Edited by Louisa C. Brinsmade, with contributions this week by Roseana Auten,
Dave Cook, and Nelson England.
BRADLEY ISD IN THE YEAR 2000?: The Austin Independent School District Citizens’
Bond Advisory Committee, which has labored since June 1994 on recommendations
for facilities improvement and expansion, will issue its final report to the
AISD Board of Trustees on June 26. The committee has tentatively identified the
school district’s needs as follows: $330.6 million in “Tier I” bonds, or what
every school must have “to ensure safe and effective learning”; $15.8 million
Tier II bonds, or “what every school in the district ought to have to
ensure effective learning”; and “other” needs, which could be deferred, for a
total of $20 million. If trustees act upon all the committee’s findings, voters
could be asked to approve $366.5 million in bonds, possibly as soon as this
fall, or early next year.
The money, if approved, would be used to build six elementary schools
(including three in Southwest Austin), two middle schools (one in Southwest
Austin, one in South Austin), and one high school in South Austin. Scores of
renovations, improvements, expansions, and wing additions would be done on
every campus in the district. The main objective, says committee chair Mel
Waxler, is to achieve equity of resources at every campus.
Waxler says that the bond committee will not issue its report in the form of a
dollar-amount recommendation; rather, the group will merely tell the board what
they have determined are the district’s needs and the costs associated with
those needs. Another citizens’ committee will be formed to ensure that the
funds are properly spent to address the needs, Waxler says.
Opposition to a bond issuance, common in any school district, could prove even
more acrimonious in AISD. African-American and Hispanic parents and community
leaders, upset and outraged over the district’s curtailing of its Priority
Schools program for schools with high proportions of low-income children, have
vowed to scuttle the bond proposal.
But Waxler doesn’t buy it. “Surely there is another way to promote important
issues,” he argues. The bonds, used in the manner the committee recommends,
could be the “ultimate equalizer” for many of those communities, he adds.
Some trustees disagree. “When you build three schools in southwest Austin, and
then don’t replace a Hispanic school that was built in 1936 for segregation
purposes [Zavala Elementary], in my mind, that’s not equity,” says trustee
Diana Caste�eda. She adds that she is deeply concerned that since four
of the schools may be located near the Circle C subdivision, developer Gary
Bradley may be able to detach them from AISD and start another school district,
taking the new, AISD taxpayer-funded schools with him. –
R.A. AREA CITIZENS COMPETE FOR DWINDLING TRANSPORTATION FUNDS: It was standing room
only at the Austin Transportation Study (ATS) public hearing on June 12 as
Austinites crowded the chamber to request funding for their preferred
transportation projects. The 17-member committee, which includes elected
officials representing Austin and Travis and Williamson Counties, allocates
federal, state, and local funds for transportation projects. Forty-six citizens
addressed the ATS in a four-hour meeting designed to gather public input on the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which funds projects for the next
three fiscal years.
ATS Chair, Texas Senator Gonzalo Barrientos set the tone for much of the
discussion that followed by noting that the projects that the ATS has given
priority to, such as bicycle, pedestrian, and congestion management, never seem
to get underway. Citizens representing neighborhoods along MoPac agreed with
Barrientos, complaining that their requests for noise barriers on MoPac and
I-35 have been delayed for years. “The noise is driving us crazy,” says Ian
Inglis of the West Austin Neighborhood Group. “It’s getting to where it is
almost around the clock, and we’re getting more and more commuters from the
north and south ends of MoPac.” Several citizens also spoke about safety
concerns increasing as people drive faster and faster on MoPac.
Several members of the ROUTE (Rethinking Our Urban Transportation Environment)
coalition criticized the ATS for continuing to emphasize funding for suburban
road projects even though its 25-year transportation plan calls for a compact
city. The committee’s head planner, Mike Aulick, replied that 15% of the annual
$7.8 million in federal funds for local projects is allocated to bicycle and
pedestrian projects. But ROUTE members noted that these funds, while under
direct control of the ATS, constitute only a fraction of federal transportation
funds spent in the area.
The majority of projects using federal money are initiated by the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT), with the approval of the ATS. Most of
this money is currently going for construction of the US 290 and US 183
freeways. ROUTE’s Roger Baker said that federal transportation funds will be
declining significantly in the next few years, and accused transportation
planners of delaying alternative projects while TxDOT uses Austin’s last
federal dollars building a highway over the Edwards Aquifer to satisfy growth
projections promoted by developers.
Transit activist David Dobbs responded to comments that the completion of the
US 183 freeway will ease traffic problems – especially in the traffic-choked
Koenig Lane neighborhood – by pointing out that 183 will actually have
increased capacity from the current 130,000 cars daily to 180,000. Also, he
says, projections suggest that US 290’s capacity will already be exceeded by
the time it is complete. “We have it in our heads that we can enlarge roads and
solve traffic problems,” said Dobbs, “but if you think the traffic is not going
through the neighborhoods, you’re mistaken.”
Lakeway, Cedar Park, and Round Rock presented requests for seats on
the ATS committee. Rollingwood, Georgetown, and Jonestown have also indicated
that they want to be represented. Committee members say they will consider
appointing a subcommittee to study the requests and also to study creation of a
citizens’ advisory group.
The ATS will continue its public hearing on the TIP at its next
meeting on July 10, before considering adoption of a final three-year plan on
August 14. Citizens can send written comments to ATS, PO Box 1088-Municipal
Annex, Austin, TX 78767. – N.E.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY: One of the more interesting bills brought to the Lege this
session that didn’t pass concerned the establishment of a Travis County Airport
Authority Board to oversee Mueller Airport – and ultimately the new airport at
Bergstrom. HB 3133 was sponsored by Dawnna Dukes (D-Austin), and reportedly was
based on a bill carried in the previous session by Dukes’ predecessor,
Wilhemina Delco.
Delco’s bill also failed, but that didn’t stop Dukes during this session, and
she says it won’t stop her from bringing the bill back again next session, if
she’s reelected. “The City of Austin has finally decided that they don’t need
to run the hospital or the public utility system. This legislation falls right
in line with the city’s planning and political philosophy,” said Dukes in a
statement to the Chronicle. The bill would have set up a seven-member
governance board to run the airport. While the board would have similar powers
to the city council, it wouldn’t be allowed to levy taxes. City Councilmember
Ronney Reynolds is in agreement with Dukes on the bill, saying he thinks it
would be “a good vehicle for the city to run the airport.”
Support for the bill was not unanimous among city staffers, mainly due to the
governance structure proposed. Assistant City Attorney Charles Brothers said he
was worried that the bill might have given away too much city control of the
airport: Board members would either have been elected by Travis County voters
or appointed by the County Commissioners Court, and giving up representative
powers to the county makes city officials very nervous. City Aviation
Department Director Charles Gates says he had suggested a more equitable
arrangement: that three board members be appointed by the city, three by the
county, and one by the governor, with members having staggered terms. “If the
bill had passed,” Gates adds, “the county would set a referendum and the voters
would decide by simple majority [whether] to establish an authority.”
Gates says that while he doesn’t think the city ever established an official
position on the bill, “I don’t believe there was any support… I think the
legislation as proposed had some flaws and needed some work.”
City Councilmember Brigid Shea saw the Airport Authority as a way to allow the
city to put some of the revenue from Mueller, and eventually Bergstrom, back
into the city’s general fund. There may also have been some profit for city
coffers from land sales around the new airport. “Some of the land [at
Bergstrom] is highway frontage and possibly valuable,” argues Shea. Under the
current financial structure, all profits generated at Mueller (and eventually
at Bergstrom), are required by the FAA to be held in an airport fund, and spent
strictly on airport-related improvements or expenses.
But, says Shea, “there wasn’t a whole lot of discussion about [the bill]”
amongst her fellow councilmembers. Whatever the case, the bill died quietly as
time ran out on this session. With Bergstrom looming larger on the horizon,
expect this to be a much bigger issue the next time around, if Dukes is
reelected. – D.C.
This article appears in June 23 • 1995 and June 23 • 1995 (Cover).