Beaufort County staff propose new facility-reserve approach and citizen advisory process for capital priorities

County administration recommended creating clearer definitions and funding pathways for three capital categories — existing-facility maintenance, parks/land preservation, and new capital (expanded capacity) — and asked council for direction on a multi-year funding approach.

Staff rationale: Presenters said Beaufort County manages 131 buildings totaling more than 900,000 square feet and that the county has moved from years of deferred maintenance toward several large catch-up projects (roofs, HVAC replacements, courthouse systems, elevator modernizations). Administration said the next step is a consistent, predictable funding stream to plan 2-, 5- and 10-year maintenance priorities rather than one-off budgeting.

Key proposals: - Establish a dedicated existing-facility reserve or fund (staff referenced standard "reserve" or a dedicated millage as options) to ensure annual predictable spending for routine and cyclical maintenance across county properties. - Create clearer accounting distinctions between (a) existing-facility maintenance, (b) parks and recreation (capital versus maintenance) and (c) new capital projects (added capacity such as new recreation complexes or public facilities). Staff said impact fees alone will not cover large parks projects in master plans. - Commission a condition assessment/reserve study to inventory building conditions and prioritize work; staff said the initial year could use historical expenditure data and fund a professional condition assessment in year one to enable evidence-based multi-year funding that meets insurance and preservation needs. - Start a citizen advisory group to vet and prioritize outstanding 2018 referendum projects and provide public credibility for future capital or referendum proposals. Staff said the advisory group should be formed with council guidance about membership and geographic representation.

Parks and "land preservation": Staff noted they plan to rename passive parks holdings to "land preservation" to reflect conservation-focused parcels that allow only passive public access. Councilors raised concerns about public confusion and staff agreed to clarify which parcels allow public access and which do not.

Finance and millage context: Finance staff outlined current millage allocations and how fund-balance policy (two ordinances from 2014 and 2018) interacts with capital planning; staff said the county’s fund balance is healthy and that staff will propose using a portion of fund balance for capital in fiscal year 26 while authorizing a longer-term funding approach.

Council response and next steps: Council generally supported a more disciplined funding approach, asked staff to bring specific proposals (reserve study scope and year-one cost, potential millage or sales-tax options for capital, and the citizen advisory-group charter) and asked for follow-ups during the budget process. Several councilors supported a dedicated parks/rec funding option and clear public communication about land-preservation parcels.

Ending: Staff will return with costed proposals (reserve-study scope, initial funding recommendations, and citizen-advisory parameters) during the FY26 budget cycle and schedule a workshop on capital priorities and the 2018 referendum projects.