By Diane Jane Morrison
Blame it on the rain. Blame it on the mayor. Blame it on the economic mood of the country. But whatever the excuse, the result remains the same: only five of the 16 bond proposals in the Aug. 29 election were approved by Austin voters. And, as a result of the voters' rejection, the City Council and city staff are being forced to reevaluate, juggle and reapportion the city's funds, especially in light of the new city budget released a few days ago.
The low voter turnout which was blamed for the bonds' rejections, was perhaps more of a surprise than the high number of bonds voted down. Only 16 percent of Austin's eligible voters cast their ballots in the election, to reject $135 million of the total $186.4 million requested.
Propositions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 were the survivors of the discriminating vote. They will provide the city the following improvements and services:
Proposition 1
A public works bond, it will provide for street and transportation facility repairs and improvements to pedestrian and non-motorized facilities and traffic safety projects. But it's more than likely that the appeal of Proposition 1 lay in the fact that much of its money will go to repairing damage caused by this summer's flooding. The passage of this bond will give the city money to buy flood-damaged houses along Jefferson street in order to allow for the clearing, dredging and widening of Shoal Creek and Little Walnut Creek. The bond will also allot money for the building of detention ponds to deter downstream flooding, for improvements on nine bridges and low-water crossings in heavily flood-damaged areas and for continued construction of a bridge already in the works over Dry Creek. Approval of Proposition 1 also gives the city the remaining $800,000 it needed to fulfill improvements in the recently adopted downtown revitalization program.
Proposition 2
This proposition will give the city $1 million to develop a landfill site in southeast Travis County. The other provision of the bond is a waste transfer station.
Proposition 3
This is a bond to develop and improve emergency medical services and health facilities. Part of the funds will be used to build a new EMS station on city owned property at Koenig Lane and North Lamar Boulevard. Other improvements designated in the bond will be to the Rebekah Baines Johnson Center nursing home; they will turn the complex which the city recently purchased into administrative and training offices for the city health department and will also provide headquarters for the EMS. Improvements included in this bond should provide the city with more efficient health and paramedic services.
Proposition 4
Proposition 4 provides for improvements to the city fire department, which will include money for another flood-related project: almost $970,000 for an early warning system of flood detectors that will gather information such as ground saturation levels during times when threat of flooding is a viable concern. The specific fire department improvements will upgrade existing stations, build a new station in South Austin and change over the department's radio equipment from the crowded UHF band to VHF.
Proposition 8
Funds from this bond go to improve the city's system of traffic signals. It provides for modernization of existing signals and installation of new ones, as well as expansion of a computerized signal system with provisions for transit signal preemption and land control.
Though the low voter turnout bucked tradition -- bond elections usually draw approximately 25 percent of Austin's voters -- the defeat of the package was also part of a trend. No major bond package has passed in the city since 1975, and there hasn't been a successful capital improvements bond proposal in four years. The most recent past bond election was held in February 1980, and it was mostly unsuccessful, despite much publicity.
It was perhaps the publicity of that election, and the public haggling over the issues between City Council members and public groups, that accounted for the low-key campaign surrounding the Aug. 29 election. The bond package was supported by all six councilmen, liberals and conservatives alike. It, in fact, gathered more united support among diverse city groups than any bond package in recent history. The most outspoken opposition -- or, more correctly, the most obvious lack of support to the package came from Austin Mayor Carole McClellan. While McClellan said she opposed none of the bond projects, she refused to support the package because the council voted to keep a proposal to allocate $1.5 million to develop lignite reserves off the ballot. And while she claimed she would not campaign actively against the bonds, there are many who believe that McClellan's obvious and highly publicized lack of support said more against the package than she ever could have.
The losers in the election were the remaining general obligation bonds, -- 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 -- and Propositions 13, 14, 15 and 16, the revenue bonds. Money for general obligation bonds comes from property taxes, while increases in rates and charges pay for revenue bonds.
Despite the voter's thumbs down on the revenue bonds -- three of which concerned utility improvements and one of which would have provided improvements to the airport -- the proposed utility improvements will probably be carried out anyway. The city is lawfully obligated to serve certain areas with electric, water and sewer services that, if not funded by bonds, will probably be paid for by rate increases more drastic than those the proposals would have implemented. As a result of the failure of Proposition 13, which was to provide for electrical system improvements, including service outside the city limits, electric consumers' bills will be increased $3.50 per monthly rate between 1981 and 1983 to raise the money to raise money the bond proposal would have specifically allocated. Likewise, the failure of Propositions 14 and 15, which included improvements to and expansions of the city's water and wastewater systems, will cause an average monthly increase of approximately $11.00 through 1984.
While it is obvious that Austin citizens have done some self-imposed belt-tightening, the long-term ramifications of the bond election cannot yet be predicted. The bonds approved concern more city basics than city aesthetics, and the end results of the recently released budget will do as much to determine the future of many of Austin's projects as voters did August 29.