1. CITY OF AUSTIN GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Terrell Blodgett
Mike Hogg Professor Emeritus in Urban Management
LBJ School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin

2. Forms of U.S. Local Government
Mayor-Council form
The oldest form of local govt
Mayor is the political AND Executive/Administrative head
Can be “strong” or “weak” mayor based on charter powers given
Commission form
Elected individuals serve as heads of various functional areas of city
Portland, Oregon is only major city with this form
Council-Manager
Designed to provide more effective governance while retaining Democratic control. Features elected board of directors (City Council) led by lay chairperson (Mayor) and appointment of professional CEO (City Manager)
Similar to models used by schools and large nonprofit orgs
There are 3 generally recognized forms of local government in the United States. The oldest, the mayor-council form, generally means that the mayor is the political AND executive/administrative head of the city. Cities are sometimes classified as strong–mayor or weak-mayor although charters of these cities vary widely in the power given to the mayor. The classification of “strong “ or “weak” mayor refers to the authority given that individual in making appointments of department heads and advisory boards, in vetoing ordinances, in making purchases, and in the budget function. The next slide illustrates these variations in Houston and Denver.
The second oldest form is the commission form where elected individuals serve as the heads of various functional areas of the city. Portland, Oregon is the only major city with this form of local governance. In this form, commissioners are actually elected as Commissioner of Public Works or Public Safety, etc. and actively give overall direction to various functional areas of the city.
The third form, the council-manager plan, celebrated its 100th anniversary last year. This form grew out of what “reformers” saw as weaknesses in both of the first two forms. The plan was designed to make government more “businesslike” while maintaining final authority in all matters with an elected governing body.
Advocates feel the plan combines the best of elected independent directors, a chairperson who is not the CEO, a strong commitment to the oversight role of the board, transparency of action, and a strong commitment to ethics. This model is not unlike the model utilized by schools (both K-12 and higher education) and large nonprofit organizations.

3. Key Dates: History of Austin City Government
1839
City Incorporated
1840
Election for city officials held ; Mayor aldermanic form; Mayor and eight aldermen elected for one year; later number reduced to six; numbers Increased to as many as 20.
1908
Voters adopted commission form of Government; Mayor and four Commissioners elected; functions of government divided among 5 elected officials.
1924
Voters adopt Council-Manager form; five Council Members at large; those five then electing a Mayor at their first meeting.
1953
Council members elected by place and select the Mayor from within their ranks.
1969
Council increased to 7 members.
1972
Roy Butler became first directly elected Mayor; 6 Council Members still elected by place.
2012
Voters approve election of 10 Council Members by district and a Mayor at large.

4. Changes in Forms of Government Largest Cities in U.S.
Rank
City
Form 1
New York
Mayor-Council 2
Los Angeles 3
Chicago 4
Houston 5
Philadelphia 6
Phoenix
Council-Manager 7
San Antonio 8
San Diego 9
Dallas 10
San Jose, CA 11
Austin 12
Indianapolis 13
Jacksonville, FL 14
San Francisco 15
Columbus, OH 16
Charlotte 17
Fort Worth 18
Detroit 19
El Paso 20
Memphis
In all cities over 100,000 pop: 176 are council-manager, 97 are mayor-council and one employs commission form.
IN RECENT YEARS, In cities over 100,000:
8 cities have switched from council-manager to mayor-council.
3 cities have switched from mayor-council to council-manager.
9 cities rejected changing from council-manager to mayor-council
November 4: Sacramento this year became 9th major city to reject change to mayor-council. Vote was 57% to 43%.
The five largest cities in the country all employ the mayor-council form of local government. Beginning at Number 6 (Phoenix), three of of the next five utilize the council-manager form (San Antonio at No. 8 and Dallas at No. 9).
Six of the next 10 are mayor-council cities and four are council-manager cities.
In all cities over 100,000, 176 are council-manager cities, 97 are mayor-council, and one employs the commission form.
Several cities have changed their form of local government in recent years. In cities over 100,000:
8 cities switched from council-manager to mayor-council(Fresno
and San Diego, CA; Hartford, CT.; Miami and St. Petersburg, FL; Toledo, OH; Richmond, VA; and Spokane, WA.)
3 cities switched from mayor-council or commission to council-manager(Cedar Rapids, IA; El Paso, TX; Topeka, KS).
9 cities rejected a change from council-manager to mayor-council:
(Little Rock, AR; Des Moines, IA; Grand Rapids, MI; Kansas City, MO; Cincinnati, OH; Corpus Christi, TX; Dallas, TX(twice); Worchester, MA).
On November 4 of this year, Sacramento, CA(capital city of CA; city of approximately 500,000) became the 9th major city in recent years to reject a change from council-manager to mayor-council government. The vote was roughly 57% to 43%. (2)

5. Form of Local Government Texas’ Top Ten Cities
City
Rank
2013 Est. Pop.
Form of Government
Year adopted
Comments
Houston 1
2,195,914
Mayor-Council
1946
FN 1
San Antonio 2
1,409,019
Council-Manager
1951
Dallas 3
1,257,676
1930
FN 2
Austin 4
885,400
1924
Ft. Worth 5
792,727
El Paso 6
674,433
2004
FN 3
Arlington 7
379,577
1949
Corpus Christi 8
316,381
1945
Plano 9
274,409
1961
Laredo 10
248,142
1981

6. Form of Local Government Texas’ Top Ten Cities - Comments
FN 1
In earlier years, Houston operated under both the Mayor-Council and the Commission form of government. Due to a variety of circumstances, the city adopted Council-Manager government in The plan was voted out in 1947 and today, the city remains a Mayor-Council city.
FN 2
Since 2000, Dallas voters, in two separate elections, have rejected a change to Mayor-Council government.
FN 3
In 2004, El Paso became the largest city in the country to change from Mayor-Council to Council-Manager government.

7. City Council Configuration Texas’ Top Ten Cities
Rank
2013 Est. Pop.
Council Configuration
Year adopted
Comments
Houston 1
2,195,914
11-5-1
1979
San Antonio 2
1,409,019
10-1
1977
Dallas 3
1,257,676
14-1
2005
Austin 4
885,400
2013
Ft. Worth 5
792,727
8-1
1975
El Paso 6
674,433
2004
Arlington 7
379,577
5-3-1
1 949
Corpus Christi 8
316,381
1945
Plano 9
274,409
7-1
1961
All are at large, but 4 must reside in district
Laredo 10
248,142
1981

8. Duties, Powers and Responsibilities Mayor-Council vs. Council-Manager
Subject
Council-Manager
Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, etc.
Strong Mayor
Houston
Stronger Mayor
Denver
Apptmt. of Chief Administrator
City Council
Mayor
Apptmt. of Dept. Heads
City Manager
Mayor, conf. by Council
Mayor, conf. by Council.; Mayor can remove w/o Council
Work of Depts
No role for Council
Apptmt. Of Adv. Bds.
Mayor, no conf. by Council
Prepare Budget
Approve Budget
Council; Mayor has veto
Passage of Ordinances
Purchasing
Restrictions on City Manager
Mayor approves contracts up to $499,999 w/o Council

9. During Disability of Mayor
City
Austin
Houston
Denver
Member of Council Presides
Yes No
How is Mayor Pro Tem Chosen
Council elects one of its own
Mayor chooses, subject to CC approval
Mayor Chooses a Member of his/her Cabinet
In Denver, by charter the Mayor’s Cabinet is composed of managers of the following departments: Public Works, Finance, Parks and Recreation, Environmental Health, Safety, General Services, Human Services, Aviation, Community Planning and Development, and the City Attorney. The Mayor designates one member of the cabinet to serve as Deputy Mayor, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor. The Deputy Mayor serves as the Active Mayor in the case that the Mayor cannot. This continues until an election can be held for Mayor

10. IBM Study: Smarter, Faster, Cheaper: An Operations Efficiency Benchmarking Study of 100 American Cities (2011)
Study demonstrates that throughout U.S. spending commitments are outpacing expected revenue growth for cities.
Local govts must find new revenue and budget reductions to close budget gaps.
Report argues cities must operate smarter if they are to do more with less. Can be done through benchmarking – comparing operational profile of similar situated organizations to find opportunities to improve.
Used public data to benchmark the 100 largest cities. (Austin does this)
Found that the most important factor in determining efficiency of a city is management.
Also found that Council-Manager cities are nearly 10% more efficient than Strong Mayor.
IBM STUDY OF OPERATIONS EFFICIENCY IN 100 AMERICAN CITIES
In 2011, IBM Corporation published a report entitled “Smarter, Faster, Cheaper, An Operations Efficiency Benchmarking Study of 100 American Cities.”(1)
This study presents evidence that throughout the country, spending commitments are outpacing revenue growth that cities may expect to achieve . It states that each year, local governments must find a combination of new revenues and budget reductions to close the gap in their budgets.
The report argues that cities must find ways of operating smarter if they are to do more with less. One effective means for an organization to identify inefficiencies is through benchmarking (a practice in which the City of Austin engages ). Benchmarking is comparing the operational profile of similar situated organizations to find opportunities for improved performance.
For this report, IBM used publicly reported data to benchmark the 100 largest cities to compare how efficiently they operate. The study found that the most important factor in determining the relative efficiency of a city is management. The report further states that cities with the council-manager form of local government are nearly 10% more efficient than those cities with the strong mayor form of operation.

11. Why Bond Ratings Matter
City
Moody’s Rating
Houston
AA2
San Antonio
AAA
Dallas
AA1
Austin
Fort Worth
El Paso
Arlington
Corpus Christi
Plano
Laredo
Bond ratings (by Moody’s Investors Service) of the ten major cities in Texas are shown here. The chart shows that the citizens of Houston (the only Mayor-Council city in the top ten) pay more to issue their bonds than do several Council-Manager cities.
Houston’s bonds are rated the same as El Paso, Corpus Christi, and Laredo, two levels below those of Austin, San Antonio, and Plano.
Standard and Poor’s and Fitch ratings are substantively the same as Moody’s.
SCALE – TOP TO BOTTOM: AAA, AA1, AA2, Aa3, A1, A2, A3, BAA1, BAA2, BAA3, BA and below

12. Role of Various Players on the Team
Mayor
Charter duties: preside, vote, no veto, no administrative duties.
Unwritten duties: leads goal process, leads policy priority process, leads Council to an effective governance team.
Council
Works with Mayor to give CM clear goals, objectives and overall policy direction; gives orders to CM as a body, not as individuals.
City Manager
Directs implementation of Council policies and budget; appoints and supervises all city employees (except specified charter exceptions).

13. Summary
This is the system which has worked nationwide in large and small cities for over 100 years.
In Texas, this system is successful in diverse cities.
Examples: Dallas (business oriented), San Antonio (diverse in race, income, city area).
In Austin this system has worked for 90 years.
It is to the CMs advantage to make the Council look good. It is to the Council’s advantage to give the CM the professional latitude to advise the best way forward, including working out the details of accomplishing everyone’s overall objectives for a great City of Austin.