Councilors spent an extended portion of the June 2 meeting discussing next steps after what staff described as a likely rejection of a $17,200,000 general-obligation bond for a new police station in the May 20 election (staff reported preliminary results of 2,344 in favor and 2,853 opposed). No formal action was taken; staff asked for direction on analysis and outreach the council would like to pursue.

City Manager and councilors laid out multiple paths forward: (1) ask the project’s architects and an independent reviewer to perform a line-item value-engineering review of the current design and cost estimates; (2) solicit design-build proposals or bids to reuse/retrofit an existing municipal building as a lower-cost alternative; (3) explore alternative funding structures, including a dedicated public-safety fee or an operating levy that would shift some services funding and free general-fund capacity to pay debt service; or (4) take no action.

Councilors emphasized the nontechnical but critical factors that influenced the election result. Several councilors urged stronger citizen engagement and a unified, council-led outreach strategy before any future ballot referral. Councilor comments cited concerns among voters about campaign process and trust, and noted the need to clearly communicate the project’s necessity, lifecycle benefits and cost breakdowns.

Council direction to staff (no formal motion): staff to prepare options and further information for council review. Suggested tasks identified by councilors included obtaining a third-party cost validation of the architect’s estimates; asking contractors for design-build comparative proposals for the existing I.O. Building (as a reuse candidate); evaluating what a public-safety fee would have to be to fund the facility (including shorter amortization options to reduce interest costs); and arranging site or facility tours of recent comparable police stations in nearby jurisdictions to help the council and residents visualize the project.

Staff said timelines vary by electoral calendar: to refer a measure for a fall election the council would need to act within weeks (first meeting in August for a fall referral), while a May general election allows a longer lead time. Councilors agreed staff should return with the requested analyses and that the council should increase outreach and alignment among all council members if the question goes to voters again.