06/29/2015 - City Council Finance CommitteeFINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2015
10:30 A.M.
CITY HALL
SECOND FLOOR CONFERENCE
AGENDA
I. AGENDA ADOPTION
II. MINNESOTA AUTISM CENTER
III. CEDAR GROVE UPDATE
IV. ACCESS EAGAN UPDATE
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Information Memo
Finance Committee Meeting
June 29, 2015
II. MINNESOTA AUTISM CENTER TAX STATUS— PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To make a recommendation to the City Council regarding tax revenue pertaining to the
Minnesota Autism Center property at 3800 Tesseract Place and a potential payment in
lieu of taxes .
FACTS:
• Following the closing of the Tesseract School located on Silver Bell Road and
Tesseract Place, the Minnesota Autism Center (MAC) leased the building and began
operating there in 2011, serving elementary age students. In 2014, MAC purchased
the existing school facility and the vacant lot to the west, intending to construct a
new high school building and improvements to expand services to older students.
The property was purchased without a contingency for land use approvals, so MAC
is processing the various applications as property owner.
• The property occupied by the original building is guided quasi -public in consideration
of its historic school use. The vacant property is guided mixed use -employment,
similar to other commercial uses on the north side of Hwy 13 in the Cedar Grove
Commons Special District. The redevelopment plans for the area anticipated the
vacant site being developed as an office or office showroom use that would
complement the new development on the south side of Hwy 13 as part of the
Redevelopment's goal to reestablish the Cedar -13 intersection as a gateway to the
community.
• In order to implement the expansion of the school use, it would be necessary for the
vacant parcel's Comprehensive Guide Plan designation to be changed to quasi -
public. Consideration of the MAC application to change the designation is in process
and final action on whether to implement the change will be among the items on
the agenda when the development application comes forward from the APC for
Council consideration.
• When the City Council considered whether to forward the request to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation to the Metropolitan Council, it was noted that MAC
had applied to the County to make the property tax exempt status due to MAC's
non-profit status. Members of the Council commented at the time they would want
to know more about the loss of tax revenue to the City that would occur if that were
to happen, before making a final decision on the Comp Plan change. In response,
the City Attorney prepared a memorandum regarding the relationship between the
Council's land use decision authority and the City's tax base.
The Finance Committee considers matters pertaining to development and tax
revenues within the City's redevelopment districts. As a consequence background is
being provided to the Committee to consider a recommendation to the full Council
regarding the property's relationship to the City's tax base and whether and how
that may be affected by the possibility of a payment in lieu of taxes.
In order to develop this background, City staff asked Ehlers and Associates to
prepare an estimate of the taxes that would be paid by the owner of the proposed
development if the property were taxable ($332,533/yr). Staff also contacted other
cities to find out how they calculate PILOTs. Of those who responded, the most
common method is to apply the City's tax rate to the value of the development
($118,491/yr).
This information was shared with MAC's representatives who suggested instead a
model used in Roseville that broke out specific costs in three service areas. Emails
regarding staff and MAC communications in this regard are attached. On behalf of
MAC, Ryan has submitted a letter outlining a PILOT proposal in the amount of
$9,135/year through the end of the TIF District term in 2029. MAC representatives
plan to be at the Committee meeting to overview their proposal and approach and
respond to questions.
Since the Council's initial direction was to gather information, staff is not
recommending a specific outcome. Staff members and the City Attorney will be at
Monday's meeting to respond to questions.
ATTACHMENTS:
• City Attorney MeLno regarding property tax status land use decisions on pages
through
• Emails (3) between Staff and MN Autism Center representatives on pages
through IS
• MN Autism Center proposal for payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) calculation on pages
1(0_through
MEMORANDUM
To: Jon Hohenstein
From: Mike Dougherty
Date: 3/31/15
Re: Property Taxes — Land Use
14985 Glazier Avenue
Suite 525
Apple Valley, MN 55124
(951.) 432-31.36 Phone
(952) 432-3750 Fax
www.dnishb.com
This memo is in response to your question concerning the application of the tax status of
property in City's land use decisions.
The Minnesota Municipal Planning Act provides the following policy statement:
"Municipal planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more
effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly, and will achieve a more
secure tax base. It is the purpose of Sections 462.351 to 462.364 to provide
municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary powers and uniform procedure
for adequately conducting and implementing municipal planning."
Minnesota Statute 462.357 provides the enabled legislation for a city to adopt a zoning
ordinance. The ordinance regulations may divide the surface of the municipality into districts or
zones of suitable numbers, shape and area. Such regulations shall be uniform for each class or
kind of buildings, structures, or land for each kind of use throughout the district, but the
regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts.
In interpreting the policy of the Municipal Planning Act, the Minnesota Supreme Court has noted
that the legislature has delegated to municipalities the power to determine and plan the use of
land within their boundaries. Because land use planning and regulation are within a city's
legislative prerogative, the city has broad discretion when it makes decisions in that arena. The
Court noted that a municipality acts in a legislative capacity in adopting or amending a zoning
ordinance regardless of the size of the tract involved.
In evaluating the establishment of districts within its zoning ordinance, Eagan has the ability to
distinguish the type of uses that may be permitted in one zone in order to secure a tax base that
will meet its financial condition. Thus, in determining the appropriate uses in a commercial
district, the Council could exclude uses that are historically tax exempt or may tend to qualify as
tax exempt and which would therefore have a negative impact on the City's commercial tax base
(e.g. education facility).
March 31, 2015
Page 2 of 2
Additionally, when evaluating a request for rezoning, the Eagan again has a lot of discretion in
malting a determination of whether the requested use wisely serves the citizens of Eagan. The
potential removal of the property from the tax rolls may be taken into consideration when
focusing on what uses are being sought by the applicant. For example, if the existing zoning
district does not allow the use of the property as a school, the impact to the City's tax base may
be taken into consideration in evaluating whether to approve an application to rezone the
property to a district that would accommodate a school.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to be in contact with me.
www.dmshb.com ugnet-ty
M.olendalM
,
olfest, Hills.& Bauer'P.A.
sI�'I�S
Jon Hohenstein
To: Dan Mueller
Cc: Dave Osberg (DOsberg@cityofeagan.com); Mike Dougherty (MDoug herty@DMSHB.com);
Sarah Thomas
Subject: RE: MAC Tax Calculations
Dan,
Thank you again for the patience as we worked with Ehlers to clarify the potential property tax or PILOT estimates
associated with MAC's proposed development of the Silver Bell Road parcel.
As we discussed last week, members of the City Council indicated at the time of their consideration of the
Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment application that they would want to consider the public service cost and/or tax
increment financing implications of any final action on the amendment, because of the expectation that the parcel
would contribute to local taxes prior to the MAC acquisition and application and the potential for the amendment to
permit a use that would be tax exempt.
The City Attorney has since confirmed that the City's decision to guide the property mixed use as part of its plans for the
area to redevelop and pay property taxes to support the redevelopment costs of the area means that the potential for it
to not pay property taxes can be a factor the Council may consider in its final action. Understanding the importance of
this issue to the City Council as it considers future applications and final actions regarding the property, the MAC
representatives and you asked for the potential costs to be quantified.
The basic numbers are as follows:
® 2014 Taxes on Both Parcels - $1.37,812 (Prior to exemption)
® Estimated Value of 2nd Parcel after Completion of Construction - $9,039,900 (Estimate based on $8.5 million
construction cost provided by Ryan and $539,900 land value in 2014.)
0 Estimated Annual Property Taxes on 2"`' Parcel after Completion of Construction -$332,533 (.Estimate based on
the value above and known 2015 property tax rates. Based on Ryan's suggested construction schedule, it is
likely that some percentage of this amount would be payable in 2017 and the full amount in 2018 and
following.)
0 Estimated Annual Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) on 2"d Parcel after Completion of Construction - $118,491
As you and MAC analyze the options in this regard, you may consider the following:
The prior owner of the school parcel would have paid property taxes during the term of the lease and passed
them through to the tenant and the taxes on the undeveloped parcel would have been paid as part of the
closing on the property. The total taxes paid in 2014 provides context for consideration of the other cost
estimates.
The Cedar Grove TIF District currently runs through 2029. The district originally contemplated private
development of the undeveloped parcel that would generate incremental taxes to pay off the redevelopment
expenses in the district. One approach mentioned at our meeting last week would be for MAC to consider
withdrawing the request for an exemption on the development parcel and offer to pay property taxes on it
through 2029. The exemption could remain in place for the other parcel.
I
0 Another option would be for MAC to consider offering to make an annual payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT)
related to the intended conversion of the development property from a taxable use to a tax exempt one.
Typically, PILOT agreements do not have an end date and go on indefinitely.
As we also discussed when we met, ultimately, we will need to review this information with the City Council's Finance
Committee in advance of their consideration of the development applications. In order to set that meeting, we would
ask that you review this information and get back to us with a proposal the MAC would like the Committee to consider.
if you have questions regarding this information or if it would be worthwhile to set up another meeting to discuss it,
please let us know and we will be happy to arrange that.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein I Director of Community Development I City of Eagan
City Hall ( 3830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5653 1651-675-5694 (Fax) I jhohenstein aakitvofeaaan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTFIERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
From: Dan Mueller [mailto:Dan.Mueller@RyanCompanies.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 5:06 PM
To: Jon Hohenstein
Subject: RE: MAC Tax Calculations
Jon,
Thanks for the update. Looking forward to seeing it tomorrow.
Dan
DanMueller I Director of Development
Ryan Companies US, Inc;. ( 50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55400-2012
612-402-4867 tel 1 612-206-1400 cell j
dan.mueller ryancompanies.com
Find us on: The Webi Tvtitter (Facebook
From: Jon Hohenstein [mailto:JHohenstein@cityofeagan.com]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 4:38 PM
To: Dan Mueller
Subject: MAC Tax Calculations
Dan,
I received updated information from Ehlers late this afternoon. I need to head out, but will give it a closer review in the
morning and forward it to you when I am able. Sorry again for the delay.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein I Director of Community Development I City of Eagan
City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5653 1651-675-6694 (Fax) I jhohenstein aecityofeaclan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
9
Jon Hohenstein
To: Lindgren.Jay@dorsey.com
Cc: dan.mueller@ryancompanies,com; MDougherty@DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper
Subject: RE: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Jay,
Staff and the City Attorney were able to visit yesterday about the information Roseville provided regarding their PILOT
calculation and determined that it would not be possible to reapply their method, because they had a broader
experience with the other college facilities and the hotel had a history on which to apply their formulas, which we don't
have here.
What we determined we can do is break out the service areas that make up the previously shared $118,491 by
functional category and give you the chance to respond as to the categories you believe would not apply to the new use.
We've advised the Finance Committee members that we'll be reaching out to schedule a meeting in the next several
weeks. Once we have your response, we can finalize a date and time and get their direction. The cost breakout is:
......_
_.......:...__. . M.
Amount i% of total'
Mayor & Council
$ 441
0.4%!
Administration
1,633
1.4%
'information Technologies
5,714
4.8%
City Clerk
721 ,
0.6%.
Finance
2,522 !
2 1%
Legal
1,172
10%
Comm Dev--Planning
3,082
2.6%
Comm Dev -Inspections
3,620
3 1%
Communications
1,625J
14%:
Human Resources
944 i
0.8%
Police
37,499
316%
Fire
10,151
8.6%,
Public Works/Engineering i
,734
3.2%
Streets & Highways _
........ ....._.. .
18,840 I
15.9%;
Central Svices. Maint.
2,1061
_..
18%
Recreation
6,542
5.5%'
Parks
13,580
115%
Tree Conservation
1,587
13%i
Government Buildings
2,859
2.4%'
Contingency --Undesignated
119
0.1%;
118,491 '
100.0%,
Thanks in advance for your response in this regard.
Jon
0
Jan Hohenstein I Director of Community Development I City of Eagan
City Nall 13830 Pilot Knob Roast I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-6653 1651-675-5694 (Fax) I ihohensteinPcitvofea aq n.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
From: Lindgren.Jay@dorsey.com[ma IIto: Lindgren.Jay@dorsey.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 11:17 AM
To: Jon Hohenstein
Cc: dan.mueller@ryancompanies.com; MDougherty@DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper
Subject: RE: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Thanks for your message. The primary distinction I see with the Roseville matter is that the City had an estimate of
approximately $304,000 of remaining TIF proceeds if the property stayed on the tax rolls. The nonprofit property owner
voluntarily agreed to make the City whole for this full amount over a 10 year period. As I recall, the property owner
believed that the actual, relevant services provided by the City were in the range of $11,000 to $18,000 annually based
on the property owner's analysis of service costs provided by Roseville. In the end, the nonprofit agreed to an $18,000
PILOT because that was tied to an agreed upon valuation of the cost of services. They also agreed to a separate $18,500
annual gift because the two amounts combined made the City whole on the $364,000 in increment that the City was
actually going to receive (not that it hoped to receive) on developed parcel in a TIF district. As I mentioned when I sent
the Roseville example, it was provided merely for template to calculate the City service costs per our discussion and
the additional annual gift is not applicable in this situation.
In MAC's situation, I think that only an amount related to the actual City services should apply. While I certainly
understand that the City hoped that the parcel would be developed in a manner that generated increment, there is no
certainty of that. MAC controls the property now and there is no tax -generating proposal under consideration. The City
is not losing increment from a project already generating taxes. So, some reasonable service -related PILOT is what I am
suggesting to MAC for consideration.
I also understand that the PILOT amount is subject to negotiation, but I still think we need to start with an estimate of
service costs as determined by the City. We don't have access to the information necessary to develop that number (or
even a range). MAC does not have a predisposed number which they would be able to absorb as they (correctly)
assumed no property taxes would need to be paid and therefore MAC was not prepared for additional payments. Any
proposed amount would have to be paid via additional fundraising because they have no budgeted or expected
requirement for an additional payment.
In conclusion, the idea of a PILOT payment is viewed by MAC as a concession to the City as a sign of good faith to cover
costs that otherwise would fall on the City. Without having an estimate of these costs, MAC is not in a position propose
a possible payment amount.
I hope this helps clarify things and I look forward to continued discussions to resolve this quickly.
Best,
.lay
Tay R. Lindgren
2
9
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
P:612.492,6875 F:952.516,6636 D: 612.205:6875
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
E malls frons this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material, and aro for the sole use of the intended recipient.
Use or distribution by an Unintended recipient is prohibited, and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you received
this a -mall in error, please do not read this e-mail or any attached !tents. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments,
including any copies thereat, and Inform the sender that you have deleted the e-mail, all attachments and any copies theroot:
Thank you.
From: Jon Hohenstein [mailto:JHohenstein@cityofeagan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:00 AM
To: Lindgren, Jay
Cc: dan.mueller@ryancompanies.com; MDougherty@DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper; Bjorkman, Paula
Subject: RE: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Dan,
I got your voicemail late yesterday and was planning to write to Jay and you this morning, so I'm combining the follow
up here.
Jay,
Chris Miller shared information with our Finance Director, Tom Pepper, last Thursday and we have begun discussing it
internally. So far the discussion has been at a distance, because I was out of town on Thursday and Friday and Tom is at
the GFOA Conference through today. So we have not yet concluded if or how we could use Roseville's approach as a
template. We will work to discuss face to face Thursday and communicate again by the end of the week.
In the meantime, I wanted you to be aware that Chris' take on the bucket calculation was that it related relatively little
to the final outcome, since the college's position was that the calculated number ($59,000/yr) was still more than they
would pay and the ultimate number agreed to ($18,000/yr) was simply negotiated. Before we engage in a similar
calculation, it would be good to know whether MAC has a number in mind that they would offer to pay. Please let us
know that.
We're also interested in knowing more about how you differentiate between the Roseville situation concerning the
college's pledge agreement for the property in Roseville ($18,500/yr) and the property here. In the former situation,
property in the TIF district was being taken off the tax rolls and would no longer contribute TIF for the community. Here
the site had been expected to be developed with a taxable use that would generate TIF to pay off obligations in the
district. I suspect the Finance Committee and Council will see the situations as being more similar than not.
We will visit more once Tom is back on Thursday and we'll look for your responses on the two items above as well.
Thanks.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein ( Director of Community Development I City of Eagan
City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5653 1651-675-5694 (Fax) I ihohenstein0oltyofeagan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
From: Lindaren,Jak@dorsey.com [ma iIto: Lindgren.Jay(cbdorsey.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 3:54 PM
3
To: Jon Hohenstein
Cc: clan mueller rrancompanies.com; MDou hg erty@a DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper;
B_..Jorkman.Paula,@dorsey.com
Subject: RE: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
o
Here is the example of a PILOT I was thinking about. I thought sending you the City Staff memorandum might be
useful $n this case, the PILOT was based on estimated costs of services as provided by the City. Roseville City staff
might have more detail on how they did the calculations. Chris Miller from Roseville Finance (651-792-7031) prepared
some spreadsheets that he might be willing to share with you. Otherwise,) think it is a matter of figuring out an
average cost per police or fire call, and cost of non -assessed street. This situation also had a "pledge agreement„
because the building on the parcel that became tax exempt, was built in reliance on tax increment. So the non-profit
also agreed to make the City of Roseville whole. That is different than the current situation.
I'm anxious to discuss next steps with you, so please let me know when we can schedule something.
Best,
Jay
Jay R. Lindgren
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
P:612.492,6875 F:952.516,5636 C.-612,205.6875
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged rnaterial, and are for the sola use of the intended recipient.
Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, ;and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you received
this e -mall In error, please do not read this e-mail or any attached Items. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments,
inciuding any copies thereof, and inform the sender brat you have deleted the e -mall, all attachments and any copies thereof.
Thank you.
From: Jon Hohenstein [mailto:JHohensteinC@cityofeaaan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:46 AM
To: Lindgren, Jay
Cc: dan.inueller ray ncom.anies.com; MDoughert0C DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper; Bjorkman, Paula
Subject: RE: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Thanks, Jay.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein ( Director of Community Development I City of Eagan
City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 651-675-.5653 1651-675-5694 (Fax) I ihohenstein(ftityofeagan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
From: Lindgren.Jay@dorsey.com [ma iIto: Lindaren.Jay@dorsey.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:45 AM
To: Jon Hohenstein
Cc: dan.mueller@ryancompanies.com; MDougherty@DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper;
Bjorkman.Pau la dorsey.com
Subject: Re: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Jon,
ME
I'm in back-to-back meetings today, but will forward as soon as I'm able a copy of a fee-based PILOT I used with
Roseville.
Best,
Jay
Jay R. Lindgren
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
P: 612.492.6875 C:612.205.6875
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
E-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material, and are for the sole use of the intended
recipient.
Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you
received
this e-mail in error, please do not read this e-mail or any attached items. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments,
including any copies thereof, and inform the sender that you have deleted the e-mail, all attachments and any copies
thereof.
Thank you.
On May 27, 2015, at 10:29 AM, "Jon Hohenstein" <JHohenstein@cityofeagan.com> wrote:
Jay and Dan,
Thank you again for visiting with Mike Dougherty and me last Wednesday about the matter of the MAC
development property's tax status and the approach to PILOT calculations. In follow up to our
discussion, our Finance Director, Tom Pepper, reached out to his counterparts in other cities and Mike
reviewed the files on PILOTS in his office. To date, we have found that the typical approach is that which
Ehlers used, namely an application of the City tax rate to the value of the parcel. We have not yet
received a response from anyone using the method you suggested of defining specific "service buckets"
or calculating a subset of City service costs by some other means.
As we discussed, the Finance Committee will be the group to review options and recommend something
to the City Council for final direction. At this point, we only have the options outlined in the attached
May 5th email to share with them, because we don't have a template for the "buckets". Jay, you
indicated last week you have experience with cities that have used such an approach. If you could
provide a template for their method(s), we would apply it to Eagan's service costs and include it among
the options presented to the Committee, but we aren't in a position to weave something from whole
cloth.
In order to keep things moving forward toward the scheduling of a Committee meeting, please get back
to us at your earliest opportunity in this regard. Thanks again.
Jon
Jon Hohentein I Director of Community Development I City of Eagan <image001.g
City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Cagan, MN 55122 1651-676-5653 1651-675-5694 (Fax) I ihohenstein cD-cityofeagan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL. AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL. and is thus for use only by the intended recipier
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
<mime-attachment>
Uwl �
Jon Hohenstein
To: Tom Pepper (tpepper@cityofeagan.com); (lindgren.jay@dorseylaw.com); Daniel Mueller
(dan.mueller@ryancompanies.com)
Cc: Dave Osberg (DOsberg@cityofeagan.com); Mike Dougherty (MDougherty@DMSHB.com)
Subject: FW: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Attachments: Street, police, fire cost - MAC.XLSX
Tom,
Thanks for pulling this information together.
Jay and Dan,
Please see the information below in response to your request on Friday.
FYI as we've looked at calendars, we've found that the Finance Committee will not be able to meet in the next two
weeks, but we've tentatively scheduled a meeting for them on Monday, June 29. Consideration of a recommendation
by that group relative to a payment in lieu of taxes for the MAC property will be among the items discussed, We will be
preparing a packet for them in the week preceding, so please forward to us the information you would dike them to
consider at their meeting by Wednesday, June 24. Thanks in advance,
�ID
Jon Hohenstein I Director of Community Development I City of Eagan
City Hall 13830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5653 1651-675-5694 (Fax) I jhohensteinC�cityofeaaan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
If you received this In error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
From: Tom Pepper
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:47 PM
To: Jon Hohenstein
Cc: Mike Dougherty (MDougherty@DMSHB.com); Dave Osberg
Subject: RE: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Jon,
Here are the numbers requested:
Number of police calls: 21 in past 3 years
Eagan Calls for Service
2012
2013
2014
3800 Tesseract P1
8
10
3
City Wide
48490
47837
44402
at 3800 Tesseract P1
0.016%
0.021%
0.007%
Number of fire calls: 5 in past 3 years
05/08/12 Fire Alarm — set off by student
07/17/12 Fire Alarm - Alarm caused by construction dust
08/20/12 Fire Alarm — Cancelled en route — System malfunction
01/14/13 Fire Alarm —Cancelled en route — System malfunction
03/31/15 Fire Alarm — Nothing found on arrival -System malfunction
Estimated cost per police call: $378.91 (see attached calc)
Estimated cost per fire call: $3,481.04 (see attached calc)
Estimated annual cost of street maintenance charges per linear foot: $2.88 (see attached Calc)
Tom
Tom Pepper I Finance Director
City of Eagan 13830 Pilot Knob Road j Eagan, MN 55122 651.675.5017 1651.675.5012 (Fax) I tpepper ctcityofeagan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2015 12:02 PM
To: 'Lindgren.Jay@dorsey.com'
Cc: dan.mueller@ryancompanies.com; MDougherty@DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper
Subject: RE: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
Jay,
As indicated previously, the most common PILOT calculation method we found in contacts with other communities is
based on property valuation and the right hand column breaks the total out by the budgets for the service areas. While
you propose to approach things by the other method, we expect that the Finance Committee will want that information
at least as context.
We will research and forward the information you are requesting. Staff estimates we can have that compiledby end of
business on Wednesday.
We'll be in touch then.
Jon
Jon Hohenstein I Director of Community Development I City of Eagan
City Hall ( 3830 Pilot Knob Road I Eagan, MN 55122 1651-675-5653 1651-675-5694 (Fax) I ihohensteinOcityofeagan.com
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient.
If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.
From: Liindaren.Jay_@dorsey.com [mai Ito: Lindgren.Jay@dorsey.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:58 AM
To: Jon Hohenstein
Cc: dan.mueller@ryancompanies.com; MDouclherty@DMSHB.com; Dave Osberg; Tom Pepper
Subject: Re: MAC Property Tax Status and PILOT Calculation Research
2
�� y
Jon,
I'm having trouble understanding how these numbers relate to the actual cost of services provided. Rather, they appear
to be tied to the property valuation. Can you explain the bias for the percentages in the right hand column?
In order to determine a number that may be acceptable to MAC, please provide us with the following:
-number of police and fire calls annually to the existing building.
-estimated cost per each such call
-cost of street maintenance charges by linear foot.
Thank you,
Jay
Jay R. Lindgren
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
P: 612.492.6875 C:612.205.6875
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
E-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged /edelete
or e sole use of the intended
recipient.
Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, and maf law. If you believe that you
received
this e-mail in error, please do not read this e-mail or any attached itte the e-mail and all attachments,
including any copies thereof, and inform the sender that you have dil, all attachments and any copies
thereof.
Thank you.
On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:47 AM, "Jon Hohenstein"
Jay and Dan,
> wrote:
Staff and the City Attorney were able to vis' yesterday about the information Roseville provided
regarding their PILOT calculation and de rmined that it would not be possible to reapply their method,
because they had a broader experien with the other college facilities and the hotel had a history on
which to apply their formulas, whi we don't have here.
What we determined we can o is break out the service areas that make up the previously shared
$118,491 by functional cat ory and give you the chance to respond as to the categories you believe
world not apply to the w use. We've advised the Finance Committee members that we'll be reaching
out to schedule a 2their
ing in the next several weeks. Once we have your response, we can finalize a
date and time and direction. The cost breakout is:
<image00Ang>
Thank,j(in advance for your response in this regard.
W\i-W.RYAN COM P.AN7t.;S.C()k4
June 17, 2015
Mr. Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
RE: Minnesota Autism Center — Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreement
Dear Mr. Hohenstein,
RYAN COMPANIES S US, INC. 03
50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012 RYAN
OUIebING:4hS'CIN�v kEr/sTrbH,5N1�S
612-492-4000 tel
612.492-3000fax
This letter is provided on behalf of Minnesota Autism Center (MAC) by Ryan Companies and Dorsey & Whitney LLP.
Pursuant to our discussions, below is a summary of our understanding regarding the current status of the proposed expansion
by MAC and their efforts to complete the land entitlement process. As a result of MAC's proposed expansion land falling
within a Tax Increment Financing District, the City has conditioned MAC's project approval on reaching an agreement with
the City providing for a payment in lieu of taxes agreement (PILOT). The City proposed a PILOT based on the full amount of
the estimated City share of property taxes if the property did not become tax exempt as allowed under Minnesota law.
Although MAC, as a non-profit organization, is not required to pay property taxes or enter into a PILOT, MAC is open to
discussing a mutually agreed upon amount as reimbursement for the cost of reasonable City -provided services directly related
to MAC's project.. As such, we have requested rough calculations from the City for average cost metrics which we could apply
to IVIAC's expansion property to arrive at a reasonable payment and compromise. We have reviewed the information we
received on June 10, 2015 and developed the below cost estimate of what we feel is an appropriate payment amount. The
estimated annual payment is broken out into two categories of City services; street maintenance and emergency services (fire &
police calls).
City Street Maintenance
The calculation for MAC's total costs of city road maintenance is: the cost of maintenance per lineal foot multiplied by the total
lineal feet of road that is adjacent to the subject property.
Cost per Lineal Foot: According to the calculations provided to us, the estimated cost of street maintenance is $2.88 per lineal
foot of road. As MAC shares the maintenance responsibilities with their neighbors on the North side of Silver Bell Road, we
feel MAC's responsibility should be limited to their pro rata share (50%) of the previously stated $2.88 which would be $1.44
per lineal foot.
Total Lineal Feet: The second piece of the calculation is determining the lineal feet of road bordering the site. The two roads
that border MAC's site are Silver Bell Road and Nicols Road (as Tesseract Place will be vacated upon development). It is our
position that Nicols Road should not be considered in this calculation for two reasons:
1) All employees, students and guests will access IViAC's site from Silver Bell road. Pursuant to MAC's proposed site
plan, there is no vehicle access off of Nicols road, eliminating the need for MAC affiliates to utilize Nicols road in any
manner.
2) Nicols Road is in the process of becoming a minimum maintenance road, therefore it is already marked as an under-
utilized road and the need to maintain it is greatly diminished.
Therefore, MAC's total lineal footage of road that borders Silver Bell Road is 489 feet.
[T
WW W. R Y AN (101M P AN I E (MI RYAN
umm"WERIMMORWOMMMMIM
DGILGING LAWrING. NELAVONSHIPS
City Street Maintenance costs: $1.44 x 489 = $704.16
Emergency Services (Fire and Police)
According to the calculations provided to us, it is estimated that an average police call costs $378.91 and an average fire call
costs $3,481.04.. MAC has averaged 7 police and 1.66 fire calls over each of the last three years according to city records. Sixty
percent of fire alarm calls were due to system malfunctions in thew: existing facility. We feel that this average will decrease in the
future seeing as their emergency systems will be brand new in the expansion facility and, therefore, less likely to malfunction.
However, we are willing to apply the city provided averages at face value to develop the following costs:
7 police calls x $378,91 per call = $2,652.37
1.66 fire calls x $3,481.04 per call = $5,778.52
Total emergency call services = $8,430.89
Therefore, we believe an appropriate annual PILOT payment amount to be $8,430.89 + $704.16 = $9,135.05.
Additionally, the duration of these payments needs to be determined. We feel these payments should be coterminous with the
Tax Increment Financing District expiration (2029). Therefore, the total PILOT payment amount from 2017-2029 would be
$118,755.65.
We believe this payment amount to be an agreeable solution and compromise for both the City of Eagan and MAC. It is our
intent to move forward in appropriate fashion to formalize this agreement and continue with the city approval process. Our
goal remains delivering a high quality facility in a timely manner so that MAC may continue their operations as soon as
possible. We welcome your feedback and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Dan Mueller
Director of Development
Ryan Companies US, Inc.
612.492.4867
1h 44��
Jay R. Lindgren
Partner
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
612.492.6875
R
Agenda Information Memo
Finance Committee Meeting
June 29, 2015
III. CEDAR GROVE REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT — PURCHASE OFFER — OUTLOT A
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To make a recommendation to the EDA regarding a purchase offer for Outlot A in the
Cedar Grove Redevelopment area.
FACTS:
In consideration of the confidential nature of certain marketing and prospect
discussions, the Finance Committee has been assigned the responsibility of
monitoring the redevelopment area marketing activities of the master
developer/broker team on behalf of the EDA and City Council.
Staff and the Cedar Grove developer have received a letter of intent from a qualified
prospect for Outlot A in the Redevelopment District.
• The Committee will be asked to either provide additional direction for further
negotiation or to make a recommendation to the EDA to consider approval of a
concept plan and direction to prepare a purchase agreement for the property.
ATTACHMENTS: None — Information to be provided at meeting.
IN
IN
Agenda Information Memo
Finance Committee Meeting
June 29, 2015
IV. AccessEagan Update and Dakota County Broadband
Direction to Be Considered:
Following updates on the AccessEagan and Dakota County Broadband initiatives, provide
direction on several public policy questions that will enable staff to complete a 2016
AccessEagan budget submittal and guide operations in the remainder of 2015.
Background:
• Last July, the Finance Committee authorized a total commitment of up to $3.0 million in funding
for AccessEagan from retained antenna lease revenues to cover anticipated operating expenses
through 2019. It further directed staff to check back in with the Finance Committee in about one
year's time.
• AccessEagan is one of the City Council's strategies to assist in its priority of ensuring the
provision of "state of the art broadband service in the City of Eagan." The City Council was
briefed at its June 9 work session on the Dakota County Broadband Study, an initiative and
potential partnership that could represent an additional strategy in support of the Council's
goals and have a bearing and influence on AccessEagan operations.
• As discussions and negotiations on a Joint Powers Agreement continue with Dakota County
cities, and because AccessEagan budgeting depends on making certain operational assumptions,
it is important to receive the Committee's guidance and direction.
• Communications Director Garrison, IT Manager Dan Cook, and Finance Director Tom Pepper will
review the accomplishments and challenges to date, and provide a brief overview of the key
decision points and public policy questions.
Attachments:
• 2014/15 Accomplishments on page CAU .
0
2014/2015 Accomplishments to Date
• DataBank commitment secured, meeting one of three Council broadband outcomes
• Grand Opening held for DataBank in May (10 carriers in/committed to be in DataBank with another
6 in advanced discussions)
• Cutover of AccessEagan connections to DataBank facility operational
• According to DataBank's CEO and senior managers the presence of AccessEagan fiber was a major
reason the company decided to locate here along with its understanding of key technology issues.
"The City of Eagan actually brought the issue into focus about the 511 vulnerability and by
supporting carriers coming into Eagan and building the [fiber] infrastructure, they really set
themselves apart in the whole initiative of getting another carrier hotel in to place," said DataBank's
Minnesota General Manager, Kris Edinger.
• DataBank officials have reached out to Eagan about their selling packages to customers with
blended pricing of AccessEagan/DataBank services.
• 11 businesses in Eagan are currently served by AccessEagan lit fiber and 3 by dark fiber connections.
Five total carriers are on the network (Frontier, Arvig, Velocity, Granite Communications and
Enventis). The latest addition, Enventis, has a 2,400 mile fiber network in Minnesota, and connects
to an 11 -state network following its recent merger with Consolidated Communications.
• There is evidence of increased carrier competition in Eagan at price points slightly lower than in
surrounding communities.
d