HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1993 BAKERSFIELD
AGENDA
Intergovernmental Relations Committee
City/County
Friday. Februa~ 19. 1993
'. 12:00 noon
Convention Center - Grape Room
1. Budget Symposium (Joe Drew)
2.. Fiscal Impact Analysis (Joel Heinrichs)
3. Citywide Parks District Update .
4. ' Set Next Meeting
SYMPOSIUM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Planning For and Budgeting Local Government Services For FY 93/94
CONCEPT
The leadership of Kern County's local governments, supported by necessary staff
resources, .will come together for two days to identify and descdbe the difficult
budget issues confronting them, and identify possible intergovernmental
alternatives to maximizing service delivery. Primary presentations should include:
county, cities, Supt of Schools, selected school districts, and selected special
districts. All other local government entities, the business community, and
individual citizens will 'be Welcome to observe and have (some) opportunity for
input.
The first daywould be devoted to information exchange and issue development.
The second day woUld be devoted to identifying: community priorities, and
opportunities for greater intergovernmental coordination and cooperation.
Day I
8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Presentation of Budget Summary and priority issues listing
of each identified local government,
'
2:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Resolving the issues lists to a common list for discussion in
Day 2;
Public input on issue priorities.
Day 2
8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Discussion of top priority issues and identification of goals
and strategies to address each.
1:00 p.m.- 3:30 p.m. Developing an agenda for accomplishing the goals and
~ strategies
3:30 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Final public input
LOCATION
(To Be Determined)
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY JOEt.' HEINRICHS, AGENCY DIRECTOR
Air Pollutiofl Control Dbtrtct . · Engineering & Survey Services Depmlment · Plmming · Developmeflt 8en~:e~ Department
Trlnsport~tion M~n~gement Dep~rtment · W.st~ Mmtllgemeflt Depmlment
Phone:. (80S) 8~1-3S02 270Q 'M" STREET, SUITE 3S0
FAX: (80S) H1-.~429 ~ BAKERSIqELD. CA ~1
February23, 1993
Board of Supervisors
County of Kern
'1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: FISCAL IMPACT PROCESS PROGRESS REPORT
FUNDING: NO FISCAL IMPACT.
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
The purpose of this correspondence is to acquaint you with the progress to date in setting a fiscal
impact analysis process in place as part of the Plan for Growth project;
In response to the Kern' County Year' 2000 General Plan policy which states that new
development, is expected to pay its pro rata share for the expansion and Operation of public
facilities required as a consequence of that development, fiscal impact analyses must now be
submitted as part of the application package for new developments.~
The urgency of implementing this poliCy is heightened by the fiscal distress being experienced
by the County. The service level reductions dictated by current public funding shortfalls are
exacerbated by additional development if. that development does not pay its own way. The
pattern of development is also of importance; some types of projects will produce surpluses
while others will cause deficits.when the revenue generated by the project is weighed against the
service expenditures necessitated. Should residential development with an average 'unit value
below a break-even point precede a surplus-generating land use, pre-existing develoPment would,
in effect, have to subsidize the new development. Over time, as diverse' land uses were
developed, a fiscal balance might be struck; however in the interim the costs would have to be
carried. One pragmatic approach is to require each new development to stand on its own, and
'Kern County Year 2000 General Plan; Public Facilities Section, Policy 4: New development will be required to pay a
proportional share of thc local cost of' infrastructure' improvements required to service such development, as well as ongoing
operating and maintenance costs. Infrastructure costs will be estimated on a dwelling unit policy buis and levied at thc time
of approval of the final map.
Board of Supervisors
February 23, 1993
Page 3
The multipliers now in use for residential projects represent approximately 81% of the net'
county cost per capita. The remaining costs are allocated to non-residential projects under the
theory that current per capita costs are a reasonable gauge of the costs associated with new
development. An individual project's addition to total costs expected will be based on a
proportional relationship between the project's value and the value of existing non-residential
property.
The methods used rest on separate sets of assumptions. The per capita method assumes that the
current average revenues and costs per capita are adequate to estimate the revenues and costs
that will be incurred as a result of new' development; that the current level and mix of service
will be extended into the future; and that the .population will not markedly change in
· composition. The assumptions implicit in the proportional valuation methods are as follows:
Municipal services costs increase as intensity of land use increases; the change in the real value
of a property is a reasonable indicator of the intensity of land use; and aggregate impacts of
commercial and industrial land uses on municipal service costs are similar enough to allow these
uses to be considered in a single category.
Pending, Policy Is~uen
The unpredictable nature of government finance in California and .the certainty that the
demographic makeup of the state and Kern County will change make many of the assumptions,
on which the present fiscal impact analysis procedures rest, precarious at best. These two
conditions alone point to the need to take a more systematic approach to identifying the costs
associated with growth. It is only by undertaking, in-depth, department-by-department case
studies that incremental costs can be calculated with any certainty.
Given this improved information, two alternative approaches could be taken: refinement of the
current "existing service" standard or development of new "threshold" service standards. The
former would require annual ulxlates to adjust for the current standard being provided and the
level of service provided would depend on the present buying power of available dollars; the
latter would establish a standard that would be self-perpetuating in the sense that new
development would be assessed the current cost of providing the adopted level of service.
The assumption that the current level and mix of services will extend into the future is clearly
in jeopardy aa a result of the Board's pending consideration of the FY 1993/94 budget, however
it is recommended that current mitigation practices be retained until Fall, 1993. This approach
will allow for .the critique of the newly developed impact analysis guidelines during a "pilot
period" and will not place any additional burden on development. Following this implementation
period, a standardized mitigation plan will be drafted, using the "pilot period" results. Such a
plan might propose either direct charges to new development, or more broadly based revenue
enhancement programs for particular services, some combination of direct and general charges,
or a continued reduction in services commensurate with current mitigation approaches.
DRAFT
COUNTY OF KERN
ABBREVIATED FISCAL IMPACT ANALysIS GUIDELINE8
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS
To implement the policies of both the Kern County General Plan and
the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan, a fiscal impact
analysis must now be submitted for projects requiring an
environmental document. An abbreviated fiscal impact analysis may
be .Performed for residential projects which require a Negative
Declaration. Given the information requested below, the Planning
Department will generate an abbreviated fiscal impact analysis
worksheet. Upon review of this worksheet, the applicant may
include it with the project application or may elect to have a more
thorough analysis performed by a consultant. If the FIA projects
a negative fiscal impact on the county, the applicant will be asked
to propose mitigation measures to neutralize this impact.
PROJECT NAME:
Contact name:
Phone number:
Please provide information on 'all that apply to your project:
Number of single-family residences
Average proposed Selling price single-family-
unit
Number of multi-family units
Average proposed value multi-family units
Taxes currently paid on property
NOTES: The full FiScal Impact Worksheet (7 pages) is available upon
request.
A computer version in Lotus 1-2-3 v. 2.01 is available on
diskette.
A background report on the draft Abbreviated .FiScal Impact
Guidelines is available on request. This document describes
the methodology used in conducting the analysis.
10-Feb-93 ' RESIDENTIAL FISCAL 'IMpAcT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES WORKSHEET
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX REVENUE
Single Family Residential
12 # Units 0
13 .Average selling price $0
14 X Property turnover rate 12.8%
15 = Total value transferred $0
16 X $1.10/$1,000 transferred 0.0011
17 Est transfer tax on SFR $0
Multi-Family Residential
18 # Units 0
19 Average unit value $0
20 X Property turnover rate 12.8%
21 = Total value transferred $0
22 X $1.10/$1,000 transferred 0.0011
23 Est transfer tax on MFR $0
24 TOTAL ESTIMATED TRANSFER TAX $0
(Sum lines 17 and 23)
SALES TAX REVENUE
line Single Family Residential
25 Average selling price/unit $0
26 X number of units 0
27 X ratio of income to housing cost 1/3
28 X proportion of income spent on
taxable goods 0.35
29 X proportion of taxable purchases
made in Kern 0.9
30 X County's share sales tax 0.01
31 Est SFR Sales tax revenue $0
Multiple Family Residential
32 Average unit value $0
33 X number of units 0
34 X ratio of income to housing cost .1/3
X propor~ion of income spent on
.35 taxable goods 0.35
X propor~ion of taxable purchases
36 made in Kern 0.9
37 X County's share sales tax 0.01
38 Est MFR sales tax revenue $0
39 TOTAL ESTIMATED sALEs TAX REVENUE $0
(Sum lines 31 and 38)
10-Feb-93 RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES WORKSHEET 4
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES GENERATED
SERVICES
Fire Protection
63 Total new. residents 0
64 X per capita expenditures-Fire $91.77
65 Expenditures--Fire Protection $0
Sheriff
66 Total new residents 0
67 X per' capita expenditures-Sheriff $121.55
68 Expenditures--Sheri'ff
Library
69 Total new residents 0
70 X per capita expenditures--Library $9.38
71 Expenditures--Library $0
Parks
72 Total new residents 0
73 X per capita expenditures-Parks $9.18
74 Expend£tures--Parks
Health & Human Services
75 Total new residents 0
76 X per capita expenditures-HHS $38.88
77 Expenditures-Health & Human Serv
Publ£c Protection
78 Total new residents 0
79 X per capita expenditureS-Protect '$60.32
80 Expenditures-Public Protection. $0
General government
81 Total new residents 0
82 X per. cap expenditures-gengov $51.30
83 Expenditures-general govt. $0
84 TOTAL SERVICE EXPENDITURES $0
(Sum lines 65, 68, 71, 74, 77, 80, 83)
10-Feb-93 RESIDENTIAL FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES WORKSHEET
101 Total Capital Costs $0
(Sum lines 88, 92, 96, 100)
102 Annualized CaPital Costs $0.
(30 year capital facility life)
103 TOTAL PROJECTED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES $0
(Sum lines 84 and 102)
SUMMARy
104 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUES $0
105 less TOTAL.PROJECTED EXPENDITURES $0
106 REVENUE SURPLUS (DEFICIT) $0
If line 106 shows a deficit, please indicate proposed
mitigation measures below=
MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED
%
? 10-Feb-93 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FISCAL IMPACT GUIDELINES WORKSHEET
FILE
PROJECT NAME
Commercial/Industrial acreage 10
Estimated % C/I bldg area/acreage 25%
Est. Gross Leasable Area (sq ft) 108,900
Est. value C/I building/sq, ft. $50
Est. value improved C/I land $6
Est. proportion sales originating
outside county 0.0
Est. annual utility bill C/I $40,000
Number of hotel rooms 0
Average room rate per night $0
Taxes currently paid on property $4,000
GENERAL PURPOSE REVENUES GENERATED
PROPERTY TAX. REVENUE
Commercial/Industrial Property
9 $ Acres 10
10 , X square feet/ acre 43,560
11 X coverage anticipated 25%
i
i 12 X est value/sq ft bldg $50
:,~' 13 = est bldg value $5,445,000
, 14 # Acres 10
!: 15 . X square feet/acre 43,560
16 X 1-coverage anticipated 0.75
17 X est value/sq ft improved land
~. 18 - est improved land val $1,960,200
19 Total est value .$7,405,200
:~ 20 X County portion of PTAX 0.00369
21 Gross C/I PTAX to County $27,325
23 less current annual PTAX assessed $4,000
24 TOTAL NET PROPERTY TAX $23,325
=' 10-Feb-93 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRI~ FISC~ IMPACT GUIDELINES woRKS~ET' 2
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES GENERATED~
The total assessed valuation for all real property in the County of Kern in
fiscal year 91-92 was $32,962,247,511. Average parcel value was $85,394.
The total assessed valuation for commercial/industrial properties was
$4,843,459,680. Average parcel value was $282,072.
Using the ratio of average C/I parcel value to average parcel value and
the ratio of C/I value to total assessed value, the percentage of service
expenditures attributable to C/I property was derived--19.4%.
97 Total Service Expenditures $209,303,777
98 X Percentage attributable to C/I 19.4%
99 Expenditures attributable to C/I $40,604,933
100 Value of Proposed C/I Development $7,405,200
101 Total Assessed C/I Valuation $4,843,459,680
102 Average Assessed C/I Valuation $282,072
103 Ratio of Facility/Total C/I value 1.53E-03
104 Ratio Facility/Avg. C/I value 26.25
105 Refinement coefficient 0.2228
106 Costs associated with C/I project $13,830
107 Total revenues of project $28,629
108 less operations costs incurred $13,830
109 OPERATIONS SURPLUS OR (DEFICIT) $14,800
(Revenues less costs}
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Fire and sheriff facility requirements are to be
determined in consultation with those departments.
Capital expenditures will be divided, by an expected
30 year life-span to determine the annualized cost.
The resultant figure will be added to the operations
surplus (deficit) in line 109 to calculate the
project's net fiscal impact.
If there is a negative fiscal impact, mitigation
measures must be proposed by the applicant.