Bond advisory committee recommends $87.42M ballot package for parks, animal shelter and downtown parking

The Bond Advisory Committee recommended placing an $87.42 million infrastructure bond before voters in November 2026, approving three separate propositions for parks, a new animal shelter and downtown parking. The committee voted to advance the measures after presentations on project scope, budgets and community input, and asked staff to strengthen the public-facing business case and cost-explanation materials before City Council reviews the recommendation on July 14.

Committee chair Chris Bailey opened the meeting by reviewing the refined bond total and explaining that transportation projects were removed from the 2026 packaging because budget and CIP work showed they can be funded without a bond. Staff said the current proposal — $87.42 million total — was the result of successive reductions from prior project lists and is intended to balance fiscal restraint with long-term community needs.

What the package would include: staff presented the proposed split as three propositions — parks ($61.67 million), a new animal shelter ($20.6 million) and downtown parking improvements ($5.15 million). Staff noted the parks proposition bundles a set of projects (destination play space phase 2, 1849 Park phase 3, trails and a reunion/heritage park concept and land acquisition lines); the animal shelter line covers design and construction of a purpose-built facility on city-owned land; and the downtown parking funding would secure land and support near-term surface parking and design work for a future structured garage.

How the committee voted: the committee moved to recommend placing an infrastructure bond on the November ballot and the motion passed by majority. Separately, motions to include each proposition passed: parks passed by a 5–4 vote; the animal shelter proposition passed with recorded opposition (tally recorded in the meeting); and the downtown parking proposition passed 7–3. The committee debated the order of propositions on the ballot and ultimately recommended placing downtown parking as Proposition A, parks as Proposition B and the animal shelter as Proposition C for committee presentation to council.

Public input and staff follow-up: multiple residents urged support for heritage preservation and asked the committee to include a $250,000 line to support the Heritage House Museum and storage/display needs for Fluger-family artifacts. Shelter advocates and volunteers urged a new facility, citing frequent flooding, mold, termite reports and operational constraints at the existing temporary shelter. Staff acknowledged those public comments, said the Heritage House idea will be relayed to council, and committed to more detailed cost breakdowns, clarifying timelines for bond issuance and improved outreach materials so voters understand tax impacts and benefits.

Next steps: staff will bring the committee recommendation, the project fact sheets and the public-engagement plan to City Council on July 14. Council will decide whether to place the measures on the November ballot and will set any final ordering or ballot language. If council advances the bond and voters approve the propositions, staff said bond proceeds would be issued on an as-needed schedule over multiple years tied to project timelines.

Votes at a glance

- Recommendation to place an infrastructure bond on Nov. 2026 ballot: motion passed (majority; two opposed recorded). - Parks proposition (proposed $61.67M): committee vote recorded 5–4 in favor. - New animal shelter (proposed $20.6M): committee vote recorded in favor with three recorded oppositions. - Downtown parking (proposed $5.15M): committee vote recorded 7–3 in favor.

The committee asked staff to prepare clearer, project-level materials showing costs, timing, alternatives considered (including feasibility studies and consultant findings) and the projected peak tax-rate impact, and to prepare a public communications campaign that responds directly to likely voter questions about cost, timing and alternatives.