Task force delays decision on possible 2025 environmental bond package

The Bond Election Advisory Task Force has postponed making a recommendation on a potential 2025 bond election focused on environmental projects, citing the need for additional preparation and clarity from city staff. The decision to table the discussion until February came during the task force’s Monday meeting, where members expressed uncertainty about the scope of the long-discussed Environmental Investment Plan and its implications for both the proposed 2025 bond and a more comprehensive 2026 bond.

The task force’s discussion was shaped substantially from a Jan. 9 memo from Assistant City Manager Robert Goode to City Council, which emphasized the challenges of planning a comprehensive 2025 bond election. The memo recommended focusing on a limited set of general obligation bond-eligible projects under the EIP that would not require extensive coordination across city departments or external entities.

The memo also highlighted that advancing any 2025 projects could reduce funding availability for a broader 2026 bond program, which city financial staff has recommended be capped at $600 million.

Task force members debated whether to proceed with a 2025 bond initiative or delay action to allow for a thorough presentation from staff, who were not present when the item was discussed. Some expressed confusion over the contents of the EIP and sought clarification on whether the task force’s role was to recommend specific projects for inclusion in the plan. Others raised concerns about the lack of public engagement to date and stressed the importance of gathering community input before moving forward.

The EIP, initially introduced as part of a 2024 initiative, outlines a series of proposed environmental projects aimed at addressing climate resilience, sustainability and infrastructure improvements. City staff estimated that implementing the full range of projects could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, creating a significant financial challenge for the city’s bond program.

Kaiba White, who served on the Joint Sustainability Committee that helped to generate the projects list that shaped the EIP, said the task force should lend support to the most important parts of the plan for inclusion in next year’s bond package.

“There was a long list of items which then got winnowed down with what was actually kind of under discussion at Council … for 2024,” she said. “It’s unclear whether or not they would be going back to the big list or they would be looking at that more targeted list that was being considered by a subset of Council members. Where we could be useful is there’s a long list. It’s not all going to get funded in 2025 or 2026, probably, so providing some recommendations and priorities for that I do think is appropriate.”

The Jan. 9 memo from Goode reinforced city management’s position that a comprehensive 2025 bond program is not feasible, given the competing demands on staff resources and the complexity of preparing such an initiative. However, the memo left the door open for a limited 2025 bond focused solely on EIP projects.

“I feel like staff has probably already done the work for the EIP and we’ve had plenty (of) community engagement processes along that way for folks to be able to put their two cents in rather than engaging this body to kind of rush to the finish line to get caught up on where staff has already done the work,” task force member Tina Cannon said.

In an earlier portion of the meeting discussing the public engagement process and timeline for the planned 2026 bond package, chief communications director Jessica King said there wouldn’t be sufficient time to get meaningful feedback from the public regarding a 2025 bond package.

“To do a compressed 2025 bond, it would honestly feel more like a check-the-box,” she said. “Given how much we’ve got to do to work on the 2026 bond, if you did any engagement I don’t know that you’re going to get the depth of response back that you might want for something like a 2025 bond.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.