CIP recommendations: staff asks council for a small debt‑rate boost to restore project capacity; rail trail, lead remediation and emergency operations center in

JJ Scott, who presented the capital improvement program (CIP) recommendations, told council staff used updated debt modeling and new prioritization steps to try to ensure projects in the proposed FY26 appropriation are fundable and sequenced appropriately.

Why it matters: the manager’s recommended FY26 budget includes a small additional allocation to the debt service tax rate (an extra 0.52 cents of the tax rate) to preserve borrowing capacity so the city can fund a set of capital projects that staff judged a high priority. Council repeatedly asked for details on which projects are funded by that incremental capacity and how the new multiyear funding plan will be delivered to the public.

Highlights from staff presentation: • Debt service capacity: staff said the manager’s budget recommends the extra 0.52 cents to debt service to restore project capacity that would otherwise be curtailed; the staff materials note that one penny of the tax rate equals roughly $6.9 million in the fiscal model presented. • Bond and CIP mix: some projects are funded by the bond program approved by voters; others are regular CIP requests that require debt financing. Staff said they prioritized existing projects over adding many new projects and added a technical review to ensure facility‑maintenance projects that were previously falling off the prioritization lists were re‑considered. • Projects shown in the proposed appropriation included major and routine items: a rail trail appropriation in design and moving toward bid, lead remediation and site work for parks (staff noted a major multi‑year park lead remediation effort), bridge and street projects, maintenance and HVAC work across city facilities, stormwater and water/wastewater enterprise projects, and funding to build a new emergency operations center (EOC) shared with the county and a backup 9‑1‑1 center. A new fire station project also appears in the list with an $18 million appropriation identified in staff materials. • Project delivery risks: staff noted that some large construction projects, particularly those with substantial earthworks, have seen high bids in the current construction market. As an example, the Ellerbe Creek stormwater restoration project was rebid and split into phases after bids came in well above engineers’ estimates; staff said first phases (earthwork) would go back to bid shortly and that project timing now depends on bid outcomes.

Council follow‑up: council asked for a clearer multiyear schedule (project timing and cost by year); staff said they will work toward a project‑by‑project multiyear funding plan and to publish improved public visualizations after ERP financial data migration is complete. Staff emphasized the extra debt service revenue cushion is intended to avoid removing many previously promised projects from the CIP.