Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff previews Pleasant Hill draft CIP: $15M two‑year program and long list of unfunded needs
Summary
Public works staff reviewed the draft Capital Improvement Plan (FY2026–2031), highlighting a ~$15 million two‑year program including a $5.5M resurfacing estimate for selected neighborhoods, $423,000 for bike‑and‑ped work, storm drain and ADA projects, and a long list of unfunded capital needs.
Pleasant Hill — Public works staff on June 2 presented the draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2026–2031, describing a two‑year funded program and numerous unfunded infrastructure needs.
Staff overview: Ann James described the two‑year project budget (FY26/27 and FY27/28) totaling roughly $15 million across targeted programs, emphasizing that the city council votes only on the first two years while the remaining three are forecasted. The resurfacing program for select neighborhoods is estimated at about $5.5 million (engineer’s estimate) and will use a mix of Measure K, gas tax and other non‑general fund sources. James stressed that the CIP funds are restricted by source and cannot be repurposed for unrelated uses.
Key funded items: Staff highlighted street resurfacing in Gregory Gardens (to follow utility work), a $423,000 two‑year allocation for bike‑and‑ped improvements (some to be folded into resurfacing projects for efficiency), storm‑drain maintenance, ADA facility upgrades, and library maintenance. The city also has grant‑funded projects including pedestrian flashing beacons and a Taylor Boulevard sidewalk gap closure funded by MTC grants.
Unfunded needs and scale: The presentation included a list of unfunded capital needs, with illustrative estimates: a roughly $25 million SS4A/Monument corridor project (unfunded), $97 million for full citywide pavement needs, and other long‑range facility and bridge repair estimates. Staff said these are planning estimates to guide grant seeking and long‑term budgeting.
Process notes: James noted that some projects will require environmental review, design approvals and potential interagency coordination (for example, Caltrans for certain interchange work). The draft CIP was scheduled to go to city council on June 15, which staff said is necessary to keep the biennial budget timeline.
What’s next: The commission received the draft for review; staff asked commissioners to direct any comments for inclusion before the council hearing. The CIP will move forward through council consideration and grant‑dependent project development.
