Staff recommend $15 million design bond to make parks "shovel ready," say it would not raise taxes
Loading...
Summary
City staff told the Committee of the Whole they favor a two‑stage funding strategy: a roughly $15 million councilmatic (design) bond or use of existing funds to complete 100% designs for a package of park projects, reducing later construction cost and schedule risk. Construction funding would be sought later and may require a voter bond.
City staff presented a revised parks funding strategy to the Committee of the Whole, recommending a $15 million package to complete design for a list of park projects so they are 'shovel ready' before asking voters for construction funding.
Rachel (staff lead) said the staff recommendation covers design for Liberty Park renovation, Ron Regis Park, partial Tri Park design, systemwide sports courts and fields, systemwide trail and pavement improvements, recreation facility improvements and three restroom programs.
"By waiting to go out to construction until we have finished the design and we're ready to go out to bid, it gives us a higher degree of cost certainty," Rachel said, summarizing the rationale for separating design and construction funding.
Finance staff (Carrie) presented options for paying for the design phase, including issuing a councilmatic bond (which the city can issue without a voter referendum) for amounts in the roughly $10–$17 million range or reallocating debt service dollars and REIT/general‑fund balances. Carrie told the committee that the proposed councilmatic bond options would not raise property taxes for residents.
Council members pressed staff on timing, tax implications and risk. Rachel said staff estimated construction for the recommended project list at about $105 million in today's dollars and that escalating those numbers to a midline construction date around 2030 (using a 5% annual escalation) would put construction at roughly $128 million. Staff emphasized that completing designs now reduces later uncertainty and allows staff to trim the construction list if necessary.
Some council members said the design‑first approach improves public perception (offering concrete, illustrated projects at a future vote) and reduces the risk of asking voters for funds twice; others worried a multi‑stage approach could be perceived as repeated requests for money and noted the potential for increased escalation if construction is delayed.
Staff said next steps include advancing 30% design and regulatory engagement for Talbot and other projects, posting grant applications this summer, bringing a contract amendment to the Finance Committee to fund initial design work, hiring two limited‑term staff positions to support design work and returning to council with a construction funding plan in the future.
Next procedural step: staff to bring a contract amendment and budget items for the design package to the Finance Committee and then return to the council with updated cost and schedule information; a construction bond could be proposed in 2028 depending on funding conditions.
