Planning commission reviews $2.1 billion FY26–30 capital improvement plan; questions raised on Shaco Valley funding

Michael Nixon Garrison, program and operations manager in the City of Richmond’s budget department, presented the city’s proposed fiscal year (FY) 2026–2030 Capital Improvement Plan to the Richmond City Planning Commission.

“The total of the budget is 550,000,000 for the FY26, and the 5‑year plan as a whole totals 2,100,000,000,” Garrison said during his presentation, summarizing line‑item highlights.

Staff told commissioners the five‑year plan dedicates the largest share to transportation; school construction and maintenance together account for roughly one quarter of the plan; capital investments for parks and infrastructure and capital maintenance (including the flood wall system) each make up about 10 percent; and a vehicle replacement program is fully cash funded and represents about 7 percent of the plan.

The presentation listed several large projects that would receive FY26 funding: $212.5 million for school construction and renovation across the five‑year program (including a $200 million placeholder in FY29 for a to‑be‑determined school replacement and recurring annual allocations for maintenance), $10.1 million in FY26 for the Shaco project, $7.9 million in FY26 for infrastructure work at Creighton Court (the public housing transformation), and continuing allocations for the flood wall and city facility maintenance. Staff said Browns Island improvements are a $30 million project in total, with the city proposing $15 million and Metro Richmond raising $15 million; the city’s portion would reach $15 million if Metro Richmond raises its match.

Garrison emphasized a shift in the city’s presentation of capital priorities to align projects with the Richmond 300 master plan and said the CIP includes a public, interactive dashboard maintained by the budget office.

Public commenters and commission members pressed staff for more detail on several items. Commissioner White and members of the public asked about the status of the Shaco Valley Streets project after earlier reporting that parts of that work had been paused; Garrison said he would follow up because he did not have definitive information at the meeting.

Historic Richmond executive director Sayan Kromp and Partnership for Smarter Growth board member Stuart Schwartz urged caution on the Shaco Valley Streets program. Schwartz said the project’s current design could undermine the neighborhood street grid and create conditions that favor high‑speed traffic over pedestrian and bicyclist safety; he urged a redesign and deferral until community concerns are addressed.

Commissioners also flagged the city’s exposure to federal matching funds and the risk that the loss or reduction of federal grants could require rethinking project phasing. Staff noted that some grants carry timing conditions and that a state grant for demolition associated with Maywood requires demolition within 36 months of the grant agreement (placing a practical deadline in October 2026). Garrison said staff can return with follow‑up briefings to clarify funding status and implications for individual projects.

The presentation did not require a commission vote; commissioners asked for more detail on specific projects, greater clarity on grant timing, and additional outreach on Shaco Valley Streets before work is advanced.

Proponents and critics of specific projects used the public comment period to ask the commission to hold further discussions and to require staff to return with updated funding and schedule detail.