2018-165 Transportation Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0 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. 0 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 l 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 l, 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. : ~I I May 22, 2018 Kittitas County Public Works I 20-Year TIP Fiscal Sustainability Strategy: Final Report 21