Austin City Government - Circus of the Insane

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

That’s an interesting perspective that I have entertained myself, particularly since he’s a P.R. guy. But I don’t buy it, for two reasons:
1) Because that’s catering to a central Austin constituency that is weak in D8 and makes him seem bad on property rights.

2) Because it doesn’t square with what he said.

Also, on Ellis- those road issues you mention aren’t city council’s call. They just aren’t. And for the record, most growth should go to the central city, unless you like traffic, because our traffic problem is our sprawl problem.

[Hellraiser97 181]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That’s an interesting perspective that I have entertained myself, particularly since he’s a P.R. guy. But I don’t buy it, for two reasons:
1) Because that’s catering to a central Austin constituency that is weak in D8 and makes him seem bad on property rights.

2) Because it doesn’t square with what he said.

Also, on Ellis- those road issues you mention aren’t city council’s call. They just aren’t. And for the record, most growth should go to the central city, unless you like traffic, because our traffic problem is our sprawl problem.

Like I said, it seemed he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.  There are some people, particularly in the NE and E sections of 8 that are pretty hard core NIMBY, so he does need to cater to them somewhat.  He's big on property taxes, which admittedly the city council can't do a ton on but they can make noise and push politics..

The problem is that the sprawl is already here and that our infrastructure is overwhelmed.  You obviously need increased urban density to keep the sprawl from getting worse, but Ellis is on record as opposing the construction at the 290/71 Y in Oak Hill.  That's insane.  Her reasoning is both environmental and 'neighborhood character', but the sprawl is already well past that intersection and the problem needs to be fixed (much like LaCross/Salughter and SH-45).  I'm not saying I support decking every highway down here to double the traffic capacity (and double the urban sprawl with it), but growth is happening, regardless and you have to update your infrastructure with it.  She more concerned with stopping it all together.  I can't agree with that.  And while ultimately the highways aren't directly the City Council's call, just like property taxes, they have no direct authority, but that doesn't mean they can't have significant influence.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Hellraiser97

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

Like I said, it seemed he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.  There are some people, particularly in the NE and E sections of 8 that are pretty hard core NIMBY, so he does need to cater to them somewhat.  He's big on property taxes, which admittedly the city council can't do a ton on but they can make noise and push politics..
The problem is that the sprawl is already here and that our infrastructure is overwhelmed.  You obviously need increased urban density to keep the sprawl from getting worse, but Ellis is on record as opposing the construction at the 290/71 Y in Oak Hill.  That's insane.  Her reasoning is both environmental and 'neighborhood character', but the sprawl is already well past that intersection and the problem needs to be fixed (much like LaCross/Salughter and SH-45).  I'm not saying I support decking every highway down here to double the traffic capacity (and double the urban sprawl with it), but growth is happening, regardless and you have to update your infrastructure with it.  She more concerned with stopping it all together.  I can't agree with that.  And while ultimately the highways aren't directly the City Council's call, just like property taxes, they have no direct authority, but that doesn't mean they can't have significant influence.

Fundamentally I agree with you, and I don’t love either of these guys, but it’s really important to all those things that more housing be created in central Austin. And since Ward decided to speak out against that and Ellis didn’t (AFAIK) Ellis takes it by default for me.

[UTexasFight 9430]

Mariana texted me today.
Hi

[Hellraiser97 181]

Fundamentally I agree with you, and I don’t love either of these guys, but it’s really important to all those things that more housing be created in central Austin. And since Ward decided to speak out against that and Ellis didn’t (AFAIK) Ellis takes it by default for me.

I don't think Ward spoke out about it in Central, he seemed more in favor of it. He spoke out against it in the south. Either way, I think both of then are somewhat aligned with the issues 8 finds important. Their differences are a lot less than the ones in District 3.

 

I do not like OU

 

 

 

[Pasken 1309]

Vote Natasha Harper Madison in D1!

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

Vote Natasha Harper Madison in D1!

Word

[Guest Lobo]

It’ll be interesting to see how City Council eventually blames this water vote on Japan considering Troxclair is in Japan.  But hey, fuck facts!

[demos 3002]

And I’m still stuck with Ann Kitchen. Fuuuuuuuuck.

[DanRydell 799]

And I’m still stuck with Ann Kitchen. Fuuuuuuuuck.

She was unopposed so run against her or recruit someone else to run against her if her representing you bothers you that much.

[demos 3002]

No shit she was unopposed; that was the problem.

 

Hopefully in 4 years someone can be found to run against her, but considering she won without a runoff the first time, probably going to be difficult to a) find that person and b) beat her.

 

Now you can suggest i move to another city council district.

[Guest Lobo]

Hopefully she'll term out

[Pasken 1309]

5 hours ago, Lobo said:

Hopefully she'll term out

Term limits are optional.

[Guest Lobo]

17 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Term limits are optional.

I wasn't talking about terming out of office.  

[Pasken 1309]

58 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I wasn't talking about terming out of office.  

Than what?

[Guest Lobo]

It's impossible you're this thick.  

[Facemask 103]

She was unopposed so run against her or recruit someone else to run against her if her representing you bothers you that much.

Yeah because it's that simple. How about we don't have a majority of dumbasses representing our city.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Pasken 1309]

Go vote today!m if you are D1, D3 or D8.

 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/viewer?mid=1fTOA1PbxyYl8-HXyrx3uk0NL8pvxNtyO&ll=30.333667461243344%2C-97.74155147910153&z=10

 

Please support Pio and Natasha Harper-Madison.

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

Really happy with the election results from last night. Between that and the rejection of Props J&K and Laura Morrison I think there's a pretty clear mandate for positive change and the end of time machine politics. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Guest Lobo]

$50 and my right nut says affordability, mobility, and our credit rating all get worse in the next four years...not better.  

[staboner 4969]

On 12/2/2018 at 8:44 PM, Lobo said:

It's impossible you're this thick.  

 

[Orange&White 5522]

I know it is not the COA, but despite a new courthouse bond being shot down by voters a few years ago, Travis County is going to go ahead and bond fund a new courthouse without voter consent.

So much for listening to your electorate.

[Guest Lobo]

Yeah, but at least they're not doing it downtown like they wanted to.  Took 2 lost elections, their underwriting bank, and the 3 credit rating agencies to convince the fucking morons that courthouses cost more money in a CBD than on the outskirts of town.  

[crash_davis 23103]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

$50 and my right nut says affordability, mobility, and our credit rating all get worse in the next four years...not better.  

people keep wanting to move here because austin is a nice place to live.  it's expensive, but mainly by texas standards.  compared to cali and ny, it's still a pretty good bargain.  which in turn impacts mobility and affordability.

city of austin and voters keep throwing out and approving more shit to fund, more bike lanes!!!!!!!  city budgets and expenses rise, need more tax to pay for it, raise property taxes, decrease affordability.  but hey, when most everyone can't afford the taxes, more people will move out so they may eventually address the mobility issue.

[Brisketexan 105082]

14 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Yeah, but at least they're not doing it downtown like they wanted to.  Took 2 lost elections, their underwriting bank, and the 3 credit rating agencies to convince the fucking morons that courthouses cost more money in a CBD than on the outskirts of town.  

As I understood, they are doing it at 17th and Guadalupe -- I hadn't heard of any changes to that.

And the reasons for having a courthouse in or near the CBD are very strong.  One of the most important is that 1) the vast majority of users of the courthouse are family law cases (moms, dads, kids, most of whom are not high-income, who 2) lean heavily on public transportation.  Public transportation is really, really crappy to anywhere that's NOT central.  And of the remaining users of the courthouse, a high percentage of both the clients and their attorneys are located in central austin.  There's a good reason that courthouses have traditionally been in the central city/downtown area in every city in the country.

By all means, it should be done in a fiscally responsible, cost-managed way.  But our courts are one of our main public functions, and they are there for all the people.

[Updawg 2266]

Austin Energy's plans for a new headquarters building has a newly revealed price tag: Up to $150 million.

The cost and other details of the project appear in materials accompanying this week's Austin City Council agenda.

On Thursday, city officials will ask the City Council to take the next step to allow Austin Energy to build its headquarters at the Mueller development, at a cost of up to $150 million.

The project calls for a 275,000 square foot office building, structured parking and "related site amenities" to be built on 3.3 acres that the city's electric utility would purchase from Catellus Development Corp. Catellus is the master developer of Mueller, the mixed-use project built on Austin's 700-acre former airport site north of downtown.
,...........
The search for a new Austin Energy headquarters has been ongoing for years. In 2014, the utility's plans to build a 180,000 square foot headquarters building at East Riverside Drive and Grove Boulevard in Southeast Austin drew opposition for its projected $67 million tab.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20181212/austin-energy-plan-calls-for-150-million-new-hq-at-mueller-development

[atomheartbevo 89630]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

$50 and my right nut says affordability, mobility, and our credit rating all get worse in the next four years...not better.  

Hey, they are working on mobility by increasing density in neighborhoods that don't use public transportation!

Oh wait.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

$50 and my right nut says affordability, mobility, and our credit rating all get worse in the next four years...not better.  

You don't know what you are talking about with the credit rating, but that's very on-brand for you.  As for affordability and mobility getting worse - of course they will. You can't unwind 40 years of bad voter decisions in 4. Affordability and Mobility won't get better without either a general recession and/or 150K new units of housing in the city limits. That's just a fact. And this council is more likely to do some of what we need on that than what a Morrison council would have done or prop J would have allowed. 

 

And prop K was just an expensive, idiotic fishing expedition. 

[Orange&White 5522]

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You don't know what you are talking about with the credit rating, but that's very on-brand for you.  As for affordability and mobility getting worse - of course they will. You can't unwind 40 years of bad voter decisions in 4. Affordability and Mobility won't get better without either a general recession and/or 150K new units of housing in the city limits. That's just a fact. And this council is more likely to do some of what we need on that than what a Morrison council would have done or prop J would have allowed. 

 

And prop K was just an expensive, idiotic fishing expedition. 

The guy who thinks it is perfectly fine to spend $140M on a library thinks $5M audits of a $2B budget are "expensive".

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

1 minute ago, Orange&White said:

The guy who thinks it is perfectly fine to spend $140M on a library thinks $5M audits of a $2B budget are "expensive".

Well, me and a majority of the voters, which surprises me just as much as you do. It turns out that a recent consensus has developed that great common spaces are worth money and Banghazi committee audits aren't. Why not call into Todd and Don and you can all have a good cry. 

[Orange&White 5522]

A city that can only make transportation and floodwater drainage improvements via bond funds, and annually pulls nearly 10% of its budget from its electric utility in the form of inflated electric rates needs a fucking auditor more than it needs "great common spaces":

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

2 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

A city that can only make transportation and floodwater drainage improvements via bond funds, and annually pulls nearly 10% of its budget from its electric utility in the form of inflated electric rates needs a fucking auditor more than it needs "great common spaces":

Aww. What city over 50K people in Texas funds major transportation or infrastructure projects out of general revenue again? Oh, and I'm not here to defend AE, but that's all audited, chief. 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You don't know what you are talking about with the credit rating, but that's very on-brand for you.  As for affordability and mobility getting worse - of course they will. You can't unwind 40 years of bad voter decisions in 4. Affordability and Mobility won't get better without either a general recession and/or 150K new units of housing in the city limits. That's just a fact. And this council is more likely to do some of what we need on that than what a Morrison council would have done or prop J would have allowed. 

 

And prop K was just an expensive, idiotic fishing expedition. 

"On-brand".  Wow, didn't realize you had an "impression" of me.  I'm kinda flattered.  Our bond floats (not all, but two particular ones I've tracked down so far and more to come) occur in such a manner that we are over-extending our borrowing capacity faster than we have to.  The 2016 mobility bond is a good example.  Even after you take into account capital planning and planned overrages, we sold about 20% more in this last tranche than we needed to in August 2018.  And that's on top of of about 15% over any conceivable overrage in 2017.  THat's a decent chunk of debt service that doesn't need to be paid right away, we could have waited.  It's happened on a public safety bond from several years ago.  $35mm sitting in idle paper since that float 10 years ago.  With racked up interest payments that aren't needed at the time of issuance.   

Now you and I know the way the payment actually works.  It's appropriated from city G&A funds as projects reach different phases and then replenished after paper is sold each August on certain bond issuances.  But that repayment doesn't take into account the additional burden of unnecessary debt service.  It's enough of a red flag that Moody's is already investigating it.  Every city goes a little bit over to cover the unknown.  But 15-20% overrages time and time again, well above the "prescribed" band disclosed by capital planning and finance is a concern.  "AAA, always and forever" is the saying at City Hall.  And it was the saying in Detroit, Chicago, and California too.  Good news is our ability to repay isn't really at question, which is the real issue more munis face.  It's the practice on how we deploy, float, and service our bonds.  It's mostly a G&A mechanism at question here.  And it's what happens when not enough people are watching the shop and don't know what one another are doing.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

I hear you and understand, and I’m intrigued.

Because of the various factors involved, I’ll stipulate that a general recession or exogenous macroeconomic factors could result in a lowered rating regardless of what council does, so where do you think the floor is, factoring in this council and the voters?

[Orange&White 5522]

21 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh, and I'm not here to defend AE, but that's all audited, chief. 

I know it's audited, and the internal auditors have continually said they think it is a fine idea to use inflated utility reveue to fund the general fund, which is precisely why it needs an outside auditor instead of a bunch of yes men who know they'll be fired if they go against the will of the council and mayor.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

2 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I know it's audited, and the internal auditors have continually said they think it is a fine idea to use inflated utility reveue to fund the general fund, which is precisely why it needs an outside auditor instead of a bunch of yes men who know they'll be fired if they go against the will of the council and mayor.

So you want another auditor, because you don't like the findings of the auditors we have. And when that audit doesn't find this unknown thing that you just know is there because feelings, do you get another auditor?

It's auditors all the way down!

[Brisketexan 105082]

17 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I know it's audited, and the internal auditors have continually said they think it is a fine idea to use inflated utility reveue to fund the general fund, which is precisely why it needs an outside auditor instead of a bunch of yes men who know they'll be fired if they go against the will of the council and mayor.

I'm just curious....is there a world in which people expect auditors to comment on policy decisions, as opposed to whether something is proper vs. improper pursuant to applicable FASB standards and the like?  Because I've read more than a couple of audited financial statements and auditors reports in my day, and they limit their discussion to whether practices comply with applicable standards or not (they may even go on to say that some practices run the risk of appearing not to follow standards, or note that they don't have enough information to tell if the standards are being complied with, but that's their outer edge).  If something is legal and permissible, and is properly accounted for, I'm not aware of an auditor who will then say "but it's bad policy."  Maybe you are. I'm curious about who these auditors might be, and what standard they would apply.

[Orange&White 5522]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So you want another auditor, because you don't like the findings of the auditors we have. And when that audit doesn't find this unknown thing that you just know is there because feelings, do you get another auditor?

It's auditors all the way down!

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It's like you fell for the "Dark money" bullshit.

I want auditors that are not told what to report and told what to remove from their reports.

And there is not a god damn thing to do with "feeling". It is a well known established fact that the Council continues to take over $150M/year from the two utilities to fund general fund items. 

 

[Orange&White 5522]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I'm just curious....is there a world in which people expect auditors to comment on policy decisions, as opposed to whether something is proper vs. improper pursuant to applicable FASB standards and the like?  Because I've read more than a couple of audited financial statements and auditors reports in my day, and they limit their discussion to whether practices comply with applicable standards or not (they may even go on to say that some practices run the risk of appearing not to follow standards, or note that they don't have enough information to tell if the standards are being complied with, but that's their outer edge).  If something is legal and permissible, and is properly accounted for, I'm not aware of an auditor who will then say "but it's bad policy."  Maybe you are. I'm curious about who these auditors might be, and what standard they would apply.

Do you think the general managers of AE and Austin Water think it is good policy to have 12% and 8% of their budgets taken away from them annually?

Are both of you arguing for arguments sake or do you really believe it is a good process for a city to simply increase utility bills to cover expenditures that should come from the GF?

[Brisketexan 105082]

4 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Do you think the general managers of AE and Austin Water think it is good policy to have 12% and 8% of their budgets taken away from them annually?

Are both of you arguing for arguments sake or do you really believe it is a good process for a city to simply increase utility bills to cover expenditures that should come from the GF?

Note that neither one of us said anything about the policy, whether it's a good idea, bad, or in between.

We're pointing out that having a different auditor wouldn't change anything about that, because no auditor worth his/her salt is going to make a single comment on whether "it is good policy to have 12% and 8% of their budgets taken away from them annually" or whether " it is a good process for a city to simply increase utility bills to cover expenditures that should come from the GF."  Those are policy decisions made by a governing body.  They may be good, they may be bad.  As long as they are disclosed and accounted for correctly, and follow the law and applicable FASB and similar standards, an auditor isn't going to have a single negative thing to say about them.

So, we're disabusing you of the notion that some magical auditing function will change what you know about that financial structure and decision, and will put some super-qualified audit-person in your corner.  Auditors are neutral.  They look at the books and the standards, and write a report.  Shitty businesses, good businesses, all get the same treatment, without comment except where accounting may run afoul of the laws or standards.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Orange&White 5522]

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2015/03/explainer-austin-energy-coa-funds-transfer/

Quote

The annual transfer of what has historically been many millions of dollars in cash from the coffers of Austin Energy to those just across the river at City Hall is typical of publicly owned utilities, whether those who live outside the city yet pay Austin Energy for their electricity like to think so or not. This sometimes causes legislators to look at Austin Energy as a problem rather than a top-rated utility.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

18 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It's like you fell for the "Dark money" bullshit.

I want auditors that are not told what to report and told what to remove from their reports.

And there is not a god damn thing to do with "feeling". It is a well known established fact that the Council continues to take over $150M/year from the two utilities to fund general fund items. 

 

Do have any evidence that you can cite indicating that the auditors are instructed what to find, remove and report and by who, and that the findings as reported are deliberately inaccurate or deceptive?

Also, if it's a well known fact, what's the audit for?

Edited December 13, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brisketexan 105082]

5 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2015/03/explainer-austin-energy-coa-funds-transfer/

 

Uh-huh.  We get it.  What we don't get is how you think an auditor is going to make that different.  Those financials are already audited.  They are well-known - so much so, that the Austin Monitor can write a detailed, well-researched story about them.  

You have posited than an audit/auditor is some magic wand that will condemn this policy.  We're telling you that is a pipe dream that doesn't match up to any reality.  Auditors don't pick sides in matters of policy.

[Orange&White 5522]

I am talking about the audit that was proposed in proposition K. It was an efficiency audit. I was specifically responding to Bozo's assertion that "prop K was just an expensive, idiotic fishing expedition". 

I don't find it especially efficient for the City Council to raise electric rates in 2012 and 2016 by more than 7% each time, while simultaneously taking 12% of the AE budget to fund non energy distribution programs.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Orange&White

[Brisketexan 105082]

6 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I am talking about the audit that was proposed in proposition K. It was an efficiency audit. I was specifically responding to Bozo's assertion that "prop K was just an expensive, idiotic fishing expedition". 

I don't find it especially efficient for the City Council to raise electric rates in 2012 and 2016 by more than 7% each time, while simultaneously taking 12% of the AE budget to fund non energy distribution programs.

That's not what an efficiency audit looks at, including the proposed audit per proposition K.  Like, at all.  You're using the term in the vernacular (and not even using it correctly in that sense).  

It's okay for you to think that it's bad policy.  Lots of things the city does may be bad policy.  That doesn't mean that an audit of any form is going to say anything negative about them.  Audits are a limited tool -- they aren't a mechanism whereby you get a result of "see, I told you this was bad policy, and an independent auditor agrees with me."  Most policy decisions are not going to be within the ambit of any audit.

[hayden_horn 11362]

14 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I am talking about the audit that was proposed in proposition K. It was an efficiency audit. I was specifically responding to Bozo's assertion that "prop K was just an expensive, idiotic fishing expedition". 

I don't find it especially efficient for the City Council to raise electric rates in 2012 and 2016 by more than 7% each time, while simultaneously taking 12% of the AE budget to fund non energy distribution programs.

prop k was a prop for transparency, you assert? 

why then did the citizens for an accountable austin not operate in complete transparency? they were dirty AF from the jump.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

I am talking about the audit that was proposed in proposition K. It was an efficiency audit. I was specifically responding to Bozo's assertion that "prop K was just an expensive, idiotic fishing expedition". 
I don't find it especially efficient for the City Council to raise electric rates in 2012 and 2016 by more than 7% each time, while simultaneously taking 12% of the AE budget to fund non energy distribution programs.

So you want an external audit because of how you feel about data that you do have, and can confidently source and cite?

[Murfdogg21 4412]

“A majority of voters agreed with me” is not a great argument in a city where a majority of the lemmings followed Ann Kitchens boogey man story and voted out Uber/Lyft. Similarly, the City Council intentionally worded that ballot initiative in a confusing and unfavorable way to bias the result, as they did with Prop K this year (according to Troxy et al.). I think I agree with both sides of the argument in this thread, while also thinking Austin city council is crooked and retarded as hell. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Murfdogg21

[Armybrat 40826]

Lol @ those who think all the players involved are straight arrows. Local politicians in Austin can be as crooked as any from New Orleans. Heck, look at our AG Paxton. 😆

Auditors are not immune to corruption either. Remember Enron? Geeze, even my own CPA FIL was operating on the edge in Dallas.

[Orange&White 5522]

Another waste of money independent audit.

https://www.propublica.org/article/audit-finds-austin-texas-improperly-cleared-rapes

WASHINGTON — An independent audit by Texas officials found Austin’s Police Department improperly cleared nearly a third of sexual assault cases from 2017 that auditors recently examined, indicating the city’s true rate of solving rape cases is lower than what police officially reported to the public and government officials.