October 15, 2026 Council Meeting
October 15, 2026 Council Meeting
Chamber bailout funding: Council approved $10,177 per month for three months as the Chamber claimed to be down to its final 6 weeks of funds, totaling $30,531. The entire amount may come from general funds. I voted no. The motion passed 6–1.
Brews & Balloons: Council unanimously authorized up to $50,000 in HOT funding, subject to verification of eligible expenses and financial safeguards. The discussion concluded with a $30,000 advance.
HOT reimbursement policy: Council unanimously increased the maximum reimbursement from 50% to up to 100% of documented eligible event expenses. This changes the reimbursement percentage, not which expenses qualify.
Commercial land-use planning: Council unanimously directed further staff review of commercial and commercial-related mixed-use designations for the Future Land Use Map.
Building and standards ordinance on unsafe buildings: Council unanimously returned the proposed ordinance for legal clarification and cleanup rather than adopting it.
Luna Ridge: Council unanimously tabled the requested development agreement amendment per the developers request.
Police leadership: Council unanimously ratified Assistant Chief Thomas Franco as interim police chief. We thank him for his continued service to Lago Vista!
I voted against committing $30,531 in public money to the Chamber for three months because Council had not established a sufficiently specific, measurable public benefit to justify that commitment.
I consider this a bailout because keeping the Chamber operating was a central justification for approving the money before completing the strategic planning and performance evaluation that should have come first.
I support local businesses and worthwhile tourism efforts. But the existence of an organization, its financial difficulties, or the good intentions of its leadership do not establish an obligation for taxpayers to fund it.
The City already funds its own economic development department and puts resources into events and community promotion. Before paying another organization, we should identify:
What services are missing from the City’s existing efforts?
Which specific tasks should be contracted out?
Why is the Chamber the best provider?
Are we following legal procurement laws and allowing other service providers an opportunity to bid on these services? The Chamber provided no bid.
What will those services cost?
What measurable results will taxpayers receive?
Council discussed collaboration and future strategic planning. The city attorney also identified broad services contemplated by the proposed agreement, including marketing, tourism promotion, visitor information, and research.
Those categories do not, by themselves, establish why $10,177 per month is the right price or what additional value residents will receive. My objection is that we approved the funding before answering those questions adequately. Are there other entities who could or would have bid on this opportunity?
This was not simply permission to reimburse documented, qualifying hotel occupancy tax expenses.
The motion allowed all $30,531 to come from general funds, while asking the Chamber to substantiate as much HOT eligibility as possible. The city attorney explicitly explained that the HOT-funded portion could ultimately be zero.
Council discussed finding money within existing professional-services budgets or using general fund reserves. Regardless of the accounting route, those dollars have other possible public uses.
During the discussion, the amount was characterized as small. I disagree. Thirty thousand five hundred thirty-one dollars deserves a clear justification. Money does not become less valuable because it is a relatively small part of a city budget.
Several councilmembers said they expected evidence of a return on investment before supporting further funding. I agree that results matter.
But I believe that expectation should have been translated into clear requirements before approving this commitment: defined deliverables, deadlines, measurable outcomes, and a method of verification.
Reporting how money was spent is necessary. It is not the same as proving that the spending produced a worthwhile public benefit.
My concerns about the visitor center remain.
When the visitor center and Chamber share an entrance, a count of people entering the office does not tell us why they came. Someone visiting for Chamber business, a local resident seeking information, and an out-of-town traveler should not all be treated as interchangeable evidence of tourism impact.
The Chamber collecting and reporting its own performance data creates a verification problem. That does not establish that its numbers are false. It means the City needs a credible way to check them before relying on those numbers to justify funding.
I want reporting that distinguishes the purpose of visits, explains how information was collected, and provides evidence of tourism and overnight-stay benefits. We should also evaluate the cost of the current location against less expensive ways to provide visitor information. I ultimately do not believe in 2026 many people are driving blindly into a city and seeking out a visitor center for information about a town and its businesses. They are using their phones. The City does not need to outsource and pay for an oudated business model that no longer reflects modern behavior.
An organization’s need for money and the City’s need for its services are separate questions.
Before continuing support, I want to see a sustainable financial plan, a clear explanation of which activities serve Chamber members and which serve the public, and evidence that the City is purchasing useful services at a reasonable cost. I want to see businesses revenue before and after they joined the Chamber. Are our business receiving return on their investment? Is the Chamber more about being a visitor center, putting on events that create revenue for themselves, or are they about promoting our local businesses? The latter is the most important.
When it comes to HOT fund usage, past practices do not excuse weak controls today. If earlier arrangements lacked adequate agreements or documentation, the response should be stronger accountability.
The City’s responsibility is to its residents and the public dollars entrusted to us. Keeping the Chamber in business is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to spend those dollars.
That is why I voted no.
I supported the separate authorization for up to $50,000 in HOT funding for Brews & Balloons, subject to eligibility review, documentation, reconciliation, and the return of unused or ineligible funds.
That authorization is a ceiling, not a determination that every requested expense qualifies. The attorney explained that his review of the original request identified only a little over $30,000 in eligible expenses.
My expectation is that the City will verify expenditures and enforce the agreement’s safeguards. The Chamber gets to keep 100% of the revenue it makes on this event. I felt this funding was sufficient to help them fund their event, so they could make money that will cover the operating expenses. The bailout was completely unnecessary and unvetted after this funding was already made available.
I raised questions about whether the draft matched our current code, including references to the property maintenance code edition, the role of qualified professionals, administrative titles, and enforcement provisions. Council passed an ordinance in May which this draft did not incorporate. I raised concerns over due process for owners of these buildings. Council passed an ordinance I brought forward in 2025 that reduced the usage of daily fines for the same infraction. This ordinance allows up to $2,000 a day for the same infraction, but each day calling the same issue a new violation. The ordinance also allows code compliance officers to make the final determination on whether a building is unsafe or not, I think an authorized building official should be making those decisions.
Council returned the proposal for legal clarification and cleanup, with a requested return at the second meeting in November.
Protecting public safety and protecting property owners’ rights both require clear, accurate procedures.
Council directed staff to evaluate commercial and commercial-related mixed-use designations, including developable acreage, access, utilities, coordinated commercial centers, and transitions near residential neighborhoods. Council gave direction that we need more commercial zoning along FM 1431, including up near Bronco Lane, across from the Hollows and to look along Dawn Drive.
This was direction for further evaluation, not final approval of every potential map change.
Council tabled the proposed amendment. No substantive amendment was approved through that action. In the original development agreement, the developer had 5 years to start building or they would lose half of their LUE's. The development has not progressed and they are now asking for another 5 year extension. Council will ultimately have to decide if they stick to the original 5 year requirement or grant the extension. Hearing from citizens will be very helpful for Council.
I joined Council in ratifying Thomas Franco as interim police chief. We thank Chief Franco for his continued service to Lago Vista!
The Chamber services agreement will be rewritten to reflect Council’s action and is expected to return for ratification. Council also directed further strategic planning concerning the City’s economic development efforts and the Chamber’s role.
I will continue asking for specific deliverables, independently verifiable performance measures, clear funding sources, and evidence that public spending addresses an actual community need.
Public money should follow a demonstrated public purpose, with accountability established before the commitment.
Watch the meeting here: https://lagovistatx.new.swagit.com/videos/404096