Albany staff kick off FY25–29 capital improvement plan update, flagging funding and staffing limits

City of Albany public works staff opened a study session on May 5 to kick off the fiscal year 2025–2029 Capital Improvement Plan update, asking the City Council for direction on project priorities, phasing and funding strategy.

The presentation was led by Lisonbee Carrillo, CIP program manager, and Devorah Zauder, program manager for funding, who described the CIP as a five‑year, living plan that pairs long‑range goals with actionable projects. “Tonight, we're gonna be presenting about the fiscal year 25 to 29 CIP update,” Carrillo said, calling the meeting a “kickoff” to identify actionable projects and priorities.

The plan separates recurring “core” programs, such as annual street rehabilitation, sidewalk repair and sewer rehabilitation, from discrete capital renewals and enhancements. Staff described funding mixes that include local parcel taxes, development impact fees, state and regional pass‑through funds, grants and enterprise fees. Zauder said a key strategy is to reserve more stable funding for core programs and pursue grant funding for discrete enhancements.

Why it matters: the CIP sets which projects the city seeks to design and build in the next five years and frames requests for outside grant funding. Staff emphasized that a combination of limited capital dollars and constrained staff capacity will force tradeoffs between doing many small projects and funding fewer larger projects to completion.

What staff highlighted

- Core programs: Street rehabilitation follows a pavement management plan and preventive maintenance; an annual sidewalk survey supports ongoing sidewalk repair projects. Carrillo said an updated pavement management plan will kick off this fall and likely come before the Transportation Commission and council in the spring.

- Major near‑term projects: staff identified two large projects that will require sustained staff resources—Marin Avenue (pavement, curb ramps and related work) and a Brighton Avenue sewer easement project in the north of the city. Carrillo said public works staff “are going to be stretched thin for the next year and a half or so.”

- ADA obligations: staff flagged the Upper Solano Avenue curb ramps project tied to an ADA settlement with a December 2029 deadline; staff said design for that corridor is expected to be intensive.

- Streetlights and active transportation: a citywide streetlight evaluation found many LED luminaires nearing end‑of‑life; staff proposed a phased capital renewal to catch up replacement beyond operating‑level fixes. Active transportation projects include the Pier Street path segments and a Cleveland bikeway that recently received grant awards.

- Funding context: Zauder noted available funding sources by program: state gas tax pass‑through, Alameda CTC and MTC grants, local street and storm‑drain parcel taxes, Measure M parks taxes and assessment district revenues. She cautioned that transportation grants are highly competitive and that grant awards often carry additional project requirements (for example, paving or drainage work that must accompany a bikeway).

Council questions and staff clarifications

Council members asked for cost ballparks and sequencing guidance. Staff said the curb‑ramp upgrade work on Upper Solano was estimated at about $1.5 million for ramp replacement alone and that would meet the ADA settlement obligation in place. Staff also supplied a rough order of magnitude for a Solano Avenue streetscape reconstruction (Masonic to Tulare) as $30 million if curb lines remain similar, rising toward $50 million if the curb alignments are changed and underground utilities or base concrete are rebuilt.

Staff reiterated that a number of projects are on a multi‑phase path: planning documents feed project definitions, which then proceed to design and construction as funding and staffing permit. They asked council for input on whether any listed projects were missing, which criteria the council wanted staff to use in prioritizing projects across categories, and whether staff should present potential phasing options for large cost items.

Meeting outcome and next steps

No formal action was required on the study session. Staff will return with more detailed CIP documentation, project sheets and schedule recommendations. Staff said they will continue core program work (street and sidewalk rehabilitation, sewer rehabilitation under the consent decree) while seeking grant funding and exploring reserve‑fund replenishment policies. Councilmembers also suggested reporting for related planning items—such as the street‑tree management plan and watershed management plan—be tied into the CIP for better program visibility.

Ending note: staff emphasized the iterative nature of the CIP and the need for council prioritization because of limited funding and staff resources.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the study session presentation and council Q&A.