Finance committee reviews midyear CIP status, staff proposes reallocations and deappropriations

City staff presented a midyear status review of the city's capital improvement projects to the Finance Committee on Feb. 17, 2026, proposing reallocations and limited deappropriations while outlining timelines for projects the committee will consider as part of the March midyear budget review.

A. Pedroza, assistant finance director, said CIPs are funded from sources including the general fund, Measure E and Measure G, special revenue and enterprise funds, development impact fees, assessment districts and construction grants. "At 12/31/2025, there was 23,800,000.0 in unexpended and unencumbered CIP budget," Pedroza said, and staff recommended shifting $2,400,000 of general-fund CIP allocations to other projects and deappropriating $60,000 for completed projects so the money would return to fund balance.

Staff also reviewed road improvement funds, saying "At December 31, there was 27,100,000.0 in unexpended" road CIP budget, and that $21,000,000 of that had been recently appropriated in the FY 2025-26 CIP. Pedroza said staff recommended reallocating about $1,000,000 of road funds and deappropriating $238,000 to return to Measure X and gas tax for future council direction. He noted staff had produced timelines for 39 general-fund CIPs and 21 road-fund CIPs and would present the recommended reallocations and appropriations to council in March as part of the midyear review.

Selena Andrews, finance director, described the review process and emphasized staff capacity and community disruption when scheduling multiple capital projects. "Staff is committed to continuing these CIP reviews on a regular basis," Andrews said, adding that staff will engage council and commissions and consider whether the city has the personnel and certifications to deliver projects.

Committee members pressed staff on specific items. A council member identified as Gloria raised concerns about pedestrian beacons and the traffic impacts of a new Chick-fil-A on Market Street, asking whether signalization was in the budget and who would pay for it. Public works staff responded that the smaller pedestrian requests are being consolidated into a pedestrian-safety CIP and that the intersection in question is Caltrans property. "That one's a little bit more challenging because the signal there ... is Caltrans property, and it's within Caltrans jurisdiction," a staff member said, and staff reported they had told Caltrans the city would be willing to participate financially, but traffic counts have not put the location high on Caltrans' priority list.

Another member, identified as Margaret, thanked staff and asked about a $173,000 traffic-calming allocation. Public works staff said they are revamping the traffic-calming program to prioritize safety, apply defined thresholds and focus on locations such as schools.

On specific line items, Pedroza told the committee that $50,000 had been allocated for improvements at 342 Front Street but the city recently sold the property, so that particular budget is no longer needed. He cautioned that the dollar figures presented had been assigned an "up-to" estimate and could be lower depending on expenditures between Dec. 2025 and council action in March 2026.

The committee approved the consent agenda (minutes of the Jan. 13 and Feb. 3 meetings) and asked staff to return with refined CIP packages and clearer commission briefings before council consideration. The committee adjourned and is scheduled to reconvene March 10.

Votes at a glance: The consent agenda (approval of minutes from Jan. 13 and Feb. 3) was moved by Margaret, seconded by Gloria, and passed with affirmative votes from Council member D'Arrigo, Council member De La Rosa and Mayor Donahue.