A question for Lago Vista City Council.

Yes. I support continuing to collect tree mitigation fees when required by ordinance and when replacement trees cannot reasonably be accommodated on the property. However, paying a fee should not become an easy substitute for preserving healthy trees. Our natural landscape is one of Lago Vista’s greatest assets, and protecting it should remain the first priority. Tree mitigation revenue should be used only for purposes authorized by City ordinance, including planting trees and other greenery, improving trails, and developing or improving parks. These funds should not be treated as unrestricted general revenue. Before committing the money, I would want a clear public accounting of how much has been collected, how much has been spent, the current fund balance, and what projects are being considered. I would support developing a prioritized plan with professional guidance and public input. Projects should consider native and droughttolerant trees, erosion control, public spaces, parks, and trails, while accounting for longterm maintenance costs. I would also review the existing fee structure to ensure it is fair, proportional, and legally sound. The goal should be to preserve trees whenever possible and use mitigation funds to provide visible, lasting environmental benefits to our community, not simply collect fees and allow the money to sit unused.

Written by the candidate

I think David VonOhlerking and many of our residents have expressed what most of us would probably say first: if we're collecting money because trees are being removed, then in a perfect world we ought to be putting trees and greenery back. I agree with that. The challenge is a little more complicated once you get into actually doing it. We need appropriate places to plant, access to water to keep those plantings alive, and the staff or partners to maintain them. Planting a tree that dies a year later isn't good stewardship either. Our current ordinance does restrict these funds. They can be used for planting trees or other greenery, as well as development or improvements to trails and pocket parks. The tree ordinance itself has also been under review, including discussion about the amount of the mitigation fee and how those dollars can be used. My preference is to start with the reason the money was collected. Where we can responsibly replace trees and greenery and keep them alive, I think that should be our first look. But I also think we need to ask a very basic question of every fee the City charges: Does the amount we're collecting still make sense, and can we reasonably use the money for the purpose we told people we were collecting it for? If the answer is yes, let's have a plan and use it. My hope is that strategic planning at all levels becomes a norm in our city processes. If we're collecting more than we can reasonably put to that purpose, then we should be willing to revisit the fee rather than allowing money to simply accumulate because that's what we've always charged. There are also some opportunities here to think a little differently. Could we partner with Keep Lago Vista Beautiful or other community organizations? Could plantings be incorporated into trails, parks and other public improvements where irrigation already exists? Could we identify priority areas in advance so that when mitigation dollars come in, we already know where they can do the most good? I don't think the answer should be “collect the money because we can,” nor do I think the answer is automatically “stop collecting it.” Let's determine what we actually need, what the law and our ordinance allow, what we can realistically accomplish, and set the fee accordingly. If we're going to charge someone a fee, we ought to be able to explain what it's for and show them what we're doing with it.

Written by the candidate