A question for Lago Vista City Council.

I would not support raising the property tax rate solely to subsidize golf course operations. However, I believe we need to recognize that the Lago Vista Golf Course serves two important purposes. In addition to being a recreational and economic asset, it is an integral part of the City’s wastewater effluent dispersal system. That distinction matters when discussing taxpayer subsidies. The City has a legal and operational responsibility to manage treated wastewater, regardless of whether we operate a golf course. Before labeling every dollar of City support a golf course subsidy, I would want to understand how much of that spending supports recreational operations and how much supports a necessary wastewater management function. We should also benchmark those costs against the full lifecycle costs of alternative effluent disposal methods, including infrastructure investment, overland trucking of effluent waste, land requirements, maintenance, regulatory compliance, and longterm operating expenses. If maintaining the golf course as an effluent dispersal site costs less than developing and operating alternative facilities, that avoided expense represents real value to the City and its taxpayers. At the same time, the golf course should be held accountable for its recreational operating costs. I would want transparent financial reporting, reasonable pricing, measurable performance goals, and a realistic plan for improving financial selfsufficiency. Any proposed taxpayer support should be considered openly within the City’s overall budget and weighed against other essential services. I do not support raising property taxes simply to cover ongoing golf course losses. At the same time, we should not confuse the cost of managing the City’s wastewater with the cost of operating the golf course as a recreational facility. Taxpayers deserve a clear accounting of both before Council makes a decision.

Written by the candidate

I think there's more to this question than simply whether the golf course receives taxpayer support. Our golf course is a community asset, and it has been receiving a General Fund subsidy. But what sometimes gets lost in the conversation is that the subsidy has been decreasing, and there is a financial plan in place to continue improving its operations. One of the biggest challenges has been the irrigation system. You can't maintain healthy greens and a quality golf course without reliable irrigation. The work to repair and replace that system is also connected to improvements in our effluent disposal infrastructure, something the City needs for wastewater management beyond just the golf course. Our Golf Superintendent has developed financial projections tied to these improvements, and as the work has progressed, the results have been trending in line with those projections. That's encouraging, and I want us to continue measuring that progress. We're also working to improve our accounting systems so we can better evaluate all our enterprise activities, not just the golf course. I want us to understand the full cost of operating these services, the revenue they generate, and the financial impact on the City. Would I support raising property taxes simply to continue an openended golf course subsidy? No. But I also wouldn't support walking away from an improving operation, especially while we're making infrastructure investments that serve more than one City purpose, without understanding the consequences. I supported the nonewrevenue tax rate during our budget discussions, even though that rate was higher than the prior year's rate. I know that decision was unpopular with some residents. But my vote was about the City's overall financial responsibilities, not about protecting a golf course subsidy. For me, the goal is to keep reducing the golf course's reliance on the General Fund as its operations improve, while recognizing the value of the infrastructure investments already underway. I don't believe responsible budgeting is always about cutting a line item today. Sometimes it's about finishing the work that puts us in a better financial position tomorrow. I want to see us follow the plan, measure the results, and make decisions based on where we're actually headed, not just where we've been.

Written by the candidate