Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lago Vista council unanimously extends Turnback Ranch PID dissolution to five years

Lago Vista City Council · July 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Lago Vista City Council voted unanimously to approve a developer-requested amendment extending the Turnback Ranch Public Improvement District dissolution timeline from three to five years, citing city processing delays. Councilors urged the developer to finish outstanding items within the new deadline.

The Lago Vista City Council unanimously approved an amendment extending the scheduled dissolution of the Turnback Ranch Public Improvement District from three years to five years, following legal advice and discussion at its regular meeting.

City Attorney Brad summarized the request from the Turnback Ranch developer and recommended approval, saying the extension was prompted largely by internal city delays — notably staff turnover in development services — rather than lack of diligence by the developer. Jeff Howard, attorney for Turnback Development, told the council the company had submitted correspondence and was available to answer questions.

Mayor Pro Tem made the motion to approve the amendment and Councilor Hall seconded it. Council discussion noted that some development applications have been pending more than 200 days; several councilors described the extension as a one‑time accommodation to allow outstanding applications and documents to be completed.

"There has been a lengthy delay on some applications and the parties are still working through documents," Brad said, explaining his recommendation to approve the extension. Councilor Chavarria said the extension was preferable to creating liability for the city by denying the request now; Benefield said he supported approval but warned he would not favor further extensions.

The motion carried unanimously. Council did not place additional conditions in the approval beyond urging the developer to finish outstanding items within the extended time frame. The council recorded no individual roll‑call votes in the transcript transcript; the chair announced the item was approved unanimously.