Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sacramento presents $522.6 million five‑year capital improvement plan, flags $1.8 billion funding gap
Summary
City finance staff told the City Council the proposed 2025–2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) would fund $522.6 million of projects but leaves roughly $1.8 billion in identified deferred maintenance unmet; council members urged a long‑term funding strategy and more detail on project prioritization.
The Sacramento City Council received an update on the city's proposed five‑year Capital Improvement Program on May 20, hearing that the five‑year plan would put $522.6 million toward capital projects while the city's deferred maintenance needs total roughly $2.3 billion, leaving an estimated $1.8 billion shortfall.
The capital improvement program is the city’s planning document for maintenance, repairs and new infrastructure investment. "The capital improvement program is a five‑year financing plan for city infrastructure and facility needs," said Nora Howard, senior budget analyst in the finance department, as she introduced the proposed 2025–2030 CIP to the council.
Howard told the council the five‑year CIP funds 33 projects and programs. She said $73.4 million of the five‑year total is expected to come from the general fund; $15.1 million is budgeted for fiscal year 2025–26. Funded projects for 2025–26 include the Water Plus program (design and planning for water supply expansion), the Crepe Myrtle Park project, a Traffic Safety Response Program to implement quick collision‑reduction improvements, the City Facility Reinvestment Program for deferred maintenance of buildings, an Advanced Life Support equipment program (ambulances and emergency equipment), and repairs at the Safe Credit Union Performing Arts Center.
Councilmembers pressed staff for context and next steps. "We are not special," Howard said when asked whether other cities faced similar deferred maintenance levels; she said the issue is common among older metropolitan governments and that the CIP is intended as a planning tool to prioritize and develop financing strategies. Councilmember Maple asked how Sacramento compares with similar cities; Howard responded that Alameda County had faced a similar unfunded backlog during her time there.
Councilmembers urged clearer funding plans. Councilmember Vang emphasized the need for an explicit strategic funding plan and options beyond listing needs: "We can't do everything all at once," she said, but asked for a work program to identify financing tools such as bonding, one‑time savings policy allocations, developer fees, and maintenance financing districts. Members noted particular concern about utilities: the Department of Utilities has more than $2 billion in deferred infrastructure needs, the council was told.
Public commenters raised accuracy and award questions in the CIP packet. A commenter noted a personnel listing error in the city manager’s office and questioned how the city had received a capital budgeting award while showing a deficit. Another commenter urged the council to adopt a multi‑year financing approach to match the CIP's five‑year horizon with actual budget planning.
Howard said the CIP next will go to the Planning and Design Commission for a consistency review with the general plan, then to the budget and audit committee, and the full council will review the CIP for adoption in a future meeting. She noted staff will continue to develop funding strategies, prioritization policies and pursue grants and other revenue sources.
Councilmembers thanked staff for the presentation and offered direction to return with more detail on financing tools and prioritization for council consideration ahead of final adoption.
The council did not take a formal vote on the CIP at the May 20 meeting; the item was an informational update and review opportunity for council direction.
