Council directs $2 million toward basic CIP needs; asks staff to return with city‑hall options

The Cupertino City Council received a presentation on the proposed fiscal‑year 2025–26 capital improvement program (CIP) and a five‑year plan, and provided direction to staff to move forward with a set of projects focused on public safety and infrastructure preservation. The council’s amended motion to adopt staff’s near‑term proposal passed with one recorded no vote.

Public‑works staff described the scope and constraints of the CIP. "Our highest priority projects are those that are necessary to protect the public health and safety," said Susan Michael, the city’s CIP manager. Staff told council that constrained staffing and a modest $2,000,000 allocation for the CIP in the coming fiscal year required a back‑to‑basics approach focused on three priorities: repairing critical storm‑drain outfalls, continuing accessibility improvements, and addressing high‑priority items identified in a facilities condition assessment including fire‑alarm upgrades.

Staff said a recent outfall report identified 51 outfalls in need of repair; council materials showed a request of $950,000 to address three outfalls in close proximity to reduce mobilization costs. The facilities condition assessment items included a proposed $940,000 allocation for critical building improvements — notably fire‑alarm upgrades at multiple facilities. Together, staff described those requests as the primary uses of the $2,000,000 CIP allocation for 2025–26.

Councilmembers and staff discussed project prioritization, pace of work amid staffing vacancies, and grant opportunities. Director of Public Works Chad Mosley and Michael said many projects are proceeding but staff were working at capacity, with a couple of project‑manager vacancies; some queued projects remain unfunded for lack of staff time or available funds. Michael noted years 2 and 4 of the proposed five‑year program contain funding requests above $2,000,000 and would require additional funding sources or project adjustments.

Council and the public also discussed longer‑range, higher‑cost items. Staff estimated a seismic retrofit and full renovation of the existing City Hall would be a major undertaking; an updated estimate provided in the meeting put the full renovation cost near $34,000,000 and said a seismic‑only option would not be feasible without concurrent accessibility and systems upgrades. The city annex (the Tory annex) was discussed as a potential interim location; staff said additional appropriation of about $8,000,000 would be required beyond previously appropriated amounts to complete that work.

Public commenters spoke in favor of completing already‑started projects and urged fiscal restraint. Peggy Griffin asked staff to limit projects that lack grants and to be conservative on large projects; Jean Bedard commended staff for the detailed report and urged completion of current projects; Darcy Paul urged the council not to defund long‑standing projects such as Lawrence Mitty Park. Several residents urged caution on new large projects while staffing and budgets are constrained.

On the council floor, members asked staff to prepare: (1) the three priority CIP projects for the fiscal year using the $2,000,000 allocation, (2) a plan and financing options for City Hall renovation (including the option of using the annex as interim space), and (3) a schedule to return with proposals for any projects council wished to consider defunding or reprioritizing. The council asked staff to report options to council in future meetings and to bring a package to the audit committee to review capital‑budget format and prioritization criteria.

Council approved the staff‑proposed near‑term CIP approach and the direction to return with City Hall materials; the amended motion passed with one recorded no vote. Staff said they would return with cost estimates, financing options and a recommended schedule for any project deletions or scope changes.

Ending: Staff will present detailed cost and financing options for City Hall and the annex, and provide a list of candidate CIP reductions for council consideration by the requested follow‑up dates.