Annapolis reviews capital-improvement priorities as City Dock costs rise; council pushes for clearer project tracking

The Annapolis City Council reviewed the proposed fiscal 2026 capital-improvement program and asked staff to make project status and timelines easier for both council members and the public to track. The discussion, held at the council work session on April 24, centered on several project cost or scope changes — most notably an updated City Dock cost estimate — and on steps to improve transparency and community engagement.

Bert Vogel, public works director, said the city adjusted its City Dock (referred to in the presentation as “CitiDoc”) estimates to reflect known construction costs and other items not included in last year’s budget tables. “This year, we wanted to make everything match,” Vogel said, describing an added roughly $15 million in identified funding and cost items that were not carried as firm figures in last year’s book.

Vogel gave a consolidated figure of about $88,000,000 for the City Dock program. He said that amount “breaks down, kind of like this”: $50,000,000 in outside funding, $6,000,000 the city transfers to itself, and $32,000,000 of city funding applied to the project. Asked later to clarify, Vogel characterized the $32,000,000 as FEMA grant funding for the project.

The presentation identified several other projects with significant cost or scope movement. Council members noted specific line items and inconsistencies in the draft CIP binder: a Tolleson Street Park entry appeared to be a duplicate of a traffic-safety project page, and Alderman Finlayson asked that Acton Cove Park be shown among projects with substantial numerical changes after it rose to a roughly $735,000 allocation. Vogel said his filter for the briefing highlighted projects with changes of $500,000 or more, which is why some items did not appear on the slide set.

Council members also raised a change to Annapolis Walk’s parking configuration. The staff presentation notes an increase in funding — roughly $800,000 was added to support reconfigured parking that would change on-street parallel spaces to full-in parking around the park. Council members characterized that as a material change that should appear more prominently in the project description.

Council members pressed staff for improved project tracking and public communication. Alderman Savage and others asked for a condensed, user-friendly summary of each CIP project showing key milestones (design, construction start, completion). Vogel said the department maintains an internal CIP tracker that includes target dates and status notes; he said staff will work with the finance office and the communications team to produce a public-facing version.

Deputy Manager Jackie Deidle said communications staffer Mitchell Stephenson proposed a web portal that would present CIP and other city projects with photos, timelines and a named contact for each project. “That should be kicking off this year,” Deidle said, describing it as a way to let both council and constituents follow progress without having to navigate internal spreadsheets.

Council members asked for more frequent status updates from project managers, especially for projects with ongoing community engagement. Vogel noted a historic staffing shortage in the public-works office that slowed some projects; he said recent hires including Jeff Wentz and Lisonbee DiMatteo and staff reallocations such as moving Jen Fade toward water and wastewater work have eased but not eliminated the workload. “We still have a little bit more workload than we have staff, but we’re much better than we were 12 months ago,” Vogel said.

The council and staff discussed a set of procedural fixes: (1) correct and update the CIP binder pages (Tolleson Street Park and other misprints), (2) add clearer project descriptions for material parking or scope changes (Annapolis Walk), and (3) create a condensed, public-facing CIP tracker with milestones and a contact person. Vogel and staff committed to follow up and to re-share internal tracker access and the proposed portal details to council members.

The work session also included brief questions on other items — for example, a council member asked whether the city had explored using the county refueling facility instead of installing above-ground fuel tanks; Vogel said the county had rejected such an approach — and concluded after the public-works discussion with the expectation of a follow-up CIP status work session after the budget process.

Ending: Council members said they would schedule follow-up meetings for specific questions and welcomed a public-facing project portal to manage constituent expectations and reduce ad-hoc status requests.