The gist
The $21.6 million city campus bond proposition failed Nov. 4 with 804 votes in favor and 959 votes against, according to results declared official during the Nov. 17 meeting.
The bond would have funded the construction and renovation of a complex housing city hall, council chambers, public works facilities, recreation space and multipurpose classrooms, all of which were planned to be built at once, according to previous Community Impact reporting.
However, with elections results in, City Council discussed three potential alternatives to the plan, according to agenda documents:
- Use cash on hand to cover expenses for a portion of the project and place a $12 million bond proposition on the ballot in May
- Phase out the project, starting with public works facilities, city offices and other site improvements
- Sell the city campus property located at the corner of Jersey and Rio Grande drives and rethink the project
The discussion
The council did not move forward a specific option during the Nov. 17 meeting. Instead, council members agreed to schedule a public work session in December to further discuss the options.
Council member Simon Hughes, who disapproved of the city campus project’s cost and scale in previous meetings, suggested the city get an updated evaluation of the value of the city campus property. He said this would help council make a decision about next steps for the project, such as selling a portion of the property and prioritizing public works and administrative space.
“I’d really like to start from scratch and say how do we get the most value out of the dollars that we’re spending and get these people out of the existing city hall as quickly as possible,” Hughes said.
The city has spent approximately $344,000 on city campus designs so far, City Manager Austin Bleess said during the meeting. He said the current design represents a good path forward for the city.
“I would strongly urge council to not make the same mistakes that they did in this building,” Bleess said, referring to the current city hall on Lakeview Drive. “Do not just move in over there with minimal improvements. ... All of the issues that we face today are things because we didn’t want to put much money into this building.”
What they’re saying
Several council members agreed during the Nov. 17 meeting that without exit polls, it’s hard to know whether residents voted against the bond because they didn’t approve of the borrowing cost or they don’t agree with the scale of the city campus design.
“I don’t think that you can necessarily assume everyone agrees and approves that we should spend that much money,” Hughes said. “I think rather the general notion is that the voters want us to be more careful with how the money is spent.”
However, Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Martin said most residents take issue with the size of the debt, not the goals of the city campus project itself.
“Every time we do a town hall or comprehensive plan, [recreation space] is the No. 1—by not even a little bit, by a lot a bit—request of the citizens,” Martin said.
Council member Drew Wasson urged residents to contact council and share specifics about why they voted as they did and how much they’d be comfortable with the city spending.
“What do you want to see in this community in 50 years because this is what we’re dealing with today,” Wasson said during the meeting. “We’re not just dealing with something that’s going to be here for five, it’s going to be an office that needs to transform over 50 years.”
One more thing
Council also agreed to host a town hall in December to present two concepts for a city pool after voters on Nov. 4 narrowly approved a $6.5 million bond for the construction project.
Dates for the city campus work session and pool town hall have not been set as of press time.
