Wake County staff on April 7 presented a recommended seven-year capital improvement program that requests about $1.2 billion in county capital investments for fiscal years 2026 through 2032 and ties spending to a mix of debt and cash funding.

County budget manager Molly Marcarelli said the county uses a seven-year rolling plan for capital work and links each project to an identified funding source. "Capital projects are those that cost more than a hundred thousand dollars and last more than a year," Marcarelli said. She told commissioners that nearly half of county capital funding in the plan is expected to come from debt.

The plan includes large facility projects the county has discussed in prior years: a planned detention center expansion (total project roughly $146 million), an animal control replacement (about $57 million), a decedent storage and medical examiner facility (about $52 million), a replacement/general services administration (GSA) facility (about $92 million) and a $15 million renovation of the Hammond Road annex. Marcarelli said library projects approved by voters in November 2024 — a $142 million library bond — are slated to begin in FY2026 and that the FY2026 budget will include a 0.25-cent tax increase to support that bond.

Todd Taylor, the county's director of finance, outlined how the county balances PAYGO (cash) and debt for capital needs. "We tend to use PAYGO for smaller assets with shorter useful life and debt for larger, longer-life assets," Taylor said. He summarized the county's approach to issuing general obligation (GO) bonds and limited obligation bonds (LOBs), noting GO bonds are voter-authorized and typically carry the lowest borrowing cost while LOBs are board-authorized and secured by pledged assets.

Taylor and Marcarelli told commissioners the county will continue to refine project scopes, validate construction timelines and revise cost estimates each year. They also presented a multi-year issuance plan that schedules library issuances beginning in FY2026, major county facility debt issuances across FY2026–FY2028, and a planned combined education bond referendum in November 2026 (see related story on education funding for the county schedule and estimated tax impacts). Taylor noted the county's debt modeling currently anticipates the county will levy a quarter-penny in FY2026 for the recently approved library bond and estimated an additional half-penny in FY2028 to support a combined education bond, subject to final voter approval and future model updates.

Marcarelli described the funding mix for county capital programs as including limited obligation bonds and PAYGO cash for large construction and maintenance, transfers from the general fund derived from property tax for projects not eligible for debt, and municipal reimbursements for shared projects. She also highlighted that some projects in the seven-year window are "horizon" items — on the county’s radar but not yet appropriated because they need more refinement in scope, timing or funding.

The presentation emphasized that the county will continue to review the plan before the county manager’s recommended budget is finalized; projects lacking sufficient business case will be moved to horizon and timing adjustments may be made to keep the manager’s recommended budget balanced. Commissioners asked about timing and scope for specific projects and about how state requirements and master plans drive some projects. No formal decisions or votes were taken during the work session; staff said the manager's recommended budget will be presented May 5 and the board will adopt the FY2026 budget and related CIP on June 2.

Less critical details discussed toward the end of the session included routine maintenance budgeting, facility condition assessment cycles and the fiscal mechanics of moving design-phase cash to later-year debt-financed construction when appropriate.