Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Uncertain interest settles behind 90-5-5 cost option

 

The Austin City Council has moved forward a vote out of a work session Monday night for a tentative payment structuring plan for a noise barrier to its next meeting.

The council agreed to the move along a 4-3 vote.

However, it’s seemingly done so with middling enthusiasm for the project as it currently stands by people in the neighborhood that the noise barrier would help, as well as some council members.

The plan currently favored by the council is a 90-5-5 plan that would see the state pay 90% of the cost of the noise barrier, the city 5% and property owners in the neighborhood paying for the other 5%.

The option calls for an incremental payment structure for homeowners based on homes who would benefit the most by decibel lowering. For example, homes that would see a higher decibel lowering after the wall is built would pay more and those on the lower end would pay less.

The entire cost is estimated at just over $932,000.

However, when letters were sent out to the 23 homeowners prior to Monday night’s meeting, less than half returned answers. Of those came a range of residents indicating no and yes, but also some saying they would be okay with the 90-5-5 split.

“It doesn’t see like there’s consensus in the neighborhood that they want this,” said council member Laura Helle.

Helle said she would not be for the city paying 5%, indicating instead that the full 10% should fall on property owners, noting that the wall would cause property values to go up and commenting that it would be similar to the city writing a check to property owners for the value.

“I would not support the city contributing 5%,” Helle said.

However, council member Jeff Austin argued that not funding the wall risked a loss in property values. He rationalized that if people moved out, it might be harder to sell the properties if the noise continues unabated.

“It loses value for that whole neighborhood,” Austin said. “I think it’s an investment in the neighborhood, an investment in the city.”

Council member Geoff Baker agreed, saying: “It’s a prevention of loss of value.”

In the next steps, property owners will once again be polled as to their thoughts on the 90-5-5 option with the council stipulating they would need at least seven “yes” votes before they would consider approving the option.

The next meeting will be May 1.