Government Spending: Travis County

1.

As county tax burden rises, one Travis commissioner offers alternative budget

Updated: 4:58 p.m. Friday, Sept. 13, 2013  |  Posted: 4:34 p.m. Friday, Sept. 13, 2013

 At a recent meeting, one Travis County commissioner was especially determined to oppose spending on new projects.

Three percent raises at a cost of $5.7 million for rank-and-file county employees? No, said Gerald Daugherty.

Thirty thousand dollars for bus tickets to encourage county employees to not drive their own cars to work? A nay from Daugherty.

How about $812,000 for salaries and space for more middle managers in the tax assessor-collector’s office? As a colleague noted, “the incredibly consistent Commissioner Daugherty” voted no.

Daugherty opposed nine of the 20 spending decisions at a budget workshop this month. There was just a single other no vote on those moves, from Commissioner Bruce Todd on hiring 10 new jail sergeants at a cost of $1.1 million. (Daugherty voted against that, too.)

But Daugherty, the lone Republican county commissioner, isn’t just Dr. No. He took the unusual step this year of drawing up his own shadow budget, listing about a dozen new programs, jobs and items he’d commit to funding — and leaving out dozens of other increases in the county’s proposed budget.

Daugherty believes the county should continue to operate with the same dollars it gets now plus whatever revenue comes from new construction. But his is the minority view.

County Judge Sam Biscoe called Daugherty’s approach — dropping otherwise-worthy expenditures to fit the budget within a preset limit — “completely arbitrary.” He and the other commissioners are more inclined to increase the budget about 3 percent each year, arguing that allows them to meet the growing needs of county residents without sporadic spikes in the tax bill.

“If you live in an area with a growing population, growing needs and growing mandates from the Legislature … the budget will increase,” Biscoe said.

Daugherty voted against three budgets in his previous stint as a commissioner from 2003 to 2008. His rival plan this year comes at a time of continually rising property taxes that have made affordability the new watchword in local government.

“Unless we send a strong message, departments are never going to feel like they’ve got to tighten their budgets,” Daugherty said in a recent interview.

County budget staffers have proposed lowering the county’s tax rate from 50.01 cents per $100 of taxable property value to 49.46 cents. Still, with property values on the rise, that would mean a county tax bill of $819 next year for the median-value home — a $20 increase over this year. Daugherty said he expects to vote against the budget, which takes effect Oct. 1.

Other local elected officials are starting to balk at regular tax bill increases. After Mayor Lee Leffingwell made it clear he wouldn’t support a tax rate hike, the Austin City Council voted Tuesday to lower its tax rate by 0.02 cents. That is the city’s first lowering of the tax rate in five years, down to 50.27 cents per $100 in assessed value, although with property values rising, the total bill is still going up. A city tax bill for the median-value home will be $931 next year – a $34 increase over this year.

Leffingwell was the only one of seven council members to vote against the city budget last year because it included an increase in the tax rate.

Daugherty’s reduced budget spends $5.6 million more than last year, an increase entirely paid by the tax revenue from new construction. That is less than the proposed budget’s increase of nearly $40 million, but Daugherty’s plan still allows for spending on various social service programs.

“It belies the reputation of some of the Republicans you see at the state and national level for Gerald to be recognizing the need for people that are not so well off and that it takes government assistance to try to provide a fabric under those folks to make it even in good times,” said Bill Aleshire, a Democrat and former county judge who has been critical of the rising property tax burden countywide.

Also nice to see, Aleshire said, is a specific list of expenditures Daugherty wants.

Daugherty did not edit the entire 129-page proposed budget and the dozens of changes made to it, but he said in an interview his budget would keep other spending in line with last year’s $814 million, plus the money from new construction. Still, his brand of fiscal conservatism is unlikely to get anywhere on the Democratic-majority commissioners court.

“If you campaign on a promise of reducing taxes, you know you’re not going to do that, because you don’t have three votes,” Biscoe said.

Commissioner Margaret Gómez, who did not oppose any of the new expenditures proposed in the Sept. 4 markup meeting, still voted along with Daugherty against the proposed budget earlier that day. She said she wanted the proposed budget to spend no more than this past year’s.

Todd, who was appointed to fill a vacancy three months ago, said that “just saying 3 percent, carte blanche, doesn’t work well and has the potential for artificially inflating the cost of government.” Rather, Todd said, he wants to be more involved in the budget process next year and push to justify increasing spending as needed.

Daugherty might be alone in most of his budget votes. But he said he hopes his questioning pressures departments to tighten their budgets — and spurs his fellow commissioners to take a harder look at spending decisions.

---

Commissioner Gerald Daugherty took the unusual step this year of drafting his own suggested budget, listing $5.6 million worth of projects he would add using only the new revenue from construction.

What Daugherty would fund:

• $370,000 for a “master plan” to increase efficiency and reduce spending (not in county’s proposed budget).

• $3.5 million for rising health benefit costs (same as county budget).

• $1.1 million for social service contracts with outside agencies (same as county budget).

• $108,000 for an attorney in the Mental Health Public Defender’s office (same as county budget).

• $100,000 to help fund the nonprofit Council on At-Risk Youth (county budget gives $200,000).

• $75,000 increase in spending on attorney’s fees for indigent people accused of crimes (county budget gives $300,000).

• $67,000 for support staff in the Precinct 4 Constable’s office (same as county budget).

• $50,000 to develop a program aimed at collecting late child support payments (county budget gives $816,000 for hiring new staff to develop a program and handle other duties).

• $50,000 for a mental health treatment program (not in county budget).

• $50,000 for the nonprofit Seedling Foundation (same as county budget).

• $40,000 for the nonprofit Dispute Resolution Center (same as county budget).

• $40,000 for an office assistant in the Juvenile Public Defender’s Office (same as county budget).

• $2,200 to reimburse driving for voter registration (same as county budget).

Some of the items Daugherty opposes in the county’s proposed budget:

• $5.7 million to fund 3 percent across-the-board raises for rank-and-file employees.

• $1.8 million for the district attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, after state funding was vetoed by Gov. Rick Perry.

• $1.1 million to hire 10 new jail sergeants.

• $30,000 for bus passes to encourage county staffers to drive less.

Up in the air:

The proposed county budget also includes some new costs that Daugherty doesn’t oppose them, but under his own budget scenario, funding them would require him to cut something else:

• $1.8 million to help fund a regional emergency communication center and operate a regional radio system with first-responder agencies.

• $283,000 to help maintain STAR Flight, the county’s fleet of ambulance helicopters.

• $280,000 to hire four maintenance staffers and a park ranger for Onion Creek parkland.

• $150,000 for a dead tree removal project.

Dipping into reserves

Daugherty’s plan recommends drawing on emergency reserves for two items:

• $1.5 million for the Road and Bridge Fund, a diminishing pot of money used for upkeep.

• $500,000 for additional contracting with outside social service providers.

2. Category: Government Spending

3. Level: Local

4. A a potential policy that is being considered to help a problem/issue that individuals face

5. This issue is important to individuals and families in Travis County because it is pertaining to tax rates and the money of the people. It is important to be informed on the progress of things like this so that you know where your money is going.

6.  I am right alongside with Daugherty when it comes to the proposed issue at hand. Taxes continue to go up, so that all of the plans and projects can be implemented. Cutting back the budget and just taking care of what is necessary is the way to go. We need to work on being conservative with our money when it comes to the overall budget and really look at where our money is being spent. All of the plans that are shown within Daugherty’s budget plan are all things that are needed for the county. We do not need all the excess plans like extra money to create more middle managers in the office. We do not have that money to spend. In having a larger budget plan, this means that the taxes will go up. No citizen wants to pay MORE taxes. Daugherty is looking to conserve, and stick to the bare minimum which is needed. I would strongly support him if I were a citizen of Travis County; what citizen wouldn't  Daugherty believes the county should continue to operate with the same dollars it gets now plus whatever revenue comes from new construction. This is just common sense to me, and I have no clue why you wouldn't want to do this.