Council agrees to pursue polling and planning for a possible 2025 general‑obligation bond election

Assistant City Manager Vicki Rios and staff briefed the council on the potential for a general‑obligation (GO) bond special election and asked for direction to proceed with polling and outreach preparatory work.

Rios and budget staff explained that GO bonds are repaid with the secondary property tax levy and reminded council of a 2020 council ordinance limiting the issuance of new GO bonds if issuance would require raising the levy beyond growth. Staff showed debt service trends that demonstrate debt payments declining through the 2030s — meaning there is potential capacity to issue additional debt without raising the levy if new voter authority is approved.

Staff summarized remaining voter bond authority in several categories and compared it with projects in the city’s 5‑ and 10‑year capital improvement plans. For example, library bond authority remaining is about $6,000,000 while the 5‑year CIP includes nearly $26,000,000 in library projects; general‑government authority remaining is about $3,700,000 versus planned needs of about $7,500,000 in the next five years. Parks has no remaining authority yet the 10‑year CIP includes tens of millions of dollars in park and recreation projects, including a placeholder estimate of roughly $44.4 million for a Heroes Park recreation and aquatics facility.

Staff proposed mirroring the 2023 approach: hire or commission polling to test voter appetite before placing an off‑cycle special election on the ballot. Rios said the city could use HighGround (a paid consultant used in 2023) to poll voters and the Trust for Public Lands (a nonprofit) to do park‑focused public engagement and polling at no cost; both groups have worked together in other jurisdictions. Staff noted special elections typically cost roughly $250,000, have lower turnout than general elections but allow narrower public messaging and can avoid voter fatigue if well targeted.

Council members discussed the role of a bond committee; staff said the previous bond committee’s terms had expired and that the council could appoint a new committee if desired, but that committee members cannot use city resources to lobby for bonds and their role should be clarified. Several council members said they favored forming a citizen bond committee but asked staff to return with clear role descriptions and timing so volunteer members know expectations.

By the end of the workshop the council signaled consensus to proceed with polling and preparatory work, instruct staff to notify Maricopa County by the statutory deadline if a special election is pursued, and to return with recommendations on bond‑committee structure and an outreach plan. No bond authorization or ballot question was placed at the workshop; those steps would require subsequent council direction and, if approved, a voter authorization vote.