‘Serious tradeoffs': Austin considering I-35 covers versus other city needs
Editor's Note: The video above is KXAN's previous coverage of the potential 2026 bond package.
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Tuesday, city leaders are slated to discuss whether or not Austin can afford to build covers over the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT's) I-35 expansion project, connecting east and central Austin.
Those covers are called 'caps and stitches' and may look like deck plazas, walking or biking trails or green spaces running over the wider highway.
'These caps would not only stitch our city back together, they would create new, valuable land in central Austin for parks, civic space, and future development. If we fail to fund the roadway elements now, those caps can never be built,' Austin City Council Member Chito Vela wrote in a message board post.
Austin's full capped I-35 'vision plan' could cost over $1B
But Austin's current proposed Cap and Stitch Vision Plan could cost more than $1.4 billion, city transportation officials have previously explained. That doesn't include the cost of operating and maintaining those spaces.
'That would use up our entire capital budget and so we really have to be careful in the investments we're making both in terms of our annual general fund decisions as well as our capital budget decisions,' Austin City Council Member Mike Siegel said on an episode of Inside Austin's Agenda last week.
Austin leaders need to commit funding to TxDOT to build the roadway elements of the caps and stitches by next month, if all goes according to schedule. That part alone could cost roughly $250 million, transportation staff have previously said.
Austin's vote on I-35 cap and stitch funding delayed again amid federal funding uncertainty
'What I want to get into is whether it's worth it compared to the tradeoffs,' Siegel said. He noted the city's financial department has explained, 'we can only ask for so much in bond dollars before our credit rating goes down and the price of debt goes up, basically. And so every $100 million that we dedicated to cap and stitch is instead of something else that we might need.'
That's where the city's possible 2026 bond election rubs against the cap and stitch project. While the city works through a comprehensive bond package that it may bring to Austin voters next year, the amount of money the city may need to borrow for caps and stitches will play a role.
'If we take that [the bond proposal] to the voters in November of 2026, that will require debt. And if we're issuing debt to deal with the caps that we're talking about, that will impact how much we can do on the comprehensive bond package,' Austin Mayor Kirk Watson explained.
That is likely to be a central point of Tuesday's Austin City Council work session talking about the caps and stitches before council votes on its commitment to TxDOT next month.
Inside Austin's Agenda: City Council Member Mike Siegel
'We have about $10 billion in unmet capital needs, we can only spend $1 billion at most, or ask for 1 billion at most in expenditures and so there's going to be some serious tradeoffs,' Siegel said.
Austin leaders are eying a comprehensive bond package that you could vote on in November 2026.
The 2026 Bond Election Advisory Task Force is working through what may be included in that ask of taxpayers. That task force has two appointees from each council office and the mayor. It meets once every month, starting in January of this year.
Austin working early to address 'budget asteroids'; it may mean a tax rate election
'The city has real needs whether it be parks, whether it be road infrastructure…the council has asked for a comprehensive approach,' Watson said.
While the task force is still in the early stages of figuring out what it might work into that bond package, they're gathering information from city staff on what each department may want to prioritize. The task force's March meeting included briefings from city leaders working on transportation, homelessness and housing.
'In July 2025, staff will present the preliminary ranked needs assessment that will NOT include refined project scoping and cost estimating since that work will not have been initiated at that time,' a memo from city staff said.
You can find a proposed timeline from city staff in that memo here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘It makes sense': Austin changes inspection requirements for food trucks
AUSTIN (KXAN) – Rod Ferriol spent a good portion of his Monday prepping food for his South Austin food truck, Los Galanes Birria. 'I can't complain. This isn't work for me,' Ferriol said. 'This is fun for me.' Ferriol said he opened his Mexican street food truck around a year and a half ago after his kids were grown and left home. While he cooked for family and friends his whole life, this is his first time doing it professionally. And even though he's having fun, he said it's not always easy having a new business. 'Like anything here in Austin that's food-related, there's a lot of competition, especially when you just do Mexican [food],' he said. Ferriol said every day counts in this industry. That's why he and other food truck owners think it's a misuse of time when they're required to shut down and transport their vehicles for health and safety inspections to a north Austin city facility every year. Ferriol said these trips have caused him to lose valuable time at his food truck park. 'Doing the inspections on site — for me, it makes sense,' he said. As of last Thursday, traveling for inspections is no longer a requirement. The Austin City Council approved on consent a new ordinance that allows inspectors to conduct inspections at the food truck's location. This was something the city has been looking into since March 2024. A survey found that 92% of food truck owners agreed that on-site permitting inspections would be preferred, according to city documents. 'Food trucks are an important part of our culinary diversity,' District 6 Council Member Krista Laine said on the dais. 'I'm so grateful it'll be easier for our local business and food truck owners to get inspections.' While food truck owners no longer need to travel to the north Austin facility to have the inspection, the on-site inspections will cost more. On-site permits will cost $740, and the re-inspection fee is $230. That is compared to $212 and $109, respectively, if done at the city facility. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Advocates speak out against Texas Dream Act repeal
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Advocacy groups are raising concerns after a federal lawsuit repealed the Texas Dream Act. Signed by Gov. Rick Perry in 2001, it allows certain undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition. On June 4, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Texas. It alleged that the Texas Dream Act violates federal law by providing benefits to undocumented students that are not also extended to U.S. citizens. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office released a statement hours after the suit was filed, saying they would not contest the suit, leading to a default judgment. 'Ending this discriminatory and un-American provision is a major victory for Texas,' Paxton's statement read, in part. READ MORE: Law professors react to in-state tuition decision 'This is more than a legal challenge,' said Linda Corchado, senior director of immigration at Children at Risk. 'This is an attempt to dismantle one of Texas' most effective and visionary education policies.' Children at Risk is a research and advocacy nonprofit focused on improving the quality of life for Texas' children. Viridiana Carrisales is the co-founder and CEO of ImmSchools, a nonprofit that partners with school districts to help them better meet the needs of immigrant students. She claims this could discourage students from pursuing higher education or even staying in school. 'So this is going to have an implication where students are going to potentially drop out of school, of K through 12 school,' Carrizales said. 'It doesn't matter where we live in the state. It hurts all of us the moment students drop out of school.' The concerns go beyond student retention. Corchado pointed out the economic benefits students bring to Texas and what the state stands to lose without them. 'In [2021] alone, Dream Act students contributed over $81 million in tuition and fees,' Corchado said. 'Repealing the law could cost Texas $461 million each year in lost economic activity.' During the legislative session, lawmakers introduced bills to repeal the Texas Dream Act. However, despite hours of testimony, the bills were left pending and did not pass. Chelsie Kramer, a Texas state organizer with the American Immigration Council, framed the original 2001 legislation as an example for the rest of the nation. 'For more than two decades, the Texas Dream Act has really stood as a model of pragmatic, bipartisan policymaking,' Kramer said. 'Since 2001, similar laws have been passed in 24 other states, really showing that what Texas did back in 2001 was something the nation wanted to follow.' After the repeal, Texas Democrats composed a letter both criticizing the decision and offering a solution. They call for a new classification to allow students who qualified under the law to enroll in the fall semester 'at the rate they reasonably expected.' READ MORE: Lawmakers call for in-state tuition protection 'These students aren't asking for handouts,' Corchado said. 'They're investing in their future.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Some Texas lawmakers demand in-state tuition protections for undocumented students
AUSTIN (KXAN) — A group of Texas lawmakers called on higher education leaders in the state to protect undocumented students' access to in-state tuition, after the state agreed to end the practice earlier this week. On Wednesday, the Justice Department sued the state over the 2001 Texas Dream Act, which allowed those students to receive in-state tuition if they met certain qualifications. The lawsuit alleged this act violated federal law, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton quickly responded that his office would not contest the suit—causing the law to be repealed through a default judgment. RELATED | Justice Department sues Texas over in-state tuition for undocumented students In a letter sent on Friday, more than a dozen Democratic state representatives called on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to create a 'provisional classification' that could allow students who previously qualified under the law to enroll this fall 'at the rate they reasonably expected.' The letter later said, in part, 'It is especially cruel and short-sighted to apply this policy change retroactively just weeks before the start of the 2025-2026 academic year. These students made plans, accepted offers, and committed to their futures in good faith.' The lawmakers urged the board to use its rulemaking authority to create this classification — for example, 'first-generation resident tuition' — at least temporarily. They called for the board to release guidance to institutions that would 'preserve tuition equity for students during the transition period.' The lawmakers also noted the move would not override statute but would provide 'a critical bridge' until the Legislature could address the matter during the next legislative session in two years. Earlier this year, during the most recent legislative session, lawmakers considered bills to repeal the Dream Act and heard hours of testimony on it, but it was left pending and failed to pass. In 2001, the Dream Act had bipartisan support and was signed into law by Republican former Governor Rick Perry. RELATED | Texas' undocumented college students no longer qualify for in-state tuition In its lawsuit, the DOJ argues that a 1996 federal law, known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), preempts the Dream Act. Attorney General Pam Bondi called it a 'blatant violation' of the federal law. 'Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,' Bondi said. 'The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.' Legal experts talked to KXAN this week about whether the move by the Trump administration and Paxton's quick agreement allowed for any way for opponents of the change to challenge the decision. Josh Blackman, associate professor of law at South Texas College of Law, said the decision appears effectively final. Barbara Hines, an immigration law professor who helped craft the initial Texas Dream Act, did not share Blackman's assessment that it was the end of the road for the law. She said that in previous lawsuits related to the Dream Act or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, other parties have been allowed to intervene. RELATED | Law professors react: Texas will no longer provide in-state tuition to undocumented students According to the Texas Higher Education Commissioner, around 19,000 students will be affected by the change. The lawmakers' letter argued that the state stands to lose talent, which could affect the workforce and the economy. It said, 'This is not just a moral failure, it's a strategic and economic blunder that will be felt for generations to come.' Economic factors proved to be a driving force behind the Dream Act's passage in 2001. According to a 2015 report by The Texas Tribune, former Governor Perry said at the time, '[Texas] had a choice to make economically: Are you going to put these people in a position of having to rely upon government to take care of themselves, or are you going to let them be educated and be contributing members of society, obviously working towards their citizenship.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
