Flower Mound town staff on Thursday presented a Blue Ribbon Committee recommendation for roughly $112 million in potential bond-funded projects and outlined next steps if the council opts to place the measures on a May 2025 ballot.

The committee’s package includes a proposed renovation and expansion of the Community Activity Center (CAC), an $82 million parks/trails/recreation bundle assembled by Parks staff, several trail segments to improve connectivity, a synthetic-turf conversion of an existing sports field, west-side park and RV improvements, a 24-hour self-service library kiosk, and a $30 million street reconstruction proposition focused on older pavements. Town leaders said the proposal aims to address aging infrastructure without increasing the overall tax rate.

Why it matters: Council and staff said long-term financial changes at the state level and rising maintenance needs have constrained operating reserves and pushed capital needs toward debt financing. Council members and staff described the proposal as a way to use debt for long-lived capital while shifting operational costs to dedicated sales-tax revenue and preserving generational equity — the principle that current and future users share capital costs.

What staff presented

John (staff member) walked the council through the bond strategy and the Blue Ribbon Committee process, saying the committee narrowed a broad list of needs and landed on a recommendation “roughly a $112,000,000 worth of projects,” including the CAC renovation, streets, west-side projects, turf fields, parks and trails. On the financing approach, he said staff modeled scenarios that, in their view, “show we can take this on without increasing the total tax rate” by shifting operations onto sales-tax-funded maintenance and funding capital through interest-and-sinking (I&S) debt.

Public engagement and survey results

Sarah (public engagement staff) summarized four in-person events and an online survey with 131 respondents. She said in-person activities (a sticker chart and a mock ballot) showed strong support for street reconstruction and the CAC renovation, while the online results were more polarized: “36% of the individuals that took that survey fall into 1 of 2 categories — they either unanimously approved of all the bond items or they disapproved of nearly every one of them,” she said, noting an overall roughly 2-to-1 ratio of approve-to-disapprove among respondents. Sarah said staff used an AI-assisted summary of comments that stressed infrastructure and recreation improvements but also flagged concerns about cost and distribution of benefits.

Parks and the Community Activity Center

Chuck Jennings, Parks and Recreation director, presented the parks and recreation elements and the CAC plan. He said the CAC was built in 2008 at about 61,000 square feet and that the recommended project would renovate roughly 34,000 square feet and add about 55,000 square feet of new dry and wet space, increasing the facility to about 115,000–116,000 square feet overall. Planned additions described by staff include an indoor leisure pool, expanded fitness and group-exercise areas, three gym courts (or multiuse courts), an indoor turf area, an indoor playground, and more program/office space. Jennings said the consultant projection used in budgeting assumes about an 85% operational cost recovery after the renovation and estimated the town subsidy for operations at roughly $900,000 (operating subsidy only; that figure does not include debt service).

Parks-related projects presented included Leonard and Helen Johns Community Park (conceptual master plan and design funding), Prairie Trail Park (a small, underutilized park targeted for refresh and loop trail), phase 2 at Twin Coves (additional RV sites and a campground headquarters), and a synthetic-turf conversion at Chinchapel Park for a multipurpose field. Jennings and council members discussed trade-offs, tree preservation, and the expectation that some projects will require additional public input during final design.

Trails and sidewalks

Staff proposed multiple trail and corridor improvements intended to improve connectivity across the town and create longer continuous segments. Projects described included a 7-mile continuous corridor (the primrose/Veil corridor) that would link Vickery Elementary and other destinations, upgrades along Flower Mound Road, Justin Road/407 corridor improvements, and several off-street trail segments in utility corridors. Staff noted the town has submitted a grant application to the North Central Texas Council of Governments (an 80/20 match program) that could fund a large trail segment.

Several council members cautioned about using debt to replace serviceable sidewalks with wider, higher-cost trails on high-speed corridors; they asked staff for more granular maps showing exactly which pavement/sidewalk segments would be removed, replaced or widened and how the improvements increase trail connectivity. Staff committed to providing a clearer, line-by-line breakdown before the council’s next meeting.

Sports fields and surface choices

Jennings described a recommended synthetic turf conversion at Chinchapel Park (field No. 5) as an option that would increase usable hours, reduce rainouts and cut recurring field-restoration work. Staff estimated a budget-level cost of about $11.3 million for the turf project and discussed maintenance trade-offs and longevity: “10 to 15 years is about right” for a typical turf lifespan and replacement is commonly about half the initial installation cost, staff said.

Library kiosk (24-hour self-service)

Rachel (library director) described a “24-hour self-service center” (a browsable kiosk, not just a parcel locker) that would hold up to about 340 items and allow patrons to pick up requested holds at any hour. She said the unit could be stocked with children’s materials and bestsellers and that the installed cost of a browsable kiosk is substantially higher than a simple hold locker (staff cited examples roughly $350,000 fully installed for a browsable kiosk versus $20,000 for a basic hold locker). Rachel said a hold-locker option for the main library could be implemented as a regular decision-package without bond funding.

Streets: reconstruction and maintenance strategy (Proposition B)

Brian Wattenberg (staff member) presented the citywide pavement-condition data that staff use to prioritize work, noting the town’s network PCI (pavement condition index) fell from 81 in 2017 to 77 in 2023 but remains above many peer cities. He described a two-part strategy: use bond proceeds for major street reconstruction projects while preserving dedicated sales-tax pavement funds for ongoing maintenance activities (panel repairs, crack sealing, slurry or thin overlays) that extend pavement life. Staff recommended a $30 million proposition for roadway reconstruction staged over multiple years. “We need some new strategies to maintain that level of service,” Brian said, adding that $30 million is intended to fund reconstruction work staged over roughly a five‑year implementation horizon and that more maintenance dollars would always help extend life further.

Legal limits, ballot language and council communications

Bond counsel from Norton Rose Fulbright (Bob and Kristen) advised council on statutory language and the trade-off between precise ballot language and future flexibility. Counsel said state law requires a clear statement of purpose and that overly narrow language can limit the town’s ability to use authorized funds later if conditions or grant opportunities change. Counsel also cautioned on communications rules: town staff and elected officials may provide factual information, but using town resources for advocacy or “vote for/against” messaging can trigger statutory and ethics complaints. “You can provide factual information,” counsel said, “but you should not use town assets to advocate a vote.”

Council feedback and next steps

Council members asked staff for more detailed project cost breakdowns (by project and by council priority), clarification on which sidewalk/trail segments would actually be reconstructed or widened, and more precise projections of tax impacts for typical households. Several council members asked staff to present that level of detail at the council meeting on Feb. 3 and to be prepared to call the election at that meeting if the council chooses to move forward (staff noted statutory deadlines tied to a May election date). Staff also said they will continue to pursue grant opportunities (NCTCOG, TxDOT Transportation Alternatives, Texas Parks & Wildlife grants) to leverage bond proceeds.

What council did not do

There was no formal vote at the Jan. 16 work session. Council directed staff to return with more detailed cost and alignment information and to place a bond-item status update on the Feb. 3 agenda; staff said the statutory deadline to call a May election would require action in early February if the council wishes to place propositions before voters.

Ending

Staff said it will prepare more detailed maps, project-level cost estimates and a voter‑information package for council review. If the council votes to call the election, the town would ask voters in May 2025 to authorize the bond propositions described in the meeting. Until the council takes a formal vote on calling the election, the package remains a staff and committee recommendation under review.