Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Maps Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly members debate MAPS project list, priorities and whether to cap projects
Summary
Members discussed which municipal projects should be funded by a MAPS allocation, the trade-offs of limiting the ballot to seven projects, and whether to dedicate part of revenue to a housing trust.
Committee members reviewed candidate MAPS projects and debated whether the first ballot should present a limited, deliverable list to voters. Sponsors proposed up to seven projects — four public facilities (public health clinic, libraries, recreation centers, animal control) and three community or private projects — and said a cap makes a clear, sellable package for voters.
Some members warned that too many projects could create execution risk, citing past delays on capital work, while others questioned whether an arbitrary cap should constrain future ballots: the ordinance language was read as requiring no more than seven projects be sent to voters every seven years, which some members thought could limit flexibility. Members also pressed sponsors to ensure MAPS language allows not only deferred maintenance but also expansion of high‑demand public facilities.
The committee discussed using some of the sales-tax revenue for a housing trust or other community needs to benefit renters and to fund infrastructure that enables housing development. Members asked staff to return definitions and code cross-references for 'public facility' and to provide cost and deliverability analyses before the next meeting.
