Council hears CIP corrections and a debate over using $4.3M for blight versus schools

City finance staff told the March 11 work session that several items in the published five-year capital improvement program required technical corrections: two revenue-share projects (a Hollins Mill Road bridge replacement and a Lynchburg Center for Industry Phase 2 TAP grant) had already been appropriated in FY2025 and were removed from FY2026 in the updated schedule. Donna Witt summarized adjustments that increased fiscal 2026 by about $9 million (predominantly to accommodate the proposed Miller Park Pool project) while reducing FY2027 appropriations by roughly $18.2 million because some projects already had appropriations. Overall, the five-year total decreased by about $9.2 million.

Debt-service change: Donna said debt service in FY2025 was $19.7 million and projected at $19.3 million for FY2026, a reduction of about $400,000 attributed to lower line-of-credit interest and timing differences in project spending.

Spending-priority dispute: Councilman Ferradi raised questions about a proposed set of street and utility extension funds and a "property toolkit." He noted approximately $4.3 million in pay-as-you-go funding over five years and suggested council should consider whether that funding would be better spent on the school system or other pressing needs. "We've got serious issues" and "this council needs to have a conversation what is more of a priority," he said, asking whether the city should prioritize schools over demolition or property acquisition programs.

Staff response and details: Staff explained the street/utility extension program is typically used by economic development to support business-ready sites (for example, water or sewer extensions to enable new projects). Staff said one project line in the CIP is $1.2 million of PIGO funds to support street utility extensions to promote economic development. The staff also said the property toolkit work contemplates acquisition and demolition, possibly requiring additional staff capacity; staff noted one new FTE was proposed in the operating budget for a state-mandated pharmacist role, and additional enforcement or inspection staff could be needed if council prioritizes aggressive blight reduction.

Council views: Some council members favored prioritizing school infrastructure; others emphasized the community impacts of blighted properties and the need for a balanced approach. Council members also raised concerns about long-term operating and staffing implications if the city expands demolition, acquisition or remediation programs.

What was not decided: Council did not reallocate the $4.3 million on March 11; members asked staff for more detailed materials to make trade-off decisions during upcoming budget deliberations.

Next steps: Staff said they would provide more data and options to help council weigh funding trade-offs, program staffing implications and possible alternatives for leveraging economic-development funds.