07/17/2007 - City Council Finance Committee
AGENDA
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY
JULY 17, 2007
4:30 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOMS 2A & 2B
I. AGENDA ADOPTION
II. REVIEW REVISED PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE
III. REVIEW FINANCIAL STATUS FOR COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT FUND (CIF)
IV. CONSIDER 2008 BONDING BILL
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
To: City Administrator Hedges
From: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke
Date: July 6, 2007
Subject: Community Investment Fund
I am sending this memo at your request to provide information regarding the
current financial status of the Community Investment Fund (CIF) and to
summarize long-range capital needs as determined by Department Directors that
might be eligible for current or future resources of the CIF. The request is per the
direction of the City Council for subsequent review by the Finance Committee.
Background
The fund was created in 1992 and fund activities are outlined in provisions of the
Eagan City Code as follows after a 1994 Code amendment and operational
policy:
Sec. 2.79. Community investment fund.
Subd. 1. Fund created. There is hereby created a separate fund to be
designated as the community investment fund. This fund shall be maintained in
the official city records and administered by the finance director in accordance
with the provisions of this section and city policy as determined by the council.
The following shall be deposited in this fund:
A. All surplus moneys in the consolidated debt service bond fund which
remain after the costs of each improvement have been fully funded,
and which are not transferred to another separate improvement fund.
B. All collections of special assessments and taxes levied for the payment
of the costs of an improvement which are received after the
improvement costs have been full funded.
C. Investment earnings generated by the moneys in the community
investment fund.
D. Any other moneys appropriated by the council or donated for the
purpose of the fund
Subd. 2. Purpose of fund. This fund shall be used solely to pay the
capital costs and council designated start-up operational costs of projects of
general benefit to the city.
nd
(Code 1983, § 2.79, eff. 1-1-83; Ord. No. 180, 2 series, eff. 6-24-94
The following is the policy as referenced in the City Code:
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FUND OPERATIONAL POLICY
Administration
The Community Investment Fund has been created by the City Council to
account for assets remaining in special assessment improvement bond funds
upon repayment of all bonds. The fund is to be used solely to pay the capital
costs and limited start-up and operational costs of projects of general benefit to
the City. Accounting for the fund shall be consistent with all other funds as
determined by State Law, the Eagan City Code and all regulatory bodies having
jurisdiction.
Funding Preference
The City Council has established a funding priority system based on projects
defined as having both a current and future desirability. Projects which have the
greatest potential of general benefit to the Community will be given the highest
priority. Projects which have no alternative funding sources and projects which
have revenue producing potential will also be given higher priorities.
Funding Procedures
The City Council shall consider the following general parameters when
determining projects to be funded:
1. The project has sufficient community-wide benefit as determined by a review
of its intended users, the degree to which it addresses a community-wide
need or problem, and its consistency with other City goals, programs or
policies.
2. The project to be funded would be unlikely to occur but for the use of the
Community Investment Fund.
3. The Community Investment Fund is not replacing funding from another
previously programmed or available source.
4. The project has been included in at least two consecutive formally-approved
capital improvement programs.
5. An estimate of the ongoing annual operating and maintenance costs has
been made and the source(s) for paying such costs identified.
The original approval in 1992 included much more detail limiting the use of the
principal (more of an endowment approach) and in outlining procedural steps for
appropriation. The amendment allowed the money, including principal, to be
used so that current community needs could be addressed and provides much
more flexibility for use of the resources.
Historical Financial Activities
The following tables indicate where the resources used in the CIF have come
from per the City Code and Policy and where the money has been spent
resulting from City Council actions.
(In Millions)
Sources:
Closing Bond Funds$13.85
Interest Earnings on Investments$4.08
Interest on Advances$0.41
Assessment Activity$0.95
Other$0.03
Total$ 19.32
Uses:
Municipal Center/Police & Admin$ 6.67
Municipal Center Campus Site 0.71
Civic Arena 0.52
Fire Administration 1.37
Fire Station 1 0.25
Fire Station 2 0.20
Central Park 1.14
Aquatic Facility 5.14
Miscellaneous 0.01
Total$ 16.01
The difference between the sources and the uses results in a fund balance of
approximately $3.31 million at December 31, 2006. Included in the fund balance
is approximately $.85 million in receivables making the available cash balance
$2.46 million. The receivable along with related interest is being collected at
approximately $80,000 per year through payments from the Eagan Convention
and Visitors Bureau and Cascade Bay. At the current cash balance, interest
earnings will be approximately $100,000 per year. The use table also reflects the
City Council 2006 action to remove consideration of repayment of the $1,000,000
advance to Cascade Bay, which is now reflected as a cash payment.
Although not reflected in either the cash or fund balance positions, the fund also
includes $1.35 million dollars in special assessment receivables as of 12-31-06.
Approximately $1.25 million is in green acres status and will be collected only
upon certain conditions (primarily sale or development); of that amount slightly
over $1.0 million relates to the McCarthy property.
Potential Future Needs
The following table lists the long-range capital needs as determined by
Department Directors for current or future resources of the CIF. Staff has not
prioritized the list or reviewed it in detail to determine consistency with the
established CIF operational policy. I believe the list is consistent with the City
Council?s desire to undertake a comprehensive review of potential community
needs, the use of the CIF balances, and potential project funding options. The
table does not reference acquisition of any additional land for parks and/or open
space desires. It also does not differentiate between enterprise activities and
general government activities. Background detail is not provided in this
summarized presentation, but can be made available for discussion, if desired.
Parks and Recreation
Central Park:
Install irrigation and service building to ellipse area$ 225,000
Cascade Bay:
Various repairs and improvements 460,000
Additional features:
Three cascading hot tubs 250,000
Arcade 150,000
Additional nine holes mini-golf 175,000
Civic Arena:
Studio rink 1,000,000
Update sound system 50,000
Mezzanine upgrades 500,000
Community Center:
Replace fitness equipment 250,000
Building improvements 155,000
$ 3,215,000
Community Development
Additional public amenities at Cedar Grove$ 300,000
Municipal Center Campus improvements 350,000
Pilot Knob/Yankee Doodle Community Monument or City Entrance Monuments 250,000
$ 900,000
Fire
Replace Unit 1231, a 1980 fire engine$ 550,000
Replace Unit 1209, a 1973 rescue 125,000
Replace Unit 1210, a 1985 brush truck 275,000
Remodel fire station 2 to accommodate 6 resident dorms 600,000
Add fire station 6 5,000,000
Replace four fire engines purchased in 1988 2,200,000
Pkg lot/vehicle burn site for car fires and rescue tng (River Valley Acres site)undetermined
$ 8,750,000
Police
Offsite Evidence/Property Vehicle Storage$ 175,000
Roadway repairs to the shooting range 22,240
$ 197,240
Communications
City Council Chambers equipment replacement$ 260,000
Broadband technical and financial consulting experts 75,000
BECT facilitiesundetermined
$ 335,000
Public Works
The CIF could potentially assist with transportation needs which are defined in the recently
approved 2008 - 2012 CIP and are not reproduced in this list.
Administration and Administrative Services
(None)
Conclusion
As the community matures, the nature of the major capital needs continues to
transition from building new facilities to improvements, enhancements, and major
maintenance including renewal and replacement of existing facilities. The use of
over $16 million of CIF funds to date to construct and improve City facilities
clearly demonstrates the commitment of the elected officials to financial
stewardship and to making financial decisions that are in the best long-term
interests of the City. This commitment results in a continuing need to balance
the tendency to allocate resources to today?s interesting/desirable projects
against future needs for what may be higher priority projects in the bigger, long-
term picture. Assuming that the City continues to exercise the fund discipline
across all City resources (spending available resources on purposes for which
the resources were raised) that has been adhered to over the years and that
there are a relatively finite amount of discretionary resources available through
the CIF, consideration of taxes will likely be important for future funding
decisions. It will likely be a challenge to use available reserves on the ?right?
projects and to limit the tax impact after or while the available (CIF) reserves are
spent.
In my opinion, the most problematic future funding challenges for the City include
the Equipment Revolving Fund and the General Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Fund. These funds are both financed annually through an
allocation of the tax levy and appropriations are made within policy parameters
approved by the City Council. Both funds were established in part to take
cyclical capital/major maintenance needs/appropriations out of competition with
on-going operational requirements to provide a consistent level of service to the
community.
Equipment Revolving Fund
This fund is used to account for the financing of the general government services
(excludes enterprise funds and Cable TV/Communications needs) portion of the
Part II CIP. Most vehicles and equipment costing more than $10,000 are
purchased through the Part II CIP. The 2007 payable levy is $905,440, although
annual appropriations are based on need and not on the tax levy for that
particular year. This fund and funding process have worked very well since the
1993 establishment. The major limitation is the cost of certain pieces of
equipment, primarily related to fire protection as demonstrated in the future
needs section of the memo. Those costs simply exceed the ability for financing
under current fund parameters. Consequently, the purchase of major pieces of
equipment has and will continue to require funding sources outside this annual
allocation. Given the fact that most equipment is replacement and not new and
is used to meet current levels of public service, there is little discretion in terms of
providing replacement. That discretion can be exercised primarily on the
margins in terms of the type of equipment and somewhat related to minor timing
decisions, but typically not on need.
General Facilities Renewal and Replacement Fund
This fund was recently established to provide financing for the renewal and
replacement of the City?s general government facilities (excludes enterprise
funds and Cable TV/Communications needs). The 2007 tax levy is $134,010
and while an important component of the levy, it probably is not at a level
necessary to adequately finance future needs. For example, the roof
replacement for Fire Station 5 is estimated to cost $60,000. Obviously, renewal
and replacement will continue to become more prominent as City facilities age.
General Observations
?
Once available cash balances are spent or committed, the only readily
available source of new money will be through the tax levy in one of two
processes; to either tax, save and purchase or to bond, purchase, and tax.
The result is the same, only the order and referendum requirements are
different.
?
The City can issue capital improvement bonds without a referendum;
however, subject to a number of conditions including provisions for a
reverse referendum, for construction of fire facilities.
?
Fire equipment could be purchased with equipment certificates that can be
issued for a period up to 10 years. The City has been reluctant to use this
credit card approach for purchasing equipment, especially when it involves
stacking debt service payments.
?
Issuing bonds for the purchase of land for parks/open space would require
a referendum under nearly all circumstances.
?
In a levy limit environment debt service levies are typically outside the
State imposed levy limits. All other levies including saving for future
capital needs are typically subject to the limits. Consequently, a ?saving
levy? may end up competing with an operations levy, if constraints are
very tight.
Please let me know, if you would like to discuss this information or if there is
anything else you feel would be helpful in providing background information for
the City Council.
________________________________________
Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke
cc: Chief Financial Officer Pepper
Agenda Memo
Eagan City Council Finance Committee Meeting
July 17, 2007
IV. CONSIDER 2008 BONDING BILL
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
To provide direction to staff concerning a
request for inclusion of certain City projects in the State?s 2008 Bonding Bill.
FACTS:
?
As part of the approval process, the City Council directed the Finance
Committee to review the Arterial & Collector Street Improvements included
in the 2008 ? 2012 Public Works CIP. Among other issues, the Finance
Committee discussed the long-term imbalance of potential expenditure
needs and available revenue sources and made recommendations to the
City Council.
?
Included in that review were potential new and/or additional revenues that
would allow the City to finance construction of additional components of
the ?Ring Road? in Eagan as well as other Arterial & Collector Street
infrastructure improvements.
?
Mayor Maguire has asked that the City investigate the possibility of certain
City projects being included in the State?s 2008 Bonding Bill for funding.
?
The official deadline for submission of the paperwork to participate in the
State administrative process for 2008 local government bonding projects
was June 25.
?
LMC representatives have observed that City street projects probably
would not have made in into the Governor?s bonding recommendations
through that administrative process. The LMC representatives have
suggested undertaking the following to attempt to get funding through this
bonding source:
Request State bonding through our local House and Senate
o
representatives.
Work with the chairs of the transportation committees to try to get
o
support and consideration.
Continue to apply for all possible funding through the Department of
o
Transportation. (Although there are limited funds available, these
applications help demonstrate the overall statewide need for
transportation funding.)
ATTACHMENTS:
(None)
Meeting Notes
Finance Committee Meeting
July 17, 2007
Attendance:
Mayor Maguire, Councilmember Carlson, City Administrator Hedges,
Director of Parks and Recreation Seydell Johnson, and Director of Administrative
Services VanOverbeke.
Agenda Adoption
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Review Revised Park Dedication Fee Schedule
The Finance Committee discussed the information provided in the staff memo
incorporating revisions to the 2007 Park dedication fee schedule as recommended by
the APrC. The full City Council earlier directed a review of the fees by the APrC and
Finance Committee. The revised overall fees will be lower than calculated under the
earlier formula resulting from a reduction in the resident equivalency factor.
The Finance Committee is also recommending to the City Council that refunds be made
to developments that have paid the higher park dedication fee to date in 2007.
It was directed that both recommendations be placed on the Consent Agenda for the
August 9, 2007 City Council Meeting for formal approval by the full Council.
Review Status for Community Investment Fund (CIF)
The Finance Committee reviewed the information provided in the staff memo outlining
the policies and history of the CIF including sources and uses of funds to date. The list
of potential future needs for the CIF resources was discussed in detail and clarification
was provided on a number of the items. The relationship among enterprise funds, with
and without renewal and replacement accounts, other potential revenue sources such as
bonding and the CIF was discussed.
It was determined that a dedication of approximately $60,000 to provide for a worst case
scenario should be made within the CIF for Open Space Preservation, generally
including $6,000 to $7,000 for a public opinion survey, $30,000 for a special election,
$10,000 for informational materials, and $10,000 to hold an option on available property.
Given the lengthy list of potential future needs with no alternative sources of revenue,
the Finance Committee concluded that no additional resources beyond the $60,000 are
available in the CIF to provide for public acquisition of open space.
Staff was directed to prioritize the list of potential uses for the available resources in the
CIF with particular attention paid to items with no alternative funding sources. Staff was
also directed to prepare a timeline and steps similar to what was used for the successful
Community Center referendum outlining a road map integrating timing, dollars,
stakeholders, a survey, and all other components involved in the public acquisition of
open space. This material is to be distributed to the Finance Committee in advance of
the City Council budget workshop on August 14.
The Finance Committee clarified its desire to have a fund balance explanation and
th
review for each of the City?s funds also available for review at the meeting on the 14.
Consider 2008 Bonding Bill
get funding
It was affirmed that the City undertake the following steps to attempt to
through the State?s 2008 Bonding Bill:
?
Request State bonding through our local House and Senate
representatives.
?
Work with the chairs of the transportation committees to try to get support
and consideration.
?
Continue to apply for all possible funding through the Department of
Transportation. (Although there are limited funds available, these
applications help demonstrate the overall statewide need for
transportation funding.)
Other Business/Adjournment
There was no other business to come before the committee and the meeting was
adjourned.
To: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
From: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation
Date: June 20, 2007
Subject: Commercial/Industrial Park Dedication Fee Review
As directed by the Finance Committee, the Advisory Parks Commission reviewed the formula by
which the commercial/industrial park dedication fees are calculated to comply with Legislative
requirements. The Boulder Ridge Business Park was the first development the Council reviewed
using the new formula and there was a concern that it was not meeting the objectives for
development the Council was seeking.
In a workshop session on June 18 the Acquisition/Development subcommittee met with staff to
review the current formula and suggest a modification that would better meet the objectives of
the Council for developments. The subcommittee reviewed some recommendations with the full
Commission in a workshop session and a final recommendation was approved at the APrC
meeting on June 18.
The recommendation by the APrC was to reduce the resident equivalency factor in the formula
from 0.5 to 0.25 per 1000 square feet of building. The fractional person-resident (equivalency)
is based upon the more limited park services demanded by an employee (trails, picnic grounds,
open space) plus certain park services related to the customer/clients that patronizes the business
on a per employee basis.
That change in the formula results in the following:
.05 resident equivalency .025 resident equivalency
Commercial $1727* $869*
Industrial 473* 236* *
per 1000 sq. ft
Examples of this change:
Boulder Ridge Business Park
110,000 sq.ft. (90,000 commercial/20,000 industrial)7.9 acres
?
Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $ 45,741
?
Old formula (0.5) $165,790
?
New formula (0.25) $ 82,930
Oakview Center (Cerasis)
11,000 sq.ft/1.49 acres.
?
Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $ 8,627
?
Old formula (0.5) $19,107
?
New formula (0.25) $ 9,559
Diffley Plaza (National Bank)
6,286 sq.ft/.62 acres.
?
Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $ 3,590
?
Old formula (0.5) $10,926
?
New formula (0.25) $ 5,475
Manley Commons
17,700 sq.ft/2.25 acres.
?
Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $13,028
?
Old formula (0.5) $30,745
?
New formula (0.25) $15,381
The APrC did not make a recommendation concerning developments that have paid the higher
fee to date in 2007. Staff recommends the Council include refunding the difference between the
two rates for all building permits issued at the higher rate in any action taken regarding the Park
Dedication Formula.
Please let me know if you need further background or information. The APrC is hopeful that this
modification will address the Council?s concerns while maintaining compliance with the
Legislative requirements.
Agenda Information Memo
July 17, 2007 Finance Committee Meeting
II. REVIEW FINANCIAL STATUS FOR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FUND (CIF)
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
To review the Financial Status of the Community Investment
Fund (CIF) per the request of the City Council.
FACTS:
?
At the June 12, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the proposed concept of an
Open Space Preservation Fund. After discussing potential funding sources for an open space
fund, the Council requested that the Finance Committee review the current status of the City?s
Community Investment Fund (CIF).
?
Enclosed is a memo from Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke summarizing the
current financial status of the CIF and potential long-range capital needs (as determined by
Department Directors) that could be eligible for current or future CIF resources.
?
At the June 12 meeting, the Council requested that the Finance Committee report back to the
Council on the status of the CIF at the August 14 Council workshop in order to coincide with
the 2008 budget discussions.
?
Also, per the request of the Council, staff has held discussions with Decision Resources about
the possibility of creating and conducting a survey of residents to determine their opinions
regarding funding for open space acquisition. Decision Resources has conducted several other
surveys for the City of Eagan and they have completed similar open space funding surveys for
the cities of Plymouth and Woodbury. These surveys, which were the launching point for
successful open space referendums, contained 20-25 questions, including demographic
questions, and took two weeks to complete. Estimated cost for a similar survey is $6,000-
$7,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
?
Enclosed on pages ____ through ____ is a memo from Director of Administrative Services
VanOverbeke regarding the status of the CIF and potential future uses for CIF resources.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City of Eap ya
CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMTTEE
CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
AUGUST 10, 2007
SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO JULY 17 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING /
REQUESTED OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION INFORMATION
The Finance Committee addressed numerous items at the July committee meetings, and this
memo is intended to summarize the next steps for those items as well as provide information
requested by the committee.
First, at the direction of the Finance Committee at the July 17 committee meeting, the
recommendation pertaining to the 2007 Commercial/Industrial Park Dedication Fee has been
included on the August 9 City Council agenda (consent).
Second, at the request of the City Council and per the consensus of the Finance Committee, an
agenda item to discuss the balances of the City's numerous funds has been included on the
August 14 Council workshop.
Lastly, I am enclosing information requested by the Committee with regard to open space
preservation. This information is being sent only to the Finance Committee at this time (as well
as appropriate staff), as you requested. The following documents are enclosed for your
information:
1. Sample open space survey questions from Decision Resources
2. A memo from Parks and Recreation Director Juli Seydell Johnson regarding a draft
timeline for open space acquisition
3. Draft July 17, 2007 Finance Committee Meeting Notes
If the Finance Committee has any questions regarding the next steps associated with the
Committee's recommendations and/or the materials provided for your information, please
contact the City Administrator.
/s/Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
cc: Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative Services
Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation
Tom Garrison, Communications Director
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
RESIDENTIAL
PARK BOND STUDY
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of
to speak with a random sample of residents about issues
facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city
representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and
suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses
will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire
sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Approximately how many years have you lived in the City of
Turning to parks and recreation....
The City of is considering a park bond referendum
proposal. For each of the two parts of the proposal, tell me if
you would strongly support a property tax increase for that
purpose, support, oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax
increase. If you have no opinion, just,say so....
2. Acquisition of open spaces in the rural and urban areas of
the community for preservation?
3.
Suppose the City of had a fixed amount of money to
allocate to OR to
acquire existing open spaces
preservation. Let's say that
either of these purposes.
across the community for
all the funds had to be allocated to
4. What percent of the amount would you allocate to
keeoina in
mind that the remainder would be used for the acquisition and
preservation of open spaces in the community?
S. How much would you be willing to see your property taxes
increase for , in
addition to acquiring land in the city for preservation purposes?
Would you be willing to see your property taxes increase $ per
month? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING
ON ANSWER) How about $ per month? (REPEAT PROCESS)
[PRICE POINTS: NOTHING, $1,$2,$3,$4,$5,$6,$7, OR $8]
Now, suppose the city of proposed a bond referendum for
both the acquisition of open spaces in urban and rural areas of
the city AND
If the referendum were successful, the owner of a $_00,000 home
would see a yearly property tax increase of $_.00 per month. The
owner of a $_00,000 home would see a monthly property tax increase
of $-.00 per month., or $—.00 per year. And, the owner of a
$_00,000 home would have a monthly property tax increase of $_.00
per month'or $_.00,per year.
6. If the election were held today, would you support or oppose
this referendum proposal? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel
strongly that way?
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK:
7. Why do you feel that way?
I would like to read you a list of statements that could
characterize the bond referendum proposal. For each one, please
tell me if it makes you much more likely to support it, somewhat
more likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support
the proposal. If it makes no difference to you, just say so....
(ROTATE)
8. If we don't purchase remaining public open spaces now, they
will be lost forever.
9. Neighborhood parks, trails, athletic fields and open space is
an important legacy for our children.
10. Passing of this referendum would be a big step towards
preserving 's ambience.
11. If land is not set-aside now, further residential and
commercial development will consume most of it.
12. The athletic fields in the city are at full -capacity; we need
more space to insure every child can play on high quality athletic
fields.
13. In comparison with neighboring areas, do you consider total
property taxes in your community to be very high, somewhat high,
about average, somewhat low, or very low?
Moving on....
14. On which of the following sources of information would you
most rely for information about the park bond referendum proposal
from the City of -- The City Newsletter, articles in the
local newspaper, local cable television, neighborhood meetings,
City staff and elected officials, mailings from the City and voter
groups, the City website or Listserve, friends and neighbors, or
something else? IF ("SOMETHING ELSE, ASK:) What would that be?
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
15. How often would you say you vote - always, nearly always,
part of the time, or seldom?
From time to, time, cities and school districts ask voters to
approve referendum proposals...
16. Thinking about past city and school district referendum
elections, would you say you always vote, often vote, sometimes
vote, rarely vote, of never vote?
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest.
Be sure to include yourself.
17. First, persons 65 or over?
18. Adults under 65?
19. School -aged or pre-school children?
20. Is any member of your household involved in an adult sports
league?
21. Is any member of your household involved in a youth sports
league, outside of school?
22. Do you own or rent your present residence? (IF "OWN," ASK:)
Which of the following categories contains the approximate value
of your residential property -- under $200,000, $200,00-$300,000,
$300,001-$400,000, $400,001-$500,000 or over $500,000?
23. What is your age, please?
24. Gender
25. REGION OF CITY
dam
Ambk-
'r 01
City of Eap Memo
To: Tom Hedges, City Adminstrator
From: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
Date: July 26, 2007
Subject: Draft Timeline for Public Open Space Acquisition
The Finance Committee, at their July 17, 2007 meeting, directed staff to prepare a
timeline and public information steps similar to what was used for the successful
Community Center referendum. This memo includes a draft timeline for this process.
Step 1
Council kicks off process for researching potential open space acquisitions and funding
of this process by appointing Citizen Task Force/Steering Committee. Committee would
likely include representatives from APrC, APC, Friends of the Eagan Core Greenway,
City Staff, and other citizens.
Step 2 —
Steering Committee works with survey firm, City staff, and potentially the Trust for
Public Land to develop citizen survey in order to gage resident support for the project.
Steering Committee will also identify the costs of potential land acquisitions during this
time.
Once written, the survey process would take approximately 2-3 weeks and cost $6,000-
$7,000.
Step 3
Steering Committee analyzes survey finding and presents recommended action plan to
City Council.
Step 4
Council directs further action based on Steering Committee recommendations and survey
results.
If the decision is to pursue a bond referendum, then:
(Timeline based on Community Center experience.) This road map to an election is very
broad at this point. The process and public opinion will need to be monitored throughout
to gage how information is being received and if additional communications may be
necessary.
Week l:
• Steering Committee report accepted. City Council authorized referendum vote
for specified date (must give at least 49 days notice to County auditor). The
approximate cost of special election is $30,000.
Week 2:
• Design and prepare signage for potential sites.
• Prepare notice/letter to all residents
• Begin preparation of Eagan Business News & Chamber News related information
• Begin preparation of special "Experience Eagan" Newsletter. Preliminary budget
for this is $10,000. 1
• Set up informational website and phone line
• Set up cable informational pages
• Steering Committee organizes press release and "Letters to the Editors" from
citizens in support of project.
Week 3:
• Finalize special "Experience Eagan" Newsletter including City Council review of
content. Prepare information for back cover of "Discover" Park Programs
Brochure.
• Set up speakers bureau for referendum presentations to community groups.
Week 5 through election:
• "Discover" Brochure and "Experience Eagan" Newsletters are distributed.
• Two or more public informational meetings are hosted by Steering Committee.
• Speakers give presentations to community groups.
Referendum Vote
Meeting Notes
Finance Committee Meeting
July 17, 2007
Attendance: Mayor Maguire, Councilmember Carlson, City Administrator Hedges,
Director of Parks and Recreation Seydell Johnson, and Director of Administrative
Services VanOverbeke.
Agenda Adoption
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Review Revised Park Dedication Fee Schedule
The Finance Committee discussed the information provided in the staff memo
incorporating revisions to the 2007 Park dedication fee schedule as recommended by
the APrC. The full City Council earlier directed a review of the fees by the APrC and
Finance Committee. The revised overall fees will be lower than calculated under the
earlier formula resulting from a reduction in the resident equivalency factor.
The Finance Committee is also recommending to the City Council that refunds be made
to developments that have paid the higher park dedication fee to date in 2007.
It was directed that both recommendations be placed on the Consent Agenda for the
August 9, 2007 City Council Meeting for formal approval by the full Council.
Review Status for Community Investment Fund (CIF)
The Finance Committee reviewed the information provided in the staff memo outlining
the policies and history of the CIF including sources and uses of funds to date. The list
of potential future needs for the CIF resources was discussed in detail and clarification
was provided on a number of the items. The relationship among enterprise funds, with
and without renewal and replacement accounts, other potential revenue sources such as
bonding and the CIF was discussed.
It was determined that a dedication of approximately $60,000 to provide for a worst case
scenario should be made within the CIF for Open Space Preservation, generally
including $6,000 to $7,000 for a public opinion survey, $30,000 for a special election,
$10,000 for informational materials, and $10,000 to hold an option on available property.
Given the lengthy list of potential future needs with no alternative sources of revenue,
the Finance Committee concluded that no additional resources beyond the $60,000 are
available in the CIF to provide for public acquisition of open space.
Staff was directed to prioritize the list of potential uses for the available resources in the
CIF with particular attention paid to items with no alternative funding sources. Staff was
also directed to prepare a timeline and steps similar to what was used for the successful
Community Center referendum outlining a road map integrating timing, dollars,
stakeholders, a survey, and all other components involved in the public acquisition of
open space. This material is to be distributed to the Finance Committee in advance of
the City Council budget workshop on August 14.
The Finance Committee clarified its desire to have a fund balance explanation and
review for each of the City's funds also available for review at the meeting on the 14tH
Consider 2008 Bonding Bill
It was affirmed that the City undertake the following steps to attempt to get funding
through the State's 2008 Bonding Bill:
• Request State bonding through our local House and Senate
representatives.
• Work with the chairs of the transportation committees to try to get support
and consideration.
• Continue to apply for all possible funding through the Department of
Transportation. (Although there are limited funds available, these
applications help demonstrate the overall statewide need for
transportation funding.)
Other Business/Adjournment
There was no other business to come before the committee and the meeting was
adjourned.
4b�
City of Eap to
To: Tom Hedges, City Adminstrator
From: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
Date: July 26, 2007
Subject: Draft Timeline for Public Open Space Acquisition
The Finance Committee, at their July 17, 2007 meeting, directed staff to prepare a
timeline and public information steps similar to what was used for the successful
Community Center referendum. This memo includes a draft timeline for this process.
Step 1
Council kicks off process for researching potential open space acquisitions and funding
of this process by appointing Citizen Task Force/Steering Committee. Committee would
likely include representatives from APrC, APC, Friends of the Eagan Core Greenway,
City Staff, and other citizens.
Step 2 —
Steering Committee works with survey firm, City staff, and potentially the Trust for
Public Land to develop citizen survey in order to gage resident support for the project.
Steering Committee will also identify the costs of potential land acquisitions during this
time.
Once written, the survey process would take approximately 2-3 weeks and cost $6,000-
$7,000.
Step 3
Steering Committee analyzes survey finding and presents recommended action plan to
City Council.
Step 4
Council directs further action based on Steering Committee recommendations and survey
results.
If the decision is to pursue a bond referendum, then:
(Timeline based on Community Center experience.) This road map to an election is very
broad at this point. The process and public opinion will need to be monitored throughout
to gage how information is being received and if additional communications may be
necessary.
Week 1:
• Steering Committee report accepted. City Council authorized referendum vote
for specified date (must give at least 49 days notice to County auditor).
Week 2:
• Design and prepare signage for potential sites.
• Prepare notice/letter to all residents
• Begin preparation of Eagan Business News & Chamber News related information
• Begin preparation of special "Experience Eagan" Newsletter
• Set up informational website and phone line
• Set up cable informational pages
• Steering Committee organizes press release and "Letters to the Editors" from
citizens in support of project.
Week 3:
• Finalize special "Experience Eagan" Newsletter including City Council review of
content.
Prepare information for back cover of "Discover" Park Programs Brochure.
Set up speakers bureau for referendum presentations to community groups.
Week 5 through election:
• "Discover" Brochure and "Experience Eagan" Newsletters are distributed.
• Two or more public informational meetings are hosted by Steering Committee.
• Speakers give presentations to community groups.
Referendum Vote
Agenda Information Memo
July 17, 2007 Finance Committee Meeting
II. REVIEW REVISED PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
Review the recommendation of the APrC regarding the
formula by which the commercial/industrial park dedication fees are calculated.
FACTS:
?
At the May 15, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council directed the APrC to review the
current formula used for the commercial/industrial park dedication fees. The Council also
asked the Finance Committee to review the recommendation of the APrC and its impact on
the Boulder Ridge Business Park.
?
Upon review by the APrC?s Acquisition/Development Committee and the Commission as a
whole, the APrC is recommending that the formula be changed to reduce the resident
equivalency factor from 0.5 to 0.25 per 1,000 square feet of building.
?
The enclosed memo outlines the impact of the change being proposed for review by the
Finance Committee and City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
?
Enclosed on pages ____ and ____ is a memo from Parks and Recreation Director Seydell
Johnson summarizing the recommendation of the APrC pertaining to the park dedication fee
formula.
~F' City of Evan ~~~o
TO: CITY COUNCIL, FINANCE COMMTTEE
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATF,: AUGUST 10, 2007
SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO JULY 17 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING /
REQUESTED OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION INFORMATION
The Finance Committee addressed numerous items at the July committee meetings, and this
memo is intended to stunmarize the next steps for those items as well as provide information
requested by the committee.
First, at the direction of the Finance Committee at the July 17 committee meeting, the
recommendation pertaining to the 2007 Commercial/Industrial Parlc Dedication Fee has been
included on the August 9 City Council agenda (consent).
Second, at the request of the City Council and per the consensus of the Finance Committee, an
agenda itern to discuss the balances of the City's numerous fiords has been included on the
August 14 Council workshop.
Lastly, I am enclosing infornlatioii requested by the Committee with regard to open space
preservation. This information is being sent only to the Finance Committee at this time (as well
as appropriate staff), as you requested. The following documents are enclosed for your
information:
1. Sample open space survey questions from Decision Resources
2. A merno from Parks and Recreation Director Juli Seydeli Johnson regarding a draft
timeline for open space acquisition
3. Draft July 17, 2007 Finance Committee Meeting Notes
If the Finance Conunittee has any questions regarding the next steps associated with the
Committee's recommendations and/or the materials provided for your information, please
contact the City Administrator.
/s/Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
cc: Gene VanOverbeke, Director of Administrative Services
Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parlcs and Recreation
Tom Garrison, Communications Director
DECISION RESOURCES, LTD.
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
RESIDENTIAL
PARK BOND STUDY
Hello, I'm of Decision Resources, Ltd., a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of
to speak with a random sample of residents about issues
facing the city. The survey is being taken because your city
representatives and staff are interested in your opinions and
suggestions. I want to assure you that all individual responses
will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire
sample will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Approximately how many years have you lived in the City of
Turning to parks and recreation....
The City of is considering a park bond referendum
proposal. .For each of the two parts of the proposal, tell me if
you would strongly support a property tax increase for that
purpose, support, oppose, or strongly oppose a property tax
increase. If you have no opinion, just say so....
2.. Acquisition of open spaces in the rural and urban areas of
the community for preservation?
3.
Suppose the City of had a fixed amount of money to
allocate to OR to
acquire existing open spaces across the community for
preservation. Let's say that all the funds had to be allocated to
either of these purposes.
4. What percent of the amount would you allocate to
keeping in
mind that the remainder would be used for the acquisition and
preservation of open spaces in the community?
5. How much would you be willing to see your property taxes
increase for in
addition to acquiring land in the city for preservation purposes?
Would you be willing to see your property taxes increase $ per
month? (CHOOSE RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING
ON ANSWER) How about $ per month? (REPEAT PROCESS)
[PRICE POINTS: NOTHING, $1,$2,$3,$4,$5,$6,$7, OR $8]
Now, suppose the City of
both the acquisition of
the city AND
proposed a bond referendum for
open spaces in urban and rural areas of
If the referendum were successful, the owner of a $_00,000 home
would see a yearly property tax increase of $ .00 per month. The
owner of a $_00,000 home would see a monthly property tax increase
of $ .00 per month, or $ .00 per year. And, the owner of a
$_00,000 home would have a monthly property tax increase of $ .00
per month or $_.00 per year.
6. If 'the election were held today, would you support or oppose
this referendum proposal? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you feel
strongly that way?
IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK:
7. Why do you feel that way?
I would like to read you a list of statements that could
characterize the bond referendum proposal. For each one, please
tell me if it makes you much more likely to support it, somewhat
mare likely, somewhat less likely, or much less likely to support
the proposal. If it makes no difference to you, just say so....
(ROTATE)
8. If we don't purchase remaining public open spaces now, they
will be lost forever.
9. Neighborhood parkas, trails, athletic fields and open space is
an important legacy for our children.
10. Passing of this referendum would be a big step towards
preserving 's ambience.
11. If land is not set-aside now, further residential and
commercial development will consume most of it.
12. The athletic fields in the city are at full-capacity; we need
more space to insure every child can play on high quality athletic
fields.
13. In comparison with neighboring areas, do you consider total
property taxes i.n your community to be very high, somewhat high,
about average, somewhat low, or very low?
Moving on....
14. On which of the following sources of information would you
most rely for information about the park bond referendum proposal
from the City of -- The City Newsletter, articles in the
local newspaper, local cable television, neighborhood meetings,
City staff and elected officials, mailings from the City and voter
groups, the City website or Listserve, friends and neighbors, or
something else? IF ("SOMETHING ELSE, ASK:) What would that be?
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
15. How often would you say you vote - always, nearly always,
part of the time, or seldom?
From time to time, cities and school districts ask voters to
approve referendum proposals...
16. Thinking about past city and school district referendum
elections, would you say you always vote, often vote, sometimes
vote, rarely vote, or never vote?
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start with the oldest.
Be sure to include yourself.
17. First, persons h5 or over?
18. Adults under 65?
19. School-aged or pre-school children?
20. Is any member of your household involved in an adult sports
league?
21. Is any member of your household involved in a youth sports
league, outside of school?
22.. Do you own or rent your present residence? (IF "OWN," ASK:)
Which of the following categories contains the approximate value
of your residential property -- under $200,000, $200,00-$300,000,
$300,001-$400,000, $400,001-$500,000 or over $500,000?
23. What is your age, please?
24. Gender
25. REGION OF CITY
`~" City of Eagan Mcmo
To: Tom Hedges, City Adminstrator
From: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parlcs & Recreation
Date: July 26, 2007
Subject: Draft Timeline for Public open Space Acquisition
The Finance Corrrrnittee, at their July 17, 2007 meeting, directed staff to prepare a
timeline and public information steps similar to what was used for the successful
Community Center referendum. This memo includes a draft timeline for this process.
Step 1
Council kicks off process for researching potential open space acquisitions and funding
of this process by appointing Citizen Taslc Force/Steering Conunittee. Committee would
likely include representatives from APrC, APC, Friends of the Eagan Core Greenway,
City Staff, and other citizens.
Step 2 -
Steering Committee works with survey firm, City staff, and potentially the Tnist for
Public Land to develop citizen survey in order to gage resident support for the project.
Steering Committee will also identify the costs of potential land acquisitions during this
time.
Once written, the survey process would take approximately 2-3 weeks and cast $6,000-
$7,000.
Step 3
Steering Cornrnittee analyzes survey finding and presents recommended action plan to
City Council.
Step 4
Council directs further action based on Steering Committee recommendations and survey
results.
If the decision is to pursue a bond referendum, then:
(Timeline based on Community Center experience.) This road map to an election is very
broad at this point. The process and public opinion will need to be monitored tlv-oughout
to gage how information is being received and if additional communications maybe
necessary.
Week 1:
• Steering Committee report accepted. City Council authorized referendum vote
far specified date (must give at least 49 days notice to County auditor). The
approximate cost of special election is $30,000.
Week 2:
• Design and prepare signage for potential sites.
• Prepare notice/letter to all residents
• Begin preparation of Eagan Business News & Chamber News related information
• Begin preparation of special "Experience Eagan" Newsletter. Preliminary budget
for this is $10,000.
• Set up informational website and phone line
• Set up cable informational pages
• Steering Cornrmittee organizes press release and "Letters to the Editors" from
citizens in support of project.
Weelc 3:
• Finalize special "Experience Eagan" Newsletter including City Council review of
content. Prepare information for back cover of "Discover" Park Programs
Brochure.
• Set up speakers bureau for referendum presentations to community groups.
Week .5 through election:
• "Discover" Brochure and "Experience Eagan" Newsletters are distributed.
• Two or more public informational meetings are hosted by Steering Committee.
• Speakers give presentations to community groups.
Referendum Vote
Meeting Notes
Finance Committee Meeting
July 17, 2007
Attendance: Mayor Maguire, Councilmember Carlson, City Administrator Hedges,
Director of Parks and Recreation Seydell Johnson, and Director of Administrative
Services VanOverbeke.
Agenda Adoption
The agenda was accepted as presented.
Review Revised Park Dedication Fee Schedule
The Finance Committee discussed the information provided in the staff memo
incorporating revisions to the 2007 Park dedication fee schedule as recommended by
the APrC. The full City Council earlier directed a review of the fees by the APrC and
Finance Committee. The revised overall fees will be lower than calculated under the
earlier formula resulting from a reduction in the resident equivalency factor.
The Finance Committee is also recommending to the City Council that refunds be made
to developments that have paid the higher park dedication fee to date in 2007.
It was directed that both recommendations be placed on the Consent Agenda for the
August 9, 2007 City Council Meeting for formal approval by the full Council.
Review Status for Community Investment Fund (CIF)
The Finance Committee reviewed the information provided in the staff memo outlining
the policies and history of the CIF including sources and uses of funds to date. The list
of potential future needs for the CIF resources was discussed in detail and clarification
was provided on a number of the items. The relationship among enterprise funds, with
and without renewal and replacement accounts, other potential revenue sources such as
bonding and the CIF was discussed.
It was determined that a dedication of approximately $60,000 to provide for a worst case
scenario should be made within the CIF for Open Space Preservation, generally
including $6,000 to $7,000 for a public opinion survey, $30,000 for a special election,
$10,000 for informational materials, and $10,000 to hold an option on available property.
Given the lengthy list of potential future needs with no alternative sources of revenue,
the Finance Committee concluded that no additional resources beyond the $60,000 are
available in the CIF to provide for public acquisition of open space.
Staff was directed to prioritize the list of potential uses for the available resources in the
CIF with particular attention paid to items with no alternative funding sources. Staff was
also directed to prepare a timeline and steps similar to what was used for the successful
Community Center referendum outlining a road map integrating timing, dollars,
stakeholders, a survey, and all other components involved in the public acquisition of
open space. This material is to be distributed to the Finance Committee in advance of
the City Council budget workshop on August 14.
The Finance Committee clarified its desire to have a fund balance explanation and
review for each of the City's funds also available for review at the meeting on the 14th
Consider 2008 Bonding Biil
It was affirmed that the City undertake the following steps to attempt to get funding
through the State's 2008 Bonding Bill:
• Request State bonding through our local House and Senate
representatives.
• Work with the chairs of the transportation committees to try to get support
and consideration.
• Continue to apply for all possible funding through the Department of
Transportation. (Although there are limited funds available, these
applications help demonstrate the overall statewide need for
transportation funding.)
Other Business/Adjournment
There was no other business to come before the committee and the meeting was
adjourned.
AGENDA
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY
JULY 17, 2007
4:30 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOMS 2A & 2B
I. AGENDA ADOPTION
II. REVIEW REVISED PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE
III. REVIEW FINANCIAL STATUS FOR COMMUNITY
INVESTMENT FUND (CIF)
IV. CONSIDER 2008 BONDING BILL
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Information Memo
July 17, 2007 Finance Committee Meeting
II. REVIEW REVISED PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED: Review the recommendation of the APrC regarding the
formula by which the commerciaUindustrialgark dedication fees are calculated.
FACTS:
• At the May 15, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council directed the APrC to review the
current formula used far the commerciaUindustrial park dedication fees. The Council also
asked the Finance Committee to review the recommendation of the APrC and its impact on
the Boulder Ridge Business Park.
• Upon review by the APrC's Acquisition/Development Committee and the Commission as a
whole, the APrC is recommending that the formula be changed to reduce the resident
equivalency factor from 0.5 to 0.25 per 1,000 square feet of building.
• The enclosed memo outlines the impact of the change being proposed for review by the
Finance Committee and City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Enclosed on pages ~ and 3 is a memo from Parks and Recreation Director Seydell
Johnson summarizing the recommendation of the APrC pertaining to the park dedication fee
formula.
City of Eagan ~e~o
To: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
From: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation
Date: June 20, 2007
Subject: Commercial/Industrial Park Dedication Fee Review
As directed by the Finance Committee, the Advisory Parks Commission reviewed the formula by
which the commerciaVindustrial park dedication fees are calculated to comply with Legislative
requirements. The Boulder Ridge Business Park was the first development the Council reviewed
using the new formula and there was a concern that it was not meeting the objectives for
development the Council was seeking.
In a workshop session on June 18 the Acquisition/Development subcommittee met with staff to
review the current formula and suggest a modification that would better meet the objectives of
the Council for developments. The subcommittee reviewed some recommendations with the full
Commission in a workshop session and a final recommendation was approved at the APrC
meeting on June 18.
The recommendation by the APrC was to reduce the resident equivalency factor in the formula
from O.S to 0.25 per 1000 square feet of building. The fractional person-resident (equivalency)
is based upon the more limited park services demanded by an employee (trails, picnic grounds,
open space) plus certain park services related to the customer/clients that patronizes the business
on a per employee basis.
That change in the formula results in the following:
.OS resident equivalence .025 resident equivalency
Commercial $1727* $869*
Industrial 473* 236* *per iooo sq. ~
Examvles of this change:
Boulder Ridge Business Park
110, 000 sgft. (90, 000 commercial/20, 000 industrial)7.9 acres
• Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $ 45,741
• Old formula (O.S) $165,790
• New formula (0.25) $ 82,930
Oakview Center (Cerasis)
11, 000 sgft/1.49 acres.
s'
• Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $ 8,627
• Old formula (0.5) $19,107
• New formula (0.25) $ 9,559
Diffley Plaza (National Bank)
6, 286 sq.ft/. 62 acres.
• Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $ 3,590
• Old formula (0.5) $10,926
• New formula (0.25) $ 5,475
Manley Commons
17, 700 sgft/2.25 acres.
• Net Acre Formula before Legislative Changes $13,028
• Old formula (0.5) $30,745
• New formula (0.25) $15,381
The APrC did not make a recommendation concerning developments that have paid the higher
fee to date in 2007. Staff recommends the Council include refunding the difference between the
two rates for all building permits issued at the higher rate in any action taken regarding the Park
Dedication Formula.
Please let me know if you need further background or information. The APrC is hopeful that this
modification will address the Council's concerns while maintaining compliance with the
Legislative requirements.
r~
Agenda Information Memo
July 17, 2007 Finance Committee Meeting
II. REVIEW FINANCIAL STATUS FOR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FUND (CIF)
ACTION TO BE DISCUSSED: To review the Financial Status of the Community Investment
Fund (CIF) per the request of the City Council.
FACTS:
• At the June 12, 2007 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the proposed concept of an
Open Space Preservation Fund. After discussing potential funding sources for an open space
fund, the Council requested that the Finance Committee review the current status of the City's
Community Investment Fund (CIF).
Enclosed is a memo from Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke summarizing the
current financial status of the CIF and potential long-range capital needs (as determined by
Department Directors) that could be eligible for current or future CIF resources.
• At the June 12 meeting, the Council requested that the Finance Committee report back to the
Council on the status.of the CIF at the August 14 Council workshop in order to coincide with
the 2008 budget discussions.
• Also, per the request of the Council, staff has held discussions with Decision Resources about
the possibility of creating and conducting a survey of residents to determine their opinions
regarding funding for open space acquisition. Decision Resources has conducted several other
surveys for the City of Eagan and they have completed similar open space funding surveys for
the cities of Plymouth and Woodbury. These surveys, which were the launching point for
successful open space referendums, contained 20-25 questions, including demographic
questions, and took two weeks to complete. Estimated cost for a similar survey is $6,000-
$7,000.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Enclosed on pages J through ~ is a memo from Director of Administrative Services
VanOverbeke regarding the status of the CIF and potential future uses for CIF resources.
u
4 .
City of Ea~au Mcmo
To: City Administrator Hedges
From: Director of Administrative Services VanOverbeke
Date: July 6, 2007
Subject: Community Investment Fund
I am sending this memo at your request to provide information regarding the
current financial status of the Community Investment Fund (CIF) and to
summarize long-range capital needs as determined by Department Directors that
might be eligible for current or future resources of the CIF. The request is per the
direction of the City Council for subsequent review by the Finance Committee.
Background
The fund was created in 1992 and fund activities are outlined in provisions of the
Eagan City Code as follows after a 1994 Code amendment and operational
policy:
Sec. 2.79. Community investment fund.
Subd. 7. Fund created. There is hereby created a separate fund to be
designated as the community investment fund. This fund shall be maintained in
the official city records and administered by the finance director in accordance
with the provisions of Phis section and city policy as determined by the council.
The following shall be deposited in this fund:
A. All surplus moneys in the consolidated debt service bond fund which
remain after the costs of each improvement have been fully funded,
and which are not transferred to another separate improvement fund.
8. All collections of special assessments and taxes levied for the payment
of the costs of an improvement which are received after the
improvement costs have been full funded.
C. Investment earnings generated by the moneys in the community
investment fund.
D. Any other moneys appropriated by the council or donated for the
purpose of the fund
Subd. 2. Purpose of fund. This fund shall be used solely to pay the
capital costs and council designated start-up operational costs of projects of
general benefit to the city.
(Code 1983, § 2.79, eff. 1-1-83; Ord. No. 180, 2"d series, eff. 6-24-94
The following is the policy as referenced in the City Code:
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT FUND OPERATIONAL POLICY
Administration
The Community Investment Fund has been created by the City Council to
account for assets remaining in special assessment improvement bond funds
upon repayment of all bonds. The fund is to be used solely to pay the capital
costs and limited start-up and operational costs of projects of general benefif to
the Cify. Accounting for the fund shall be consistent with all other funds as
determined by State Law, the Eagan City Code and all regulatory bodies having
jurisdiction.
Fundin_p Preference
The City Council has established a funding priority system based on projects
defined as having both a current and future desirability. Projects which have the
greatest potential of general benefif to the Community will be given the highest
priority. Projects which have nv alternative funding sources and projects which
have revenue producing potential will also be given higher priorities.
Fundins~ Procedures
The Cify Council shall consider the following general parameters when
determining projects fo be funded:
1. The project has sufficient community-wide benefit as determined by a review
of its intended users, the degree to which it addresses a community-wide
need or problem, and its consistency with other City goals, programs or
policies.
2. The project to be funded would be unlikely to occur but for the use of the
Community Investment Fund.
3. The Community Investment Fund is not replacing funding from another
previously programmed or available source.
4. The project has been included in at least two consecutive formally-approved
capital improvement programs.
5. An estimate of the ongoing annual operating and maintenance costs has
been made and the source(s) for paying such costs identified.
The original approval in 1992 included much more detail limiting the use of the
principal (more of an endowment approach) and in outlining procedural steps for
appropriation. The amendment allowed the money, including principal, to be
used so that current community needs could be addressed and provides much
more flexibility for use of the resources.
Historical Financial Activities
The following tables indicate where the resources used in the CIF have come
from per the City Code and Policy and where the money has been spent
resulting from City Council actions.
(In Millions)
Sources:
Closing Bond Funds $13.85
Interest Earnings on Investments $4.08
Interest on Advances $0.41
Assessment Activity $0.95
Other $0.03
Total $19.32
Uses:
Municipal Center/Police 8~ Admin $ 6.67
Municipal Center Campus Site 0.71
Civic Arena 0.52
Fire Administration 1.37
Fire Station 1 0.25
Fire Station 2 0.20
Central Park 1.14
Aquatic Facility 5.14
Miscellaneous 0.01
Total $16.01
The difference between the sources and the uses results in a fund balance of
approximately $3.31 million at December 31, 2006. Included in the fund balance
is approximately $.85 million in receivables making the available cash balance
$2.46 million. The receivable along with related interest is being collected at
approximately $80,000 per year through payments from the Eagan Convention
and Visitors Bureau and Cascade Bay. At the current cash balance, interest
earnings will be approximately $100,000 per year. The use table also reflects the
City Council 2006 action to remove consideration of repayment of the $1,000,000
advance to Cascade Bay, which is now reflected as a cash payment.
Although not reflected in either the cash or fund balance positions, the fund also
includes $1.35 million dollars in special assessment receivables as of 12-31-06.
Approximately $1.25 million is in green acres status and will be collected only
upon certain conditions (primarily sale or development); of that amount slightly
over $1.0 million relates to the McCarthy property.
Potential Future Needs
The following table lists the long-range capital needs as determined by
Department Directors for current or future resources of the CIF. Staff has not
prioritized the list or reviewed it in detail to determine consistency with the
established CIF operational policy. I believe the list is consistent with the City
Council's desire to undertake a comprehensive review of potential community
needs, the use of the CIF balances, and potential project funding options. The
L' .
table does not reference acquisition of any additional land for parks and/or open
space desires. It also does not differentiate between enterprise activities and
general government activities. Background detail is not provided in this
summarized presentation, but can be made available for discussion, if desired.
Parks and Recreation
Central Park:
Install irrigation and service building to ellipse area $ 225,000
Cascade Bay:
Various repairs and improvements 460,000
Additional features:
Three cascading hot tubs 250,000
Arcade 150,000
Additional nine holes mini-golf 175,000
Civic Arena:
Studio rink 1,000,000
Update sound system 50,000
Mezzanine upgrades 500,000
Community Center:
Replace fitness equipment 250,000
Building improvements 155,000
$ 3,215,000
Community Development
Additional public amenities at Cedar Grove $ 300,000
Municipal Center Campus improvements 350,000
Pilot Knob/Yankee Doodle Community Monument or City Entrance Monuments 250,000
$ 900,000
Fire
Replace Unit 1231, a 1980 fire engine $ 550,000
Replace Unit 1209, a 1973 rescue 125,000
Replace Unit 1210, a 1985 brush truck 275,000
Remodel fire station 2 to accommodate 6 resident dorms 600,000
Add fire station 6 5,000,000
Replace four fire engines purchased in 1988 2,200,000
Pkg lot/vehicle burn site for car fires and rescue tng (River Valley Acres site) undetermined
$ 8,750,000
Police
Offsite Evidence/Property Vehicle Storage $ 175,000
Roadway repairs to the shooting range 22,240
$ 197,240
Communications
City Council Chambers equipment replacement $ 260,000
Broadband technical and financial consulting experts 75,000
BECT facilities undetermined
$ 335,000
Public Works
The CIF could potentially assist with transportation needs which are defined in the recently
approved 2008 - 2012 CIP and are not reproduced in this list.
Administration and Administrative Services
(None)
8
_,
Conclusion
As the community matures, the nature of the major capital needs continues to
transition from building new facilities to improvements, enhancements, and major
maintenance including renewal and replacement of existing facilities. The use of
over $16 million of CIF funds to date to construct and improve City facilities
clearly demonstrates the commitment of the elected officials to financial
stewardship and to making financial decisions that are in the best long-term
interests of the City. This commitment results in a continuing need to balance
the tendency to allocate resources to today's interesting/desirable projects
against future needs for what may be higher priority projects in the bigger, long-
term picture. Assuming that the City continues to exercise the fund discipline
across all City resources (spending available resources on purposes for which
the resources were raised) that has been adhered to over the years and that
there are a relatively finite amount of discretionary resources available through
the CIF, consideration of taxes will likely be important for future funding
decisions. It will likely be a challenge to use available reserves on the "right"
projects and to limit the tax impact after or while the available (CIF) reserves are
spent.
In my opinion, the most problematic future funding challenges for the City include
the Equipment Revolving Fund and the General Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Fund. These funds are both financed annually through an
allocation of the tax levy and appropriations are made within policy parameters
approved by the City Council.. Both funds were established in part to take
cyclical capital/major maintenance needs/appropriations out of competition with
on-going operational requirements to provide a consistent level of service to the
community.
EgUipment Revolving Fund
This fund is used to account for the financing of the general government services
(excludes enterprise funds and Cable TV/Communications needs) portion of the
Part II CIP. Most vehicles and equipment costing more than $10,000 are
purchased through the Part II CIP. The 2007 payable levy is $905,440, although
annual appropriations are based on need and not on the tax levy for that
particular year. This fund and funding process have worked very well since the
1993 establishment. The major limitation is the cost of certain pieces of
equipment, primarily related to fire protection as demonstrated in the future
needs section of the memo. Those costs simply exceed the ability for financing
under current fund parameters. Consequently, the purchase of major pieces of
equipment has and will continue to require funding sources outside this annual
allocation. Given the fact that most equipment is replacement and not new and
is used to meet current levels of public service, there is little discretion in terms of
providing replacement. That discretion can be exercised primarily on the
q
t~
margins in terms of the type of equipment and somewhat related to minor timing
decisions, but typically not on need.
General Facilities Renewal and Re lacement Fund
This fund was recently established to provide financing for the renewal and
replacement of the City's general government facilities (excludes enterprise
funds and Cable TV/Communications needs). The 2007 tax levy is $134,010
and while an important component of the levy, it probably is not at a level
necessary to adequately finance future needs. For example, the roof
replacement for Fire Station 5 is estimated to cost $60,000. Obviously, renewal
and replacement will continue to become more prominent as City facilities age.
General Observations
• Once available cash balances are spent or committed, the only readily
available source of new money will be through the tax levy in one of two
processes; to either tax, save and purchase or to bond, purchase, and tax.
The result is the same, only the order and referendum requirements are
different.
• The City can issue capital improvement bonds without a referendum;
however, subject to a number of conditions including provisions for a
reverse referendum, for construction of fire facilities.
• Fire equipment could be purchased with equipment certificates that can be
issued for a period up to 10 years. The City has been reluctant to use this
credit card approach for purchasing equipment, especially when it involves
stacking debt service payments.
• Issuing bonds for the purchase of land for parks/open space would require
a referendum under nearly all circumstances.
• In a levy limit environment debt service levies are typically outside the
State imposed levy limits. All other levies including saving for future
capital needs are typically subject to the limits. Consequently, a "saving
levy" may end up competing with an operations levy, if constraints are
very tight.
Please let me know, if you would like to discuss this information or if there is
anything else you feel would be helpful in providing background information for
the City Council.
Direct Administrative Services VanOverbeke
cc: Chief Financial Oft•icer Pepper
IQ
Agenda Memo
Eagan City Council Finance Committee Meeting
July 17, 2007
IV. CONSIDER 2008 BONDING BILL
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: To provide direction to staff concerning a
request for inclusion of certain City projects in the State's 2008 Bonding Bill.
FACTS:
• As part of the approval process, the City Council directed the Finance
Committee to review the Arterial & Collector Street Improvements included
in the 2008 - 2012 Public Works CIP. Among other issues, the Finance
Committee discussed the long-term imbalance of potential expenditure
needs and available revenue sources and made recommendations to the
City Council.
• Included in that review were potential new and/or additional revenues that
would allow the City to finance construction of additional components of
the "Ring Road" in Eagan as well as other Arterial & Collector Street
infrastructure improvements.
• Mayor Maguire has asked that the City investigate the possibility of certain
City projects being included in the State's 2008 Bonding Bill for funding.
• The official deadline for submission of the paperwork to participate in the
State administrative process for 2008 local government bonding projects
was June 25.
• LMC representatives have observed that City street projects probably
would not have made in into the Governor's bonding recommendations
through that administrative process. The LMC representatives have
suggested undertaking the following to attempt to get funding through this
banding source:
o Request State bonding through our local House and Senate
representatives.
o Work with the chairs of the transportation committees to try to get
support and consideration.
o Continue to apply for all possible funding through the Department of
Transportation. (Although there are limited funds available, these
applications help demonstrate the overall statewide need for
transportation funding.)
ATTACHMENTS:
(None)
a