Michelle Watkowood, senior budget analyst staffing the city's Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) committee, gave the Finance and Budget Committee an overview of how the CIB process works, funding sources and the department-driven proposals that underlie the mayor’s 2026 recommendation.

Watkowood said the citizen advisory CIB committee is an 18-member body appointed by the mayor. The committee reviews department proposals, tentative recommendations and budget amendments, produces a recommendation to the mayor and holds public hearings before sending its advice for inclusion in the mayor’s proposed budget. Watkowood said the committee reviews both department and community-proposed processes in alternating cycles and also evaluates capital maintenance and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) project proposals.

Why it matters: CIB funds the city’s infrastructure—streets, parks, libraries and public safety facilities—and the committee’s recommendations influence which projects are prioritized for the mayor and council to adopt.

Funding and schedule details

- Watkowood said local financing makes up about 82 percent of the proposed CIB budget and that capital improvement bonds represent roughly 3.7 percent of the 2026 CIB funding mix.

- She said the city’s typical capital improvement bond allocation is about $11 million per year; the decision taken in 2021 to front‑load five years of bond funding (about $55 million total) to take advantage of lower interest rates left reduced bond capacity in 2026. Watkowood said the 2026 bond amount is smaller (about $3.9 million) with the $11 million annual level resuming in 2027.

- Watkowood highlighted projects included in the mayor’s recommendation: two library-transforming projects (Hayden Heights and Riverview) that leveraged outside fundraising and a $3 million increase needed to complete the Randolph Avenue Bridge project. She also noted that the committee reinstated an annual program for children’s play-area improvements.

Council concerns: transparency and equity

Several council members pushed Watkowood on how the committee documents its deliberations and how community advocates can understand why a project was funded or not.

- Council President Nieker and Council Member Mac Coleman asked about the level of transparency and whether scoring, minutes or notes explain the committee’s reasoning. Watkowood said committee members perform individual scoring that staff aggregate and that minutes capture some deliberation; she acknowledged the committee’s decision-making style varies year to year and that detailed narratives explaining every decision are not always recorded in the meeting minutes.

- Council Member Buoi and others raised equity concerns about ward-level investments, noting vacancies on the committee and uneven attendance at committee meetings. Watkowood said CIB membership is tracked by senate district and ward; at the time of the presentation she said every ward had committee representation except Ward 4 and staff were actively recruiting for that vacancy. She described staff efforts last cycle to reopen applications and recruit projects from underrepresented wards when the committee saw gaps in submissions.

Audit committee and follow-up

Council members referenced a recent audit committee review and Wilder Research analysis of historical capital investments. Watkowood said the CIB committee has committed to process improvements and to considering audit recommendations. Multiple council members asked that committee leadership or members attend a council meeting so councilors can ask about specific decisions; Watkowood said the committee meets monthly and that staff will coordinate to bring members to a future meeting (the committee’s next meeting was noted as Nov. 10 at Arlington Hills).

What was not decided

The session reviewed the CIB process and the mayor’s proposed recommendations; committee votes and the mayor’s final changes are part of the mayoral and subsequent council budget process. No formal council action was taken in this presentation segment.

Ending: Watkowood invited council members to request applications or detailed project materials for further review and said staff would work to simplify application materials and communications to improve community access.