Mayor Kirk Watson voted Thursday to stop the 2026 bond election process, arguing the decisive defeat of the city’s tax rate election last fall was too recent to justify seeking higher taxes for infrastructure projects, including Austin parks.

His proclamation underscores the tension over whether Austin should prioritize fiscal restraint or finance projects some community members say are long overdue. But a majority of council members disagreed with the mayor, voting to move the city one step closer to a bond election in November.

“This isn’t easy for me,” Watson said. “Leadership also means being willing to say ‘not yet,’ especially when saying ‘yes’ would be politically easier in the moment.”

Six City Council members voted to move the process forward, asking staff to continue developing a potential bond proposal based on the $390 million staff bond scenario, which would finance parks, transportation and community facilities projects. Council Member Krista Laine abstained from the vote, and Council Member Marc Duchen joined Watson in voting against it. Council Members Vanessa Fuentes and Natasha Harper-Madison were not present for the vote.

The Austin City Council plans to take a final vote on whether to go forward with the election on July 23. The debate over a potential 2026 bond election has become a broader test of Austin’s political and financial priorities after voters rejected Prop Q last fall. Supporters of moving forward argue the city cannot afford to delay investments in aging parks and other infrastructure needs, while opponents warn another major funding request could undermine public trust and strain the city’s financial policies before Austin has spent down money from previous bond programs.

Watson put his support behind city financial staff’s recommendation to delay a bond election until 2028 and funding some of the city’s most urgent capital projects through its next budget. City finance staff recently told council members the city had not yet spent 90% of funds approved in previous bond elections, a threshold they said should generally be met before calling for another. Based on that criteria, they recommended the election take place in two years.

“It’s not because I oppose parks, it’s not because I oppose cultural facilities … I support many of those priorities very strongly,” Watson said. “If we restore compliance with our financial policies, and we maintain the discipline, we actually will have greater future capacity to do more for this community in 2028.”

Watson said the city is still rebuilding trust after last year’s failed tax rate election and cautioned against asking residents to approve another major funding measure so soon afterward. He said he reluctantly supported the tax rate proposal last November “in hopes of building consensus,” he said. “I won’t do that again.”

Staff also told council members Austin has held more bond elections than peer cities and argued waiting until 2028 would help prevent bond programs from overlapping. Duchen said the city should explore other ways to fund urgent park projects instead of immediately pursuing another bond election.

Every two years, apart from a break in 2024, “we’ve basically asked voters to pony up money for different things,” Duchen said, explaining his vote in opposition. “I think we’re seeing the results of some fatigue on that.”

Several council members signaled a smaller bond package could strike a reasonable financial balance, especially when weighed against what they described as pressing park infrastructure needs.

“I continue to believe we should ask voters to invest in Austin parks, which have not received a bond investment since 2018. Parks are one of the amenities almost universally enjoyed across our community,” Council Member Mike Siegel said. “Our green spaces, our play spaces, and our open spaces are a big part of what makes Austin great.”

Council Member Ryan Alter, who sponsored the city council item, reiterated the vote would not trigger a bond election, but instead direct city staff to continue developing potential bond options ahead of a final decision over the summer. The resolution also directs city financial staff to explore funding alternatives for projects not included in the $390 million bond package, such as watershed protection improvements.

“It’s no secret I think our parks are in desperate need,” Alter said. “Let us come back in July and have that ultimate discussion of should we do this.”