Raleigh Parks Bond Referendum (2022): Difference between revisions
FrankMuraca (talk | contribs) |
FrankMuraca (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
On April 7, 2020, [[Raleigh Mayor]] [[Mary-Ann Baldwin]] shared that the Council had decided to postpone the parks bond until next year, instead prioritizing the housing bond in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to council meeting minutes, Baldwin "pointed out the irony that parks and greenways have become a place of refuge during this crisis, adding people will recognize that and appreciate it. She stated the Council will work hard next year to ensure the parks and greenways receive the support they deserve and thanked the Board again for their efforts."<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=COUNCIL MINUTES|item=PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD – BOND REFERENDUM PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS – INFORMATION RECEIVED|access-date=January 27, 2026|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ASXSMU70F0BF#|date=April 7, 2020}}</ref> | On April 7, 2020, [[Raleigh Mayor]] [[Mary-Ann Baldwin]] shared that the Council had decided to postpone the parks bond until next year, instead prioritizing the housing bond in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to council meeting minutes, Baldwin "pointed out the irony that parks and greenways have become a place of refuge during this crisis, adding people will recognize that and appreciate it. She stated the Council will work hard next year to ensure the parks and greenways receive the support they deserve and thanked the Board again for their efforts."<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=COUNCIL MINUTES|item=PARKS, RECREATION AND GREENWAY ADVISORY BOARD – BOND REFERENDUM PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS – INFORMATION RECEIVED|access-date=January 27, 2026|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ASXSMU70F0BF#|date=April 7, 2020}}</ref> | ||
=== Council revisits in 2021 === | === Council revisits park maintenance in 2021 === | ||
On January 5, 2021, Baldwin asked the PRGAB to review its bond proposal from the previous year and present updated recommendations during the Council retreat on March 12, 2021.<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=City Council Regular Session|date=January 5, 2021|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ASXSMU70F0BF#|item=Report from the Mayor and City Council|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> At the retreat, the PRGAB again presented three tier scenarios ranging from $101 million to $200 million. The advisory board also submitted two short-term alternatives to a bond issuance:<ref>{{Cite govdoc|title=2021 Potential Parks Bond: Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB) Recommendations|agency=Raleigh Parks, Recreation, and Greenway Advisory Board|doc_type=Memo|date=February 22, 2021|pages=pp. 15-16|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/files/BYYT9P74B6CA/$file/20210312CCRetreatAgendaPacketPRCRBondFinal.pdf|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | On January 5, 2021, Baldwin asked the PRGAB to review its bond proposal from the previous year and present updated recommendations during the Council retreat on March 12, 2021.<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=City Council Regular Session|date=January 5, 2021|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ASXSMU70F0BF#|item=Report from the Mayor and City Council|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> At the retreat, the PRGAB again presented three tier scenarios ranging from $101 million to $200 million. The advisory board also submitted two short-term alternatives to a bond issuance:<ref>{{Cite govdoc|title=2021 Potential Parks Bond: Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board (PRGAB) Recommendations|agency=Raleigh Parks, Recreation, and Greenway Advisory Board|doc_type=Memo|date=February 22, 2021|pages=pp. 15-16|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/files/BYYT9P74B6CA/$file/20210312CCRetreatAgendaPacketPRCRBondFinal.pdf|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
* A '''two-cent property tax''' to replace the bond and cover ongoing maintenance needs and smaller capital projects. | * A '''two-cent property tax''' to replace the bond and cover ongoing maintenance needs and smaller capital projects. | ||
During a work session on April 8, 2021, City staff estimated that deferred maintenance of the City's parks system would cost between $150 and $175 million, which includes $15 million in annual need to cover eight full-time staff and other recurring expenses.<ref>{{Cite govdoc|title=Maintenance|agency=City of Raleigh|department=Budget and Management Services|doc_type=Memo|date=April 8, 2021|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/files/BZVKHF51F0DE/$file/20210408ParksMaintenanceMemo.pdf|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> Staff also estimated that a one cent property tax would raise an estimated $7.6 million, while a two cent tax would raise an estimated $15.3 million. | |||
On June 7, 2021, Council adopted the [[FY 2022 Budget and Capital Improvement Program]], which included a one cent "Penny for Parks" program to raise $7.6 million for parks maintenance.<ref>{{Cite govdoc|title=Adopted Budget FY2022|agency=City of Raleigh|date=July 1, 2021|url=https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR11/FY2021-22AdoptedOperatingBudgetCIP.pdf|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | |||
After a period of reduced activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Raleigh formally resumed work on a parks bond referendum in late 2021. A November 9, 2021 City Council work session presentation described the referendum as “pandemic impacted and postponed” and summarized prior Council input, including the discussion at the March 2021 City Council retreat. <ref>{{Cite web|title=Proposed Parks Bond Discussion|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/files/C8LTHB729B0D/%24file/20211109PRCRparksbondpresentation.pdf|website=City of Raleigh (BoardDocs)|date=November 9, 2021|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | |||
At the November meeting, staff presented three updated scenarios for a potential 2022 parks bond, noting that the referendum was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The presentation noted that because the FY2022 budget included the "Penny for Parks", that capital maintenance was removed from the November 2021 parks bond scenarios.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Proposed Parks Bond Discussion (City Council Work Session presentation)|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/files/C8LTHB729B0D/%24file/20211109PRCRparksbondpresentation.pdf|website=City of Raleigh (BoardDocs)|date=November 9, 2021|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> Staff presented three scenarios for $180 million, $212 million, and $266 million. | |||
During the November 9 meeting, councilmembers expressed concerns that the bond scenarios could equitably address park needs across all districts. | |||
In the meeting minutes, Council member [[David Cox]] said of the recommendations: "I’m going to point out, again, what I have been pointing out for the past 2 years is that District B has the lowest—or next to lowest—number of park amenities of all the districts in the City. We have the lowest number of developed parks, we have the smallest number of playgrounds, we have the smallest number of fields and courts, we have the smallest percentage of population within 10 minutes of a park, we have the smallest percentage of the population within 10 minutes of a greenway, we have the smallest number of centers, we have the smallest number of aquatics facilities. And yet, District B has 61% of its population is minority."<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=City Council Work Session|date=November 9, 2021|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open=&id=AMXHS2497127|item=PROPOSED PARKS UPDATE – STAFF REPORT PRESENTED – STAFF TO PRESENT FUNDING OPTIONS FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2 AT THE COUNCIL’S NOVEMBER 16, 2021 REGULAR SESSION AND BRING RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS AT THE DECEMBER 7, 2021 REGULAR SESSION|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | |||
=== Resumption and placement on the 2022 ballot === | === Resumption and placement on the 2022 ballot === | ||
At a May 10, 2022 City Council work session, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources staff presented updated scenarios for a proposed parks bond intended for placement on the November 2022 ballot.<ref>{{Cite web|title=November 2022 Parks Bond – Staff Report Presented; Direction Given|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open=&id=AMXHS2497127|website=City of Raleigh City Council|date=May 10, 2022|access-date=January 28, 2026}}</ref> Staff reported that project cost estimates had increased by approximately 12.5 percent due to inflation, workforce constraints, supply-chain disruptions, and related market conditions. Staff also noted that some project assignments by council district had changed to reflect '''u'''pdated City Council district boundaries following redistricting. | |||
Three bond scenarios were presented, with total values ranging from approximately $230 million to just over $300 million. Following discussion, Council members directed staff to return with a revised proposal based on Scenario 3 at approximately $275 million, reduce the proposed budget for the [[Devereux Meadows]] project to $13.5 million, and continue evaluating opportunities for public-private partnerships and project phasing. | |||
On May 17, staff returned with a $275 million bond proposal that identifies other funding opportunities through philanthropy, naming rights, sponsorships, and public-private partnerships.<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=City Council Regular Session|date=May 17, 2022|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CDAHTF49AC7F|item=PARKS BOND – STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AGENDA ITEM ESTABLISHING PURPOSE AND SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AT JUNE 7, 2022 MEETING|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | |||
The Council voted on June 7 to direct staff to file a bond request not to exceed $275 million with the [[Local Government Commission]].<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=City Council Regular Session|item=PARKS BOND 2022 – PRELIMINARY FINDINGS RESOLUTION ADOPTED – STAFF AUTHORIZED TO FILE APPLICATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION – CITY CLERK DIRECTED TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF INTENT|date=June 7, 2022|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CDAHVA49C672|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> The vote was 6-2 in the affirmative, with Councilmember [[David Cox]] and Councilmember [[Stormie Forte]] voting against. | |||
A public hearing was held for the parks bond referendum on July 5.<ref>{{Cite minutes|title=City Council Regular Session|date=July 5, 2022|url=https://go.boarddocs.com/nc/raleigh/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=CDAHZX49F500|item=NOVEMBER 2022 PARKS BOND REFERENDUM – HEARING – AUTHORIZED FOR NOVEMBER 8, 2022 BALLOT – VARIOUS ACTIONS APPROVED|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> There were no registered speakers in support of the referendum, and nine spoke against the referendum who were supportive of more funding for affordable housing. The Council voted 6-2 to put the bond referendum on the November 2022 ballot. Councilmember [[David Cox]] and Councilmember [[Stormie Forte]] voted against. | |||
== 2022 | == 2022 Referendum Results == | ||
The parks bond referendum appeared on the November 8, 2022 ballot and was approved by Raleigh voters. The bond authorized funding for a range of park and greenway projects across the city. <ref>{{Cite web|title=Raleigh voters approve parks bond referendum|url=https://raleighnc.gov/parks-and-recreation/services/park-and-greenway-planning-and-development/parks-bond-referendum|website=City of Raleigh|date=November 8, 2022|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | The parks bond referendum appeared on the November 8, 2022 ballot and was approved by Raleigh voters. The bond authorized funding for a range of park and greenway projects across the city. <ref>{{Cite web|title=Raleigh voters approve parks bond referendum|url=https://raleighnc.gov/parks-and-recreation/services/park-and-greenway-planning-and-development/parks-bond-referendum|website=City of Raleigh|date=November 8, 2022|access-date=January 27, 2026}}</ref> | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||