Milpitas outlines $245 million CIP plan for 2026, highlights library elevator, storm drain and rescue vehicle projects

Milpitas city staff presented a proposed five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) at a special City Council study session on April 2, recommending about $245 million in projects across multiple categories and asking council to provide direction to bring the plan back for adoption.

The city’s engineering division manager, Lee Hawk, told the council the FY26–30 CIP package includes 148 projects with an estimated total cost of about $245,000,000 and that staff recommends funding 37 projects in the coming fiscal year, representing roughly $38.7 million in programmed activity. “The five‑year capital improvement program that is brought forward tonight consists of 148 projects with the proposed budget of $245,000,000,” Hawk said.

Why it matters: the proposed FY26 portion would fund a mix of infrastructure upkeep and multiyear capital work while largely using dedicated enterprise and grant funds rather than new general‑fund transfers. Councilmembers pressed staff on what portion of the recommended FY26 CIP comes from the general government CIP fund; staff said $2,460,000 of the $38.7 million is funded from the general government CIP fund and the remainder is from restricted sources such as gas tax, water and sewer capital surcharges, and grant awards.

Key recommended FY26 projects and staff notes - Library elevator repairs and security: Staff said a January 2025 contract was awarded for about $521,000 to repair the library elevators; kickoff is expected this month and work is anticipated to finish by September 2025 pending final vendor bonding. Staff also proposed a six‑month unarmed roving guard schedule to address vandalism at an estimated cost of about $50,000, charged to Public Works’ operating budget. (Presentation excerpt; Feb. 11 follow‑up noted.) - Urban search and rescue (USAR) vehicle: Fire staff requested $1,850,000 from the equipment replacement fund to purchase a new USAR vehicle to replace a 1999 medium‑rescue unit. Fire leadership said the current vehicle has about 97,000 miles and exceeds industry service guidelines; the replacement is expected to be delivered in 2028 and would consolidate earthquake response, toolbox and hazmat equipment. Fire staff said consolidating equipment onto the new vehicle would allow the department to decommission an older hazmat vehicle and avoid over $1,000,000 in future replacement costs. Fire staff and council discussed that the USAR vehicle is unstaffed and cross‑staffed by personnel on other apparatus during incidents. Fire staff emphasized the vehicle’s value for earthquake response: “the single greatest threat to the city Milpitas is the potential catastrophic earthquake,” the chief said. - Technology refresh (end‑user computer replacement): Staff proposed a formal replacement cycle to replace approximately 754 laptops and desktops over five years rather than ad‑hoc replacements. Staff recommended replacing 245 devices in FY26 at an estimated cost of $360,000 and extending replacement cycles (laptops to five years, desktops to six) to reduce recurring cost pressure. Council asked staff to smooth the replacement schedule to reduce a large FY26 spike. - Storm drain and roadway work at Technology Drive: Staff said an investigation found severe degradation of a 66‑inch storm drain and unsuitable pavement subgrade, requiring deep excavation (12–15 feet), pipe replacement and pavement restoration. The recommended repair was estimated at about $4.6 million because of the depth and geotechnical work required. - Parks, streets and facility projects: Notable FY26 recommendations included $1.5 million for Sports Center bleachers/ADA improvements (construction anticipated in 2026), street resurfacing work, and a Safe Streets for All grant‑funded school‑route safety project (total grant $2.9 million; local match $725,000).

Funding and constraints: Staff emphasized that much of the CIP is funded from restricted enterprise funds, grant awards or prior year CIP balances (for example, water and sewer projects are funded by utility surcharges). Hawk and finance staff said the majority of the $38.7 million FY26 recommended list is not a new call on the general fund; the general government CIP fund portion is $2.46 million and those funds are existing balances rather than a requested new transfer.

Council questions and next steps: Council members asked for more detail on project prioritization, phasing and exact funding sources for specific projects (for example, the AV system replacements at recreation facilities and the computer replacement timing). Staff said the 37 projects are the higher‑priority items recommended for FY26 and that departments prioritized projects within their funding categories. Staff said they will return in May with the proposed operating budget and expect to bring the capital budget back for adoption at the same meeting.

Ending: Council did not adopt the CIP at the meeting; staff asked the council to receive the presentations and provide direction. Staff will return with the operating budget adoption materials and the recommended CIP adoption schedule in May.