Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvement Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County outlines 10‑year CIP with $351M in unfunded projects; recommends $162.3M in debt service for FY2027
Summary
Budget staff presented a 10‑year capital improvement plan and said unfunded projects total about $351 million (including a potential $200 million courthouse). The recommended FY2027 debt service was reported at approximately $162.3 million, a decrease from FY2026 largely because a hospitality bond payment ends.
Budget staff presented Richland County’s capital improvement plan (CIP) and debt‑service overview at the May 7 budget work session, stressing that the CIP is a planning document rather than a spending authorization.
Staff said the county has moved from a five‑year to a 10‑year CIP and that the capital millage (3.5 mills) and assigned fund balance are preserved for capital needs. Assigned capital fund balance was reported at about $25,200,000 and staff said they would not be recommending a millage increase for capital; the recommended approach for FY2027 is a no‑mill increase.
The presentation listed major unfunded projects totaling roughly $351,000,000 over the 10‑year horizon, including a potential courthouse estimated at approximately $200,000,000, a new public works facility ($32,000,000), a forensic science facility ($9.1M projected in the slides), and other equipment and site acquisitions. Staff noted there are possible funding paths for large projects (including issuance of installment‑purchase revenue bonds) but emphasized these would be policy decisions that require council direction.
On debt service, staff recommended payments totaling about $162,300,000 for FY2027 — a decline from FY2026 reflecting the end of a hospitality bond payment and other timing differences. The presentation summarized the various debt components (general obligation bonds, fire bonds, special assessment bonds, IPRA bonds and school district bonds) and said staff planned to include required payments in the recommended budget.
No final decisions were made during the session; staff indicated funding choices, project sequencing and any bond issuance would be addressed in future council action if the council elects to pursue major projects such as a courthouse.
