Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richardson holds second public hearing on proposed 2026 bond package; council directs staff to prepare resolution
Summary
Council held a second public hearing on a proposed 2026 bond program that prioritizes streets and alleys, public buildings, parks and fire facilities. After public comment on neighborhood pools, the council unanimously directed staff to prepare a resolution to call the bond for consideration on Feb. 9.
Richardson city staff presented details of a proposed 2026 bond program and the City Council held a second public hearing before giving staff direction to prepare a calling resolution.
City staff summarized the bond composition and schedule, noting a heavy emphasis on street and alley projects (roughly 60% of the program), dedicated annualized concrete replacement funding ($5 million per year across the program), a public buildings proposition that includes $2.5 million for design and $23.5 million of authorization (of $36 million proposed), an $8 million apparatus storage building near Fire Station No. 5, and parks/aquatics projects drawn from the adopted aquatics master plan.
During the public hearing, resident Sandy Haney urged the council to preserve Cottonwood Pool and argued that removing neighborhood pools in favor of splash pads reduces access for serious swimmers and lower-income residents. Councilmember Barrios said closing Cottonwood raised equity concerns and said she would not support the bond as presented. Councilmember Corcoran and others cited prior Parks Commission deliberations backing the staff recommendation and noted the bond package reflects several rounds of public input.
After discussion about balancing citywide needs and neighborhood impacts, Mayor Pro Tem moved — and the council seconded — a direction for the city manager to prepare a bond resolution for the Feb. 9 meeting; that motion passed unanimously. Staff said the Feb. 9 resolution would set the formal call for the May 2 election if council ultimately votes to place the propositions on the ballot.
Why it matters: The bond package proposes large capital investments in transportation, drainage, public safety facilities and parks. The council’s direction to prepare a resolution starts a procedural timeline that could place the propositions before voters in May.
What’s next: Staff will prepare a resolution for February 9 that would call the bond election for council consideration; further hearings and details are expected as staff refines timing and project phasing.
