By Susan Thompson | Lake Panorama Times
John Rutledge
Lake Panorama Association members soon will be asked to vote on a proposal for a new funding model for the association. The proposal would restructure LPA’s dues over the next five years.
By 2031, this would provide an additional $747,000 annually. Beginning in 2032, the LPA board would be limited to a 5% annual increase from the amounts billed in 2031.
In this month’s Q&A, John Rutledge, LPA General Manager, answers questions about the new funding model proposal and provides background on the LPA board’s decision to ask members to approve the measure.
Q: How long has the topic of adjusting the LPA funding model been under serious discussion?
A: The LPA board has been talking about this for several years. It’s important for the membership to understand the need for a change has been under discussion long before this year. As costs have continued to rise and our infrastructure has continued to age, the need for additional funding has become more critical.
This spring, we got the ball rolling with a membership survey in March. Once we had a chance to analyze the survey results, LPA staff and board developed an initial proposal. In August, we hosted six focus group sessions attended by 60 LPA members, where the proposal was outlined and input gathered. The LPA board gave final approval to the proposal at its Aug. 25 board meeting.
Regular readers of the Lake Panorama Times and the Panorama Prompt have undoubtedly noticed Lake Panorama’s funding model has been a recurring topic in 2026. Both the June and July Q&A articles in the Lake Panorama Times provided useful background information, and I encourage members to reread those articles as they evaluate the upcoming ballot measure and determine how they will vote.
The ballot measure addresses two issues. The first is a growing need for additional funds to address LPA’s aging infrastructure. The second is the need to simplify and update LPA’s dues structure.
Q. Talk more about the need for additional funding for LPA’s infrastructure.
A: The LPA dam was completed in 1970 and the lake formed within a few days. A majority of LPA’s critical infrastructure was installed during this era. Throughout the last half century, some items have been updated or replaced, such as LPA’s water plant, drinking water wells and maintenance facility. However, a substantial portion of LPA’s infrastructure remains original and needs to be upgraded or replaced.
Each year LPA budgets to update infrastructure with a substantial portion of LPA’s annual budget going toward roadways, the drinking water distribution system and the LPA dam. Unfortunately, the funds raised through our current dues structure don’t keep up. This is due both to dramatically increased infrastructure costs and to the fact much of our infrastructure has aged beyond its useful life.
The upcoming ballot measure on LPA’s funding model proposes to raise an additional three-quarters of a million dollars annually to establish a recurring, annual investment in infrastructure that would benefit all LPA members.
Q: How would this money be prioritized?
A: LPA has established three areas of priority for the new funds. The first category is the 35 miles of LPA roads. Currently, LPA budgets $430,000 for aggregate and road surfacing. This will accomplish approximately seven miles of seal coat this year, with the surfacing component being $50,000 per mile. The balance of the funds goes toward preparing seven miles for seal coat and performing routine maintenance on the other 28 miles. Our goal is to ensure that by 2031, we can fund 10 miles of seal coating each year.
The second priority area is improving our drinking water distribution system. When we discuss LPA’s drinking water system, we look at two critical components — production and distribution. LPA’s production includes two Jordan Aquifer wells and our relatively new reverse osmosis treatment plant. These assets are in great shape, with ample remaining lifespan. However, the distribution system needs serious attention.
LPA has 45 miles of water main at Lake Panorama, much of which has surpassed the 50-year mark. A critical and somewhat unique element of this system is the drinking water mains under Lake Panorama. The water mains at Sunset Beach and Burchfield Cove have both been replaced, while the water main at Christmas Tree Point is original. There also is a need to replace a main at Boulder Beach, which was originally installed but has not been in-service for decades. The cost of these two mains totals approximately $1.6 million.
We are already on borrowed time with the Christmas Tree Point water main. If this main fails prior to upgrade, LPA’s cost to replace it on an emergency timeline will undoubtedly be higher than if we plan ahead. Losing this main would likely leave the east side of Lake Panorama out of water for a couple of weeks until a temporary solution could be implemented.
This is not meant to paint a doom-and-gloom scenario, but the truth is that half our residents rely on a critical main that has outlived its lifespan.
The third priority area represents a collection of topics. Included in this category is the goal of building fund reserves to at least 10%, plus reducing LPA debt for projects that have been completed but are not yet paid off. The LPA board also would like to ensure funds are available to pay for occasional projects at the dam or marina without the need to borrow.
Q. What are some of the reasons a change in dues structure is a part of this proposal?
A: Restructuring the LPA dues structure has proven to be a challenging endeavor.
On one hand, all lots benefit equally from investment in our infrastructure. For example, seal coating past a waterfront home costs exactly the same as it does to seal coat past an offshore home. The same is true of running a water main or maintaining the dam.
With respect to these investments, all properties benefit regardless of designation. There is an argument to be made that infrastructure costs should be shared equally by members, regardless of whether they are a waterfront home, offshore home, undeveloped waterfront lot or undeveloped offshore lot.
There is, however, a worthwhile counterargument to be considered. In my line of work, one of the most difficult words to quantify is “fairness.” We strive to make data-driven recommendations and assessments, but in the end, we must ensure our analysis doesn’t ignore the human element.
LPA’s dues structure has been tiered since 1978. A majority of our membership continues to believe at least some pricing gap should exist between the most valuable properties and the least valuable. It is our job to listen to the membership and respect the feedback provided by the March 2026 survey.
How do we balance these two competing viewpoints? We propose a compromise. LPA’s upcoming ballot proposes to “close the gap” between those who pay the most and those who pay the least. Waterfront homes would still be the most expensive, while offshore lots would be the least expensive. The difference between those groups will shrink over a five-year transition period but will not be erased.
Q. The proposal also would reduce the number of membership categories from eight to four, correct?
A: Yes. In addition to what we’ve already discussed, this proposal will simplify LPA’s dues structures into four categories: waterfront home, offshore home, undeveloped waterfront lot and undeveloped offshore lot.
This change is mostly relevant to offshore B and offshore C lots, as LPA already treats all waterfront lots the same regardless of whether these are classified as A or B.
When the lake was originally platted, there was a perceived difference between offshore B and offshore C lots. The decision to classify an offshore lot as either B or C was made by the surveyor creating the original plat. Those decisions represented that person’s opinion on how Mid-Iowa Lakes should price the original sale of the lot.
History indicates the surveyors chose a B designation if a view of the lake was anticipated, and a C designation if it was not. This arbitrary designation from the late-1960s and early-1970s is outdated and the pricing difference between offshore B and offshore C lots no longer makes sense.
This simplification recognizes the reality of 2026: An offshore C property enjoys the same opportunities as an offshore B property, and the two should be classified the same.
Q. It’s expected some offshore owners will think paying higher dues over five years to close the gap between them and waterfront owners is unfair. What can you offer to offshore owners who disagree with this proposal?
A: It is essential to stress this ballot measure deals exclusively with LPA dues and has nothing to do with the Lake Panorama Rural Improvement Zone, known as RIZ. But understanding the evolution of RIZ helps to understand why this ballot measure is being proposed.
Prior to the establishment of RIZ in the late 1990s, LPA paid for everything. This included things such as road maintenance, drinking water production and distribution, dam maintenance, administrative functions, and lake dredging and debris removal. Some of these expenses benefited all memberships equally, while others provided more benefit to waterfront members than to offshore members.
Fast forward to 2026. RIZ now funds all expenses related to dredging and debris removal, as well as water quality. The functions that benefit waterfront homeowners most are no longer paid by LPA; they are paid for by RIZ. As a government entity, RIZ is already “weighted” based on the value of a property. It is not uncommon to find a waterfront homeowner paying double the taxes of an offshore homeowner, and 30 to 40 times the taxes paid by the owner of an undeveloped, offshore lot.
Although RIZ has paid for these expenses for more than 25 years, the LPA funding model has never been adjusted to recognize this. The tiers that were originally established in 1978 to account for erosion control expenses still dictate the gaps that exist today. This proposal recognizes LPA investment in infrastructure is different than the funding of dredging and is more universally beneficial to all memberships.
When we view RIZ and LPA together, the total amount paid by waterfront homeowners is substantially more than what is paid by everyone else. This proposal recognizes some correction is needed to bring the pricing gaps closer together with respect to LPA’s infrastructure investment.
Q. Any final thoughts?
A: It is important to clarify LPA has a bright outlook. By all standards, our community is thriving, and we should be very proud of that fact. But success isn’t accidental. Success is a function of respectful conversations, careful planning and the willingness of our membership to join together and row in the same direction.
Questions of fairness and affordability can be difficult conversations, but they’re honest conversations. Thank you for participating in this process, and for your continued support of LPA.
