Maplewood council weighs 2026 vs. 2027 bond timing for city hall and police facility upgrade; staff to produce taxpayer impact and outreach plan

Maplewood — At a May 13 City Council work session, staff presented an updated draft budget that includes a proposed 2% cost-of-living increase for city employees and briefed the council on options and timing for a bond to fund upgrades to City Hall and the police facility. Council members discussed whether to place a bond question on the 2026 municipal ballot or wait until 2027 and asked staff to prepare taxpayer-impact examples, conceptual renderings and a public outreach plan.

The draft budget update: city staff said they had identified cuts and reallocations that reduce the General Fund drawdown but that more work is required before the final budget. Staff confirmed the draft includes a proposed 2% cost-of-living adjustment for all staff, and no final budget action was required at the May 13 work session.

City staff presented a timeline and feasibility work from Navigate Billing Solutions (the consultant referenced in meeting materials) and UMB. Staff and council discussed placing a general obligation bond on a future ballot to pay for an addition and upgrades at City Hall and a police facility expansion on the existing site. Council members expressed broad support for proceeding with the project concept but debated optimal ballot timing — the 2026 municipal election, which provides an earlier opportunity and a chance to retake the measure in 2027 if needed, versus waiting for 2027 to allow additional refinement and to avoid clustered requests for voter support.

Council discussion included examples of potential taxpayer impact and implementation timing. One council member said their own calculation showed an additional $226 total at a 0.5 debt service levy; another council member discussed a change from a current tax rate of $2.88 to $5.15, an increase of $2.26. Staff did not specify the assessed-value basis for the $226 example during the work session and offered to provide standardized examples (including for a $300,000 house) to help the council and public understand the voter impact. Staff also said conceptual construction would take approximately 18 months and stated — using the transcript phrasing — that a "geo bond" would need to be spent within three years.

Council members asked for additional materials for their decision-making and for voter outreach if the council chooses to pursue a bond. Requested items included: a clear, median-household or $300,000-house example of tax impact; testimony and specifics from the police department about services it cannot currently provide because of space constraints; recruitment and retention data to show how facility improvements affect staffing; conceptual renderings beyond feasibility-level plans; and a public education and storytelling plan (including possible video content) to explain how the project benefits city services beyond policing (energy and accessibility upgrades for City Hall were cited as examples).

City staff said they are prepared to produce those materials and recommended adding funds in the next budget draft for additional design renderings by Navigate and for public relations support to develop messaging and video storytelling. Staff also said the city would provide tours of the existing police facility for council members and help craft a case focused on infrastructure needs, recruitment/retention, accreditation (CALEA) highlights and value to the community.

No final decision was made on ballot timing at the May 13 session. Staff said they will return with a more detailed plan and schedule for council consideration at the retreat and with materials to support a potential ballot measure. The work session closed with a procedural motion to adjourn that carried on a voice vote.