr. Sullivan speaks for his client. These residents are speaking for their own homes, families and community." He also wrote, "The developer has the right to ask. Residents have the right to oppose, and their investments deserve consideration, too."¹¹²

Roberts made his own case on Oct. 1. He said, "Retaining rural residential 1 does not by itself rezone property or cancel valid existing approvals." He said, "There's no conspiracy. There's no victimhood here." He also said, "You knew what you could do with your property when you bought it."⁵³

In a Sept. 29 email, Roberts wrote, "I support retaining P&Z's recommended designations and density guidance, including Rural Residential Tier 1 for Shoreline Ranch." He wrote that if profitability depends on later changes, "that is the purchaser's business risk." On his earlier comments about matching the map to zoning, he wrote, "I recognize that I spoke broadly about reflecting entitlements in the FLUM." He wrote that his point was about a recent hotel approval.⁴³

Roberts also said on Oct. 1 that Sullivan "moved, didn't just vote, he moved" to deny the ranch's request on Aug. 3, 2023.⁵³ The minutes confirm that Sullivan made that motion.³⁹

Responses

We asked former Council Member Paul Roberts and the city for comment before publishing. Roberts replied before our deadline with a statement he asked us to publish in full, and it is posted with this story. He wrote, "A developer's business risk should not become the community's obligation." He also wrote that keeping the map's planning direction "does not cancel valid existing development rights."¹¹² The city did not respond by our deadline, 5 p.m. on Oct. 5.

We also asked Sullivan to send further answers by 5 p.m. on Oct. 5.³⁶ He answered that morning, and his answers are posted with this story.⁴ Later that morning he sent a list of corrections and the AI chatbot research behind several of his claims, and both are posted with this story.^22,92

What it could mean for taxpayers

A new home pays a road fee of $1,713.03 to $7,952.67, plus $6,116 in water and wastewater fees.^6,8 State law limits that money to the projects in the fee plan, so it does not go to the general budget.⁶²

In 2021, city staff warned that without road impact fees, the cost of road capacity from growth would be "shared equally by all existing" and new taxpayers. Fewer new homes could mean less fee money for that work.⁶ The research above also suggests spread-out land could cost more per resident to serve, though the size of that gap is disputed.^94,96

Roberts wrote that it should not become the community's responsibility to make an investment work.⁴³ Benefield said the owner can build 568 homes either way.⁵⁴ A map label does not itself rezone the land.¹¹

On the tax base, Shoreline Ranch Texas LP had a taxable value of $34,191,146 on the 2023 certified roll.¹¹³ On the 2025 roll its taxable value was $8,454,990. The records we reviewed do not say why the value fell.¹¹⁴

Where it stands

The council's motion called for a special called meeting to reassess commercial zoning.¹ The city's meeting portal showed no Oct. 1 minutes when we checked on Oct. 2, so each member's vote is unconfirmed.¹¹⁵ Sullivan said the owner cannot bring a zoning change without a matching label, so "they're stuck."³ Roberts wrote that the 2023 ordinance "expressly preserves Council's discretion over the comprehensive plan."⁴³

How to weigh in

Speaking at citizen comments requires a completed form.¹⁴ You can file a records request on the city's page, and the city has up to ten business days to respond.¹¹⁶

What we could not find

• The Oct. 1 minutes, with each member's vote.¹¹⁵
• A record of the 2016 correction request Sullivan described, which he said a former development services director told him about.³⁶
• Where the ranch's boundary falls on the road fee service area map.⁶⁰
• A funding source for the Lohman Ford widening, or a request from the school district for a high school signal.⁹
• The seller, price, and fund for the water treatment plant 3 property, and what the "association claim" was.⁴⁵
• A court record for the 2023 case, since we relied on news reports.⁴⁰
• How much Sullivan is paid under his contract with Shoreline Ranch. He did not give an amount.⁴
• A check, beyond a chatbot's answer, of whether Lago Vista is the only Texas city of its size with this rule.⁹⁹

What you can do

• File a Texas Public Information Act request on the city's records request page for the Oct. 1 minutes.¹¹⁶
• Ask the city for road impact fee collections by service area since 2020, and for any staff map that overlays the ranch on the service areas.¹¹⁶
• Ask for the water treatment plant 3 purchase agreement, the settlement, the deed, and the payment record.¹¹⁶
• Ask for any city record of the 2016 map correction request, and for the receipt of the Feb. 12, 2026, TerraMark letter.¹¹⁶
• Speak at citizen comments at a council meeting after submitting the form.¹⁴

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.