







 
|
 |
FISCAL POLICY
Find
the following information below:
Current
CIP Fiscal Policies
Detailed
Description of CIP Funding Sources
The
Framework of Fiscal Policy
Fiscal policy is the combined practices of government with
respect to revenues, expenditures, and debt management. Fiscal policy
for the Capital Improvements Program focuses on the acquisition, construction,
and renovation of public facilities and on the funding of such activities,
with special attention to long term borrowing.
The County Charter (Article 3, Sections 302 and 303) provides
that the County Executive shall submit to the Council, not later than
January 15 of each even-numbered calendar year, a comprehensive six-year
program for capital improvements. This biennial Capital Improvements Program
takes effect for the six year period which begins in each odd-numbered
fiscal year. The Charter provides that the County Executive shall submit
a Capital Budget to the Council, not later than January 15 of each year.
The County Executive must also submit to the Council, not
later than March 15 of each year, a proposed operating budget, along with
comprehensive six-year programs for public services and fiscal policy.
The Public Services Program(PSP)/Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
Program(CIP)/Capital Budget constitute major elements in the County's
fiscal planning for the next six years. Fiscal policies for the PSP and
CIP are parts of a single consistent County fiscal policy.
In November 1990, the County's voters approved an amendment
to Section 305 of the Charter to require that the Council annually adopt
spending affordability guidelines for the capital and operating budgets.
Spending affordability guidelines for the CIP have been interpreted in
subsequent County law to be limits on the amount of general obligation
debt and Park and Planning debt that may be approved for expenditure for
the first year of the CIP and for the entire six years of the CIP. In
October, 1997, County law was amended to align with the biennial CIP process.
Spending affordability guidelines are now adopted in odd-numbered calendar
years, and limit the amount of general obligation debt that may be approved
for the first year, the second year, and for the entire six years of the
CIP. Similar provisions cover the bonds issued by the M-NCPPC. Since 1994
the Council, in conjunction with the Prince George's County Council, has
adopted one-year spending limits for the WSSC. These spending control
limits have included guidelines for new debt and annual debt service.
The purposes of the CIP fiscal policy are:
- To encourage
careful and timely decisions on the relative priority of programs and
projects;
- To encourage cost effectiveness in the type, design, and construction
of capital improvements;
- To assure that the County may borrow readily
for essential public improvements; and
- To keep the cost of debt service
and other impacts of capital projects at levels affordable in the operating
budget.
Back to the top
|
 |
|
CURRENT CIP
FISCAL POLICIES
The fiscal policies followed by the Executive and Council are relatively
stable, but not static. They evolve in response to changes in the local
economy, revenues and funding tools available, and requirements for public
services. Also, policies are not absolute; policies may conflict and must
be balanced in their application. Presented here are the CIP fiscal policies
currently in use by the County Executive.
Policy on Project Eligibility for
Inclusion in the CIP
Capital expenditures included as projects in the CIP should:
- Have a reasonably long useful life, or add to the physical infrastructure
and capital assets of the County, or enhance the productive capacity
of County services. Examples are roads, utilities, buildings, and
parks. Such projects are normally eligible for debt financing.
- Generally have a defined beginning and end, as differentiated from
ongoing programs in the PSP.
- Be related to current or potential infrastructure projects. Examples
include facility planning or major studies. Generally, such projects
are funded with current revenues.
- Be carefully planned, generally as part of a facility planning
process, to enable decision makers to evaluate the project based on
complete and accurate information. In order to permit projects to
proceed to enter the CIP once satisfactory planning is complete, a
portion of "programmable expenditures" (as used in the Bond adjustment
chart) is deliberately left available for future needs.
Policy on Funding CIP with Debt
Much of the CIP should be funded with debt. Capital projects usually have
a long useful life and will serve future taxpayers as well as current
taxpayers. It would be inequitable and an unreasonable fiscal burden to
make current taxpayers pay for many projects out of current tax revenues.
Bond issues, retired over approximately 20 years, are both necessary and
equitable.
Projects deemed to be debt eligible should:
- Have a useful life at least approximately as long as the debt issue
with which they are funded.
- Not be able to be funded entirely from other potential revenue
sources, such as intergovernmental aid or private contributions.
Policy on General Obligation Debt
Limits
General obligation debt usually takes the form of bond issues. General
obligation debt pledges general tax revenue for repayment. Paying principal
and interest on general obligation debt is the first claim on County revenues.
By virtue of prudent management and the long-term strength of the local
economy, Montgomery County has maintained the highest quality rating of
its general obligation bonds, AAA. This top rating by Wall Street rating
agencies, enjoyed by very few local governments in the country, assures
Montgomery County of a ready market for its bonds and the lowest available
interest rates on that debt.
Debt Capacity
To maintain the AAA rating, the County adheres to the following guidelines
in deciding how much additional County general obligation debt may be
issued in the six-year CIP period:
- Total debt, both existing and proposed, should be kept at about
1.5 percent of full market value (not assessed value) of taxable real
property in the County.
- Required annual debt service expenditures should be kept at about
ten percent of the County's total General Fund operating budget. Note:
The General Fund no longer includes grants, which have been transferred
to a Special Revenue Grant Fund. The General Fund also excludes other
special revenue tax-supported funds. If those special funds supported
by all County taxpayers were to be included, the percentage of debt
service would be below ten percent.
- Total debt outstanding and annual amounts issued, when adjusted
for inflation, should not cause real debt per capita (i.e., after
eliminating the effects of inflation) to rise significantly.
- The rate of repayment of bond principal should be kept at existing
high levels and in the 60-75 percent range during any ten-year period.
- Total debt outstanding and annual amounts proposed should not
cause the ratio of per capita debt to per capita income to rise significantly
above its current level of about 3.5 percent.
Policy on Terms for General Obligation
Bond Issues
Bonds are normally issued in a 20-year series, with five percent of the
series retired each year. This practice produces equal annual payments
of principal over the life of the bond issue, which means declining annual
payments of interest on the outstanding bonds. Thus annual debt service
on each bond issue is higher at the beginning and lower at the end. When
bond market conditions warrant, or when a specific project would have
a shorter useful life, then different repayment terms may be used. The
Charter limits the term of any bond to 30 years.
Policy on Other Forms of General
Obligation Debt
The County may issue other forms of debt as appropriate and authorized
by law. From time to time, the County has issued Bond Anticipation Notes
(BANs) and commercial paper for interim financing to take advantage of
favorable interest rates within rules established by the Internal Revenue
Service.
Policy on Use of Revenue Bonds
Debt may be incurred by Special Revenue Funds as authorized by law based
on the pledge of particular revenues to its repayment, in contrast to
general obligation debt which pledges general tax revenues. Revenue-based
debt carries a higher interest rate, but allows the financing of projects
that would otherwise claim part of the limited general obligation bond
capacity.
Policy on Use of Current Revenues
The County has the following policies on the use of current revenues in
the CIP:
- Current revenues must be used for any CIP projects not eligible
for debt financing by virtue of limited useful life.
- Current revenues should be used for CIP projects consisting of
long-lived equipment replacement, for limited renovations of facilities,
for renovations to facilities which are not owned by the County, and
for planning and feasibility studies.
- Current revenues may be used when the requirements for capital expenditures press the limits of bonding capacity.
Most non-debt eligible projects funded with current revenues have been transferred to, and are budgeted in, the six-year Public Services Program/Operating Budget. This significantly increases the visibility of all items competing for the same funding (current revenues), expands the capacity of elected officials and citizens to scrutinize all relevant spending choices over a multi-year time frame, and diminishes the tendency to presume that programs once in the CIP are entitled to more protection from budgetary pressures than those traditionally in the PSP.
Policy on Use of Federal and State
Grants and Other Contributions
Grants and other contributions should be sought and used to fund capital
projects whenever they are available on terms that are to the County's
long-term fiscal advantage. Such revenues should be used as current revenues
for debt avoidance and not for debt service.
Policy on Taxing New Private Sector
Development
As part of a fair and balanced tax system, new development of housing,
commercial, office, and other structures should contribute directly toward
the cost of the new and improved transportation and other facilities required
to serve that development. To implement this policy, the County has established
the following taxes:
Impact taxes in the Germantown and Eastern County impact
tax areas.
These taxes are levied at rates that vary with the contribution of each
land use to peak period traffic. The revenues are used to pay for a specific
set of master-planned transportation projects.
Development Approval Payment (DAP).
In November 1993, the Council created an alternative voluntary review
procedure for Metro station policy areas as well as limited residential
development. The DAP permits development projects to proceed in certain
areas subject to development restrictions. Due to the voluntary nature
of this payment, DAP revenue is an unpredictable funding source, and is
not programmed for specific transportation improvements until after the
revenue has been collected.
Expedited Development Approval Excise Tax (EDAET).
The EDAET, also known as Pay-and-Go, which was enacted by the Council
in October 1997, allows private development to proceed with construction
in moratorium and non-moratorium policy areas after the excise tax has
been paid. The tax is assessed on the project based on the intended use
of the building, the square footage of the building, and whether the building
is in a moratorium policy area. The purpose of the four-year EDAET is
to act as a stimulus to residential and commercial construction within
the County by making the development approval process more certain.
Development Districts.
Legislation enacted in 1994 established a procedure by which the Council
may create a development district. The creation of such a special taxing
district allows the County to issue low-interest, tax-exempt bonds that
are used to finance the infrastructure improvements needed to allow the
development to proceed. Taxes or other assessments are levied on the property
within the district, the revenues from which are used to pay the debt
service on the bonds. Development is, therefore, allowed to proceed, and
improvements are built in a timely manner. Only the additional, special
tax revenues from the development district are pledged to repayment of
the bonds. The County's general tax revenues are not pledged. The construction
of improvements funded with development district bonds is required by
law to follow the County's usual process for constructing capital improvements,
and thus must be included in the Capital Improvements Program.
Transportation Improvement (Loophole) Credits.
Under certain conditions, a developer may choose to pay a transportation
improvement credit in lieu of funding or constructing transportation improvements
required in order to obtain development approval. These funds are used
to offset the cost of needed improvements in the area from which they
are paid.
Systems Development Charge (SDC).
This charge, enacted by the 1993 Maryland General Assembly, authorized
WSSC to assess charges based on the number and type of plumbing fixtures
in new construction, effective July 19, 1993. SDC revenues may only be
spent on new water and sewerage treatment, transmission, and collection
facilities.
Back to the top
|
 |
|
DETAILED
DESCRIPTION OF CIP FUNDING SOURCES
Within each individual capital project, the funding sources for all expenditures
are identified. There are three major types of funding for the capital
improvements program: current revenues (including PAYGO), proceeds from
bonds and other debt instruments, and grants, contributions, reimbursements,
or other funds from intergovernmental and other sources.
Current Revenues
Cash contributions used to support the CIP include: transfers from general
revenues, special revenues, and enterprise funds; investment income on
working capital or bond proceeds; proceeds from the sale of surplus land;
impact taxes, development approval payments, systems development charges,
and the expedited development approval excise tax; and developer contributions.
The source and application of each are discussed below.
Current Revenue Transfers.
When this source is used for a capital project, cash is allocated
to the capital project directly from the general, special, or enterprise
funds to finance direct payment of some or all of the costs of the
project. The General Fund is the general operating fund of the County
and is used to account for all financial resources except those required
to be accounted for in another fund. The Special Revenue Funds are
used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that
are restricted to expenditures for specified purposes. The Enterprise
Funds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated
in a manner similar to private business enterprises, where the intent
of the governing body is that the costs of providing goods or services
to the general public on a continuing basis be financed primarily
through user charges.
Use of current revenues is desirable as it constitutes "pay-as-you-go"
financing and, when applied to debt-eligible projects, reduces the
debt burden of the County. Decisions to use current revenue funding
within the CIP have immediate impacts on resources available to annual
operating budgets, and require recognition that certain costs of public
facilities should be supported on a current basis rather than paid
for over time. Current revenues from the General Fund are used for
designated projects which involve broad public use and which fall
outside any of the specialized funds. Current revenues from the Special
and Enterprise Funds are used if the project is associated with the
particular function for which these funds have been established.
PAYGO is current revenue set aside in the operating
budget, but not appropriated. PAYGO is used to replace bonds for debt
eligible expenditures.
Investment Income on Bond Proceeds.
Because of the limitations on arbitrage (net interest earned
from the government's investment of bond proceeds) imposed by the Internal
Revenue Code, and because of the use of bond anticipation notes for
interim financing of bond-funded CIP projects, this source of income
is no longer significant to the funding of the CIP.
Proceeds from the Sale of Public Property.
When the County sells surplus land or other real property, proceeds from the sales are normally allocated to the Capital Projects Fund and may be used to fund an Advance Land Acquisition Revolving Fund (ALARF) within the CIP. An ALARF project is used to purchase the land necessary for a facility in advance of its actual construction. Revolving appropriations are normally reimbursed from specific projects at the time the projects receive a construction appropriation. By law, 25 percent of the revenue from land sale is directed to the Montgomery Housing Initiative (MHI).
Impact Taxes are specific charges to developers
to help fund new roads or major road improvements required to provide
transportation capacity in the traffic-constrained areas of eastern
and upper Montgomery County. Chapter 49, Montgomery County Code, designates
specific County areas where major road construction is required for
further development approval and is subject to these taxes. Specific
road projects upon which such approvals are contingent are identified
and programmed within the CIP showing the proportionate funding shares.
All new development (residential or commercial) within the designated areas is subject to payment of the impact tax as a condition to receiving building permits. The tax itself is set by law to be calculated at the time a developer applies for a building permit. The tax is subject to recalculation every two years to take into consideration inflation, changes in road design or other elements of the highways being constructed, as well as changes in land uses or development types within the impact tax area. In 1997, changes were enacted to the impact tax law, and the Expedited Development Approval Excise Tax was created. These changes will reduce the amounts of impact tax collected in both the Germantown and East County impact tax areas.
Since revenues to be obtained from impact taxes are payable only when
a developer applies for building permits (which may not occur for a
number of years), other funding is sometimes required for funding project
construction, predicated on eventual repayment from impact taxes.
Contributions are amounts provided to the County
by interested parties such as real estate developers in order to support
particular capital projects. Contributions are sometimes made as a way
of solving a problem which is delaying development approval. A project
such as a road widening or connecting road that specifically supports
a particular new development may be fully funded (and sometimes built)
by the developer. Other projects may have agreed-upon cost-sharing arrangements
predicated on the relationship between public and private benefit that
will exist as a result of the project. For stormwater management projects,
developer contributions are assessed in the form of fees in lieu of
on-site construction of required facilities. These fees are applied
to the construction of regional facilities serving a particular area.
They are separately designated and accounted for within the Capital
Projects Fund.
Back to the top
|
|
Bond Issues and Other Public Agency
Debt
The County government and four of its Agencies are authorized by State
law and/or County Charter to issue debt to finance CIP projects. This
debt may be either general obligation or self-supporting debt. General
obligation debt is characterized in credit analyses as being either "direct"
or "overlapping". Direct debt is the sum of total bonded debt and
any unfunded debt (such as short-term notes) of the government, and constitutes
the direct obligations of the County government which impact its taxpayers;
overlapping debt includes all other borrowing of County agencies
or incorporated municipalities within the County's geographic limits,
which may impact those County taxpayers who are residents of those municipalities
or those County taxpayers who are ratepayers or users of public utilities.
More broadly, overlapping debt can help reveal the degree to which the
total economy is being asked to support long-term fixed commitments for
government facilities.
Direct General Obligation Debt is incurred by the issuance
of bonds by the County government and the Maryland-National Capital
Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). Payment of some bonded debt
issued by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and the
Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC), is also guaranteed by the County
government.
County government general obligation bonds are issued for a wide variety of functions including transportation, public schools, community college, public safety, and other programs. These bonds are legally binding general obligations of the County and constitute an irrevocable pledge of its full faith and credit and unlimited taxing power. The County Code provides for a maximum term of 30 years, with repayment in annual serial installments. Typically, County bond issues have been structured for repayment with level annual payments of principal. Bonds are commonly issued for 20 years. The money to repay general obligation debt comes primarily from general revenues, except that debt service on general obligation bonds, if any, issued for projects of Parking Districts, Liquor, or Solid Waste funds is supported from the revenues of those enterprises.
M-NCPPC is authorized to issue general obligation bonds,
also known as Park and Planning bonds, for the acquisition and development
of local and certain special parks and advance land acquisition, with
debt limited to that supportable within mandatory tax rates established
for the Commission. Issuance is infrequent, and because repayment is
guaranteed by the County, it is considered a form of direct debt. Debt
for regional, conservation, and special park facilities is included
within County government general obligation bond issues, with debt service
included within the County government's annual operating budget.
HOC bonds which support County housing initiatives
such as the acquisition of low/moderate-income rental properties may
be guaranteed by the County to an aggregate amount not to exceed $50
million, when individually authorized by the County, and as such are
considered direct debt of the County. The HOC itself has no taxing authority,
and its projects are considered to be financed through self-supporting
debt as noted below.
Overlapping debt is the debt of other governmental entities
in the County that is payable in whole or in part by taxpayers of the
County.
WSSC General Construction Bonds finance small diameter
water distribution and sewage collection lines, and required support
facilities. They are considered general obligation bonds because they
are payable from unlimited ad valorem taxes upon all the assessable
property in the WSSC district. They are actually paid through assessments
on properties being provided service, and are considered to be overlapping
debt rather than direct debt of the County government.
WSSC Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Bonds, which finance
major system improvements, including large diameter water distribution
and sewage collection lines, are paid from non-tax sources including
user charges collected through water and sewer rates, which also cover
all system operating costs. They are backed by unlimited ad valorem
taxes upon all the assessable property within the WSSC district in addition
to mandated rates, fees, and charges sufficient to cover debt service.
Self-Supporting Debt is authorized for the financing
of CIP projects by the County government and its Agencies as follows:
County Revenue Bonds are bonds authorized by
the County to finance specific projects such as parking garages and
solid waste facilities, with debt service to be paid from pledged
revenues received in connection with the projects. Proceeds from revenue
bonds may be applied only to costs of projects for which they are
authorized. They are considered separate from general obligation debt,
and do not constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit or unlimited
taxing power of the County.
County revenue bonds have been used in the Bethesda and Silver
Spring Parking Districts, supported by parking fees and fines together
with parking district property taxes. County revenue bonds have
also been issued for County Solid Waste Management facilities, supported
with the revenues of the Solid Waste Disposal system.
HOC Mortgage Revenue Bonds are issued to support HOC
project initiatives, and are paid through mortgages and rents. HOC
revenue bonds, including mortgage purchase bonds for single family
housing, are considered fully self-supporting and do not add to either
direct or overlapping debt of the County.
The Montgomery County Revenue Authority has
authority to issue revenue bonds and to otherwise finance projects
through notes and mortgages with land and improvements thereon serving
as collateral. These are paid through revenues of the Authority's
several enterprises, which include golf courses, an elderly rental
housing project, and the Montgomery County Airpark.
The County has also used the Revenue Authority as a conduit for
alternative CIP funding arrangements. For example, two swim centers,
a building to house County and State Health and Human Services functions,
and the construction of the Montgomery County Conference Center
are financed though revenue bonds issued or to be issued by the
Revenue Authority. The County has entered into long term leases
with the Revenue Authority, and the County lease payments fund the
debt service on these Revenue Authority bonds. Because these long
term leases constitute an obligation of the County similar to general
debt, the value of the leases is now included in debt capacity calculations.
Back to the top
|
|
Intergovernmental Revenues
CIP projects may be funded in whole or in part through grants, matching
funds, or cost sharing agreements with the Federal government, the State
of Maryland, regional bodies such as Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority (WMATA), or the County's incorporated municipalities.
Federal Aid. Major projects that involve Federal aid
include Metro, commuter rail, interstate highway interchanges and bridges
(noted within the CIP Transportation program), and various environmental
construction or planning grants under WSSC projects in the Sanitation
program. Most Federal Aid is provided directly to the State, for redistribution
to local jurisdictions.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). CDBG funds
are a particular category of Federal aid received through annual formula
allocations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
in response to County application, and are identified as CIP revenues
in the Housing and Community Development program. The County has programmed
eligible projects for CDBG funding since 1976, with expenditures programmed
within both capital and operating budgets. CDBG funds are used to assist
in the costs of neighborhood improvements and facilities in areas where
there is significant building deterioration, economic disadvantage,
or other need for public intervention in the cycles of urban growth
and change. In addition, CDBG funding is used as "seed money" for innovative
project initiatives, including redevelopment and rehabilitation loans
toward preserving and enhancing older residential and commercial areas
and low/moderate-income housing stock.
State Aid. This funding source includes grants,
matching funds, and reimbursements for eligible County expenditures
for local projects in public safety, environmental protection, courts
and criminal justice, transportation, libraries, parkland acquisition
and development, mental health, community college, and K-12 public education,
notably in school construction.
State aid consistently falls short of funding needs predicated on
State mandates or commitments. Although the State of Maryland is specifically
responsible for the construction and maintenance of its numbered highways
and for the construction and renovation of approved school projects,
the County has in fact advance-funded projects in both categories
either through cost-sharing agreements or in anticipation of at least
partial reimbursements from the State. Because large County fiscal
liabilities are taken on when assuming any or all project costs of
State-mandated or obligated facilities, State reimbursement policies
and formulas for allocation of funds are important to CIP fiscal planning.
State Aid for School Construction. State funding for
school construction, initiated in FY72, is determined annually by the
General Assembly on a Statewide basis. New State aid for school construction
has been increasing for the past several years, and is set at $141 million
Statewide for FY98. The County Executive is urging the Governor to further
increase the school construction budget to at least $200 million Statewide
for FY99.
State Aid for Higher Education. State aid is also a
source of formula matching funds for community college facilities design,
construction, and renovation. Funds are applied for through the Higher
Education Commission for inclusion in the State Bond Bill. Approved
projects may get up to 50 percent State funding for eligible costs.
The total amount of aid available for all projects Statewide is determined
based on yearly allocations of available bond proceeds to all Maryland
jurisdictions.
State Aid for Transportation. Within the Transportation
program, State contributions fund the County's local share of WMATA
capital costs for Metrorail and Metrobus, as well as traffic signals
and projects related to interconnecting State and local roads. Most
State road construction is done under the State Consolidated Transportation
Program and is not reflected in the CIP.
State Aid for Public Safety. Under Article 27, Sec.
705 of the Maryland Code, when the County makes improvements to detention
and correctional centers resulting from the adoption of mandatory or
approved standards, the State, through the Board of Public Works, pays
for 50 percent of eligible costs of approved construction or improvements.
In addition, financial assistance may be requested from the State for
building or maintenance of regional detention centers, and, under 1986
legislation, the State will fund up to half the eligible costs to construct,
expand, or equip local jails in need of additional capacity.
State Aid for Fire/Rescue Services. The State
of Maryland provides significant local assistance under Article 38A,
Section 45 of the Maryland Code, authorizing the Fire and Rescue Ambulance
Fund. The grant can be used for acquisition or rehabilitation of stations,
apparatus, and equipment. These funds have been appropriated through
CIP projects for fire apparatus replacement and fire station renovations,
as well as through the corporation operating budgets for equipment acquisitions.
Agreed-upon allocation provides for one-third of available State funds
to be disbursed as grants to the various volunteer fire corporations,
and the other two-thirds to be used for the funding of major fire/rescue
capital needs within the CIP. Because these State funds are similar
to grant funds normally programmed in the operating budget, for FY99
and beyond, the County Executive recommends that they be migrated to
the operating budget.
Municipal Financing. Some projects with specific benefits
to an incorporated municipality within the County may include funding
contributions or other financing assistance from that jurisdiction.
These include road construction agreements such as with the City of
Rockville wherein the County and City share costs of interconnecting
or overlapping road projects. Another example is the Leland Recreation
Center that opened in 1989, and was financed by the Town of Chevy Chase.
The County operates the Center under a lease agreement with the Town,
with lease payments used to pay debt service. The lease is a County
operating liability for its duration, payable from tax supported Recreation
Fund revenues.
Incorporated towns and municipalities within the County, specifically
Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Poolesville, have their own capital improvements
programs, and may participate in County projects where there is shared
benefit. The use of municipal funding in County CIP projects depends
upon the following:
- Execution of cost-sharing or other agreements between the County
and the municipality, committing each jurisdiction to specific terms,
including responsibilities, scheduling, and cost-shares for implementation
and future operation or maintenance of the project;
- Approval of appropriations for the project by the legislative
body of each jurisdiction; and
- Resolution of any planning or zoning issues affecting the project.
Back to the top
|
|
Other Revenue Sources
The use of other revenue sources to fund CIP projects are normally conditioned
upon specific legislative authority or project approval, including approval
of appropriations for the projects. Approval of a project may be contingent
upon actual receipt of the revenues planned to fund it, as in the case
of anticipated private contributions that are not subject to particular
law or agreement. Other CIP funding sources and eligibility of projects
for their use include:
Revolving funds, such as the revolving loan fund authorized
to cover HOC construction loans until permanent financing is obtained;
funds are advanced from County current revenues and repaid at interest
rates equivalent to those the County earns on its investments; or the
Advance Land Acquisition Revolving Fund (ALARF) which is used to acquire
land in advance of project implementation. Revolving fund appropriations
are then normally repaid from the actual project after necessary appropriation
is approved.
Agricultural land transfer tax receipts payable to the
State but authorized to be retained by the County. These are used to
cover local shares in the State purchase of agricultural land easements,
and for County purchase of or loan guarantees backed by transferable
development rights (TDRs);
Private grants such as were provided under profit-sharing
agreements with the County's Cable TV corporation, for use in developing
public access facilities, and
Insurance or self-insurance proceeds, for projects being
renovated or replaced as a result of damage covered by the County's
self-insurance system.
Back to the top
|
 |
|
THE FRAMEWORK
OF FISCAL POLICY
This section presents information on a variety of information sources
and factors that are considered in developing and applying fiscal policy
for the CIP.
Legal Mandates
State Law. The Annotated Code of Maryland provides the basis for
fiscal policy related to debt, real property assessments, and other matters:
- Article 25A (Section 5P) provides for the borrowing of monies on
the faith and credit of the County, and for the issuance of bonds
or other evidence of indebtedness. The aggregate amount of outstanding
indebtedness may not exceed 15 percent of the assessed property valuation
of the County.
- Section 8-103 provides for updated assessments of property in three-year
(triennial) cycles. The amount of the change in the established market
value of the one-third of the properties reassessed each year is phased
in over a three-year period. State law also created a ten percent
assessment limitation tax credit. This program provides an automatic
credit against property taxes equal to the applicable tax rate (including
the State rate) times that portion of the current assessment which
exceeds the previous year's assessment increased by ten percent. This
benefit only applies to owner-occupied residential property.
- Other provisions of State law mandate requirements for environmental
review, permits, and controls for public facilities such as solid
waste disposal sites, affecting both the cost and scheduling of these
facilities.
- State law mandates specific facility standards such as requirements
for school classroom space to be provided by the County for its population,
and may also address funding allocations to support such requirements.
- State law provides for specific kinds of funding assistance for
various CIP projects. In the area of public safety, for example, Article
27, Section 705 of the Maryland Code provides for matching funds up
to 50 percent of the cost of detention or correctional facilities.
- The Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection and Planning
Act requires the County to certify that all construction projects
financed with any type of State funding are in compliance with local
land-use plans, including specific State-mandated environmental priorities.
County Law. Article 3 of the County Charter provides for the issuance
of public debt for other than annual operating expenditures, and imposes
general requirements for fiscal policy:
- The capital improvements program must provide an estimate of costs,
anticipated revenue sources, and an estimate of the impact of the
program on County revenues and the operating budget.
- Bond issues may not be for longer than 30 years.
- Capital improvement projects which are estimated to cost in excess
of an annually established amount (for FY99, $8.697 million), or which
have unusual characteristics or importance, must be individually authorized
by law, and as such are subject to referendum.
- In November 1990, County voters approved an amendment to Section
305 of the Charter to require that the Council annually adopt spending
affordability guidelines for the capital and operating budgets. Spending
affordability guidelines for the CIP have been interpreted in subsequent
County law to be limits on the amount of County general obligation
debt which may be approved for the first and second years of the CIP
and for the entire six-year period of the CIP. Similar provisions
apply to debt of the M-NCPPC. These limits may be overridden by a
vote of seven of the nine Councilmembers.
- In April 1994, the Council adopted Resolution No. 12-1558 establishing
a spending affordability process for WSSC. The process limits WSSC
new debt, debt service, water/sewer operating expenses, and rate increases.
- · The Charter amendment to Section 305, known as "Question F", limits
the annual increase in property tax revenues to the rate of inflation
plus the revenue associated with the assessed value of new construction.
The limit may be overridden by a vote of seven of the nine Council
members. This revenue limit affects CIP fiscal policy by constraining
revenue available for future debt service on bond issues and for current
revenue contributions to capital projects.
Federal Law. Policies of the Federal Government affect County fiscal
policies relative to debt issuance, revenue expectations, and expenditure
controls. Examples of Federal policies that impact County fiscal policy
include:
- Internal Revenue Service rules under the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
as amended, provide limits on the tax-exempt issuance of public debt,
and limit the amount of interest the County can earn from investment
of the bond proceeds.
- County shares of costs for some major projects, such as those relating
to mass transit and highway interchanges, are dependent upon Federal
appropriations and allocations.
- Federal Office of Management and Budget circular A-87 prescribes
the nature of expenditures that may be charged to Federal grants.
- Federal legislation will impact the planning and expenditures of
specific projects, such as requirements for environmental impact statements
for Federally-assisted road projects; and the Davis-Bacon Act, which
requires local prevailing wage scales in contracts for Federally-assisted
construction projects.
Back to the top
|
|
Fiscal Planning Projections and
Assumptions
Several different kinds of trends and economic indicators are reviewed,
projected, and analyzed each year for their impacts on County programs
and services and for their impact on fiscal policy as applied to the Capital
Improvements Program. Among these are:
Inflation, which is important as an indicator of future
project costs or the costs of delaying capital expenditures;
Population growth, which provides the main indicator
of the size or scale of required facilities and services, as well as
the timing of population-driven project requirements;
Demographic change in the numbers or location within
the County of specific age groups or other special groups, which provides
an indication of requirements and costs of specific public facilities;
Annual Growth Policy thresholds and other land use indicators,
which are a determinant of major public investment in the infrastructure
required to enable implementation of land use plans and authorized development
within the County;
The assessable property tax base of the County, which
is a major indicator for projections of revenue growth to support funding
for public facilities and infrastructure;
Residential construction growth and related indicators,
which provide early alerts to the specific location and timing of future
public facilities requirements. It is also the most important base for
projecting growth in the County's assessable property tax base and estimating
property tax levels;
Nonresidential construction activity, which is the indicator
of jobs, commuters, and requirements for housing and transit-related
public investment. It is also one of the bases for projecting the growth
of the County's assessable tax base and property tax revenues;
Employment and job growth within the County,
which provide indicators for work-related public facilities and infrastructure;
Personal income earned within the County, which is the
principal basis for projecting income tax revenues as one of the County's
major revenue sources; and
Implementation rates for construction of public facilities
and infrastructure. As measured through actual expenditures within programmed
and authorized levels, implementation rates are important in establishing
actual annual cash requirements to fund the CIP, and thus are a chief
determinant of required annual bond issuance.
Back to the top
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP)
The application of fiscal policy in the financial management of the CIP
must be in conformity with GAAP standards. This involves the separate
identification and accounting of the various funds which cover CIP expenditures,
adherence to required procedures, such as transfers between funds and
agencies, and regular audits of CIP transactions such as the disbursement
of bond proceeds and other funds to appropriate projects.
Credit Markets and Credit Reviews
The County's ability to borrow at the lowest cost of funds depends upon
its credit standing as assessed by major credit rating agencies such as
Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch. Key aspects of the County's continued
AAA credit ratings include:
- Adherence to sound fiscal policy relative to expenditures and funding
of the CIP;
- Appropriate levels of public investment in the facilities and infrastructure
required for steady economic growth;
- Effective production of the necessary revenues to fund CIP projects
and support debt service generated by public borrowing;
- Facility planning, management practices and controls for cost containment,
and effective implementation of the capital program;
- Planning and programming of capital projects to allow consistent
levels of borrowing;
- Appropriate use and levels of revenues other than general obligation
bond proceeds to fund the capital program;
- Appropriate levels of CIP funding from annual current tax revenues
in order to reduce borrowing needs; and
- Assurances through County law and practice of an absolute commitment
to timely repayment of debt and other obligations related to public
facilities and infrastructure.
Intergovernmental Agreements
Fiscal policy for the CIP must provide guidance for and be applied within
the context of agreements made between the County and other jurisdictions
or levels of government. Examples include:
- Agreements with municipalities for cost shares in the construction
of inter-jurisdictional roads and bridges;
- Agreements with adjacent jurisdictions related to mass transit or
water supply and sewerage; and
- Agreements with Federal agencies involving projects related to
Federal facilities within the County.
Past County Practice and Principles
Fiscal policy not only guides but is conditioned by the results of past
as well as current County practice. Examples include:
- The former use of general obligation bond funding for the construction
of parking garages, which are now more appropriately funded through
revenue bond issues;
- The development of more stringent criteria for project funding through
debt, with projects once considered eligible for bond-financing now
being funded through current revenues or other funding sources;
- The practice of early identification within the CIP of likely projects
and requirements for capital expenditure, to avoid sudden program
expansion and peaks in debt issuance; and
- The principle of programming projects and expenditure schedules
within their most realistic implementation time frames, rather than
either inflating the early years of the program or deferring known
project requirements to later years of the CIP.
Compatibility with Other County
Objectives
Fiscal policy, to be effective, must be compatible with other policy goals
and objectives of government. For example:
- Growth management within the County reflects a complex balance among
the rights of property owners; the cost of providing infrastructure
and services to support new development; and the jobs, tax revenues,
and benefits that County growth brings to its residents. Fiscal policy
provides guidance for the allocation of public facility costs between
the developer and the taxpayer, as well as for limits on debt-supported
costs of development relative to increasing County revenues from a
growing assessable tax base.
- Government program and service delivery objectives range from conveniently
located libraries, recreation centers, and other amenities throughout
the County to comprehensive transportation management and advanced
waste management systems. Each of these involves differing kinds and
mixes of funding and financing arrangements that must be within the
limits of County resources as well as acceptable in terms of debt
management.
- Planning policies of the County effect land use, zoning and special
exceptions, and economic development, as well as the provision of
public services. All are interrelated, and all have implications both
in their fiscal impacts (cost/revenue effects on government finances)
and in economic impacts (effects on the economy of the County as a
whole).
Back to the top
|