Calimesa reviews $80 million five-year capital plan; major flood, interchange and street projects rely on external grants

Calimesa City Council members and staff on Monday reviewed the draft fiscal year 2025–26 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), a five‑year program that staff said totals just over $80 million and relies heavily on outside grants and carryover funds.

City Manager Cobo opened the presentation, saying the CIP is “presented on a 5 year planning horizon” and emphasizing that only the 2025–26 amounts will be appropriated; future years are planning estimates. He told the council the plan includes 22 active or carryover projects and that much of the spending is restricted by grant or fee conditions rather than discretionary general‑fund choices.

Why it matters: staff told the council the largest single new budget line for 2025–26 is storm‑drain and flood work for the Kalamazoo Creek project, with the City relying on Riverside County Flood Control District funding and other intergovernmental grants. Staff and the finance director warned the council that adding all proposed one‑time items would reduce general‑fund reserves significantly, and recommended prioritizing projects and pursuing grant matches rather than drawing down reserves.

Most of the presentation reviewed individual projects and funding sources. Public Works Director Madi Shakir described smaller parks and facilities requests, including irrigation controller upgrades at Fourth Street Park (part of Mountain View Park Phase 2), ADA sidewalk work at the new library site and a yard steel structure for Public Works equipment. "This program is really helpful in making sure that we are keeping our water sustainability efforts going," Shakir said of a proposed CalSense irrigation control system that can detect leaks and reduce water waste.

City Engineer Mike Thornton led a longer segment on streets and major transportation projects. Thornton summarized the pavement management program, noting that the city has used ARPA and general‑fund money in prior cycles to increase paving work and that Measure A/RMRA funds provide roughly $600,000 annually for ongoing street work. Thornton said the city will perform a pavement condition survey for prioritization and recommended pursuing projects every other year to get economies of scale.

On highways, staff reviewed multiple interchange projects that together total tens of millions of dollars in need. The Cherry Valley Boulevard interchange is a long‑running, roughly $75 million project that staff said is being advanced to PS&E (plans, specifications and estimates) and must include a realignment of Calimesa Boulevard to meet Caltrans standards. Thornton described a $6 million‑plus patchwork of developer credits, WRCOG/TUMF funds, an earmark from Rep. Ken Calvert and other grants that have supported work to date, but added that significantly more funding is still required to construct the interchange.

Thornton also briefed the council on the Singleton interchange and related Calimesa Boulevard realignment — staff said the realignment design is complete but right‑of‑way acquisition remains. For Singleton staff reported roughly $13 million budgeted for the realignment and missing ramps combined and said they are pursuing a $5 million earmark and federal programs. The Sandalwood and County Line Road interchanges were described as conditional on development and reimbursement arrangements; staff said temporary traffic signals and other interim fixes are in place while larger design steps continue.

On storm and flood projects, staff said the majority of the 2025–26 new spending is for the Kalamazoo Creek project, and that Riverside County Flood Control (Zone 5) has agreed to increase the district’s contribution because construction estimates rose. Staff also presented a separate California Street storm‑drain project designed to capture publicly generated flows that currently enter a private mobile‑home park during heavy storms.

Staff proposed vehicle replacements for several city programs. The COP vehicle (used by the community‑oriented policing program) would be replaced with a gas Ford Ranger after repeated hybrid battery problems; staff said the new vehicle would reduce maintenance costs and avoid the need to ‘‘drive the vehicle around’’ to keep hybrid batteries charged. Public Works requested a Ford F‑350 crew cab (budgeted at about $100,000 including outfitting) to increase towing capacity and reduce downtime; the fire department sought roughly $80,000 for a replacement squad vehicle that will carry over existing emergency equipment where feasible.

The presentation included technology and facility items: library construction status (staff estimate a June 2025 completion for the new library and noted the city’s $1.4 million investment in the project), an interactive touchscreen for the planning counter, server and desktop replacements, and a proposed upgrade to the city’s aging accounting software. Finance staff said the current accounting system is being retired by the vendor and that the $50,000 request is for consultant assistance and parallel operations during a migration.

Finance director Celeste (identified in the meeting) walked the council through general‑fund reserve estimates. Staff estimated an opening unreserved balance in July 2025 of about $7.4 million and showed that, if council approved all proposed one‑time capital items staff presented, the unreserved fund balance would fall materially. Celeste said the city’s reserves remain healthy but cautioned that “revenues are flattening out” and recommended caution before approving additional draws on reserves.

Council members asked questions about construction timing, whether planned work would interfere with community events, the durability of vehicle and equipment purchases, and the city’s pursuit of federal earmarks and grant programs. Thornton and other staff described ongoing coordination with Caltrans, FHWA and regional partners (WRCOG and Yucaipa) and said making projects “shovel ready” — finishing environmental clearance, final plans and right‑of‑way — is critical to competitiveness for federal infrastructure funding.

The workshop concluded with the council thanking staff and scheduling a follow‑up budget workshop on May 19 and the regular council meeting on April 7; staff said they would return with refinements and answers to specific follow‑up requests.

Ending — next steps: staff will revise the CIP based on council direction, seek grant matches where available and return to the council with updated numbers and options for prioritization before the June budget adoption.