Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Development Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force debates process, criteria and public engagement plan for drafting 2026 bond recommendations
Summary
Members discussed how to narrow a large universe of possible projects, whether to assign funding buckets to working groups, and how to gather public input before recommending a bond amount to council.
The task force spent its agenda item on June 23 debating how it will move from a large, citywide inventory of possible projects to a recommended bond package for 2026.
Task force vice chair Nicole Conley and other members proposed a staged process: collect the comprehensive project list from city staff, let working groups evaluate and refine projects in their topical areas, then reconvene to consolidate recommendations for council. Conley said the work will require discipline because "we have infinite needs but finite resources," and she urged clear public engagement timelines.
Members offered competing but complementary process ideas. Some argued staff recommendations should be weighted heavily because departments run the services and can identify urgent needs; others said working groups should become subject-matter experts, host public meetings on particular project sets, and return recommendations. Several members urged the task force to build climate and greenhouse-gas impacts into criteria and to require information about ongoing operations and maintenance costs for proposed projects.
Task force members emphasized transparency and early public outreach. Committee members suggested survey results and public-submitted ideas be made available to working groups and the public, and they discussed the need to post clearer labels for meeting backup materials on the task force website. Members also recommended that public comment and deep-dive presentations be routed to working-group meetings so subject experts and staff can be present.
Timing questions were central. Members said a council handoff in April 2026 is a key milestone and that the task force needs cost estimates and staff project lists well in advance. Some asked staff to consider presenting the project list before the next regular meeting or to delay that meeting slightly if the list arrives late.
Votes at a glance: The task force approved the minutes of its May 27, 2025 meeting by voice/hand-raise. (The motion to approve the minutes was moved and seconded on the record; no named tally was recorded and staff counted raised hands.) The meeting adjourned by motion later in the session.
Ending: The task force asked members to submit process and criteria ideas to staff leads for distribution and agreed to prioritize a process discussion and draft criteria for the next meeting so working groups could begin their evaluations.
