Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Onalaska board begins review of proposed 2026–2030 capital improvements plan totaling $88 million over five years

5793389 · August 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members and staff reviewed the proposed 2026 capital improvement projects and five‑year list, discussed funding options including utility bond issues and a mortgage revenue bond, and set a schedule for detailed review and a public hearing in November.

The Board of Public Works and Utilities opened a multi‑month review Aug. 5 of the proposed 2026–2030 capital improvements budget, which includes $15,227,415 in projects for 2026 and about $88,000,000 across five years. No formal vote was taken; staff presented the list and a proposed timeline for deliberation.

Public works staff said the packet and an accompanying memo outline a schedule that will give elected officials, staff and the public 30 days to review the 2026 list before the September meeting and more detailed deliberations in September and October. Staff proposed a public hearing on the capital list at the Nov. 4 Board of Public Works meeting, after which the plan would proceed to the common council for adoption.

Sabrina Steger, finance director, summarized financing considerations and suggested a conservative general‑fund capital target for 2026 of about $3.0–$3.25 million. She said staff and financial advisors (Baird) are examining options including a mortgage revenue bond or other debt instruments for utility projects and recommended a two‑year approach to utility bonding paired with a full water‑rate study if the board pursues utility-specific borrowing.

City Engineer Kevin Schubert and staff noted construction costs have risen sharply in recent years and that the city historically budgets roughly what it pays off each year in debt service. Schubert said a typical approach has been to reduce borrowing terms from 20 years toward shorter schedules to save interest costs, but rising construction inflation complicates capacity to deliver projects.

Staffers asked the board to review the full packet over the next 30 days and return prepared for detailed project-level review in September; the board agreed to the earlier timeline and asked staff to prepare a plain‑language handout explaining financing scenarios before the next meeting.