ResolutiontoAdopt20YearTransportationPlan

Home Browse Search

The County is currently taking out 20 percent of its total combined UTGO and LTGO debt capacity ($152.6 million) and has a remaining capacity of $122.2 million. However, the remaining debt capacity based on best practices for maintaining credit rating is $71.3 million. The County does not have enough debt capacity to cover the projected 20 -year deficit of $91.1 million while maintaining its credit rating. Even if the County were to take out the entire deficit in a UTGO bond, the bond would have an estimated tax burden of $1.51 per $1,000 assessed value, based on the County's 2018 valuation of unincorporated County areas ($4.5 billion). This translates to approximately $383 for a homeowner with the County's median home value of $253,300. This would be paid on top of the existing County Road property tax of $0.98 per $1000 AV. Over a 20 -year bond lifecycle, the cost to homeowners will decline as the value of the tax dollar decreases --as such the cost to homeowners would be greatest in the first year of the bond. Other Options The following other options were discussed but deemed less feasible: General Fund Allocations: These are dependent on excess General Fund capacity. " Reclaiming Diverted County Road Levy Property Tax Capacity: The County currently diverts $0.045 per $1,000 of assessed value in County Road Levy property tax capacity for general County purposes. Reclaiming these funds could only bring in an estimated $200,000 annually, and Public Works was concerned about its feasibility. Property Tax Levy Lid Lift — County General Expense Levy: The County can increase the County general expense property taxes in taxing districts without banked capacity beyond the 1 percent limit for 6 years up to a rate equal to or less than the statutory maximum, which is $1.80 per $1,000 assessed value. The County is currently levying a County General Expense Levy of $1.38, based on the 2018 assessor's report. Since these additional funds would remain in the General Fund, the additional revenues would not necessarily be invested in the transportation program. Sale of Existing Capital Assets: Due to the structurally deficient or obsolete nature of County bridges, many are not truly considered assets, and this would bring in a nominal amount. Real Estate Excise Tax 2: The County already levies Real Estate Excise Tax 1, but could levy a second, additional 0.25 percent tax on the full sales price of real estate. This would only be expected to bring in approximately $65,000 a year, and Public Works had questions about its feasibility. Transportation Impact Fees: These are fees charged to developers to fund impacts related to the development as established by a rate study, or alternatively, levied as part of SEPA mitigation, which exempts single family homes. This would require a rate study, which would be dependent on expected development, and Public Works was concerned about the feasibility of this option. JQ May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works 1 20 -Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 21