73° F
14 By Eleni Himaras, Staff Writer
A seven-and-a-half-hour special Rollingwood City Council meeting and budget workshop Monday produced more questions than answers about whether the Rollingwood Community Development Corporation may fund the planned Edgegrove and Pickwick waterlines.
The council is still considering three options to make that happen:
• Splitting the project into a clearly defined commercial water line and residential waterline with the RCDC and council paying for each, respectively;
• Financing the project and allowing the RCDC to fund several other projects out of the city’s budget over time, freeing up money to pay the debt service, and
• Putting an item on the November ballot asking voters to allow the RCDC to fund the waterlines.
“When we go back to the intent and purpose of RCDC law, it is not to fund residential water projects,” said RCDC member Rob Hirschfeld. “It is not clear legally whether you can do it or not. Passing the election does not mean it is legal. The legal opinions on this matter continue to evolve and change.”
Both the council and the RCDC have sought several legal opinions as to whether the corporation may fund these projects. While many loopholes have been proposed, it still resides in a legal grey area. RCDC members in attendance favored the second option, because it moved the debate out of the grey area but it would mean the city of Rollingwood needed to take out a loan and it would preclude the RCDC from having the water lines clearly delineated in its budget.
In its proposed budget, the RCDC took from the city’s budget $135,000 worth of projects for park maintenance and repairs and the new Americans with Disabilities Act-approved City Hall restrooms. Their reasoning was that this money would be left in the city’s general fund to pay for the water projects.
“We’ve taken on money that we’ve never taken on before and there are no shades of grey to it,” RCDC Chairman Jeff Grandcolas said. “Do you want a line item in our budget that says Edgegrove? Because I’m not sure we can give you that. Do you want that or do you want the money?”
Alderman Brian Nalle said he’d prefer to see the line item because he believed it would go a long way towards smoothing over community relations after the Gentry Drive parking lot controversy that left the RCDC battling a lawsuit. But, he conceded, that getting the project done was the most important end and that he would consider the financing option.
None of the other council members were willing to discuss that option at Monday’s meeting but it is on the agenda for a budget workshop to be held Wednesday.
The focus of the meeting then turned towards picking apart the RCDC proposed budget, which the council voted 3-2 to deny and send back for revisions. Alderwoman Shanthi Jayakumar and aldermen Bill Hamilton and John Hinton asked the corporation to cut items, including a large portion dedicated to shade structures in the park, a study on the Endeavor Park on Dellana Lane and the 2009-10 Buy Rollingwood program.
“That’s not fair or respectful to the staff or committee members,” Alderman Brian Nalle said of picking apart the RCDC budget.
RCDC Member Rob Hirschfeld told the council that the budget simply described the maximum that they could spend but that each individual project would have to come back before the city and through a public vetting process for approval, but the majority voted that in the economic climate cuts had to be made earlier in the process.
The Rollingwood City Council have scheduled budget workshops for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week to meet the state-mandated deadlines.
While the budget is still under construction, the council did set the tax rate for next year, opting for the effective tax rate, which is 11.16 cents per $100 valuation, nearly half a cent lower than the current rate of 11.59 cents.
This vote was necessary by Monday because it pushed them above $500,000 in revenue, meaning the city is no longer considered a small-taxing entity. The council was faced with voting for a 10.9- cent rate which would keep the city a small-taxing entity, a 11.16 cent effective tax rate, or a 12.05 cent rollback rate.
“I’m recommending the rollback rate,” Mayor Dale Dingley said. “It’s not much more money and we can use it.”
Alderman Brian Nalle made a motion to approve that rate, but it died for a lack of second. Alderman Bill Hamilton then made a motion to approve the effective rate.
“There’ll come a day when the legislation looks askance at those entities who immediately go to that rollback rate,” Hamilton said.
Nalle argued that they could not write a budget including all of the projects the citizens had asked for without the rollback rate, but the effective rate passed by a vote of 3-2 with Nalle and Alderwoman Roxanne McKee dissenting.
A three to two vote in favor of the lower property tax rate instead of the highest possible tax rate that our mayor wanted. John Hinton, Shanthi Jayakumar, and Bill Hamilton deserve a huge thank you for helping the citizens offset the impact of increased property taxes from increased valuations. The lower tax rate would not have happened without them.
Brain Nalle and Roxanne McKee want to increase our taxes, on top of everything else going up, and continue outrageous spending. Mayor Dingley says we don’t have enough money and need more to keep up with the outrageous spending and then borrow more.
It will take a lot of hard work and constant heat from the big spenders but maybe Rollingwood can begin to set an example of smart city management. Thank you to the majority on the council for listening.
Mr. Drunk Blogger,
give up the bottle and you’ll have an extra $50 in your pocket to pay the rollback rate.
Nobody likes to pay increased taxes but many of us, particuarly parents raising kids in Rollingwood can appreciate the improvements made to the city over the past ten years or so.
Rollingwwod is a better place than it used to be and that cost money, from many sources including city property taxes which are almost a fourth of what you would pay in Austin.
The higher tax rate is misleading- it meant $45 more for a home valued at $500k. I would prefer to pay the extra to ensure we are able to keep our staff and fund projects. Plus I would rather the money come from my taxes for water and sewer versus the massive usage rates we have for sewer- I pay $2600 a year for my sewer base rate and only $1000 in taxes. Property taxes spread the burden across everyone- commercial, lot owners and home owners.
The three amigos have saved us nothing now that they have hired special counsel to buyout our City Administrator which will cost money- then we will pay for a temporary person and hire someone new at I am sure a lesser salary because that is part of the goal- and don’t forget the legal fees generated by hiring the special counsel who just told them the same thing the City Attorney told them. In the end- the three amigos have just spent the small tax savings they created.
Way to go Fiscal Resposibility!!
Anonymous – A little bit here and a little bit there adds up to a lot. That is what is happening at the national level and it doesn’t need to happen in Rollingwood. We choose to live here because it doesn’t have Austin’s tax rates. You like to spend more than we need to, I don’t. And besides more money in OUR pockets means I can buy my bottles at the new Sprouts Market. Less money means I can’t give them my business. Got it?
Hey Catherine, The city administrator’s free wheeling use of the city attorney for her every whim is out of control. Why don;t you examine her spending habits and you will see that it is best to nip that source of pork in the bud. We will save big bucks and have a more pleasant city hall in the process. Your $500 water bill shows you have no fiscal sense at all. Stop telling the rest of us how to have it. Comprendo?
By the way, what had the previous council done to SAVE US MONEY?? Nothing. What did they do for our infrastructure? Nothing.
The facts speak for themselves.
Rollingwood was hit hard with increases in property values this year. From what I have been told, Rollingwood’s appraisals went out the roof beyond any other neighborhood in Austin, and all this during a RECESSION. So, the city will be receiving a nice increase of 10% – the max allowed – in property tax revenue. The mayor and two of our council members had wanted to raise the city’s tax rate ON TOP OF THIS during a RECESSION. This is outlandish and foolish.
I agree with drunkblogger. The city will be receiving a nice bonus from tax appraisal increases this year, while our residents are losing jobs and having their salaries cut. Raising taxes OF ANY SORT during a recession is poison. Any amount of money even in small doses to relieve the burden being hoisted upon the Rollingwood taxpayer is needed.
Thanks you to the “three amigos” for giving a hoot. The other two “non-amigos” and the mayor need to be given the boot.
I have a $500 water bill as well- my sewer is $260 of it and I am good at financial planning.
I would rather have the City Atty look at the items in question. If not, several people would have signed off on water projects being paid for by RCDC which is a legal quandry. If I were on RCDC or Council before I vote to pay for residential water projects with RCDC funds I would make sure my insurance was paid up and check the City policy for Council and Board members. If the attorney has advised them that it is a fuzzy area and they then go ahead with the spending and someone sues those members will become personally liable.
As for a pleasant City Hall- I think there has been one- review Chief Pryor’s comments from the last Council Meeting.
To Catherine,
Another thing to consider is the Eanes tax rate. Austin doesn’t have that and Austin doesn’t have our home valuations. Rollingwood’s spending is out of line with its size and population. Improvements can happen and fiscal responsibility can be maintained. The mayor said we don’t have enough money. It sounds like an irresponsible teenager who spent all his money on partying his freshman year and didn’t have anything left for tuition as a sophomore. (Its too bad the mayor will never make it to his junior year). Stupidity.
To Anonymous: The nicest things about Rollingwood have not happened in the high spending recent year or two. Like you said, it has been during times of fiscal responsibility.
Improvements and fiscal responsibility can go hand in hand as they have in the past.
The taxpayers of Rollingwood deserve leadership and advocacy at city hall instead of excuses.
Victoria,
Maybe Chief Pryor is relieved not to have the previous city administrator telling him what to do. That was not a positive situation for the police force. However, now there are some shady areas where there is evidence this city admin may have told the mayor and chief to be very creative. This “creativity” in turn made general accusations against citizens for political reasons to drum up sympathy for the city admin. and is not admirable. Is this the kind of atmosphere at city hall that the citizens deserve?
$75,000 for a playground shade structure (???) but not enough for water system improvements or road resurfacing or wastewater rate relief or property tax relief. The three amigos are trying to gain control of this ridiculous spending. Gracias, tres amigos.
The only way to decrease sewer rates is to increase taxes and spread the burden across all property owners. RCDC funds have limited uses. The water project had to have been an approved project prior to 2003 when they changed the law to no longer allow residential water projects. We have 2mil worth of water projects to do?? The city streets are another 1 to 2mil. The street tax won’t make a big dent but will allow it to service a debt on the streets but these three won’t consider debt service.
If we penny pinch for another 10 years then maybe we will have enough for half. Or maybe they could stop penny pinching and figure out how to promote business in Rollingwood which brings in sales tax which could help all- the city coffers, rcdc coffers for parks which can then take over those costs from the city budget, and add more for the streets. You can pinch as much as you want but if you don’t promote growth or business we will be in the same situation- fighting over pennies.
Take control of spending- since the newest Council members arrived we have had more special meetings and marathon council meetings than ever. Every time this happens we pay our City Attorney more and more money. Plus the special legal counsel that was hired, plus the buyout, …. All of this adds up- so we shall see how well they are doing at controlling spending. Cutting staff and salaries do not count since one day we will have to rehire.
It is amazing how some continue to criticize the NEW council but do not criticize the outlandish spending habits over the past two years. Look at the attorney costs for general needs over the past two years. Look at the spending. There were numerous special meetings before the last election but ironically nothing was said about those.
The voters have asked the council to take control of spending. That is what this council is trying to do in spite of the foolishness of these baseless counter arguments. “Furious” needs to understand what the past budgets showed and what the NEW budget will have. Your argument doesn’t hold water at all.
To anonymous #11: this council is in favor of promoting new business and is REALISTIC and is being much smarter with the budget and LONG TERM planning. The last council simply SPENT. It did nothing new to promote business.
Also, the city administrator INSISTED in spite of opposition that sales tax growth would be 10% higher this past year than previously. Those aldermen being criticized now were far more realistic and prudent when they showed concern about this. These council members were CORRECT. The sales tax figures have been down about 10% and so our city administrator’s push for spending was based on a difference of nearly 20% in spite of those pleading with her to make adjustments for the down economy this last year. Maybe this council is working tirelessly to make up for this stupidity on the city’s part. It is the will of the people that the city work within a REAL budget and not spend more than is coming in.
Again, the arguments when truly analyzed DO NOT HOLD WATER.
Anonymous #11: Regarding property taxes in Rollingwood, our values are already up 10% this year!!! In a recession no less. That means property owners were going to be paying much more. The mayor didn’t care and wanted to raise the tax rate on top of that. Better budget planning should offset the increased valuations and need for increased rates, rather than the “spend as much as we can because no one will notice until its too late” attitude. This tax and spend mentality was DEFEATED in the last election.