Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1995 TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 16, 1995 LOCATION: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 4:30 P.M. 2] Approval of Minutes of July 31, 1995 3] Budget: a] Civic Center Programs b] Assessments on City Property and State Aid 4] Requests for Assistance from Scott County for a New Court Services Building 5] Other business 7] Adjourn by 7:30 P.M. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA JULY 11, 1995 President. Beard called the meeting to order at 6: 30 P.M. with Comm. Brekke, Laurent, Sweeney, Lynch, VanHorn, and Morke present. Also present: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator; Barry Stock, Assistant City Administrator; Paul Bilotta, Economic Development Coordinator; and Judith S. Cox, City Clerk. Morke/Brekke moved to accept the special session call. Motion carried unanimously. Sweeney/Lynch moved to approve the Minutes of the June 6, 1995 EDA Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm. Sweeney stated that the property owners affected by Blocks 3 and 4 of the Old Shakopee Plat have not been notified of this meeting. Discussion followed regarding legal notification requirements. There was a consensus that all property owners and renters should receive notification of the meeting prior to the EDA discussing whether or not to acquire property in Blocks 3 and 4 of the Old Shakopee Plat. Mayor Laurent suggested that a policy be drafted outlining when affected parties will be notified of a matter to be discussed. Sweeney/Brekke moved to table discussion of Blocks 3 and 4 until August 1, 1995. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Stock was directed to notify the affected property owners and tenants of Blocks 3 and 4 of the August 1st meeting to discuss whether or not to acquire property in these blocks. Laurent/Morke moved to table discussion of Property Acquisition/ Relocation Assistance until August 1, 1995. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Kraft explained that the EDA currently has more money than needed to pay immediate bills. He requested that the EDA Funds be placed with the City Treasurer for investment. Lynch/Sweeney offered Resolution No. 95-4, A Resolution Authorizing Placing Funds With the Shakopee City Treasurer For Investment, and moved its adoption. Motion carried unanimously. Barry Stock explained that the EDA has discussed the possibility of amending the City's Tax Increment Financing Plan to more accurately reflect proposed expenditures and secure TIF revenues from future legislative changes. He said that the primary changes to the Official Proceedings of the July 11, 1995 Shakopee Economic Development Commission Page -2- Housing and Redevelopment Plan Project No. 1 include the Civic Center Project to more accurately reflect the project cost and the downtown alleys; and, that amending the Plan doesn't mean that it has to be enacted. Sweeney/Lynch offered Resolution No. 95-5, A Resolution Relating to Minnesota River Valley Redevelopment Project #1; Requesting the City Council to Approve a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan; and Requesting the City Council to Approve a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing Districts #2,#3,#4,#7 and #9; and moved its adoption. Discussion followed regarding EDA funds and projects. Motion carried with Comm. VanHorn dissenting. • Paul Bilotta spoke about the direction the EDA would like the City to take in areas of Economic Development. One area is the use of industrial and commercial incentive programs. Staff requested direction as to target groups and degree of involvement in incentive programs. Discussion followed regarding the City's ability to compete with TIF funds. Mr. Morke stated that this would be an area for the CDC (Community Development Commission) to look at and work with staff to make a recommendation back to the EDA as to what is available to the City. VanHorn/Sweeney moved to refer to the Community Development Commission for further study and recommendation on incentive programs to attract business to Shakopee. Motion carried unanimously. Items to be added to August 1, 1995 agenda: 1. Scott County Court House and if EDA's Involved 2. Consideration of a long-range objective planning session for Shakopee Economic Authority - set date President Beard adjourned the meeting to August 1, 1995. The meeting was adjourned at 7 : 05 P.M. . Li/ Jud.th S. Cox Secretary Esther TenEyck Recording Secretary cow To: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator From: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director Subject: Civic Center Programs Date: 07/26/95 Introduction Council discussion on what activities are to be accounted for within the Civic Center Enterprise Fund is requested. Background The Civic Center facility will provide space for a few activities that are currently recreation programs within the General Fund. The proposed budget being developed for the enterprise fund included programming fees for those activities. Therefore, Council direction on programming revenues for activities within the civic center is requested. • I, had, contacted our auditors and their recommendation is ,to consider modifying the enterprise fund to be a Recreation Fund instead of a Civic Center Fund and move the financial activity for all recreation programs and the pool to the Recreation Fund. The rational is that we are a growing city and have higher costs in the general fund because of the growth when compared to other cities in general and in view of state comparisons for aid determinations. An enterprise fund used to be considered primarily supported by user fees (80-901) . That has slipped over the years to be at least half supported by user fees. Currently the authoritative literature provides; "enterprise funds. . . financed. . .primarily by user charges; or where the governing body has decided the periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes." An activity not recommended for inclusion in the enterprise fund is park maintenance because of the very minor revenue generated by user fees. Based on the 1995 budget, the pool is supported 46% by fees and recreation programming 411 by fees. Tax support is $73,380 for the pool and $141,520 for recreation programming for a total of $214,900. The proposed 1996 budget being prepared shows the pool at 501 user fees, recreation at 41% and the civic center at 74% (before depreciation) and a total the those three areas is 59% which equates to a tax support of $283,785. budget/other96/civicpro Com 3 b TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director SUBJ: Assessments on City Property and State Aid DATE: June 22, 1995 Introduction Council review of the assessment policy for city property and the process for paying off assessments on city property, and the disposition of state aid for construction is raised for discussion. Background The assessment policy provides that city owned land will be assessed like any other developable land. In the past, the dollar amounts involved have not been very large amounts. With the projects of the VIP Extension and Verling• Drive going past Lions and Tahpah Park and the Civic Center, and the future Gorman Street project, substantial dollar amounts are now involved. The VIP Interceptor has been assessed at$55, 664, Vierling Drive CR 15 West is estimated at $295, 133, Vierling Drive 77 to 79 estimated at $39, 969, Gorman Street is estimated at $89, 000, Vierling Drive 77 to 15 is estimated at $146, 875 and Vierling Drive Presidential to 169 is estimated at $232, 000 . Past practice has been to levy assessments and then pay certified amounts from General Fund Unallocated Division and periodically pay off the balance owing from the CIF. For some projects, not assessing city property would drop the project below the minimum assessed costs necessary to be able to issue improvements bonds. Most of the time, improvement bonds are issued to cover the assessed and the tax levy or non-funded project costs. If improvement bonds can not be issued, the alternatives are a referendum bond issue or using cash on hand to finance the project . Using cash on hand could deplete the available cash in short order. State aid for construction sometimes gives the city surplus of funding for a project . Past practice has usually been to put that money in the construction fund which then rolls over to the applicable debt service fund and then rolls over to the CIF when all bonds are paid off. It has also been used to reduce the amount of bonding needed for a project . An alternative for state aid construction "surplus" would be to put the surplus on a project directly into the CIF for immediate use on another project. Alternatives l.A. Assess city property and pay from General Fund (tax levy) . 1.B. Assess city property and pay from CIF. 2 . Change assessment policy and not assess city property. 3 .A. Not assess city property but pay city share in cash up front from General Fund Fund Balance. 3 .B. Not assess city property but pay city share in cash up front from CIF. 6 .A. Keep surplus state aid with the project account, then roll to debt service and close out to CIF. 6 .B. Pull surplus state into the CIF when received. Recommendation Basically the questions are; 1. Does Council want to continue to assess city property? 2 . Does Council want to use CIF fund balance to pay off assessments on city property or General Fund balance or does Council want to use tax levy. The current draft CIP shows a substantial draw down on the CIF balance. If surplus state aid construction is placed in the CIF and not used to reduce bonding on applicable projects, there will be more money put into the CIF than what was shown on the draft CIP. 3 . Does Council want to let surplus state aid run with the project through the projects construction fund and debt service fund, or pull surplus into CIF immediately? Action Discuss and give staff direction. 00 co # L MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator RE: Requests for Assistance from Scott County for a New Court Services Building DATE: August 9, 1995 Page two of the attached letter contains a series of requests from the Scott County Administrator for the acquisition of the St. Francis Hospital property/and the construction of a new court services facility. While these are essentially policy decisions to be made by the City Council I am providing commentary on these requests. 1. "Waive all permits and other fees related to the new building." The City has typically charged building permit fees to other entities including, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the Blue Lake Treatment Plant, St. Francis Hospital,the Shakopee Civic Center, and Independent School District #720. In considering this item the Council should also realize the City has to remit the building permit surcharge fee to the State and we also have to pay both sewer access charges (SAC) and water access charges (WAC). The City also has salary costs involved in both plan check fees and the inspection of construction for new facilities. The City of Shakopee has more than one quarter(+26%) of the tax capacity of Scott County. The provision of subsidies to Scott County could result in Shakopee property taxpayers paying for a new facility both as City taxpayers and County taxpayers. 2. "Consideration by the City to close Atwood and Fuller(or offset the cost of a skyway across Fuller)." The closure of Atwood seems to be a reasonable request. The closure of Fuller is less reasonable. Fuller is a collector street which connects to First Avenue on the North. This is a signalized intersection and provides access to the 169 Bridge. At it's Southern end Fuller connects to County Road 77. What is the basis for a construction of a skyway? While Fuller is a collector the traffic volume is not so great that people cannot cross the street. 3. "Underwrite the demolition of the St. Francis building through some economic development funds." The only source of funding for an economic development effort such as this would probably be the City's property tax base. I'm not aware of the Economic Development Authority having other funds for this purpose. 4. "Assist the County in providing off-site parking." I assume the assistance to the County would be in the form of financial assistance. Unlike private entities,the County has all of the powers the City has for acquiring property including those of eminent domain. 5. "Waive parking requirements and/or provide a variance." This certainly can be looked at however merely waiving the parking requirements does not eliminate the demand for parking spaces. Currently there clearly is a unmet demand for parking in the vicinity of the courthouse. 6. "Provide a variance on the building height requirements." This is a reasonable thing for the Board of Adjustment to consider. I would like to urge that the City Council not make a decision on this prior to a public hearing by the Board of Adjustment, if in fact such a request is made. 7. "Provide financial assistance to the County to help defray the cost of the building through TIF if possible or other economic development incentives." As Council members are aware there is no significant unallocated tax increment financing surplus. Furthermore it is illegal to use TIF for the construction of general purpose governmental buildings. 8. "The City of Shakopee consider moving their offices to the new building site and paying for a portion of the construction. This would help to eliminate duplicative staffing and create economies of scale for the County and the City in these times of limited resources." If this idea were brought up three years ago it would certainly be worthy of consideration. However, at this time the City has a facility which is meeting our current needs and one which will meet our needs into the future. With the completion of the new Civic Center building the Park and Recreation staff will most likely move to that facility. Also we currently have tenants in the building (the Scott County Joint Prosecution operation)which can be moved out if we have a need for additional space. The City would then be confronted with the dilemma of disposing of the current city hall. The aforementioned comments are intended to provide the City Council with a frame work for discussion of this non-official request for assistance from the Scott County Administrator. SCOTT COUNTY OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR COURTHOUSE 110 1r428 HOLMES STREET SOUTH SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1382 (612) 496-8100 (612) 496-8180 FAX GARY L. CUNNINGHAM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR June 19, 1995 Mr. Dennis Kraft City Administrator City of Shakopee 129 Holmes Street South Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Mr. Kraft: As a follow up to our meeting today, I wanted to summarize some of the major points regarding the possible new county justice facility. As you are aware, the County is considering building a new facility. Based on the findings of a needs assessment, the primary usage for this facility at this point could be a justice center that would house the Courts, Court Services, Court Administration, County Attorney and other public safety divisions. Last year, a citizens' advisory committee provided Commissioners with recommendations on possible locations for a new facility. Several of the sites recommended were outside the present Shakopee MUSA line, as well as outside of Shakopee city limits. The present courthouse site was also recommended as a candidate for consideration. At this point, the Scott County Board of Commissioners has not made any decision on where to build a building. However, parking, space configuration and cost of expansion are perceived as impediments to expanding on our existing location. The Scott County Board of Commissioners has authorized me to negotiate with St. Francis on a final price for consideration of our existing location as the site for the new justice center. It is my understanding that St. Francis has offered to sell their building to the County for approximately $2.9 million. The parking issue and the need to demolish the old St. Francis Hospital structure along with other considerations, make their present offer prohibitive. I believe the City of Shakopee has a vested interest in maintaining the County campus in its present location. Even if St. Francis drops its existing offer down considerably, the cost of building a parking ramp, unless offset, will make the County's existing location less desirable as a candidate for the new justice center. An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer Mr. Dennis Kraft June 19, 1995 Page 2. The question then becomes, what can the City of Shakopee do to facilitate the County's new facility to be built adjacent to our existing operations? To assist you in answering this question, I have prepared the following list of items for your consideration. This list is not exhaustive, nor is it to be considered an official request for assistance from the Scott County Board of Commissioners at this time. This list is prepared to give you some idea of ways in which the City can assist the County in coming to a decision on a site location. 1. Waive all permits and other fees related to the new building 2. Consideration by the City to close Atwood and Fuller (or offset the cost of a skyway across Fuller) 3. Underwrite the demolition of the St. Francis building through economic development funds 4. Assist the County in providing off-site parking 5. Waive parking requirements and/or provide a variance 6. Provide a variance on the building height requirements 7. Provide financial assistance to the County to help defray the cost of the building through TIF if possible or other economic development incentives 8. The City of Shakopee consider moving their offices to the new building site and paying for a portion of the construction. This would help to eliminate duplicative staffing and create economies of scale for the County and the City in these times of limited resources. I have attached the County's needs assessment and other background information regarding the County's site selection process for your review. None of the above will be possible if the County Board believes that its option to build elsewhere is less onerous on the taxpayers than remaining at our present location. Mr. Dennis Kraft June 19, 1995 Page 3. It was a pleasure meeting with you. I hope this information helps in the City's consideration of what steps it can take to assit the County in making this important decision. Very truly yours, 1 0 s . Cu ningh. Cou • • d• inistra,/ GLC:j m Enclosures c: County Commissioners