A Travis County court issued a ruling to halt the use of future property taxes to subsidize luxury development of 118 acres of land within the South Center Waterfront District.
Jessica Magnum
District Judge Jessica Mangrum last Friday issued a Summary Judgment Final Order in favor of plaintiffs. The lawsuit to stop those subsidies was filed almost exactly a year ago, April 24, 2023. (Taxpayers Against Giveaways, et al, v. City of Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, et al, Cause No. D-1-GN-23-002238.)
The plan approved by the City Council was to divert $354 million in property taxes for infrastructure improvements on that land so that it would develop in the manner the council desires. To that end, the council established Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone No. 19, the SCWF-TIRZ.
Lawyer-lobbyist Richard Suttle of Austin law firm Armbrust & Brown represented developer Endeavor Real Estate Group in gaining City Council approval of the SCWF-TIRZ.
Richard Suttle
As the Bulldogreported, when at one point it looked like the Council might not approve the TIRZ, Suttle told the Council, “I’ll tell you what: we won’t build the plan if there’s no TIRZ. It just doesn’t work.”
Suttle has not returned a call left with his office this afternoon for comment on the judge’s ruling.
Meghan Riley
Meghan Riley, the Law Department’s litigation division chief, issued this statement at 5:37pm: “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but very much appreciate the court’s careful consideration of this complex issue. We will review the specific implications of the decision in the coming days. That said, we do not believe this decision impacts the City’s ability to move forward with proposed zoning changes for the South Central Waterfront area.”
Plaintiffs’ attorneys comment
Plaintiffs attorneys Bill Aleshire, Bill Bunch, and Fred Lewis.
Plaintiff attorneys in the lawsuit were Bill Aleshire, William G. “Bill” Bunch of the Save Our Springs Alliance; and Fred Lewis.
Lewis emailed this statement: “Travis County District Judge Jessica Mangrum held today the City Council violated state law by creating the South Central Waterfront TIRZ and agreeing to transfer $354 million in local property taxes to pay to develop an $8 billion private luxury development on Lady Bird Lake.
“It would be nice if the city learned from this.”
In a telephone interview, Aleshire was more pointed.
“It’s a huge victory for taxpayers that could eventually lead to an end of the abuse of TIRZ throughout the state of Texas.”
Creating a TIRZ “means all the other taxpayers have to make up for the loss of revenue for the general operation of the city, while the TIRZ property owners pay their usual taxes but in this case got 46 percent of their taxes kicked back for the special benefit of their development. That’s not equal and uniform taxation.”
Aleshire said, “Bill Bunch went to City Council meetings several times and warned them that they would be sued if they approved this TIRZ, because that land is not blighted and would develop without this kickback. He presented a letter that promised they would be sued. City Council members should be ashamed for approving this as a matter of policy—especially now that we have shown it is illegal through this summary judgment.”
Summary judgment means there are no material factual issues remaining and the case can be decided as a matter of law.
“City attorneys made even easier for us about how to interpret that section of the tax code,” Aleshire added. “To create TIRZ they must meet the ‘but-for’ test. City attorneys argued the development would occur quicker or better with a TIRZ. That is not in the tax code. The implication of that argument is there would no limit about where a TIRZ is applied. They could always argue that would be better development or it would happen quicker.”
Aleshire added that before the council approved the TIRZ, “I was emailing council members to tell them that instead of creating a TIRZ they should establish a PID (Public Improvement District), in which property owners pay extra to get the extra benefits. That would have been ethical and legal way to do it.”
(Disclosure: Bill Aleshire has twice represented the Bulldog in successful lawsuits against the City of Austin for failure to supply information under the Texas Public Information Act. He also assists the Bulldog in filing public information requests.)
In a statement issued by plaintiffs’ attorneys at 6:10pm today, Bunch stated, “The City is legally required to show that the land is blighted and would not develop without public subsidies. The City failed to present any evidence that public funds were needed for the land to develop.”
Bunch further noted that “Judge Mangrum’s decision means that the $354 million in city property taxes can remain in the city’s general fund and go for real public needs, such as public safety, parks, streets, and other resident needs—and not to subsidize corporate welfare for wealthy, private developers.”
Trust indicators: Ken Martin has been doing investigative reporting in the three-county Austin metro area since 1981. Email [email protected].
This chart shows the eight Austin city managers who served over the past half-century.
Council members make policy. The city manager’s job is to implement those policies.
A great city manager can get that done and keep the ship of state sailing smoothly. A good city manager can get most assignments done and avoid letting the ship of state crash into rocky shoals. A poor city manager will smash the ship of state into the icebergs that bob in the waters and bring disaster for all hands on deck.
Spencer Cronk
A winter storm that coated Austin with thick ice February 1, 2023, led to the firing of the previous city manager, Spencer Cronk. Mayor Kirk Watson had been in office less than a month when the storm hit and Watson lit into Cronk “because the management of this situation and the lack of clear, timely and accurate communication has left our community in the dark.”
In a special-called meeting of February 15, 2023, the City Council voted 10-1 (Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison opposed) to send Cronk packing with a severance package that totaled $463,000.
Ora Houston
When Cronk was selected as Austin’s city manager in February 2018, Ora Houston was on the City Council and seconded the motion to hire 38-year-old applicant. “He was young and gay and we wanted to be progressive,” she told the Bulldog. “And the mayor (Steve Adler) could control him,” she added.
If Austin’s current City Council picks from among the two finalists, our next city manager will be neither young nor progressive.
Meanwhile, Jesus Garza, who held the top job for more that eight years from 1994 through early 2002, has been holding the fort as interim city manager since Cronk hit the door.
The finalists for the permanent job are T.C. Broadnax Jr. of Dallas and Sara Lynn Hensley of Denton.
Is this the best Austin can do?
In a perfect world there would be stronger candidates competing to lead Austin’s vast bureaucracy into a brighter future. Neither of the two choices before the council seem ideal.
The seemingly more dynamic finalist, Brian Platt of Kansas City, Missouri, bowed out early on. He used his Austin opportunity as a bargaining chip to wangle a better paying contract where he is.
Broadnax, 55, has led a more populous city than Austin. But for years he has been embroiled in continual conflict with the Dallas City Council, a majority of which engineered a request for his resignation so that he could get severance pay.
By Broadnax’s own admission he fell far short of satisfactory performance on a range of big problems facing Dallas.
Hensley, 67, has earned good marks for her work in managing Denton, a small city government with a workforce that’s just one-fifteenth the size of Austin’s sprawling municipal bureaucracy.
She headed Austin’s Parks and Recreation Department for more than eight years (2008-2017), then served as interim assistant city manager for two years before retiring in 2019.
But the departments she oversaw as an interim assistant city manager were the Parks Department that she had headed and an assortment of others that—in the big scheme of things—offered no big challenges: animal services, public health (long before the Covid pandemic), library, and real estate services.
Austin needs a city manager who meets the gold standard. But that isn’t what it’s going to get. With these two candidates to choose from, the Austin City Council has slim odds of grabbing even a diamond in the rough.
The finalists, both from north Texas
T.C. Broadnax
Dallas—T.C. Broadnax Jr. manages the nation’s 9th largest city and draws an annual salary of $423,247, according to his personnel file obtained with a public information request. He is Black and not a veteran, the file states. His personnel file contains no written performance evaluations, which isn’t unusual. The Austin City Council does not evaluate city managers in writing either.
Because Broadnax resigned at the request of council majority he is entitled to a lump-sum payment of a year’s base salary and reimbursement of up to 12 months for the cost of continued health benefits for him and his dependents, according to the employment agreement in his file.
Dallas is a city of 1.3 million people, but the population shrank by almost 5,000 people (minus 0.37 percent) between the 2020 census and the 2022 population estimate. More than 16,000 employees were authorized within the city’s current budget of $3.8 billion, although Broadnax cited 13,000 in his resignation letter. (Austin’s budget, which is $5.5 billion, authorized 16,141 employees.)
The Dallas governing body consists of 15 council members. The mayor is paid $80,000 annually, council members get $60,000. (Austin’s mayor is paid $139,568, council members get $121,347.)
Dallas’s electric power is supplied by an investor-owned utility but the city is involved in managing two airports. Those are Love Field, the inner-city facility the city owns, and DWF International, which Dallas jointly owns with the City of Fort Worth.
The résumé that Broadnax submitted with his Austin application states that in 1991 he earned bachelor of arts degrees in communications and political science from Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas, and in 1993 got a master’s in public administration from the University of North Texas in Denton.
A Dallas Morning News article published June 10, 2022, states that Broadax was married with five children. His owns a home in Dallas with his spouse, Andrea Kay Broadnax, according to records of the Dallas Central Appraisal District.
Sara Hensley
Denton—Sara Lynn Hensley was appointed city manager March 1, 2022. Denton is the nation’s 177th largest municipality. She currently earns $303,417 a year, according to a contractual update contained in her personnel file obtained with a public information request. The file indicates she is White and a U.S. Air Force veteran.
Denton has slightly more than 150,000 people, a number it grew to between 2020 and 2022 by adding almost 10,500 people (plus 7.5 percent).
Hensley’s personnel file contains numerous documents that are labeled “performance reviews.” However they do not show the City Council’s evaluations of her performance. Instead they consist of lengthy lists of accomplishments by each of the city’s departments.
Interestingly, these reviews reveal a collaborative leadership approach that includes statements solicited from department heads in response to Hensley’s three questions: “How am I doing? What can I do to assist you more? Where would you like me to focus over the next year?”
Denton’s current year budget of $933 million authorized 1,048 employees. The governing body consists of seven people who consider themselves volunteers. The mayor is paid a stipend of $12,000 a year, while other council members get $9,000.
Denton owns its electric utility and since 2021 has supplied its customers with 100 percent renewable energy from wind and solar. The city also owns Denton Enterprise Airport, which bills itself as the “busiest general aviation airport in Texas,” serving to relieve private aircraft traffic from DFW International and Love Field.
Although Hensley retired from the City of Austin in May 2019 to take a job in Denton, she still has roots in Austin. She owns a home in southwest Austin’s District 8 with her spouse, Ramey Lynn Hees. They purchased the home new in November 2008, according to records of the Travis Central Appraisal District. That house has both homestead and over-65 exemptions. Denton Central Appraisal District records show no record of property ownership.
Her Austin city manager application states she earned a bachelor of science and master of education degrees from the University of Arkansas and held adjunct professor positions at several universities, including Texas State in San Marcos. The University of Arkansas verified that Hensley’s bachelor of science degree in physical education was granted in January 1980 and her master of education degree in recreation was conferred in August 1981.
Broadnax heavily criticized in Dallas
Broadnax submitted his application for the Austin job February 25th, the day before Austin’s deadline—four days after giving the Dallas City Council notice of his resignation effective June 3rd.
As would be expected, his application cover letter brags about numerous accomplishments.
“I have provided executive leadership and strategic direction to tackle the city’s urgent and complex problems with particular emphasis on public safety, housing and homelessness, transportation, economic development, and authentic community engagement,” the letter states.
“I prioritized investments in the development of a mobile crisis response team, a violence interrupters program, supporting formerly incarcerated individuals, and strengthening accountability through the establishment of the Office of Community Police Oversight,” the letter states.
Dallas is a big city with an active press corps to keep tabs on city government. And most of the coverage of Broadnax’s performance as city manager has been negative.
Police oversight shortchanged—Broadnax’s claims about police oversight—established nearly five years after Dallas voted for an overhaul—are at odds with this month’s March 8th article in the Dallas Morning News.
The article identified seven obstacles facing the City’s civilian police watchdogs. One was inadequate funding. The oversight office’s budget is $785,000, the article states, compared with $4.93 million budget for Austin’s counterpart office—despite the fact Austin has about half the police officers.
The Dallas police oversight director left that job last September. The job opening wasn’t posted for four months. And “the city manager (Broadnax) told the Dallas Morning News he’s in no rush to fill the job.” Further, the interim director’s background is in human resources—not criminal justice, according to some members of the Dallas Community Police Oversight Board.
“Plagued by confusion and uncertainty,” is how another Dallas Morning News article described the city’s police oversight, but added that Broadnax had been praised for pushing to focus on racial equity, leading through the pandemic, and establishing an office of Homeless Solutions.
An experienced manager—The Dallas City Council hired Broadnax to start work February 1, 2017. By then he had served in local government jobs for 24 years, including Broward County and the City of Pompano Beach, both in Florida; then Tacoma, Washington, a city of slightly more than 200,000 people where he was city manager for five years before doing to Dallas. Still, Dallas with a population of 1.3 million, was a huge step up for Broadnax.
His last official day on the job in Dallas is June 3rd, ending seven years of service. He has been at odds with the Dallas City Council for many of those years—and in very public ways.
Eric Johnson
A rocky tenure—Mayor Eric Johnson, elected in May 2019 after nearly a decade as a state representative and Democrat, tried to oust Broadnax in 2022 but could not round up quite enough support from others on the 15-member City Council. (In September 2023 Johnson switched his affiliation to the Republican Party.)
In fact, it was Dallas City Council members who—behind Johnson’s back—maneuvered in February 2024 to round up the eight votes needed to ask Broadnax to resign.
Bad press common—Press reports that summed up their evaluations of Broadnax’s performance as he departs as Dallas city manager have not been kind.
Monty Bennett, publisher of The Dallas Express, stated in a May 19th article that Broadnax was a “terrible city manager,” adding that during his tenure at city hall, “the City has dropped in performance in every area that The Dallas Express measures.”
Bennett cited increases in crime, dirty streets, and rampant homelessness as major problems not adequately addressed.
The Dallas Morning News was even less kind. It published an opinion piece by longtime columnist Dallas Cothrum headlined, “Broadnax leaves Dallas worse than he found it.”
Cothrum wrote in a February 23rd article that Broadnax leaves a “legacy of disasters” including failure of a new trash collection program and an ongoing inability to timely process applications for building permits—a huge backlog of which nearly got him fired in 2022. That same year the police department somehow deleted some eight million records, WFAA reported.
“Always curt, his manner lately has veered into outright rudeness with council members,” Cothrum wrote. “Broadnax was often reluctant to answer the questions of his bosses, who are elected by the people.” Broadnax made little effort to collaborate with community leaders and often bristled at questions posed by reporters.
Cothrum noted that Broadnax hired Dallas’s first female police chief in 2020 and stood by her for several years despite failures to reduce crime and police association calls for her removal. Things didn’t improve till she was finally replaced.
WFAA wrote June 13, 2022 that Broadnax had been asked to resign, and noted the “divide between the city manager and council members goes back to early 2019.” That’s when the Dallas Police Department was missing hiring goals, the 911 call center had a staffing shortage, and there was a “huge backlog of permit delays.”
Broadnax admits shortcomings—On June 21, 2022, KERA reported that Broadnax would keep his job and quoted him saying that he recognized he hadn’t handled some issues in a way that is “up to my own standards. I know my team and I can do better. I understand that I am fully accountable to my 15 bosses. So today, I want to say to the mayor, to the members of the City Council, and to all the residents of this dynamic city: I accept the challenge.”
On February 21, 2024, the Texas Tribune quoted a statement from Broadnax regarding his farewell to Dallas. “It is my hope that my departure provides the City Council with an opportunity to reset, refocus, and transition to a new city manager that continues to move the City forward and will allow for a more effective working relationship with the Mayor and the City Council moving forward.”
How Hensley performed in Denton and Austin
Hensley submitted her application for the Austin city manager’s job right on deadline, February 26th.
She is no stranger to Austin city government. City Manager Marc Ott hired her in November 2008 to be director of the Parks and Recreation Department (PARD). After working for the city of Austin for more than a decade, Hensley retired in May 2019 to take a job as assistant city manager of Denton.
Marc Ott
Ott left the city manager’s job in October 2016 and then became CEO and executive director of the International City/County Management Association, based in Washington, D.C. Although he would know better than most anyone how Hensley performed as a department director for eight years, he declined an interview for this article. “It would not be appropriate to comment as if I’m trying to influence the selection of the city manager,” he told the Bulldog, through a spokesman.
Hensley came to Austin after serving as director of parks and recreation departments for the cities of Virginia Beach, Virginia 1997-2002, San Jose, California 2002-2006, and Phoenix, Arizona 2006-2008. Her starting salary in Austin was $163,000 per year, according to her Austin personnel file, obtained with a public information request.
In February 2017, after Ott had departed and while Elaine Hart was serving as interim city manager, Hart moved Hensley into a bigger role as interim assistant city manager for a one-year term.
Hensley’s interim assistant city manager post started in June 2017 and put her in charge of the Animal Services Office, PARD, Austin Public Health, the Austin Public Library, and the Office of Real Estate Services, according to Hart’s memo on organization changes contained in Hensley’s Austin personnel file.
When Spencer Cronk was hired as city manager starting in February 2018, he kept Hensley on as interim assistant city manager, “…so that I can continue to orient myself to the needs of the City as a municipality an as an employer,” Cronk’s letter confirming the extension stated.
Hensley’s role as interim assistant city manager ended in February 2019 and three months later she retired at age 62—not to ride off into the sunset but to take a job as assistant city manager of Denton. Her resignation letter, contained in her personnel file, mentioned that she was pursuing career goals and “this opportunity supports growth in that direction.”
In Denton she was soon appointed deputy city manager and in February 2021 was appointed interim city manager.
On March 2, 2022, the Denton City Council voted unanimously to make Hensley Denton’s first female city manager. If she’s selected as Austin’s new city manager Hensley will be the third woman to occupy that position. (Camille Barnett was the first, serving from 1989-1994. Toby Futrell was the second, serving from May 2002 till the end of 2007.)
Gerard Hudspeth
Denton Mayor Gerard Hudspeth, the first African American to win that job, praised Hensley’s performance. In a telephone interview he told the Bulldog she had served as assistant city manager during the pandemic, the winter storm, and managed responses to protests over the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd and removal of a confederate monument on Denton County property in June 2020.
“It was contentious,” Hudspeth said of the two protests. “Those were not city issues but the city had to deal with them.”
Hudspeth said he also liked Hensley’s performance on other issues. Those include litigation against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas after Winter Storm Uri. And he praised her selections in appointing new assistant city managers as well.
The pot problem—But it wasn’t all smooth sailing for Hensley. One particularly contentious issue cropped up when on November 8, 2022, voters overwhelmingly approved an ordinance to decriminalize misdemeanor marijuana offenses.
The measure got on the ballot because of a petition drive led by Decriminalize Denton and Ground Game Texas. Despite 32,000 votes for the proposition, City Manager Hensley refused to implement the ordinance.
The Denton Record-Chronicle quoted her in a March 8, 2023, article: “I’ve said it a thousand times and I’ll say it again, I do not direct the police chief. He gets his oath from the state of Texas,” Hensley told council members. “I could tell him to break the law, but that is not what I will do as a professional.”
Mike Siegel
Hensley maintained that hard-line stance despite a legal brief supplied to the Denton mayor and council members by attorney Mike Siegel, cofounder and general counsel for Ground Game Texas. Siegel is currently a District 7 candidate for Austin City Council, as the Bulldogreported.
Siegel’s brief states the proposition was approved by 71 percent of Denton voters and should have taken effect as soon as the election results were canvassed.
“The Texas Constitution and the City Charter of Denton guarantee the people of Denton the right to directly legislate on local issues, including marijuana enforcement reform. The City Manager has no authority to ignore or subvert legislation duly enacted by the people,” the brief states.
“[N]o City has ever been subject to challenge,” the brief states, “including the City of Austin, which on May 7, 2022, adopted a city ordinance that includes marijuana decriminalization.” That ordinance was approved by 85.5 percent of voters, according to the City Clerk’s website, and included a ban on “no knock” warrants by Austin police.
The brief notes that the Texas Legislature legalized hemp in 2019, including smokable hemp products that are “virtually indistinguishable from illegal smokeable marijuana.” Which is why Austin and many other Texas municipalities quit enforcing possession of small quantities. Prosecutors can’t push a case without first obtaining expensive lab testing that would distinguish legal hemp from illegal pot.
Julie Oliver
Siegel did not return numerous voice messages to comment for this story, for his take on encounters with Hensley in Denton. Perhaps that’s because his fellow Ground Game Texas cofounder, attorney Julie Oliver (like Siegel a two-time congressional candidate) was one of the 39 people who submitted applications to be Austin’s next city manager.
The expense and impracticality of trying to enforce marijuana possession didn’t stop Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from suing Austin, Denton, Elgin, Killeen, and San Marcos.
The 15-page petition in State of Texas v. City of Austin et al filed January 31st in Travis County states that Austin’s ordinance and the Austin Police Department General Order “constitute an order under which Austin will not fully enforce laws relating to drugs….” State law makes possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia an offense. Governing bodies and municipal police may not adopt a policy not to fully enforce laws relating to drugs.” (Cause No. D-1-GN-24-000586).
The litigation seeks a temporary and permanent injunction ordering the ordinance be repealed and the police general order cancelled. The mayor and council members were served with notice of the litigation March 4 but no other action has been taken on the case, according to the Case Summary published on the Travis County District Clerk’s website.
A city spokesperson provided this statement: “The lawsuit is ongoing, and the City will address the allegations raised in the lawsuit, including any APD or City policies at issue as part of the court process.”
As for Denton being sued by Paxton, Decriminalize Denton has filed to request that suit be dismissed. “Because Denton’s City Manager and Police Chief have consistently refused to implement the ordinance since Day One, and because Denton City Council has consistently refused to make them, Paxton cannot show that the ordinance has harmed the state in any way, regardless of his erroneous claim that the ordinance violates state law,” the Denton Record-Chronicle reported February 5th.
This story was updated at 4:38pm March 25, 2024, to correct an error about who was the first female city manager: It was Camille Barnett. Toby Futrell was the second.
Trust Indicators: Ken Martin has been reporting on and investigating local governments since 1981. Contact him at [email protected].
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Dirty Martin’s et al v. Mayor Kirk Watson et al claim they’re victims of a bait-and-switch scheme because Project Connect will deliver improvements vastly inferior to what voters were promised when they approved Proposition A (Cause No. D-1-GN-23-008105).
Voters approved Proposition A on November 3, 2020, by a thumping 58-42 percent margin. In doing so, the 242,457 people who voted “yes” agreed that all City of Austin property owners would shoulder an extra 8.75 cents increase in property taxes per $100 valuation, which amounted to a 20.788 percent increase in the City’s Maintenance and Operations property tax. And carry that increased burden dedicated solely to pay for Project Connect improvements for decades.
Those nearly quarter-million voters bought into—and agreed all property owners should pay for—a $7.1 billion plan for a magnificent new comprehensive transit plan.
A 20-page, four-color brochure about Proposition A illustrated the vision for Project Connect. That included 27 miles of new rail service including two new rail lines, expanded bus service with an all-electric fleet, nine new park-and-ride facilities, and much more. Part of the proposal called for creating a downtown subway running through a tunnel with six underground stations featuring escalators, elevators, stores, restrooms, and other amenities.
Less than a year and a half after the election, in April 2022, that grand vision was dashed. That’s when Austin Transit Partnership, (ATP), the local government corporation jointly created by the City of Austin and Capital Metro to implement Project Connect, updated its financial estimates. The new figures showed the cost of the light rail portion had ballooned from $5.8 billion to $10.3 billion.
Because of the rising cost estimates, in May 2023 the light-rail implementation plan was whittled to fewer than 10 miles of track, all above ground. No subway. It wouldn’t even connect a rail line to Austin-Bergstrom International Airport—which was specifically mentioned in the ballot language for Proposition A.
ATP financing ‘illegal’ plaintiffs claim
Project Connect improvements were to be built under contracts authorized by ATP and funded by bond debt. The City was to collect the voter-approved property tax revenue and transfer it to ATP to pay that debt.
Legislation known as the “No Blank Checks Act,” which died in the last days of the 2023 regular session of the Texas Legislature, would have barred this method of bond financing.
House Bill 3899 as amended by the senate based on an Attorney General Opinion KP-0444, would have prohibited ATP, as a local government corporation, from issuing bonds to be repaid from Maintenance and Operations property taxes transferred to ATP from the City of Austin.
That’s because property tax revenue is subject to annual appropriation by the City Council and could be stopped altogether. The attorney general’s opinion stated that the Tax Code “does not authorize a municipality to ‘earmark’ use of a voter-approved increase in its maintenance and operations property tax revenue for debt service….”
Instead, ATP would have been allowed to issue bonds only if those bonds were approved by voters in an election held for that purpose, to include a plain language description of the purposes for which the bonds are to be authorized, the principal amount not be exceeded in bonds issued, and the maximum maturity date of the bonds not to exceed 40 years.
If HB 3899 had been enacted, Project Connect would have been halted until a new election was held and voter approval was gained specifically to issue bonds.
Picking up where the AG left off with the opinion criticizing ATP’s financing plan, plaintiffs Dirty Martin’s et al filed suit in November 2023.
ATP pushes for $150 million in bonds
Despite Dirty Martin’s potential threat to its financing plans, the ATP Board of Directors on February 16, 2024, adopted a 161-page Master Trust Agreement to establish a financing program not to exceed $5 billion.
The board that day also adopted a resolution to issue ATP’s initial bonds not to exceed $150 million “secured by a pledge of the Contract Revenue Payments received from the City under the Funding Agreement….”
In furtherance of ATP getting a court’s approval to issue those bonds, the City of Austin filed an 18-page petition for expedited declaratory relief February 20th. The petition seeks to validate the financing plan for the light rail components of Project Connect.
The City’s petition states that by passing Proposition A, voters authorized the City to increase the property tax rate and to dedicate the additional revenue to ATP to finance and implement Project Connect. The petition claims that the funding agreement was amended to address potential issues raised by Attorney General in May 2023 (i.e., Opinion KP-0444).
“[T]he Dirty Martin’s lawsuit is a direct challenge to the validity of the Funding Agreement, the Initial Bonds, and the Financial Program,” the petition states. “Nonetheless, this bond validation action may be maintained ‘regardless of whether another proceeding is pending in any court relating to a matter to be adjudicated’ in this lawsuit.”
The City’s petition asks that after a final hearing the court enter a judgment declaring the City can levy and collect taxes voters approved in Proposition A; that the City is authorized, subject to appropriation, to pay the Proposition A revenue to ATP; and ATP is authorized to pledge these payments as security for repayment of initial bonds.
Which raises an interesting situation: While future City Councils would not technically be bound to appropriate annual Project Connect Taxes that are needed to provide security for the $150 million in initial bonds, they might be honor bound to do so.
Brian Rodgers
The precedent for doing so exists. Brian Rodgers sued the City of Austin and Endeavor Real Estate and reached a settlement in 2004 that said the agreement that gives millions of dollars in rebates of sales and property taxes for the high-end Domain shopping center would be strictly voluntary. The city was no longer obligated to fund the agreement, and Endeavor gave up its right to sue. The city chose, however, to continue paying.
Dirty Martin’s persists
In response to the City’s request for bond validation, plaintiffs Dirty Martin filed an amended 53-page petition March 14th. The petition provides extensive details to show how the scope of Project Connect’s implementation plan was vastly reduced.
“Now, most of Austin receives no rail service whatsoever but still require more than a 20 percent annual tax increase to pay for limited service elsewhere,” the petition states.
The petition again states that property taxes levied annually for the city’s maintenance and operations purposes cannot legally be used as security for ATP’s long-term debt.
Dirty Martin’s petition asks for injunctive relief to prohibit the City from continuing to assess or collect the Project Connect Tax and to prohibit the ATP from issuing bonded indebtedness.
In addition the plaintiffs ask that ATP return to the City any unencumbered Project Connect Tax funds on hand and require the City to refund those unspent Project Connect Tax funds to taxpayers via credit to reduce the 2024 City of Austin tax rate.
AG’s weighs in, favors Dirty Martin
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an 11-page petition March 15th, stating that the funding agreement for the City of Austin to use Proposition A revenue to pay ATP is invalid and cannot be used as security for bonds.
The petition states, “The City attempted to create a contract with the voters that Section 26.07 of the Tax Code did not authorize. Section 26.07 is a truth-in-taxation statute, authorizing a higher maintenance tax rate upon voter approval; it is not a vehicle through which the City can funnel for unlimited duration a portion of its maintenance tax for a billion-dollar capital improvement project to pay debt service on its local government corporation’s bonds.”
Bill Aleshire
Plaintiffs’ attorney Bill Aleshire said in a March 15th email, “Today, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas filed a devastating rebuke to the validity of the Project Connect bonds and joined us in attacking the entire funding mechanism…
“You are seeing the beginning of the end of the biggest con job ever perpetrated on the taxpayers of Austin. When all is said and done, I expect the final court decision to result in a rollback of the almost 21 percent Austin property tax increase being used (for) Project Connect and a refund of hundreds of millions of those dollars that ATP has on hand, unspent.”
As of July 2023, according to Dirty Martin’s amended petition, the City has so far paid ATP $464.2 million collected from the Project Connect Tax.
“If Austin ‘leaders’ want mass transit in Austin, they should immediately stop Project Connect, cancel the illegal tax increase, and go back to the voters with an affordable plan, with an honest price tag, and see if voters will authorize bonds, i.e., the legal way taxpayer debt is incurred,” Aleshire said.
(Disclosure: Aleshire has represented The Austin Bulldogin three lawsuits, two of which were actions against the City of Austin for failure to comply with the Texas Public Information Act. He continues to represent the Bulldog in public information requests.)
The City of Austin has a different opinion.
“The City just received the AG’s pleading,” a City spokesperson told the Bulldog. “We disagree with the AG’s assertions and are certain the court will allow the City and ATP time to file responses.”
This story was updated at 1:35pm March 18, 2024, to correct misstatements about: the tax increase approved by Proposition A, the prohibition on funds transferred to ATP, and the source of the statements about an ‘earmark.’
Trust Indicators: Ken Martin has been reporting on and investigating local governments since 1981. Contact him at [email protected].
Kansas City TV station KMBC 9 News reported this morning that the City Council of Kansas City last night voted for Mayor Quinton Lucas to negotiate a new contract for City Manager Brian Platt.
TV station KHSB reported that “city hall sources (said that) Platt has agreed to renegotiate a contract extension and will withdraw his name from consideration for the city manager job in Texas.”
Platt did not return phone and text messages this morning to confirm that with the Bulldog.
Kansas City Press Secretary Sharae Honeycutt told the Bulldog the TV stations used anonymous sources and may have overstated things.
Honeycutt said the city council met late last night in executive session, then came out and voted to authorize renegotiation of Platt’s contract. That meeting video is expected to be available on the City’s YouTube Channel. She emailed a brief press release adding, “No terms are agreed upon. No contract is signed.”
Down to two finalists?
Kirk Watson
Mayor Kirk Watson did not immediately return the Bulldog‘s request to comment for this story.
Platt was recently named as one of three finalists competing for the job of Austin city manager. The other finalists are Dallas City Manager Terrence (T.C.) Broadnax and Denton City Manager Sara Hensley. Hensley previously worked as Austin’s Parks and Recreation Department director.
The Texas Tribune reported February 21st that Broadnax said “he will step down from his post” but did not specify a date. Broadnax is still listed on the city’s website as city manager. WFAA.com reported February 21st that his last day at work will be June 3rd.
Platt’s current employment agreement with Kansas City executed December 3, 2020, was for a term of four years ending December 7, 2024. The agreement, obtained with a public information request, provides Platt with an annual salary of $265,000 for the term of the agreement. In addition he gets to use a city car for both city and personal business, plus he can be reimbursed for health insurance premiums not to exceed $7,500. He was authorized an additional $11,000 for expenses to move from his previous job in Jersey City, New Jersey, where he was business manager, the functional equivalent of city manager.
Watson’s March 5thnewsletter announced the three finalists picked from among 39 applicants. They were scheduled to participate in meetings with the professional city staff March 25th, a community town hall that evening, and interviews with the City Council the next day.
Platt target of whistleblower suit
Platt brags a lot on his city manager’s webpage about great accomplishments since taking the job more than three years ago.
But Platt is currently embroiled in a whistleblower’s lawsuit filed August 22, 2023, against the City of Kansas City. The pleadings claim that he told members of his communications staff it would be okay to lie to the media about the number of lane miles to be resurfaced in the new fiscal year. (Cause No. 2216-CV27734) A pre-trial hearing is set for May 17th and a jury trial is scheduled for June 5th.
“Mr. Platt suggested lying to the media and specifically asked, ‘Why can’t we just lie to the media?’ ” When told, “That’s not a good idea. We shouldn’t do that,” he responded, according to the pleadings: “Why not? In Jersey, we had a mayor who would just make up numbers on the fly from the podium and no reporters ever called him on it.”
The communications manager who resisted Platt’s strategy, Chris Hernandez, is the plaintiff in the whistleblower suit. In September 2022 Hernandez was demoted and moved out of a management role, although he lost no pay. Hernandez retired from the City of Kansas City September 30, 2023. Hernandez is represented in the lawsuit by attorney Lynne Jaben Bratcher of the Kansas City firm Bratcher Gockel Law LC.
This story was updated at 4:55pm March 8, 2024, to reflect reports that Broadnax is resigning his post.
Trust indicators: Ken Martin has been covering local government and politics in the Austin area since 1981. Email [email protected].
Right now local voters are of course focused on the Super Tuesday primary elections of March 5th, but another election two months later should be of interest to all Travis County property owners.
On May 4th Travis County voters have a million-dollar opportunity to pick three members to serve on the board of Travis Central Appraisal District. ($1 million is the budgeted cost of the election.)
This will be the first time since appraisal districts were created by legislation passed in 1979 that the citizens of Travis County will be able to directly elect some of the voting members who oversee the appraisal district’s administration. Up till now, all members of the board have been appointed by the taxing entities served by the appraisal district.
Paul Bettencourt
The election mandate is just one aspect of the far-reaching legislation authored by Paul Bettencourt (R-Houston) and signed into law July 22, 2023, by Governor Greg Abbott.
The bill amended Chapter 6 of the Tax Code, relating to Local Administration, to require that an appraisal district board of directors in a county with a population of 75,000 or more be made up of five directors appointed by the taxing units that participate in the district, three directors elected by the voters in the county, and the county assessor-collector as an ex-officio director. All members serve as unpaid volunteers.
Those elected May 4th (or in a May 28th runoff) will take office July 1st and serve terms expiring December 31, 2026. An election is to be held in November 2026 for these three board seats, with electees sworn in January 1, 2027, for four-year terms.
Board elections are nonpartisan, but as anyone familiar with Travis County politics is well aware, party preferences usually play a significant role in election outcomes. Which is why the Bulldog is reporting the voting histories of these candidates to assist voters in understanding their options.
Seven men (and no women) have filed for a place on the ballot. Each candidate chose the place in which he is running. The places are elected at-large to represent the whole county, and not geographic districts.
Jett Lowell Hanna, 64, is an attorney who earned his law degree from the University of Texas at Austin in 1983. At the end of 2021, after 34 years of service, he retired as senior vice president of loss prevention for the Texas Lawyers’ Insurance Exchange.
Hanna told the Bulldog he is active in a number of unpaid volunteer activities. He serves on the nine-member Texas Committee on Professional Ethics appointed by the Texas Supreme Court. He volunteers at the Travis County Correctional Complex in Del Valle to facilitate mediation with prisoners. And he works with amateur radio operators to help hospitals with emergency communications.
Hanna said he wants to serve on the TCAD board “to make sure there are fair appraisals done in systematic manner and laws are followed. We need accountable leadership by making sure we hire and assess the chief appraiser the right way.”
In addition, he said, “We’ve got to work on customer service for both taxpayers and the agents who represent property owners.”
Hanna advocates changing the law to allow teachers to serve on the Appraisal Review Board (ARB). He noted that teachers are off in the summer and that’s when the bulk of the ARB’s hearings are conducted. He said that Governor Abbott vetoed legislation that would have allowed teachers to serve on the ARB.
Travis County voter registration records indicate that Hanna first voted in Travis County in 1990, which is the earliest date available in digital records. Over that span of time he has voted in only Democratic primaries.
Donald Shelley “Don” Zimmerman, 63, is the founder of the Travis County Taxpayers Union and currently serves as its executive director.
He has a long history of running for elective office. He started with an Austin Municipal Utility District, where he served as board president.
In the 2014 election that implemented 10 geographic City Council districts, he was elected to represent District 6. He drew a two-year term and was defeated in his 2016 reelection bid.
In March 2020 Zimmerman was a candidate in the Republican Primary for District 47 state representative, placing third in a four-person field. Four months later in 2020, he was on the ballot in the special general election to fill a vacancy in Senate District 14. He placed third in a six-person field.
In 2022 Zimmerman ran against incumbent Round Rock ISD Trustee Tiffanie Harrison. He was part of a slate of five conservative candidates who wanted to take over the school board. All of them were defeated.
The Bulldog has published numerous stories about Zimmerman, including one about the defamation lawsuit he filed against this publication for coverage of his 2014 council candidacy. He threatened to sue the Bulldog again during his candidacy for the Round Rock ISD Board of Trustees in 2022.
Travis County voter registration records indicate that Zimmerman first voted in Travis County in November 2001, including in only Republican primaries.
Zimmerman did not respond to voice and text messages requesting an interview about his candidacy for the TCAD board of directors.
Place 2
Left to right, Matt Mackowiak, Jonathan Patschke, and Daniel Wang
Matthew Lehman Mackowiak, 44, is chair of the Travis County Republican Party and president of the Potomac Strategy Group.
In addition, he is cofounder of Save Austin Now, which describes itself as a nonpartisan citizen’s group dedicated to Austin’s quality of life. The group has been vocal and active in political campaigns addressing issues of policing and homelessness.
“I think it’s a very good thing to require elected members on the appraisal board,” he told the Bulldog. “That adds a check and balance.”
“I want to take advantage of the opportunity to be of service, to ensure TCAD is operating as fairly, transparently, and ethically as possible. That’s something all taxpayers should want.”
“I’m not running to shake things up or fire anyone,” Mackowiak said. “I want to understand how TCAD operates, learn its procedures, and give taxpayers information on how valuations occur. I want to be a taxpayer advocate.
“I’m not anti-government, but people in Austin are really concerned about the massive and unsustainable increases in property taxes. The legislature took some steps to address that problem with the 3.5 percent rollback requirement,” he said, referring to the maximum increase a taxing entity can levy without triggering a requirement for voter approval.
“It is increasingly clear that average people cannot afford to live here. If we’re not careful, Austin will become a playground for the rich, where teachers and nurses have to live outside the city to afford a home. There is a lot of pressure on counties but I think it’s a very good thing if we have three people on the board who view themselves as taxpayer advocates.”
Travis County voter history records indicate that Mackowiak cast his first vote in 2012 and in primaries always voted Republican. He said he had lived in Austin since 1984 except for nine years that he lived in Washington, D.C.
Jonathan Craig Patschke, 44, is listed as treasurer of the Travis County Libertarian Party, according to its website.
His LinkedIn page states that he is a “distributed/embedded software developer” and 2001 graduate of Rice University with a degree in computer science. He declined to name the company for which he works.
“I see this as a great opportunity for public oversight of a government agency with which homeowners have direct interaction,” Patschke said, in an emailed response to questions.
“Prior to filing to be on the ballot, I’d heard that no one else had done so and it seemed a shame that no one else was willing to put in the effort for a position that might make a small difference for all of us in Travis County. Through the limited scope of the board position I hope to improve the fairness and efficiency of the appraisal process.”
“Property appraisals in Texas face an operational challenge in that the actual sale prices of properties are offered to taxing units on a purely voluntary basis. Most sales are not reported accurately, if at all. This means the appraisal district must rely heavily on the accepted values of comparable properties.
“In the case of cities like Austin, there are high-value properties for which relatively few comparable examples exist, and this has prompted a cottage industry of attorneys who perform the very valuable service of getting an individual taxpayer’s property valuation lowered. That this works means that either (1) appraised property values are incorrect, or (2) the ARB is willing to make adjustments which should not apply.
“In either case, the public is ill-served because somebody is paying taxes that would be more fairly levied on someone else,” Patschke said.
Travis County voter registration records indicate that Patschke first voted in Travis County in 2016, but never in a Democrat or Republican primary.
Shenghao “Daniel” Wang, 29, is an attorney with Eversheds Sutherland, a “global top 10 law practice,” according to the firm’s website.
His biographical sketch on the site says he is special counsel to the firm’s Energy Practice Group, focusing on the electric energy market in Texas, and earned his law degree from Harvard.
Wang said in a speech at the state capitol about a year ago that he came to this country from China at age one. He told the Bulldog he is a naturalized citizen. He was addressing people at a rally as part of the Anti-Racism Against Asian Project. That group opposed Senate Bill 147, which would have barred property sales to citizens of North Korea, China, Russia and Iran. The problem with the bill was that it made no exception for green card holders and others in this country legally, he said. That was viewed as a violation of the 14th Amendment to bar discrimination on the basis of race and national origin. The bill was ultimately defeated, he said.
“A core part of government is to make sure that property appraisals are fair and efficient,” Wang told the Bulldog. “If we don’t do that job right it affects the ability of local government agencies to plan their budgets and operate efficiently. If they’re not able to forecast their revenue it’s hard for them to offer stability.”
“I just want to make sure the board operates efficiently and fairly, treats taxpayers with respect, and helps them to understand the process,” Wang said.
“I want a fair and efficient tax system so we can enjoy a government we can trust and rely on.”
Travis County voter registration records indicate that Wang first voted in Travis County in 2018 and cast ballots in Democratic primaries.
Place 3
Dick Lavine
Richard Ira “Dick” Lavine, 76, is an attorney who serves as senior fiscal analyst with Every Texan (formerly the Center for Public Policy Priorities).
His profile on its website states that before coming to Every Texan in 1994, for a decade he was senior researcher at the House Research Organization of the Texas House of Representatives. In addition, he is a trustee of the City of Austin Employees Retirement System. The State Bar of Texas website shows he has been licensed to practice law since 1981.
Marya Crigler (left) and Leana Mann
More importantly in the context of this election, Lavine was a member of TCAD’s board of directors for 21 years, 1997-2018. He was the board chair in 2011 when the board voted to hire Marya Crigler as chief appraiser. (Crigler recently retired and was succeeded in December by Leana Mann, who had served as deputy chief appraiser.)
“I served 11 terms as an Austin ISD appointee,” Lavine told the Bulldog. “I didn’t expect the opportunity to come back.” But when SB 2 passed, that opened the door again.
Regarding the opportunity for the TCAD board to appoint ARB members, he said that had been the procedure before, until near the end of his previous service on the board.
He said the board spent whole days selecting ARB appointees, giving each applicant a 20-minute interview. “To me, the ARB (formal protest hearing) is where the public gets to interact with the appraisal district and feels listened to. One reason I was convinced to run was to maintain public confidence in the district and in the ARB.”
“The basic point of the TCAD election,” he added, “is that appraisal is a technical process; setting tax rates (and thus the tax bill) is a political process. My interest in running is to be sure to keep the political considerations out of the appraisal process.”
Travis County voter registration records indicate that Lavine first voted in Travis County in 1990, which is the earliest date available in digital records. As for primary elections, he has voted only in Democratic primaries.
William Joseph “Bill” May, 76. In a brief telephone interview Tuesday, May said he had served as a volunteer on the Capital Area Council of Governments Regional Law Academy, which provides training courses for peace officers and emergency telecommunicators.
May said his family moved to Austin when he was three years of age and he has lived in South Austin ever since.
The told the Bulldog that he had out of town guests and could not answer more questions. No information about him could be found online. He has not provided a photograph.
Travis County voter registration records indicate that May first voted in Travis County in 1998. As for primaries, he has voted only in those conducted by the Republican Party.
Other administrative changes made by SB 2
In counties with a population of more than 75,000 the members of the Appraisal Review Board will once again be appointed by the TCAD board of directors—not the local administrative judge.
Under SB 2, ARB appointments must be made by majority vote of the TCAD board and at least two members of the majority must be elected members of the board. In essence that gives elected members the ability to exercise a degree of veto power over appointments.
“This means that just two elected TCAD board members could stonewall ARB appointments, potentially in an attempt to influence the makeup of the ARB and the outcomes it produces,” candidate Daniel Wang said. “Thus the elected TCAD board members have a special responsibility to act fairly and impartially in selecting ARB members who will be efficient and fair.”
Historically the Travis ARB has been staffed by appointees numbering from as few as 37 in 2010 to 200 in 2022. But attrition in recent years has been high. Appointments and reappointments have usually been made around January but ARB formal hearings don’t actually begin until the summer. In the interim, some appointees changed their minds and didn’t want to serve, some failed to show up for the mandatory training that precedes hearings, and some found other jobs.
Cynthia Martinez
TCAD has budgeted for 100 ARB members for the 2024 protest season and those positions have been filled, says TCAD Communications Director Cynthia Martinez.
She said that pay for serving on the ARB varies depending on the how many years the member has served but starts at $150 per day, with extra pay for officers.
Trust indicators: Ken Martin has been covering local government and politics in the Austin area since 1981 and investigating and reporting on Travis Central Appraisal District since 2011. Email [email protected].
Trust indicators: Ken Martin has been doing investigative reporting in the three-county Austin metro area since 1981. Email [email protected].
Trust Indicators: Ken Martin has been reporting on and investigating local governments since 1981. Contact him at 
Trust Indicators: Ken Martin has been reporting on and investigating local governments since 1981. Contact him at 
Trust indicators: Ken Martin has been covering local government and politics in the Austin area since 1981. Email 
