Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Editor’s note: Reworked to reflect that the increase moved from Monday’s work session is 13% not 13.85%

During its work session Monday night, the Austin City Council continued its talks surrounding the proposed budget and tax levy for 2025 — a meeting often colored by frustration regarding the the increase for 2025.

A vote of 4-3 was made to move a 13% increase to the Sept. 16 meeting with Mayor Steve King casting the tie-breaking vote due to the absence of First Ward’s Laura Helle.

Council members went back and forth regarding what to do about the hike, which they were able to whittle down from 13.85%, but remains an increase that some on the council felt was not something that should be put on the shoulders of taxpayers and businesses.

“This is not Monopoly money,” Second Ward’s Geoff Baker. “This is other people’s money we are playing with. Think about it that way.”

Baker was among those strongly against the 13% levy hike along with Second Ward’s Jason Baskin and At-Large’s Jeff Austin, while others on the council stated that while they weren’t happy with how high it was, questioned what more could be done to bring it down further.

“I think 14% is where we need to be just to function and be where we’re at,” said Ward Three council member Paul Fischer. “We’re too big to look at 5, 6%. It’s going to catch up with us some time.”

If approved by council at a Sept. 16 meeting, the tax levy increase would result in an $88 increase on a home valued at $161,100 and that paid $637 in property taxes. The increase would shift that amount to $725.

Driving the tax increase is a proposed two new positions — a Human Resources Generalist, which would handle internal and external communications, and a Housing Resource and Code Enforcement Officer dedicated to a proactive approach to blighted properties in the city.

Both positions are highly valued by King, however, reception to the positions by council members has ranged from lukewarm to feeling the positions are unnecessary.

The two positions together add a combined total to the budget of $234,000. While King admitted he would be open to talking more about the housing position, he remained steadfast in wanting to add the HR position.

“I know we’re not alone in this,” King said regarding the steep levy increase, but added that the HR position is important for continued work with improving employee relations. “What I hope happens is we continue our efforts with our employee engagement.”

Baskin agreed.

“I’m okay with the HR position,” he said. “I do think we heard loud and clear … there is a value with us being able to communicate internally. It probably costs less money in the end.”

However, Baker wasn’t satisfied and came to council members with a six-point plan that would shave the increase from 13% all the way down to around that 5-6% mark. 

That plan included dropping both the newly proposed positions and reduced funding for the two patrol officers approved by council in 2023 for the time being, arguing that the department has six vacancies currently, and that he didn’t see the point of funding positions that would likely not be filled at this time.

Other points in the plan included reduced contingency funding, Administrative changes and reduced playground equipment. In total, Baker’s plan would cut $649,000 from the budget.

While many were cautious regarding the police department cuts of his proposal, Austin specifically agreed with not putting money toward something that wasn’t immediately necessary.

“When we’re down six officers, the prospect of hiring two this year is probably a stretch,” he said. “To tax people for something that’s not going to happen … I think is a stretch.”

Council members also wondered if there were other ways and areas to chip away at the budget, with Baskin wondering if it was an option to go back to department heads and ask them to look at their individual budgets again.

“One big thing I would love to understand, if we went back to our department heads. If we needed to cut 2, 5, 7% from the budget, how could we do that in a smart, least impactful way?” he asked. “I’m not for 13.9%. I think we need to get down, but get down smartly.”

Department heads at the meeting pushed back on that notion, indicating that many were running slim the way it was and that there wasn’t much more on the bone that they could cut.

“We take it very seriously when we are putting together our operating budget for the council,” City Engineer Steven Lang said. “I’ve been here for almost 10 years and the past five we’ve had the same discussion on where we can cut funds. We struggle to find places to cut.”

Director of Administrative Services Tom Dankert, countered with a very frank warning when it came to cuts.

“We’ve done that in the past,” he told council members. “It comes down to people. That’s where we’re at. Do you really want that discussion?”

Meanwhile, Second Ward’s Mike Postma suggested a possible route to trimming might be in places like future road construction.

“Every year we have four to five programs we look at. What is it going to cost?” Postma said. “Next year we have $3.2 million going toward that. That might be something to look at if two or three projects get pushed back a year. If we are really looking at things to reduce the levy that’s something to consider.”

Joyce Poshusta, Ward Three, backed the increase and worried that further cuts might have an impact on the quality of life for community members.

“We’ve just seen this rollercoaster of up and down, up and down with the tax levy,” she said. “We have to get to a point where we can stabilize the next couple years.”

“I’m not excited at all about that,” she continued, referring to the increase. “Just getting down as low as has been mentioned is going to affect the quality of life for everybody.”

Complicating matters even further is the fact that Local Government Aid, which in years past has seen increases, is frozen at $9,793,547 this year meaning no new funds will come from that direction. There is also concerns coming from the business arm of the community with Austin Area Chamber of Commerce President Joe Bower voicing concerns over how this would impact the business community.

“I hear those same pains come from businesses,” he said. “There are businesses that struggle to hire because they don’t have budgets to increase staff. If we do something like this, in the long run you’re going to see some of these businesses impacted.”

Work to lower the levy can still be done at the Sept. 16 meeting, but council members are also working with something of a truncated timeline. An approved proposed levy must be set by Sept. 30.