City financial and transportation staff on May 6 told the Austin City Council that highway ‘‘caps’’ — decks over I‑35 intended to reconnect neighborhoods and create public space — are unlikely to generate enough tax or on‑cap revenue to cover their construction and ongoing structural maintenance costs, according to a consultant analysis prepared for the city.

The finding, presented by consultant Mark Gilbert and Finance Director Kim Olivares, framed staff’s May 6 recommendation: to commit only the Phase 1 roadway elements for two downtown segments in the near term while launching an aggressive effort to assemble private, philanthropic and other non‑general‑obligation funding for horizontal decks, on‑cap amenities and long‑term operations. Staff said the council will be asked to make a formal funding commitment on May 22.

Key finding on return on investment

Mark Gilbert, presenting a contracted ROI study, said the core result is blunt: caps “will not produce sufficient revenue to fund their construction and operations.” The analysis modeled on‑cap commercial ground‑lease revenue, projected increases in nearby assessed values (a “park premium” effect) and potential tax increment receipts, and compared those receipts to capital, financing and ongoing structural O&M costs (city payments to TxDOT). For the five primary cap opportunities studied, the modeled on‑cap and near‑cap value increases fell short of the capital plus annual maintenance gap.

Gilbert told council the study found construction costs per acre for deck work that are high relative to typical land costs: an average of roughly $34 million per acre for deck (structure) only, rising to about $43 million per acre if minimum amenity phases are included. He also said structural O&M payments owed to TxDOT over time are large enough to turn projected annual net city revenue negative in the analysis.

Funding stacks and precedent

The presentation emphasized that major cap projects completed elsewhere depended heavily on non‑city contributions. Gilbert and staff showed examples in other cities where philanthropic gifts, state dollars and private investment comprised a large share of the capital stack; municipal shares were rarely the sole source. Staff noted that Dallas’ projects benefited from long‑standing value‑capture districts and earlier investments that helped unlock private redevelopment; Austin lacks comparable, full value‑capture coverage around all proposed caps.

Staff recommendation and near‑term ask

Transportation and Public Works’ updated recommendation calls for a limited near‑term city commitment (“Scenario 1”): fund the Phase 1 roadway elements for the Cesar Chavez–Fourth Street cap and for the Eleventh–Twelfth Street location, and commit $6 million for structural engineering/design work on caps. Staff said an existing State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) loan of $41 million is already secured; after accounting for that loan the immediate remaining funding need for the staff‑recommended Phase 1 roadway elements is about $14 million.

For Phase 2 (horizontal decks), Phase 3 (minimum amenities) and later phases, staff recommended that the city take the lead on coordinated fundraising with philanthropic and private partners rather than commit the bulk of the general‑obligation capacity at this time. Michelle Marks of TPW said the city has a window to submit change orders to TxDOT to add decks to the 2026 construction package, but that cost escalation should be expected if those elements are added later rather than included in the initial bid.

Debt capacity and rating risk

Finance Director Kim Olivares and the city’s financial advisor, Blake Roberts (PFM), presented an analysis of the city’s debt capacity and rating sensitivity. Olivares said the city’s current debt per capita is about $1,600 and that adding large amounts of additional general‑obligation‑backed debt could place Austin in a higher risk category. “We would be at risk of a downgrade as early as 2027 under S&P,” Olivares told the council, referring to scenarios in which the city sold between $500 million and $1.2 billion of new GO‑backed debt alongside existing authorized but unissued bonds.

Roberts of PFM emphasized that debt‑per‑capita is only one metric in a scorecard and that rating agencies weigh many factors, including reserves, pension status and economic trends; however, he cautioned that higher debt loads correlate with upward pressure on borrowing costs and reduce flexibility for future capital programs.

Public comment: argument for and against

Dozens of speakers signed up at the work session. Supporters urged the council to fund the full caps and treat them as a generational investment to repair historic divides and spur private redevelopment. Speakers who testified in favor included Adam Sparks, Bree Brown, Alyssa Steglich, Park Greg, Tom Wold (Red Line Parkway Initiative), Libby Chenelle, Jim Walker (Cherrywood Neighborhood Association), Hannes Mann (Hancock Neighborhood Association) and others; comments emphasized equity, reconnecting East and West Austin, climate resiliency, neighborhood access and long‑term economic uplift.

Opponents cautioned about timing and competing needs. A public speaker, Brian McGivern, urged council to reject the plan and prioritize immediate climate, drainage and resilience investments, saying the caps are expensive and would delay other urgent city priorities.

Trade‑offs staff highlighted

Staff showed a range of trade‑offs if the city were to devote significant GO capacity to caps, including reductions in bond capacity for housing, park acquisition and climate resilience projects. The presentation noted opportunity costs if the city chose not to pursue caps (TxDOT vehicle and drainage work would proceed without caps; improved crossings and new frontage roads would still appear in some scenarios). Staff also noted the effect of existing value‑capture and tax‑increment mechanisms downtown — Waller Creek TIRZ, Downtown PID and Homestead Preservation Reinvestment Zone No. 1 — which already claim portions of future increment and reduce what the city could capture for caps.

What staff asked council to do next

Transportation and financial staff said they plan to return to council on May 22 to ask for formal direction on Phase 1 roadway commitments and to continue outreach to philanthropic, private and regional partners. Staff recommended starting fundraising and partnership efforts now for Phase 2 and beyond while minimizing additional issuance of GO debt until private commitments can be assembled. Mayor and council members asked staff to return with additional scenarios including smaller “stitch” options and refined cost estimates, and requested more detail on likely on‑cap revenue and conservancy/operations models.

Context: cost escalation and federal grant status

Staff noted that TxDOT cost estimates the city is working from are at higher design completion and include contingencies; they cautioned that adding decks to future change orders would increase costs (staff projected 30–40% escalation for later additions). Earlier federal grant money referenced in the briefing — $105 million identified for the Cesar Chavez cap — was described as tied to ongoing federal budget reconciliation and therefore not guaranteed at the time of the May 6 briefing.

Bottom line

Staff recommended a targeted, staged approach: fund Phase 1 roadway elements for the two downtown caps now, secure engineering/design and use the city’s recently secured SIB loan to reduce near‑term need, and then marshal private and philanthropic funding for the more expensive decks and amenities. City financial advisers warned large additional GO borrowing could pressure the city’s credit rating and borrowing costs; council members asked staff to return with more detailed scenarios, smaller‑scale options and a refined fundraising plan ahead of May 22 when formal commitments will be considered.