Forums

https://www.kut.org/austin/2026-08-05/austin-city-council-signs-off-on-295-million-bond-proposal-for-parks-and-libraries Austin City Council signs off on $295 million bond proposal for parks and libraries     The Austin City Council finalized on Tuesday a bond proposal totalling $295 million that could go to voters this November, choosing to move forward with funding for Austin’s parks and libraries over recommendations from city financial staff to wait two more years. City Council will vote whether to place the proposals on the ballot this Thursday. The council voted 8-3, with Mayor Kirk Watson and council members Marc Duchen and José Velásquez opposing the measure. The vote caps about two years of debate over whether Austin should ask voters to approve a tax increase to fund capital improvement projects after last fall’s defeat of Proposition Q. While city financial staff and Watson argued the city should wait until 2028, several council members on Tuesday said funding for deteriorating parks and libraries could not wait any longer, teeing up a final decision on Thursday. “This bond proposal is small enough that it doesn’t require a major burden on taxpayers,” Council Member Mike Siegel said. “As to the affordability argument, city parks and recreational facilities offer some of the best opportunities for healthy activity at no cost or very low cost.” City Council started planning for a 2026 bond election in 2024, forming a bond advisory task force. While staff at the time identified an estimated need for more than $4 billion, Austin’s Financial Services Department said in early 2026 that any bond election should be limited to $750 million because of the city’s financial outlook.   As debate continued, some City Council members backed a smaller option under $400 million focused largely on parks and community facilities, while others, including Watson, sided with city financial staff and pushed to delay a bond election altogether. Those who opposed calling the election this year agree the city faces billions of dollars in capital needs. But they argued the decisive defeat of the city’s tax rate election less than a year ago showed voters weren’t ready to take on additional property taxes for infrastructure projects. If voters approve the entire proposal this fall, it would cost the homeowner of an average-valued house of about $495,000 about $40 more in property tax annually, though the actual impact would be less if the funding is spent over the next several years. What would the bond fund? On Tuesday, the Austin City Council voted to approve $260 million in parks funding and $35 million for city libraries. The $260 million in parks funding would go toward: $65.5 million for park buildings and facilities $65 million for parkland improvements $29.5 million to improve park infrastructure $65 million for four Austin pools $35 million for new parks and trails   The $35 million in community facility funding would go toward: $20 million for Hampton Branch at Oak Hill Library renovation and expansion $15 million for a new library and public health center at Colony Park Though City Council approved the size and shape of the bond proposal on Tuesday, a separate vote Thursday will secure its spot on the November ballot and finalize any ballot language. Why council disagreed on timing After voters rejected Proposition Q, Watson pushed forward several proposals aimed at improving public trust in how City Hall manages taxpayer dollars. Among them was a “decision tree,” designed to help the city determine whether calling a bond election in 2026 would be financially prudent. Applying that framework, city financial staff determined previous bond programs had not yet reached what they consider program completion, defined as spending about 90% of bond funds. Based on that benchmark, they recommended waiting until 2028 to ask voters to approve another bond package. Watson agreed. “We have spent months earning the public’s confidence. We shouldn’t abandon that process because it becomes inconvenient. We shouldn’t weaken the trust we’ve worked so hard to rebuild, and that is why I’ll vote no today,” Watson said before the Tuesday vote. “Not because I’m against parks, not because I’m against investment, but because I’m for disciplined government.” Austin park advocates were quick to point out that the Parks Department had not received bond funding since 2018 and the entire $149 million dedicated then had already been allocated. “There are the pools, parks and green spaces that our communities love and depend on. And without real investment now, there are four pools at risk of becoming inoperable, and playgrounds that will go without the desperate need of repairs,” said Alyssa Vargas, advocacy manager at the Austin Parks Foundation, before Tuesday’s vote. “Our system faces $1.8 billion in unmet needs, and they grow every month that we delay.” Council Member Duchen, who voted against the bond Tuesday, expressed concern over the city’s recent inability to stick to a five- to six-year bond cycle, a standard in large cities across the country, according to city financial staff. “What isn’t helpful is when we feel a pressure so intense that we start to have ad hoc bond elections every two years,” Duchen said. “I don’t think that’s going to stop unless we have an incredibly strong public commitment to make systemic changes for how we approach bonds, and that’s why I’d like to challenge ourselves and our staff to figure out how we can resolve that.” What was left off? Dozens of Austinites testified at City Hall on Tuesday morning in support of a bond election. Most urged the City Council to fund parks, community facilities and transportation improvement projects, although $92 million in dedicated transportation funding was ultimately left out of the proposed bond package. “I think it would be a major step back to our mode shift, climate and Vision Zero goals to not include funding for active transport projects this year,” Amy De Luna testified. “We need to continue investing in roadway safety improvements, sidewalks, bikeways, urban trails, safe routes to school, lanes, driving, riding a bike, riding a scooter, walking or taking the bus.” Council Member Chito Vela said he would explore alternative financing tools to fund urgent transportation projects as the city contemplates a transportation bond package in the coming years.

https://austincurrent.org/2026/07/31/austin-election-bond-city-hall-council-taxes/   Without bond funding, park advocates warn Austin pools could close. Council votes Tuesday. Amid an ongoing budget crunch and a scorching summer that has compelled residents to cool off in city pools or shady public green spaces, Austin park advocates warn that if City Council does not call a bond election, some aging facilities could be at risk of closure. Austin City Council members are scheduled to vote Tuesday on a November bond election, which could total as much as $390 million, finally bringing a two-year planning process to a close. After months of reviewing and refining several bond scenarios developed by a city-appointed bond task force and city financial staff, council members are poised to make a final decision on whether to move forward with an election that could feature multiple bond propositions, including funding for parks and community facilities, such as libraries. The bond election has become a flashpoint at City Hall. Supporters argue calling an election is critical to address pressing capital needs, including improvements to parks and recreation facilities. Others contend delaying the election until 2028 is necessary to show voters the city is serious about demonstrating fiscal restraint following last fall’s failed tax rate election. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the election’s size and shape has led park supporters to sound the alarm on the urgent need for funding and the threat to city parks and pools if they don’t receive it. “Parks can’t wait till 2028,” said Alyssa Vargas, advocacy manager at the Austin Parks Foundation, who said parks currently have $1.8 billion in unmet needs. “It’s pretty critical that we receive what we can now.” The Austin Parks Foundation is advocating for a $250 million parks bond package, noting the department has not received bond-approved funding since 2018. “In 2018, we received $149 million in bond, and that went towards some really great projects that we’ve done across the city,” Vargas said. “We fully allocated and expended those dollars in a six-year cycle.” Pools with dried-up budgets Of particular concern are aging public pools across the city that are likely to require major improvements in the coming years. Several pools “are likely to go out of commission unless they get this bond funding,” Vargas said. One of the pools is South Austin’s Garrison Pool, which is south of Ben White Boulevard near the intersection of West Stassney Lane and Menchaca Road. Park advocates warn it could close if more funding is not secured. “It would be such a huge loss,” said Katherine Romans, who frequently uses the pool with her children as a respite during Austin’s sweltering summers. “This is a place where families come to host birthday parties, where neighbors gather, where folks come every day to do lap swimming, and to get a break from the intense heat,” she added. “To lose all of that would really be a gut punch to the community itself.” As an aging facility that has offered Austinites a break from the heat since the 1960s, what could start as a routine repair could uncover more extensive problems and drive up costs. Without funding for those larger improvements, the pool could eventually be forced to close, Vargas said. “As Austin experiences more and more hot summers, hotter and longer in terms of heat,” Romans said, “it’s really important for a human health and safety perspective to have places like Garrison Park Pool.” Ted Siff is the treasurer for Austin Outside, a coalition of nonprofits and businesses advocating for Austin’s parks. He said Garrison Pool is one example of many types of facilities across Austin’s park system with aging infrastructure at risk of shutting down for safety reasons. Places “that people rely on for their health, mental, physical or both, may not be accessible,” Siff said. “Millions of dollars worth of deferred maintenance money is in the park bond.” Decisions ahead City Council started planning for a 2026 bond election in 2024, when it formed a bond advisory task force. While staff at that time identified an estimated need of more than $4 billion, Austin’s financial services department said in early 2026 that any bond election should be limited to $750 million. Since then, City Council members have thrown support behind a smaller option, about half the cost that prioritizes park funding, while other council members have favored delaying a bond election altogether. In November 2025, voters soundly rejected Proposition Q, the measure that would have raised property taxes to pay for city services. The defeat was widely viewed as a sign of eroding public trust in how City Hall manages taxpayer dollars. In one effort to build trust back, Austin Mayor Kirk Watson pushed forward a “decision tree” to help determine whether calling a bond election would be financially prudent. Using that framework, city financial staff determined previous bond programs had not yet reached what they consider program completion, defined as spending about 90% of bond funds. Based on that criterion, they recommended the election take place in two years. Watson agreed.  

AustinMTB: For the past several years, I have been attending and organizing a lot of meetings on behalf of Austin Ridge Riders, to advocate for mountain biking in the Austin area.  We have goals like 1) More miles of legal natural surface trail 2) more "bike park" facilities (skills zones, pump tracks, jump parks, bicycle playgrounds, etc.) 3) continued access to existing trails (staying on good side with City and being available to diffuse complaints by hikers, neighbors etc. when they occasionally come up); 4) alliances with other biking groups; etc.  I asked Hill Abell (former IMBA President and Bicycle Sport Shop owner) several years ago how to be more plugged in to local government and connected with other non-profits so that the mountain biking community is heard, and one of his suggestions was joining Austin Outside.  Austin Outside is an umbrella group of non-profits, professionals (like landscape architects, planners, and engineers), etc.   https://www.austinoutside.org/members . After a while, I became chair of the Austin Outside Trails and Active Transportation Committee.  Regular attendees include representatives of Travis County Parks Foundation, Austin Parks Foundation, Red Line Parkway Initiative, Shoal Creek Conservancy, and others.  There is also a Parks and Open Space Committee, and I attend their meetings as well.  I have invited speakers like the following to speak for 15-20 min on Trails and Active Transportation topics:    Blair Alley, Smart City Policy Group  Erin Rushing, P.L.A., OZTB Consulting and Design (NW Arkansas)  Erick Hetzel, State Parks Trails Coordinator, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department  Sarah S. Bentley, Project Manager, UTHealth Houston School of Public Health, (Active Middle Schools research project, including biking to school)  Emilee Gear, Active Transportation Planner, Travis County Transportation and Natural Resources  Eileen McGinnis, Parents Climate Community, Kidical Mass Bike Ride Organizer   One of the big topics in local government right now is whether City of Austin is going to do a bond election this November.  As you may recall, voters rejected Proposition Q last year: https://www.kut.org/politics/2025-11-05/austin-tx-prop-q-failed-election-results-explained because it seemed like another tax increase in the midst of too much spending by the City.  In view of that, Mayor Kirk Watson and Council Member Marc Duchen are firmly against having a bond election this November.    I strongly believe in fiscal responsibility as well, so I'm pretty sympathetic to that position.  There are a lot of areas of spending that probably do need to be cut.  Over the last two years, the Bond Election Advisory Task Force (BEATF) has heard many presentations from City officials and the general public.   HOWEVER, from the Austin Ridge Riders perspective, I think it's fair to say we support funding of PARKS and TRAILS.  I've been down to City Hall several times to show support for Parks and Trails funding, both in front of the BEATF and the City Council.   Both Bolm District Park (with Bentonville style bike park amenities) and Walter E. Long Park (which includes MTB-specific XC trail in the vision plan) Friends of Walter E Long Metro Park have been listed as priorities by Austin Parks and Recreation. (See Parkland Improvements & Infrastructure Programs - Sept 10, 2025 - Presentation to BEATF ). The current direction on City Council is to reduce the bond ask from $750 million down to $390 million, and focus the bond priorities more narrowly: "The proposed bond package, which would go before voters in November if approved by council, would direct $250 million to parks, $92 million to transportation projects." https://austinparks.org/blog/2026-austin-bond-election-a-summer-standstill-and-what-it-means-for-our-parks/ https://austincurrent.org/2026/05/29/austin-bond-election-delay-prop-q/ https://thedailytexan.com/2026/06/15/city-council-advances-2026-bond-issue-for-july-presentation/ https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/austin-city-council-debates-390m-bond-for-november-ballot-or-delay-to-2028 In related news, Council Member Krista Laine (for NW Austin) has expressed support for biking connectivity and trails. https://austincouncilforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=4922&hilit=trails#p4922 .  I will be talking with her office this Friday.  Apparently, she attended a few RLAG rides back around Covid!  A council member who is down with MTB!  If any of y'all would like to talk about advocacy, I'm open to discuss.  Thanks!! Cullen Vice President, Austin Ridge Riders Board Member, Bike Texas Board Member, David Phillips Foundation Committee Chair, Austin Outside    

Sorry to disturb our collective slumber...  I'm awaiting a parts kit that won't show till Tue.  Another dropper post ~160mm length might could work, too.  I do have access to a fixed post.  Fwiw, the lower bushing broke (cap separated from the ring), so the guide pins are floating.  Thanks.

I'm assuming that you've already taken your friendly MX lap around Emma Long and I'd love to hear your take.  But IMHO its much more defiicult that 1/4 Notch.  After all, 1/4 Notch was given that monikor for a reason. 🙂   Double Down might be more comparable but even then, City Park is unique in many ways.   As someone who owns an enduro bike and has frequently (in the past) ridden out there on both types of 2 wheeled machines, if you are a competent dirt bike rider then its not too bad.  I've always loved riding the super tech MTB stuff, so I found that 35HP with 12" of suspension and bike luggy tires made CP feel much more easy than pedaling around a 2.2" wide tire on a hardtail MTB with 80mm of suspension like we all did back in the day.   All that said, in the moto world, City Park is the crazy insane stuff that only seasoned technical riders choose to ride (at least thats how that community views it).  YMMV Cheers, CJB