COM 0522.002 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 5, 2004 The Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chair and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Council Members: Transmitted herewith is the Capital Budget for FY 2004-05 submitted for your review and approval, and the Capital Program for the next six years from FY 2004-05 to 2009-10 for your information. The Capital Budget includes 60 projects requiring a total appropriation of $91,339,000, of which $2,650,000 is Federal Grants Receivable and $88,689,000 is County -financed through State Revolving Fund loans, bonds, or other sources (see Table 1). This year's CIP budget is extraordinarily high because it includes additional appropriations totaling $40 million for a special bond dedicated to high-priority transportation projects as requested by Council. To facilitate review and discussion, we have classified the projects into two subparts: Subpart A includes the projects listed in our March 1 submittal (43 projects totaling $48,689,000) (see Table IA),' and Subpart B includes the special transportation bond projects (17 projects totaling $40,000,000) (see Table 113). Project Highlights Every year, we strive to present a budget that is fiscally constrained (in terms of prudent debt service planning) and selective based on rational criteria. The guideline we have used for a prudent debt service limit is 15% of general expenditures. According to the latest annual financial report, current debt service comprises approximately 9.9% of general expenditures. Although the $48,689,00 for the Subpart A projects is higher than last year, the budgeted amount would still be within the prudent limits assuming the entire amount is funded by debt. The special bond for Subpart B transportation projects for $40,000,000, together with the Subpart A amount, would raise the debt service to approximately 10.5% of general expenditures for FY 04-05. Mon co 0_ O In selecting the projects, funding requests from the agencies were initially screened to ensure that the agency had the capacity to o implement the project during the fiscal year (i.e., whether to defer or phase the project), that current requests were reconciled with u ° Z previous appropriations (i.e., unused amounts from previous appropriations were sufficient to carry the project through the coming fiscal year), that the projects were not more appropriately funded through the operational budget (e.g., minor repairs), and that the projects werH as equitably distributed geographically as possible while meeting the selection criteria discussed below. The exception is Kona and Puna where more of the transportation improvements were directed in response to the traffic problems from rapid growth. N 'Three DPW projects funded by the Highway Fund ($1,850,000) and the Waikoloa Runaway Truck Ramp project ($250,000) were added, thereby increasing the March 1 total ($46,589,000) by $2,100,000. -8,11 X35,0. �