Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Washington County reviews draft 2026–2031 Capital Improvement Plan and new capital policy; $1.4 billion in unfunded needs flagged
Loading...
Summary
County staff presented a draft five‑year Capital Improvement Plan and a proposed capital policy at the April 21 work session, telling commissioners the plan identifies more than $1.4 billion in potential capital needs that are not yet funded and asking the board to consider formal adoption on May 5.
John Steyer, Washington County’s Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, presented the county’s draft 2026–2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and an accompanying capital policy during the board’s April 21 work session. He said the CIP is an initial draft that staff will refine before bringing it back for formal action.
“I just wanted to bring the board back to where we're going with our policy updates,” Steyer said, describing staff work to align county finance policies with Government Finance Officers Association standards. He explained the policy’s basic definitions: “a capital asset is... useful life exceeding 1 year, and the cost above a threshold established by an asset class schedule,” and said the CIP will include projects with costs “greater than 300,000, in a life cycle of 5 years or more.”
Staff told commissioners the CIP process now includes a principal budget analyst as a CIP manager and a move from spreadsheets to the Questica budgeting tool to improve tracking and transparency. Steyer also noted requirements in the draft policy for periodic asset inventories and condition assessments to update replacement schedules.
The presentation flagged a large gap between identified needs and available funding. “There’s more than $1,400,000,000 estimated in hard capital potential improvement projects that we have that are not funded,” Steyer said, adding that some projects may require bonds, levies or other revenue actions and that the CIP is a five‑year snapshot intended to reveal those gaps and priorities.
Department presenters walked commissioners through the principal program areas in the draft CIP. ITS staff described recent technology work and near‑term capital requests; facilities staff summarized a roughly 40‑building portfolio and about $30 million in facilities work forecast for FY 26‑27; parks staff outlined $4 million in FY 26‑27 park capital and specific projects; and the Land Use & Transportation team reviewed an updated five‑year forecast and a list of projects moving toward construction.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify slide labels and to add “as of” dates on forecasts so the board can trace when numbers change. Several commissioners voiced support for moving the capital policy forward: one commissioner said, “I do support the recommended capital policy moving forward, for adoption,” and others praised the CIP’s increased rigor and the county’s adoption of GFOA practices.
Staff noted some large projects (for example, courthouse construction) remain in early planning and are not likely to appear as construction dollars in the five‑year CIP because construction is not expected within the five‑year window. Staff also highlighted a set of unfunded projects and encouraged the board to view the CIP as a tool for prioritization and future funding conversations.
Next steps: staff will incorporate feedback and return a final CIP and the proposed capital policy for consideration; commissioners indicated they expect to consider adoption at the May 5 meeting.
