Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Go Bond Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council signals support for larger GO‑bond second tranche, with caveats on timelines and communication
Summary
After a detailed staff presentation of three funding scenarios for the parks, trails and open‑space GO bond, the council held a straw poll supporting scenario 3 (the most comprehensive tranche) with conditions requiring regular shovel‑readiness reporting, scope/timeline notices to council, and exploration of rescoped savings; the straw poll passed 6–1.
City staff and the mayor asked the council for direction on a second tranche of the voter‑approved general obligation (GO) bond for parks, trails and open space. Staff presented three scenarios that trade project scope against near‑term property‑tax impact and project timelines. The mayor emphasized that 71% of voters approved the bond and warned that delaying construction would increase costs and risk public confidence.
Tom Millar (Public Lands) summarized scenarios: scenario 1 would fund only a small subset of projects (with faster fiscal conservatism but largest program exclusions), scenario 2 would fund most projects but defer key items such as some park constructions, and scenario 3 would fund the broadest set of projects and preserve schedules for projects currently design‑complete or nearly so. Staff said roughly 75% of the bond projects are asset replacements and highlighted the costs of delaying construction and of re‑designing projects when construction funding is deferred.
Staff estimated scenario 3 would add roughly $27–28 per year in property tax for the median‑valued home — about half the maximum $54.80 impact voters approved on the ballot. Council members pressed staff about what pausing projects would cost, shovel‑readiness (design % complete), contingency and change‑order practices, and the tradeoffs of issuing smaller additional tranches in the future (staff cautioned that small bonds are more expensive per dollar because issuance and counsel costs are largely fixed).
A councilmember proposed a straw poll to support scenario 3 (release a second tranche of approximately $49 million). The chair recorded council intent that staff provide regular updates on shovel‑readiness, notice any scope or timeline changes to council, and explore rescoping or savings from prior phases; the straw poll passed six in favor and one opposed. Staff will prepare the formal transmittal and a January budget amendment to permit a bond sale in April or May if the council formalizes the direction.
The council also discussed communications improvements, procurement coordination and the importance of aligning public‑open‑space timing with adjacent private development on projects such as Fleet Block.
