In the interest of everyone's time and even despite the fact that we do not have a quorum yet, our planning commission members are still coming in.

I would like to go ahead and call this session to order.

We are here today for a planning commission study session regarding the 2026-2027 proposed mid-biannial capital budget and the 2027-2031 capital improvement program.

Hopefully everybody's in the right room.

My name is Lisa Bickford.

I am the vice chair for the City of San Jose Planning Commission.

Welcome to this meeting.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones if you need parking validation.

It is in the back.

And if I could ask the planning commissioners and people with mics in front of you to please pull them in front of you in order to speak so that people can hear you.

Make sure that you're close to the mic.

And we don't have a flag, so I guess we're not going to try to salute that.

Let's go ahead and do a roll call.

Commissioner Rosario is not here this evening.

Commissioner Barroso?

Here.

Commissioner Bandal is not here yet.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Commissioner Cow.

Here.

Commissioner Casey?

Here.

Commissioner Escobar.

Here.

Commissioner DeWin, not here yet.

Commissioner Oliverio, not here yet, and Commissioner Young will not be here this evening.

He's in Hawaii.

Lucky him.

Okay.

So with that, I think I'll just hand it over for the presentation.

I think we're trying to get the Zoom going.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I am Jennifer Tell and the Capital Budget Manager in the City Manager's Budget Office.

I will provide an overview of the proposed budget and the funding sources for the five-year capital improvement program or CIP.

Then I will turn it over to Public Works Deputy Director Sal Kumar to discuss major project changes in this mid-biannial update.

And so we have staff here this evening from Airport, Environmental Services, Fire, Library, Parks Recreation, Neighborhood Services, Public Works, and the Transportation Departments who will be available to answer your questions at the end of the presentation.

And the staff here are representing their teams who are diligently to prepare this mid-biennial update to the capital budget and to rebalance the city's capital needs with available resources as presented in this proposed five-year CIP.

So the five-year CIP is composed of 14 capital programs that fall under six city service areas.

We will review the major project changes for the programs in each of these city service areas or CSAs.

As presented this morning in the overview of the proposed operating budget, next year's proposed budget reflects a $5.5 billion recommended spending plan across 152 funds.

This presentation is focusing on the 18% or $1.2 billion slice of the budget pie that is made up of the capital funds.

Here is a historical comparison of the five-year CIP over the last 10 years.

For fiscal years 27 to 31, the CIP totals $3.3 billion.

Fiscal years 20 to 24 and 25 to 29 were the largest CIPs to date.

A large contributor to these CIPs was the Measure T bond passed by voters in November 2018.

That measure authorized the city to issue up to $650 million of general obligation bonds for investments in emergency and disaster response facilities and infrastructure such as roads and flood and water quality protection.

In this proposed CIP, we see exhaustion of Measure T funds anticipated in fiscal year 2028-29.

Also of note, the adopted CIP is always higher than the proposed CIP, which is largely due to rebudget or carry forward of unspent project appropriations from the current fiscal year into the next fiscal year.

So the proposed CIP captures some of these rebudgets that could be anticipated early in our process, and additional rebudgets will be captured as part of the year-end process that will be presented to city council as part of budget adoption in June.

So as shown here historically, rebudgets tend to increase the CIP by about 200 to 300 million dollars.

So new last year was the transition to a two-year presentation of the budget, the 2025 to 27 adopted biennial capital budget.

Given the long-term nature of planning for city infrastructure investments, the adopted biennial capital budget allowed the administration to highlight strategic investments planned to move forward in the first two years of the CIP.

However, as conditions are never static and funding for the current year must be carried forward into the following year, adjustments to the previously approved 2026-27 capital budget are necessary.

This proposed midbiannial capital budget update and CIP lays out the changes to 2627 previously included in the 2026 to 2030 adopted CIP.

The changes presented in the proposed mid-biannial update focus on rebalancing the capital funds in response to adjustments in revenue assumptions, such as new grants or updated tax revenue forecasts, addressing unexpected changes in project costs, and reallocating funding to address unexpected conditions or needs.

This proposed capital budget and CIP also extends the five-year CIP horizon to fiscal year 2030-31.

Of the $3.3 billion in the total five-year CIP, $1.2 billion is budgeted in 20627 for the proposed midbiannial update as compared to $670 million that was shown for 26-27 in the adopted biannual budget.

The proposed mid-biannual budget is substantially higher than presented in last year's adopted CIP, largely due to our process of carrying forward or rebudgeting unspent appropriations for multi-year capital projects.

Here is a breakdown of the funding source categories for the $3.3 billion five-year CIP.

We'll go into more depth for the top five categories listed here.

Revenue from other agencies is the largest source of funds in the CIP, representing approximately $738 million of funding, up four percent from the last adopted CIP.

The increase is largely attributable to increases in contributions from the local user agencies served by the regional wastewater facility.

The increases aligns the contributions with the scope, timing, and cost of capital projects included in the proposed CIP.

Revenue from the state is higher due to recognizing additional gas tax and road rehabilitation funding based on updated forecasting.

Revenue from the federal government is down to the removal of a U.S.

Department of Transportation Safe Streets for All grant award that is not expected to move forward, and the need to rebudget grant funds that are still eligible for reimbursement.

And those will be captured as part of the year-end cleanup process.

The next largest source of funding is contributions, loans, and transfers between city funds.

The largest transfers of funds are from the sewer service sewer service and use charge fund to the water pollution control and sanitary sewer capital programs.

Fees paid by the users of the sanitary sewer system are used for capital projects in these programs as well as operating costs.

The proposed CIP includes approximately $61 million in contributions from the general fund, with the largest allocations for fire apparatus replacement and replacement of the 911 dispatch backup generator.

The amount of general fund contributions in the proposed CIP is substantially lower than the last adopted CIP because we do not carry forward existing general fund appropriations for capital projects in the proposed CIP.

These will be brought forward as part of the year-end cleanup process, and at that point, the general fund contribution will likely increase.

The beginning fund balance is made up of money carried over from prior year allocations.

There are plans for most of this money pending the determination of final scope for projects, final project locations, and/or availability of future funding.

The amount of beginning fund balance in this proposed CIP is 1% above what was included in the last adopted CIP.

This amount will increase as part of the year-end cleanup process and capital appropriations not spent this year return to fund balance.

The increase in beginning fund balance is largely due to the final issuance of Measure T bonds in 2025-26.

Those funds will be carried over until fully spent, which is anticipated in 2028-29.

Taxes, fees, and charges funding is up slightly from 572 million to about 579 million.

Airport passenger facility charges are estimated to be down by about 15 million dollars.

However, construction excise tax and building and structure construction tax are estimated to be up compared to the last adopted CIP due to anticipated construction of data centers.

Finally, financing proceeds are anticipated to provide about 521 million dollars in the proposed CIP, down 40% from the last adopted CIP.

So, similar to the last CIP, the largest use of financing proceeds is in the water pollution control capital program with $392 million of wastewater revenue notes and bond proceeds for the implementation of capital projects identified in the planned master plan.

The sanitary sewer capital program anticipates increasing its use of financing in this proposed CIP to support capacity improvement projects.

As mentioned earlier, the final issuance of Measure T bonds was completed in the current fiscal year.

So Measure T financing proceeds dropped to zero in the proposed CIP.

The airport has also deferred the $200 million short-term parking garage project beyond the five-year horizon of the CIP, and that project would have been financed.

Those were the main funding sources for the capital program.

Now we will talk about the expenditure or use of funds.

This chart shows where the $3.3 billion dollars of investments will be made by capital program.

The water pollution control and traffic capital programs together make up over 56% of the dollars in the CIP, followed by the airport and parks, both at a lot about 11%.

And now I will turn it over to Public Works Deputy Director Sal Kumar to discuss major project changes.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Good evening, Chair and Planning Commission members.

Thank you for opportunity to present today.

Before I begin my presentation, the development of the capital program is a truly a team effort.

And I'd like to recognize the and thank our partner departments that are present here who work closely with public works in delivery of the projects in advance of the city priorities.

With that, so then I have about five about six slides to go over, and I'll be covering the CSA areas and highlighting speaking about projects and highlighting the changes for this fiscal year.

Would you mind the microphone closer?

Thank you.

Apologies.

So as Jennifer mentioned earlier, the measure T program, the board approved in 2018, authorized $650 million in general application bond to work on completing city street repairs, payment, public safety projects, flood protection, LED replacements, and community and emergency centers.

One of the major changes we have for this this fiscal year is that at the emergency operation center and fire training center.

The funding is being used to deploy a temporary HVAC system to stabilize the near-temps operations while the permanent system is designed and will be constructed.

More to come in the future.

And then also the Measure T bond proceeds is expected to wind down over the next two years, which is completely into a smaller overall CIP compared to prior price cycles.

Next slide is the community and economic development CSA, which has the developer system program.

Under their program, we have the underground utility program, which is the goal of the program is to convert overhead utilities into underground.

And working closely with utilities such as PGE, Comcast, and ATT.

The Route 20 program is managed by utility companies, which is PGE, and the Route 20B program is the developer assisted, the city managed program, where in lieu of undergrounding, the developer pays into fees to underground the project.

There are no major changes for this time around.

The next two slides will be on the environmental and utility services CSA.

The first two is the two collection system in San Jose, which is sanitary sewer system and the storm system.

The Sanitario COSIM system includes about 2000 miles of pipeline serving San Jose and three other jurisdictions, conveying wastewater to regional wastewater facility.

The program priorities include preventing sanitary sewer overflows, managing system capacity and condition, as well as rehabilitating and upgrading aging infrastructure.

So one of the major changes that you can see is that Chesborough is a good example where this project will address both the capacity and placement of aging sewer system.

And then the last change that we have is through master planning, the Albin Tully and King project is no longer needed as a downstream improvement along Fontaine Road was addresses the capacity issue.

The next program is the storm sewer system, which is a smaller program, which uh includes about 1100 miles of storm system, 31 pump station that conveys stormwater system to our major waterways, Coalto River and Coyote Creek.

The water system is uh discharged into the waterways.

Um completion of measure T projects, I can as you can see in the picture.

There is the recently completed uh green stormwater infrastructure project.

Um, and then also we are focusing on flood and drainage improvements.

Uh the next two slides are uh for the MRUA utility service CSA, the water pollution control.

Um, the original wastewater facilities uh serves eight cities and four special districts.

The CIP is guided by the master plan, uh which was updated, planned master plan, which is updated in 2025.

Um, this is one of the largest programs, CIP programs in the city.

Uh, it's about one billion dollar plan in the next five years.

And the key changes and key updates include enhanced focus on project delivery, which you can see in the photo, is the digestive upgrade project, pump station improvements, and lab enhancements.

And to the right is the water utility system.

No major updates, but I would like to highlight the municipal water system serves approximately 26,000 customers across five service areas, which Alviso knows Central Z at Coyote Valley and Edenville and Evergreen.

The CIV focus on maintaining existing infrastructure and constructing new facilities.

And do want to highlight the recently completed water resource and admin building that was opened last year.

The next CSA is the neighborhood services CSA, which includes library and parks and community facilities.

For the library program, provides funding to maintain facilities, acquire physical and digital materials, support automated equipment, support public information needs, and invest in facility maintenance.

The one major change is the building forward library grant round two funding, which focuses on support and repair repair and refreshments of projects at Dr.

Martin Library, which includes elevator modernization, lighting retrofits, HVAC controls, renewable and entrance door placement.

The other one is the park and community facilities.

This program led by parks, rec and neighborhood services, delivers parks, trails, and community centers.

And the major changes for this CIP program is the emphasis on maintenance and targeted improvements, including projects such as LEO park improvement and Camden Park, all inclusive park, as well as Pat O'Malley Turf Replacement Project.

Under public safety project, the objective of the public safety program is to provide and maintain and improve facilities and equipment that support the delivery of effective emergency services to residents and visitors.

The public safety CIP is primarily focused on delivery of majority funded progress, as Jennifer mentioned earlier.

We have been focusing on building fire stations and police training facilities for the last few years.

It includes airport, parking and traffic CIPs.

For the airport, San Jose International Airport is classified as a medium hub airport at the San Jose.

The airport master plan guides us and phase capital improvements.

The CIP focused on safety, passenger experience, and service expansion.

And the key updates include or changes include is FBL comparation improvements, which is taxiway expansions and rehabs.

Also purchase of zero emission buses.

And as Jennifer mentioned earlier, there was a deferred referral of the short-term parking garage pending sustained passenger growth.

Parking, there's no update to major changes for report as far as traffic control capital.

The traffic control supports a safe, efficient, and multimodal transportation system.

Investments aligned with initiatives such as Better Bike Plan 2025, Vision Zero, and General General Plan 2040.

The key projects and changes include is focused on pavement maintenance, speed safety system pilot, which includes installing speed cameras, EV charging stations at city facilities, and enhanced curb management by emerging mobility needs such as allowing EV charging stations and parking for scooters.

And this is the last slide.

We includes under strategic support is communication, municipal improvements, and service yards.

So there's no change for communication.

Just want to mention that the communication CIP continues to focus on providing safety critical communication systems for city staff, such as radios, replacing uh radios for police and fire.

Municipal improvements includes the key programs maintains and upgrade city facilities to maintain operational needs.

And the key projects included uh the changes are the convention center lighting and restroom upgrades and the city hall water intrusion project.

And the last is the service yard.

Um there's no changes to this CIP program.

With this, it concludes our presentation.

Um shown here is the um photo of San Jose Police uh department area support unit building, which is near completion.

Uh we should be um is currently going through final inspection and commissioning and should be here uh opening here pretty soon.

So with that, I can happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much.

Um, Commissioner Casey, uh if you have a quick question, I wanted to go to public comment first.

Um I do want to note for the record that uh Commissioner Cantrell, uh Commissioner Oliverio, and Commissioner Bandal uh did come in during the presentation.

Um so I believe that does mean we have a quarrel.

Thank you.

So I'd like to uh move to public comment at this point.

I don't think we have cards, so if you would like to just step up to the mic, if anybody has any comment.

Hearing no comments, we'll go to Commissioner Casey.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Um, first question I had was around airport.

Um I drew out realize I mean it makes sense to defer the short-term parking garage because of air traffic, but still the construction projects in 26 through 28, um, then there's a substantial drop-off.

Are there other were there other major things that we postponed since air traffic is not recovered yet, and we don't know exactly what it's gonna look like yet at this point?

Terminal, yeah.

Yeah.

So uh Patrick Hansen, acting deputy director, we planning development at the airport.

Um, so one of the other major projects that we're postponing currently, uh, besides the short-term parking garage, is the terminal C expansion.

So that would be the other major capital project that we're holding off on because current passenger numbers aren't there to support it.

Yeah, and I guess with the with the budget numbers we have 26, 27 through 28, then it drops off substantially.

Are we expecting new revenue sources to come in by the time we get to those years to increase it, or it seems like should we be saving more for rainy day to cover needs out in those later years?

So we are expecting passenger numbers to increase ideally in an ideal situation, but we are holding off on larger capital development projects until the passenger numbers are there to support that going forward.

But we are looking at other revenue sources obviously outside of what's generated with passenger numbers.

Um, so we're we're looking at all different possible scenarios to increase funding.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Thanks.

Um on page 16, the sewer system.

Um the upgrades here, and you talked about some of the sewer lines.

A couple weeks ago we had a development in Willow Glen that came before the planning commission, and there was a lot of discussion about the sewers not being well from the resident standpoint, the sewer lines not being adequate from the um sanitation department, they were adequate.

Does any of this work uh encompass some of the uh neighborhoods in that area?

Is it in um is it for the neighborhoods project?

Maybe I can ask Norm if we can.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Norm Masterine is principal engineer over C the THS uh uh division.

So to answer your question, yes, our master plan does take in account it's citywide.

So our master plan for our sanitary sewer system.

I think we've modeled everything from eight inches up.

We are looking at also the larger trunks, and we're also doing condition assessment on our larger interceptors, which essentially lead to the plant.

So, yes, it included uh the Willow Glen project that we did development services.

Okay, because I think subsequent to their meeting here, they filed suit against the city.

Understood.

We're aware.

It'd be good if we get ahead of that.

Okay, um, page seven, the um water pollution control uh area uh we mentioned that it's for uh six different cities I think if I understood that correctly so is the billion dollars the entire thing or is that San Jose's portion and if it's San Jose's portion how between the six cities do we determine San Jose's allocation to support that.

I'll start with Mariana Chavez I'm the general manager for RWF.

The full amount is just for the completion of the program.

The portion for San Jose the allocations are based on the flow that each city sends to the plant so about 60% of that is San Jose.

The rest gets allocated with the other agencies uh around 20% to Santa Clara and then the rest goes to the other agencies based on the flow that they sent those.

Okay so based on actual usage of that could you could would you mind reminding which are the six cities uh we uh we have Milpitas we have agreements with the city of Milpidas uh West Valley Sanitation District that covers uh Los Gados Montecerino and um Saratoga and then we have Cupertino uh Copertino Sanitary District that is Cupertino and Campbell and Santa Clara itself and San Jose.

So basically the whole South Bay, anywhere from Los Gados all the way to Milpides.

Thank you.

Sorry I had one more question about the water pollution control.

In uh 30 to 31 there's an increase of I don't know 120% what we have anticipated for that.

There is a reason for that.

One of the things that we're doing this year and that was no I mean it was somehow mentioned in the presentation we have a specific changes in legislation coming uh the water pollution control plan that that the way that is named there we we call it the regional wastewater facility discharges to the lower South Bay uh the whole San Francisco Bay has a new permit coming uh it will come into effect in 2034 so we need to have a lot of construction happening before that that requires a major increase in the process capacities and the type of process that we have so we actually have almost 300 million dollars as a first phase to be able to address the new permit requirements so that's the big change that you will see and it's a legislation change.

Okay okay thank you that's all for now.

For now.

Commissioner Cantrell I gotta remember what slide is from okay so I just had a couple of questions one has to do with something I really I question every time we do this process and that's the the rebudgeting process.

It seems like actually maybe you can explain how or why that happens because it seems like you could reasonably predict the amount of funds that would go back into the budget at the end of the process which means that we may be cutting too much to get to a number that we don't have to get to or that you know it could lead to I'll just call it political gaming where someone wants to delete something so they delete it and then we did have funding and it comes back later but it never gets refunded so I'm just curious why do we do it that way is it a accounting practice some type of legal reason why do we do it that way?

Yeah this has as far as I know this has been an accounting practice of the city for some time I will note for the capital projects almost all of them have dedicated funding sources and so it is our practice that until the that multi-year capital project is completed we rebudget the full amount into the next fiscal year.

And so we do that through either the early rebudgets that show up in the proposed CIP before you we do that in the year end process.

And then we also have an annual report process in September where we do a true up based on the actuals for the prior year.

So for almost all of the capital projects, that full amount is being carried over into the the next year by the time we true up the budget in September.

I would say that the one place where there uh we we might not see that full rebutget is the general fund uh projects, and that is based on the availability of those that general fund support.

Yeah, and I think that's my thought more about the general fund process because that funds an awful lot of services and programs that I've noticed are on the chopping block that are rounding errors that maybe shouldn't be, but that's not I guess your focus, but at any rate.

So is there is there a chance to to revisit this process, maybe to do this a little more accurately for is that a possibility?

As far as I know, it's not currently proposed to change, I think our our our budgeting practices, uh, but it's I think yes, something that to certainly be considered as we uh uh perhaps update our financial systems in the future, but as far as I know, this is currently how how we are tracking our projects over time.

Okay, so in terms of um the percentage, the amount that comes back, um how would you characterize that over the entire budget?

What would that be?

Either in sum or percentage.

For the the capital funded projects, I would say it is it is near 100%.

We do track that the total project budget does not change over time.

For the general fund projects, the those are very targeted investments, and those projects also tend to be encumbered uh such that the funding stays with the project year over year.

Okay, except those that get cut.

Yeah, I'm I'm not aware of any that have been been cut recently, but uh yeah.

I was looking at the budget.

There's some on this on the slate.

Okay, um, so that thank you for that.

I I appreciate you can't fully answer the question, but I'm always curious why we do it this way.

Um the there was a graph on the traffic component, and it talked about um speed safety system pilot.

Is that represent the camera pilot or the thing that's a hi, Lamb Cruz Division Manager over DOT?

Um, yes, the speed safety system pilot is for a speed camera program.

I thought that was being cut.

Am I wrong?

No, you may be referring to the federal funds.

Um we were awarded a grant, but we never received it.

Um, okay, okay.

Okay, so the remaining what's in the budget now is is absent the flock camera systems then.

So the federally funded.

Yeah, it doesn't include the federal funds.

Okay, okay, cool.

Thank you.

And I think that's it.

Thank you.

Other commissioners questions.

Hi.

I submitted some questions about a week ago, uh, but I haven't checked the city email in 24 hours.

Did those come back?

Yes, we we returned uh responses yesterday.

And it copied the whole commission.

Uh I returned them to the PBC staff.

Great, thank you.

Did you want to address any of those questions?

No, because I haven't seen the responses.

I don't have my city email on my phone, so I just have it on the laptop, but uh long story.

What's that?

Yeah, sure.

If I mean if we got the time, go ahead and summarize.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thanks.

All right.

So the questions involved uh how the CIP is currently integrated with the operating budget and long range forecast.

Uh and so the uh operating and maintenance costs for new facilities and public infrastructure as well as the estimated revenues, uh, are considered as part of our committed additions to the general fund forecast, uh, which we publish in our five-year forecast and revenue projections for the general fund and five year CIP.

And so those dollars are set aside in a reserve for the upcoming fiscal year, and as part of the proposed budget process, the reserve is liquidated and funds are allocated to the operating budget uh for the respective departments operating and maintenance of those facilities.

And committed additions also involve future operating expenses for capital projects that have been previously approved by the city council.

The next question involved how far we can reliably model capital spending, funding sources, and ongoing operating impacts.

And so we we model those as part of our five-year forecast, as previously mentioned, and those are updated annually to refine the estimates and extend the modeling horizon to a new fifth year, which currently extends to fiscal year 2030-31.

Next question asked if city council asked if we delay accelerate or reprioritize capital projects, how difficult is it to show council financing impacts across years?

And so the impact of that can be quickly updated in our our source and use statements and quickly shown in our system-generated reports.

However, it is challenging to estimate what a delayed project will cost as labor and material costs tend to be higher in the future.

Next question was on how we track and validate capital funding sources such as bonds, grants, and restricted funds across projects and over time.

So we reconcile these annually as part of our annual report process.

I mentioned earlier, which is uh where we we uh reconcile every fund uh based on the prior year actuals.

Uh and uh as we receive new grants, those are programmed in the capital budget once executed.

And the funding sources are allocated by the amounts estimated to be recognized within each fiscal year, and then those estimates are true up in the annual report in the annual budget process.

Uh next question was how clearly we can see downstream operating costs uh created by today's capital decisions.

Uh and so those are uh captured in detail up to five years uh before the projects come online as part of that committed additions process, and the the capital projects in the five-year forecast show that net operating impact.

And then when changes occur mid-cycle, how confident are we that updates are reflected across budgets, forecasts, and reports?

Uh so the capital budget database is updated to reflect all of those actions, so city council approved actions as part of annual report, the mid-year update, year end update, and city council memo actions, uh, and then we uh cross-reference those across all of our systems.

Uh, let's see.

The next question how easy to explain capital plan changes years later about what assumptions were made and why decisions changed.

So we document all major cost changes more than 10% of the total project budget in our capital budget book detail pages, and so those those will be documented in our next biannual capital budget.

Finally, if the capital plan had to support faster decisions with fewer surprises, what would need to change?

So we noted that surprises that result in the need for fast decision making are often the result of factors beyond the control of the city, such as economic conditions, that it impact cost estimates or availability of materials or changes in federal funding.

So we try to stay apprised of these factors, and we uh can effectively bring forth a memorandum to city council on any given Tuesday to seek approval or change the budget as needed.

Thank you.

Please, Commissioner Cow.

Yeah, thank you very much for the presentation.

Um, in my day job, I work for the county, and I'm in the middle of doing budget work.

Yeah, I've been doing that for a few years, and now I'm shifting over to learning about how the city does budgeting, and I am quickly learning that it is quite different, at least initially looking at the budget.

So, to help with my general understanding of at least this portion, the CIP, I see that the capital funds budget is 1.2 billion, and I'm trying to compare that to what is on the next slide.

That's slide three I'm referencing, and then slide four is the historic historical comparison of the five-year CIP, which ranges anywhere between three and four billion.

So I guess if you can help me understand really, it's the slide four that's I'm maybe I'm not connecting the dots, and it's you know, my first go-around with this.

Um we taking what we anticipate for next year and laying on what like modeling what the next four years look like, and we're adding that together, and that's where we're getting our three to four billion dollars in the proposed and adopted um CIPs.

I think I'm just trying to rack my head around that first.

Sure.

So yes, the 1.2 billion dollars is capturing just next year's budget, less internal contributions and loans and transfers, and then the 3.3 billion dollars is the full five-year amount added together.

So often uh our that first year amount is much larger than the last uh four years or out years of the CIP because of how we carry forward the project budgets, uh, but in general, the the uh rather than just that there's some ongoing appropriations we will model forward, but the CIP also captures um a great deal of one-time projects, and so we are attempting to capture those investments over the five-year period to the extent we we can predict them at this time, and so that 3.3 billion is balancing the available resources with those anticipated investments over the five-year period.

Got it.

Thank you very much for that.

So maybe just another general question for my own situational awareness.

Um my understanding of any kind of modeling, predictive modeling, depends on the assumptions that are made in that model.

And I guess my question is given past budgets and all, how how accurate do we expect these models to be?

Um, are we what kind of variants are we looking at?

Like generally speaking, I don't I don't know if it's possible to give out numbers, um percentages, or some kind of confidence interval, but if you can help maybe in layman's terms, like me understand how confident we are in those projections that we see, like say slide four, um that that would be helpful.

Yeah, I would I would say that our confidence really depends on the type of funding source involved.

So, for example, um with financing proceeds, that's largely driven by the city where we are determining the amount of debts debt service needed to uh cover certain uh large one-time investments.

Uh, on taxes, fees, and charges, uh, some of those can be quite volatile.

So we have uh construction and conveyance tax is one of our very uh large capital funding sources that can vary widely year to year, and so we're always updating those estimates, and that can uh can impact our our uh availability to invest in projects, you know, this year or into the next five years.

Uh similarly for building and structure tax uh yes, building and structure, construction tax, and construction excise tax, which are large funding sources for our traffic capital program, uh those can really vary uh year to year, and uh as we discussed for for the airport, uh, their passenger facility charges are expected to uh not recover as quickly as we had previously anticipated.

So we revisit those kind of estimates every year, uh, because there's there are a great deal of economic factors that can impact those.

Okay, thank you very much.

And you started touching on my next question, which was related to slide seven.

Uh I was going to ask um to help walk through this slide in greater detail, but given that you just touched on it, um, thank you for that.

If I wanted to learn more about these sources of funding, do we have documents or information available for someone like me first time around to learn about these things in greater detail and maybe as an extension to that question like content in this packet generally.

Yeah absolutely I would uh point you to the capital revenue forecast uh on the budget office's website and so that is uh one of the sections of the five year forecast that we publish each February uh and uh so that will go into describing each of those funding sources and also uh the assumptions that we made around uh our projections for for that five year forecast okay thank you very much uh two novice questions for me anybody else have any comments I'll go out okay um one of them is I always like to see budget to actual and I didn't see that here and so I I expected to see it in in the package somewhere I'd like to know where I can go see it.

Is that also in the budget offices?

Yes I would uh point you to our last biennial capital budget which will show the prior year actuals for all of the the capital projects in the CIP so what we are are not presenting this year because it's our our mid-biennial capital budget sort of the our our mini update uh is our detail pages so typically um our capital budget is about 1300 pages uh this year it's 300 pages uh which saves all of us staff quite quite a bit of time and effort so uh because those projects do not change that much year to year um I if you have uh are curious about the prior year actuals for any particular projects uh I suggest referring back to our last adopted biennial uh capital budget which is available on the budget office website got it thank you and then the next question is I I understand the bring forward of CIP not used but is it also in that budget that where I would see the percentage utilized you allocated a hundred million dollars you've only you spent twenty of it and you're 30% done with the project and you have two more years left is that a project wise where you can see those dollars yeah excuse me yes our detail pages will uh provide the start date of the project our estimated completion date uh the total project budget and we also note the initial project budget so that you can see my next question yeah so you can see if the project has increased uh and we and then we have a a section on those major cost changes to explain why the the costs have increased okay thank you commissioner bad office thank you and thank you to the city managers budget office and the public works department um f P and A is uh it's really important you know going in the future and kind of uh having a foundation of where we're headed and where we're going and and why we're headed that direction so thank you for all you guys hard work.

Um my question was um I understand that this is going future in time um just wondering is there any kind of practice that maybe your office does or a different office does that goes back in time meaning like capital was spent on improving this project this is how it's going after a year this is how it's going after five years do we ever go back in time or it's more of a future practice just curious.

I guess are you um in terms of looking backwards are you talking about uh refresh perhaps rehabilitation of old projects or or the operations of those projects if I was just taking one project out of here.

For example the the fire station that's getting improved um does anybody ever go back and see how the what was that money well worth spent or how is our project going?

Maybe we can learn something from it and say hey that wasn't a no good I'm not targeting the fire department or anything.

I'm just saying one project, you know, do you understand my question, maybe sure I do.

I can I can answer the question.

So I'll practice at public works it has been is that once the project is completed we do go back and review the the expenditure of the project um what went wrong what lessons learned and then we also have presentations from staff from so we have that so we can and what's that timeline is it how many years back after a year after five years after 10 well we we we look at uh individually project individually actually so as soon as the project completed then we go back and once the project is completed then we go back and review just spend on the project yeah okay cool and then is is DOT here if I could ask it question.

Yeah okay cool thank you asked the question on the side okay okay just make you sir um so you know obviously uh roadside safety and investing dollars into into improving traffic and inserting bike lanes is it's it's very vital it's very important we need different types of transportation not just car right bus lanes bikes and such so I uh my question is I seen 877 million years spent on um uh traffic uh is bike lanes a portion of that yes it is okay and I love the bike lanes love bikers uh I don't bike enough I should like a little bit more but I don't see bikes on the street so I do does the DOT predict or project the biking usage going up of those uh just kind of curious about your thoughts about that thank you for your question John Risto Director of Transportation and we we quite often get those kind of questions.

When we're designing roadways for the multiple users that are using we take we take that in consideration that we're we're making that for all the users whether it be vehicles trucks bicyclists and pedestrians and actually maybe it goes back to your first question we actually also look at before and after studies of many of the major changes in the roadways that we do not some of the minor ones but the major ones to see what has happened in that corridor that we've done some improvements an example is Hillsdale a couple years ago we did a pretty major change most of it paint and plastic but changed the configuration of that roadway and then we we did a before study in terms of how much traffic the speeds crashes and usage then we did two years of study past that and found that both bicycle and pedestrian use went up crashes went down speeds went down volume stayed about the same so we do do that we do try to forecast what the usage is going to be on those roads we don't always get it right but quite often that's we're hitting that and yes there's people using bike lanes and walking so you know the the bike lanes are beautiful they're very well constructed they even have pylons now they seem much much safer uh than before so it's beautifully constructed I love it but what's your projection numbers you see them going up oh yeah yes the the whole point that we put forward is and for council to approve you know we do a five year bike plan that identifies the routes that we want to have the bike lanes on and a description of the level of protection so we're trying to get the highest level of protection which is a uh more than just a buffered bike lane but actually a protected bike lane we're trying to get those into roughly about 500 miles of our roadway system on the major routes and we're we're ways in through it about 17 percent but that's the whole point is actually provide that real protection for bicyclists and pedestrians as well on the sidewalk thank you so actually I live downtown and I've seen a lot of hardening of bike lanes.

I think it's beautiful.

I mean, it's amazing work.

I'm I'm I'm wondering if it seems like an awful lot of work.

If that was federal funding, I know there was maybe some.

Yeah, how did you know that?

So will this story continue or should we expect it to so um with our partners of public works who are actually managing that construction?

Yeah, when we first built those facilities downtown on third and fourth in San Fernando, they were painting plastic.

Then we actually were lucky enough to get some pretty substantial federal grants through MTC and VTA.

They're a long time ago.

That's how long it takes to manage those kind of projects.

But yes, those are pretty substantial federal grants that allowed us to do all of those projects.

Um I don't know about the next couple of years because the the trend of where they where this administration wants to spend money is not on those things.

Well, great work anyway.

It's good while it lasted.

Any other questions?

Commissioners?

Okay.

So uh the thank you very much for the presentation and thank you all for coming to help answer questions for us.

I appreciate the time.

Uh the proposal here is to recommend to the city council the adoption of the 2026 2027 proposed mid-biannual capital budget update and the 2027 to 2231 capital improvement program and transmit a memorandum memorandum to the city council providing comments, including a finding of consistency with the envisioned San Jose 2040 general plan.

So move, second, second, thank you.

Okay, uh, I'll do a roll call vote.

Yes, roll call vote if necessary.

Okay.

So we have a motion from uh Commissioner Oliverio, a second from Commissioner Cow, and uh we will go to a roll call vote.

Uh Commissioner Barrosio, yes.

Commissioner Bandal?

Yes, Commissioner Cantra?

Yes.

Commissioner Cal?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey?

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar?

Yes.

Commissioner DeWyn's not here.

Commissioner Oliveria?

Yes.

And myself, yes.

Uh that motion passes.

He's oh sorry, Commissioner Young is not here today.

Sorry.

Commissioner.

Uh and Chair Rosario is not here.

Okay.

Just to capture it all for the recording.

Okay.

Uh thank you very much.

I think that ends our activity for this evening.

Yes, we're resuming in this room at 6 30 for the planning commission.

And if you'd like to turn off your speaker, there's power button on the bottom.