As Austin City Council nears its Wednesday vote to approve a more than $6 billion budget, Council members laid out each of their spending priorities in a work session Thursday, landing on many points of consensus. Council members added their proposed amendments to the budget as laid out by City Manager T.C. Broadnax in July, and then moved on to discussing four differing scenarios for a possible tax rate election (TRE) in November.
Mayor Kirk Watson made sure to emphasize that this is one budget, not a “base budget” with extra proposals that will only be funded if the TRE passes.
“It is all one budget, and we need to start thinking in that way as we start the initial descent of this airplane,” said Watson.
Council Member Marc Duchen is the sole Council member that doesn’t see a need for a TRE, citing concerns about the City’s spending patterns and Austin’s lack of affordability. However, during Thursday’s meeting, he acquiesced to a 2-cent increase above Broadnax’s current budget rate. Watson has been the second-most reticent, advocating for a 3.5-cent increase above the state-allowed amount. The rest of the dais is split between 5.75 and 6.75 cents.
As far as changes to the original budget that would not require an election, Council Member Paige Ellis proposed several transportation-related amendments that would enhance the Living Streets program and shared use paths. Park maintenance, Austin Fire Department overtime, community violence prevention and restoring funding for the arts, public health, and LGBTQIA health care that has been slashed by the removal of federal grants were shared priorities for the budget across the dais. Council Member Ryan Alter suggested a few amendments that would address widespread public concerns about the cost of public safety, including a pilot where non-sworn staff could work on things like crash reports or parking violations in order to keep sworn officers on patrol.
Several amendments that would not require more funding but would streamline city processes related to budget priorities were also proposed. For example, Alter proposed launching a dashboard that would track the city’s progress on reducing homelessness, as fully funding the Homeless Strategy Office’s proposed comprehensive housing and homelessness plan has been a major point of consensus on the dais.
The highest of the TRE scenarios, at 6.75 cents, or around $350 more a year in property taxes, is supported by Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes and Council members José Velásquez, Chito Vela and Alter. It allocates 30 percent of that revenue to homelessness, 21 percent to housing, and the three remaining largest chunks to public safety, public health, and the environment. One key difference between that proposal and the 5.75 cent one is that it focuses more on homelessness prevention.
“It’s less than a 10th of the cost of putting someone in rapid rehousing or in permanent supportive shelter,” said Alter. It also includes a separate initiative related to youth homelessness, which has quadrupled over the past five years, according to the city’s public health committee. Furthermore, it would fully restore the Housing Trust Fund, an enhancement asked for by the Housing Department: “We see HUD is reducing their vouchers. We just lost over 150 emergency housing vouchers, and this would help address that cut,” he continued.
This plan shares a lot of similarities with the 5.75-cent plan, but Alter urged that the extra cent is necessary for preventing homelessness, instead of just reacting to it.
“The way I have been thinking about this is we are a boat that is taking on water, and the (Homeless Strategy Office) plan is allowing us to get more water out of that boat,” said Alter. “But if we do not plug the holes, it won’t matter. We can scoop all day long – we have to cut off that inflow.”
The other most popular TRE scenario, at 5.75 cents, or around $300 extra to the typical homeowner’s annual taxes, is supported by Council members Krista Laine, Mike Siegel, Zo Qadri and Ellis. Ellis explained that this plan ensures there will be no need for a TRE for at least the next four years, while still funding most of the priorities in the Community Investment Budget created by more than 40 local organizations. It fully funds the HSO plan, as well as supporting domestic violence shelters, restoring the police oversight budget, increasing funding for public health grants currently at risk or eliminated (such as refugee services), enhancing lifeguard recruitment and retention and eliminating most residential pool fees, expanding library materials, implementing school-based food pantries and hiring more EMS personnel and mental health first responders.
“We think it provides the necessary enhancements and is still mindful of the budgetary needs of families in Austin,” said Ellis.
Meanwhile, an IFC from Siegel would provide the city a cushion in case voters reject increased taxes at the polls in November. His proposal would spread out cuts to all city departments instead of allocating certain priorities (and not others) to be contingent on voter approval. Council will meet again to discuss the budget and take a vote August 13 at 10am.
The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.