The Jupiter Town Council held a workshop to review a staff‑draft update of the fiscal year 2026–2030 capital improvement program, where staff presented a roughly $126.9 million five‑year program and highlighted new and accelerated water and public‑safety capital needs.

Why it matters: The CIP sets multi‑year spending priorities that influence local tax and rate decisions. This draft reflects higher near‑term capital needs — particularly the Jupiter Fire Rescue transition costs and water‑system projects — and shows a planning deficit in out years that council members asked staff to resolve before budget adoption.

Key numbers and program summary
Staff said the five‑year CIP totals approximately $126,900,000 versus an adopted FY2025 five‑year program of about $97,000,000. Staff attributed most of the year‑to‑year increase to capital costs associated with Jupiter Fire Rescue (approximately $20,000,000 drawn from reserves for the transition) and a suite of water projects, including a new water treatment program and an ion‑exchange project to meet incoming federal drinking‑water requirements.

The water fund was presented as financially self‑supporting; staff listed about $63,800,000 in proposed water‑fund projects across the five‑year window. The stormwater fund and other enterprise funds were presented as rate‑funded and largely unchanged in scope from the prior CIP. Staff noted the county‑surtax infrastructure program has reached its statutory cap of $40,000,000 and that the town expects to collect a small additional sum through the end of the calendar year (staff projected about $5,000,000 more in surtax receipts available before the fund sunsets).

Construction‑cost pressures and cash flow
Council and staff discussed rising construction costs and limited contractor availability as drivers of recent estimate increases. The finance director reported a roughly $1.2 million reduction from earlier operating estimates after scrubbing carry forward and other items, but staff still showed a programmatic shortfall in later years that will require adjustments.

New and accelerated projects
Notable items in the draft CIP included:
- Water treatment and raw‑water main projects, including an ion‑exchange system; staff said data and design work reduced an earlier $12 million estimate to about $4.7 million based on revised technical approaches.
- An accelerated large‑meter/AMI (advanced metering infrastructure) program, shifted to a five‑year implementation horizon from a prior ten‑year plan; FY2026 showed a proposed $6,000,000 meter investment, partially funded with carry‑forward balances.
- Roadway resurfacing and maintenance: staff said current funding enables about 3.3 centerline miles (approximately 6.6 lane‑miles) of resurfacing per year; one councilor urged increasing annual resurfacing funding by about $750,000 to reach an estimated desired level near 5.4 centerline miles per year.
- Facility and park work, including continued funding for playground replacements, park restorations and community‑park renovations; staff noted sequencing changes to match project readiness.

Surtax and reserves
Staff reiterated that surtax receipts are reaching their authorized total and noted available balances and reserve benchmarks. The finance director showed two‑year cash‑flow projections demonstrating that, even with the Jupiter Fire Rescue drawdown, projected reserves would remain close to the administration’s benchmark levels, though council members requested conservative updates before adoption.

Seawall / Sawfish Bay: engineering assessment and grant strategy (see separate article for full technical discussion)
Council heard an extended technical briefing from the newly hired engineering director on the Sawfish Bay seawall project. The director said the initial consultant report recommended full replacement under a conservative condition classification, but in‑house review and a contemporaneous DEP resilience grant application suggest a major rehabilitation paired with nature‑based shoreline improvements could meet resilience and funding goals while substantially reducing near‑term capital needs. Staff said the town has an upcoming DEP grant application and may scale the FY2026/FY2027 budget between design and construction depending on award outcomes.

Policy and process questions from council
Several council members pressed staff on two recurring CIP process issues: (1) how long unspent carry‑forward balances remain earmarked for projects and whether older, inactive lines should be swept back or cancelled, and (2) whether staff should stop placing large lump‑sum funding in early years for projects whose service dates are multiple years out. Staff said they would provide additional detail on unspent carry‑forwards and encumbrances and reiterated that budget changes can be made during the fall adoption cycle, but several councilors said they want firmer policies or clearer display of encumbrances and grant assumptions in the CIP.

Next steps and staff follow‑ups
Staff said they will return a revised CIP for the council’s first budget hearing in September, reflecting the committee’s requests to: 1) verify and where possible reduce recent escalation assumptions, 2) show grant‑dependent funding lines as TBD with corresponding reductions in local cash shown until grants are awarded, 3) provide a clearer list of encumbrances and project carry‑forwards, and 4) supply additional detail on the meter‑replacement and ion‑exchange cost estimates.

Ending
Council recessed the workshop after roughly three hours of review and directed staff to provide the requested refinements ahead of budget hearings.