Council begins prioritization of new/unfunded capital projects; removes select items from immediate ranking

At a March 18 workshop, the Eagle City Council reviewed proposed new and unfunded capital projects for fiscal years 2026–2030 and gave staff direction to remove three items from the immediate prioritization list: Rocky Canyon, Eagle Lakes and a generic “ball fields” request.

Nicole (city staff leading the capital plan presentation) told council the three projects lack sufficient information or landowner commitment for prioritization. Rocky Canyon, staff said, needs additional study by the landowner with state and Bureau of Land Management involvement before city consideration. Eagle Lakes had its landowner withdraw the request, and ball‑fields were considered redundant with the existing Eagle Athletic Complex project because no location, scale or budget had been provided.

Council instructed staff to keep trail projects on the plan as unfunded but to avoid prioritizing them until the Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan is complete; staff said the exception is an underpass/trail linkage tied to the Lindbergh (Linder) Road improvements that should remain noted for coordination with ACHD. Council also asked staff to continue updating project costs and funding availability; Nicole said none of the projects in the workshop packet are funded and some have grant applications pending (Communities in Motion, Idaho Fish and Game, and others).

Councilmembers sought clarity about staff scoring and the prioritization process. Nicole explained staff scores are compiled from department reviewers (public works, trails, library and others) and that council will later perform a paired‑comparison prioritization on the new/unfunded projects. The council will then reconcile that prioritized list with the city’s currently funded capital plan in a roundtable session to decide what, if anything, should be added to the five‑year program.

On capital maintenance, staff told council the plan uses a planning set‑aside of $1.5 million annually and a capital reserve cap of $2.5 million. Staff recommended funding capital maintenance by need and timing rather than by paired comparison. Council members asked for updated cost details on specific maintenance items — for example, library concrete replacement and floodway protection — and staff said those would be reflected in the next workshop materials.

The council discussed the newly formalized Conservation Education Program (CEP). Staff said the CEP’s current balance is $3,175; the CAC (Conservation Advisory Committee) submitted five proposed CEP projects including a Charlie Wood Park element that overlaps existing park planning. Staff sought council direction on whether CEP items should be pre‑funded by general fund capital dollars or be left to the CEP’s own fundraising and collected fees; the council’s direction in the meeting was that CEP proceed primarily with the funds it collects and seek funding through grants or future capital requests rather than expect automatic city capital set‑aside support.

Nicole outlined next steps and deadlines: a special workshop on April 16 to review the paired‑comparison worksheet and preliminary capital maintenance programming, followed by a May session where council members will finalize prioritization and program placement for the five‑year capital plan. Councilmembers asked staff to provide more detailed funding options for projects that have outside or partner funding opportunities and to provide updated cost numbers (for instance an ITD intersection figure provided recently by ITD was noted as a fresh estimate).