Scottsdale officials present $1 billion FY25-26 capital program; commissioners ask for reconciliation of large carryforwards
Loading...
Summary
City budget staff told the commission the proposed FY25-26 capital budget is roughly $1 billion and explained funding sources and the role of multi-year carryforwards. Commissioners pressed staff for a reconciliation showing how last year's projected project spending rolled into the current year's nearly $966 million display and asked for greater
Scott Selene, the city's budget director, told the Budget Review Commission on March 19 that the proposed FY25-26 capital budget and five-year Capital Improvement Plan together total just over $1 billion.
Scott said roughly 18% of next year's proposed capital spending is covered by the general fund, about 28% by rates and fees, and roughly 20% by debt (a mix of general-obligation and excise-tax-secured MPC debt). He emphasized the program combines continuing projects carried forward from prior years and newly proposed projects for FY25-26.
Commissioners challenged staff to reconcile the large change between last year's budget book and the current proposed amounts. Commissioner Mark Stevens noted that projects the city showed as planned in the prior document for FY25-26 appeared to have jumped from about $530 million to roughly $966 million for —existing— projects. Scott and other staff explained the jump principally reflects carryforward of partially spent multi-year projects, projects that moved from design into construction (which raises planned spending in the next fiscal year), and additional phases authorized during the current year; staff said part of the increase also reflects inflation and schedule adjustments. Scott told commissioners a reconciliation is possible but will be a manual process and staff offered to produce a roll-forward showing how the adopted FY24/25 figures reconcile to the proposed FY25/26 numbers.
The commission heard that the city carries a substantial amount of unspent capital authorization forward each year: staff said the current carryforward into FY25/26 is about $556 million. Commissioners asked for several follow-ups: a clearer cash-flow view that shows expected spending (actual cash outlays) by year rather than only project authorizations, a reconciliation that separates (a) projects existing at the beginning of FY24/25, (b) projects added during FY24/25, and (c) newly proposed projects for FY25/26, and an accounting of where significant non-city funding (federal, regional or developer contributions) is included in the pie-chart funding slices.
City Manager Greg Keaton and Scott described the budget process as a balancing exercise between operating needs (for example, wages and ongoing services) and capital needs (asset replacement and new construction), with staff deciding whether a given request is an —above-the-line— capital priority or a lower-priority —below-the-line— item during budget development.
Why this matters: the scale of the capital program, plus large multi-year carryforwards, makes it harder for commission members and the public to compare year-to-year spending plans. Commissioners asked staff to produce reconciliations and cash-flow tables so the commission can more effectively identify cost growth versus schedule-related carryforward.
Staff evidence covers Scott Selene's CIP overview slides, follow-up answers during Q&A, and the commission's requests for reconciliation and cash-flow documents.
