Council reviews FY2026 tentative budget, pavement plan and waterline funding options

The Woodland Hills City Council reviewed a tentative fiscal year 2026 budget that assumes a roughly 2.5% truth‑in‑taxation increase and focuses on a multiyear pavement management plan and stormwater work while flagging the separate, costlier waterline replacements that will likely require external financing.

Council members heard from Ted (public works and fire department) and Chris (finance) as staff presented a phased pavement management plan that would treat about 11–12 miles of roads across the next two initial projects and add stormwater fixes recommended by engineers. Staff said the only item the council was being asked to approve that night was the phase‑2 engineering contract—$21,000 total, split as $15,000 for design and $6,000 for construction management—to design and put the FY2026 streets out to bid. The transcript does not record a vote on that contract during the meeting.

The pavement management approach described by public works staff prioritizes preserving the best roads with lower‑cost treatments (microseal, crack sealing and selective mill‑and‑fill) so limited funds stretch farther; the staff recommendation explained that reconstructing the worst roads first would consume far more money and leave other roads to deteriorate. Staff said mill‑and‑fill work proposed for a portion of the program could cost about $500,000 for the road portion mentioned and that some roads requiring water‑line replacement were excluded from the pavement list because they must be reconstructed together with water main work.

Nut graf: The city’s larger budget choice is how fast to do roads and how to pay for separate waterline replacements. Council members repeatedly returned to two linked tradeoffs — use reserves to accelerate pavement work now or borrow to finish projects sooner while preserving savings — and how any loan or waterline debt will affect residents through water‑rate increases.

Staff reported there is roughly $1.3 million currently in the capital fund used for roads (Fund 40). Using the tentative FY2026 revenue assumptions — staff modeled both a 2.5% truth‑in‑taxation hike and multi‑year 3% scenarios — the five‑year projection staff presented would complete the pavement and stormwater program by about 2029 while drawing down the roads fund each year. Staff recommended evaluating short‑term borrowing (Zions Bank was cited) for a 5–6 year payback that could accelerate completion and protect against construction inflation. Staff estimated state and federal loan programs (including rural development and division of drinking water programs) could provide low‑interest loans, historically ranging from 0% to around 4%, but cautioned grants will be limited because median adjusted gross income in the city is relatively high.

Waterline replacements were described as a separate, higher‑cost program: staff said some water‑line corridors will require full replacement and could total several million dollars. Because water enterprise revenue must repay water debt, staff said these projects would likely require a water rate increase and the city must demonstrate capacity to repay loans if it pursues state or federal financing. Council members urged staff to keep pursuing grants and low‑interest loans but acknowledged the city may need to raise water rates to cover debt service.

Council members pressed staff for clarity on sequencing and on website transparency: residents and public commenters noted a prior posted budget narrative contained numerical errors that remained online and requested corrected figures. Staff said the narrative error involved a mis‑reported line in the narrative (about road and public improvement totals) and that the detailed budget numbers presented to the council were the correct figures; staff committed to investigate why the corrected file was not posted to the city website.

Ending: Staff said they will return with highlighted changes comparing the May draft to the revised FY2026 budget before the formal August adoption vote and that the council could still choose an alternate tax‑rate scenario at that time. The transcript records discussion and a single formal spending item up for consideration (the $21,000 engineering contract) but does not record a final council vote on the contract or on the FY2026 budget during this meeting.