Tag Archives: Austin City Council

A Challenge To The News Media: Monitor The City Council For Budget Affordability

1 Reply

By Bill Oakey – August 13, 2015

The City Council is now knee-deep into their budget deliberations. All of you reading this are wondering about the answers to some critical questions. These are questions that the news media should be asking the Council members, to find out how seriously affordability is being taken into consideration so far:

  1. How many cost-saving proposals have each of the Council members brought up so far in the  Budget Work Sessions?
  2. Which cost-saving proposals have they recommended so far?
  3. How much money has each Council member asked to be cut from the City Manager’s proposed budget?
  4. Has anyone on the City Council suggested an affordability goal for reducing the budget?
  5. Has anyone on the Council suggested a target for reducing taxes or fees in the budget?
  6. Has anyone on the Council suggested reducing the huge increase in staff in the City Manager’s proposed budget?
  7. Has the Council agreed to use a sliding scale for City Staff pay raises, after City employees received two separate raises this year? Or, do they plan to capitulate and offer all employees 3% raises, including executives with lofty salaries at the top?
  8. Have any of the Council members’ proposals for new spending have been offset with corresponding cuts, to ensure a zero impact on each new funding request?
  9. Affordability was often listed as the biggest issue in last year’s City Council campaigns. Has the importance of affordability been front and center so far in the budget deliberations?
  10. Which Council Members appear to be taking the lead on affordability throughout the budget deliberations?

A Few Bad Signs To Be Concerned About

  1. According to a recent article in the Austin Monitor, the City Manager’s budget proposal would RAISE TAXES ALMOST TO THE LEGAL MAXIMUM! That is called the “rollback rate,” which is an 8% increase over the current zero “effective rate.” Specifically, Marc Ott’s proposal would raise the tax rate to 48.14 cents. The legal maximum rollback rate is 48.26 cents.
  2. We would see some relief from the new 6% general homestead exemption. But the bad news is that the proposed budget does not include any specific spending cuts to offset the revenue gap from the homestead exemption. In other words, taxes would need to raised to make up that difference!
  3. Andra Lim with the Austin American-Statesman wrote a City Hall Blog piece entitled, “5 Things We Learned As Austin Officials Started Hammering Out the Budget.” Unfortunately, three of those five items relate to NEW SPENDING that Council members would like to ADD TO THE BUDGET.  While these programs may be worthwhile, and some appear to be, where are the cuts needed to offset these changes?
  4. Earlier this week, I was at City Hall for a meeting with a City Council aide. While walking down the hall, I encountered another aide who delivered some disturbing news. He told me about a trend that has emerged during the budget talks. Every time someone brings up a plan to cut some part of the budget, another Council member has a pet project ready to absorb that new-found money.

There is a simple three-word message that needs to be conveyed to the City Council:

Remember the Taxpayers!

Remember affordability! Remember the map of the City almost totally blanketed with double-digit tax appraisal increases for this year. Most homeowners will face the 10% appraisal cap, and any difference left over above the cap will be pushed into next year. Probably causing yet another back-to-back 10% increase in taxable value.

The Biggest Obstacle That Taxpayers Face is Business As Usual

It doesn’t take long for new City Officials to become absorbed into the status quo. A good word for that is “INERTIA.” Here is Merriam-Webster’s official definition of “inertia”:

: lack of movement or activity especially when movement or activity is wanted or needed

: a feeling of not having the energy or desire that is needed to move, change, etc.

“Business As Usual” was an appropriate title for the groundbreaking album by the Australian rock group, Men at Work, released in 1981. It stayed at number one on the Billboard music chart for 15  weeks and sold 15 million copies worldwide.

But here in Austin in 2015, we can no longer afford Business As Usual at City Hall!

business-as-usual-4f745d7d29bf1

Budget Op-Ed In The Austin American-Statesman

5 Replies

Austin City Budget Needs Affordability Makeover

Wednesday August 5, 2015

By Bill Oakey – Special to the American-Statesman

Every year at this time, Austin homeowners grit their teeth and wonder whether the City Council will remember their skyrocketing tax appraisals as they deliberate on the budget.

This year the tax appraisals were stunning, with double-digit increases as high as 27 percent in some areas. When the newly formed single-member-district City Council asked the city manager to submit a lean budget with responsible cuts, his response was pitifully weak and it suggested closing a fire station. What part of affordability does he not understand?

At the end of July, the city manager issued his official budget recommendation. In Volume One, the word “affordability” appears eight times. But the word “tax” appears 290 times and “fees” 134 times.

Property taxes would go up $40 annually for a “typical” median homestead, with the new 6 percent homestead exemption included. But that “typical” homestead is only valued at $232,272. Many longtime residents in single-family homes haven’t seen tax appraisals that low in about 15 years. Even more disturbing is the onslaught of utility increases and “add-on” fee increases averaging $7.98 per month. For most of the past 40 years, these “add-on” fees were included in our property taxes.

Here are several ideas for cost savings. Each year with our growing economy, we tend to have budget surpluses. The old city council spent nearly all of those in between budget cycles, with little or no public input. A budget is a budget, and any surplus should be used to reduce taxes, unless there is a public safety emergency.

It is long past time for city taxpayers to stop subsidizing for-profit public event companies, like South By Southwest. We could save $4 million every year in the budget with a compromise proposal. City services could be paid from three sources: funds from the Hotel Occupancy Tax, surcharges on ticket sales, and making the event promoters pay some of their own fees.

The council should consider awarding staff pay raises on a sliding scale. The city’s recent across-the-board raises, combined with bonuses and other perks, well exceed the stagnant wages of tens of thousands of other Austinites. Another opportunity for substantial cost savings involves the annual transfer of funds from the Budget Stabilization Reserves. Instead of spending more than $20 million on “wish list” items as the previous council did, the new council should time the purchases of new capital items over several years. Some of the surplus could be used to offset the cost of recent flood-related repairs, thereby cutting the budget and saving money for the taxpayers.

For better transparency, I have proposed a truth-in-taxation plan that includes a “Taxpayer Impact Statement.” This would be a chart that shows tax appraisal values from $100,000 to $1 million, in $50,000 increments. Categories should include the general and over-65 homestead exemptions. There should be columns showing the dollar amount of taxes due and the increase above last year’s amount. Taxpayers should be able to look across the chart and estimate their tax increase, based on various levels of appraisal increases up to the 10 percent appraisal cap. In my discussions of this proposal with both Austin and Travis County officials, some have suggested that the County Tax Office could help by creating a standard format for all taxing jurisdictions.

The city has a flawed policy of cramming the budget process into a few short weeks after the city manager’s recommendation. Travis County begins their budget process in February. The council should consider adopting an earlier schedule for next year. In light of the current tight deadline, they should not accept the city staff’s request to add 347 new positions, compared to only 151 that were added last year. Such a big change should require much more discussion and community input.

The tax-supported general fund has grown 38.9 percent in the last five years. Keeping the budget lean will be necessary if the new City Council wishes to achieve their goal of implementing a full 20 percent homestead exemption over the next few years. This first budget is their opportunity to prove that they are ready to quit talking about affordability and show us some real action.

Oakey is a retired accountant and writes at AustinAffordability.com.

 

How Do We Respond To The Developers’ 100,000 Unit Target?

12 Replies

By Bill Oakey – August 2, 2015

While relaxing in a chair a couple of evenings ago, I was hit with an emailed blog posting with the craziest juxtaposition of terms that I’ve seen in a long time:

The Premise: “Austin Rents Are Too High. That Is a Serious Affordability Problem.”

The Cause: “It Is a Simple Problem of Supply and Demand.”

The Solution: “Build 100,000 New Housing Units As Fast As Possible. That Will Magically Make Austin More Affordable.”

The blog posting in question was fired from a cannon on Friday by American-Statesman reporter Marty Toohey. The main theme of the blog is that the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA) has established a 100,000 target for the number of new housing units that will transform Austin into an affordable city.

At Long Last! Relief is Finally On the Way!

In the old days, the Alka-Seltzer pain reliever ads promised to bring us a lifetime of happiness. Their slogan was “Relief Is Just a Swallow Away.” The Statesman blog posting suggested that Mayor Steve Adler has already swallowed RECA’s affordability potion. But I have to wonder if he read all of the fine print in the warning messages that accompany their prescription.

alka-seltzer

The Number One Goal, In Fact the Only Goal, Is to Build “An Austin for Everyone”

Those of us who attended the Austin Monitor’s CodeNEXT panel discussion on July 27th, got a jaw-dropping introduction to the “come one, come all” approach to meeting the challenges of Austin’s growth. In the most unabashed manner imaginable, panelist Steve Yarak from a group called AURA repeatedly championed the mantra, “Let’s build an Austin for everyone.” His entire storyline from beginning to end was that every facet of Austin planning should focus on bringing as many people here as possible, as quickly as possible. To accomplish that one and only goal, we need to build, Build, BUILD – as many housing units as possible, with reduced regulations and as few zoning restrictions as possible. Build, build, build. Do it now. Do it fast. And don’t let anybody or anything stand in your way.

This unapologetic fervor on the panel was followed by sprinklings of applause, delivered in slices by pockets of followers who had swallowed the potion. Others in the audience who came out of curiosity or to learn how CodeNEXT might affect their neighborhoods, saved their applause for panel members Jim Duncan and Jeff Jack. Both of them have long histories in Austin and hard-earned reputations for balancing the exuberance of growth-at-any-price against neighborhood preservation and the interests of long-term residents.

More Growth at a Breakneck Pace Is the Solution to Affordability…Really?

Let’s put that proposition to a test with this list of questions:

1. Austin has grown tremendously since the 1970’s. Is the city more affordable now than it was in the 1990’s? the 1980’s? the 1970’s?

2. A major push to build more rental units was undertaken last year. Did the increased supply lead to lower rents? (Average rents actually increased 6.6% to $1,172 in the past year).

3. When new luxury housing units are built in older established neighborhoods, do those neighborhoods become more affordable as a result? Or do they become gentrified, with taxes rising so fast that older residents are forced to leave?

4. Transportation is the second leading component of affordability, behind housing. Is transportation more affordable in Austin as a result of rapid growth? Has growth led to improvements in traffic congestion?

5. The fastest growing cities in the country include Portland, Seattle, and several major cities in California. Are any of them more affordable now than they used to be?

Is There Some Way to Address the Challenges of Growth, While Admitting the Realities of Affordability?

Like any other problem in life, the first step toward solving it is to admit that there is a problem. Then that problem needs to be approached with openness, honesty, and a willingness to balance the needs and desires of everyone. Austin has been designated the most economically segregated city in America. It is clearly not affordable for several significant categories of people:

1. People who work for low wages, who need to be paid more for what they do, and who deserve better opportunities for better jobs.

2. Older people on fixed incomes, or who retired from jobs paying much less than today’s market salaries. These people make up a growing percentage of Austin’s population.

3. Long-term residents who struggle to make ends meet, as their neighborhoods become gentrified and they face high transportation costs if they move to the suburbs.

Here Is the Biggest Question That Many of Us Would Like to See Answered In a Positive Way…

Will our new mayor and our first 10-1 district City Council spend as much time and energy addressing the needs of long-term residents and existing neighborhoods as they do in answering to the whims and wishes of big business, the developers and the real estate industry? It takes six votes to pass an item on the City Council agenda. It also takes six votes to defeat one. Everyone has an opportunity to influence those votes and to take note of them after they have been cast.

We also know that five Council members – Greg Casar, Sheri Gallo, Delia Garza, Leslie Pool, and Don Zimmerman will be up for re-election next year.

If anything in this posting leaves you feeling a bit uneasy, don’t take any medication without reading the warning label. As an alternative, you might consider reaching for a drink, while listening to Eddie Noack’s 1959 song, “Relief Is Just a Swallow Away.” (Later recorded by George Jones).

The Whole Truth About The City Manager’s Proposed Budget

5 Replies

By Bill Oakey – July 30, 2015

On Thursday morning the new City Council members were treated to something they have been  eagerly awaiting all summer long – the proposed FY 2016 City Budget. If you would like to get an overview, you can see Volume One right here from the City’s website.

We have all known since the spring that property tax appraisals shot through the roof for most Austin homeowners, to the tune of mid to high double digits in many local zip codes. So, my approach to analyzing the taxpayer impact of the new budget will be different from the spin that appears in the budget’s executive summary. The word “affordability” appears a total of 8 times in Volume One, while the word “tax” appears 290 times, and “fees” appears 134 times. Here is the opening statement on the first page:

“This budget will raise more total property taxes than last year’s budget by $36,413,252 or 7.7%, and of that amount $13,926,299 is tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll this year.”

It is easy to see from those figures alone that the City intends to spend more money much faster than the growth in new population. Imagine what would happen to the tax impact on long-term residents if that trend continued for the next 10 years. Another disturbing tidbit is that the City Manager proposes adding 347.4 new staff positions, which is more than double the number of 151.25 positions that were added last year. Also, utility and fee increases averaging $7.98 per month are included in the budget.

So, What’s the Bottom Line On This Year’s Proposed Tax Increase?

The fairest and most truthful way to answer that question is to look first at the tax appraisal map from TCAD that was published in the spring when the new appraisals went out. Click to enlarge the map.

Notice this statement that appears next to the map, “The average market value for houses with a homestead exemption in Travis County went up 11% on average to $355,312.” Because the map includes several areas that are outside the City of Austin, it is hard to tell exactly how much the average appraisal increase is for Austin residents. But we can see that almost every Austin section on the map will, on average, hit the 10% tax appraisal cap.

However, the City told the Austin American-Statesman that “The owner of the median-valued homestead worth $232,272 would pay $1,051.08 in city taxes, up from $1,011.24 this past year.” That works out to a very modest-appearing tax increase of only $40. This includes the new 6% homestead exemption approved by the City Council.

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Here is a comparison between the data in the current FY 2015 Budget (Vol. 1, Page A-16) and the proposed FY 2016 Budget (Vol. 1, Page A-13). But this comparison is not accurate, as you will soon see.

FY 2015 FY 2016 $ Difference % Difference
Median Home Value $202,254 $232,272 $30,018 14.8%
Property Tax $973 $1,051 $78 8.00%

It turns out that the data presented in each of these budgets only allows an “apples to oranges” comparison of the numbers. After conferring with the reporter of Thursday’s article in the American-Statesman, I obtained the missing number needed to derive the $40 tax increase for the “median value” homeowner. The “median value” of $232,272 for a home in the FY 2016 budget is actually the “median homestead value.” They used that value because the City has adopted a 6% homestead exemption. So, in order to calculate the tax increase, we need to know the “median homestead value” for FY 2015. That number, which does not appear in either of the budgets, happens to be $210,279. Thanks to Andra Lim with the Statesman for tracking it down from the City.

With all of the required figures in hand, here is how to calculate the estimated tax increase:

  FY 2015 FY 2016 $ Difference % Difference
Median Homestead Value $210,279 $232,272 $21,993 10.5%
Less 6% Exemption $0 $13,936    
Taxable Value $210,279 $218,336    3.8%
Tax Rate Per $100 0.4809 0.4814    
Property Tax $1,011 $1,051 $40 3.9%

The median homestead value only includes owner-occupied homes, and not the ones being rented. So, there is a vast difference in the variety of residential properties on the tax rolls. A $40 annual tax increase looks small, but the median value numbers above include small units in multi-family properties such as condos. The biggest tax burden is borne by single-family homeowners, who make up a large percentage of Austin’s long-term residents.

We have been told that the City Manager’s budget proposal calls for a tax rate increase from 48.09 cents to 48.14 cents per $100 valuation. But that doesn’t tell us the percentage increase above the “effective rate,” which would take the appraisal increases into consideration.

A Taxpayer Impact Statement Would Be a Good Tool for Truth In Taxation

My “Truth In Taxation” proposal calls for the City to produce a Taxpayer Impact Statement that includes a chart of home appraisal values in $50,000 increments. The chart should include the following information:

1. A column showing last year’s taxable values, with no homestead exemption, plus columns showing the standard homestead exemption and the over-65 and disabled homestead exemption.

2. Additional columns showing this year’s taxable values at various appraisal levels, up to the 10% cap. And the dollar amount of taxes due at each appraisal level.

3. Columns showing the average amounts of utility and fee increases.

4. A final column showing the estimated grand total of tax, utility and fee increases.

It is time for the City to finally bring the full, complete and truthful impact of the budget out of the shadows and into the open!

Page A-11 of the budget spells out the frustrations of the people in the results of a citizen satisfaction survey. Here is just one example:

  • When asked to rate “Overall value for city tax dollars and fees,” 40% of citizens responded that they were satisfied or very satisfied, four percentage points better than the national average. However, 30% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction. Satisfaction is down nine percentage points from previous years, indicating that residents and business owners may increasingly be feeling the pinch of higher tax and utility bills.

A Resolution To The Solution Of Meaningless City Council Resolutions

Leave a reply

By Bill Oakey – July 11, 2015

On Friday I reported that the City Manager’s Office finally provided a response to the many months of questions surrounding the long-delayed May 1, 2014 City Council resolution dealing with special event fee waivers. Well, I am (somewhat, but not really) pleased to announce that late on Friday I received another update.

Update On July 10, 3:04 PM

From Mr. William “Bill” Manno:

Mr. Oakey, please see my responses below.

  1. Will the report include an evaluation of using ticket surcharges as an alternate funding source? Response: Surcharges are included in the discussion.
  1. Will your report to the City Council by October or earlier be coordinated with the Parkland Events Task Force as part of their review of special events funding? Response: That is very likely, however, we will have to wait until that task force begins to meet and sets its agendas.
  1. What is the status of the staff proposal for multi-year agreements for large special events that was addressed in the City Manager’s memo shown below? Will that topic be addressed in your report on alternate funding sources? Or will these be two separate reports? Response: They are related, but separate issues.

My Conclusions

Friday’s update showed that the resolution’s required deadline of August 2014 that got extended without City Council approval to August 2015, has now been extended to “October, if not sooner.” This little peek into the back rooms of City Hall should be a powerful lesson for anyone wishing to become engaged with “the process.” When I first became a citizen activist in the mid-1980’s, my mother started out by telling me what all mothers say, “You can’t fight City Hall.” Well, it tuns out that you can not only fight them, but you can win. However, the watchdog and reform business requires a level of patience and persistence that can only be described as crazy. Let me put it this way. If you really want to take on City Hall, you don’t do a little tiptoe up the steps and a little rap-tap on the door. You grab the entire building by its foundation and shake it till the bureaucrats’ eyeballs rattle in their sockets!

Lessons Learned From This Exercise

City Council resolutions with lofty language such as, “Now therefore, be it resolved…The City Manager Is Directed To,” and “This report is due back to the City Council no later than…” etc. carry about as much weight under today’s procedures as a feather in a hurricane. Stay tuned for an effort to establish a policy to make these resolutions respect the dignity of the folks who appear at the very top of the City’s official Organization Chart…The Residents of Austin.

The City Can Save $4 Million Every Year – But There Is a Huge Mountain To Climb

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – July 10, 2015

In the last few weeks I have met with several City Council offices. One of my top cost-saving priorities is to replace taxpayer-funded special event fee waivers with alternate funding. In May of last year, the City Council passed Resolution # 20140501-036 directing the City Manager to review options for this alternate funding. The intent and the deadline were crystal clear:

“The City Manager is directed to present the proposal for the special events fund and fee waiver process by August 7, 2014 to allow Council to consider the proposals as part of the City’s budget process.”

We now know that last August’s deadline came and went with no formal response to the resolution. So, we have a critical policy issue and very possibly a legal one as well. When the City Council passes a resolution and it is signed and placed into the public record, does it carry the force of law? You would think that a change to the substance and intent of a resolution, or a change to the deadline for directed action would require another public vote by the City Council. This is certainly true of City Ordinances. Is there any provision in the City Charter or the City Code that addresses required actions to amend a resolution? Is there a process in place to follow up on the status of resolutions to ensure that they don’t fall through the cracks?

Not only does the City need to establish a clear set of policies and procedures for timely implementation and amending of resolutions, but the process needs to be made transparent to the public. It would be most helpful if the Council Members, their staffs and the public could go online and check the status of a pending ordinance or resolution. It is my understanding that Council Member Ann Kitchen is interested in pursuing a model that is similar to the one that it is used in the Texas Legislature. And I am looking into resolution tracking systems that have been adopted in other cities.

Here’s what can happen when no one on the outside can see what the insiders are doing with a Council resolution. I found an undated City Manager’s PowerPoint presentation on the City’s website that reveals that they were attempting to comply with the May 1, 2014 resolution on special events funding. Slide # 17 in the presentation shows that 30 Texas cities use funding sources other than fee waivers to support special events. Most of those cities use Hotel Occupancy Tax funds. In the PowerPoint, the staff was told to bring back a funding plan for Council action in time for the resolution’s August 2014 deadline.

But sometime between this presentation and November of 2014, a major intervention took place behind the scenes. Without a vote of the City Council directing him to do so, the City Manager issued a memo to the Council on November 7th. This memo addresses a completely new approach to handling large special events. Although no detailed backup is provided, the aspect of alternate funding sources is dropped from the discussion. The central topic has shifted from single-year contracts with large event promoters to multi-year agreements. Under that arrangement, the local taxpayers could very well find themselves locked into the status quo system of funding special events with fee waivers.

Keep in mind that last November the old City Council was still in office. Here is what the City Manager related to them in his memo:

“I have directed staff to take the next several months to gather the necessary information to develop recommendations that can be evaluated as we begin discussion of the upcoming FY2015-2016 budget process.”

So, it appears that the City Manager and his staff are operating on a path to action that is, at the very least, unclear to the public and unclear to the newly elected City Council members. In my meetings with them, I have found no one who is aware of what the City Manager’s staff is working on with respect to the November memo. In another twist, I have been informed that the question of how to fund City services for special events will be taken up by the Parkland Events Task Force. When you click the link to their page, you will notice that they have not held any meeting yet, and in fact the City is still accepting applications for new members. In addition, the primary function of the task force is addressed in a completely different resolution.

My efforts are focused on a compromise plan to pay for special events from three sources: The Hotel Occupancy Tax, surcharges on ticket sales, and requiring the event companies to pay a reasonable portion of their own fees. I have asked the City Council to set an early 2016 deadline for studies and discussions of the new funding formula. In the meantime, I have asked them not to fund any fee waivers for large for-profit events with local tax dollars in the new budget.

We have a new City Council that wants to find cost-savings in the budget. They have also promised a high level of public engagement and better transparency. Later this month when the Council members get back to town, I will post a link for you to email them and ask them not to include any local taxpayer funding for special events. It’s a golden opportunity to save $4 million per year in recurring expenses. But it will never happen unless they commit to a firm timetable to establish a new funding formula. And whatever path the City Manager’s Office is taking on the matter needs to be clarified and communicated to the City Council.

Update on July 10th, 11:53 AM

I just received the following email from Mr. William “Bill” Manno, City of Austin Management Services, Corporate Special Events Program Manager. This information request was forwarded by Mayor Pro-Tem Kathie Tovo’s office.

Mr. Oakey,

The presentation you referenced was one I made for the very first stakeholder group meeting for the specific purpose of getting the conversations started.  It is in no way the final report to this Resolution and should only be used as a reference as to how this process was started.  The response to Resolution is currently being drafted and will be sent to Council by October, if not sooner.  The research mentioned in that presentation was done by interns and was limited to identifying cities that in some way use HOT funds for events.  I have staff currently doing more in-depth research as to how they actually apply those funds.  This information will be included in the report back to Council.

Resolution No. 20140501-036 included the following language:

“WHEREAS, the City collected approximately $54.8 million from hotel occupancy taxes in Fiscal Year 2012 and these collections from Austin hotels are used to fund the Austin Convention Center, the Austin Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, and the City’s Cultural Arts Program; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Music Commission has recommended that City Council explore other funding mechanisms for special events, including considering whether anticipated increases in hotel occupancy taxes could support special events costs;”

Therefore, the report will discuss other cities’ use of HOT funds, however, it will be Council’s decision as to what aspects of alternative funding mechanisms they wish to move forward with.

Please feel free to contact me directly should you have further questions.  Until the report is finalized and presented to Mayor and Council, it would inappropriate to release any portion of the report.

Thanks,

Bill

The Affordable Housing Issue That Nobody Wants To Talk About

5 Replies

By Bill Oakey – July 6, 2015

If you take a stroll around downtown Austin and find yourself within a few blocks of City Hall, the chances are pretty good that you will hear the chatter. If you don’t, just try putting your ear a little closer to the ground and you are bound to hear a certain phrase…

“Affordable Housing…”

As a sometimes City Hall insider, I’ve heard that phrase hundreds of times. But like any other popular buzzword, it has been abused and misused so often that its meaning and its value to the community have become very fuzzy. In fact, the fuzziness of affordable housing in the average person’s mind is surpassed only by the unfathomable convoluted mess of formal City policies on the subject. I will attempt to wade into that morass in a future posting. But first, let’s get one thing out in the open…

Almost All Official Discussions of Affordable Housing Center Around New Housing That Could Be…Might Be…Perhaps Even Ought to Be…Built In Austin Someday. Not Today, Probably Not Tomorrow Either. But Someday…

Walk into a meeting where people are talking about affordable housing, and you will hear about things like density bonuses to encourage developers to include affordable units in their new projects. You will hear about the need for more concessions for developers, more fee waivers from the City taxpayers, etc. Once in a while you will hear about expanding subsidized housing programs. And another popular phrase that keeps popping up this year is “missing middle” affordable housing. That refers to building duplexes and townhouses that should have a place somewhere in Austin, next to the McMansions and the Big-Box-Block-Long-$1,600-to-$1,800-For-One-Bedroom-Rent-With-No-Equity-Apartment-Community-Resort-Type-Buildings. (Sometimes more politely referred to as “walkable and bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented new urbanist activity centers).” Is it even remotely possible to build one of those things without it being so hideously ugly?

Getting Back to My Original Point – The Affordable Housing Issue That Nobody Wants to Talk About. Well, I Guess You Could Say That It Is the…Elephant In the Room!

elephant-in-the-room

Last week I asked a friend to take me on a drive through several neighborhoods in North Central Austin that…now, listen to this carefully…that ALREADY HAVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING! There are, of course, pockets of housing like this in various neighborhoods all over town. Concentrate as hard as you can on a great big wish. Maybe if we all wish hard enough, somebody down at City Hall will pick up the vibrations. Let’s hope and let’s wish that there is a way for Austin to…

Preserve and Protect the Affordable Housing That We Already Have…Before Every Remaining Square Inch of It Is Scraped Away to Oblivion to Make Way for Gentrification!

Remember that I said that nobody really wants to talk about this. But all of you are hereby granted permission to not only whisper about it, but to stand on the rooftops and SHOUT ABOUT IT, until somebody downtown hears you. Now, this next comment means that I am really going way out on a limb. But why not take one final step and suggest that…

Austin Should Create a Formal “Existing Affordable Housing Preservation Plan.”

In order to do that, our local officials could look at other cities from San Francisco to the East Coast to find out how in the heck they have dealt with housing affordability and neighborhood preservation for the past 30 to 40 years. The pattern in Austin of chip-chipping away at every lot in every neighborhood, bit by bit, block by block, street by street until everything except luxury housing disappears is not the only pattern that exists in the United States.

As you gaze at the modest homes in the photos below, keep in mind that the dirt beneath them is most likely pushing up the tax appraisals to the point where some of them are no longer as “affordable” as they once were. But at least they are more affordable than what you will find in a fully scraped, gentrified neighborhood. For musical accompaniment, here is Gene McDaniels’ top 10 recording for Liberty Records in 1962, “Chip Chip.” 

A Photo Tour of North Central Austin’s Existing Affordable Housing

P1040430

P1040425

P1040423

P1040421

P1040419

P1040410

U.T. Journalism Student Reports On Vacant City Staff Positions

1 Reply

Introduction By Bill Oakey – June 25, 2015

Last week I was pleasantly surprised to receive an email from Amanda Atwell, a journalism student with a minor in government at U.T. As a follower of this blog, she became interested in the high number of vacant staff positions in the City budget. She asked me some questions for a paper on that subject for one of her journalism classes. So, today I welcome her to this blog by posting her report, which I found to be quite impressive.

But first, a few quick notes about Amanda. Last year she received College Honors from U.T.’s Moody College of Communication. She belongs to Texas Student Television and currently works as an intern at KXAN-TV. Her career interests include sports broadcasting and political journalism.

Amanda Atwell

Amanda Atwell

Resolution Passes Regarding Vacant Positions

By Amanda Atwell

Austinites will have a better idea of where some of their tax dollars are being spent because of the recently passed resolution by City Council regarding excessive city job vacancies.

The resolution, which passed June 11, will attempt to eliminate some of the 1,012 vacant city staff positions. It will also allow City Council to re-appropriate the funding for vacant positions. The resolution allows the council to reevaluate the necessity of the long-term vacancies, some vacant for nine years. Many positions have been vacant due the difficulty of the city being able to compete salary-wise with the private sector. The resolution requires the city manager to bring vacancies before the council from the varying departments, allowing the council to determine what to do with excess funding and whether or not to terminate the position for the next fiscal year.

Austinite and author of a website focused on affordability in Austin, Bill Oakey, believes the resolution is a step in the right direction, but is still concerned about the lack of transparency in where tax dollars are going. Oakey is a former member of the City Electric Utility Commission and continues to work with City Council to find solutions to alleviate excess city spending, in turn lowering the burden on city taxpayers. According to Oakey, much of the unused money for the vacant positions has gone into a “slush fund,” making it unclear what exactly the money was used on. “It’s (money) just thrown into a pile and they can use it without much accountability,” Oakey said. According to the resolution, $73 million is allocated in the budget for the current vacant positions.

While the lack of transparency in city government presents a major issue, the inability to fill these positions could have major implications in the city’s ability to provide necessary services. According to Oakey, Austin’s Emergency Call Center (911) remains badly understaffed, resulting in excessive overtime and increased stress on employees. The fire department suffered vacancies because of a hiring dispute and a federal mandate that resulted from the issue, postponing the hiring process. The police department and Austin Energy also have suffered from vacant positions because of the lack of applicants with the proper skills.

Austin Energy has struggled to fill vacancies because of the competition with private-sector employers. According to Ken Craig, policy advisor for Council Member Ann Kitchen, other employers are capable of being much more competitive with salaries, therefore making it difficult for Austin Energy to fill high-skill positions such as engineers, and information technology specialists. “There is a potential impact in not being able to fill needed positions, as services to citizens may be compromised,” Craig said.

The resolution allows the city manager to bring forward specific positions to be discussed by the council, whether to eliminate the position or reevaluate the pay. “It would be helpful for the city manager in situations where we have trouble filling a vacancy because we’re not being competitive in the pay that we’re offering, it would allow him an opportunity to make that case to the council, as well,” Council Member Troxclair said at the council meeting June 11.

Some believe while this is a step in the right direction, there is room for further improvement. Michael Searle, policy advisor for Troxclair, said this is just the first step in the process of reducing the number of vacancies and improving budgetary transparency. Cities such as San Antonio place protections on the percentage of allowable city job vacancies, capping their allowable vacant positions at around 6 percent. Austin is currently at 8 percent according to Searle.

The resolution does not place a percentage cap on vacant positions, but aims to increase transparency in the budget, and allows City Council to re-appropriate funding for non-sworn positions that remain vacant more than 12 months. The resolution will allow City Council to determine whether to continue funding of the long-term continuing vacancies by requiring the city manager to notify the council of positions vacant over 12 months. “This will allow us to put a structure in place so that we don’t get into this position again,“ Troxclair said at the council meeting June 11. “We don’t have to check in every, you know, every few years, and say, oh, well, we’ve been spending, you know, $500,000 on this position that was vacant.”

In order to completely alleviate the issue, Oakey believes more change should happen. “I think the new resolution was a softball approach to the problem,” Oakey said. He favors the “Honolulu policy,” which places funds for vacant positions under the control of one central office. This office will then distribute the funds on an as-needed basis, preventing departments from padding their budgets with the excess funding. Honolulu, Hawaii, adopted this policy when the city had a similar affordability crisis. Oakey also suggested that the city’s website should provide the taxpayers full transparency.

Oakey supports the resolution, but still questions where the money previously allocated for these positions went. According to an article in the Austin Business Journal, in August 2013, Austin had 934 jobs available, but only 76 were advertised and open to applicants. According to Oakey, three council members said that the funds specifically for the salaries of these vacancies could be used for other unknown purposes without discretion. Because of lack of regulation regarding the unused money, Oakey said it is difficult to tell where exactly is has been spent in previous years.

Oakey said the most immediate impact the resolution will have would be the requirement of regular reports from the city manager on the amounts of budgeted funds from vacant positions that are available to be re-apportioned. While this doesn’t eliminate the funds from the budget, it allows for accountability to the taxpayer and helps to ensure their money is spent responsibly, improving on the lack of policy regarding the issue in previous years.

Austin Needs A Budget Affordability Strategy – Can Houston Help Us?

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – June 16, 2015

Members of Austin’s new City Council have thrown down the gauntlet. They have made it clear in public statements and in Council meetings that they want to protect vital City services, and also make a real impact on affordability in the upcoming budget. That will be a tough hill to climb, so kudos to them for taking on the challenge.

Unfortunately, the one thing that is burned into everyone’s mind (pun probably intended) is the recently-retracted Staff suggestion of closing down a fire station. As an Austin resident since 1971, I can recall many times during economic downturns when the City kept the budgets lean. Taxes did not shoot up in those years, and I don’t recall that City services suffered irreparable damage. I contend that 2015 is one of those years when the City should hold the line once again. Austin’s current “boom” does not help the people on the wrong side of “the most economically segregated city in America.” But the question circles back to this: What cuts from what parts of the budget?

Scale Back On City Employee Pay Raises

I don’t believe that we can afford to give large across-the-board pay raises to City employees. One of my proposals calls for a sliding scale approach. City workers received a 3.5% pay raise last October, followed by another $750 raise in April. That alone exceeds what thousands of Austinites received during the same period. It does not seem hard-hearted to suggest that the lowest paid workers should receive higher raises, while the executives at the top should get very little, if any.

Council Members Ellen Troxclair and Don Zimmerman have revealed calculations showing that it would only cost $600,000 to raise the pay of Austin’s 350 full time workers earning less than $15 per hour up to that level. That sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

City officials have discussed trying to boost a large number of positions up to the level of some sort of market survey. Well, in a perfect world, every person in every job would be paid according to a study that shows how much they are really worth. The City needs to keep in mind that their jobs pay very well compared to an enormous number of other jobs in town, and the benefits are considerably better. If the Council Members are looking for a place to save measurable amounts of money in the budget, that would be a good place to start.

Pick the Right Set of One-Time Expenses For the $26.9 Million Transfer From the Reserves

It is out of my scope of knowledge to second-guess where the Staff and Council should look to find that list. But closing a fire station should not be on it. Perhaps they can defer some planned  purchases and spread them over a longer period. If they set a limit to the budget that does not go too far past the amount of the current budget plus the reserve transfer amount, then they will not need a large effective tax rate increase. My suggestion would be to ask the Staff for some alternate scenarios, with enough line item details to allow the Council to set priorities and make the best choice.

Get Rid of the Special Event Fee Waivers for For-Profit Companies (For Crying Out Loud)!

This is arguably one of the most unpopular policies in all of City government. I don’t need to repeat the specific details on that issue. But what seems in order is a compromise solution that funds City expenses for the events from a split formula. That would include the Hotel Occupancy Tax, a small surcharge on ticket sales, and, if anyone can handle this concept, requiring the event organizers to pay some portion of their own fees. This new funding formula needs to cover the entire cost of City services, keeping in mind that fees collected plus fees waived currently add up to less than the total cost of the services.

I hope the City Council has put in an information request to check on the intent and status of the November 2014 City Manager’s memo that appeared to shift the focus on special event funding over to setting up multi-year agreements with event organizers. That plan could lock the taxpayers in to continued fee waiver subsidies.

Is There Somebody Down In Houston Who Can Help Us?

I can remember a time when the last thing Austin wanted to be was anything like Houston. That town was considered just too big, just too disorganized without any zoning laws, and they had too darned many mosquitoes. Well, very recently I came across this little gem of a headline,  “Mayor Parker Holds Line On Spending With Final Budget Proposal.” Although this proclamation comes from the Houston Mayor’s web page, there are some interesting concepts and tidbits.

Similar to one option that Austin is considering, Houston’s Mayor proposes doubling the senior and disabled homestead exemption. And this statement sounds quite appealing, “Improved internal controls and more transparency for taxpayers and elected officials.” Their Budget Stabilization Fund would come in at $20.4 million, which compares to the estimate of $59.8 million for ours, after the transfers out. Of course, there may be very good reasons for the differences between Austin’s and Houston’s policies and strategies for their budgets. But I’m a big believer in looking at what other cities do and why they do it. Our new City Council members might gain some valuable insights by reviewing Houston’s proposed budget, which is available here.

With any luck, maybe we could ease our traffic woes by encouraging some of our visitors to head south to Houston and take a look around. To get them in the mood, how about these two songs – “Houston,” by Dean Martin from 1965 and “Houston (Means I’m One Day Closer to You)” by Larry Gatlin & the Gatlin Brothers from 1983.