Tag Archives: Austin

Our Local Leaders Need to Stop Planning And Add Up The Costs

By Bill Oakey – February 22, 2016

One way to at least take a stab at the affordability problem is to look at how many “plans” our local officials have stacked up on various office shelves. And just remember, every time you hear about one more ambitious plan, remember this. Every single one of them comes with a hefty price tag.

Our “new” City Council has now passed their first year in office. We have seen a few notable stumbles on the affordability front. They passed a huge affordable housing initiative, without first realizing that it will cost about $100 million against our water bills and property taxes over the next 20-30 years. And just recently, they accepted the word of a private appraiser, who now estimates that it will cost $360,000 apiece to buy out the latest batch of flooded homes in Southeast Austin. Council Member Ellen Troxclair cautioned her colleagues from the dais that this appraisal figure is highly inflated. She has since confirmed that fact with the Austin Board of Realtors. I have asked the City Council to reconsider these inflated appraisal amounts.

The bottom line is that too many big ticket items are slipping through without the proper amount of due diligence. It was the flood buyout and mitigation program that reminded me of the alarming cost of the growing mountain of city plans. Yes, there is a Flood Mitigation Task Force. And yes, they are working on sort of a plan. It is called “Options for $100 Million Additional Funding.” We can pay for it with up-front cash out of the drainage utility fund or with borrowed money to be repaid from property taxes or the drainage fees.

Close your eyes and try to imagine how many different sets of plans the City has, sprinkled across every office in every department. Suppose the City Council asked the City Manager to make the rounds, gather up all the latest reports on these plans and bring them into a single room. I would like them to do this in the open and invite the public to come down and see how it all turns out.

There is absolutely no telling how many plans there are! That’s the whole point. I am going to formally ask the City this week to lay out all of the published plans and tally up the total cost of every single one of them. Then they need to meet and discuss how to prioritize the plans. Once that step is complete, they should consider reviewing every one of the plans to see which items within each plan are considered essential and which ones can either be postponed or eliminated. From what I can tell, there is no way we could possibly afford the cost of all of the plans, at least not anytime soon.

You might be wondering if I am “planning” to show a list of the plans that I have uncovered. The answer is yes, but I want to warn you first that looking at it might make you a bit dizzy or queasy. So here goes:

1. Bicycle Master Plan (2014) – $151 Million. Here is a teaser from Page 16:

“The cost of priority unfunded investments includes 200 new miles of on-street facilities for $58 million, at an average cost of $290,000 per mile. The cost per mile for on-street facilities varies greatly upon the type of treatment and is accounted for in the estimate. The estimate also includes 47 new miles of Urban Trails at $93 million at an average cost of $2 million per mile.”

2. Sidewalk Master Plan (2009) – $120 million. I am not sure how much of that is left to pay for.

3. Aquatic Master Plan (2016) – $41 million. Aquatic refers to swimming pools. The $41 million estimate is from last year, but the assessment will not be complete until sometime this year.

4. South Central Waterfront Initiative – Master plan due by June 2016

Other examples include:

Urban Forest Plan
Parks and Open Space Plan
Austin Resource Recovery Plan
Urban Trails Master Plan
Community Climate Plan
Watershed Protection Master Plan
Airport Boulevard Corridor Plan
Burnet Road Corridor Plan

It’s Time for a Reality Check!

A complete list would be impossible to assemble by relying on Internet searches alone. The City staff needs to gather these plans up and present them to the City Council for a major overview and affordability assessment. We need a timetable and yearly tax impact determined for every one of these plans before any further planning takes place.

The City needs to realize that voters have turned down bonds for AISD, “Urban Rail” and a costly County Courthouse. We are not living in the 1980’s anymore. We cannot afford the flashiest and the most elaborate park-scapes, street-scapes, and every other kind of urban “scape” that anybody can think of. Many thousands of us are struggling to afford the amenities that the City has right now. It might be nice to have a perfect “zero-waste” resource recovery system. It might be super to have the snazziest, most beautifully landscaped lakeshore in the Western Hemisphere. There is no end to the fantasies that various consultants, committees and task forces could come up with.

But until the current batch of plans is vetted and scrutinized by the City Council and the community, it’s time to call a halt to the creation of any more planning initiatives.

Musical accompaniment for this blog posting:

“50 Ways to Leave Your Lover” – Paul Simon, 1975
“Making Plans” – Porter Wagoner & Dolly Parton, 1980

Taxpayer Shock – City Forgoes Tens of Millions in Federal Home Buyout Funds

4 Replies

By Bill Oakey – January 11, 2016

About a month ago, I suddenly became curious about the money being spent on home buyouts in the Onion Creek area related to the 2013 and 2015 floods. It occurred to me that none of the news reports addressed the question of where all of the money was to come from. How much of it, I wondered, was coming from local dollars, and how much of it was being matched by Federal grants? The local funding for these flood-related projects comes from the monthly drainage fees that we pay on our utility bills.

After doing some research on the topic and submitting questions to City officials, I received a detailed and disturbing response. The City’s Watershed Protection Department replied to my questions with a partially complete summary of the flood mitigation spending that actually goes back to 1999. So, here’s the bottom line. For the projects included in the response, the total cost is $170.17 million. Out of that total, only $55.77 million will ultimately come from Federal matching funds.

The chart below, provided by the Watershed Protection Dept. shows the breakdown of the Federal and local spending on these projects:

Lower Onion Creek Flood Mitigation Project

Lower Onion Creek Buyout Total Project Local Funding Federal Funding Pending Federal
Project Cost Share Share Reimbursements

Corps Project Area* $73.2M $18.9M $54.3M $22.9M
25-Year Project Area $35.5M $35.5M 0 0
100-Year Project Area $61.47M $60.0M $1.47M $1.47M
Totals $170.17M $114.4M $55.77M $24.37M

*Note: Values are for the overall Corps project since 1999 for all phases: buyouts, ecosystem restoration and recreation.

In an email from Stephanie Lott, Public Information Specialist from Watershed Protection, she states that the above chart does not include all of the flood mitigation projects since 2013. Most disturbing for local taxpayers is the additional comment, “From asking some of our managers, it doesn’t sound like there are any other flood mitigation projects since 2013 that included federal funding.”

The response leaves a number of critical unanswered questions:

Why did Austin receive such a tiny share of Federal reimbursements for these projects?
Did the City take advantage of every possible opportunity to apply for Federal funding?
Should the City be eligible for any State matching funds for the home buyouts?
Did the City work with the State to submit a flood mitigation plan to FEMA that included all of the anticipated Onion Creek home buyouts? (See “The Federal Grant Application Process” below).
Why does the City assume that none of the remaining home flood buyouts since 2013 will receive any Federal funding?
Has the City Council been fully informed about the limited, and in many cases nonexistent Federal funding for the large number of previous and pending home buyouts?
What plans, if any, does the City have for applying for Federal funds for future buyouts of flooded homes?

The Federal Grant Application Process

It was not difficult to track down the Federal guidelines for assistance in home buyouts in flood prone areas. See this link entitled, “For Communities Plagued by Repeated Flooding, Property Acquisition May Be the Answer.” Below are some excerpts from the document:

“For eligible communities, FEMA typically funds 75 percent of the cost of property acquisition with the municipality and state contributing the remaining twenty-five percent. FEMA does not buy houses directly from homeowners. Buyout projects are initiated and administered by local and state governments with grant funding support from FEMA. “Additional federal funding may also be provided by the Community Development Block Grant program administered by HUD.”

“To qualify for federal funding for the acquisition of flood-prone properties, a state must create a flood mitigation plan, which is then submitted to FEMA for review and approval. In its mitigation plan, the state identifies communities that have experienced losses due to repetitive flooding and, once the plan is approved by FEMA, notifies those communities that funding for property acquisition may be available.”

Also, see how the Harris County Flood Control District handles the grant application process. Note the sections entitled, “Federal Funds for Voluntary Buyout,” and “Federal Eligibility Requirements.”

Mayor Adler and the City Council should review these guidelines and pose some hard questions to the Watershed Protection Dept. If FEMA and HUD funding is available to cover “typically 75%” of flooded property acquisitions, then why has the City been relying on local drainage fee funds to cover the entire cost? If, in fact, the City Manager and his staff have dropped the ball to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, then who will be held accountable? And how soon can the City set about correcting these deficiencies to the future benefit of Austin utility ratepayers?

Stay tuned for an update on this issue as soon as any response from the City becomes available.

Leslie Pool Takes The Lead In Battling Fee Waivers

The Fee Waiver Controversy Gets A Brand New Twist – And It’s A Humdinger!

Here Is My Proposal for Special Event Funding

Compromise Funding Proposal for Special Events By Large For-Profit Companies

By Bill Oakey – November 11, 2015

Do not approve any designated “public safety funding” for special events until a policy is adopted pursuant to Mayor Pro Tem Tovo’s Resolution # 20140501-036. This was the resolution calling for the City Manager to develop an alternate funding plan for special event fee waivers. Please note that Mr. William “Bill Manno” in the Management Services Office made a commitment this past July 10th that a report would be delivered to the City Council by “October of this year, if not sooner.” Providing public safety funding for special events equates to the same thing as granting fee waivers, regardless of whether the “fee waiver” label is used.

Do not approve any multi-year agreements with special event organizers until a non-taxpayer supported funding policy has been formulated.

Ask City staff and the appropriate task force / committee members to develop and recommend a compromise funding strategy with the following three elements:a. A portion to come from the Hotel Occupancy Tax funds. (This would require amending City Code Chapter 11-2, Section (B) (3) that allocates 15% of Hotel Occupancy Tax receipts to the cultural arts).b. Surcharges added to ticket prices for those events. A study could be done to estimate the amount that could be generated from the surcharges at various levels, such as 25 cents, 50 cents, one dollar, etc.
c. Require the special event companies to pay a portion of their own fees. As a part of this component, the outside companies that piggy-back on SXSW should be required to pay a reasonable fee (or an increase in their current fees, if there are any) when they apply for their permits. SXSW itself may not be entirely to blame for the entire funding gap that has been attributed to them.

Please note that the City’s total service costs for special events exceeds the cost of the current fee waivers. The funding gap was $4.2 million in 2013, per the City Transportation Dept. Report. That’s because the City does not set the fees high enough to cover the actual cost of all services provided. Therefore, the new funding policy that replaces the fee waivers should be formulated sufficiently to completely eliminate any funding gaps. That would result in a zero-cost impact on the local taxpayers. That is what we need. The bottom line is that local taxpayers can no longer afford the cost of the fee waivers. The current fee waiver system is one of the most unpopular programs in all of City government.

Courthouse Dilemma Calls for Creative Solutions

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – November 9, 2015

New Courts for Families - "We need a safe environment for women and children."

New Courts for Families – “Yikes, the rats! We need a safe environment for women and children.”

Many Travis County taxpayers breathed a momentary sigh of relief after the votes were counted, showing that the $287 million courthouse bonds were defeated. But in the halls of the Travis County Commissioners and in lawyers’ offices downtown, the mood was very close to panic mode. They are all still reeling. A recent law passed by the Texas Legislature places the County in a veritable straitjacket. They are prohibited from issuing any debt for projects in a failed bond proposition for three years.

It is too late now for County officials to ponder what went “wrong.” What needs to happen quickly is a major shift in thinking about the new courthouse. The voters have spoken. They chose not to spend that amount of money on the type of facility that was proposed. Here are some of my thoughts on how to move forward with new plans for the courthouse:

1. Downsize the Design Ambitions for the New Courthouse

Travis County has probably spent in excess of $10 million on consultants and staff time for the courthouse planning to date. The most basic starting point for any such plan is determining how big of a courthouse that we need. The County staff worked up a report that estimates we would need space for 35 judges and 33 courtrooms between now and 2035. But how seriously did anyone question those estimates? Today we have 19 civil and family courts. It does not appear to me that we have added new courts in recent years at such a rapid pace that a target number of 33 is justified. Do we really need a courthouse as tall as the Frost Bank Tower?

The new courthouse was envisioned to be a state of the art facility with every modern innovation in place. One point in particular caught my attention. The hallways were planned to be several times wider than what exists in the current courthouse. It’s one thing to build something that is less cramped and more safe for those visit the courthouse. But floor after floor of the new building should not require enormously vast hallway space. From an affordability perspective, the taxpayers would probably prefer the building to be much better than the old courthouse, but something less than a Cadillac standard of perfection.

2. Take a Fresh Look at the Security Needs for the New Facility

It is true that family violence, child custody and divorce cases can pose a serious security risk. Abuse victims should not have to ride in the same elevator or sit next to their perpetrators in the hallway. Children especially should have a safe and secure place to stay while in the courthouse. But there are large numbers of civil cases that do not come with the same high level of risk. Think about issues like insurance disputes, eminent domain cases and various other civil matters. Even adoption cases are fairly low-level in terms of security needs. Why couldn’t the building be divided into high security and lesser security sections? It is my understanding that the vast amounts of thick and heavy glass in the construction design contribute the most to the high cost. In a hybrid design scenarios, the internal and external construction materials for the lesser security sections would be much less expensive. Such a configuration could require some judges to move between sections to try different types of cases. If that should become necessary, then so be it. All reasonable measures to bring down the courthouse costs should be considered.

3. Work with the Legislature to Try to Amend the Debt Restriction Law

Three years seems like an unreasonable time to have to wait for another bond election. Perhaps our County officials could work with the Legislature to come up with an amendment to the law for constitutionally mandated functions like building and maintaining adequate court facilities. The sooner the law could be changed is in January 2017. That’s a little over a year away. We could potentially have another election in May or November of 2017. At least that’s better than a three-year wait.

4. Take the Time to Tally Up the Land Sale Revenues and Other Offsets to Reduce the Bond Price

Travis County Commissioners were wise to consider the sale of several County-owned properties to generate revenue to offset the cost of the bonds. However, those sale transactions could not be completed in time for this year’s bond election. Now, however, there will be sufficient time for the properties to be sold before the next bond elections, thus allowing the size of the ballot initiative to be reduced. In addition, County officials should factor in estimates for the potential parking revenues and the lease receipts from private usage of excess space in the building. Another significant revenue stream will come from the sale or lease of the second half of the property that the County intends to put out for bids to private developers. Once all of these revenue sources have been nailed down and summarized, the voters can be presented with a much clearer estimate of the tax impact of a new courthouse.

Is There Any Possible Way to Build a New Courthouse Without Waiting Three More Years?

On the surface, the answer would seem to be no. The financing options appear to be limited to a choice between bonds or certificates of obligation, or else cash appropriated straight out of the annual budget. However, there is one other option that has been used in other places. In Long Beach, California a new courthouse opened in 2013 that was built with upfront funding from a private consortium. The $340 million cost plus interest will be repaid by the State of California over the next 35 years. Of course, Texas does not pay for county courthouses. And I’m not sure if it would be legal for Travis County to bypass the voters and enter into an agreement with private developers to build a large courthouse. It would still be a debt-based transaction and could run afoul of the newly passed law requiring the three-year waiting period.

An Offer of Desperately Needed Help for the Judges and Lawyers

During the recent bond campaign, residents were treated to large glossy postcards featuring pictures of monster-sized rats. These hideous creatures reminded me of the B grade 1959 horror film, “The Killer Shrews” (See the YouTube trailer here, or the entire movie here). While I cannot speak for all of the taxpayers, the County certainly has my personal permission to invest in a few packages of rat poison, if not a friendly call to a pest control service to alleviate the problem. The same goes for fixing the leaky roof. However, I would hesitate to suggest hiring a consultant to develop plans for those endeavors.

Travis County’s HUGE Wake-Up Call – So, Where Do We Go From Here?

6 Replies

By Bill Oakey – November 4, 2015

It is hard to overstate the historic significance of the failure of Travis County’s bond proposition for a new civil and family courthouse. In the 44 years that I have lived in Austin, I can’t think of another time when a major Travis County bond proposition failed. The voters here have consistently approved bonds for new infrastructure, whether it be for roads, buildings on land acquisition. But this time was different…Why?

That is the question that the Travis County Commissioners and their staff should be asking right now. Rather than pounding their fists and insisting that the voters did the wrong thing, they really need to take a few deep breaths and think about why the bond proposition failed. In the minds of the pro-bond fundraising groups there was only one side to the argument – We need a new courthouse, the old one is dilapidated. End of discussion.

The reality is that most Travis County residents do not disagree that we need a new courthouse and that the old one has long since outlived its useful life cycle. But that reality just happens to bump up against another one – affordability. This year’s round of sky-high tax appraisals hit everybody like a punch in the gut. When people are seriously scared about whether they will be able to afford to stay in their homes, their willingness to vote for tax increases becomes severely strained.

So, Where Does Travis County Go From Here?

There is no question that heads are rolling downtown at the County offices. As much as the County Commissioners would like to find a quick solution for the badly needed courthouse, there is a new State law that will probably slow them down. Apparently, a bill that was passed in last year’s Legislative session mandated that counties must wait 3 years after a bond election to issue any new debt for a project that fails. County officials are working as we speak to determine exactly what their options are for pursuing any construction of a new courthouse.

The Big Missed Opportunity That Helped Lead to the Current Mess

The date was September 10, 2013. The Travis County Commissioners held a regular meeting on that date. Agenda Item # 18 addressed several items related to the proposed new courthouse. The 4th bullet speaks to my recommendation that the courthouse should be conceived as a “national model of cost effectiveness and efficiency.”

From the Commissioners Court Minutes for September 10, 2013

18. Consider and take appropriate action regarding the costs and engineering and architectural features of certain recently constructed civil and/or family courthouses.

Members of the Court heard from:
Belinda Powell, Capital Planning Coordinator, PBO
Roger El Khoury, Director, Facilities Management Department (FMD) Bill Oakey, Travis County resident

Clerk’s Note: Judge Biscoe circulated a memo requesting staff to ascertain certain information regarding recently built courthouses in other jurisdictions.

MOTION: Approve the information listed in Judge Biscoe’s backup memo plus five additional points:

o Delivery method;
o Soft costs and hard costs;
o Any cost reduction measures;
o Strive to achieve a national model of cost effectiveness and efficiency

and;
o Whether Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) are included in the
total cost.

The Motion Passed Unanimously. But What Happened Next?

The answer is simple and most unfortunate – Nothing!

In 2014 I was appointed to the Community Focus Committee for the proposed new courthouse. I was under the impression that this committee would function in an advisory capacity. However, we never performed any advisory role and we never interacted with the County Commissioners. Instead, we attended meetings where we were briefed by the staff and two sets of consultants on the progress and status of the courthouse planning efforts.

I brought up the fact that the County Commissioners adopted my stipulation that the courthouse should become a “national model of cost effectiveness and efficiency” on at least two occasions. But no one ever brought forth any cost containment strategies. No discussion of alternative cost scenarios was ever presented to us. In fact, our committee was never even briefed on the estimated cost of the courthouse until the same week that it was scheduled to be presented to the Commissioners Court.

Shortly after the high cost of the proposed courthouse was announced, I submitted my resignation from the Focus Committee. It’s too late now, but if the taxpayers’ concerns about affordability had been taken seriously, perhaps the courthouse bond proponents would be celebrating a victory this week instead of wringing their hands in defeat.

It’s Time For Taxpayers To Contact The City Council – Watch Out For The Budget!

2 Replies

By Bill Oakey – August 20, 2015

Many thanks to Council Aide, Michael Searle in Council Member Ellen Troxclair’s office. He provided me with a document that shows the current status of proposed cuts and additions to City Manager’s proposed City Budget. Today it is available online. You can read the details by clicking the link below:

City Budget Concept Menu Aug 20

There Is Good News and Bad News

One piece of good news not noted in the chart is that, according to an information request from Council Member Troxclair, there are no funds budgeted for special event fee waivers. If this position holds, it will be a major victory. It is long past time for the City to pay for special event services from sources other than local taxpayers.

The bad news is the bottom line. This current “budget concept menu” calls for $30.7 million in increases to the General Fund budget, with only $13.4 million in spending reductions. It should be noted, however, that several of the budget change suggestions from Council members have not been quantified yet by City staff. Those items are labeled, “TBD” – To Be Determined. So, in all fairness, the jury is still out on whether this current menu would offer pain relief to taxpayers or serious indigestion.

A Closer Look At Some Of the Highlights

Item 2.13 – Council Member Troxclair recommends freeing up $9.7 million in Budget Stabilization Reserve funds. This would lead to taxpayer savings.
Item 2.14 – Huge Kudos for Troxclair! This item would end three layers of utility subsidies for “economic development” (giveaways for corporate recruitment) to the tune of $11 million. This would lower our utility bills.
Item 2.4 – Thanks to Mayor Steve Adler. Debt financing of select capital expenses would free up $12.9 million in reserve funds that could lead to tax savings.
Item 2.3 – Thanks to Council Member Don Zimmerman. Implement a sliding scale for City employee pay raises. This would save a total of $7 million. Why should the fat-cats at the top of the scale get continuous big raises every year, while tens of thousands of Austinites struggle with stagnant wages?
Item 2.2 – Thanks to Mayor Steve Adler. He offers an alternative plan for the tiered pay increases that would save $4.7 million.
Item 2.23 – More thanks to Ellen Troxclair. This item calls for a staff pay increase structure that would save $6 million. We need to press the City Council to adopt either the Adler, Zimmerman or Troxclair plan!
Item 3.3 – Thank you, Mayor Pro-Tem Kathie Tovo. Increase Development Services fee to 100% of cost of service. This would save us $1.4 million.
Item 3.6 – Huge thanks to Council Member Sheri Gallo!. Increase Senior Homestead Flat Exemption to levels comparable to 2005 property valuations.
Item 3.13 – Troxclair again! Freeze utility rates and fees to this year’s levels.
Item 2.18 – Still more kudos to Troxclair. Limit additional police positions to 53. The staff’s ambitious increase in police is too much for one big jump in this year’s budget.

Here Is What You Can Do to Help!

This is our big chance to really make a difference in affordability. We need to let every City Council member know that we want meaningful reductions to the budget without being totally swallowed up by budget increases. In other words, tangible relief in taxes, utility rates and fees.

So, please take the time to email the Mayor and all Council members, using this one-click email link. Then, please send emails, texts, Facebook and Twitter postings to as many neighbors and friends as you have on your lists. If we all join together, we can score a nice victory in the new budget. Time is very short, so let’s get the action started now!

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:

How many cost-saving proposals have each of the Council members brought up so far in the Budget Work Sessions?
Which cost-saving proposals have they recommended so far?
How much money has each Council member asked to be cut from the City Manager’s proposed budget?
Has anyone on the City Council suggested an affordability goal for reducing the budget?
Has anyone on the Council suggested a target for reducing taxes or fees in the budget?
Has anyone on the Council suggested reducing the huge increase in staff in the City Manager’s proposed budget?
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?
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?
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?
Which Council Members appear to be taking the lead on affordability throughout the budget deliberations?

A Few Bad Signs To Be Concerned About

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.
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!
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?
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!

City Council Approves Taxpayer Impact Statement

3 Replies

By Bill Oakey – August 6, 2015

On Thursday the Austin City Council voted unanimously to approve a proposal by this blog to produce a Taxpayer Impact Statement as part of the upcoming City Budget. This marks a major step forward for truth in taxation. When the final budget is adopted, taxpayers will be able to determine the actual dollar amount of any tax increase for a range of home values at various levels of appraised value increases. The Taxpayer Impact Statement, which will be included in the budget document and published online, will also include the estimated dollar increases City in utilities and fees. An amendment to the resolution calls for a set of “budget highlights” to be listed on the statement.

Many thanks go out to Council Member Elken Troxclair, who sponsored this item as a resolution, and to the co-sponsors, Mayor Steve Adler and Council Members Ann Kitchen and Sheri Gallo. And of course we are extremely grateful to the entire Council for their unanimous approval!

The Next Step Is To Ask Travis County to Follow the Example

On Thursday morning I contacted all five of the Travis County Commissioners and asked if they would consider supporting a similar Taxpayer Impact Statement for their upcoming budget. Commissioner Margaret Gomez was the first to respond, and she has gladly agreed to help. The best-case scenario would be universal adoption by all of our local taxing entities. Once all of their budgets are finalized, we should ask for a combined statement of the impact on taxpayers. I believe that good transparency will lead to a better appreciation of our affordability challenges, and hopefully, an eye toward more prudent budgeting.

American-Statesman Editorial Board Endorses This Reform

Here is an excerpt from their editorial:

WE SAY: AUSTIN CITY BUDGET
Tax deliberations need transparency, sensitivity for homeowners
Posted: 12:00 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015

By Editorial Board

“City watchdog Bill Oakey, who writes the “Austin Affordability.com” blog, has put together what he calls a ‘Taxpayer Impact Statement’ that spells out much of that data for city taxpayers. That is a good starting point.”

“And, if all five taxing jurisdictions put together such impact statements that also detail the total taxes and fees taxpayers are shelling out annually to those entities, it might generate the kind of sensitivity — and sensibility — needed in budget and tax deliberations. At the very least, such transparency would illuminate how spending decisions by elected and appointed officials affect taxpayers’ wallets from one year to the next. And that would enable voters to hold their elected officials more accountable”

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.

Methinks Austin has MANY more pressing issues than this one. Stay focused on the big picture.

Mackenzie Kelly. Great affordability platform for seniors. I dearly hope you get adequate support from the other councilmembers so these…

Nice thoughts and ideas. Working with the state of Texas, especially the state leadership, on this endeavor will be next…

Thanks Bill for posting. We need more creditable alternative City Council candidates. Have tried leaving a comment three times now.…

Hi Bill. Good to know about Marc. Todd < div> Sent from my iPhone < div dir="ltr"> < blockquote type="cite">