Staff outline $140 million five‑year CIP, council presses for cost detail on parks and infrastructure

City staff gave a comprehensive presentation on April 14 outlining the proposed five‑year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for fiscal years 2027–2031, describing roughly $140,400,000 in total planned investment and about $35,600,000 proposed for FY27.

Michelle (staff lead on finance/presentation, speaker 14) summarized the CIP scope, saying the five‑year plan includes 69 projects with 59 funded in FY27 and 24 continuing projects; enterprise funds and transportation sources account for the largest shares of funding. She briefed the council on funding mixes (enterprise funds, transportation measures including Measure M and gas tax, developer impact fees, grants and an IT capital fund) and noted staff will bring a preliminary budget in May and a budget for council consideration in June.

Austin Posevoit (community and library services, speaker 15) highlighted the department’s CIP items: a Grijalva Park master plan ($160,000 funded via an EPA brownfields grant passed through the Orange County Council of Governments), a proposed 11,500‑square‑foot skate park at Rehalpa with a planned contract award and anticipated construction start this summer, and the El Medina Basin area improvement project (a $230,000 design budget and an early construction estimate near $2.5 million). Austin said staff is pursuing grant funds, including a federal earmark request of $2.5 million submitted on the city’s behalf to Congressman Correa’s office.

On parks, staff proposed $155,000 from local park funds to convert one El Camino tennis court into four permanent pickleball courts, and an $800,000 baseline appropriation to begin replacing aging playground equipment with ADA‑compliant surfacing and inclusive equipment. Staff described a prioritized list of candidate parks (La Vina, Hart Park, Eisenhower Park and potentially Santiago Hills) and said the $800,000 figure is a baseline estimate that will be refined.

Council members asked detailed follow‑up questions. Council member Gillingham asked whether pickleball demand justified conversions and whether the city should convert a second court; staff replied courts are heavily used and that Hart Park’s new facilities may change demand. Gillingham queried the $500,000 additional request for El Medina Park and whether the $1.8 million total cost estimate was accurate. Robert (staff, speaker 17) and Austin responded that the current project budget stands at roughly $700,000 (including $424,125 from local 5‑10 funds and $300,000 from the El Medina Park fund 5‑12), that the additional $500,000 would help close the gap but that higher costs (up to $1.8 million) reflect optional components and design additions that would be refined during consultant design and bidding.

Laura Lombardo (public works, speaker 12) presented infrastructure highlights including a $2,000,000 capital fund contribution to the pavement management program, an approximate $2,500,000 sewer line maintenance request, a $1,500,000 estimated cost update for Rampart Street Park (funded from local funds), a proposed $5,000,000 Well 29 construction (including PFAS treatment reimbursements), and a Catella Avenue signal extension project request of $1,300,000. Lombardo explained that several projects are required to maintain Measure M (M2) MOE eligibility and that the transportation funds were consolidated for presentation.

Finance staff noted 11 projects were deferred (a total of just over $7.2 million) to accommodate a $10,000,000 transfer to the general fund previously discussed; the package also anticipates a $3,300,000 transfer from the IT capital fund as part of budget balancing. Staff said no additional general fund contribution is required for the FY27 capital asks because appropriate fund balances are available in restricted funds.

Council members requested more granular cost breakdowns and asked staff to return with specifics on which parks will receive playground replacements, precise cost estimates for El Medina Park construction versus a base rebuild, and additional detail on fund balances and transfers. Staff agreed to provide refined cost information as the budget process continues; the presentation will be posted on the city website.

Provenance: Staff presentations and Q&A on the CIP took place during the Item 6 budget study session; numbers, funding sources and the list of highlighted projects were presented and discussed by staff and council.