NEW ORLEANS — The recently released Bureau of Governmental Research (BGR) report analyzing three bond propositions that New Orleans voters will consider on Nov. 15, evaluates whether the City’s plans are well-developed, financially responsible, and likely to produce effective outcomes. Together, the three measures would authorize the City to borrow up to $510 million for infrastructure, drainage, and affordable housing projects.
If approved, the City plans to issue long-term debt repaid over 30 years through the existing debt service property tax, which currently stands at 14.5 mills — the equivalent of $14.50 for every $1,000 of assessed property value. That rate funds repayment of the City’s existing bond debt.
The borrowing plan comes amid heightened scrutiny from the state: Governor Jeff Landry has urged the Louisiana Bond Commission and Fiscal Review Committee to withhold approval of new city borrowing until stronger financial oversight is in place, potentially through a state-appointed fiscal administrator. Mayor-elect Helena Moreno and city officials have opposed that approach, warning they will not allow a state takeover of New Orleans’ finances.
The BGR report, which was issued prior to Landry's moves, supports two of the three measures — the City Infrastructure and Drainage & Stormwater Management bonds — but recommends voting against the Affordable Housing bond as currently structured.
BGR’s analysis builds on its 2019 review of the City’s previous $500 million bond authorization, Beyond the Ballot: Analyzing the Outcomes of the 2019 New Orleans Bond Authorization, which found that insufficient maintenance funding and limited transparency reduced the long-term impact of those investments.
Proposition 1: Affordable Housing Bonds ($45 Million)
The first ballot item seeks $45 million for affordable housing facilities. City officials have suggested these funds could fulfill a new City Charter requirement that at least 2% of the General Fund — roughly $14.5 million annually — be dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund, which finances affordable housing developments and related programs.
BGR cautions that using 30-year bond debt to meet an annual obligation is costly and unsustainable. Because interest typically adds about 40% to the total repayment cost of a long-term bond, one year of spending could ultimately cost taxpayers $24 million. Bond proceeds can also only fund capital projects with a lifespan of at least ten years, limiting their usefulness for programs that require ongoing support.
“Bond debt to cover a recurring expense is a temporary and expensive funding source,” the report concludes. Instead, BGR urges the City to develop a long-term strategy to fund the Housing Trust Fund through recurring revenue such as General Fund appropriations.
Mayor-elect Helena Moreno, however, has voiced support for all three propositions. “Voting yes to all three will not lead to any new tax increases,” said Moreno in a Facebook post. “They will allow my administration to have capital to be able to move these projects forward. Remember, this capital budget is separate from the general fund operational budget that you’ve been hearing so much about lately.”
Addressing BGR’s findings, Moreno said, “Recently the BGR, that does really in-depth analysis on ballot measures, came out with their report in which they did say to vote for the infrastructure bond proposition and for the drainage bond proposition. But they were against the affordable housing proposition. I agree with the BGR report to definitely vote yes on infrastructure and yes on drainage but I’m going to agree to disagree with them and say to vote yes on affordable housing.”
Proposition 2: City Infrastructure Bonds ($415 Million)
The largest of the three proposals would fund streets, bridges, public buildings, parks, recreation facilities, and essential vehicles and equipment. About half of the proceeds would go toward street and transportation projects, with another 17% supporting public facilities, vehicles, and technology. The remainder would support parks, recreation, economic development, and blight remediation.
BGR supports the measure, calling it a “much-needed infusion of capital funds” to address the City’s massive backlog of deferred maintenance. The organization also credits City leaders with improving transparency by publishing preliminary project lists and requiring public meetings before any changes. However, BGR notes those lists do not include project-specific cost estimates, making it difficult for residents to track progress.
“Delaying action will set back progress by a year or more, as no other funding streams of this magnitude are available,” the report states. It adds that the City must “develop a consistent funding strategy for preventive maintenance” to preserve taxpayers’ investment.
Proposition 3: Drainage & Stormwater Management Bonds ($50 Million)
The third proposal would dedicate $50 million to drainage and stormwater management — a mix of traditional upgrades and green infrastructure such as rain gardens, retention basins, and permeable surfaces to slow runoff and reduce flooding.
Even after transferring responsibility for underground pipes and catch basins to the Sewerage & Water Board earlier this year, the City remains responsible for surface-level stormwater improvements. BGR supports this measure, citing coordination between the City and S&WB and the potential to reduce flood risks in vulnerable neighborhoods.
While backing the proposition, BGR calls on the City and S&WB to pursue a long-term stormwater fee — a charge based on runoff from each property — as a more equitable way to fund drainage. Unlike property taxes, a fee would be paid by government and nonprofit property owners who are currently exempt from ad valorem taxes.
Balancing Fiscal Responsibility and Urgent Needs
If voters approve the measures, the next administration will be responsible for issuing the bonds and overseeing how the proceeds are spent. BGR recommends that the City make transparency a central feature of that process, providing clear, accessible updates to residents and businesses who are ultimately footing the bill.
