Item 4a/4b- Working Group Recommendations — original pdf

Backup

2018 Bond Recommendation ScenariosAmountStaff Recommended Starting Point0 cent1 cent2 centPercent of overall bondStormwater112,000,000$           75,000,000$           38,100,000$    67,100,000$    96,500,000$    13%Open Space117,000,000$           50,000,000$           25,600,000$    45,000,000$    64,500,000$    14%Facilities281,000,000$           240,000,000$        122,000,000$  216,000,000$  309,500,000$  33%Affordable Housing161,000,000$           85,000,000$           43,000,000$    76,000,000$    109,500,000$  19%Transportation180,000,000$           190,000,000$        96,300,000$    170,900,000$  245,000,000$  21%Total851,000,000$           640,000,000$        325,000,000$  575,000,000$  825,000,000$  100%Breakdown by CategoryParkland & Open Space117,000,000                  Open Space72,000,000                     Parkland45,000,000                Stormwater112,000,000             Facilities & Assets281,000,000                   Parks97,000,000                      Public Safety69,000,000                      Public Health16,000,000                      Public Library 31,500,000                      Cultural Centers67,500,000                Affordable Housing161,000,000             Transportation Infrastructure180,000,000                 PWD150,000,000                 ATD30,000,000                Total851,000,000     Affordable Housing Working Group Recommendations:       $161,000,000 The working group feels this is the year to fund Affordable House. The cost of closing Austin’s Affordable Housing Gap Today is around $6.48 Billion (48,000 unit gap). The cost of closing Austin’s Affordable Housing Gap in 2025 ≈ $11.18 Billion. A bond that helps build more units in more parts of town, and helps keep people in their homes, will help keep people in Austin who live here today.  Rental Housing Development Assistance Projects (RHDA)  RHDA program increases or maintains the supply of affordable rental housing by addressing the rental housing needs identified by the City of Austin's Continuum of Housing Services, including Permanent Supportive Housing.  Because of the increasing need for affordable rental housing, this is the highest priority funding "bucket."  The vast majority of these units will be rental housing and will require subsidy to secure the affordability for the long‐term.  Staff anticipates greater need for rental housing subsidy due to changes in federal tax law that reduce the value of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, as well as political uncertainty at the federal level around commitment and resources for affordable housing:                                                  $75,000,000   Acquisition & Development (A&D) Homeownership Program  The purpose of the A&D Homeownership Program is to address the need for affordably‐priced ownership housing within the city.  Housing developed through this program are to be owned and occupied by low‐ to moderate‐income households.  With several new subdivisions in the planning stages, the City anticipates increased need for investment in affordable homeownership.  In addition, the City is expanding its Community Land Trust, which will be a major mechanism to ensure affordable homeownership for the long‐term:                      $18,000,000  Real Estate Acquisition  This new forward‐thinking initiative will enable AHFC to acquire land for future use for affordable housing development. The land can be developed by AHFC or be offered to non‐profit or for‐profit affordable housing developers. The lack of developable land in strategic areas is one of the biggest barriers to increasing affordable housing stock.  The City of Austin has identified a variety of "missed opportunities," in which the city was offered right of first refusal by other taxing jurisdictions (including the State of Texas and Austin Independent School District); however, the City of Austin did not have the identified funding to readily acquire the properties.  By AHFC acquiring and holding the land (as a patient property owner), the City will be better positioned to achieve its housing goals, including family‐friendly housing in high opportunity areas and Permanent Supportive Housing connected with transit and employment opportunities:         $50,000,000   The working group recommends this money be used specifically for developing affordable housing, and not for “community benefits.” The working group further recommends that the land purchased under this model be zoned “public” and allows for the maximum use for affordable housing for those making 60‐120% median income to help increase housing options all over the city.  Home Repair Program  The City of Austin has several programs to help low‐income households repair their homes and become financially stable. Funds will be needed to carry out minor home repairs and rehabilitation throughout the community.  Through the GO Repair! Program, the City contracts with seven nonprofit organizations that provide critical life safety repairs to low‐ and moderate‐income homeowners' homes.  Existing nonprofits in the Austin Housing Repair Coalition have expressed the capacity to increase the annual funding to $3 ‐ $4 million per year.  Additional funding would enable the nonprofit providers to increase their households served from 140 per year to approximately 200 per year.               $18,000,000  Affordable Housing What is it? Housing in which the residents are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her income for gross housing costs and no more than 45 percent of his or her income including transportation. Why do we need it? Wages Flat, Home Prices and Rents Rising Fast Median Family Income Median Family Income 1 Person Household 4 Person Household Affordable Monthly Rent 30% $16,350 $24,300 $408-$607 50% $27,250 $38,900 $681-$972 80% $43,600 $62,250$1,090-$1,556 $77,800 = median family income $1,197 = average rent per month $341,000 = median home price Populations Served:  Veterans  Seniors  Chronically Homeless  Families with Children  Persons with Disabilities 2013 Bonds:  In 2016, 1/3 of bonds had been spent ($27 Mil)  Bond funds were leveraged 7:1 with outside funding ($190 Mil)  Employed 2,300, resulted in 1,278 units of rental housing 2018 Bond: $18 Million to Home Repair (status quo) $18 Million to Homeownership (status quo) $75 Million to Rental Housing Assistance (increase) $50 Million to Land/Real Estate Acquisition (new funds) $161 Million Land costs are rising, allowing the City to get out ahead and purchase Real Estate that fits Austin’s goals for housing is the best way to serve people from 140% Median Family Income and below. Serves lots of people with lots of housing options all over the city.    Affordable Housing Working Group RecommendationProgram/Project NameProject/Program Description$161 millionRental Housing Development Assistance ProjectsRental Housing Development Assistance (RHDA) program increases or maintains the supply of affordable rental housing by addressing the rental housing needs identified by the City of Austin's Continuum of Housing Services, including Permanent Supportive Housing.  Approximately $42 million of the $65 million 2013 GO Bond was invested in affordable rental housing through RHDA.  Because of the increasing need for affordable rental housing, this is the highest priority funding "bucket."  The City's increased attention to Transit‐Oriented Development, as well as preservation of aging multifamily housing stock, provides growing opportunity for additional investment.  In addition, the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint, calls for 60,000 new units of affordable housing for households at or below 80% MFI.  The vast majority of these units will be rental housing and will require subsidy to secure the affordability for the long‐term.  Staff anticipates greater need for rental housing subsidy due to changes in federal tax law that reduce that value of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, as well as political uncertainty at the federal level around commitment and resources for affordable housing.$75,000,000Acquisition & Development (A&D) Homeownership ProgramThe purpose of the A&D Homeownership Program is to address the need for affordably‐priced ownership housing within the city.  Housing developed through this program are  to be owned and occupied by low‐ to moderate‐income households.  Only $3 million of the $65 million 2013 GO Bond was invested in new affordable ownership opportunities.  With several new subdivisions in the planning stages, the City anticipates increased need for investment in affordable homeownership.  In addition, the City is expanding its Community Land Trust, which will be a major mechanism to ensure affordable homeownership for the long‐term.$18,000,000Land AcquisitionThis new forward‐thinking initiative will enable AHFC to acquire and hold land for future use with the potential to achieve multiple community benefits, including affordable housing development. The land can be developed by AHFC or be offered to non‐profit or for‐profit affordable housing developers. The lack of developable land in strategic areas is one of the biggest barriers to increasing affordable housing stock.  The City of Austin has identified a variety of "missed opportunities," in which the city was offered right of first refusal by other taxing jurisdictions (including the State of Texas and Austin Independent School District); however, the City of Austin did not have the identified funding to readily acquire the properties.  By AHFC acquiring and holding the land (as a patient property owner), the City will be better positioned to achieve its housing goals, including family‐friendly housing in high opportunity areas and Permanent Supportive Housing connected with transit and employment opportunities.$50,000,000Home Repair ProgramThe City of Austin has several programs to help low‐income households repair their homes and become financially stable. Funds will be needed to carry out minor home repairs and rehabilitation throughout the community.  Through the GO Repair! Program, the City contracts with seven nonprofit organizations that provide critical life safety repairs to low‐ and moderate‐income homeowners' homes.  Currently, the program is funded at between $2 and $2.5 million per year, with a $15,000 per home cap.  Existing nonprofits in the Austin Housing Repair Coalition have expressed the capacity to increase the annual funding to $3 ‐ $4 million per year.  The proposed $18 million funding level equates to $3.6 million over a five year bond cycle.  Additional funding would enable the nonprofit provides to increase their households served from 140 per year to approximately 200 per year.$18,000,000subtotal$161,000,000Page 1 of 1Open Space Working GroupRecommendationto the Bond Election Advisory Task ForceMembers: Estrella De Leon, Tom Nuchols, Jeff Smith and Rob Walker, chair February 23, 2018I.Our recommendation - $117 million funding forA.Water quality protection land acquisition ($72 million), andB.Parkland acquisition ($45 million)II.Water Quality Protection land acquisition ($72,000,000 recommendation)A.Critical risk: Water Quality. Protectable, available, affordable watershed isdiminishing. See the attached Edwards Aquifer recharge contributing zone slides.1.There has been significant development growth in the watershed since1998.2.See the 1998, 2006 and 2017 slides of maps showing the increase indeveloped tracts of land in the watershed area over those years. Time isrunning out and land prices are rising.B.Our needs: Limit development to 10% impervious cover in the Edwards Aquiferrecharge and contributing (source-water protection) zones. This requirespermanently protecting 100,000 acres of land to mitigate flooding and to protectwater quality in the creeks and the aquifer for our growing population.1.Presently only 28,000 acres are permanently protected. $1.2 billion atcurrent prices would be required to protect the remaining 72,000 acres. 2.We recommend $72 million to acquire an estimated 4,300 acres – about6% of the 72,000-acre shortfall ($36 million for acquiring fee simple tractsand $36 million for acquiring conservation easement acreage).3.Popular proposition with the voters - 62% average voter approval across 4bond elections from 1998 through 20124.Good investment of bond funding. a.Of the bonds approved from 2006 through 2013, Drainage andOpen Space funding has the highest percentage of funds expendedto date of any of the bond propositions - 96%. b.The majority of funding is spent within the first 2-3 years of a bondprogram.5.Currently, bonds are the only funding source for significant Water QualityOpen Space land purchasesOpen Space Working Group Recommendation to BEATFFebruary 23, 2018 Page 2 of 2______________________________III.Parkland acquisition bond funding ($45,000,000 recommendation)A.Our needs: 1.Austin is becoming increasing deficient in parkland compared with thestandard of 24 acres per 1,000 population. We’re now below 20 acres, adeficiency of about 5,000 acres (please see the attached graph).2.Our Council has no funds to act quickly to secure beautiful tracts and openspaces that become available; The Grove problem.B.We recommend $45 million for parkland acquisition, allocated as follows:1.$10 million for 200 acres in Oak Hill out Highway 71 for a metropolitandestination park.2.$5 million for 5-10 infill parks in park-deficient areas of our City.3.$5 million for 10 miles of greenbelt including completing the northernWalnut Creek park and trail system 4.$25 million for a parkland reserve fund to help preserve or acquirestrategic tracts as they become available. a.This seed money will give our Council leverage to act fast on tractsthat come on the market. We don’t want a repeat of The Grove.b.It will help attract grant money and private donor partnering toacquire and preserve beautiful open spaces for our Citizens,including:– Lions Municipal Golf Course (Muny). Lease expires in 2019. This reserve fund will demonstrate to the University, the StateLegislature and private donors that Austin is committed topreserving Muny for parkland, watershed protection, clean air, andrecreation. Preserving Muny will give Austin added leverage inpreserving the Brackenridge lakefront tract (one of the first areas ofaffordable housing in our city) and extending the Lady Bird Lakehike and bike trail to Tom Miller Dam– State and AISD properties, e.g., Austin State Hospital, AustinState Supported Living Center, and Palm School. – Other parkland acquisition opportunities for destinationparks, greenbelt and infill parksc.The reserve fund may yield an excellent return on investmentthrough judicious sale of portions of acquired properties not usedfor parks, affordable housing and watershed protection. (Austincould have made millions on The Grove by planning it in a moreappropriate manner had we been able to buy it for TXDOT’s $27million asking price.)d.It will give the Parks and Recreation Department the flexibility andspeed needed when strategic tracts come on the market2018 BEATF: Open Space Working Group $72 million funding recommnedation Water Quality Protection Lands Program Edwards Aquifer recharge & contributing zones 2 •Clean, plentiful water is a citywide priority for Austin. •As the Austin area continues to grow, the land that provides clean water is being developed. •Water originating west of Austin becomes drinking & recreation water for SE, S central & SW Austin. Recharge Zone Swallets showing groundwater directly entering the aquifer 1.Whirlpool swallet showing groundwater directly entering the aquifer. This recharge swale was injected with Eosine dye on 8-6-02 at Cripple Crawfish Cave by Onion Creek. The dye showed up at Barton Springs 17 miles away in less than 3 days. Photo by David Johns. 2.Another swallet. If the swallets get paved over, where will our aquifer water come from? Or, if the contributing water is polluted, then what? Land Impacts: Developed vs. Undeveloped 4 Developed land: −Pollution in runoff −Increases flooding −Reduces recharge −Decreases creek base flow −Impacts are irreversible Undeveloped land protects water resources: −Cleaner runoff −Mitigates flooding −Maintains recharge Image for planning purposes only to display approximate locations of development over time. Map does not represent real property boundaries. Image for planning purposes only to display approximate locations of development over time. Map does not represent real property boundaries. Image for planning purposes only to display approximate locations of development over time. Map does not represent real property boundaries. Watershed Protection Open Space Goal 8 Protection of critical areas in Source Water Protection Area to preserve or mitigate water quality and quantity through the strategic acquisition of land along main channels, tributaries, and significantly large upland tracts. Long-Term Protection Goal: Maintain overall impervious cover percentage at under 10%* •Permanently protect up to 100,000 acres of land in the Source Water Protection Area 28% complete Over 28,000 acres permanently protected Over 70,000 acres to protect *Irreversible water quality impacts observed when total impervious cover exceeds 10% 2018 Bond Needs Assessment: Funding Scenarios 9 28% to goal Current Status 29% to goal $20M Funding 32% to goal Recommendation $72M Funding 37% to goal $150M Funding +800 acres +4,300 acres +9,000 acres More funding = more leveraging opportunities and more permanent land protection 10 Contributing Zone •7% protected •2/3 Barton Springs Zone outside Austin’s jurisdiction •Development regulations in other jurisdictions are less protective of water quality Recharge Zone •25% protected Irreversible water quality impacts observed when total impervious cover exceeds 10% Water Quality Protection Lands Program High Voter Appeal/Rising Land Costs 11 All Four Water Quality Protection bonds voter-approved: May 1998 - Nov 2012 62% average approval vote 4 elections total: $157.6M for 28,354 acres plus partnership contributions of $24M = $181.6M ($6,405/acre average) Need for Watershed acquisition now Cost per acre over time Land Availability 2018 BEATF: Open Space Working Group $45 million funding recommendation Parkland Acquisition Fund Overview St. Edwards Park How park-deficient are we? 2 18.020.022.024.026.028.030.032.0Parkland Per 1,000 Population Year (* Bond Year) Park Acres Per 1,000 Population Acres Per1,000COAStandardIn 2020, Austin will have a park deficit of about 5,000 acres. * Where Austin is park-deficient 3 Infill parks to serve existing residents 4 Located in park-deficient areas. The Imagine Austin goal for access to parks is: •¼ mile walk in urban core •½ mile walk outside the urban core Pocket parks: up to 2 acres; Neighborhood parks: 2–30 acres Tom Lasseter-South Lamar Neighborhood Park Parkland bonds and purchasing power have diminished over time Our $45 million recommendation 5 Bond Year Funds Acres Parks Acquired, Expanded or Proposed Destination Parks, Sports Complexes & Centers Neighborhood & Pocket Parks Greenbelt miles 1998 $40,000,000 2,045 7 3 8 2006 $20,000,000 264 5 4 3 2012 $ 4,000,000 99 0 3 3 2018 $20,000,000 300 1 5-10 10 2018 $25,000,000 Reserve fund to help preserve and acquire beautiful, strategic tracts for our Citizens like Muny, the State Hospital, the State Assisted Living Center, and the Palm School Greenbelts to mitigate the impacts of urbanization on Austin residents 6 •Minimize flood potential •Increase access to nature •Connect neighborhoods to parks by trails Country Club Creek Greenbelt How bond funding plays a crucial role 7 •Bond Funding is critical to:  Acquiring metropolitan parkland, critical gaps in greenbelts, neighborhood parks and pocket parks  Giving our City a reserve fund as seed money to acquire and preserve major tracts and open spaces. It will help attract grant money and private donor partnering for those major acquisitions •Opportunities to acquire and preserve beautiful parcels for our Citizens are quickly disappearing, like The Grove and MUNY. Reserve Fund for Acquiring Strategic Tracts 8 •A $25 million parkland reserve fund is critical for giving:  PARD & Council flexibility, speed & leverage in negotiating for beautiful strategic tracts like MUNY and the State Hospital 1 Report of the Reinvestment in Facilities and Assets Working Group to the 2018 Bond Election Task Force The six members of the Reinvestment in Facilities and Assets working group (“working group”) have met frequently with the professional staff of many City departments over the past several months, sometimes on a weekly basis. On many occasions, City department staff have been called back to further explain their needs and suggestions. The working group has listened to countless hours of testimony from and engaged in discussion with the public and various advocacy groups regarding many City activities and programs. In recent months, as the task force began meeting around the City, many more citizens and citizens’ groups have spoken with the working group and task force. Initially, upon hearing from several citizens that Austin taxation was excessive and that citizens and businesses were being priced out of town, the working group made recommendations gauged to minimize a potential tax rate increase. Unfortunately, that range of funds does little to address the many deficiencies and needs identified, and the working group heard continuous pleas from citizens to restore funding to needed programs and assets. Following are the recommendations of the working group after consideration of all of these contributors. The working group wants to express its appreciation to the various staff contributors and especially to Ms. Katy Zamesnik and Ms. Carla Steffen for organizing and assisting the working group in its deliberations and discussions. The title of the working group’s charge is “Reinvestment in Facilities and Assets,” with a focus on repair or renovations. Despite this, there are many “new builds” presented to the task force for review and analysis. These new builds focus on achieving equity in a city where some neighborhoods have experienced less investment in the past, and therefore do not have access to equitable services today. RECOMMENDATION #1: The working group recommends that public input begin much earlier in the process for the next Bond Election Advisory Task Force. A formal mechanism should be established to identify projects and details raised throughout the process to be chronicled for subsequent review and consideration. Further, the working group suggests that a procedure be established and advertised to maintain citizen communications in an orderly and organized manner. The working group was often overwhelmed by public input, and as a consequence unable to discuss the information delivered. Perhaps making 25% of meetings closed to comment would be a good starting point. FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATIONS: The working group has been amazed at the costs for City construction of facilities. The working group concluded that over the years, the Public Works Department, Council, and other City departments have methodically added requirements, interdepartmental fees, inspection fees, review fees, regulations, and other similar costs for construction of facilities by the City of Austin. Largely due to these City-imposed fees, regulation costs, and costs associated with city policies, the City of Austin cannot build a facility at a cost comparable to or competitive with private industry. This is a staggering observation. City cost estimates are often twice, or sometimes even more than 2 reasonable, direct comparable costs for a privately-constructed facility. The working group has reached the reluctant conclusion that the citizens of Austin, Texas, cannot afford to underwrite or incur long-term indebtedness to amortize a City-constructed facility. This is a very serious situation that must be corrected if the City is to continue its service to the citizens and taxpayers of Austin. For example, upon reviewing City cost estimates:  The working group found that almost every project calls for Architectural Engineering Consultants charging around 9% of the project estimated cost. Hasn’t the proposed facility been designed by this point? If so, then what if this fee for?  The working group found that every project includes “interdepartmental charges” apparently consisting of Public Works Department fees for project management services and construction services totaling about 6% of project costs. The working group wonders why there is not a single project manager who is responsible for the entire project.  The working group discovered a fee for construction material testing, often accompanied by fees for geotechnical reports, hazardous material testing, and environmental assessments. Often, these fees and services are required by the City, even when building on existing City property.  The working group found special inspections such as a “commissioning agent” for a 1% fee. What does a commissioning agent do? And why is this expense necessary?  The working group noted a 35% construction contingency, which is likely proper, but then there was also a hazardous material abatement fee and an “ROCIP.” The working group wonders why such a large contingency is allotted when so much is already specified.  The working group finds a fee for “debt issuance,” which is not fully understood by the working group. There is also an undefined “GAAYN connection” fee.  The working group finds that the City of Austin must pay a permit fee to the City of Austin to build a facility for the City of Austin, which the working group finds to be appalling.  In many cases, new equipment and furniture are included in cost estimates for bonded investments. The working group finds this to be inappropriate. Borrowing money for up to 30 years to amortize furniture that may last 10 years is poor practice.  The working group found that “Art in Public Places” was required at about 1% of the project. Most of these projects are garages and warehouses, not available to the public, thus the working group feels such a fee is inappropriate.  Lastly, the working group found an additional 10% project contingency fee, as well as a line for “project budget escalation”. These observations reflect cost estimates that are typical of City of Austin projects. Most City projects have costs per square foot far in excess of costs in the general real estate industry. Throughout this report the working group will note other similar excessive costs. RECOMMENDATION #2: The working group recommends that the task force recommend to the City Council that a study be commissioned by the council to compare private construction costs to those carried out by City staff. 3 RECOMMENDATION #3: The working group recommends that the task force recommend to the City Council that an analysis and study be commissioned by the Council to identify and quantify the individual costs of the respective fees, costs required by city regulations or city policies, and costs related to the series of inspections by various departments, and that these costs be provided to the members of the City Council to illustrate and amplify the impact of their rules upon the costs of City construction. P3 - The working group highly recommends expansion of current “Private-Public Partnership” (“P3”) discussions in the City’s attempt to reduce the unit costs of construction. The principle problem, however, is city-imposed cost features, which if applied against a private builder under contract, will have the same effect upon construction costs. RECOMMENDATION #4: The working group recommends that the task force recommend to the City Council the establishment of a high-level task force to explore the broad possibilities of the City contracting with private builders and developers to provide the City needed space for lease-purchase by the City. AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT The Austin Police Department came before the working group with requests for four facilities.  A 25,000 square foot 3rd floor addition to an existing APD classroom building. Upon working group review of its cost estimate, the construction cost was over $308 per square foot. In view of this cost for classroom space, the working group concluded that the City and its taxpayers would be better served if APD simply leased the space required.  The renovation of an existing approximately 10,000 square foot building for the joint use of APD and PARD Park Ranger Patrol. The existing building appears to be a former residential building, and the cost estimate came out to be $827 per square foot. As above, the working group concluded and recommended that APD and PARD find a better solution.  APD manages 3 helicopters and 1 fixed-wing aircraft. APD currently leases hanger space from a fixed-base operator at Bergstrom. APD wanted to locate its new facility nearer to the existing National Guard facility at Bergstrom. Again, upon working group analysis, assuming about 17, 078 square feet, the cost of a new hanger would run about $470 per square foot. Again, the working group concluded that in face of this cost, the taxpayers of Austin would be better served by APD continuing to lease hanger space.  APD needs a new North East substation. They proposed a 20,268 square foot facility was designed. However, the cost estimate for that proposed facility was $825 per square foot. The working group considered that to be unreasonable and unaffordable, and recommended that APD find another solution. AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT 4 The working group has not seen specific cost estimates for proposed AFD facilities. However, staff requested and the working group recommended: $13,000,000 This amount includes driveway repairs on the following fire stations:  1, 3, 4, 14, 15, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 40, and deferred maintenance level 1 condition to the following fire stations:  14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 28 In addition, although the working group was not focused on new construction, the Austin Fire Department identified five critical locations for fire stations as noted below. The initial projected cost for these five stations and appurtenances was over $100 million which the working group concluded was excessive and unreasonable. Upon receipt of numerous public comments reinforcing these significant additional needs, along with Asst. City Manager Rey Arellano’s October 9, 2017 memorandum, the working group now recommends an additional package of: $31,000,000 This amount includes the construction of three new fire stations from the following identified list:  Travis Country [District 8], Loop 360 [District 10], Goodnight Ranch [District 2], Moore’s Crossing [District 2], Canyon Creek [District 10]. This is well below the requested construction amount. The working group concludes that fire-fighting apparatus should not be included in a 30-year bond request, but rather should be provided for in annual operating funds. The working group hopes for significant reduction in the cost per station can be achieved. Resulting in a total recommendation for the Austin Fire Department of: $44,000,000 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES – EMS Facility upgrades to the following stations, including renovation of building systems, building expansions/additions to better provide services, and necessary ADA compliance, staff suggests the following funding. The working group has not seen specific cost estimates for these requested projects.  FS 1: $5,050,000  FS 5: $5,570,000  FS 7: $4,580,000  FS 10: $7,670,000  FS 13: $1,430,000  FS 33: $383,000 Total: $24,683,000 It should be noted that AFD has operations in each of these stations. Resulting in a total funding recommendation for Austin EMS of $25,000,000 5 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT (PARD) The Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) has massive assets and programs throughout the City of Austin. The working group met with PARD staff more than with the staff of any other department, as well as many collections of citizens in organized groups and individually who are advocates for various PARD programs and assets. The working group has seen no cost estimates for individual PARD projects, but it is assumed that the same excessive construction cost problems appear here as in other departments. ARTS AND CULTURAL CENTERS The Dougherty Arts Center (“DAC”) is located on the NW corner of Dawson Road at Barton Springs Road. The facility was originally built in 1947 by the US Navy Reserve. The major facility need is a resolution to a badly deteriorating, heavily used Dougherty Arts Center (DAC) [District 5]. This need has been identified on several bond proposals in the recent past with no action forthcoming. The DAC is adjacent to West Bouldin Creek and is subject to periodic flooding (cited as being within the “25-year flood plain”) because it has a surface-level entrance which receives flood waters from Barton Springs Road. The DAC is located upon a supposed landfill, subjecting the facility to TCEQ Subchapter T methane emission monitoring. Further, the DAC is inefficient and has become very difficult and costly to maintain and repair. A citizens group has studied the staff proposal and supports it. In consideration of this, staff recommended that the current facility be razed and converted to parkland or another PARD-associated use, and that a new facility be constructed to be located at Butler Shores to accommodate DAC users. The working group has not seen a cost estimate. The staff suggested budget for this is $25,000,000. Many of the 66,000 regular users of the DAC advised members of the working group that the greatest advantage of the DAC is its physical location, not necessarily its facilities. The proposed Butler Shores location, across Lamar Boulevard would be in the same general area. Adequate parking space is a strongly recommended consideration. (For comparison, it is noted by the working group that the Hill Country Indoor Sports and Fitness Center was constructed privately in Bee Cave, TX including 140,000 interior square feet of high-ceiling space, a separate parking garage for 613 vehicles, 5 party rooms for children’s events, for a total construction cost of $25,000,000, equal to the amount requested for the DAC). Nonetheless, the working group acknowledges that something must be done for the DAC. The staff suggestion and the working group recommendation is to provide funding for the Dougherty Arts Center replacement of: $25,000,000 Asian-American Resource Center [District 7]: PARD staff suggests and the working group recommends the following to address issues related to parking, pedestrian connectivity, outdoor amenities and seed funding to implement Phase I priorities determined by the anticipated master plan: $5,000,000 George Washington Carver Museum and Cultural Center [District 1]: PARD staff suggests and the working group recommends for addressing current building infrastructure, ADA improvements, full funding for an update of the master plan and seed funds to initiate implementation of the next phase’s priorities: $7,500,000 6 The members of the working group observed very poor maintenance at PARD-maintained facilities resulting in damage to the facilities. Specific emphasis was applied to the deterioration of the facility and equipment of the Carver Museum. RECOMMENDATION #5: Upon questioning of staff the working group was advised that traditionally PARD’s maintenance budget was $500,000 per year until very recently when it was increased to $1 million per year. In view of the conditions of PARD facilities around the community, the working group recommends that the task force recommend to the City Council a significant increase in the maintenance budget for PARD facilities. The working group also learned that there is a policy providing for adequate maintenance funds by staff, but that frequently those funds are re-appropriated by Council. Please don’t do this in the future. Emma S. Barrientos Mexican-American Cultural Center [District 9]: PARD staff suggests and the working group recommends addressing the priorities of Phase II including general renovations to the existing building, renovation of the auditorium, expansion of the South Crescent and site improvements including the Grande Entrada: $15,000,000 Mexic-Arte Museum [District 9]: The working group and the task force heard presentations by proponents of the Mexic-Arte Museum, which owns a building at 419 Congress Avenue. This building has been leased to the City of Austin and Mexic-Arte has subleases it back from the City under a service agreement. The upper floors of the 19th Century building are unsafe for public use. The master plan for Mexic-Arte is to completely rebuild the interior of their building to make 22,919 square feet of floor space usable for the public purposes of the museum. Mexic-Arte received $5 million in funding from the 2006 Bond, most of which they still hold. Mexic-Arte requests $15 million to close the gap in funding to renovate their building. The building cannot be razed. A financial institution holds first right of refusal should Mexic-Arte decide to utilize the building for a purpose other than a museum. The City of Austin insists that the external facades of the building remain. The working group recommends: $15,000,000 These total recommendations for Arts and Cultural Centers amount to $67,500,000 Aquatics/Pools: It is reported that Austin has more swimming pools than any other Texas city. Many of these pools were built 20- to 40-years ago and are nearly all in the process of deterioration. Many need significant equipment upgrades and maintenance beyond what would be budgeted in normal operations. Consequently, many City pools are on the verge of shut-down or replacement. Further, staff has expressed the concern that present staffing may not be able to manage large numbers of pool renovations, even if excessive funds were available. Among the named pool renovations named are the Givens Pool [District 1] ($6 million), the Mabel Davis Pool [District 1] renovation ($4 million), and a new Colony Park [District 9] pool ($13 million). Planned renovations cover pools located throughout the city ($10 million). Staff suggested and the working group recommends an Aquatics funding package of: $33,000,000 7 The working group is aware of City Council interest and action on this matter and will defer to City staff to consolidate the working group’s recommendation along with the desires and resolutions of the City Council. Other noted facilities in need of major improvement were the Pharr Tennis Center ($4 million) and Kizer/Grey Rock golf courses ($4 million), and the Norwood project ($2 million). The working group recommends funding for these at: $10,000,000 Building Renovations: Among the major building renovations needed are Hancock Recreation Center ($2 million) [District 4], Givens Recreation Center ($1 million) and Austin Recreation Center ($500,000) [District 9], as well as work to be done at several other sites across the city ($3 million). The working group has not seen individual cost estimates for these or the following projects. The staff recommended and the working group recommended a funding package for portions of these renovations in the amount of: $6,500,000 HVAC: Many of PARD’s park structures are in need of mechanical and air conditioning repairs and replacements. Needs listed are: District 2: Dove Springs; District 3: Fiesta Gardens, Parque Zaragoza, Pan-American; District 5: PARD Main Bldg., South Austin SAC; District 8: ANSC; District 9: MACC (note, also addressed in Cultural Center funding); District 10: Mayfield Park; and Roofing: Many of PARD’s park structures are in need of re-roofing or major repair. Needs listed are:  District 1: Delores Duffie;  District 3: Metz;  District 8: ANSC;  District 9: Eastwood RR, Little Stacy RR, Lamar SAC;  District 10: Brykerwoods (Shoal Creek Greenbelt), Mayfield Park, Lions Municipal Golf Club; and Doors and Windows: Many of PARD’s facilities need new doors and windows. Needs listed for District 8: ANSC, McBeth Annex; District 4: Gus Garcia Center; and ADA and Safety: Throughout the city various PARD facility have numerous structural deficiencies required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and general safety protection. For all of the above needs, the staff suggested trying to handle about 15 sites and the working group recommended funding in the amount of: $5,000,000 Infrastructure: On about 51 locations around the city, PARD needs to replace or install playscapes and safety surfaces. Among the noted sites are:  District 1: Givens Park;  District 3: Metz;  District 6: Tanglewood;  District 7: Northwest, Walnut;  District 8: Circle C;  District 9: Clarksville;  District 10: Tarrytown. Staff suggested and the working group recommended funding for this effort in the amount of: $4,000,000 8 Trails: PARD has jurisdiction over most of the trails crisscrossing the city. Many of these need repair and reconstruction. Among the neediest are: Eastlink, Butler, Country Club Creek and Walnut Creek. The working group also heard citizen requests for the Zilker Loop. Staff believes it can improve 2 or 3 of these trails and suggested and the working group recommended a Funding package of: $3,000,000 Parking Lots and Roadways: All over the city PARD has major parking lot and roadway repair needs. Among the neediest are:  District 1: Givens, Doris Miller Rec Center;  District 2: Springfield (Marble Creek or Salt Springs);  District 3: Govalle, Parque Zaragoza Rec Center;  District 4: Bartholomew;  District 7: Northwest Rec Center;  District 8: Zilker Clubhouse, ANSC;  District 9: Hancock Rec Center. Staff believes it can handle between 10 and 12 of these and suggest and the working group recommends funding of: $2,000,000 Athletics: renovation of Montopolis Practice Fields, District 3; also bleachers, turf renovation, irrigation; and Light Pole Replacement: From time to time poles need to be replaced and reset for a variety of reasons. Places in need:  District 1: Downs Mabson;  District 3: Parque Zaragoza, South Austin;  District 5: Barton JC;  District 9: West Austin Youth Association. Staff believes it can perform this work on about 8 sites and suggests and the working group recommends funding in the amount of: $2,000,000 Metropolitan Parks: Major work is required for the enhancement and development of Metro Parks, among which are:  Districts 1 and 2: John Trevino Park; Walter E. Long;  District 3: Holly Shores;  District 9: Festival Beach, Lamar Beach. PARD has specific plans and programs for each of these properties and suggests, and the working group recommends funding in the amount of: $10,000,000 The working group has not seen specific cost estimates for the above and following projects. District Parks: PARD has major projects involved in district parks. Those specifically named are  District 1: Givens Park;  District 3: Bolm (new) Park;  District 9: Pease Park. Staff believes they can complete work on at least two of these and suggests and the working group recommends funding in the amount of: $5,000,000 9 Neighborhood Parks: PARD has identified 3 or 4 neighborhoods where parks are needed or where park improvements are necessary (like Norwood Park), and staff suggests and the working group recommends a funding package of: $3,000,000 Pocket Parks: PARD has identified but not listed a couple of needed pocket parks, and PARD suggests and the working group recommends a funding package of: $1,500,000 Greenbelts: PARD outlined several areas where significant greenbelt work is required. Noted are:  Districts 7, 9 and 10: Shoal Creek Greenbelt;  Districts 6 and 10: Bull Creek Greenbelt. Staff suggests and the working group recommends funding for this project of: $2,500,000 Downtown Squares: The working group presumes this category also includes downtown parks. Staff suggests and the working group recommends funding of: $1,000,000 Master Plans for Seaholm, Waller, AISD infill Parks, staff suggests and the working group recommends funding of: $6,000,000 Cemeteries: The City has and maintains 6 cemeteries, many of which are deteriorating and structures need configuration and upgrading. Staff suggests and the working group recommends funding of: $2,500,000 Resulting in a total recommendation for PARD programs and facilities in the amount of $97,000,000 AUSTIN PUBLIC LIBRARY Major Maintenance: Upon review of the conditions after the New Central Library opening, staff briefed the working group on the needs of existing branch libraries, HVAC systems, general deferred maintenance items; the working group recommended a package of funding in the amount of: $20,000,000 RECOMMENDATION #6: The working group recommends that the task force recommend to the City Council that maintenance, especially lighting, plumbing, HVAC, and other energy and water related improvements, are not funded by 30 year bonds. These improvements do not last 30 years, but in addition, they could easily be pursued by Energy Performance Contracts (EPCs), in which a private third party investor finances energy and water improvements which are paid back through utility savings. These projects could be repaid through operations savings to each department through reduced energy costs, as opposed to being funding through increased tax rate to the citizens of Austin. 10 The argument has been made that the city can bond money at a lower rate than borrow money for an EPC. This is an inappropriate response that the City would rather raise taxes than pay for improvements through its own budget savings. Similar financing is also available through government grants subsidized by the Department of Energy, Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds. These should be utilized, especially for library and fire station improvements. Archives/Austin History Center: Beyond that recommendation, the working group was advised of critical infrastructure needs in association with the provision of adequate archival space for the Austin History Center [District 9] planned for the first two floors of the John Henry Faulk Building. Estimated total costs for renovation of the Faulk Building and preparation for archival storage runs approximately $14,480,000, and received a City resolution to the effect (Resolution 20080424-065). However, upon review and discussion between the working group and staff, the observation was made by the working group that the John Henry Faulk Building is in a valuable downtown location and the working group questioned both the utilization of that space for archives, and the actual cost of preparing that building for archival storage. It was the strong opinion of the working group that the City Council should review the market value of the John Henry Faulk Building for possible ultimate sale and return to the tax rolls, and that the decisions on utilizing that space for archival storage be delayed until Council determines what it wants to do with the building. This is counter to the recommendations of the AHC citizens support group. In view of the above with the same caveats regarding costs, the working group recommends the requested funding for the suggested repairs and maintenance of the John Henry Faulk Building of: $11,500.000 Resulting in a total recommendation for the Austin Public Library of: $31,500,000 AUSTIN PUBLIC HEALTH RBJ Health Administration Building: The working group received a presentation for major renovation to one floor of the RBJ Health Administration Building to accommodate an initial wellness program for health maintenance for low-income senior citizens, to be coordinated through the LBJ School Policy Research Project. The request was for $5 million. In view of the scant details and the timing of the proposal, the working group deferred recommending financial support of this project in the 2018 Bond Election. Dove Springs Health Center: The staff of Austin Public Health (APH) proposes to establish a public health facility in the Dove Springs [district 2] area to more adequately serve citizens there. This is an underserved area of the city. This facility would replace their use of existing PARD facilities in that area. APH estimates initial usage would be on the order of 12,000 citizens. $16,000,000 11 The total working group recommendations for projects and programs outlined under the Reinvestment in Facilities and Assets category is: $281,000,000 Respectfully submitted, members of the Reinvestment in Facilities and Assets Working Group: H. Ken Rigsbee Jeremiah Bentley Yasmiyn Irizarry Jeff Smith Rachel Stone V. Bruce Evans Report of the Reinvestment in Facilities and Assets Working Group Final Recommendation SubtotalAustin Fire DepartmentRepair, maintenance of several named fire stations13,000,000$                3 of 5 new named fire stations31,000,000$                Subtotal, Austin Fire Department44,000,000$            Emergency Medical Servicesupgrade, renovations to 6 named stations25,000,000$                25,000,000$            Parks and Recreation DepartmentAquatics/Pools, repair, renovation, replacement of numerous pools around the city per PARD's analysis33,000,000$                Major repairs to tennis centers, golf courses, revenue‐generating facilities10,000,000$                Building renovations to rec centers6,500,000$                  HVAC, doors, windows, ADA/Safety improvements5,000,000$                  Infrastructure improvements on 51 facilities around the city4,000,000$                  Trails, upgrades to 2 or 3 major trails across the city3,000,000$                  Repair Parking Lots and Roadways in numerous parks2,000,000$                  Repair to Athletics fields across city2,000,000$                  Metropolitan Parks ‐ major work on several named Metro Parks around city10,000,000$                District Parks ‐ major repairs in several named District Parks around city5,000,000$                  Neighborhood Parks ‐ 3 or 4 neighborhood parks' improvements3,000,000$                  Pocket Parks ‐ improvements in a couple of small, pocket parks1,500,000$                  Greenbelts ‐ improvements to several greenbelt areas around city2,500,000$                  Downtown Squares ‐ Needed work on several downtown squares and parks1,000,000$                  Master Plans ‐ several major parks/facilities need the preparation of master plans6,000,000$                  Cemeteries ‐ the City maintains 6 cemeteries, several of which are in need of major improvement2,500,000$                  Subtotal, Parks and Recreation97,000,000$            Report of the Reinvestment in Facilities and Assets Working Group Final Recommendation Subtotal Arts & Cultural CentersAsian‐American Cultural Center ‐preliminary  work to address identified needs at this center.5,000,000$                  George Washington Carver Museum and Cultural Center ‐ work addressing infrastructure, ADA requirements, update master plan, renovations7,500,000$                  Emma S. Barrientos Mexican‐American Cultural Center ‐ Phase II renovations to the existing facility15,000,000$                Dougherty Arts Center Project; raze, replace25,000,000$                Mexic‐Arte Museum Renovations, interior rebuild, equipment upgrades15,000,000$                Subtotal, Arts & Cultural Centers67,500,000$            Austin Public LibraryMajor maintenance to numerous branch libraries; some archival storage preparation20,000,000$                  John Henry Faulk Building ‐ necessary repairs to existing building to either convert for AHC archival repository, or other use11,500,000$                 Subtotal, Austin Public Library31,500,000$            Austin Public HealthDove Springs Public Health Center16,000,000$                16,000,000$            Total Recommendation281,000,000$      Bond Election Advisory Task Force Storm Water Work Group Recommendation February 23, 2018  Recommendation: $112 million.  The above recommendation is based on the following points:  The resolution creating the Task Force specifically called out the recommendations of the Flood Mitigation Task Force report and listed flood mitigation as the first item in its initial list of items identifying city service needs. (Reference: first two paragraphs of Resolution #20160811.)   No Watershed Protection Department (WPD) flood mitigation/erosion projects have been presented to voters on a Bond Election ballot since 2006.   The City of Austin Equity office listed the Watershed Protection Department’s projects as “green”, meeting the Equity office criteria.   By increasing the original staff “starting point” recommendation from $75 million to $112 million, all 10 Council Districts will have projects included in the Bond proposal.   CM Houston specifically called out flood mitigation in District 1 as a concern in her memo to the Task Force. The current proposal contains two District 1 projects.   The Environmental Commission voted unanimously to support a $100 million recommendation, showing support from all ten District representatives.   The current recommendation has been increased by $12 million to address one of the scalable projects listed on the attached WPD project detail spreadsheet, the District 5 Pinehurst Dr. and Wild Dunes Flood Mitigation.    Based on the results of a recently City funded study, structure buy‐outs are the most efficient flood mitigation for this project. Increasing the bond funding could decrease the number of years of the project to 8 years. With original work group bond recommendation, the mitigation could take 14 years. Attached is the entire WPD Project Detail for this Stormwater (Flood Mitigation/Drainage) Bond Proposal. DRAFTProject Detail for Stormwater Category (Flood Mitigation/Drainage) Projects included in Proposed Bond Package ScenariosMax. Problems/BenefitsStructRoad Xing ECLin. Ft 1.2.11866.0168Oak Park Oak Acres Storm Drain ImprovementsProject to alleviate flooding problems in the Oak Park and Oak Acres subdivisions north of 290 in the Barton Creek Watershed. 1004$8,500,000Through ConstructionPER2019Yes‐2.3.11866.0337Brentwood Drainage ImprovementsComprehensive integrated project to reduce flooding, stabilize and restore streams, and enhance water quality in the Brentwood neighborhood. Project aims to incorporate neighborhood connectivity and other citywide priorities. 1277,700     $14,000,000Through Construction, Scalable Level of ProtectionFeasibility2023Not Yet‐3.4.11866.0304Jamestown Drainage ImprovementsIntegrated erosion control and localized flood mitigation project to protect property through stream stabilization and alleviate flooding through storm drain system upgrades.1012,800     $2,000,000Through Construction (Ph. 1)Design2019(Ph.2 2025)Yes‐4.5.11866.0115Pinehurst Dr and Wild Dunes Flood Mitigation ‐ Phase 1Flood risk reduction project for approximately 150 residential structures at risk of flooding in the Pinehurst and Wild Dunes areas of the Onion Creek watershed.1391$27,000,000Through Construction, Scalable Level of ProtectionFeasibility & Implementation2018Yes‐5.6.11866.0261North Acres Storm Drain ImprovementsThe project is intended to alleviate the flooding of buildings, yards, and streets through an upgraded storm drainage system. 25$8,000,000Through ConstructionFeasibility2022Not Yet‐6.7.11866.0209Guadalupe St, W. 35‐37th Storm Drain ImprovementsConstruct storm drain system improvements for the area generally bounded by Avenue D, W. 33rd St, Guadalupe St, and W 47th St. The project is intended to alleviate the flooding of buildings and yards through an upgraded storm drainage system. 16$18,000,000Through ConstructionPER2021Not Yet‐7.8.11866.0147Northwest Park Dam Maintenance/ModernizationProject to repair the dam structure located in Northwest Park in coordination with PARD and AWU improvements. $4,300,000Through ConstructionPER2020Not YetYes8.9.11866.0156Whispering Valley and West Cow Path Flood MitigationThis multi‐objective project includes improvements for the creek crossing and storm drain installation for the area near Whispering Valley Drive and West Cow Path. Very high priority identified in WPD's master plan.231$7,100,000Through ConstructionPER2019Yes‐9.12.11866.0097McNeil Drive Low Water Crossing ImprovementsThis project is to improve the flood safety of the McNeil Drive crossing at Walnut Creek Tributary 9. This crossing is one of only two access points for the neighborhood and overtops by 3 feet in the 2‐year storm. 1$2,000,000Through ConstructionPER2020Not Yet‐10.14.11866.0241January Dr Storm Drain ImprovementsThe project is intended to alleviate the flooding of buildings, yards, and streets through an upgraded storm drainage system that includes the construction of approximately 2,500 linear feet of upgraded storm drain pipe and numerous new inlets. 13$4,100,000Through ConstructionFeasibility2022Not Yet‐11.17.11866.02110Oak Knoll Drainage ImprovementsThis project would upgrade drainage infrastructure in the Oak Knoll area, which has experienced multiple flooding events to several homes and two roadways. In particular are a cluster of homes between Woodcrest & Research Blvd. along a low area. 10$2,500,000Through ConstructionPER2019Not Yet‐12.18.11866.0323Roy G. Guerrero Park Channel StabilizationChannel stabilization project will halt erosion in the drainage channel in Roy G. Guerrero Park behind Krieg Fields to restore stability to parkland, support a pedestrian bridge, and protect upstream residential properties and City infrastructure. 2,000     $5,500,000Through ConstructionDesign2019Not YetYes13.19.11866.0195Del Curto Storm Drain ImprovementsProject to construct storm drain system improvements to alleviate flooding of building, yards, and streets in the area near Del Curto street.8$2,000,000Through ConstructionDesign2018Yes‐14.20.11866.01710Meredith St. Storm Drain ImprovementsThis project aims to reduce the flooding of houses and yards with an updated storm drain system. In addition, the project will help improve water quality and erosion issues. 5$4,000,000Through ConstructionDesign2018Yes‐15.26.11866.0122Nuckols Crossing Low Water Crossing ImprovementsNuckols Crossing at Williamson Creek currently overtops in storm events as frequent as a 2‐year storm. This planned project will involve upgrade of the creek crossing. 1$3,000,000Through ConstructionFeasibility2022Not Yet‐Total476*9*12,500 $112,000,000* Benefits subject to level of funding/scalable projectProject Count15Project PhasesBNA = Bond Needs Assessment (original submittal Feb. 2017)1.FeasibilityScalable level of protection = level of service/degree of risk reduced may adjust with available funding 2.PER ‐ Preliminary Engineering Report3.Design** All project information is for planning purposes only and subject to change at any time. **4.ImplementationEstimated Shovel‐Ready YearPublic MeetingLeveraged FundingProject Description (eCAPRIS)Proposed Funding for 2018 Bond: $100M ScenarioLevel of ImplementationCurrentStatusList No. Original BNA PriorityBond Planning IDCouncilDistrictProject NameDRAFT02/20/2018Transportation Infrastructure Working Group Recommendations 1TIWG FINAL Recommendations SummaryTransportation Infrastructure WG ReportMembers:Sumit DasGupta, Bruce Evans, Ken Rigsbee, Dorsey TwidwellRequested itemScenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 3Scenario 4WG SelectionMinority SelectionTax Rate Increase0 Cents1 Cent2 Cents1.25 CentsBridges, Culverts & Structures 1$27.5M$49.0M$69.5M$54.0M$54.0M$54.0MSidewalk Rehabilitation 2$10.1M$18.0M$26.0M$20.0M$20.0M0Street Reconstruction Program 3$38.0M$67.0M$96.5M$75.0M$75.0M0Neighborhood Partnering Program4$0.5M$0.9M$1.0M$1.0M$1.0M0Traffic Signal / ATMS System 5$10.1M$18.0M$23.5M$20.0M$15.0M0Transportation Safety / Vision Zero / … 5$10.1M$18.0M$28.5M$20.0M$15.0M$10.1MTotal$96.3M$170.9M$245.0M$190.0M$180.0M$64.1M2Bridges, Culverts & Structures•Total amount recommended by WG:$54M•Details:•With matching funds from CAMPO, fund replacement of top‐3 bridges and structures in list of critical bridges and culverts that need replacement•Red Bud Trail/Emmett Shelton Bridge, William Cannon Railroad Overpass (both east and west end), and DelwauLane Bridge•Remaining $15.84M will be used for programmatic needs for Bridges, Culverts, and Structures citywide•Without CAMPO matching funds, only Red Bud Trail/Emmett Shelton Bridge will be replaced using $50M.•Remaining $4M will be used for programmatic needs for Bridges, Culverts, and Structures citywide3Sidewalk Rehabilitation / Replacement•Total amount recommended by WG:$20M•Details:•Allocate 10% of funds equally to each district, then distribute remaining 90% of proposed funds to districts based on Very High & High priorities for all existing sidewalks. •Total miles and percentage of needs by district is shown below:4Proposed Distribution of FundsSidewalk Rehabilitation & Replacement program would divide 10% of funds equally for each district and thendistribute 90% of proposed funds to districts based on Very High & High priorities for all existing sidewalks.DistrictMiles of Existing SidewalkTotal Miles (VH & H)% of AllocationVery HighHigh1804212221.59 2616223.89 358419917.52 437337012.39 5223254.42 60110.18 71631478.32 80110.18 91144215627.61 10814223.89 Total321244565100.00 Street Reconstruction•Total amount recommended by WG:$75M•Details:•Program projects:•Street Rehabilitation:$30M•97 Lane Miles for $30M•There are about 467 Lane Miles (approximately $125M) of Street Rehabilitation Candidates throughout the City•Bus Lane Concrete conversions, etc. $10M•20 Lane Miles for $10M•There are ~68 Lane Miles (~ $34M) of Concrete Bus Lane Candidates and 5 Lane Miles (~$7.5M) of Concrete Intersection Candidates throughout the City•Bucket funding for Utility Participation:$6M•These funds are proposed for cost participation with utility projects to ensure full pavement restoration after water, wastewater, and/or storm drain improvements are made in streets.•56 Lane Miles for $6M•1,000 Lane Miles (approximately $50M) of Utility Participation Candidates based on Austin Water’s 10 year CIP program list5Street Reconstruction•Total amount recommended by WG:$75M•Details:•Street Reconstruction projects improves/replaces the following infrastructure assets:•Approx. 5% ‐10% of the total cost of the streetgoes towards sidewalks•Approx. 50% ‐70% of the total cost of the street goes towards pavement improvements•Approx. 25% ‐40% of the total cost of the street goes towards drainage improvements•Program projects:•Named reconstruction projects:$29M•Covers Group 15C , Group 44 (Stassney Lane) and Group 45 (residential streets)•Group 15C projects may consist of, but subject to change:  •Basswood Ln (Norwood Hill to Pendleton); BeechmoorDr (Basswood to Norwood Hill); ClaymoorDr (Norwood Hill to Ameswood); Norwood Hill Rd (Medford to Springdale); Overbrook Dr (51stto Manor); OverdaleRd (Overbrook to Darlington); Pendleton Ln (Tipton to Basswood); Rexford Dr (Glouchesterto Preswyck)•Group 45 projects may consist of, but are subject to change: •Bellaire Dr(Elmhurst Drto Taylor GanesSt); Lupine Ln (Upland Drto Loma Dr); Oak Heights Dr(Bellaire Drto Taylor Gaines St); Old East Riverside Dr(Summit St to Riverside DrE); Summit St (Riverside DrE to Lupine Ln); and Taylor Gaines St (I 35 SVC Rd to Parker Ln)  •Disclaimer:  List may change based on named reconstruction projects with investments from previous bond programs and coordination with utilities that provide cost participation resulting in biggest opportunity for public benefit.These projects, however, have significant amount of design already completed. 6Traffic Signals / ATMS•Total amount recommended by WG:$15M•Details:•Traffic Signals & Signal Systems:•New signal installations:$2.5M•Covers new signals, PHB’s, flashing beacons and school zones•77% coverage of overall current need for 168 new traffic signals and 158 PHB’s•Communications Systems:$2.0M•Expands communication system to additional signal infrastructure (90% coverage)•Provides redundant communications to improve reliability and resiliency•Modifications & Upgrades:$1.5M•Includes signal upgrades over 5 years that lead to greater safety (e.g., adding protected left turns)•Controllers:$1.0M•Updates signals controller that is nearly 20 years old to a modern hardware / processor platform•Firmware:$0.8M•Update current, 20‐yr old software platform for all signals to modern software platform•Conflict Monitor MMU:$0.7M•Provides next generation conflict monitors to all signals•Battery Backup Systems & Signal Cabinets $0.6M•50 new and replace 15 battery backup systems; replace 30‐yr old cabinets7Traffic Signals / ATMS•Amount recommended by WG:$15M•Details:•Safety Improvements:•Emergency Vehicle Preemption:$3.0M•Reduce response times and increase safety of first responders at all 1,000+ City‐maintained signals•Power Source Modernization:$0.55M•Upgrade connections to Austin Energy power to meet current safety standards•Accessible Pedestrian Signals:$0.5M•Assist visually impaired individuals at approximately 56 identified locations•Retroreflective Backplates:$0.25M•Install at approximately 75 signals downtown, typically results in 15% crash reduction•Mobility Improvements:•Aerial Detection:$1.0M•Replace loop detection at up to 40 signals to facilitate adaptive signal control•CCTV Cameras:$0.5M•Deploy cameras to roughly 100 signals, upgrade 10, rehab 19 to enhance situational awareness•Transit Signal Priority:$0.1M•Improved reporting on TSP performance to enable signal optimization8Transportation Safety / Vision Zero•Amount recommended by WG:$15M•Details:•Safety Improvements:•Major Intersection Safety Projects:$11.0M•Strategic implementation of critical safety improvements at major intersections identified as high crash locations, at an anticipated 2 to 3 project locations per year•Pedestrian Safety Improvements:$3.5M•High impact, cost‐effective pedestrian safety treatments at an anticipated 20 to 30 locations per year•Speed Management:$0.5M•Utilize a toolbox of speed management methods at an anticipated 3 to 10 locations per year9