Proposition A – $260 million for parks, pools & open space
Proposition A asks voters to let the city borrow up to $260 million in general obligation bonds for park, recreation, aquatic and open space improvements, including buying new parkland. The ballot labels it a property tax increase, because the city repays bonds with property taxes.
The city published a list of the kinds of projects it has in mind, but the list is not binding. Per reporting from Austin Current and the Austin Parks Foundation, it includes:
- Recreation buildings like Gus Garcia Recreation Center, Doris Miller Auditorium and Mayfield Park
- Improvements at Walter E. Long and Onion Creek metro parks, plus Jamestown and Bolm parks
- Infrastructure at Zilker, Mount Bonnell, Circle C and Evergreen Cemetery
- Upgrades at four pools
- New parks and trail connections in parts of town that don’t have many parks
What it costs
City staff estimate that Props A and B together would add roughly $40 a year to the city tax bill on a median-valued home (about $485,000), once all of the debt is issued (Austin Current, Community Impact). The money would be borrowed over several years, so the increase phases in.
In tax rate terms, that’s a little under 1 cent per $100 of property value for both bonds, and about 0.7 cents per $100 for Prop A on its own. (That’s our math: the $40 estimate divided by the median home value, with Prop A’s share based on its $260 million out of the $295 million total.) For comparison, the city’s current debt rate, the part of the property tax rate that pays off bonds, is about 11.4 cents per $100 (city ordinance). See how city bonds work for more on the debt rate.
The case against
Council put this on the ballot 8–3. Mayor Kirk Watson and Council Members José Velásquez and Marc Duchen voted no, citing affordability and the amount of money from earlier bonds that is still unspent (KUT). City financial staff had recommended waiting until 2028. And KXAN reported that the city has cancelled more than 60 projects that voters already approved in past bonds.
That’s a fair criticism of how the city manages its bond programs. It isn’t a reason to let pools and recreation centers keep falling apart. Bonds pay for buildings and land that last decades, which is what borrowing is for, and the cost per household is small.
Recommendation: Yes