2000 Austin Bond Election Language

Comments Off on 2000 Austin Bond Election Language

CATRANSCO summary of this package; city language follows below.
This election set aside $90 million for contributions from Austin for state highway projects.
(I’m excerpting these and saving because I don’t know how long the city will keep up these old pages).

The issuance of $150,000,000 tax-supported general obligation bonds to improve roadway intersections, acquire right-of-way, provide funds for highway and roadway construction, develop high occupancy vehicle lanes and related infrastructure, improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility infrastructure, construct related drainage facility improvements, and acquire land and other property interests for these projects; and the levy of a tax sufficient to pay the bonds.

If approved, the $150 million would be spent in three major categories:

  • To help accelerate major highway projects inside the City that are built by the State.
  • Capacity improvements on City roadways, including expanded lanes, improved intersections, and High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.
  • Pedestrian and bikeway projects.

The currently anticipated amount to be spent in each category is:

  • $90 million for matching grants.
  • $40 million for capacity improvements.
  • $20 million for pedestrian, bikeway and sidewalk projects.

The Austin City Council also established criteria about the expenditure of the bonds, should they be approved:

Unless the road is authorized by an election of the City of Austin or another jurisdiction and the spending is approved by the Austin City Council, the bond proceeds will not be used to fund matches for road infrastructure of right-of-way through:

  • The Drinking Water Protection Zone.
  • A City of Austin preserve.
  • A City of Austin destination park

For each proposed use of bond proceeds for a road project, City staff must make a recommendation on the proposed use through an analysis of:

  • The tax equity and social equity implications for City of Austin residents.
  • Impact of the proposed project on the Drinking Water Protection Zone.
  • Impact of the proposed project on increased mobility, decreased congestion and air quality.
  • Any alternatives to the proposed project that provide the same or better congestion relief with improved air quality.