Austin staff outline plan to fully scope projects before 2026 bond election

Deputy Director Eric Bailey of Capital Delivery Services told the Joint Sustainability Committee that the city is shifting more project planning to the pre‑election phase for the 2026 general obligation bond so projects will go to voters with complete scopes, schedules and budgets.

Bailey said Capital Delivery Services (CDS) has convened more than 40 cross‑department meetings since May 2024 to develop a governance structure, a departmental needs assessment and technical scoring matrices tied to the citywide strategic plan. CDS will vet projects for scope, schedule, budget and bond eligibility before they appear on a ballot.

The change responds to past cases in which a bond proposition used an underspecified figure—for example, what was presented as a $5 million library did not include land acquisition—creating larger actual costs after the bond passed. "We're moving that project planning, development, scope, schedule and budget to before the bond election takes place," Bailey said.

Bailey described which types of work are typically eligible for general obligation bonds (flood and erosion control; new or replacement city facilities; rehabilitation of existing facilities; housing infrastructure; streets, sidewalks and traffic signals; parks and recreation; public safety facilities; and land purchases) and listed items that are not normally funded with GEO bonds (routine maintenance, pothole repair, general building maintenance, short‑term lease improvements, salaries, and most Austin Water and Austin Energy capital projects, which are usually financed with utilities' revenue bonds).

Braden Latham Jones, climate program manager in the Office of Climate Action and Resilience, said the office is advising departments on sustainability and resilience criteria and has identified bond‑eligible projects that support the Austin Climate Equity Plan and the Environmental Investment Plan. He described two approaches under consideration: (1) dedicated propositions for projects that directly address climate change (for example, land purchase for water quality and ecosystem protection) and (2) integrating sustainability and resilience measures across all bond projects (for example, building to high performance standards, adding solar and battery storage to facilities).

On financing and schedule, Bailey said bond market rate changes will affect how much the city can deliver; the city expects to issue bond funding incrementally over time, with market rates set when the city goes to market for each issuance. He summarized the program's scale to date: an initial needs assessment listed about 600 projects (~$10 billion), which CDS reduced to roughly 200 projects (~$4 billion) after evaluating bond eligibility and other technical criteria. Bailey said staff do not expect to put forward a $4 billion GEO bond in 2026 and called assumptions above that level unlikely, though a final dollar amount will be set by council when it calls an election.

CDS outlined major milestones: an update to the Bond Election Advisory Task Force and council in June 2025, presentation of a ranked needs assessment in July 2025, community outreach during summer 2025, revisions in fall 2025, returning to boards and commissions in early 2026 with final staff recommendations, and a potential council call for an election in summer 2026.

Bailey and Latham Jones said departments develop technical scoring criteria tied to their own strategic plans (for instance, Transportation Public Works uses the Strategic Mobility Plan), and CDS is coordinating a citywide scoring framework and project charters. Latham Jones noted the city will consider life‑cycle greenhouse gas and resilience metrics in project evaluation; he said the Office of Climate Action and Resilience is advising and that some detailed analyses (for example, life‑cycle GHG inventories) would likely require outside consultants due to staffing limits.

Committee members asked about the timing of interest‑rate commitments, how bond size will be selected, whether sustainability scoring will be mandatory across departments, and the likely range for a 2026 GEO bond. Bailey reiterated that the council will set the final dollar value when it calls the election and that outreach to the public, boards and councilmembers will shape which projects move forward.

The presentations concluded with staff offering to share department‑level scoring matrices and to publish more details on community outreach opportunities.

Ending: Staff said more detailed technical criteria and department matrices are being presented to boards and the Bond Election Advisory Task Force over the spring and summer of 2025; the committee was advised to expect additional briefings and public outreach opportunities before staff finalize recommendations in early 2026.