Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byRosamund Webb Modified over 6 years ago
1
Municipal Service Fund Analysis Box Elder County, Utah
Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc. October 2016
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.
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. (23)"Municipal service" means a service not provided on a countywide basis and not accounted for in an enterprise fund, and includes police patrol, fire protection, culinary or irrigation water retail service, water conservation, local parks, sewers, sewage treatment and disposal, cemeteries, garbage and refuse collection, street lighting, airports, planning and zoning, local streets and roads, curb, gutter, and sidewalk maintenance, and ambulance service.
4
Allocation Methodology
Allocation Overview Budget Line Allocation Methodology Explanation 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 Sheriff Civil Sheriff Patrol 44% MSF, 56% General Fund Calls for Service Sheriff Detective Communications Sheriff Bld/Grounds Jail Service Sheriff admin is broken into MSF (Patrol) and GF (Jail). Patrol admin is not a shared expense so 100% is covered by the MSF 56% split to GF for Patrol and Detective are considered joint responses. The County responds to incorporated incidents and the munis respond to the unincorporated County.
5
Allocation Methodology
Allocation Overview Budget Line Allocation Methodology Explanation Support Services 100% General Fund Jail Service Inmate Worker Program Commissary Jail Academy Students Transportation Inmate Medical Court Security Jail and Civil cases Inspections 100% MSF Unincorporated County Service
6
Gap Analysis: Scenario 1
Assumptions Allocation as outlined previously Gap Value Budget Estimate ($1,603,629)
7
Gap Analysis: Scenario 1
25% Increase in Unincorporated County (22%) Decrease for Incorporated County Municipal Levy County Levy *General Operations Comparison
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
9
Gap Analysis: Scenario 2
Assumptions Allocation as outlined previously Sales Tax Allocation Gap Value Budget Estimate ($1,303,629)
10
Gap Analysis: Scenario 2
20% Increase in Unincorporated County (18%) Decrease for Incorporated County Municipal Levy County Levy *General Operations Comparison
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
12
Gap Analysis: Scenario 3
Assumptions Allocation as outlined previously Sales Tax Allocation PILT Allocation Gap Value Budget Estimate ($503,629)
13
Gap Analysis: Scenario 3
8% Increase in Unincorporated County (7%) Decrease for Incorporated County Municipal Levy County Levy *General Operations Comparison
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
15
Gap Analysis: Residential Summary
% Increase $177,000 Home Annual Tax Annual Net Impact 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
16
Gap Analysis: Commercial Summary
% Increase $100,000 Building Annual Tax Annual Net Impact 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
17
GATEWAY PLAZA BUILDING
Jason Burningham Principal/Owner Teresa Pinkal ANALYST GATEWAY PLAZA BUILDING 41 N. Rio Grande, Ste 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 OFFICE: (801)
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.