This week let’s rove around the local government and political scene,
and see
what we find. It won’t be pretty at all. Attacks on the city’s home
rule powers
at the Legislature continue. Our own state senator amended one of the
anti-Austin bills so that it officially encourges a development
agreement with
Freeport-McMoRan. Consequently, Freeport’s PUD deal could be back on
the
council agenda any day now, although city officials say there are no
such plans
at the present time. Meanwhile, the price of Austin’s airport is going
up while
federal funding goes down, and an Austin state representative last week
bluntly
questioned the city’s commitment to indigent health care at
Brackenridge
Hospital once it is taken over by Seton Medical Center.
At the Lege
First let’s stop by the state capitol, where what the late Houston
Post
termed the Legislature “that strangled Austin” is in progress.
Legislators
from far flung areas, fueled with developer contributions, seek to
punish
Austin for its water quality initiatives. These attacks emanate from
the same
capitol out of which we have heard more than a century of blaring
rhetoric
about states’ rights and local control.
It’s horrific enough that the Legislature is so blatantly out to get
the
capital city. Even more outrageous, however, is that key officials
elected to
represent Austin are not taking the city’s side, or at least not
fighting very
hard in the city’s interest. Our mayor repeatedly says that we deserve
what we
are getting, because “we fail[ed] to agree to a reasonable course of
action”
i.e., approve a development agreement with Freeport-McMoRan. It’s like
he’s
wearing a “kick me” sign, was the analysis offered by one local
resident.
Then there’s Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, who scored on Austin’s
behalf last
week when he managed to kill Representative Susan Combs’ dangerous
anti-annexation bill. Barrientos is now seeking support for his
compromise
proposal. On another front, however, the senator’s actions concerning
an
anti-Austin bill that would directly benefit Freeport-McMoRan are very
questionable. The bill in question is the so-called “water quality
zone” bill
sponsored in the Senate by Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio), and in the
House by
Ron Lewis (D-Mauriceville). The bill would allow developers with more
than
1,000 acres in Austin’s extraterritorial jurisidiction (ETJ) to declare
their
property a “water quality zone,” and then basically be responsible for
regulating their
own water quality. The City of Austin would have
no
authority. Other Texas cities will still be allowed to protect their
water
supply in their ETJs. Two chief beneficiaries of this law would be
Freeport’s
Barton Creek PUD and Circle C Ranch. (See sidebar.)
Barrientos voted against the bill, but managed to persuade only
two other
senators to do likewise. Barrientos, an 11-year Senate veteran, did
succeed in
adding an amendment to the bill, allowing for parts of the law to be
“waived”
if the property “becomes subject to an agreement between the owner or
owners of
land within the zone and the municipality.” In other words, if the
Austin City
Council approves a development agreement with Freeport-McMoRan, then
parts of
the law will not apply, and some city regulations can be enforced. It
will be
up to the land owners to decide which parts of the state law will be
waived and
which city regulations will apply.
Barrientos’ amendment specifically lists a number of measures which
would be
allowed in an agreement, including: “immunity from annexation” for 15
years;
varying any watershed protection regulations; and “the provision of
water and
wastewater service to the property.” Take particular note of that final
clause.
Freeport wants city sewage service. In the estimation of most wizened
players,
that’s why they
keep trying to win city approval of their
development even
though they’ve claimed for five years that they can build without city
approval.
The Barrientos amendment does not, and cannot, force the city to
grant sewage
service to Freeport. Neither the Legislature nor any federal court has
that
power. Another Wentworth bill comes close, however. It would allow
Freeport to
set up seven Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs) and issue bonds. This
bill is
widely believed to provide Freeport with the leverage to negotiate for
city
sewer service, and it is probably the most serious threat to the city
of all
the anti-Austin bills. The MUDs bill passed the Senate last week, with
only
Barrientos and Judith Zaffirini (D-Laredo) voting no. (For a look at
how hard
the city’s legislative lobbyists are working against these types of
attacks,
see “On The Lege” this week.)
As a result of all this, the PUD agreement could be back on the
council agenda
soon, but it would have to be as an emergency – which wouldn’t be the
first
time. The backdrop could be the specter of the Wentworth bill passing
the
House, and/or the May 8 court date in Freeport’s federal suit against
the city.
The PUD deal, however, isn’t on this week’s agenda (April 27), and
council
meetings for the next week have been canceled. That leaves no council
meetings
before the suit goes to trial. (As reported in the “Naked City” column
last
week, the city has a new attorney in that suit, Jim George, who,
amazingly,
actually appears ready to fight in the city’s interest.)
But it appears that Freeport is in no hurry right now. One
reason
may be that if the Barrientos amendment becomes law, it would provide
the
company with another hammer to hold over the council’s head – give us a
sewer
and we’ll comply with some of your laws, the ones we choose.
Before leaving this section, let’s take another look at the
oft-repeated argument that the council should approve a deal with
Freeport PUD
in order to stave off legislative attacks. First of all, the attacks
are coming
from more parties than just Freeport. Among other things, the
Legislature is
undoing deals the city made with developers years ago. For example, the
developers and residents of many suburban MUDs have milked the city for
millions in subsidies and now they want to avoid their end of the deal
–
annexation and the resulting city taxes. And if Freeport has such pull
at the
capitol, isn’t it likely that they, too, will go back to the
Legislature after
they get their city sewer and get themselves out of any commitments
they don’t
like?
Up, Up, and Away
Now it’s on to the new Bergstrom airport, where the price is
increasing while
advertised federal funding is decreasing. It was announced last week
that the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is delaying disbursement of $30
million
in funds that were earmarked for moving Del Valle schools that would be
in the
flight path of the new airport. The payments may be eliminated
entirely.
Meanwhile, airport officials presented the council with what
Councilmember
Brigid Shea termed an “almost indecipherable” progress report. Shea
added that
her appointee to the Airport Advisory Board, who is a veteran in the
aviation
field, also had extreme difficulty in understanding the report. Among
other
things, Shea pointed out that officials gave three different figures on
the
cost of the terminal. Aviation Director Charles Gates explained that
this was
because parking was included in some calculations, and not in others.
Other
matters of confusion included the project schedule, various cost
figures, the
progress of contractors, and whether contractors’ pay schedule is ahead
of
their work completion rate. For example, Shea said, she didn’t
understand the
reason for a $600,000 overrun for architects Page, Southerland Page.
Assistant
City Manager Joe Lessard explained that the extra expense was incurred
because
city officials asked the architects to redesign portions of the airport
to save
money. Airport managers promised to return with better reports.
Despite the mind-numbing nature of the official report, a few key
points are
clear. The price is going up and federal funding is going down. The
current
price tag is $624.9 million, up from an original projection of $582.8
million.
That’s only a 7% increase, but then, the new airport is still in the
planning
stages.
Meanwhile, the airlines, who will pay much of the Bergstrom airport
construction costs through fees and rentals, are balking at the price.
The
mayor accused the airlines of lobbying against the school relocation
money at
the FAA. It’s unclear if that is the case, but they are definitely
raising
concerns about the cost. West Austin News columnist and former
Austin
City Councilmember Robert Barnstone got the early jump in reporting the
airlines’ costs concerns.
Barnstone, who was instrumental in stopping the airport from moving
to Manor
in the late 1980s, proposed in his April 13 column that the city cut
costs by
dropping plans for a second runway. The parallel/widely spaced runway
is
required by the FAA, and without it, the city would lose $90 million
promised
by the federal agency. The runway, however, costs $100 million.
Barnstone
argues that Austin is unlikely to ever generate enough traffic to
justify the
parallel runway, and says many airports don’t have them, including
Tokyo’s
Niarita Airport. The potential loss of further FAA funding for Del
Valle school
relocation was announced after Barnstone’s column appeared, but it
provides
further fuel to his idea. The schools are in the flight path of the
proposed
parallel runway, not the current one.
A loss of FAA funding would bring another potential advantage,
argues
Barnstone. It would free Austin from the FAA regulation that all
airport-generated revenues must go back into a city’s aviation fund. In
other
words, profits from the airport could be transferred to the city’s
general
fund, providing tax relief to the citizenry. That is, if there are
profits by
the time the airport is opened.
Meanwhile, State Representative Glen Maxey, in an unscheduled stop
at the city
council meeting, charged that city management is resisting efforts to
include
guarantees of continued indigent coverage into a legislative bill that
would
remove obstacles to the Seton management takeover of city-owned
Brackenridge
Hospital. Maxey pointed out that such a position goes against repeated
promises
by the mayor, councilmembers, and city management, that indigent care
would
continue at Brackenridge. A visibly angry City Manager Jesus Garza
didn’t deny
any of Maxey’s statements, but launched into an impassioned speech
about how
this was a matter that should be decided by the city, not the state
Legislature. (Funny he hasn’t made similar statements about anti-Austin
legislation.) These concerns were scheduled to be discussed further at
a
council work session, April 26; for more details on Maxey’s remarks,
see
“Council Watch.”
For updates on the above and other issues, tune in to Daryl
Slusher’s daily
reports on KOOP radio, 91.7 FM, weekdays at 6:30pm.
Austin Bashing Unconstitutional?
On Wednesday, April 26, Austin American-Statesman reporter
Ralph
K.M. Haurwitz disclosed the contents of an internal memo obtained from
the
Texas Natural Resources Commission (TNRCC) which states that a bill
sponsored
by Sen. Jeff Wentworth and Rep. Ron Lewis would fail to protect Barton
Creek,
preempt current enforcement measures, and work against state and
federal
regulations. The bill would allow FM Properties and other developers
with over
1,000 acres in Austin’s extraterritorial jurisdiction to exempt
themselves from
the city’s ordinances and regulations and submit their own water
quality plans
to the TNRCC. According to the Statesman report, the internal
memo was
sent by Mark Jordan, director of water policy and regulations, to Laura
Koesters, deputy executive director of water resources management. As
the
state’s environmental agency, the TNRCC would review and approve the
water
quality plans submitted by the developers within 120 days, whether or
not the
agency has sufficient information.
According to the Statesman, the memo also states that the
bill may
violate a provision in the Texas Constitution prohibiting special bills
which
attempt to regulate a particular municipality. “Prohibition against
local laws
are intended to combat corruption, personal privileges and meddling in
local
affairs – or conversely, to prevent a group from dashing to the Capitol
to get
something their local government would not give them,” reads the memo.
According to the Statesman report, TNRCC spokesperson Patrick
Crimmins
said, that “It is not an official agency position because we don’t take
official positions on proposed legislation.” – Louisa C.
Brinsmade
This article appears in April 28 • 1995 and April 28 • 1995 (Cover).