Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln County staff proposes scoring system to invest roughly $3 million in excise‑tax surplus for transportation projects
Summary
Andrew Bright presented a draft Transportation Funding Policy proposing to use excess excise tax accruals (about $3 million) for transportation projects, with a 10‑criteria scoring system and a minimum threshold for board consideration.
Andrew Bright, county staff, presented a proposed Transportation Funding Policy to the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board at the November 2025 joint meeting. The policy is intended to provide a framework to allocate excess excise tax dollars that have accrued over time (the fund was created in fiscal year 2015 and staff reported a current balance of about $3,000,000 above a base threshold of $858,000).
Bright said the fund can be used for a range of purposes, including partnering with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on state projects (such as betterments), funding access improvements for public sites (Lincoln County Schools examples were cited) and entering reimbursement agreements with private developers to accelerate projects where a private partner performs work and is reimbursed subject to public bidding and county requirements. Bright emphasized that reimbursement agreements must comply with county public‑bidding rules; he cited a past reimbursement in which failure to follow bidding rules affected eligibility for county funds.
To help prioritize scarce dollars, staff proposed a 10‑point scoring matrix with ten categories, each scored 1–5, and a minimum threshold (about 50% of available points) for a project to come before the board. For private‑sector partnership projects, the draft policy requires the developer to provide at least 50% of project funds; board members discussed raising that match requirement to 60 percent to increase public leverage and leave more county funds available for other projects.
Commissioners asked staff to model weighted scoring alternatives and run scenarios (for residential‑focused projects versus economic‑development projects) to illustrate how weighting or doubling one category’s weight would affect outcomes. Bright agreed to return with sample scenarios and recommended possible weighting adjustments to help the board decide whether to adopt the policy as drafted or modify weighting and private‑match thresholds.
Why it matters: the fund represents a limited public resource (staff reported roughly $3 million) that the county can use to leverage state funding, improve school access, and accelerate private or public transportation projects. A scoring and matching policy aims to make allocations transparent and prioritized by local goals such as safety, congestion relief, economic development and funding leverage.
What’s next: staff will run scoring scenarios, including alternative weightings and a higher private‑match requirement (for example, 60%), and return to the board with a workshop package and recommended refinements.
