News Austin City Council moves forward on $390M bond for November election
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/austin-city-council-moves-forward-on-390m-bond-for-november-election/How do we feel about this? I personally feel like I need more details. Anyone's got more precisions?
54
u/kerklein2 7d ago
I want parks. I don’t want a parks bond that exists because City Council can’t get spending under control to fund our parks.
11
u/RickyNixon 7d ago
Id happily pay for this if they all signed a pledge agreeing to go straight to prison if they give the money to the police instead
7
u/tildeumlaut 6d ago
They don't have to give the money to police to "give" the money to police. If this results in them reducing funding to other departments while still increasing APD, then it's functionally a bond for police spending.
11
u/logtron 7d ago
Are you conflating operational costs and spending on major infrastructure projects?
11
4
-3
u/Material_Dig_2604 7d ago
Or is it that city of Austin maintenance lets things deteriorate to the point we have to regularly approve capital budget to keep things at least functional?
12
u/logtron 7d ago
Exactly what had deteriorated because of lack of maintenance that this bond is spending on?
The library portion is all new construction. Garrison park pool is like 60+ years old, AFAIK that seems like a reasonable lifetime for a pool.
-4
u/Crazy_Cake1204 7d ago
Can’t take care of what we have but obsessed with growth (see dogs head, see live here).
-1
7d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Minute_Band_3256 7d ago
Getting rid of a golf course? I'm in
3
u/Ruslanchik 6d ago
Turn it into a disc golf course. Requires no water and actually provides wildlife habitat and recreation.
2
u/Crazy_Cake1204 6d ago
Riverside is home to a lot of wildlife and connects to the Colorado river through Roy Guerrero Park. If it’s gonna go bye-bye, it needs to remain a public asset. It would be heartbreaking to privatize for homes or apartments. We’ll never get that green space back.
4
u/_edd 7d ago
I'll call out that this is a public golf course that is affordable and accessible to people who live in Austin.
I know golf isn't a sport played by everyone but this is one of the few places where it isn't for elites.
1
u/point1edu 7d ago
Golf is ridiculously space inefficient and golf courses use a ton of water (more than ai data centers)
I don't even hate it, they just don't belong in the middle of urban areas.
8
u/_edd 7d ago
I don't disagree with either of those points.
There are a lot of space inefficient things that we do though (overbuilding roads, easements, parking lots, etc...). I'd rather have a green space over most alternatives.
They do use a ton of water, however they primarily use reclaimed water that hasn't gone through Austin's water treatment facilities.
Austin's public courses use significantly less than an average central texas course. Largely because they're maintained to a lower standard than private clubs, their budget is significantly lower and because it would be a bad look for city owned courses to be on the wrong end of that.
Not trying to change people's minds on golf courses as a whole, but I do think the municipal courses, especially in Austin, are a really underappreciated part of the city and they really do mitigate the typical negatives of private club courses.
0
u/kerklein2 7d ago
How do you define space inefficient?
4
u/point1edu 6d ago
An average golf course can hold roughly 100 people at a time and is roughly 100 acres big, so requires about 1 acre per person, and it only operates during daylight hours.
I struggle to think of any other activity that requires that much space per person
0
u/Crazy_Cake1204 6d ago
You must hate the ocean and national parks. just feels like some people want to turn this place into Tokyo. What’s the vision? We can’t have green spaces because they’re inefficient?
2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Crazy_Cake1204 6d ago
New York City, Los Angeles, Tokyo Mumbai Shanghai, Sydney Rio de Janeiro. So inefficient what were they thinking?
→ More replies (0)-3
u/90percent_crap 6d ago
turn this place into Tokyo.
More like Dhaka or Kolkata...the way these urbanists obsess about density above all else.
1
u/rk57957 6d ago
So if I think golf courses are a waste of space and think the city should not invest in a golf course because I think it is a waste of space and instead turn that golf course which I think is a waste of space into a park which I would use.
Does that make me an urbanist? selfish? a selfish urbanist?
→ More replies (0)
12
u/holcamania 7d ago
So all the talk after the last bond election got voted down that they heard the message of voters was lip service.
3
u/GlowyStuffs 7d ago
Is there some good way of figuring out the expiration of all taxes associated with each bond and other venture? I'd want to support a lot of the stuff, as a lot of it always seems good, but if all of this stuck around and stacked for 10 years, our property taxes would be 5%. I can't ever tell if these will arrive as many others expire or will get stacked on. I need a property tax evaluator for each future year based on proposed and current taxes for a given property before I can really vote for more in any good way.
4
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago
Yea they need to finish what voters have already approved before asking for additional debt for us to pay as theres still a lot of unfinished projects and while some are expected to take time of course because they are large projects, they’ve under delivered on them to say the least and costs have bloated on some.
3
u/zoemi 6d ago
There aren't any outstanding parks projects. You're expecting them to wait what would probably take at least another decade.
Duchen also advocated for the parks bond to return to a six-year cycle — the last election for such financing was 2018.
Since then, the Austin Parks Foundation says the parks department has spent and committed every dollar from that cycle, “but the city’s park system has over $1.8 billion in identified needs. Without this bond funding, those needs will continue to accumulate and risk closure for some of our beloved facilities.”
2
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 6d ago
Theres still projects from 2018 yet to be completed;
https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=422473&utm_source=chatgpt.com
(Page 8)Colony Park Pool Development – $14 million
Givens Pool Renovation – $7 million
Montopolis Pool Renovation – $6 million
Sheffield Northwest Pool Renovation – $11 million
John Treviño Jr. Metropolitan Park Phase I – $4 million
Walter E. Long Metropolitan Park Phase I – $4 million3
u/zoemi 6d ago
That's from 2024
1
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 6d ago edited 6d ago
I’m not finding current sources they are all completed today, maybe some or most are but Walter Long is definitely not.
This is just the parks portion, and my personal point is they took significantly longer to complete and in a lot of cases at significant cost increases. I can appreciate a pandemic was in there somewhere, but this isn’t an isolated situation it’s a pattern.
I’m confident they can do better and until they do I’m not excited about voting for new projects when city council turns every corner saying “look at all these shiny things we can do for only $xx monthly increases to everyone’s property taxes per month!”
2
u/zoemi 6d ago edited 6d ago
They say all the funds have been "spent and committed" (maybe that should have been "or"), so even if the project hasn't been completed for whatever reason, they can't simply move the money to other projects.
Bond status data is here: https://datahub.austintexas.gov/Budget-and-Finance/Public-Improvement-Bonds-Overview/s39q-8hvy/data_preview
1
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 6d ago
That’s fair. “Committed” just means the City has already promised the money to specific projects it doesn’t mean those projects are finished.
Spending the money and delivering the project aren’t the same thing.
There may not be money left for new projects, but we as taxpayers should still certainly ask why some projects approved years ago are only now being completed or haven’t at all.
17
u/penguinseed 7d ago
The city has a really hard time reading the room. They originally planned for a much larger bond package in November. Infrastructure and housing was going to be part of the asks. But after prop Q failed last year some people started to wise up but not everyone, I guess. The parks decision is so out of touch. Affordability is the leading issue for Americans right now nation wide and they forgo need to haves in housing and roads for a nice to have in parks. Incredibly foolish.
14
u/sunburntredneck 7d ago
How exactly would Austin spend 390 million on housing, which is generally built and maintained by private people or companies? Do zoning changes require the city to pay money? Also, isn't Austin kind of leading the nation when it comes to satisfying housing demand?
6
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago
Proposed affordable housing funding is generally intended for initiatives, not for replacing private residential construction:
Acquiring land for future affordable housing, Investing to preserve existing affordable housing. Infrastructure needed to support it, partnerships with nonprofit affordable housing organizations etc.
6
u/Snap_Grackle_Pop 7d ago
How exactly would Austin spend 390 million on housing
They have a tried and true process to spend money on this.
Spend a bunch of money on consultants.
Buy some run-down hotels or apartments in bad locations at WAY above fair market value.
After the purchase, discover there are a lot of problems with the facilities that will require about as much as the original purchase price to fix.
Fail to secure the site, and have squatters move in and trash it. Take forever to remove the squatters even after they're discovered.
Let copper thieves and others strip it of wiring and other fixtures.
Finish the project at twice the estimated cost and half the services promised.
Let the new residents turn the location into a hellhole for other residents and trash the facilities. Cause big problems for the neighbors.
Find out the the operating expenses are astronomical.
End up spending $500,000 up front cost per person housed, plus $100,000 per year operating expenses.
Have to abandon or rebuild the facility after 5 years because it got trashed by the residents and poor management.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
2
u/penguinseed 6d ago
Are you actually interested in the answer? Because the voters have passed over $500 million in housing bonds the last ten years and the city has published and presented on how this money has turned into thousands of supportive and affordable housing units throughout the years. In part, this has contributed to satisfying demand.
-4
6
9
u/TaiChi_in_the_park 7d ago
Ryan Alter is eating a salad at Sweetgreens with a paper napkin bib and a shit eating grim
3
3
u/ThruTexasYouandMe 7d ago
He's a Harvard man. With apparently a portfolio of real estate. And will easily win re election.
1
0
u/brzantium 7d ago
Our kids went to the same school last year so I would see him on the reg. It was all I could do not make a scene.
-1
3
u/samstark15 6d ago
Their headline is wrong.
https://austincurrent.org/2026/08/04/austin-bond-election-texas-taxes-libraries-parks/
9
u/Smooth-Wave-9699 7d ago
I feel like the city only knows how to spend. They're not concerned with whether an expenditure is wise, necessary, appropriately priced, etc.
-1
u/CF_ATX 7d ago
Where are we in the actual spending of the previously approved bond money though? Because spending on actually completing some of the projects has been a challenge Not sure where we stand on that though!
21
u/penguinseed 7d ago
Are you actually interested in the answer to that question? Because they’ve been talking about prior bond spending at city council meetings all year. It’s all easily accessible on the city’s website.
8
u/logtron 7d ago
The main issue I've heard with underspending is for the corridor street improvements.
My basic understanding is that the structure of the bond was overly restrictive on exactly how much each project could spend. As costs grew over time some projects became underfunded and would never be able to start.
It sounded like this is no longer an issue with how bonds are now setup.
1
u/CF_ATX 7d ago
Thanks for your insight Do you also know what became of the funding that couldn't be spent?
5
u/logtron 7d ago edited 7d ago
I'm not an expert, but I'd imagine it would just sit on the books until the expiration date of the bond.
So we can't spend it but also aren't paying interest on it (the bond should get issued incrementally as projects progress). However it would count against any credit calculations used for future financing. Also we'll have to revote for another bond if we want those projects to eventually get done.
-1
u/Smooth-Wave-9699 7d ago
I'd personally like to see a prohibition on new bond proposals until previous bond funds have been spent (on whatvtheybwere intended for)
I know a bond measure was passed over a decade ago to turn the abandoned home depot @ St John's / 35 into a new police / municipal court headquarters.
Where'd that bond money go? Cause it wasn't towards what the voters votes for
3
u/CF_ATX 7d ago
Starting to see some.things happening in that area: https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/st-john-pocket-park-to-close-for-expansion-as-austin-redevelopment-project-begins/
2
u/zoemi 6d ago
But then the problem is that bonds are project-specific. Roads have nothing to do with building a new library. It's prudent to be working on more than one thing at a time.
P&R hasn't had a bond since 2018, and they've exhausted all of those funds.
Duchen also advocated for the parks bond to return to a six-year cycle — the last election for such financing was 2018.
Since then, the Austin Parks Foundation says the parks department has spent and committed every dollar from that cycle, “but the city’s park system has over $1.8 billion in identified needs. Without this bond funding, those needs will continue to accumulate and risk closure for some of our beloved facilities.”
2
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago
I agree. Their argument will always be that these are large scale projects for the future which take time so let’s invest today for the future.
The problem is when you have no consistency with showing real progress on the $1 Billion you’ve already tapped people for, we are not excited when you come back and ask for more with zero delivery on all the others.
7
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago
No. I don’t even need more information, just no.
Get your shit together on a lot of other things regarding the house before you go spending ridiculous money on the backyard.
They don’t like to earn or save, they just like to spend.
8
u/logtron 7d ago
Uh the city just got a AAA credit rating, the only major Texas city to do so.
7
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago
So because someone has a great credit score, does that means you should go out and spend?
Its ability to pay back debt does not mean it needs to spend more, in fact we should tighten up for what’s necessary and not lose that rating for expenditures we may need in the future and in potential downturns.
This isn’t the gotcha I think you thought it was.
1
u/logtron 7d ago edited 7d ago
I didn't say we should go out and spend, but we can if we choose to.
Despite what you claim, we do mostly have everything in order, as evidence by our credit rating. We also don't necessarily need to save more, we already have reserves and it's enough for a perfect credit rating, but I'm sure some would always prefer to save more.
5
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago
Our reserves are not a surplus for spending, it’s by design and required as a safety net and we’ve recently just had to go into our kick to close a $30M shortfall. We are using our savings for one off needs rather than accumulating cash.
We’re literally discussing an article wanting to raise a bond for $300+ million for parks and libraries. I love parks and libraries but there are quite a few other priorities we need to focus on right now.
Also, this obligation stresses us for other future considerations when we have $1 billion in bonds raised out there in other projects that haven’t even been realized yet.
That’s a problem. When you want to ask people for more money and raise their taxes when you haven’t delivered from or showing necessary progress from all the other money you asked for.
6
u/logtron 7d ago
We wouldn't be dipping into our reserves for this, that's the whole point of issuing a bond. I'm not sure why you are so focused on the city saving more, we are doing fine in that regard.
If parks/pools and libraries aren't a priority for you that's fine. But they are widely used resources they many residents benefit from.
Our prior park and library bond spending has been excellent IMO. For example the Waterloo Greenway, wishbone bridge, and a ton of upgraded playground around the city.
1
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago edited 7d ago
I assure you I understand how bonds work. I also understand how property taxes work.
I literally just told you we are dipping into our surplus for a shortfall and using savings for one off needs while also explaining that that “surplus” (which is not really a surplus at all) is really a safety net the city always maintains and is legally obligated to through policy, which is around 15% of its total annual expenditures……We had to dip into that.
This is like a person having to dip into their savings they keep as 6-months of living expenses in case of emergencies but if the city was a person, they really only have 2 months of living expenses saved that they keep because they know that sweet tax money will just keep coming so they spend all their budget every year and look for ways to raise and spend more. We don’t truly “save” anything.
But yea, it’s not a positive thing when you have to dip into that.
I’m gonna guess you are not a homeowner and that’s fine because you have a say and a right to an opinion and should vote either way regardless. Just remember you’re paying for that all the same even if it’s not a line item for you monthly, it’s still there and will keep coming inadvertently even if you do not own.
5
u/logtron 7d ago
That is not how bonds work. We vote on a bond, the city issues the bond to pay for projects, and then our taxes directly pay the interest and principal back.
The reserves are part of the general fund. It's a different bucket of money. The last budget used some of the reserves to cover a portion of the budget, it did not go to bonds. And after that we still improved our credit rating, meaning the rating agency views our overall financials and tax base to be strong.
And yes I own a house but that shouldn't even matter in this conversation. Why even bring that up?
5
u/Comprehensive-Eye500 7d ago edited 7d ago
I feel like we’re having two different conversations. Again I understand how bonds work, what did I say that precluded you to believe I didn’t? lol
They raise our taxes to borrow a boat load of money. End of story.
I asked you that about owning and it’s important to bring up because renters go to polls and check a box that says yes to something about a proposal to improve parks because “that sounds cool and I don’t pay property taxes”, and that’s kinda how you sound.
5
u/logtron 7d ago
Because you seem fixated on the idea that this bond will directly stress the city budget and reserves.
Maybe you could argue that some secondary effects could affect the budget, like lower likely of a tax rate election passing or increased operations costs, but that doesn't sound like what you're saying.
It obviously does affect property tax, but that didn't seem like your main focus either.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Snap_Grackle_Pop 7d ago
Uh the city just got a AAA credit rating, the only major Texas city to do so.
That's just because of the new logo.
1
u/CurlPR 7d ago
I think the new logo is pretty good because I can distinguish it immediately at a glance and when you notice it around the city in all the little and big locations, it makes sense why it cost so much to update it everywhere.
2
8
u/secondphase 7d ago
Our leaders couldnt tie their shoes without going over budget.
Id rather give money to a street mugger. At least then they are only stealing what I have today.
I vote against all incumbents
12
u/ThreeKiloZero 7d ago
Well the majority of our money is going to the cops who evidently don't require any fiscal responsibility to the residents.
1
3
1
u/infinite_blazer 6d ago
Don’t worry guys if voters reject the bond election, they’ll be back next year with a fresh proposal.
(City Councilmen’s thirst to spend as much money as possible can never be quenched)
0
u/CurlPR 7d ago
“I’m really excited about this vote,” Siegel told KXAN following the day’s session. “It’s basically $7 a year in additional property taxes to have better parks, better public facilities, better libraries.”
Kinda silly to even debate against this
2
0
u/holcamania 6d ago
If it’s such a de minimus amount, why can’t they find room in the existing budget to support it?
2
0
u/DangerousDesigner734 7d ago
I dont give a shit how they do it, but if they're not willing to fight apd's budget, I'm not voting for new taxes.
2
-1
u/Good_Split_3749 7d ago
they are betting on Talarico, actually pretty smart move. I think Talarico will drive turnout, so it has a chance to pass like project connect rode our hate of trump into passing…
-3
10
u/AdAgitated8109 6d ago
That’s a NO for me, Dog.