Stonecrest officials weigh FY26 budget trade-offs as resurfacing needs outstrip recommended funding

City of Stonecrest officials spent a Sept. 18 joint committee meeting weighing trade-offs in the proposed fiscal 2026 budget, focusing on transportation and parks capital projects after staff said funding would not cover all streets rated “poor” and “very poor.” City Manager Scruggs and staff presented a draft capital improvement program (CIP) that keeps street resurfacing at $3,000,000 in 2026 and for each year through 2030, and warned that doing every segment rated “very poor” in a single year would cost roughly $6,000,000.

The resurfacing figure drove much of the discussion because it affects how much the city could fund sidewalks, intersection and pedestrian safety improvements, wayfinding and other items. “To do all of the very poor, all in one year … it would take about a $6,000,000,” one staff presenter said, noting the 6 million figure was an estimate using unit prices from the 2025 pavement package. Staff emphasized those are segment repairs — short sections of streets — not full roadway rebuilds.

Why it matters: Stonecrest has been using sales-tax‑derived capital funds (SPLOST) and grants to pay for transportation projects. Staff told the committee the city collects SPLOST revenues on a monthly basis and can budget only one year at a time, so increasing resurfacing in 2026 to $6 million would require reducing or deferring other projects in the 2026 column of the CIP.

Key numbers and trade-offs - Staff recommended $3,000,000 for resurfacing in 2026 and each year through 2030. Doing all segments rated “very poor” in one year was estimated at about $6,000,000. - The set of streets rated “poor” (one tier below very poor) was discussed as roughly $24,000,000 if tackled in full; staff noted the combined very-poor+poor backlog is on the order of $30,000,000 and the current plan covers about half of that over five years. - Staff proposed keeping a $400,000 contingency for emergency transportation projects, $300,000 for street‑lighting capital, $300,000 for sidewalk design and $900,000 for sidewalk construction across various locations, and $800,000 for intersection improvement match funds. A Panola Road phase‑1 match fund figure was cited in the meeting as about $505,100 (as stated by staff in the discussion).

Protected or high-priority items Staff told the committee there are projects they would not recommend cutting because they are mid-process or already funded. Those examples included the bridge‑scape/wayfinding work, bus stops and benches tied to Barrington Road work, and the Panola Road phase 1 match funding. Staff said several projects already have procurement activity, design contracts, or grant match requirements that make them poor candidates for reallocation.

Options discussed Council members and staff discussed three basic options: keep resurfacing at $3 million (staff recommendation), increase 2026 resurfacing toward $6 million by reducing or deferring other projects (for example, portions of the city center line or selected noncritical CIP items), or spread larger resurfacing amounts over multiple years. Staff warned that moving money from future years or tapping all unspent SPLOST receipts would be constrained by how and when SPLOST is collected and by the one-year budgeting rules.

Sidewalks, schools and safety Committee members pressed staff on sidewalk priorities around schools and high‑pedestrian corridors. Staff said the prioritized list reflects prior pedestrian and transportation plans and that the proposed $300,000 design / $900,000 construction split is intended to fund several prioritized segments (the committee discussed West Farrington Parkway, Evans Mill/Davidson sections and a Murphy‑area sidewalk near a school). Staff noted some sidewalk and safety projects are closely tied to other work (for instance, DOT bridge work on Panola Road) and must be coordinated so construction is not undone by adjacent projects.

Parks and other capital items Staff briefed the committee on park projects and their status (Salem, Southeast, Browns Mill and Farrington were discussed). Several parks projects were described as already funded or encumbered in FY25, while some items — restrooms, fencing, a dog park and rec center upgrades at Browns Mill — were identified as potential FY26 expenditures depending on available funds.

Process and next steps Staff asked committee members for guidance on whether to increase resurfacing and, if so, by how much, so staff can return with a recommended balanced budget. The city manager asked for committee recommendations by the end of next week and said the proposed FY26 budget would be presented to the full council on Oct. 20.

Votes and formal actions At the start of the meeting the committee unanimously approved a motion to amend the agenda to read “FY26 budget proposal presentation and discussion.” That amendment was moved and seconded and passed by voice vote; no other formal votes on FY26 budget items were taken at the meeting.

What the committee asked of staff Committee members asked staff to: (1) return with options that would add $1 million or $2 million to resurfacing and show what would be reduced to fund that change; (2) supply more precise cost estimates per lane‑mile and for individual sidewalk segments after design pricing; and (3) provide an updated CIP spreadsheet and project status summary to the committee (staff said they would send the updated spreadsheets to committee members and requested 24 hours to incorporate edits, then asked for council feedback by the following Friday).

The meeting closed with staff reiterating the choice before the council: keep resurfacing at the staff‑recommended $3,000,000—or reallocate money and reduce other projects to raise that amount for 2026. The full FY26 proposed budget will be presented to council Oct. 20; staff requested member guidance before then so the plan brought to council reflects committee priorities.