Agenda - 04-26-2005- - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Capital Funding Options -Staff Considerations Prepared for the Apri120, 2005 Board of County Commissioners Work Session therefore, staff does not recommend splitting these revenues between School and County capital projects. • Likewise, on the County side of the equation, revenues from Skills Development rent and Federal Inmate fees offset County related debt. • With regard to recurring capital, Options 1 and 2 offer funding alternatives that provide for the 3 cents of property tax dedicated to schools recurring capital to remain with the schools (i.e, it is not split 60/40 between the schools and the county). These two options also provide for the one-cent currently dedicated to County capital to remain with County projects (namely recurring capital) and not be included in the 60/40 split. • On the other hand, Options 3 through 5C offer funding alternatives that provide for the 3 cents dedicated for schools recurring capital to be added to the one cent dedicated for County projects and the total of that funding to be allocated based on the proposed 60/40 split. 5. Should the 60/40 target apply only on long-range capital funding or should it also incorporate recurring capital funding (e.g. for capital projects of smaller scope or of a routine maintenance nature)? All of the capital funding options offered for Board consideration to date have included both long-range capital funding as well as recurring capital funding, Should the Board wish, staff could prepare options that include long-range capital funding only. As outlined in Item 3 above, the options presented to the Board to date have provided for two variations of distributing recurring capital, Options 1 and 2 offer funding alternatives that provide for the 3 cents of property tax dedicated to schools recurring capital to remain with the schools (i.e. it is not split 60/40 between the schools and the county). These two options also provide for the one-cent currently dedicated to County capital to remain with County projects (namely recurring capital) and not be included in the 60/40 split. On the other hand, Options 3 through 5C offer funding alternatives that provide for the 3 cents dedicated for schools recurring capital to be added to the one cent dedicated for County projects and the total of that funding to be allocated based on the proposed 60/40 split. 6. Does the 60/40 target apply only to the period 2005-15, or should it be applied on a rolling basis to each subsequent ten-year CIP period until the BOCC makes a formal decision to change the policy? Staff has not included a recommendation for this consideration,° that maybe an area that the Board wishes to consider as it approves future Capital Investment Plans.