After nearly a year and a half of prioritizing the needs of Austinites, the council-appointed Bond Election Advisory Task Force presented the city’s elected leaders with a proposal to borrow $851 million to fund high-priority projects in affordable housing, watershed protection, transportation, open space and city facilities.
To payback the $851 million loan, Austinites would need to agree to a more than two-cent increase over the current tax rate that would remain for the next 30 years.
The $851 million proposal is only a suggestion. City Council will be responsible for finalizing the size and scope of the bond by August 2018.
Here are three takeaways from Tuesday’s meeting.
1. Council is expected to trim the bond proposal’s size
Task force chairman Tom Nuckols told City Council that the task force approved the bond size and scope with an 11-2 vote but many task force members expct City Council would trim the proposal's price and scope.
City staff initially recommended a $640 million bond. In the wake of 2016’s $720 million mobility bond, early task force discussions centered on a desire to propose a $325 million bond, which would result in no increase over the current tax rate.
In the end, the task force agreed to bump staff’s recommendation by $211 million.
2. Task force nearly doubled recommended funding for affordable housing
City staff originally recommended $85 million for affordable housing initiatives. However, as Austin’s leaders continue to mull strategies to fight the city’s housing affordability crisis, the task force proposed $161 million be allocated to such initiatives.
District 4 Council Member Greg Casar and District 2 Council Member Delia Garza said Tuesday the $161 million was not enough, adding they will push for the city to put between $250 million and $300 million toward affordable housing in the bond package.
3. City: 58 percent of Austinites support a tax rate increase
The 58 percent number comes from a city staff-produced survey of roughly 900 people, taken throughout the public input process of the bond’s development.
However, turnout among council districts heavily favored districts 9 and 10, which accounted for 37 percent of the responses. Districts 2, 3, 4 and 6 combined accounted for 16 percent of the responses.
