Nearly two years after Austin voters elected 10 council members from newly drawn geographical districts, voters are faced with the possibility of replacing nearly half of the expanded City Council.

During this election season, five council members who randomly drew two-year terms—which done so 10-1 council members’ terms would be staggered and the entire council would not be up for election at once—will have to be re-elected to build on the work they achieved since the inception of the 10-1 system. Prior to 10-1, six council members and a mayor were elected at-large, or citywide.

So how well has the council served Austin residents in the past two years?

Peck Young, one of the chief architects of Austin’s district-based political system, said it will take time for Austin City Council to find its footing—just as it did when San Antonio made a similar switch a few decades ago.

“I think this council is not unlike the council [was] in San Antonio and is still in the process of learning,” Young said.

Outgoing City Manager Marc Ott—who is serving in an advisory role until Oct. 31, when he is set to assume the executive director position at the International City/County Management Association—said the council is indeed experiencing a learning curve, but it is not just the council that is adjusting.

“It is the organization, the city manager and staff: they have to find their way, too,” Ott said. “And it’s also new for Austinites—all sectors of the community. I think everyone is adjusting.

“Going to a district-based change in election, I think the impact is pervasive across many things in our community. I think it’s just going to take time to be able to see more clearly what those impacts are.”

A consensus seemed to emerge among the Austin constituents interviewed for this story by Community Impact Newspaper: Moving to geographical representation was necessary for the city, but the system is not yet functioning at optimal levels.

However, with only one council member, Kathie Tovo, having prior council experience, most expected a period of transition—including Austin Neighborhood Council President Mary Ingle.

“We knew that was going to happen, but I didn’t know it was going to be this rough,” Ingle said.

Nearly two years after voters chose the first geographically elected—except for the mayor—council in Austin’s history, the so-called 10-1 system is taking hold. Council members indicated the top issue in their respective districts.[/caption]

Committee system

An ongoing concern is that council business is not always conducted efficiently. Meetings tend to begin about 19 minutes after the scheduled 10 a.m. start time, and the median time City Council has adjourned its meetings is 7:20 p.m., according to a review of meeting transcripts.

City code calls for adjourning meetings no later than 10 p.m. The council has to vote to extend time, which it has done 20 times in the 10-1 system.

In April the council adopted legislation limiting the amount of public comment time at meetings that could be spent on an agenda item—with some exceptions—to 90 minutes. One rationale behind that measure was council members and staff were often hearing the same testimony when they convened in committee meetings.

The committee structure stems from the very first meeting of the 10-1 Council in January 2015. Mayor Steve Adler brought forth a resolution, approved by council, that established committees broken into policy areas such as housing and public utilities. These committees would take up items before council meetings to minimize time spent on those items during the regular meetings.

There are 10 council committees. Each district-elected council member sits on at least four committees, leads one and is vice chairperson for another.

Although well-intentioned, the council committees have not produced the desired result, said Ward Tisdale, Real Estate Council of Austin President.

“I think there is a general feeling that the whole committee structure has not been very effective,” Tisdale said. “It has really created more meetings without better results.”

He also said Austin’s 60-plus boards and commissions do not create a more effective government because there are too many levels.

Dewitt Peart, president and CEO of the Downtown Austin Alliance, said he has not followed Austin politics for very long but recognizes the challenges that have manifested during the past two years. Although the aspiration to be transparent is admirable, having so many commissions and committees “drags out the process” and has been “frustrating” for the business sector.

Interim City Manager Elaine Hart, who had served as the city chief financial officer until Oct. 1, said the committee system has been the biggest change during the 10-1 era. She said the new processes have helped create a rapport among council and staff.

“[The committee system] has created additional workload for staff, but there have been some advantages of that additional workload,” Hart said. “It’s a way for directors and staff to have a one-on-one relationship with council members on that committee.”

Austin city council ctions 2015-16[/caption]

Time spent on zoning matters

Another item tying up council time predates the 10-1 system: zoning matters, said Drew Scheberle, senior vice president of advocacy for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce.

Scheberle said the council spends too much time on individual permitting and zoning matters. The code rewrite process, dubbed CodeNEXT, will guide how land is developed and redeveloped in Austin. CodeNEXT has been in the works for years but has experienced delays. The process is expected to reach a milestone in early 2017 when the city is expected to release the first draft of the code.

Often, whole council meetings are held to review zoning and permitting cases. Providing a blueprint for how development should occur, CodeNEXT would free up meeting time so council can tackle the affordability issues facing the city, Scheberle said.

That would allow the full potential of the 10-1 council to be realized, he said.

“That’s really where council gets out of the singular case-by-case, house-by-house issues,” he said.

Once the draft of the code is published in January, a months-long public comment process will ensue, Hart said. She said she anticipates council adopting CodeNEXT later in the year.

“Once that is done, we are hoping that will speed up some of the processes,” she said.

A seat at the table

Young said minority residents are experiencing proportional representation for the first time, and North Austin and South Austin dwellers have a representative from their part of town for the first time in many years. Many of the at-large council members previously lived in West Austin as well as the city’s urban core, he said.

“[North and South Austin residents] have somebody they can call when they have problems,” Young said. “Problems are being solved, and things are being done finally in that part of town [that had not been] in more than a quarter-century.”

Council also now has more conservative voices under 10-1 than it had before, Young said. It is a constituency that has perhaps flown under the radar in the mostly liberal Austin but one that is increasingly making its presence felt at City Hall, he said.

Low-income Austin residents are also better represented under the new 10-district system, said Emily Timm, deputy director of the Texas Workers Defense Project. The organization advocates for policy to improve the living conditions of low-wage workers.

Although there had been the political will in past councils, she said there had not been direct representation.

“Council members feel personally accountable to low-income communities,” Timm said. “There’s a person to go to.”

But she said Austin is in a critical moment as increasing housing costs drive out middle- and low-income residents. She said she hopes to see council create policies that encourage quality economic opportunities for working individuals and families.

David King, Austin Neighborhood Council vice president, said with all the change occurring at once within the city—district representation, a new city manager and a land development code rewrite—there is risk but also opportunity to bring 10-1 to bear.

“I think it’s important that we have these different voices from around the city now having a seat at the table to define and influence the city that we want going forward,” King said.

One example of 10-1’s efficacy is the mobility bond package going before voters this election season, said Council Member Ann Kitchen, who represents District 5. Having representatives on the council who live in Southwest Austin and can talk with residents made a difference in the plans for South Austin that made it into the bond package, she said.

“I think the 10-1 system played out here in the sense that when the package came forward to us, we were able to speak to the needs in South Austin,” Kitchen said.

---

Austin's $720 million mobility bond 

austin’s $720 million
mobility bond[/caption]

by Amy Denney

How the city of Austin’s $720 million mobility bond will affect property owners’ tax bills is being debated among city leaders and those taking a hard look at the city’s math.

On Nov. 8, voters will decide whether to approve the bond, which includes three project categories. Most funding­— $482 million—would go toward implementing parts of the city’s seven completed corridor plans as well as studying a new corridor plan in South Austin. Another $101 million would go toward regional mobility projects, and the remaining $137 million would be spent on local road projects and implementing parts of the city’s sidewalk, bicycle, urban trails and fatality-reduction plans.

Interim Chief Financial Officer Greg Canally said the city could issue $250 million in bonds without raising the debt service tax rate and would issue the remaining $470 million by raising that tax rate by an estimated 2.25 cents per $100  taxable valuation. Bonds would be issued by 2021, he said.

“It’s important for cities to invest and have the public vote on [bonds],” he said. “A key factor of how debt works is it’s spread out over 20 years, and everyone who uses [the facilities built from bond funds] contributes to it.”

Calculating the impact of the increased tax rate is an issue Roger Falk, an analyst with the Travis County Taxpayers Union, refutes. He points to the fine print in the city’s own bond flier that says the city’s overall tax rate would increase to 53.39 cents, representing a 7.5 cent increase versus a 2.25 cent increase the city would need to sell all $720 million in bonds.

Canally said this language is required by state law to show the financial impact as if all the bonds were issued the day after the election.

“The assumption it makes is ... we would issue all $720 million and would have to raise immediately the tax rate, and that would be 7.5 cents,” Canally said. “We wouldn’t do that; that’s not how bonds work. Why is it not 7.5 cents eight years from now? We’re paying off existing debt over time.”

Falk said the city should use real numbers versus projections to provide the full picture.

“They say we’ll retire some debt, but if you went to a car dealership and they said, ‘You’re going to be paying your house off and that payment’s about the same as this car payment, so you’re getting the car free.’ That would be deceptive,” he said.

Falk also balks at the city’s use of the median-valued home price of $250,000 based on taxable value. He said using the mean would provide a more accurate and meaningful average, and appraisal district figures are outdated. He said data from the Austin Board of Realtors, which provides information on local home values, indicates the median home value has been above $340,000 for the past few months.

He said he would support a bond without the corridor plans, which would be detrimental to business owners. As a commercial property owner, Falk said the plans also lead to more density and traffic congestion.

Southwest Austin resident Art Bedrosian said he opposes the bond package.

“The transportation bonds have too much money [allocated] for miniscule transportation impacts,” he said.

But Jim Wick, campaign manager for political action committee Move Austin Forward, said the primary outcome of the bond would be congestion relief.

“This bond proposition will significantly address congestion throughout all parts of the city and create more safety for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists,” he said. “This bond will provide a lot of transportation choices for Austinites.”

Wick, a Southwest Austin resident, said he had initial concerns about inequity in the original bond proposal because it left out projects in South Austin.

“Council fixed that with [funding] an eighth corridor in South Austin,” he said. “In its current state [South Austin roads] have had significant work done. Slaughter was funded in the late ’90s with raised medians and other safety components.”