Council Discusses Bond Options for Parks, Transportation

When Dunwoody citizens hit the voting booth this fall, they’re most likely going to see a bond referendum on the ballot – but how big that bond will be, how it would be spent and how it would affect voter’s taxes isn’t clear yet.

Monday night, the Dunwoody city council discussed several possibilities for a referendum for both parks projects and transportation projects.

The city recently finished up its and seems to be nearing some kind of conclusion on its Parks Master Plan – though there is still much dissension from city council members and the public over certain parts of the proposal.

But with a city budget of about $18 million per year, the proposed projects are too large to be done within the city budget, most on the council agreed.

“I believe it’s our duty to discuss this and try to move forward and let the voters decide,” said Mayor Ken Wright.

What’s on the table are $20 million in transportation projects – improvements deemed to be high priority in the transportation plan, and around $40 to 60 million in parks plan improvements.

In February, at the council’s retreat, a 1.5 mill bond strictly for parks was discussed, as council members thought the parks plan was the most pressing need for the city.

Monday, Doug Thompson discussed possibly having a .25 mill for transportation, saying there are other funding transportation funds possible – T-SPLOST funding could be approved in 2012 – a half-cent sales tax that could provide funding for local transportation projects.

“That would bring in $11 million,” he said. “We could get some major stuff done with at that kind of money. But my gut tells me I wouldn’t’ mind putting this one off to see what happens with the SPLOST. Anything over a .5 mill in transportation, which would bring us in at about $21 million, I think we are putting ourselves in too much debt.”

Thompson said with parks, it’s the opposite, as there aren’t any other funding mechanisms for parks other than local bonding. He said a 1 to 1.5 mill increase might be necessary for parks (see chart below for what that means for property owners). A 1 mill increase would net more than $43 million for a 30 year bond. 

The city's current mill rate is 2.74 (a break down can be found here).

For parks, however, there are some on the council, and in the public, who still have major issues with the current parks plan proposal – which has yet to be passed by the council.

“I’m in favor of a bond referendum for parks, but only if we have the right parks plan,” said Danny Ross.

Ross had support in that sentiment from several audience members Tuesday, many of whom showed up to speak against the proposals to put ballfields in the southwest corner of Brook Run Park and to add in playgrounds and a small amphitheater to the Dunwoody Nature Center property.

 Several in the audience expressed dismay at the ballfields plan, which would take out many trees in Brook Run Park.

“Let’s find a location where we are not destroying to create, I know we can do it,” said Diane Contino, who was among about a dozen people to speak Monday.

Councilwoman Adrian Bonser agreed.

“I’ll only agree to the master plan if it is done right,” she said. Bonser said she’d like Brook Run kept as a passive park.

The city currently has about 3.2 acres of park space per 1,000 people (that number came out prior to the ), a ratio the city wants to change to 5 acres to 1,000 people.

Bonser said an investor’s mindset when looking at land acquisition, as the city will need more land for a variety of types of parks.

Wittenstein concurred.

“I feel an incredible sense of urgency for us to be acquiring park land,” he said, pointing to current land prices.

“We’re all nervous about taking on debt, but every single one of us took out mortgages on our houses,” he said. “We all accepted that we had to pay interest, but we all knew that waiting 30 years in order to buy a house wasn’t a wise choice.”

Wittenstein said the same goes for bonding for these projects, adding that it is an investment for future residents of Dunwoody.

In any case, said Councilman John Heneghan, the council needs to be as clear with residents as possible about how the bonds would be used and what projects they would be used on.

“We’re still living a history when it comes to the implementation of past bond practices that we’re forced upon us,” said Heneghan, referring to past bonds from DeKalb County. “If we go forward with a bond, I’d like to have some answers.”

He said the city should be definitive about projects and time frames for the projects.

“We need to give as much information as possible,” he said.

The council plans to try to come to a conclusion on the parks plan in the next few months and then make a decision on how the bond referendum would look on the fall ballot – the cost and whether or not it would be put as separate votes for transportation and parks.

At the end of the day, Wittenstein said the decision about these bonds is ultimately for the public to make.

“I don’t know whether the voters will vote for it, but we ought to give them a chance,” Wittenstein said. “The value of being a city is that you can go to the voters and say, ‘It’s up to you.’”

What does a Mill mean to a Dunwoody home?

# of Mills

Cost per year per $100,000 in home value

Net for city over 30 years

.25

$10

Over $10 million

1

$40

More than $40 million

1.5

$60

More than $60 million