HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.B. Financing options for new or expanded recreational facilities. General Business 7. B.
St-IAKOI EE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kris Wilson, Acting City Administrator
DATE: 03/31/2015
SUBJECT: Financing Options for New or Expanded Recreational Facilities (C)
Action Sought
The Council is asked to review the attached information from the City's financial
advisor regarding potential funding options for new or expanded recreational
facilities.
Background
In addition to the operational and architectural components of the feasibility study
for the Community Center 2.0 concept, the Council also authorized a financial
component to be completed by the City's financial advisors at Springsted, Inc. The
attached memo provides a preliminary outline of the various financing options
available to Minnesota cities interested in financing the capital costs of new or
expanded recreational facilities. Staff will have additional detail regarding the City's
potential to make annual debt service payments and/or make inter-fund loans at the
meeting Tuesday evening.
Attachments: Financing Options from Springsted
Springsted Incorporated
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul,MN 55101-2887
Springsted
Tel: 651-223-3000
Fax: 651-223-3002
www.springsted.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Kris Wilson,Acting City Administrator
FROM: Paul Steinman, Vice President
DATE: March 26, 2015
SUBJECT: Shakopee Community Facility Financing Options
The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of options for the City to finance a variety of facilities being
discussed at present including an ice sheet, pool and playground and possibly other community recreation type
facilities. We have been asked to describe various funding options that would enable the City to finance the capital
costs of such facilities. This memo does not address how to pay the operating costs associated with the facilities.
From our initial discussions we assume any new facilities would be ineligible for Capital Improvement Bonds because
the improvements are for facilities unrelated to a"city hall, town hall, library, public safety facility, and public works
facility"(as per the MN Statutes 475.521).
In relation to financing options we will profile the various statutory authorities for Shakopee and the related debt
repayment revenue sources. As each option has its own set of advantages and disadvantages,we will also address
the financial characteristics of each option. These characteristics can become criteria for the City in evaluating the
distinctions among the options and are detailed in a table in this report and generally summarized as follows:
• General obligation security requirement
• Complexity, ease of access, authorization and procedural steps to access funding option
• Impact on general obligation credit rating
• Impact on net debt limit(3%of taxable market value)
o 3%X City's Pay 14 taxable market value of$3,206,518,700 =$96,195,561
o $96,195,561 minus outstanding bonds applicable to net debt limit, as of 3/25/15, of$4,175,000
o Total net debt limit remaining: $92,620,561
• Impact on any statutory debt limits or other legally restricted capacities
• Interest rate and overall cost of capital
• Statutory maximum term
• General market limitations
City of Shakopee
Community Facilities Financing Memo
March 26,2015
The City is also interested in understanding the repayment requirements of a financing scenario using 2 different
credit criteria: a)General Obligation bonds, and b)Lease Revenue bonds,summarized as follows:
Principal amount of bonds: $20M
Term of issuance: 20 years
Today's rates plus 50 basis points(1/2%)
General Obligation (GO)bonds are bonds that are secured by the City's full faith and credit. The City's current
General Obligation bond rating by Moody's is Aa2. The GO provides maximum security to bondholders and
therefore results in the lowest interest cost tax exempt bond financing available to the City. A Lease-Revenue bond
is not a General Obligation bond. As described below, it would carry a rating generally 1 notch below the Aa2 rating,
or Aa3. The impact of the different ratings on the interest rate can be seen in the following example.
GO Bond, 3%, 20 year: $1,344,000 approximate annual debt service
Lease Rev,4%, 20 year: $1,471,000 approximate annual debt service
I would strongly caution you to avoid becoming focused on these dollar amounts. Multiple varying factors in the bond
market, project scope, timing, term, etc., can, and likely will, have significant impacts on these numbers. The
purpose of the number at this stage is to provide only a general ballpark estimate as to debt service and potential
levy amount.
Financing Options
A)General Obligation Referendum Bonds. A City has maximum flexibility to finance most capital projects, including
community recreation facilities, upon the successful passage of a voter referendum.
B)General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds. The City would be able to finance the project with General Obligation
Tax Abatement Bonds to the extent the total annual debt service of all approved abatements does not exceed
$4,581,206,which is 10%of the City's pay 2015 net tax capacity of$45,812,061. The City currently has the following
annual abatement estimates:
• Ryan/Dean Lakes $79,107
• Rosemount/Emerson/ADC Building $62,301
• Datacard $34,047
• Shutterfly $81,794
• Trystar $23,968
• Total Projected Abatements 2016 $281,217
Subtracting these abatements from your statutory maximum,the City has remaining approximately$4,299,989 in
annual tax abatement authority. Using the GO example above, $1,344,000 in annual debt service, you would still
have remaining tax abatement capacity of approximately$2,955,989.
2
City of Shakopee
Community Facilities Financing Memo
March 26,2015
In tax abatement, each taxing authority considers whether or not to participate in the abatement with its share of the
tax dollar and subsequently a tax abatement levy. If the County or School District provide written denial of
participation in the abatement(or fail to respond within 90 days of a request to participate)the maximum term is 20
years. Participatory denial would be expected as other entities participation in tax abatement for the community
facilities projects currently being discussed is not anticipated.
Tax Abatement includes the identification of parcels with a"nexus"to the community facilities being proposed,whose
tax capacity times the City tax rate is at least equal to the principal amount of annual debt service payments on the
proposed Tax Abatement bond.This is simply a statutorily defined calculation, it has no exceptional impact on any
specific parcels within the City, identified or not. The Tax Abatement statute also requires a public hearing be held
prior to bonds being sold under this authority. It is important to remember that Tax Abatement is not a new source of
revenue and that in order to receive the Tax Abatement, the City must annually levy such Tax Abatement. The
annual Tax Abatement levy has the same impact of a general fund or debt service levy in that it is spread equally
across all property tax payers in the City. Simply put,the benefit of using Tax Abatement in this overall context is to
provide a mechanism to finance the capital costs of the community facilities projects being currently discussed.
The dollar impact of a tax abatement levy for debt service(GO example above, $1,344,000/annual)for varying
classifications of property using the City's most recently available Pay 2015 tax capacity information is included as
Appendix Ito this memo. This is the Tax Abatement levy impact only, not including any additional levy impact for
operational costs of the facilities, and not accounting for any other increases or decreases in your levy in a given
year. Additional growth in tax base would reduce the projected impact and alternately, declines in the City's tax base
would increase such impact.
C) Lease Revenue Bonds. The City has authority through its EDA to issue lease revenue bonds to finance the
community facilities. The EDA would finance,construct and own the facilities and subsequently lease such facilities
to the City in the amount of the debt service payments on the bonds. Lease revenue bonds are not secured by a
General Obligation pledge of the entity in that no long term legal commitment to levy general property taxes exists.
Lease revenue bonds are secured by an annualized decision by the City Council to appropriate(levy)dollars to pay
the lease with the EDA. The risk of non-appropriation causes such bonds to be of less credit quality as compared to
general obligation bonds. Lease revenue bonds can have market access issues if the asset being financed is of a
non-essential nature to the entity's basic public service program.
D)Sales Tax Revenue Bonds. The City could, after gaining approval for a sales tax through the procedures outlined
in statute, including special legislation and a referendum, capitalize future sales tax revenues to finance the
community facilities. Sales tax revenue bonds require both financial and legal covenants and financial performance
standards to be marketable. The potential exists that the sales tax revenue bonds also have a general obligation
backing. Additional detailed research on the potential success of this option will need to be conducted as it depends
upon a number of varying factors. Other cities including Bemidji, Mankato, New Ulm, St. Paul, Worthington,
Hennepin County, Cook County and North Mankato have successfully executed sales tax revenue bonds for a
variety of purposes,some of them recreational in nature.
3
City of Shakopee
Community Facilities Financing Memo
March 26,2015
E) Internal Loan. To the extent the City has available funds internally, it can choose to loan such funds to finance the
project. In discussions with bond counsel at Kennedy&Graven, there is no statute that actually allows interfund
loans outside of the Tax Increment Financing context. However, the state auditor has published a position paper that
states interfund loans are a reasonable tool as long as they are"temporary"in nature and if the City is borrowing from
an enterprise fund that the money definitely be returned. Bond counsel has interpreted"temporary"to mean no
longer than 10 years. There is no rule of thumb/statutory requirement on interest—bond counsel has suggested
using a reasonable estimate equivalent to what the City would actually get when investing, up to the annual Tax
Increment maximum interest rate(currently 4%). To provide some general idea of rates, present investment rates at
the 4M Fund(through the League of MN Cities)are 2.2%for a 5 year Certificate of Deposit.A 10-year investment
period would yield slightly higher than 2.2%
F)Recreational Facility Revenue Bonds. 1)The City could finance the facilities using lease revenue bonds if the
project is leased to a nonprofit corporation. This option requires payment of rent by the nonprofit sufficient to service
debt on the bonds issued to finance the facilities. 2)The City could also issue gross revenue bonds secured by a
pledge of gross revenues of the facilities financed. If gross revenue bonds are issued, such revenues are required to
cover debt service on the bonds and subsequently the City may levy taxes to pay for any deficiency in revenues
needed to pay operating and maintenance costs.
4
$
,
1
13 1V
0 (4/1 tip e4
$ s.
VI)
s, t . yii i k
z30
bsdmste
CIit< ,„,,.,,,,,,,,—,..„,
0""0,�a i\
4;`,.',.`,44,14,;,,,,,,;..—... :
CI— Z
0 <
ii �' i,.,
ca„... -4cr. .,..........„.„ . ,....
.......,..............._,..........
C.) X
LLI Z „„„ „
givoimAkkoi
0 ..
st
U p <
Z LLI 11E11:::::::::::.'t
44. Ut VAIVA,Nk VA:,svo,,,,,,,5;.
Z LLI LLJ f„ai*
3 �
LL- Z Ce. 4. k
��iWt�0i0 i.ma4
L
0
44—
0)
+-- .C
0
• _
L- D
0
W
s }
+- C 73 (4;O .- in
(/) O O
N
0 0)
tn H
a. U O -1 O
0 _c O c O -a
o 0
._ �- O
a Mang ED 0) U) D •a
.0 0 3 0
c U
LL t �..
or
I
(i)
CD
U
.....,
til I-
U
•• 0 a)
0.
12 L- u
a c
0
_ (l)
a a) a "
. a)
ul-
c.)
0 -R (1)
U 0
.— C a
73 •......
-0 •—
■mum C
i-
ti) DOWD
_
a E
C vd a)
0
0_ 5 < u
.sum
LL 0
RI
itr:
U
0
0
0
U
0)
•_
3
0
L
0
m
0)
0
0
•
N
(1)
E U
N
._
a) N •-
a) .I- U
E c
•— o
U N E
0
.o o 4_) 0-
LL 0 u
•
-0
0
$1)>
C (I)
U) v) 0
0—0 CO
W
sin= ..zE
o 0 w
a D •-
oCO c
co 0 D >
(1) c
0
0 E E c3) (I) > 0
0
-0 X •- 0
0 IRO= I•■■
0 a) -0 I— 0 0 •,,,-
c W -12
W " t7,
X 0
0 0
(41) $1) 1/41
C (/)
LL D•
0 0
N
a
E
D
N 0 L
0 a)
a) 't
rI }
Or) D
E 0
i V
> 0 0
0 } 2
i
c
N 0
E
D a >
0
+- N 0_ O_
0 4) N `�'; v,
a) 112 ,a) } D
•� .c 4) 0 0
0 0 0 O N
J J N -
ce 0000
4-
U
•-
0) } >
y
0 4- s
a) C s 4) 5}
N C 0
N w
O - 41
D 0 E
Z3 .— a) I I
C L. E v)
O _12 4 " 4-m 0 I- 4- N U
C C N N N
a) D 4- 4-O in
-0 4-
E U 0
" 4- O
0 v C O
0 73 a) a) `~ _ O
D
a
O a) O a) U c)
0- E 73 E -o (e)
0- O S O c U)
Q V) cn O D
I— ❑ ❑ ❑
4—
•—
0
a
C3
u
.— No N ct, 0 c>
X
o o ,- co 0 co
0 0 CN CN O• 0 0%
4— ... _ _ .... .41.1,.. ....
r CO CO O• 'Cr IC)
OW CO V) CN CN CO 0,
ci)
ltr 4 -
4—
•—
s4—
0
t 0 I I
,
( , C:f 4-
0 t)
CD
ir
" I I 2
, !
>,
>... a 4-
0 •- 1,-- 17:
- = I I 8 5 0
_c = T.s.
,. ,. 4. .....- ._ D
( a) I I •— D E <
c.) <
i I_ >`
0 a I I 0 -c
•.-
,
E
0
0 X C3 <
ei) . •II.• C a a.) -0 0,
_Q cu a) .—
E 0 Lt) C 0 0
.j: = = 0
a)
0 1■ ON
0 0 .(;L)< 0 •t= E
.4•••
> gi) 0
CN .— w < Lu rY
E
a
•_
.4<t
s
X
O
+-
' D 0
O O
V E
o 0
N s
O
3 } a)
}
V O 0
s (1) O
v O > O
c N A O
_O y L-
a) tn O }
— E
� Q •V � S �a p O C • "4
a) W LL O _ O
❑ ❑
CD
s
o +-
Z s_ E
0 0
O C
(1) •N
> V
cn N .
E
a 0 x a) '
al a.} 4) s
o 0 } 4)
— o
> o E
a) — ° o
.- 0 = x
0 O
N
N y N
= o
I.
N
to .- N •tn FA
Q) 0- o > o
4- 4- 0
Z3 cOO
(in , 0 0
*
.itrt:
4-
c
O
E +-
a L
.-
LL O
c S+-
•® 73
kes) I O
0 a
V 0
c
•® 0 1
N O O
• O
-0 J
LLI c
LL C
D
4_ LL
O i
N 4-
Cf) D c
a
0
0
0
N
LL
(1)
c3> 4E
LL 0- N
a) •
I 0
0_
V a�
1.
0 lc I
tn 2
• m CD _0 O
—
X —0 •- J
W 0> —0
V
'= 0
V! tn
13n
❑ ❑
a
)
c
a)
0
0
N
_
-1- D N V
O •0
E u N 0
D 0 •- _a 70
a_
(4...) I 4E ._ %_ r%
N N O
CD
V N•
O c ' 73 73
• 0 I �i D II
I C I N `L E
®N m 0 O '> > N 0
- O
ill "Dc 6c5 -2
U... V) Lf C 0 ii .zz 0 ;,
V D
a) in } -- V) V)L 4- w a) L a) # _: ;V .1_ c
tO D c
D 1 .1
rt
c:
N =
tA N s
O - 4-
N C3 =
O
O U
Q •>
4) L
NO N
a) ') 2 v) _o
Q
0 c
N -0 -o
ao) � 0 s
o }
4) •_
-
® O 1_ s.~ N (1)
- >
0 •- 0 O 4- 4-
V
1Z" ■ D N y-
4-
0 44-tn 2E2- a) .-
s
C C O C •- O
'- 0 0 u .� O
a) U2ZJ
c: 0 0 i,,. .J i,,.)
1,',.,
ill
rp
1111
Kikliss
C
WW1
EM1z
a)
f� ...0 M•
Cal
fi Rot
E E s
REA KORtt
i }en
N
014: i i i L
c o0 0 -o V
o N o o (D 4)
•E o't N D s
O co -1. cn .1_
1111 N O r r •- -3
N te —
D i
ati, r ,
0 0
IIFO L
.I— A to
C
.�
` O 4 a)
E a C CO
o N N N
M N
m v i
t
t
s
LLI
0 v)
0 L.-
0 0
*** ID
I- CO CO r- CO
•0 0 Cy.) N (N ,0
Cn. N 44-
r- r +09- CO •0
-EA- 4;03 -Ea 44-
1....- te
14.. a)
O >
o
>...
> -13
co •_
o
a) a 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 a) 0 0 0 0 0 0
._ 1.... 0 0, 0„ 0 0 c-.I
>
0 0 0 ix) 00
a) -0, CN CO "I .- LO 0
v) L-
i:-
4- 0 ter
-0 -0
13.) •
., , • 0 0 0
i, , 0 0 Si■ L
+...• .1
V) V) V)
C C -0 -0 -0
c • C C
0
-0 •- 0 0 0 *- *- •-
u u 0
4- E (6 (T) ai E E E
.,,,-. ..
O E E E E E E
.., E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
, _c -C t.) L) L)
• csi•-
Lu .........
.,,,
City of Shakopee
Community Facilities Financing Memo
March 26,2015
Type of General Interest Impact on Count Other Complexity Statutory Max General
Financing Obligation Rate and City Credit against Statutory Term Market
Pledge Overall Rating Debt Limits Limitations
Cost Limit?
General Yes Lowest Full Yes Voter Low except 30 Years None
Obligation Approval for
(Referendum) referendum
Bonds
Tax Yes Lowest Full Yes Public Low 20 years if one None
Abatement Hearing entity denies
Bonds participation
Lease- No Moderate(1 Full Over$1 No High,similar None, except Generally no
Revenue notch below million to a real marketability but size/term
Bonds GO rating) applicable, estate suggests lease considerations
Bond transaction commensurate
Counsel? EDA/City with term
Sales Tax Dependent on Lowest or Full No Special Medium-high 30 years Potential
Revenue authorization moderate Legislation market
Bonds depending and limitations on
on form Referendum size/term
Internal Loan N/A Lowest Partial No Yes Low 10 Years None
Recreation No Higher Full No No Higher 30 Years Market
Bonds limitations if
insufficient
debt service
coverage
Conclusion
The City has a number of potential financing tools, many having the highest potential credit quality, hence lowest
interest rate. Many project and public policy items exist for final resolution. Either as part of that resolution process or
at its conclusion we can assist the City in matching these outcomes with the most advantageous financing options.
5
City of Shakopee
Community Facilities Financing Memo
March 26,2015
Appendix I
Shakopee,Minnesota
Annual Tax Impact-Based on Net Tax Capacity
Levy Amount $4,
Estimated 2014/2015 TNTC(Pay 2015) $38,705,002
Market Net Tax
Value(a) Capacity Tax Rate Increase(b): 3.472%
Homestead Residential
$50,000 $300 $10
85,000 554 19
125,000 990 34
200,000 1,808 63
250,000 2,353 82
300,000 2,898 101
350,000 3,443 120
400,000 3,988 138
450,000 4,500 156
500,000 5,000 174
550,000 5,625 195
650,000 6,875 239
750,000 8,125 282
850,000 9,375 326
950,000 10,625 369
1.000,000 11,250 391
Commercial/Industrial
$100,000 $1,500 $52
150,000 2,250 78
250,000 4,250 148
500,000 9,250 321
1,000,000 19,250 668
3,000,000 59,250 2,057
5,000,000 99,250 3,446
7,000,000 139,250 4,835
10,000,000 199,250 6,919
Apartments(4 or More Units)
$50,000 $625 $22
100,000 1,250 43
1,000,000 12,500 434
3,000,000 37,500 1,302
7,000,000 87,500 3,038
Seasonal/Recreational(Residential)
$30,000 $300 $10
40,000 400 14
45,000 450 16
50,000 500 17
75,000 750 26
Agricultural Homestead
Value per Acre $5,000
Dwelling Est. Net Tax
Market(c) Acres Total EMV(d) Capacity
$100,000 80 $500,000 $2,718 $94
160 900,000 4,718 164
320 1,700,000 10,668 370
640 3,300 000 26,668 926
Agricultural Non-Homestead
Net Tax
Acres Total EMV(d) Capacity
80 $400,000 $4,000 $139
160 800,000 8,000 278
320 1,600,000 16,000 556
640 3,200,000 32,000 1,111
(a) Estimated market value is the basis from which the net tax capacity is calculated.
This value is not necessarily the price the property would bring if sold.
(b) The tax rate increase is derived by dividing the average debt service by the taxable net tax
capacity. The dollar increase in taxes payable is derived by multiplying the net tax capacity
by the tax capacity rate increase.
(c)Includes house,garage and one acre with an estimated market value of$100,000.00
(d)Estimated value per tillable acre is$5,000.00
Note: Changes in interest rates,timing or size of the bond issue may cause significant
alterations of this information.
6