So many ways to better use funds in bloated bond projects
City Council was recently briefed on the updated version of the proposed $1.2 billion bond slated to come before the voters in May. This marked only the second opportunity the public and council had to see the proposed makeup of the bond propositions.
While the 2022 bond discussion is not over, it has moved from City Council to community committees, where members will further discuss individual projects. I have several concerns with the current makeup of the 2022 bond projects that City Council has provided to the community committees to deliberate.
City Council was briefed on the original bond proposals on Oct. 13. In that first iteration, there were categories that seemed disproportionately bloated. The biggest was the linear greenway trails.
In preliminary discussions, the trails were budgeted at $50 million, but without any consultation from City Council, it was raised to $126 million. When asked about this, we were told that the $50 million amount was an error. Whether it was an error or an internal placeholder, inflating funding by more than $75 million, without any council input, was shocking. I felt that $126 million for the trails was a massive amount of money, especially given the $6.6 billion infrastructure need in the city.
Several council members, including myself, shared concerns about this unexplainable increase; however, no action was taken to address this issue. It was as if there was some sort of internal mandate that this pot of funding was not to be touched. With answers few and far between, two of my colleagues joined me in signing a memo that requested another meeting take place to further discuss the 2022 bond allocation.
A few days prior to the special council meeting, city staff sent out an updated proposal that reduced the trail funding to $110 million, along with reductions to other projects, but this was nowhere near the amount that should be allocated to our critical infrastructure needs. Historically, bonds have been used to address challenging and costly infrastructure projects that cannot be funded through the general fund. The cost of these projects are in the multimillions and would deplete the general fund.
During the meeting, District 5 Councilwoman Teri Castillo motioned to move $60 million from the trails to be used on streets, sidewalks, bridges and drainage infrastructure. I seconded it, and it narrowly failed, 6-5.
This was in no way an effort to defund the greenway trails. In fact, had this amendment passed, our greenway trails would have been funded $10 million more over the next five years than they had been over the previous five years. None of the five council members who voted for this amendment did so with the intent to “defund” or “cut” the greenway trails. The intent was to free up needed infrastructure dollars for streets, sidewalks and drainage.
In the March election, the majority of voters in San Antonio favored changing language in the city charter to allow the bond to fund other categories in addition to infrastructure. This change allowed housing to be added to future bond proposals.
At the first briefing, city staff recommended spending $250 million on new affordable housing the next two bond cycles. These recommendations were based on the Housing Policy Framework.
At the second council briefing, that category funding was reduced to $150 million. There are no firm plans on how this money will be allocated. I firmly believe this is still much too high and will negatively impact the needs that should be covered by the 2022 bond.
Each bond category has a list of projects attached to it with the exception of the housing proposition. I cannot support a proposal with no plans or projects attached. The residents of San Antonio are essentially being asked to approve $150 million to be spent on an idea. This proposition is being rushed and there is no concrete plan. This rings an all-too-familiar bell as other programs implemented in our city have overpromised and thus far underperformed.
The high price tag on trails and affordable housing takes away funding from infrastructure. Less goes towards our crumbling streets. Less goes to facilities that act as emergency centers in times of extreme heat and cold. Less goes to public safety facilities that enable our first responders to serve our great city.
The community bond committees provide an excellent opportunity for the public to voice where they want their money to be spent. Once the committee meetings have concluded, I implore everyone to take a closer look at all the recommendations before heading to the polls in May.