Commission reviews draft 2026–2027 capital budget and 2026–2035 transportation CIP; funding shortfalls and Treat Boulevard questions raised

City staff presented the proposed 2026–27 Capital Budget and the draft 2026–2035 Transportation Capital Improvement Program at the Jan. 16 study session, outlining a mix of asset management and discretionary transportation projects and forecasting revenue from developer fees, gas tax, grants and other sources.

Senior Civil Engineer Alex Wong told the commission that the capital budget is a two‑year spending plan derived from the 10‑year CIP and highlighted two projects proposed for the 2026–27 cycle: an Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (ASIC) grant‑supported project (related to the Ignacio Valley Road development) with $2.436 million in grant funding and an existing $3.8 million TIF allocation toward the North Broadway road diet; and a San Miguel Drive sidewalk project estimated at $690,000, a joint effort led by Contra Costa County in which the city is responsible for the Newell Avenue to Blackwood Drive segment.

Wong described recurring categories that appear in each two‑year cycle of the CIP — pedestrian improvements at unsignalized crosswalks, bike facilities per the master plan, school active transportation projects, citywide traffic calming and local roadway safety plan improvements — but said TIF balances are substantially below previous forecasts because development revenue has slowed. Staff proposed carrying forward several previously listed projects and adding new projects in the 2028–29 cycle, including Treat Boulevard corridor improvements (a joint project with Contra Costa County focused on Treat Boulevard from North Main to Jones Road), Ignacio Valley Road intersection improvements funded in part by developer contributions, and a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant application.

Commissioners focused on funding realism and implementation risk. Questions included whether ASIC allocations and previously committed TIF funds were shown consistently in packet tables; the timing and conditions of developer contributions (staff said some development mitigation payments are realized upon occupancy); and why many projects in later years remain unfunded. Commissioners urged clearer financial schedules that show total project costs, previously allocated funds and remaining unfunded needs so the commission and public can better assess feasibility.

Treat Boulevard generated substantial technical questions. Commissioners asked whether the proposed modifications would remove travel lanes or merely narrow lanes, how the design interacts with ramp‑metering and planned I‑680 changes, and whether the previously performed operational analysis accounted for all nearby jurisdictional and Caltrans elements. City Engineer Smith R. Boardman said the North Downtown Specific Plan envisioned lane reallocation (a road diet) and that the county’s corridor study and consultant analysis evaluated operations; staff offered to return with more detailed cross‑section illustrations and the consultant’s traffic analysis.

Other technical clarifications: the Ignacio Valley Road intersection improvements are supported by a $1.75 million development contribution from The Glen at Heather Farm; the HSIP application would seek $1.2 million with a $300,000 local match; and the proposed trail‑crossing, San Miguel and ASIC projects carry specific estimated costs included in the packet. Staff said the CIP is deliberately a planning document that may contain unfunded projects to support future grant applications.

Commissioners recommended staff provide the commission (and ultimately the council) with improved financial tables that show full project costs, prior allocations and unfunded shortfalls, and requested copies of the traffic/operational study for Treat Boulevard and related ramp‑metering work. Staff said they will incorporate commission feedback into the capital budget and CIP and present the revised materials to City Council for adoption.