Troy City Council to pursue public engagement on proposed 20-year capital bond; focuses on projects above ‘green line’

Troy City Council on Feb. 24 discussed a proposed 20-year capital bond to fund libraries, streets, parks, public safety and other long-term projects and directed staff to begin public education and engagement focused on projects above the council’s so-called "green line." The council did not adopt bond language or place any item on the ballot during the special meeting; staff noted a ballot-language deadline in August if council later decides to proceed for the Nov. ballot.

The discussion followed public comments urging care in how capital projects are grouped and communicated. Alex Kapokovich, a resident, praised council’s work on the library and asked for a clear, publicly accessible capital-project roadmap: "I would like to see the capital projects go through the same rigor and diligence that the library project went through." Janice Girling, a resident, said she worries the packet’s presentation of other cities’ bond passage rates could be used to "ram" a broad package to voters and urged separating high-profile items: "If you put the library all by itself, let people vote on that." April Church, president of the Friends of the Troy Public Library, said the group will "support any bond proposal that includes the replacement of the library, provided that what is ultimately approved is commensurate with what the consultants have recommended." Resident Jeff Shaker urged exploring leasing or private philanthropy and a five-year capital plan so voters can see priorities.

City Manager Nastasi told the council the packet and presentations reflect early planning and public-feedback work from a Jan. 11 capital conference; he emphasized staff values broad community engagement and briefing materials already prepared for residents. DPW Director Kurt Bovancey reviewed the projects that fall in the council’s intermediate discussion band between the council’s red and green priority lines and reiterated that most projects currently in the five-year capital plan are not funded. Bovancey described park projects proposed for further study (including additional pickleball courts, a larger "safety town" concept on a vacant city parcel, expansion and amenities at Troy Farm, upgrades to Hubert Park and maintenance for athletic fields). He said the parks-and-recreation items shown were drawn from the city’s three-year capital budget and that some projects would need additional justification or grant funding to proceed.

Bovancey summarized proposed capital figures presented to council: a five-year planned-expenditures total cited at about $21.5 million for major infrastructure needs; a projected capital-project fund balance for 2025 reported in the packet at roughly $3–$4 million; a proposed community-center improvement line item of roughly $2.3 million in existing capital requests plus an additional $7 million package for expanded court space and a new indoor track; parking-lot resurfacing needs presented at about $6 million; and multi-year street preservation needs shown in the five-year plan. He also said library schematic design and final cost estimates are expected to be presented to council in May.

Council members debated whether to place a single omnibus capital bond before voters or split projects into multiple ballot proposals. Some members said they prefer the narrower set above the "green line" (commonly described during the meeting as the council’s higher-priority group); others expressed willingness to consider the slightly larger package above the green line for engagement purposes but said additional public education is needed before finalizing language. Several council members stressed the expedited timeline: staff said the ballot-language deadline is in August for a potential November referendum and that extensive community education is required to give voters time to digest complex proposals.

Council members and staff agreed on next steps rather than a formal vote: staff was asked to prepare an education and engagement plan (public meetings, homeowner-association outreach, mailers and online materials) explaining the needs and costs of items under consideration, to post the current materials online promptly, and to return to council with updated project cost details, including expected library schematic costs in May. Staff cautioned that additional polling or extended engagement could push the timeline beyond the August language deadline.

Votes at a glance: The only formal vote recorded during the special meeting was a procedural motion to excuse Council Member Ellen Hoderick’s absence during the voting portion of the meeting. Mayor Baker moved the motion; Mayor Pro Tem Gunn seconded. Roll call votes were recorded as Yes from Mayor Baker, Council Member Brooks, Council Member Chamberlain Kranga, Council Member Chanda, Mayor Pro Tem Gunn and (later recorded) Council Member Higgs; the motion carried.

What’s next: Staff said they will post the packet materials and follow-up slides to the city website, begin the outreach and public-education campaign tied to council direction (focused on the green-line projects unless council later changes direction), and return to council with more detailed cost and schematic information for key projects before council must finalize ballot decisions.

(There were no ordinances, resolutions or bond authorizations adopted during the Feb. 24 special meeting.)