02-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Another area of concern revolves around capital improvement projects and taxation to cover the planning and implementation of the projects. Comments from all people interviewed varied regarding the taxation issue, but the need for the projects, or similar projects, goes largely unchallenged. The Board of Water and Soil Resources found no evidence that the cost effectiveness of capital improvement projects is not in compliance with statutes, rules, and regulations. The issue of who should pay for the projects, or where taxes should be levied and to what extent, is the subject of considerable debate and a primary focus of concern for some cities. Opinions on solutions span a vast range and include: (a) fund all projects by an ad valorem district-wide tax as is presently the case; (b) fund major projects of regional importance by an ad valorem district wide tax and ftmd smaller projects on a subwatershed district basis; (c ) divide the district into two tax districts divided at Gray’s Bay dam; (d) continue as is presently the case but spread the projects around so many cities have a project in their area; and (e) fund projects by a combination of an ad valorem disirict-wide tax and create a subwatershed district or stormwater utility district for the area directly benefitting or contributing, e.g., 70 percent of the project cost levied over the area directly benefitting or contributing and 30 percent ad valorem over the remainder of the district. Defining the appropriate funding option is a district responsibility and a matter of policy. Greater proactive participation by city and county policy makers and staff in the plan development process would create greater awareness and understanding of the options. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY The cost of capittil improvement projects is an area of concern, specifically the cost of engineering and, to a lesser extent, legal services for the projects. The expense of engineering consultants and legal consultants for other district activities is also an area of concern raised by several people interviewed. It does appear that the district could reduce net operating expenses by hiring some professional staff. A staff engineer and a staff attorney or paralegal could reduce expenses in the areas of pennits and planning and a staff engineer would be helpful in monitoring engineering consultant costs. In addition, since the district does not have a staff attorney or engineer, individual managers are assigned to implementation of individual capital improvement projects, furthering the problem of board members performing tasks that should be done by staff. Several interviewees also recommended using different engineering firms to design capital improvement projects. Under this scenario, the district would still maintain a single consulting engineering firm for district activities, but would vary the engineering firms used for capital