Glendale staff present up to $330 million in proposed bond questions; council debates timing and ballot wording

City staff on May 26 presented advisory-committee recommendations for three potential bond questions that together would give the city authority to issue up to $330,000,000 in general obligation bonds, and councilmembers spent the workshop debating how and when to present those questions to voters.

Staff said the city's flat-levy policy limits issuance capacity to about $50,000,000 a year and that the 10‑year capital improvement plan requests about $616,000,000 while the issuance capacity is capped near $500,000,000, leaving a roughly $116,500,000 shortfall and forcing prioritization.

The largest recommended question would focus on parks. Staff described 69 parks projects in the CIP totaling about $166,000,000 in bond‑eligible costs and reported the Parks and Recreation advisory body recommended asking up to $175,000,000 to provide a cushion for inflation and escalation. Parks and Recreation Director John Kennedy gave project estimates, saying the Thunderbird Conservation Park project is about $22,000,000, the Heroes Recreation and Aquatic Center about $80,000,000 and the Saguaro Ranch Park master plan roughly $25,000,000.

A second proposed question would allocate up to $75,000,000 for library modernization across three branches; staff said the Library Advisory Board recommended the higher figure to account for placeholders (including Velma Teague branch options) and inflation. The third proposal would ask up to $80,000,000 to modernize the city services and safety center and related facilities; staff noted enterprise funds such as water, sewer and solid waste might contribute to debt service in some cases.

Councilmembers pressed staff on the draft ballot language. One councilmember asked why the question would allow "construct new city parks" when no new parks were currently planned. Multiple speakers explained the language is intentionally broad to preserve flexibility for unforeseen opportunities to expand parkland or facilities, but emphasized that final spending decisions rest with the council.

Several councilmembers zeroed in on a required disclosure that the bond issuance "will result in a property tax increase sufficient to pay the annual debt service on the bonds." Staff and legal advisors said that phrasing is prescribed by constitutional/statutory guidance for ballot questions; explanatory language about how the city anticipates managing taxes can appear in supplemental materials and voter education but not on the ballot itself. "If you start to try and add stuff to [the ballot question], you...create a scenario where...you need to then provide space for others," a staff attorney warned.

Council reaction split. One member urged waiting until 2028 to give staff more time to reprioritize the CIP and build a comprehensive voter-education campaign; another argued the city should ‘‘take the shot’’ now and ask voters for authority to give the council flexibility to address priorities. Staff said the bond committee ultimately voted 4–2 to recommend council consider ranges for each question (parks $50M–$175M; libraries $44M–$75M; operations campus $49.2M–$80M) and that a resolution calling for a special election on Nov. 3, 2026, will be presented at the May voting meeting.

The workshop did not include a formal council vote on placing questions on the ballot; staff encouraged council members to use the upcoming voting meeting to state any objections or amendments. The council moved next to other agenda items and later voted to enter executive session to discuss a separate matter.

Ending: The council did not take final action on bond questions at the workshop; staff will present a resolution for a special election at the May voting meeting, and bond counsel is expected to be available to answer legal questions then.