Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monterey County committee reviews draft five‑year CIP, members press staff on funding gap
Summary
Monterey County’s Capital Improvement Committee reviewed a draft five‑year Capital Improvement Program for FY26–31 that lists hundreds of millions in projects and billions in deferred maintenance; supervisors pressed staff on how general‑fund projects will be funded and the role of Fund 4‑78 in prioritizing deferred maintenance.
Chair Lopez opened the Capital Improvement Committee meeting May 20 to receive a staff report on the draft FY27 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which staff described as a five‑year planning document that catalogs active and forecast projects across county facilities, roads and parks.
"The county has many building assets and 1,060 miles of county‑maintained roads," Randall Ishee, director of Public Works, Facilities and Parks, told the committee, listing deferred‑maintenance estimates staff presented: public‑works road and bridge deferred maintenance on the order of $1.5 billion, about $100 million of facilities deferred maintenance and roughly $27 million in park deferred maintenance. Ishee said 86 projects are funded for FY27 — valued at about $191 million for that year — and the packet lists a total estimate of $773,700,000 across the program.
The committee’s capital improvement manager described the CIP as a planning snapshot that pulls together the county general plan, the facilities master plan and the annual budget, and said projects must meet a $100,000 threshold to be included. Staff also told the committee that PWP and the CAO are developing a revised Fund 4‑78 allocation process and that an initial concept was shown to the CAC in March 2026; Exhibit B in the packet responds to that CAC request.
Supervisor Askin pressed staff on how projects that require general‑fund dollars will be funded, calling out "a gap between the amount of funding that we need, and the number of projects that we have" and asking whether Fund 4‑78 will be returned to deferred‑maintenance work while a supplemental CIP provides other funding. Staff responded that the supplemental (unfunded) project list and Fund 4‑78 will be part of a larger funding conversation with the budget office and CAO and that the process is still in development.
Committee members raised equity and resilience concerns tied to facility priorities. "Libraries are becoming more than just a place to check out a book," Chair Lopez said, arguing that libraries often function as community hubs during power outages or public‑safety power shutoffs and should be considered in master planning. Staff noted resiliency‑related investments (EV charging, generator work, and disaster recovery projects) appear across the packet and that some projects rely on grant leverage (SB1, MeasureX, ATP and other sources).
Staff outlined next steps and timing: the draft funded CIP projects were slated for the Budget Committee and integration into the FY26‑27 recommended budget in June, development of a supplemental unfunded list in June–July, committee review that would include CAO, PWP and HCD staff in August–September, and Board approval of a supplemental CIP in September 2026.
What happens next: staff will return to the committee with the supplemental/unfunded project list and additional detail on funding strategies; the committee requested follow‑up clarifications on which projects will rely on general‑fund support versus dedicated CIP funds.
