Agile Capital Budgeting?

Key aspects of the staff-proposed agile capital budgeting pilot (from the June 2, 2026 Finance & Corporate Services Committee staff report and recommendations):

The pilot is a targeted trial of a more flexible (“agile”) way to plan and fund capital projects — moving away from Ottawa’s traditional rigid annual capital budgeting cycle toward faster, more adaptive funding for high-priority growth infrastructure.

1. The pilot has a Narrow scope

Limited to Transportation Planning’s roads and related growth projects.

These are projects governed by the city’s financial and project prioritization frameworks (detailed in the staff report — things like development-charge eligibility, growth-related costing, and priority scoring).

2. Core “agile” features

• Ten-year spending plan + project list: 

• Staff must develop a full 10-year capital spending plan and prioritized project list for the pilot. This list will come back to Council for approval as part of the 2027 budget process.
• Flexible reallocation authority: The City Treasurer and CFO are given delegated power to shift funding between projects within the first four years of the plan — without needing full Council approval each time — as long as the changes stay inside the approved financial frameworks and the overall 10-year list.

3. Why “agile”?

• Traditional capital budgeting locks money into specific projects year-by-year, often causing delays when costs change, priorities shift, or projects are ready earlier/later.
• The pilot lets staff move dollars quickly to ready-to-go road/growth projects, getting shovels in the ground faster while still protecting overall fiscal guardrails.

Councillor Catherine Kitts described it publicly as “the Agile Capital Budgeting Pilot process that gets projects funded faster.”
This was one of the staff recommendations in the Long-Range Financial Plan / capital budget update

Bottom line for voters:
It’s a step toward faster road delivery for new growth areas — good in theory — but it still doesn’t touch the existing $3.8B backlog on arenas, community centres, or inner-ward assets. 
The real test will be whether the 10-year plan and reallocation rules actually deliver transparency and protect existing taxpayers (exactly what delegations to the Finance committee were demanding).

The problem is cost over runs
• Cost overruns on the hospital, library, and OC Transpo
This is exactly why the June 2 Finance Committee was debating the $3.8B backlog and the new infrastructure levy. 
These aren’t ancient history. They’re examples of what happens when big capital projects lack the 50-year viability checks, transparent contingency rules, and peer benchmarking that delegations (and I) demanded.
1. The Ottawa Hospital Civic Campus (new site near Dow’s Lake)Provincial P3 project, originally scoped at $2.8 billion (mostly Ontario funding). As of late May 2026: Liberal MPPs are publicly warning it could be billions over budget, with Ottawa’s local share potentially exploding from ~$300 million to nearly $1 billion. Timeline under review (tariffs, design changes, construction inflation). 
No final numbers locked in, but city taxpayers are already on the hook for a “local share” framework approved years ago — and the goalposts keep moving.

 This is classic “growth pays for growth” until it doesn’t — and existing taxpayers backfill.

• 2. Ādisōke — the new central library (LeBreton Flats, joint with Library & Archives Canada)Original budget: $193 million. 2021: Jumped $141 million to $334 million (COVID inflation, supply chain). May 22, 2026: Staff went back to council’s Finance Committee asking for another $18.5 million — pushing the total to $352 million (82% over original). 
Opening: Now delayed beyond 2026 (was supposed to open this year; now 12+ months late on contractual schedule). Extra costs include oversight and contingency top-ups.
•  This one was literally in the staff report heading into the June 2 meeting.
3. OC Transpo / Stage 2 O-Train (LRT extensions)

• 3. OC Transpo / Stage 2 O-Train (LRT extensions)Stage 2 contracts originally $4.66 billion (2019). By November 2025: 
Already $5.06 billion and climbing — delays, legal fees, and contingency draws. East extension hit “substantial completion” in March 2026, but full Stage 2 (east, west, south) still facing ripple costs. 
Operating side (directly in the June 2 committee report): OC Transpo posted a $7.2 million deficit in just the first three months of 2026 — low ridership, bus maintenance, and fuel costs. 
The full-year 2026 transit operating budget sits at $906–939 million (up 11–22% YoY), with an 8% transit levy increase proposed.
Same pattern: promise “growth pays,” deliver overruns that land on the property tax bill or force service cuts elsewhere.
This pattern is the problem.
These projects prove why delegations hammered the Long-Range Financial Plan: we keep approving shiny new mega-projects without ironclad 50-year lifecycle costing, mandatory contingency reserves, or “no net loss to existing assets” rules. 
Result? 
The 99 facilities in fair-or-worse condition, 25 dying arenas ($500M+), and the $3.8B backlog get kicked down the road while we chase the next ribbon-cutting.

My only ask is for accountability and change.
Who has been in office since 2019? Not me.