Austin’s $1.2 billion proposed budget for fiscal year 1996-97 appears to be a
no-frills approach to the city’s stated mission: “We want Austin to be the most
livable community in the country.” Easy to say, but can we afford to meet that
goal? Apparently not. Not if you read between the lines of this year’s massive
six-volume budget, anyway, wherein the line-item veto rules. Gone are many of
the preventative measures against juvenile and adult crime, the horticulture
unit in the Parks & Recreation Department (besides you, they’re the ones
who Keep Austin Beautiful), and the police neighborhood centers. We nearly lost
the city’s North Austin clinic. Pioneer Farms is definitely on the way out.
And, of course, the Parks Department will still have trouble maintaining the
city’s 11,500 acres of park land. The budget strategy this year is clearly “affordability,” and the
accompanying article on page 20 (“It’s a Good Economy, Stupid,” by Mike
Clark-Madison), lays out the depressing truth that over-burdened taxpayers may
never be willing to pay enough to have their needs met. So much for
affordability. What about livability? Despite the current boom, the five-year
forecast for Austin performed by the city’s budget department is the most
depressing news yet: Austin’s touted quality of life is in danger.
“What we currently face is a facility rich environment, but one that is cash
poor,” City Manager Jesus Garza told the city council in his transmittal letter
accompanying the proposed budget. As it is, the city is having trouble meeting
this year’s expenses, calculated at $301.7 million for the General Fund for
basic city services and administration. During the summer, the deficit was
projected at $18 million, but a last-minute boon in sales taxes and property
taxes, and the city manager’s decision not to reduce the $59.9 million
electric utility transfer into the General Fund as was originally planned,
helped offset the gap. The deficit now stands at a more manageable $2.5
million, which will be covered by unspent funds from last year. The deficit
problem this year, however, is only a hint of what’s to come.
According to the five-year forecast prepared by the city budget staff, Austin
is expected to have an average deficit in the city’s general operating fund of
$26 million. The causes are many: To make the city-owned electric utility more
competitive in the coming open electric power market, the city is planning to
reduce the amount the utility transfers into the general fund by $5-6 million
per year until the transfer has been eliminated; federal and state grant
revenue is taking a turn for the worse — the city is expected to lose about
$10 million over the next five years; due to the population boom, public safety
spending will go up by $23 million in the same period; and anticipated changes
in Medicaid and Medicare will result in a deficit of $10 million by the year
2000 for Austin’s clinics.
“Though this forecast may seem bleak, it truly gives us the opportunity to
prepare now — before it happens,” says Garza. He suggests more community
involvement in making city government efficient — and continuing the new
“program review” budget process that evaluates each city program for
effectiveness. All with an eye toward cutting. “These are hard choices we face,
beginning today,” says Garza.
Despite all of the city manager’s best efforts, there may be no way to prepare
for what’s to come. At a time when Austin should be reaping the financial
benefits of growth, the city is losing strength as the surrounding suburbs
muscle their way to power — as of last year, more people now live outside the
city than inside. Regional cooperation has too often meant the city gives up
more than it gets, as in the case of Cedar Park’s annexation of a portion of
Austin’s land in its extraterritorial jurisdiction. And much of Austin’s
annexation powers — the cornerstone of a city’s ability to pull in revenues in
a growing economy — has been taken away by recent legislation.
The answer is to make Austin the preferred place to live for its citizens and
newcomers by improving the quality of life. That means better, even more,
community services and city beautification efforts, not fewer. Yet, the panic
down at City Hall is spreading across all city departments, with many of the
cuts presenting a slippery slope for Austin for needed services. For instance,
the horticulture unit at Parks & Rec, responsible for the flower beds,
hedges, and other perennials on the city’s most frequently visited sites like
Congress Avenue and Zilker Park, will be disbanded. Their duties will be
covered, but not as a priority, by other Parks workers. The savings?
Essentially, $7,000 for that particular cut. The department argues that
$150,000 has been saved since the four full-time and one part-time positions in
the unit will be eliminated. But those employees are moving to vacant positions
elsewhere in the department that could have been eliminated instead. That’s not
serious savings, that’s changing priorities, and cutting for the sake of
cutting. The “suspension” of the police department’s neighborhood centers in an
effort to put more officers on patrol is another good example. (See
Madison-Clark’s story.)
In most communities, quality of life in the context of a city’s budget is
defined not only by basic city services, but also by the number of programs
available to your kids in the summer, the police presence in your neighborhood,
the beautification efforts along Main Street, the quality of your community
parks, etc. Many of those things are falling by the wayside as Austin’s city
government struggles with growth and the demand on city services. And while all
this may be overstating the case, once programs are suspended, it’s difficult
to justify re-enacting them the next year when things get really rough, or the
year after. Pretty soon, the more of these community programs that disappear,
the concept of city beautification and even crime prevention through community
activity will become quaint rather than essential, and the less livable Austin
will become. Guess this is what being a “big city” is all about.
[The public is invited to comment on the proposed budget during a Channel 6
call-in show on August 28 with City Budget Officer Charles Curry and Public
Information Officer Michell Middlebrook-Gonzalez; the council is scheduled to
vote on the budget September 9,10, and 11, and comments can be made during
citizens’ communication.] n
This article appears in August 23 • 1996 and August 23 • 1996 (Cover).