Elliott D. Pollack & Company Scope of Work Identify any - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Elliott D. Pollack & Company Scope of Work Identify any potential stressors to the financial conditions of Buckeye Valley Fire District and the service levels of emergency ambulance service within the City of Buckeye. 1 Sources
Elliott D. Pollack & Company Scope of Work
conditions of Buckeye Valley Fire District and the service levels of emergency ambulance service within the City of Buckeye.
1
Sources Consulted:
(current and future land use, population projections)
revenue)
Outlook – June 2015
2
1. The Buckeye Valley Fire District provides ambulance services to the current population of its CON at an operating loss. Thus, any increase in the population would create greater losses. 2. The operational gap between BVFD’s ambulance revenue and expense is directly or indirectly supplemented by BVFD property taxes. 3. The Buckeye Valley Fire District collects property taxes from properties located within their CON but NOT within incorporated city areas (Buckeye and Surprise). These are excluded from their tax base. 4. When the population of the CON increases within the incorporated areas of Buckeye and Surprise, BVFD must provide increased ambulance service with no matching increase to their property tax base. 5. Cities like Buckeye and Surprise have an incorporated boundary and a Municipal Planning Area (MPA). The MPA is a larger defined boundary that will eventually become part of the city through annexation. 6. Annexations by Buckeye and Surprise within the BVFD CON will reduce the property tax base of BVFD.
3
The need for substantial investment in additional vehicles, equipment, stations, and personnel will create stress on BVFD’s ambulance operation by increasing their
incorporated cities of Buckeye and Surprise, providing no new matching property taxes for BVFD while creating more demand for ambulance services.
the MPA of both Buckeye and Surprise, these cities will eventually annex that land, further decreasing the property tax base of BVFD.
4
5
Buckeye is still largely agricultural and undeveloped. There is limited commercial development thus far.
6
Currently, Buckeye’s population is found along the I-10 as well as some areas south of the highway.
7
Buckeye is expected to grow by hundreds of thousands of people as well as add a significant amount of commercial and employment uses in the region.
(at Buildout)
8
The City of Buckeye is expected to double in the next 15 years and quadruple by 2040. Including areas that will eventually be annexed, the City will be 5 times the size it is today by 2040.
Population Doubles Doubles AGAIN
9
Year Population Change in Population Avg Annual Percent Change Population Change in Population Avg Annual Percent Change 1990 4,436 2000 6,537 2,101 4.0% 2010 50,876 44,339 22.8% 62,807 2015 61,173 10,297 3.8% 72,900 10,093 3.0% 2020 74,400 13,227 4.0% 87,700 14,800 3.8% 2025 89,200 14,800 3.7% 2030 123,900 34,700 6.8% 147,600 59,900 5.3% 2035 183,200 59,300 8.1% 2040 258,000 74,800 7.1% 310,800 163,200 7.7% 2045 329,500 71,500 5.0% 2050 401,300 71,800 4.0% 488,000 177,200 4.6% Source: Maricopa Association of Governments - June, 2016; U.S. Census Bureau
Incorporated City of Buckeye
Buckeye Population - Historical & Projected
Buckeye Municipal Planning Area
2010 Population Concentration
10
2020 Population Concentration
11
2030 Population Concentration
12
2040 Population Concentration
13
14
City 2040 Population Buckeye 258,000 Buckeye MPA 310,800 Avondale 103,800 Chandler 311,200 Gilbert 292,300 Glendale 280,200 Glendale MPA 323,900 Goodyear 192,900 Peoria 278,000 Scottsdale 308,500 Surprise 295,200 Surprise MPA 362,200 Tempe 253,000
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments - June, 2016
Future Population Comparisons
Year Population Change in Population Avg Annual Percent Change Population Change in Population Avg Annual Percent Change Population Change in Population Avg Annual Percent Change 2015 72,900 12,116 85,016 2020 87,700 14,800 3.8% 12,662 546 0.9% 100,362 15,346 1.7% 2030 147,600 59,900 5.3% 19,411 6,749 4.4% 167,011 66,649 5.2% 2040 310,800 163,200 7.7% 76,628 57,217 14.7% 387,428 220,417 8.8%
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments; U.S. Census Bureau
TOTAL Buckeye Valley Fire District Ambulatory CON
Buckeye & Buckeye Valley Fire District CON Historical & Projected Population
INSIDE Buckeye Valley Fire District CON but OUTSIDE Buckeye MPA Buckeye Municipal Planning Area
City of Buckeye MPA represents about 86% of the BVFD CON population. Areas outside of the MPA serviced by BVFD’s ambulances are expected to grow by more than 50,000 residents over the next 25
238,000 people within the City of Buckeye MPA.
15
Population forecasts based on Maricopa Association
Excluded partial areas from
regions will also have increased populations in need of ambulance
already an estimated 7,125 homes in this portion of the CON representing an estimated 18,800 residents. Buckeye MPA
16
17
2000 2003 2005 2010 2015 MAG Estimate 28,723 39,575 49,003 74,972 85,016 Excluded Parcel Population 3,900 4,856 7,505 18,343 18,802 CON TOTAL POPULATION 32,623 44,431 56,508 93,315 103,818 City of Buckeye Population 6,537 14,139 23,685 50,876 61,173 CON Net Population 26,086 30,292 32,823 42,439 42,645 BVFD Tax Base $40,348,188 $55,694,314 $78,643,977 $182,732,902 $115,447,669 Source: Maricopa Association of Governments - 2003, 2007, 2013, 2016; U.S. Census; Maricopa County Assessor; AZ State Demographer's Office
Buckeye Valley CON Population Estimates
18
19
Incorporated City (orange areas) 391.2 sq. miles Municipal Planning Area 592.2 sq. miles Remaining 201 sq. miles (shown in white) will be annexed by Buckeye
reduce the tax base of Buckeye Valley Fire District. BVFD only collects property taxes from unincorporated areas.
20
21
The southwest portion of Surprise is within the BVFD CON. Green areas represent incorporated city boundaries and white areas are currently unincorporated.
22
While mostly vacant now, areas of unincorporated City of Surprise within the BVFD CON are expected to see development in the future and will eventually be annexed, thus reducing the tax base of BVFD.
Existing Land Use in CON – Mostly Vacant Future Land Use – Residential & Commercial
23
24
The statutory limit for fire district property taxes set by the Arizona Legislature is $3.25 per $100 of assessed value. Buckeye Valley Fire District has reached that cap.
Year Tax Rate Tax Base (NAV) Revenue % Change 1998 $1.3713 $32,660,587 $447,875 1999 $1.3693 $33,450,573 $458,039 2.3% 2000 $1.4207 $40,348,188 $573,227 25.1% 2001 $1.4141 $46,378,853 $655,843 14.4% 2002 $1.4233 $50,946,770 $725,125 10.6% 2003 $1.4156 $55,694,314 $788,409 8.7% 2004 $1.5121 $64,262,481 $971,713 23.2% 2005 $1.9945 $78,643,977 $1,568,554 61.4% 2006 $1.9883 $103,425,913 $2,056,417 31.1% 2007 $2.4616 $148,820,470 $3,663,365 78.1% 2008 $2.4845 $184,285,792 $4,578,581 25.0% 2009 $2.5458 $238,585,473 $6,073,909 32.7% 2010 $2.5458 $182,732,902 $4,652,014
2011 $3.1000 $130,481,113 $4,044,915
2012 $3.1000 $116,410,785 $3,608,734
2013 $3.1000 $104,516,637 $3,240,016
2014 $3.2500 $119,542,203 $3,885,122 19.9% 2015 $3.2500 $115,447,669 $3,752,049
Source: Arizona Tax Research Association; Maricopa County Assessor
Buckeye Valley Property Tax History
Statutory Limit
25
incorporated city limits, or a change in state law regarding the property tax cap, which has failed in the legislature over the last several years.
Year Tax Rate Tax Base (NAV) Revenue % Change 1998 $1.3713 $32,660,587 $447,875 1999 $1.3693 $33,450,573 $458,039 2.3% 2000 $1.4207 $40,348,188 $573,227 25.1% 2001 $1.4141 $46,378,853 $655,843 14.4% 2002 $1.4233 $50,946,770 $725,125 10.6% 2003 $1.4156 $55,694,314 $788,409 8.7% 2004 $1.5121 $64,262,481 $971,713 23.2% 2005 $1.9945 $78,643,977 $1,568,554 61.4% 2006 $1.9883 $103,425,913 $2,056,417 31.1% 2007 $2.4616 $148,820,470 $3,663,365 78.1% 2008 $2.4845 $184,285,792 $4,578,581 25.0% 2009 $2.5458 $238,585,473 $6,073,909 32.7% 2010 $2.5458 $182,732,902 $4,652,014
2011 $3.1000 $130,481,113 $4,044,915
2012 $3.1000 $116,410,785 $3,608,734
2013 $3.1000 $104,516,637 $3,240,016
2014 $3.2500 $119,542,203 $3,885,122 19.9% 2015 $3.2500 $115,447,669 $3,752,049
Source: Arizona Tax Research Association; Maricopa County Assessor
Buckeye Valley Property Tax History
Statutory Limit
Additional revenue can only come through higher valuations (capped at 5%) and new construction in the fire district outside of
26
Year Tax Rate Tax Base (NAV) Revenue % Change Buckeye Population % Change 1998 $1.3713 $32,660,587 $447,875 5,035 1999 $1.3693 $33,450,573 $458,039 2.3% 5,865 16% 2000 $1.4207 $40,348,188 $573,227 25.1% 6,697 14% 2001 $1.4141 $46,378,853 $655,843 14.4% 10,982 64% 2002 $1.4233 $50,946,770 $725,125 10.6% 12,630 15% 2003 $1.4156 $55,694,314 $788,409 8.7% 14,139 12% 2004 $1.5121 $64,262,481 $971,713 23.2% 16,110 14% 2005 $1.9945 $78,643,977 $1,568,554 61.4% 23,685 47% 2006 $1.9883 $103,425,913 $2,056,417 31.1% 31,290 32% 2007 $2.4616 $148,820,470 $3,663,365 78.1% 39,767 27% 2008 $2.4845 $184,285,792 $4,578,581 25.0% 49,131 24% 2009 $2.5458 $238,585,473 $6,073,909 32.7% 51,560 5% 2010 $2.5458 $182,732,902 $4,652,014
51,019
2011 $3.1000 $130,481,113 $4,044,915
52,334 2.6% 2012 $3.1000 $116,410,785 $3,608,734
54,102 3.4% 2013 $3.1000 $104,516,637 $3,240,016
56,460 4.4% 2014 $3.2500 $119,542,203 $3,885,122 19.9% 58,795 4.1% 2015 $3.2500 $115,447,669 $3,752,049
61,173 4.0% Source: Arizona Tax Research Association; Maricopa County Assessor
Buckeye Valley Property Tax History
2015 revenue is equal to 2007 revenue and the property tax base is less than half of its previous peak. Buckeye’s population has grown nearly 54% over that time period, creating substantial additional demand for ambulance service.
Statutory Limit
27
When new residents move into the incorporated City of Buckeye, The BVFD must provide ambulance service for these new residents without any matching increase to their property tax base. Due to the operational losses of ambulance service, BVFD has been using property tax revenue either directly or indirectly to cover the gap.
28
29
– There are revenue constraints on many fire districts based on the current funding formula in place combined with legislation limiting property value growth. – Due to the varied conditions of local fire districts across the state, it was determined that local control would be most efficient. The recommendation was to allow local voters to choose their desired level of service with full knowledge of the expected property tax cost burden.
30