Board of Supervisors Public Facilities Impact Fees Sanger / Del Rey Cemetery District County of Fresno September 9, 2008 Bryan Miller (800) 755-6864

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Demand for City-type Services. 2 Demand for City-Type Services Development in the unincorporated area may result in the expectation that the County.
Advertisements

59th Annual California & Pacific Southwest Recreation And Park Training Conference Are You Getting Enough Park Funding? March 9, 2007 Gerard van Steyn,
Child Care 101 Created by Kristen Anderson, 2006 The Child Care and Early Education System.
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Overview of Development/ Capital Budget 01 March 2012.
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ORDINANCE. What the discussion should include: 4 Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFO) allow local governments to deny.
November 3, 2014 Planning Commission. 2 Capital Facilities Element (CFE)
Fiscal Neutrality Methodology Development Public Information | January 16 th, 2015 Sarasota 2050 Resource Management Area (RMA) Policy.
Background Why Plan For Transportation? Facts You Should Know Expectations Projects and Costs Conclusions/ Next Steps.
The Chula Vista Model October 15-17, 2003 DIF Roundtable.
Department of Finance Debt Policy and Debt Profile Overview Finance Committee/City Council August 9, 2010.
Bend, OR | Eugene, OR | Portland, OR | Salem, OR | Seattle, WA | Vancouver, WA | Washington D.C. “Serving Land for Jobs” Infrastructure.
SCHOOL FINANCE EA756. Finance The budget is one of the most important legal documents of a school district. It is not a static document, but rather a.
The Effects of Different Land Uses in Missouri on Local Fiscal Conditions – Cost of Community Services Project Update – 4/12/02.
PUBLIC HEARING: Development (Impact) Fees - Land Use Assumptions & Infrastructure Improvement Plan Reports June 30, 2014.
1 Idaho Property Taxes and the Idaho Tax Structure Dan John Tax Policy Manager Idaho State Tax Commission June 2005.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Congestion Mitigation Fee Program Nexus Study GIS Based.
Christopher M. Quinn, MACC, CPA, CFE, CGFO, CGMA Finance Director Tuesday, July 7, 2015.
TOWN OF MONTREAT FISCAL YEAR Annual Budget Public Hearing and Presentation to the Board of Commissioners June 13, 2013.
June 17, 2008 Fresno County Board of Supervisors First Public Hearing / First Reading of Ordinance Public Facilities Impact Fees and Capital Improvement.
Municipal Tax Increment Financing
Economic Impact Analysis Analyze – Negotiate – Close!
Beech Grove, Indiana TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Heather R. James, Ice Miller LLP April 18, 2013.
Tax Increment Thomas Chapman Raymond James John Repsholdt Ehlers Steven Langert Consolidated High School District 230.
FISCAL IMPACTANALYSIS. TOPICS What is a FIA FIA methodologies FIA Shortcomings Rethinking FIA FIA and economic development policy.
Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. National Impact Fee Roundtable Public Safety Impact Fees and Alternatives – Fire Flow Methodology Robert P. Wallace,
Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study Update Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing January 15, 2013.
1 Impact Fees in Virginia Virginia Municipal League Annual Conference October 15, 2007 Jeffrey S. Gore Hefty & Wiley, P.C.
Capital Facilities Planning Under the Growth Management Act CFP Webinar #1 November 18, 2014.
Debt Management Overview Presentation to Board of Estimates August 29, 2011.
Placer LAFCO Municipal Service Review North Tahoe/Martis Valley Area Northstar CSD and PCWA.
3TB Project Review Tax Increment Financing (“TIF”) Overview January 25, 2013.
Current Trends In Impact Fees National Impact Fee Roundtable October 21, 2004 Robert D. Spencer.
CEDBR Fiscal Benefit-Cost Model Kasey Jolly, Senior Research Economist Center for Economic Development and Business Research Wichita State.
Corporal Kelly Gordon Montebello Police Department PENAL CODE 308 (a): The Cost of Enforcement and Guide for Licensure Fees.
Maximizing Fees ASSOCIATION OF INDIANA COUNTIES 2008 ANNUAL CONFERNCE Vevay, IN September 24, 2008.
LD 1: Tax Reform For Maine? _________________________________________ Darcy Rollins, Policy Analyst New England Public Policy Center Presentation to the.
Impact Fee Updates Board of County Commissioners Public Hearings October 30, 2012.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECEMBER 14, Sec Review requirements. (a) The City Manager shall each fiscal year prepare a preliminary capital improvement.
Water Connection Fee Analysis Elk Grove Water District Finance Committee January 30, 2013.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECEMBER 21, Sec Review requirements. (a) The City Manager shall each fiscal year prepare a preliminary capital improvement.
Utility Financial Management AWWA Intermountain Section Leadership Forum Session Two November 10, 2015.
The Kern Regional Transportation Plan A Vision and Guidebook for Kern County in 2025.
Borrego Water District Revenue Workshop. Potential Revenue Sources  Background  Service Area Relatively Small  Largely Undeveloped  Absentee Owners.
Presented By Public Resources Management Group, Inc. RECREATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Prepared on October 10 th, 2013.
Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Amendment. Overview Background Statutory Requirements Meeting the Requirements Identified Issues Timetable.
City of Ottawa 2014 Development Charges Background Study Affordable Housing July 8, 2014.
Los Angeles County Community Choice Aggregation Regional CCA Task Force Meeting October 28, 2015.
Presentation to CITY OF PALM COAST, FLORIDA FINANCIAL FORECAST AND CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES ANALYSIS Prepared in Conjunction With the Utility System Revenue.
4701 Sangamore Road S240 | Bethesda, MD | (800) Ext
Lake Ashton and Lake Ashton II Community Development Districts CDD ORIENTATION CLASS February 28, 2011.
Residential Impact Fee - Nexus Study Update City of Pasadena Conclusions & Findings Prepared by Brion & Associates In association with Nilsson Consulting.
2014 Mobility Fee Update Study Adoption Reading 1 October 21, 2014.
Inaugural Extension Council Conference
Development Charges May, 2015.
CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH
Water & Wastewater Capacity Charge Work Shop
Commercial Linkage Fee Research
Planning Commission Impact fees Planning Commission
Section 106 A Strategic Approach
City of Sisters, OR 2017 Water & Sewer Rate Study
Limited Service Agreements
Development Charge Public Meeting October 23, 2017
AMPO Conference | October 19, 2017
WGFOA Spring Conference Egg Harbor, WI April 20, 2017
Kitsap County 2019 Annual Budget
Fire Protection Impact Fee
Work Session Follow UP Aug. 23, 2018.
ROBERT W. BURCHELL, Ph.D. Professor and Co-Director Rutgers University
Capital Improvement Plans
Addressing the Demand for Health Care Services in Coyote Valley
Presentation transcript:

Board of Supervisors Public Facilities Impact Fees Sanger / Del Rey Cemetery District County of Fresno September 9, 2008 Bryan Miller (800)

1 Table of Contents Impact Fee Report Objectives Mitigation fee Act Findings Projected Service Population Public Facilities Impact Fee Overview

2 Impact Fee Report Objectives Develop fee justification based on standards established by statutory and case law Prepare report to: –Document finding in compliance with Mitigation Fee Act –Clearly explain all assumptions, methods, and conclusions Provide comprehensive back up documentation

3 Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001) Purpose of fee –To accommodate the impact created by projected new residential development on future cemetery facilities. Use of fee revenue –To provide capital funding for the expansion and development of public cemetery facilities. “Dual Nexus” –Need: Development  Need for facilities –Benefit: Development  Use of revenue Rough Proportionality: Fee amount  development’s share of new facility costs.

4 Fresno County is among the 20 fastest growing counties in California Sanger/Del Rey Cemetery District Service Population Incorporated Cities Unincorporated Areas

5 Public Facilities Impact Fee Overview The Report initially identifies existing cemetery facilities and their value to determine existing facilities standards to measure the impact of new development on the need for expanded facilities. Table 6: Value of Existing Cemetery Facilities DescriptionValue Land and Buildings $ 2,651,300 Vehicles and Equipment 180,200 Utilities and Infrastructure 490,000 Total Value of Existing Facilities $ 3,321,500 Existing Facilities Land Buildings Vehicles Equipment Utilities Infrastructure Land Buildings Vehicles Equipment Utilities Infrastructure

6 Overview Table 7: Cemetery Facilities Standards BurialsCremations District Service Population YearResidentTotal BurialsResident Total Cremations Total Interments Annual average ,544 Annual Resident Demand Factor (interments per 1,000 residents) Facilities standards were then determined to quantify the relationship between the demand for public cemetery facilities and the population served by the facility. For this Report the facility standard is expressed in terms of the number of annual interments per I,000 residents.

7 Overview Cemetery facilities and associated costs were determined to accommodate new development. New Facilities Columbarium Road Improvements Infrastructure Columbarium Road Improvements Infrastructure Table 8: Cost of Planned Cemetery Facilities DescriptionCost Existing Area Columbarium $ 193,800 Road Improvements 700,000 Water Storage and Water Line Improvements 590,000 Subtotal $1,483,800 Expansion Area Relocate Rainbow Road $1,325,000 Relocate Electricity Pole 100,000 Well Development Costs 90,500 Other Road Improvements 700,000 Subtotal $2,215,500 Total Cost of Planned Facilities $3,699,300

8 Overview: Estimated future demand was determined based on projected demand for in-ground burials vs. cremations. Table 9: Preference for Cremations vs. Burials YearTotal IntermentsTotal BurialsTotal Cremations Total 2,256 1,

9 Overview The Districts capacity for burial / cremation plots was determined. Table 10: District Capacity for Burial/Cremation Plots LocationCapacity Existing Sanger Cemetery Area 6,592 Expansion Area 15,400 Total Capacity 21,992

10 Overview Future demand for both in-ground burial plots and in-ground cremation plots and cremation niches was determined. The use of cemetery facilities from the year 2008 through 2025 by each of the three service populations, existing, new and non- resident, was also projected (Tables 11 and 12 from Report).

11 Overview The projected use of plots was then calculated to arrive at a percentage of 39% of the 21,992 existing plot capacity will be used by new development. Table 13: Projected Use of Plots To Capacity ( ) % of Total Total Existing Service Population In-Ground Plots Used 9,37143% New District Service Population In-Ground Plots Used 8,53239% Nonresident In-Ground Plots Used 4,08919% Total Demand for In-Ground Plots 21,992100%

12 Overview The District’s existing and planned facilities per capita value was calculated by multiplying the total value of existing and planned facilities by the projected share of plots used by new development and the dividing by the increase in service population. Table 14: Per Capita Value of Cemetery Facilities Value of Existing Facilities $3,321,500 Cost of Planned Facilities 3,699,300 Total $7,020,800 Projected Share of Plots Used by New Development39% Cost Allocation to New Development $2,738,100 New Development ( ) (residents) 60,000 Facilities Value per Capita $ 46

13 In summary, the following fee table represents the one- time impact fees new residential units could legally pay… …the legally justified maximum fees Table 15: Cemetery Facilities Impact Fee Land Use (dwelling unit)Cost per CapitaDensityBase Fee 1 Admin. Costs 2 Fee Residential $ $ 162 $ 3 $ 165

14 Questions & Answers