City of Austin Council Message Board

Collegues,
I am in favor of and support the concepts proposed in this ordinance, and with this amendment my intention is to make it very clear that we do not want to place any additional tax burden on residents over 65 or disabled.

Motion sheet: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 64628.docx

Amend the ordinance by substituting language at the end of the first Be It Resolved:

City Council directs the City Manager to recommend ways in which the Council might best implement a transfer of services with AISD if it is the will of the Council to do so, including consideration of, but not limited to, the impact on City of Austin and AISD budgets and tax rates, and the impact to different classes of taxpayers within those jurisdictions, excluding consideration of any option that shifts additional tax burden to the homesteads of those over 65 or disabled.

CM Colleagues,

I'm in strong opposition to the "tax swap" in principle. There is already a dubious co-mingling of tax dollars with Austin City taxpayers on the hook for over a million city tax dollars being directed at "programs" which AISD claims supports education - education which we already pay exhorbitant taxes to support. The preference for AISD subsidies (over other Austin area districts) dates back to a smaller Austin dominated by downtown interests within the confines of AISD boundaries, and of course the Robin Hood tax redistribution plan, but under 10-1 we could now have 6 other school Districts start demanding city tax subsidies. It's already untenable to say that the most unaffordable property tax (school) isn't sufficient for "education", such that city taxpayers must provide additional funds for non-city ("education") purposes. As proof that money is NOT the problem in education, I can offer the dramatic rise in charter school enrollment, especially in east Austin. Education primarily needs more choice instead of more money, as witnessed by the remarkable waiting lists for charter schools, after those school choices have proved very popular.

I agree with the city manager's April 1st (2016) letter that the "...intent of this concept is to circumvent the state’s school financing system". And more to the point, the current "robin hood" system was born from a political "equity" and "share the wealth" ideology; it's an entirely predictable irony that a politically motivated education financing system justified as creating equity is now condemned as inequitable.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this tax swap initiative.