Municipal Service Fund Analysis in Box Elder County, Utah

This analysis focuses on reviewing and ensuring the appropriate allocation of funds for municipal services in unincorporated areas of Box Elder County, Utah. It includes financial equity review to ensure fair payments by residents. The report delves into various municipal services provided, such as fire protection, waste collection, planning, and more, with an overview of fund allocation methodologies for different services.

• Municipal Services
• Fund Analysis
• Box Elder County
• Utah
• Financial Equity

scarola_c Follow

Uploaded on Sep 10, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. MUNICIPAL SERVICE FUND ANALYSIS BOX ELDER COUNTY, UTAH LEWIS YOUNG ROBERTSON & BURNINGHAM, INC. OCTOBER 2016 1

2. PURPOSE Review of Municipal Services: analyze the Municipal Services Fund to ensure funds are being used to provide municipal services to unincorporated areas of Box Elder County. Financial Equity Review: ensure residents living in unincorporated Box Elder County are paying proportionately for municipal services. 2

3. MUNICIPAL SERVICES: UC 17-34-1 (i) fire protection service; (ii) waste and garbage collection and disposal; (iii) planning and zoning; (iv) street lighting; (v) animal services; (vi) storm drains; (vii) traffic engineering; (viii) code enforcement; (ix) business licensing; (x) building permits and inspections; (xi) in a county of the first class: (A) advanced life support and paramedic services; and (B) detective investigative services; and (xii) all other services and functions that are required by law to be budgeted, appropriated, and accounted for from a municipal services fund or a municipal capital projects fund as defined under Chapter 36, Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Counties. 3

4. ALLOCATION OVERVIEW Explanation Budget Line Allocation Methodology Fire - Hazmat 100% General Fund Countywide Service Emergency Management 1/3 allocation to General Fund, 2/3 MSF 1/3 of time spent supporting incorporated cities Sheriff Admin 40% MSF, 60% General Fund (Jail) Based on ratio of patrol and jail costs Sheriff Volunteer 100% General Fund Countywide Service Sheriff Civil 100% General Fund Countywide Service Sheriff Patrol 44% MSF, 56% General Fund Calls for Service Sheriff Detective 44% MSF, 56% General Fund Calls for Service Communications 100% General Fund Countywide Service Sheriff Bld/Grounds 100% General Fund Jail Service 4

5. ALLOCATION OVERVIEW Explanation Budget Line Allocation Methodology Support Services 100% General Fund Jail Service Inmate Worker Program 100% General Fund Jail Service Commissary 100% General Fund Jail Service Jail 100% General Fund Jail Service Academy Students 100% General Fund Jail Service Transportation 100% General Fund Jail Service Inmate Medical 100% General Fund Jail Service Court Security 100% General Fund Jail and Civil cases Inspections 100% MSF Unincorporated County Service 5

6. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 1 Assumptions Allocation as outlined previously Gap Value - 2016 Budget Estimate ($1,603,629) 6

7. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 1 25% Increase in Unincorporated County (22%) Decrease for Incorporated County Municipal Levy .000000 .000945 County Levy .0020070 .001564 *General Operations Comparison 7

8. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 1 2016 Current Levy Residential Avg Fair Market Taxable Value Annual Bothwell $127,450.00 $70,097.50 $140.69 Collinston $153,700.00 $84,535.00 $169.66 Promontory $176,995.00 $97,347.25 $195.38 Crystal Springs $264,900.00 $145,695.00 $292.41 Proposed County and MSF Levy Residential Avg Fair Market Taxable Value Annual Annual Impact Bothwell $127,450.00 $70,097.50 $175.87 $35.18 Collinston $153,700.00 $84,535.00 $212.09 $42.43 Promontory $176,995.00 $97,347.25 $244.23 $48.86 Crystal Springs $264,900.00 $145,695.00 $365.53 $73.12 8

9. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 2 Assumptions Allocation as outlined previously Sales Tax Allocation Gap Value - 2016 Budget Estimate ($1,303,629) 9

10. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 2 20% Increase in Unincorporated County (18%) Decrease for Incorporated County Municipal Levy .000000 .000768 County Levy .0020070 .001647 *General Operations Comparison 10

11. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 2 2016 Current Levy Residential Avg Fair Market Taxable Value Annual Bothwell $127,450.00 $70,097.50 $140.69 Collinston $153,700.00 $84,535.00 $169.66 Promontory $176,995.00 $97,347.25 $195.38 Crystal Springs $264,900.00 $145,695.00 $292.41 Proposed County and MSF Levy Residential Avg Fair Market Taxable Value Annual Annual Impact Bothwell $127,450.00 $70,097.50 $169.28 $28.60 Collinston $153,700.00 $84,535.00 $204.15 $34.49 Promontory $176,995.00 $97,347.25 $235.09 $39.72 Crystal Springs $264,900.00 $145,695.00 $351.85 $59.44 11

12. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 3 Assumptions Allocation as outlined previously Sales Tax Allocation PILT Allocation Gap Value - 2016 Budget Estimate ($503,629) 12

13. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 3 8% Increase in Unincorporated County (7%) Decrease for Incorporated County Municipal Levy .000000 .000297 County Levy .0020070 .001868 *General Operations Comparison 13

14. GAP ANALYSIS: SCENARIO 3 2016 Current Levy Residential Avg Fair Market Taxable Value Annual Bothwell $127,450.00 $70,097.50 $140.69 Collinston $153,700.00 $84,535.00 $169.66 Promontory $176,995.00 $97,347.25 $195.38 Crystal Springs $264,900.00 $145,695.00 $292.41 Proposed County and MSF Levy Residential Avg Fair Market Taxable Value Annual Annual Impact Bothwell $127,450.00 $70,097.50 $151.73 $11.05 Collinston $153,700.00 $84,535.00 $182.99 $13.32 Promontory $176,995.00 $97,347.25 $210.72 $15.34 Crystal Springs $264,900.00 $145,695.00 $315.37 $22.96 14

15. GAP ANALYSIS: RESIDENTIAL SUMMARY % $177,000 Home Annual Tax Annual Net Impact Residential Gap Increase Scenario 1 ($1,603,629) 25% $244.23 $48.86 Scenario 2 ($1,303,629) 20% $235.09 $39.72 Scenario 3 ($503,629) 8% $210.72 $15.34 15

16. GAP ANALYSIS: COMMERCIAL SUMMARY $100,000 Building Annual Tax % Annual Net Impact Commercial Gap Increase Scenario 1 ($1,603,629) 25% $250.89 $50.19 Scenario 2 ($1,303,629) 20% $241.50 $40.80 Scenario 3 ($503,629) 8% $216.46 $15.76 16

17. Jason Burningham Teresa Pinkal ANALYST E-MAIL: Teresa@LewisYoung.com Principal/Owner E-MAIL: Jason@LewisYoung.com GATEWAY PLAZA BUILDING 41 N. Rio Grande, Ste 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 OFFICE: (801) 596-0700 www.LewisYoung.com