Item 55 - Bond Decision Tree
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2026 3:02 pm
Dear colleagues,
I’d like to express my appreciation to the Audit & Finance Committee members for bringing this policy forward, and for your work to encapsulate the multifaceted considerations regarding a potential bond program into a one-page framework like this.
I generally believe these are important considerations before Council goes to voters for bond approval.
That said, I have two concerns about the proposal as drafted and would like to ask your support for amendments.
First, I want to flag that similar to the conversation we had about a TRE decision-tree, the proposed decision tree would privilege the members of the Audit & Finance Committee in making capital budget decisions, which would tend to weaken the influence of the other Council members who are not on the committee. Given that impact, it may create the impetus for all of Council to serve on Audit & Finance.
Adopting a capital budget and capital program is one of the most important decisions our City Council can make, and I don’t think my constituents would want me to water down their influence over this type of decision. To that end, I wanted to ask if the sponsors of this item would accept an amendment to change the certification element of this decision tree by replacing “Audit and Finance Committee” with “City Council.”
My second concern is that this decision tree assumes a comprehensive bond program every six years. I see two major challenges with this assumption.
First, the City has not been on that type of calendar. For example, the last time voters considered a parks bond was 2018. And from what I understand that money is spent. We didn’t have a bond program in 2024. So now as far as parks are concerned, we are at least 8 years out, and possibly more if there’s no parks bond this year.
Under the proposed policy, there is a safety valve, and Council could find that parks represent a “significant community need” and then move onto the next step of the decision tree. Which is fine, but there’s of course the risk that we use that language, which is designed to be a rare exception, and instead start invoking it frequently because some capital program areas are dry on dollars, while others have money in reserve.
The second challenge is whether a comprehensive bond program every six years is appropriate for Austin at this stage of our development. City staff are telling us we have over $10B in unmet capital needs, and they’ve prioritized $3.8B in projects. They are also telling us we should limit any bond program in 2026 to $700M or so.
Given the desire to not ask for too large a bond package in any year, it might be a better approach to split up our capital program propositions into alternating cycles, such that we don’t go back more than once every six years for any program area, but that we might alternate program areas in different election cycles.
We don’t have to decide that now, but I also don’t feel comfortable committing to a rigid six-year policy that we overrule on a regular basis.
Which brings me to my second proposed amendment, which would amend the second stop on the decision tree, to add the words “in the relevant program area” before the question mark. Would y’all support this change? Please respond here or contact my office with any feedback.
Thank you for your consideration, with respect,
Mike
I’d like to express my appreciation to the Audit & Finance Committee members for bringing this policy forward, and for your work to encapsulate the multifaceted considerations regarding a potential bond program into a one-page framework like this.
I generally believe these are important considerations before Council goes to voters for bond approval.
That said, I have two concerns about the proposal as drafted and would like to ask your support for amendments.
First, I want to flag that similar to the conversation we had about a TRE decision-tree, the proposed decision tree would privilege the members of the Audit & Finance Committee in making capital budget decisions, which would tend to weaken the influence of the other Council members who are not on the committee. Given that impact, it may create the impetus for all of Council to serve on Audit & Finance.
Adopting a capital budget and capital program is one of the most important decisions our City Council can make, and I don’t think my constituents would want me to water down their influence over this type of decision. To that end, I wanted to ask if the sponsors of this item would accept an amendment to change the certification element of this decision tree by replacing “Audit and Finance Committee” with “City Council.”
My second concern is that this decision tree assumes a comprehensive bond program every six years. I see two major challenges with this assumption.
First, the City has not been on that type of calendar. For example, the last time voters considered a parks bond was 2018. And from what I understand that money is spent. We didn’t have a bond program in 2024. So now as far as parks are concerned, we are at least 8 years out, and possibly more if there’s no parks bond this year.
Under the proposed policy, there is a safety valve, and Council could find that parks represent a “significant community need” and then move onto the next step of the decision tree. Which is fine, but there’s of course the risk that we use that language, which is designed to be a rare exception, and instead start invoking it frequently because some capital program areas are dry on dollars, while others have money in reserve.
The second challenge is whether a comprehensive bond program every six years is appropriate for Austin at this stage of our development. City staff are telling us we have over $10B in unmet capital needs, and they’ve prioritized $3.8B in projects. They are also telling us we should limit any bond program in 2026 to $700M or so.
Given the desire to not ask for too large a bond package in any year, it might be a better approach to split up our capital program propositions into alternating cycles, such that we don’t go back more than once every six years for any program area, but that we might alternate program areas in different election cycles.
We don’t have to decide that now, but I also don’t feel comfortable committing to a rigid six-year policy that we overrule on a regular basis.
Which brings me to my second proposed amendment, which would amend the second stop on the decision tree, to add the words “in the relevant program area” before the question mark. Would y’all support this change? Please respond here or contact my office with any feedback.
Thank you for your consideration, with respect,
Mike