Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Go Bond 2026 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outline $335 million 2026 GO bond package; council asks for separate votes on performing arts and botanical gardens
Summary
Management services staff presented a draft $335 million general obligation bond package for May 2026 covering streets (~$210M), public safety (~$87M) and community projects (~$39M). Council asked that the performing arts center and botanical garden be listed as separate ballot items and probed tax-rate and inflation assumptions.
Management Services Director Talvo presented the city’s draft 2026 general obligation (GO) bond package and a timeline for the May election, telling the council the proposed package totals approximately $335,000,000 across three categories: streets (~$210,000,000), public safety (~$87,000,000) and community projects (~$39,000,000).
“Individually, for each of these categories, this will impact the property tax rate,” Talvo said, describing an estimated 2.5¢ per $100 valuation for streets, a little over 1¢ for public safety and a little under half a cent for community projects — a total illustrative impact of under 4¢ per $100 over the 10-year bond program.
Staff listed specific street projects with estimated costs and district assignments, including a Lake Ridge Parkway pedestrian crossing (estimated $66,000,000 for Districts 4 and 6), Shady Grove Road segments ($25,800,000), West Jefferson Street repairs ($26,000,000) and several other arterial and collector projects. Staff emphasized the package is modeled over a 10-year delivery timeline and that tax impacts are calculated on assumptions about growth and interest rates.
Councilmembers probed several details. One councilmember asked that the Performing Arts Center and the Botanical Gardens remain separate items so voters could approve or reject them individually; staff agreed to update the ballot language and split the items. Other councilmembers questioned whether the staff estimates accounted for inflation and asked for the modeling assumptions. Staff said the calculations include a roughly 3% annual growth assumption in the tax base and an assumed interest rate (~4.5%) used for projections, and that the 4¢ figure represents a worst-case scenario over the 10-year program rather than a single-year tax increase.
Council members also raised operational concerns about specific streets (for example, repeated work on Carrier Parkway) and asked staff to ensure project sequencing avoids unnecessary overlap with recent or ongoing repairs.
Staff outlined next steps: continued briefings (Jan. 6), adoption of the final list by resolution expected Jan. 20, statutory call for election on Feb. 3 and outreach and education between February and the May 2 election, if council chooses to proceed. No final votes were taken on the draft list at the briefing.
