In a work session Thursday, Austin City Council members outlined their spending priorities and found several areas of agreement as the council approaches its vote on Wednesday to adopt a budget of over $6 billion. Council members discussed four different scenarios for a potential tax rate election (TRE) in November after adding their suggested changes to the budget as presented by City Manager T.C. Broadnax in July.
The fact that this is a single budget rather than a basic budget with supplemental ideas that will only be financed if the TRE passes was something Mayor Kirk Watson made care to stress.
“We need to start thinking in that way as we start the initial descent of this airplane because it is all one budget,” Watson added.
Due to his concerns about Austin’s lack of affordability and the City’s spending habits, Council Member Marc Duchen is the only Council member who does not believe that a TRE is necessary. He did, however, agree to a 2-cent hike over Broadnax’s current budget rate during Thursday’s meeting. Watson, who supports a 3.5-cent rise over the state-permitted rate, has been the second most reticent. 5.75 to 6.75 cents make up the remainder of the dais.
Council Member Paige Ellis suggested a number of transportation-related adjustments to the original budget that would improve the Living Streets program and shared use routes without calling for an election. The budget’s common goals among the dais included park maintenance, overtime for the Austin Fire Department, preventing community violence, and reviving funding for the arts, public health, and LGBTQIA health care that had been cut due to the loss of federal monies. A trial program where non-sworn personnel might work on things like crash reports or parking fines to keep sworn officers on patrol was one of the adjustments proposed by Council Member Ryan Alter to address the general people’s concerns about the cost of public safety.
A number of modifications were also put forth that would simplify city procedures pertaining to budget priorities without requiring more spending. Alter, for instance, suggested creating a dashboard that would monitor the city’s success in decreasing homelessness, as there has been significant agreement on the dais to fully finance the Homeless Strategy Office’s planned comprehensive housing and homelessness plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes and Council members Jos Velsquez, Chito Vela, and Alter endorse the highest of the TRE possibilities, which would raise property taxes by 6.75 cents, or about $350 more annually. Thirty percent of that funding goes toward homelessness, twenty-one percent goes toward housing, and the three biggest portions go for the environment, public health, and public safety. The fact that the 5.75 cent idea places more of an emphasis on preventing homelessness is one of its main differences.
According to Alter, it’s less than a tenth of the price of placing someone in a permanent supportive shelter or rapid rehousing. It also includes a separate project to address youth homelessness, which the city’s public health committee reports has doubled in the last five years. Additionally, it would fully restore the Housing Trust Fund, which the Housing Department had requested: HUD appears to be cutting back on vouchers. He added that this will assist make up for the more than 150 emergency housing vouchers that we recently lost.
Although there are many parallels between this plan and the 5.75-cent plan, Alter emphasized that the extra cent is required to prevent homelessness rather than only address it.
“I’ve been thinking of this as a boat that is absorbing water, and the plan that the Homeless Strategy Office has in place is enabling us to extract more water from that boat,” Alter remarked. However, it won’t matter if we don’t seal the holes. We must stop that inflow even though we can scoop all day.
Members of the Council Krista Laine, Mike Siegel, Zo Qadri, and Ellis favor the other most preferred TRE scenario, which would add 5.75 cents, or almost $300, to the average homeowner’s annual taxes. According to Ellis, this plan funds the majority of the priorities in the Community Investment Budget, which was developed by more than 40 local organizations, and guarantees that there won’t be a need for a TRE for at least the next four years. In addition to fully funding the HSO plan, it enhances lifeguard recruitment and retention, eliminates most residential pool fees, supports domestic violence shelters, restores the police oversight budget, increases funding for public health grants that are currently at risk or eliminated (like refugee services), expands library materials, establishes school-based food pantries, hires more EMS personnel, and hires mental health first responders.
Ellis stated, “We believe it offers the required improvements while remaining considerate of the financial requirements of Austin families.”
In the meanwhile, if voters reject more taxes in November, an IFC from Siegel would give the city a buffer. Instead of making some objectives (but not others) dependent on voter approval, his plan would distribute cuts across all city departments. At 10 a.m. on August 13, the council will reconvene to deliberate on the budget and cast a vote.
Community donations enable the work of the Austin Monitors. Even though we occasionally publish on funders, we take pains to ensure transparency by keeping editorial and business activities apart. Our code of ethics is described here, and a full list of donors can be seen here.
You’re a community leader
And we are thrilled that you trust us with important, in-depth news. You are aware that local and committed watchdog reporting is essential to a healthy community. We will always be here to support you. Will you now support our nonprofit news organization and take the bold next step?
