Alternatives to a May bond: developers propose partial development plus park, community groups offer a supplemental bond

During public comment, the land development acquisition manager for Icon Construction (Harlan Barrow) described a compromise proposal to subdivide the Oppenlander site under existing R10 zoning so the rear ~3 acres would become a park (two ballfields and amenities) and the front acreage would yield middle‑housing lots. He said such an approach could avoid a public bond if the developer built and then conveyed the park improvements to the city, estimating the land and park development at roughly $3.0M for the smaller park plus up to $500K in improvements.

Friends of Oppenlander and other community members countered that a supplemental bond—layered on the existing $3.5M bond—would be the clearer path to holding the full site in public hands. "We are throwing our support behind a 2nd bond measure...to get us up to the school district's demanded sale price of 7,875,000," the group's president, Dean, told the council and said the added tax would be modest per household. Councilors asked staff to analyze Icon's proposal, compute realistic bond impact using county assessed values and bond counsel, and report back; several council members said they were not comfortable rushing a May ballot and preferred further study or a November measure.