Berkeley City Council staff on April 29 outlined a three‑year capital improvement program that phases major street reconstruction projects across restricted funds and ties some paving work to required lead‑service‑line replacements.

Staff said the plan pushes a large Bacon Avenue reconstruction into the 2025–27 construction seasons and follows with a major section of Harvard and then Wakefield, using major‑street and infrastructure millage first and tapping water and sewer funds later to complete contracts.

City finance staff and public works leaders said the approach lets the city start multi‑million‑dollar projects without drawing on the water and sewer fund in year one. The Bacon project was presented as roughly a $6.67 million contract that will be billed across two fiscal years; Harvard was shown as about $3.637 million. Officials said using the infrastructure millage and remaining major‑street balances in year 1 avoids immediate water/sewer contributions, but that the water and sewer fund will pay a portion in the following year or years as other funds are exhausted.

The plan also aims to pair paving with known lead‑service‑line work. Public works staff described a deliberate choice to prioritize streets where crews can replace multiple lead services as part of a full street reconstruction rather than performing isolated service repairs that would later be overlaid. Staff said that approach stretches limited capital by avoiding repeated digs and restorations on the same block.

Staff walked the council through fund‑by‑fund cash flows showing that, under the proposed schedule, major/local street and infrastructure fund balances would be largely drawn down across the three‑year window. Officials said the city is building a target catastrophic reserve in the water and sewer fund — about $2 million — and that the proposed schedule balances completing large projects while maintaining that reserve target.

Council members asked about project selection and sequencing, the condition surveys that produced the priorities, and contingency if state or federal funds become available. Public works staff said they are doing borings and core samples and will continue verifying pavement, subgrade and the number of lead services on candidate streets; they also said projects can shift if grant awards arrive or unexpected failures occur.

Staff noted the state road‑funding formula (Act 51) and the 2018 voter‑approved infrastructure millage as the principal restricted revenue sources guiding what can be charged to each fund. They emphasized the plan is deliberately front‑loaded to use one fund first to maximize available cash for construction seasons.

Council scheduled a public presentation of the budget and CIP for the May meeting cycle and directed staff to include clearer public‑facing graphics on how water/sewer rate increases and lead‑service replacements interact with the CIP timetable.

Ending: Council retained the tentative project list (Bacon, Harvard, Wakefield) and asked staff to circulate final cost‑timing tables before the May public hearing so councilors can review sequencing if outside grants or higher bids shift funding needs.