CHARTER AMENDMENTS: ‘BEEN THERE, DONE THAT’

Proposed San Antonio charter amendments are a hot debate topic. Claims are being made about negative impacts on the city’s AAA bond rating and its ability to govern. This debate is taking place in the public context of stalled contract negotiations with the firefighters union.

A review of history sheds light on potential implications because we’ve “been there, done that.”

Following is the historical impact of just one petition-driven election, something that will occur more frequently if the amendments are approved.

In fiscal year 1989-90, City Council approved a needed 12 percent property tax increase. State law allows residents to petition for an election to roll back any increase above 8 percent. The Homeowners Taxpayers Association gathered the required number of signatures, and the election was held in February 1990. The proposition passed, and property tax revenues were reduced.

In March, Standard & Poor’s noted the negative impact on the commitment of property taxes to pay off bond debt and reduced our bond rating from AA+ (just a notch below our current AAA rating) to AA. This restricted the city’s ability to issue debt without additional interest costs.

I was appointed city manager in April 1990 and faced the mandate to balance the budget despite the loss of those property taxes.

The short-term impacts were felt immediately throughout the city. Library and swimming pool hours were reduced. Scheduled parks, drainage and street maintenance were cut back. Essential vacant positions were frozen. For example, several firefighting units had to operate with three firefighters instead of the four firefighters per pumper standard.

The next several years brought a more painful long-term impact. Property taxes were increased three years in a row at a rate of 7.99 percent to avoid another rollback election. An almost 24 percent increase over three years was a significant blow to taxpayers.

Services still had to be maintained, at a reduced level, or scrutinized for more reductions. In 1992, San Antonio saw 229 homicides, a record that still stands. Why? A contributing factor was strained police staffing levels. The city struggled to maintain a ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents, below the common staffing goal of 2.4 per 1,000.

Construction projects suffered, too. Overdue street and drainage projects were postponed. The priority for property taxes was to pay off debt for prior voter-approved projects, such as the new Central Library, to deflect another hit on our bond rating. This further squeezed revenues to maintain basic services.

These were real-life impacts, not just campaign rhetoric. They were the result of just one election but provide a reality check on the recurring impact of the proposed amendments.

A reduction in our valuable AAA bond rating, resulting in higher interest costs, is a nobrainer. Undoubtedly, rating agencies will see the vulnerability of property taxes by the threat of just 20,000 signatures gathered over 180 days. Moreover, the amendments will throw CPS Energy and SAWS rate increases into that already unstable pot.

It’s logical that their positive bond ratings also will be at risk. You can get 20,000 signatures in six months just standing on the corner of Houston and St. Mary’s streets! Elections could be initiated on virtually any City Council decision. After all, who won’t sign to get lower taxes or utility bills?

Once revenues are strangled, more reductions will be on the table. Can we keep working on traffic congestion, affordable housing or more than $100 million for street maintenance? Forget it! Capital projects will have to be postponed or limited. This slows the progress of projects already overwhelmingly approved by voters in recent bond elections.

Squeezing revenues from needed increases will impact the Fire Department budget, too. Union contractual obligations, dominated by the decisions of unelected and unaccountable arbitrators solely demanded by the firefighters union, will be met by freezing vacancies or looking for additional cuts in equipment, training and vehicles.

Did you know the Fire Department budget was $319 million, while property tax revenues only contributed a total of $342 million to the General Fund last year?

Ironically, today’s conservative, anti-government proponents can easily mount 20,000-signature petition drives that will threaten increasing future resources for public safety too. Today’s allies can negatively impact meeting tomorrow’s essential needs.

Firefighters and police officers deserve our respect and appreciation for serving under very dangerous circumstances. They leave for work and say goodbye to their families not knowing if they’ll return injured or even be alive.

On 100-degree days, can you imagine running into a burning building wearing and hauling dozens of pounds of equipment? They deserve to be compensated fairly. But these amendments won’t achieve that obligation. Ironically, they will make it more difficult, so everybody loses.

This debate has only nurtured an antagonistic environment for all of us. There has to be a better way!

After 1990, it took five years to claw back up to the momentum for subsequent economic growth. Indeed, San Antonio was ranked as one of the 10 best managed cities by Financial World magazine in 1995, due to the leadership of our elected mayors and council members. After all, they are elected by residents to represent them in decisions on taxes, utility rates, zoning and the city manager.

Clearly, these amendments are dangerously shortsighted, resulting in a lose-lose scenario. Let’s find a win-win solution. Vote “NO” because we’ve “been there, done that.”

Alex Briseño was San Antonio’s city manager from 1990 until he retired in 2001. He is currently professor of public service in residence at St Mary’s University.