Tag Archives: Austin City Council

Budget Official Confirms $26.9 Million Surplus – But Doesn’t Want Us To Call It A Surplus

12 Replies

By Bill Oakey – Updated June 13, 2015

Late Friday, we received word that Mr. Ed Van Eenoo, Austin’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer, wrote a response to the City Council regarding this blog’s reported “budget surplus.” He states that the $26.9 million cited in the City document referenced on the blog last Thursday is “not a surplus.” To be clear, he identified that same amount and described it as part of the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund, but he stopped short of labeling it as a surplus. Excerpts from Mr. Van Eenoo’s email to the Council are attached to the end of this posting.

Do We Have a Surplus or Don’t We?

After the end of each fiscal year, any surplus funds from the annual operating budget will flow into the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund. These surpluses come from increased revenues and / or lower expenditures than what were budgeted. Mr. Van Eenoo Identified $12.3 million in surplus funds from the FY 2014 budget that were transferred to that reserve fund this year. But that $12.3 million is only a small portion of the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund. It has grown from $31.4 million in 2008 to $54 million in 2010 to an estimated $86.7 million for FY 2016. Since the source for those reserves is annual budget surpluses and interest, then the $26.9 million that has been deemed available to spend in the upcoming budget could be classified as surplus funds. Not all of it is a “new budget surplus,” but a look at the complete picture should settle the splitting of hairs. The important issue here is that funds transferred into the budget from a source other than new taxes creates an opportunity to lower the amount of new taxes needed.

What Are the City’s Financial Policies On Using Reserve Funds for Spending In the Budget?

In any given year, the City can spend up to 1/3 of the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund. But, there is a caveat. Another policy requires that the City maintain a total balance in the 3 General Fund reserve accounts that equals 12% of the General Fund requirements in the upcoming budget. The limit of $26.9 million is derived from the second of those two policies.

What’s the Bottom Line for the New Council and the Taxpayers?

The City’s official record shows an estimated amount of $26.9 million in reserves that can be spent in the upcoming budget. The big challenge for City staff and the new City Council will be selecting the ideal set of one-time expenditures that can be funded from the reserves. If the City can identify critical one-time items that do not stretch overall spending too far beyond last year’s budget, then we could see tangible tax relief. It’s a matter of perspective. They can save money by picking items that were included in previous budget forecasts, but were not tied to assumptions of future surpluses. Or, they can regard the $26.9 million as an opportunity to create new “wish lists” and thus, higher spending. What needs to go onto everyone’s list is the word “affordability.” Helping the taxpayer’s is one of this year’s biggest “unmet needs.”

Last Year’s Proposed Staff Budget Included $29 Million From the Same Reserve Fund

Take a look at this Budget Office response to an information request from former City Council Member Mike Martinez:

2014‐2015 PROPOSED BUDGET RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

DEPARTMENT: Financial Services – Budget Office REQUEST NO.: 125
REQUESTED BY: Martinez
DATE REQUESTED: 9/2/14

DATE POSTED: 9/5/14

REQUEST: Please provide a breakdown of every expense in the proposed budget that is funded by the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund, including a justification for each expense request.

RESPONSE:

Included in the Proposed Budget is a transfer from the Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund to the Critical One‐Time Fund of $29,029,312. The list of items proposed to be funded along with the justification for those expenditures is attached.

Here is the link to that document and the attached list of proposed expenditures.

Excerpts From Mr. Ed Van Eenoo’s Response to the City Council On Friday June 12, 2015

Regarding the $26.9 Million – “That figure, which was presented as part of our financial forecast, is our preliminary estimate of the allowable amount that the City’s Budget Stabilization Reserve will be able to be drawn down by in FY 2016 while remaining within Council’s adopted financial policies.” Then he goes on to say, “As you well know, reserves represent a one-time source of funding and as such their use is limited to non-recurring expenditures. Therefore, it would not be allowable under the City’s financial policies (nor advisable under any circumstance) to use those funds as a means of offsetting a recurring revenue reduction resulting from the implementation of a general homestead exemption.”

My Comment – I stand corrected on the last point. My suggestion in last Thursday’s blog posting that the surplus might be applied towards offsetting the homestead exemption is not valid. I have edited the posting and removed it. Perhaps a teacher should slap my hand with a ruler, because I have a copy of that financial policy in my affordability archives. But, we all make mistakes and hopefully, we learn from them. You can see the revised blog posting here.

Regarding the $12.3 Million – “The actual year-end surplus for FY 2014 was $12.3 million, roughly in line with prior-year surpluses. These funds flow into the Budget Stabilization Reserve for appropriation by Council in the subsequent fiscal year pursuant to the City’s aforementioned financial policies.”

Affordability Proposals For The Austin City Budget

1 Reply

By Bill Oakey – June 9, 2015

It’s that time of year again. This year we have an unprecedented opportunity for affordability reforms. Those of you who have followed this blog since 2013 will recognize some of the items included below. The good news is that the new 10-1 City Council has been very open to suggestions and ideas from the citizens. I have witnessed a new spirit of transparency and inclusiveness.

In that light, I have offered the following proposals for their consideration. If anyone would like to review the details on these from previous blog postings, just enter the topic in the Search box in the upper right section of this page.

  1. Truth In Taxation – Develop a “Taxpayer Impact Statement” that shows the true percentage amount of a tax increase. That would be the percentage increase above the zero “effective tax rate.” State law allows cities to impose a maximum 8% effective tax rate increase. So, the Truth In Taxation percentage would be somewhere between zero and 8%. Adopt either a City Ordinance or a City Council Resolution that directs all City staff and all City Council members to publicize tax increases using the Truth in Taxation standard. This standard would also apply to press releases and all other communications published by the City of Austin. This reform would replace the old standard of just publicizing changes to the “tax rate.” The past practice has been to characterize new City budgets as “holding the line on the tax rate.” Of course the tax rate by itself is very misleading. You can have a tax rate decrease and homeowners with large tax appraisals will still see a steep increase in their tax bills. The Taxpayer Impact Statement should include a chart that shows the dollar impact on a range of home values, perhaps between $100,000 and $1 million, in $25,000 increments.

This proposal is based on the Truth in Taxation principles embodied in House Bill 328, which I proposed to the Texas Legislature in 1987, and was passed and signed into law by Governor Bill Clements.

  1. Use Budget Surpluses for Taxpayer Relief – Please revise the language in the General Fund Financial Policy that is contained in Ordinance # 20140410-004, to Include:
  • A statement that Austin’s affordability challenges require that every effort be made to hold all budget surpluses in reserve accounts, rather than spending the money. Departmental assessments of “unmet needs” must be measured against the needs of renters, homeowners and businesses that struggle with their own budgets.
  • Items to be considered for non-emergency spending from a surplus must be applied to a matrix that evaluates the worthiness of the project in the context of other critical priorities, including relief for taxpayers in the next budget cycle.
  • Items approved based on the matrix described above will be submitted to Council Committees for review, and a public hearing on these items will be held by the City Council prior to a vote.
  • Budgeted vs. Actual revenues and expenditures, by department and with bottom line totals should be published on the public financial website. This will transparently show whether surpluses or deficits exist throughout the year. These statements could be updated quarterly or monthly, depending on how often they are already being generated by financial staff.
  • Budget surplus amounts not spent will be held in reserve accounts until the next budget cycle. Those unspent surplus amounts will be labeled and disclosed as such at the beginning of the next budget cycle. The next budget must be planned and debated without regard to the accumulated prior year surpluses. After the next budget is finalized, the surplus amounts will then be applied as expenditure reductions, in order to generate tangible cost savings to the taxpayers.

Please note that this proposal requires a cultural shift in thinking. The view from inside City Hall has been that “found money” is a new revenue stream available for spending. The view from outside City Hall is that leftover money could be and should be applied to taxpayer relief. Austin affordability is a new reality that has not played a part in City financial decision-making to the extent that it needs to be from now on.

  1. Limit and Control Staff Vacancy Funding – Limit to no more than 5% of workforce (as done in Portland). Assign control of funds to one central office. That office would disburse the funds to departments only to fill vacant positions as needed (as done in Honolulu).
  1. Publish Revenue and Expenditure Data for the Hotel Occupancy Tax – Currently there is no easy way to find that information on the public website. This fund is growing very rapidly, from $51 million in 2012, to an estimated $70+ million in 2014. A large number of additional hotel rooms will be coming onto the market in the next couple of years.
  1. Use The Hotel Occupancy Tax to Offset the Cost of Special Event Fee Waivers – Alternate funding sources, mostly from HOT funds, are currently being used for a portion of special event costs in 30 Texas cities, including Cedar Park, Dallas, Georgetown, Giddings, Fredericksburg and Round Rock. This fact was illustrated in the City Manager’s Power Point presentation to staff in mid-2014. Fee waivers in Austin do not account for the entire deficit that City incurs during special events. In 2013, we experienced a funding gap between expenses incurred and fees collected of $3,110,104. Note that The City Transportation Dept. reported the 2013 funding gap to be $4,256,000, with the total five-year deficit from 2009-2013 coming to $10,694,000.
  1. Index the Over-65 Homestead Exemption – This initiative was proposed by the last City Council. It is my understanding that City staff has been asked to present an analysis to the current Council. Travis County is also considering indexing their Over-65 exemption. It is posted for action on the Commissioners Court agenda for June 16. Both entities currently have an exemption of $70,000.
  1. Implement City Staff pay increases on a sliding scale, rather than across the board – City employees received a 3.5% pay increase this year, plus an additional $750 pay boost in April. It has been common practice for the State Legislature to grant larger pay raises to the lowest paid State workers, while giving smaller increases to the highest paid workers. City executive salaries could be left as they are, since their affordability issues are significantly less than those of most Austinites. The City Manager should be given carefully determined flexibility to award higher pay increases for certain positions that are difficult to fill because of specialized skills. However, pay increases on a very broad scale based on market surveys does not fit with Austin’s current affordability environment. Huge numbers of Austin workers are being paid salaries and wages that are significantly less than what would be considered livable by any reasonable measure. The taxpayers would be quite upset if the City went overboard in granting big raises to large numbers of City employees at this time. Please keep in mind also that retired Austin teachers, retired University of Texas staff employees and State of Texas retirees have not received a cost of living increase since 2001!
  1. Hold One Or Two Informational Budget Work Sessions With Council Members and Staff From San Antonio – This could include a meeting with the San Antonio City Council and a meeting that includes Austin Energy and CPS Energy. The two cities share many commonalities, and each could learn from the other about successful cost-saving initiatives and various planning strategies.

Please total up the cost savings from these proposals, as they relate to the upcoming FY 2016 City Budget. This savings amount can be applied toward reducing or eliminating any tax increase associated with the increased general homestead exemption. You will also see recurring savings from these proposals in future budget years.

A Big Thanks To Council Member Don Zimmerman

4 Replies

By Bill Oakey – June 6, 2015

In the City of Austin, the name Don Zimmerman means different things to different people. Whenever I bring up the name, I get a variety of strange looks and interesting expressions. I suppose there could easily be more than one Don Zimmerman here, since Austin has become a pretty big city. The Don that I know best currently represents District 6 on the Austin City Council. Before he was elected last November, he earned a reputation as a fighter for the taxpayers, even occasionally taking his battles to court.

When I walked into his office at City Hall recently, I came prepared with documents and notes to support my affordability proposals for the upcoming City Budget. We did not discuss party politics. It was a straightforward dialog about longstanding problems with the budget. The most amusing thing he showed me is the City’s latest “Budget in a Box.” It actually does come delivered in a box. This cleverly marketed product could be easily mistaken for some kind of X-Series video game console kit, complete with hardware and software manuals and a DVD. It looks colorful and exciting from the outside:

Budget box

City of Austin Budget In a Box

But to put it mildly, Don Zimmerman was not impressed. The first thing he showed me came as no surprise, but it ticked me off nonetheless. Get ready for this everybody…we should have known it was coming. The wonderful news from the Budget In a Box is that the City is forecasting a slight decrease in the property tax rate!  Yes, once again we are not being told the Truth-In-Taxation percentage of the estimated tax increase. That is why the first item on my reform list has always been Truth In Taxation. Because of the high property tax appraisals this year, the tax rate could go down slightly and we would still see a pretty stiff tax increase, especially those people whose appraisals have hit the 10% cap. The truthful amount of the City’s tax increase would be stated as the increase above the “effective rate.” That is the amount that would generate the same amount of revenue as the City received last year. By law, they can raise the effective tax rate by as much as 8% without triggering a rollback election by citizen petition. Last year’s tax rate changed by only a fraction of a penny, but the increase above the effective rate was 3.8%.

Meanwhile, back in Don Zimmerman’s office, we looked at the chart on Page 57 of the Five Year Financial Forecast. I will not attach an audio recording of the words that may have slipped out when we saw the huge chart of tax, utility and utility add-on fee increases. You can read it yourself right here. For a “median-value home” of $221,086 the bottom line projected increase is $18.53 per month. The tax portion of that is only $7.05. But here’s the problem. The estimated tax amount does not include any new programs or changes made by the staff or the City Council. And the chart does not take into consideration whether your home saw a double digit tax appraisal increase. So, the tax increase that you would actually see on your bill would most likely be considerably higher. And, by the way, how many people do you know who live in a “median-value home” that is appraised that low?

To summarize my meeting with Mr. Zimmerman, he told me that he supports my affordability proposals. And he mentioned one of his own that I will explain in detail in another posting. We all have a big hill to climb between now and the end of the budget season. It will not be a stroll on the beach, like the Beach Boys portrayed in their 1974 album, Endless Summer.

As for Don Zimmerman, some of you may have him confused with that other guy out there that some people think is “way out there.” The one that brings to mind flying saucers, conspiracy theories, and tables levitating to the sound of voices from the dead. That is not the Don Zimmerman that I talked to down at City Hall. But, I don’t want you to leave this blog disappointed if you came here looking for a pathway to adventures from another world. Just grab a beer or a glass of something else and check out this video.

Special Event Fee Waivers – Other Texas Cities Prefer Hotel Occupancy Tax

Leave a reply

By Bill Oakey – June 4, 2015

The quest to eliminate taxpayer-subsidized special event fee waivers may get a boost, thanks to the discovery of a little-publicized City Manager’s Power Point presentation from mid-2014. This presentation followed the May 1st passage of City Council Resolution # 20140501-036, sponsored by Kathie Tovo, directing the City Manager to review alternative funding sources for special event fee waivers. One specified option was to consider using the Hotel Occupancy Tax. A subsequent information request from then Mayor Pro-Tem Sheryl Cole revealed that Austin’s Hotel Occupancy Tax revenues have galloped from $51 million in 2012 to an estimated $70+ million in 2014.

The newly discovered Power Point presentation should put to rest any fleeting suggestion that Austin cannot or should not use Hotel Occupancy Tax funds to replace millions of dollars in fee waivers. This statement appears on Slide # 17: “To date we have researched and found 30 cities in Texas that currently utilize other funding sources for special events that qualify; most utilizing a percentage of HOT Funds administered by the Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB).” Cities cited in the presentation include Cedar Park, Dallas, Georgetown, Giddings, Fredericksburg and Round Rock. You can download the Power Point presentation here.

From an affordability standpoint, here’s a revelation that should catch everyone’s attention. On Slide # 8, charts show that in 2013 the City granted $1,146,127 in fee waivers. But somehow they wound up with a funding gap of $3,110,104 that year. The event costs for all City departments added up to $6,703,457, while fees collected only came to $3,593,353. (The City Transportation Dept. reported the 2013 funding gap to be $4,256,000, with the total five-year deficit from 2009-2013 coming to $10,694,000).

At the City Manager’s Power Point session, Slide # 2 states that an alternate funding proposal for special events was due to his office on July 24th, and to the City Council on August 7th (the date specified in the Council resolution). We now know that something transpired at City Hall between May and November of 2014. Marc Ott’s November 7th memo signaled a new direction for responding to the issue, as well as a new one-year-later deadline. They are now pursuing a plan for multi-year agreements with special event organizers. These carry the potential for locking in the taxpayers to continuous fee waiver subsidies. The whole notion of considering the Hotel Occupancy Tax as an alternate funding source disappeared down the rabbit hole.

But now it is on its way back out…Stay tuned!

Rabbit Hole

This Is Austin’s Wake-Up Call – The Wage Side Of Affordability

1 Reply

By Bill Oakey – June 2, 2015

Many of us probably think we know something about Austin affordability. Just today I was reminded that “affordability” means different things to different organized civic groups. But let me tell you how I came to see it in way that has never quite hit me before. Never like this.

Please read the quotes below. Then, rub your eyes and see if they read the same way a second time. If this is going on all over Austin, then we have a bigger problem than many of us realized. It simply can’t be allowed to continue.

From the Austin Chronicle, May 29, 2015, Feedback, Page 8

On Wheatsville’s Wages

“I was hired as a deli clerk at Wheatsville in 1995 at the rate of $9.00 an hour. It’s sad that in 20 years that rate has not changed. The fact that the GM will not reveal his salary is ludicrous and very telling.” – Justin A.

“When I started working at Wheatsville in 2007, I started out at $8.50 and not $8.00 because I had a little experience. So Wheatsville stepped down from their starting pay in 1995, wow. Even with a promotion to a higher-paying position, I’m still not making much more than the new employees. The ‘I can’t afford to shop where I work thing is real.'” – Captain Happy

These comments are feedback to the Chronicle’s story, Is Something Rotten at Wheatsville Co-op? Well, here’s my little story. I wandered in there sometime around 1979. i picked up a can of peaches. The price was so exorbitantly high that I asked a salesperson if it could be a mistake. “Are you a Wheatsville member?’ he asked. When I told him no, he replied that the price for that can of fruit would be even higher for non-members. That is the beginning, the middle, and the end of my story about Wheatsville. I never stepped inside the place again.

Just recently, a professional hair stylist that I really liked asked if I would mind “modeling” for her at a hair salon just north of U.T. The manager asked if she could bring in a regular customer and cut his hair as a means of trying out for a job opening there. I had learned from this stylist about the cosmetology license that is required and the cost to renew it each year. Her appointment and the modeling thing never panned out, but the stylist did tell me one interesting thing. If she had been offered that job, it would have paid only minimum wage.

Somebody is making a whole hell of a lot of money in Austin, Texas. And off the people in Austin. But if those masses of little people ever get riled up enough to join forces and speak out with a united voice, something extraordinary might happen. Maybe a bunch of them did speak out when they went to the polls last November in the City Council election.

The news stories just keep coming – about unprecedented rent increases that don’t match up well with salaries and wages. Tax appraisals that jolt homeowners out of their socks, for the second or third year in a row. And on and on. So, here’s some food for thought. Consider two key phrases that you have heard recently at City Hall and that will surely come up again. “Tipping Point” and “Unmet Needs.” Lack of affordability has placed our City at the tipping point. That means that the people in power need to stop talking about it take some action.

The Regional Affordability Committee has agreed to do that by incorporating principles and concrete proposals into a strategic plan, and then working to get that plan implemented. I will be feeding proposals into their plan, as will several other experienced affordability advocates. But the wage side of affordability is something that must be dealt with to a large extent in the business community. People can only be pushed and squeezed for so long. Then something’s got to give. I leave it to folks with expertise in that realm to take on that problem aggressively.

Finally – that other phrase, “Unmet Needs.” The City staff who work up the annual budget never get as much funding as they would like. There is always a laundry list of items that come up short. Those are routinely labeled “unmet needs.” In other words, if taxes could be raised each year to the legal maximum, the City staff would be able to minimize their list of unmet needs. But the list is endless. It’s kind of like taking one step towards the door, then taking an infinite number of additional steps, with each one of those being only half the final distance to the door.

But guess what – in this era of the tipping point and post-tipping point, the City Council and the other taxing entities are about to discover a whole new type of unmet needs. And they’ll be hearing about it from all corners of Austin. Each one of us have our own budgets that keep getting smaller and smaller, just like all those halfway steps to the door.

We just need to raise our voices.

Dancing To The Taxpayer Blues

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – May 29, 2015

A long tall Texan got into his pickup truck and switched on the radio. He listened to the following commentary from a country music deejay down in Austin.

Now folks, I don’t get into politics on this show, but I heard about something the City Council said that I think you should know about. They were talking about an unlevel playing field for property taxes.  Something about the system that isn’t quite right.

Maybe they have a point.  Have you ever sat down in a Texas dance hall and tried to hold onto a beer when the table wasn’t level? Worse case scenario, you would spill some of that beer on your best friend’s wife, right after you danced to “The Last Cheater’s Waltz.” I think we need the City to level our taxes.

I have a nutty friend who spends a lot of time reading City financial reports. Darned if he didn’t tell me that the City Manager is promising once again to “hold the line on the tax rate.” Man, they’ve been pulling the wool over our eyes every year on that stuff. Willie Nelson, Norah Jones and Wynton Marsalis nailed it with the song, “Here We Go Again.” Isn’t there supposed to be some kind of truth in taxation?

The high taxes have priced people so far out into the suburbs that it’s a wonder more of them don’t fall Asleep at the Wheel while sitting in traffic. I can see why the character in George Strait’s song, “All My Ex’s Live in Texas” now hangs his hat in Tennessee. He couldn’t afford his Austin taxes.

And it keeps getting worse. The end of year tax deadline is not a whole lot of fun. In 1974, Merle Haggard released a sad but hopeful tune called, “If We Make It Through December.” He must have known what was coming down the pike in Austin.

All right folks, it’s time for me to get off my soapbox and get back to some more hit music. Here’s one I think you’ll enjoy called, “When I’m Under the Table, I’ll Be Over You.”

hat

What Happens When “The City Manager Is Directed To…” And He Doesn’t?

7 Replies

By Bill Oakey – May 27, 2015

That just happened to be the burning question that woke me up this morning. And I certainly think it is a fair one to ask. Amongst the mountains of papers that lie nestled on office shelves and lurk in various cubbyholes down at City Hall are a multitude of City Council resolutions. These are very official-looking documents – the ones with all those “whereas” clauses. They even contain official-looking dates and signatures.

Many of them also contain the intriguing phrase, “The City Manager is directed to…” do a specified thing. And in many cases, he is given a specified deadline to carry out this directed task. I should have thought about that little piece of verbiage each time I emailed a City Council member during this past year, trying to follow up on affordability issues. It turns out that some of these official resolutions do not carry much weight.

Here is a case in point. Last year I blogged about the need to cease the preponderance of special event fee waivers being given away for years. The American-Statesman editorialized that the practice should be eliminated for South By Southwest, since they have received many millions in waived fees.  So last year on May 1st, Mayor Pro-Tem Kathie Tovo sponsored City Council Resolution # 20140501-036. This approved resolution called for reviewing alternate funding sources for special event fee waivers. Among those suggested were surcharges on ticket sales and using funds from the Hotel Occupancy Tax. As I mentioned in a recent blog post, the Hotel Occupancy Tax revenues have ballooned from $51 million in 2012 to over $70 million in 2014. So, I have included that source in my current round of affordability proposals. The taxpayers need relief.

Please take note of the last three “Whereas” clauses in the Tovo resolution. Each one begins with the phrase, “The City Manager is directed to.” The last one reads:

“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.” Well, August 7, 2014 came and went and the City Manager’s response never came. My repeated attempts since then to obtain the status of this resolution have not yielded any results. Now we are bumping up against another annual budget process, and I have called upon the new City Council to consider not using local taxpayer funds for these fee waivers.

But What About the Larger Issue Here?

A few other questions have wandered across my mind this morning. Perhaps the City Council should think about them as well:

1. How many other pending resolutions are out there awaiting responses to “The City Manager is directed to…?” To help the Council members start their journey in pursuit of that question, I offer this Google search that they can cut and paste into a browser: Austin “The City Manager Is Directed to.” They can just click the link.

2. How about adopting a practice that all City Council resolutions be posted to a public webpage that contains the date, subject, text, required action deadline, and current status of all pending and future resolutions?

3. Without a firm policy in place to enforce the directives contained in City Council resolutions, why not consider gathering up all printed copies of them and directing them to the nearest recycle bin?

Watch The Austin Training Video, “Women Leading In Local Government”

Leave a reply

By Bill Oakey – May 14, 2015

The world of Austin politics exploded this week when the Austin American-Statesman broke a shocking story about a City management training session on Women Leading In Local Government. The firestorm erupted when all seven of the newly elected female City Council members found out what their own city’s executive staff did. Not only did they allow a condescending approach toward women to be presented in a training session, but they turned around and defended such a thing after the fact. As of today, one assistant city manager, Anthony Snipes, has already been suspended over the fiasco.

According to the training speaker brought in from Florida, women “ask too many questions” and they “have no interest in financial matters.” Well, as an affordability advocate for the past few years, I can tell you this much about the women on the Austin City Council. Don’t mess with them unless you have your facts straight. The best representation of financial expertise would be Mayor Pro-Tem Kathie Tovo. She has served very well as Chair of the Audit and Finance Committee. Council Member Delia Garza chairs the Regional Affordability Committee. Any doubters of feminine fortitude and financial forthrightness should also take note of Leslie Pool, Ora Houston, Ann Kitchen, Sheri Gallo and Ellen Troxclair.

Rather than repeat the details of the widely circulated news story, I will point you here to the full video of the training session. 

You can also watch the “Revenge of the Seven” as they spoke to the news media about their frustration.

The MoPac Lexus Lanes: A More Fair And Compassionate Alternative

3 Replies

By Bill Oakey – Revised Version, April 30, 2015

Longtime Austinites know only too well what a traffic nightmare MoPac has become. Even the name “MoPac” conveys gloomy and forboding thoughts. How many times have heard somebody say, “I sure dread getting onto MoPac today,” or “Can you think of any other way to get there besides MoPac?’

For years we have heard politicians and transportation officials talk about possible improvements to MoPac. Last year, we finally heard about a plan. But for nearly all of us, it was not a proposed plan up for discussion. Instead, it was a “Here’s how it’s going to be” plans. (I was tempted to say, “It’s our way or the highway.”)

The CTRMA, which is the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, has decided that it’s in all our best interests to “fix” MoPac by adding new toll lanes. It’s bad enough that our local leaders did not fight hard to keep MoPac free. After all, if the sections of MoPac and I-35 that run through Austin are not the highest priority for State funding, then tell me which other roads are.

Later this year, North MoPac will usher in new “express lanes” for the privileged few who can afford them. The tolls will be jockeyed up and down by a convoluted system designed to “manage” the traffic flow on the new lanes. The more traffic, the higher the tolls. This particular scheme has been adopted in other cities. But CTRMA’s version is a terrible idea for many reasons.

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

This plan was dumped in our laps with little widespread public discussion. We haven’t been told how much the seesawing scale of tolls will cost those bold enough to try this brand of “traffic relief.” But we can be sure of one thing – the price will not be cheap. Especially in an increasingly unaffordable Austin.

Here is the picture that comes to mind with the new Lexus Lanes. One reason that MoPac has become so crowded is that thousands of folks have been priced out of their Central City homes into more affordable suburban neighborhoods. These are the good, hard working citizens who paid their taxes in Austin for 20 or 30 years, if not longer. What is their reward for helping to make Austin the desirable place that it is today? Banishment to the suburbs with high commuting and car maintenance costs. Not to mention the excruciating traffic woes.

The people who face the biggest financial burdens and deserve traffic relief the most are being told that their place on the “improved” MoPac will be at the back of the line. As they sluggishly crawl through gridlocked traffic day after the day, they will be treated to a most unwelcome sight. A zippidy-fast  parade of well-to-do drivers will be streaking by in their Lexuses, Teslas and fancy sports cars. These folks will not even notice that there are thousands of “regular people” inching past their hometown neighborhoods, en route to suburban exile. Instead of worrying about traffic, the Lexus set will be savoring their luxury shopping and dining experiences at the Domain or something similar.

So, What’s the Word On the Toll Cost and Other Big Questions?

Just chew on these words, taken directly from the MoPac Express website:

1. How high can the toll rate go?

“There is no limit on the toll rate. Most of the time, the rate is expected to be $4.00 or less, but it could be much higher at times when traffic is especially heavy and demand to use the Express Lanes is high.”

(Note that at $4.00 per one-way trip, the monthly cost for 21 workdays would be $168.00. But it will only be that low when traffic is not “especially heavy.”)

2. Will carpools pay a toll to use the express lanes?

“Yes. Drivers who carpool will pay the same toll as regular users. However, because carpoolers are sharing a ride, they will have the option to split the cost, making trips more affordable.”

(In a review of several other cities with express lanes, every single one I found offered free access for carpoolers and even motorcycles).

3. Will disabled veterans, Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipients be exempt from paying the tolls?

“The Mobility Authority Board and staff are grateful for the dedication and sacrifice of our military veterans. However, in order to ensure the Express Lanes remain free flowing, toll free travel will only be provided to buses and van pools operated by public transit agencies like Capital Metro and to vehicles specifically exempt from toll payment under state law.”

(OMG! Many other Texas toll roads offer free access to these classes of veterans. See this link).

4. The first item under the “Tolling” section of the FAQ’s on the MoPac Express website contains the most important sentence you will ever see. To ensure that it is never lost to history, I have preserved it as a screen shot:

“The goal of the higher toll rates is not to increase revenue but to manage traffic and maintain free flow speeds on the Express Lane.”

(Remember that quote. It can help us win the battle to reform the MoPac “improvements!”)

What Can We Do To Take Back MoPac and Preserve Austin Values?

I have submitted the following proposal to the Austin City Council and the Travis County Commissioners:

  1. Set up a lottery system for regular commuters to register online to be eligible to drive on the express lanes. The winners would pay an affordable fixed-rate toll. Their TxTag numbers would go into the computer system. Drawings could be held every 3 to 4 months.
  2. Determine how many driver slots should be allocated for each drawing. I believe that the majority of the available capacity should go to the commuters. This would need to be measured against the number of registered vanpools, buses and emergency vehicles.
  3. The appropriate number of leftover vehicle capacity could be subject to the variable tolls. There are people who may want to pay for a faster trip for any number of reasons, and some may not use MoPac at all on a regular basis.
  4. Set up a meeting with the CTRMA. Ask them to adopt this proposal on behalf of the people of Austin. The proposal is “out of the box,” for sure. But we will never reach affordability results without innovative solutions.
  5. Ask the CTRMA to deliver a set of potential scenarios for the slope of the curve on the variable tolls. What will the criteria be for determining the variable price points? Why not make the curve as affordable as possible until the traffic gets very close to the capacity limit?
  6. Provide full transparency to the public after the final decision is made on how the express lanes will operate. This is critical to ensure a successful public buy-in for the project.
  7. If there is already a contract in place that sllows the CTRMA to manage the lanes without any oversight or input from the City / County, then meet with them anyway, and urge them to compromise for the good of the community. A positive spirit of cooperation should be at the heart of Austin’s New Way Forward.

If you agree with this suggestion, please use these single email links to contact all members of the Austin City Council and the Travis County Commissioners Court.

Stay Tuned for New Reforms Under the New City Council

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – January 25, 2015

As 2015 gets under way, Austin is on the verge of the biggest era of reforms in decades. This is indeed a very exciting time. Mayor Adler and the members of the new 10-1 City Council are already at work developing the new Council committee structure. That will provide the framework for a brand new approach to bringing items to the full Council for decision making.

The public hearing last week to discuss the new committees was very well attended and quite enlightening. Most of the speakers expressed optimism that the new system will allow for better opportunities for public input. We all still have a lot to learn about who new proposals will be brought to the Council and how we can advance affordability reforms.

Here are just a few of the reforms that I will be working on with the new Council:

1. The 20% homestead exemption – We need to require private event promoters to pay their own way instead of asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars in fee waivers. The last Council asked the staff for input on some ideas to use funds from other sources besides the City budget to help offset some of the fees. Let’s hope the new Council movers forward in that direction. Every opportunity to save money in the budget needs to be considered. I have proposed limiting the percentage of unfilled staff vacancies, and disbursing funds to fill vacancies from a centralized account.

2. Truth in Taxation.

3. Reducing or eliminating Capital Metro fares for seniors and citizens with disabilities.

4. More improvements in transparency and a new public engagement ordinance.

Hopefully, there will some positive progress to report on very soon. Stay tuned!