Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cip Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lemon Grove unveils five‑year capital improvement plan with large unfunded backlog
Summary
City staff presented a FY26–27 five‑year capital improvement program that funds near‑term sewer, storm drain and street projects but leaves most long‑term work unfunded; council asked staff to return with prioritized costs for priority‑1 storm drains, ADA work and traffic‑signal funding options.
Lemon Grove City staff presented a five‑year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) workshop on April 28, outlining completed and planned projects and warning that most multi‑year needs remain unfunded.
Tony Winnie, the interim city manager, opened the session and turned the presentation over to Izimir Correa, who framed the CIP as "a planning and budgetary tool, primarily used for road mapping critical projects over a 5 year period." Correa said recent work completed this year included multi‑year repairs to City Hall and several storm‑drain projects triggered by the 2024 storms, and that construction continues on multiple sewer rehabilitation segments in the city.
Staff described a bundled sewer design and bid package that combines FY24–25 and FY25–26 sewer projects and a streets rehabilitation contract that will include 77 street segments and go out to bid in May. Correa said the streets package is funded through a mix of Measure T and SANDAG TransNet grants alongside general fund contributions; staff requested $2,000,000 from Measure T and cited $1,900,000 in TransNet toward the program.
At the same time, staff stressed that the five‑year CIP is mostly unfunded because the city budgets on a year‑to‑year basis and relies heavily on gas taxes, TransNet and sanitation funds. Correa summarized the funding snapshot by noting many planned projects—ADA transition work, park improvements and long‑range capacity projects on Broadway—have no secured funding.
Council members focused questions on three priorities: (1) storm drains identified as regulatory or liability risks (priority 1), (2) ADA transition plan work tied to compliance, and (3) long‑term funding for traffic signals and the local lighting district. Staff said some priority storm‑drain projects require interagency permitting (City of San Diego) and that TransNet carryovers (LSI) could be pursued if reconciled funds are available.
Council members asked staff to return with totals and targeted funding options. Council member Rudy specifically requested a separate report showing the total cost of the priority‑1 storm‑drain list and options to fund traffic‑signal maintenance and replacement; staff committed to bringing those figures back as part of the May budget discussions.
Why it matters: The presentation highlights where limited local dollars will go in the near term and which safety‑ and liability‑driven projects remain unfunded. The council’s requests for prioritized cost estimates and funding proposals set the agenda for the draft FY26–27 budget, scheduled for presentation on May 19.
What’s next: Staff will present the draft FY26–27 budget, including the CIP, on May 19 and will return with the requested priority‑1 totals, a traffic‑signal funding analysis and updated PCI numbers reflecting the anticipated improvements.
