Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Roger Guenette Feb 7, 1997 " DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 7, 1997 gy Roger Guenette\\ /\^ Frank Boyles _ \.' '\ Scott County Policy Changes Attached for your information are two policy changes recently approved by the Scott County Board. The first relates to the County's policy on Tax Increment Financing. The second is a policy regarding the use of local assistance to foster economic development. Please review each policy and provide me with your observations on how they affect the City of Prior Lake andmore specifically our Economic Development Authority. Please put your comments in writing so that we will be able to share them with the Economic Development Authority and City Council. I am particularly concerned about the impact which the revised policy could have on the Park Nicollet Clinic project. Please address that issue specifically. Scott County Administrators will be discussing these policies with County representatives at their March 10 meeting so I would appreciate your response before then. Thanks in advance and let me know if you have questions. cc: Don Rye slf 3/10 16200 Ea:gq~\te?i:flfi~E}~\M?~SE.r.~qtjHbPf?&ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTCNITY EMPLOYER REcaveo ". 'AN? Q fnn., SCOTT COUNTY POLICY REGARDING USE OF CITY OF PRIOR LAKE TAX INCR.EJ.'1ENT FINANCING Since its introduction, Tax Increment Financing legislation has undergone numerous changes with the 1988 legislative session being no exception. Article 12 of the Omnibus Tax Bill contains amendments to the Tax Increment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 through 469.79 which make use of Tax Increment Financing more difficult and complex. Similarly, other provisions in the Omnibus Tax Bill affect the use of Tax Increment Financing. Perhaps one of the most significant changes in correcting a perceived abuse in the use of Tax Increment Financing was the change to the law which provides that value attributable to building permits issued within the ninety-day period before the public hearing on the tax increment financing will be included in the original assessed value of the district. The effect of this provision is that it excludes from tax increment financing what may fairly be termed as development which would have occurred without benefit of tax increment financing. In some tax increment plans where development was shortly to occur, the forthcoming development was included in the tax increment plan so as to provide start up cash flows which would serve to lower the cost of capitalized interest, increased financial viability for projects that might have otherwise failed even with benefit of tax increment financing and support a larger tax increment plan than might have otherwise have been designed. Similarly, another beneficial affect of the legislation changes is that the County may require the authority establishing a tax increment financing plan to pay the County's administrative costs on new or expanded districts. However, even with these changes. significant concerns regarding tax increment financing remain. Perhaps first and foremost among these concerns is the continuing lack of a thorough and objective "but for" test. The continuing inability of the legislature to design such a test has resulted in excessive use of tax increment financing, use of tax increment fmancing for projects which could not succeed even with the benefit of tax increment financing, use of tax increment fmancing for projects which would have occurred anyway and wooing of developers and companies from one local government unit to another through use of tax increment financing. Given that often times tax increment fmancing is issued with the full faith and credit of the issuing entity pledged to its repayment, the concern regarding the over-extended use of tax increment financing should be troubling to local units of governm~nt yet some communities in Scott County have in excess of 20 % of their net tax capacity captured through tax increment financing. Page 2 SCOTT COUNTY POLICY REGARDING USE OF TAX INCRE1"\1ENT FINANCING At present Minnesota Counties may only comment upon the use of tax increment financing by authorized issuers of the recently completed tax capacity rates of Scott County's levy is attributable to the use of tax increment financing throughout the County. Tax increment financing, therefore, represents an uncontrollable tax expenditure to the County of perhaps as much as $1 million per year. Although Scott County's commentary has in some instances resulted in the restructuring or abandonment of the use of tax increment financing, the lack of timely and useful information undercuts the ability of the County to effectively communicate its concerns. To redress these issues, the following policy is recommended: 1. That an issuing authority submit its plan to the County for comment at least 30 days prior to the public hearing. 2. That all tax increment financing proposals by Scott County governmental units includes an executive summary of the proposal setting forth a brief statement of the purpose of the proposal, the effect on other taxing jurisdictions, the duration of the project or district, the type, size, majority of debt issue, interest and valuation assumptions, projected captured net tax capacity projected County's administrative costs developed in consultation with the County and other pertinent information. 3. That all tax increment financing proposals submitted to the County include a summary of the financial feasibility of the plan, which summary is submitted to the County at the same time as, and along with all other relevant documents. 4. That in any instance where the full faith and credit of the issuing entity is pledged to the repayment of tax increment fmancing bonds that any excess increments generated be applied to debt reduction in the interest of: a.) increasing the security of the outstanding bonds; b.) reducing the likelihood that the issuing entity's taxpayers would be burdened by increased taxes should the project fail; and c.) providing for the return of captured value to the tax roles more quickly. 5. That Scott County encourages cities and other authorized users of tax increment financing to limit the use of tax increment financing to less than ten percent (10%) of their net tax capacity. 6. That, except in cases involving demonstrated unique opportunities, Scott County expresses its intent to discourage the use of tax increment financing which results in more that ten percent (10%) of a city's or other authorized user's net tax capacity being captured through tax increment financing. SCOTT COUNTY TIF REVIEW TEAM WORKSHEET I. LEGAL AUTHORITY A. Type of project B. Duration C. "But for" test D. Issuing authority II. FINANCING A. Type of Debt 1. General obligation 2. General obligation - special assessment 3. General obligation - revenue 4. Revenue 5. Sale/lease back 6. Lease 7. Mortgage B. Amount of Debt 1. Size of project 2. Capitalized interest 3. Arbitrage C. Other 1. Credit rating (See enhancement devices 3 below) 2. Tax status 3. Insurance/Letter of Credit/other 4. Market value/assessed value of jurisdiction Page 2 SCOTT COUNTY TIF REVIEW TEAM WORKSHEET ill. POLICY A. Economic status of jurisdiction 1. Amount of outstanding indebtedness 2. Amount of TIP in jurisdiction 3.Amount of employment/unemployment 4. Type of project 5. Changes in population last five years/projected next 6. Spin off effects 7. Size of project 8. Effect on credit rating B. County effects. 1. Loss of opportunity 2. Deferred revenue/effect on taxpayers 3. Increased service cost/effect on taxpayers a. Human Services b. Highway c. Legal system d. Other Page 3 SCOTT COUNTY TIF REVIEW TEAM WORKSHEET m. POLICY CONTINUED: C. Purpose of project 1. Remove blight 2. Increase employment 3. Increase tax base 4. Improve housing stock 5. Installation of, or renovation of public utilities, e.g. sewer/roads 6. Other Local Effort Assistance REC1:/J/l!)' . fAN? q ... Cnr- -""7 - . OF PRIOR LAKe- _,_'.-- ,,,...."'..., 'L~. SCOTT CO'UNTY POLICY REGARDING USE OF to Foster Economic Development Introduction Local Effort Assistance is a local initiative to foster economic development through the dedication of additional property taxes from a new development collected by a city and/or county. The dedication of these additional property taxes is defined in an agreement with the County and Economic Development Authority to cover related development costs. Local Effort Assistance is not part of the tax increment financing statute, but rather a term used to define this dedication process. As it is not actually tax increment financing, Scott County must herein establish its own policy covering the process and limitations on its use as regards County participation, and in recognition of the overall limitations placed on the County as regards the financing of redevelopment cost. The County recognizes its responsibility to participate in selected cases in economic development. As Local Effort Assistance commits County property tax dollars, the County requires the applicant to bear the burden of proof that such development would not occur "but for" the use of local effort assistance. The County recognizes that its participation is completely discretionary as to the amount of assistance. One objective here is to provide direction as to the types of development which would warrant County participation. Policies and Procedures 1. The applicant will complete the County's TIP/Local Effort Assistance application form (Exhibit 1) and submit a minimum deposit of $2,500 or 10% (maximum for duration of the effort) which ever is less and is non refundable, to cover County administrative costs. 2. The County's participation will vary as to project based on the weighted criteria in Exhibit 2, but in no event will such participation exceed six (6) years and excludes fiscal disparities (see Exhibit 3). Maximum County participation in Local Effort Assistance will be at a level after deduction of the new development's contribution to the fiscal disparity pool. 3. If the applicant is receiving or has received tax increment financing from a Scott County jurisdiction, then the County will not also participate in a Local Effort Assistance program, unless the term of the TIF district is less than six (6) years, and only then up to a level such that the combined assistance does not exceed six (6) years. 4. Total County contribution will be limited; not to exceed one percent (1 %) of County's annual levy at time of application. With the completion of the application and evaluation of the project under the method described in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, the County will decide as to the term of assistance, not to exceed six (6) years. Exhibit 1 SCOTT COUNTY APPLICATION for Local Effort Assistance PROJECT 1. Business Name: Address: Telephone Number: Contact: 2. Brief description of the business. 3. Present ownership of the site: 4. Present Project: Building square footage, size of property, description of buildings - materials, etc. Attach site plan, if available. Pa2:e 2 Exhibit 1 SCOTI COUNTY APPLICATION FOR LOCAL EFFORT ASSISTANCE 5. Describe employment levels, types of employment and wage levels for each five (5) years. Total Permanent Full Time Employee Positions: Profile and Average Salary: Year 1 Year 2 Ii. i Ii. i Administrative: Professional: Technical: Clerical: Administrative: Professional: Technical: Clerical: Maintenance: Other: Maintenance: Other: Year 3 Year 4 Ii. i Ii. i Administrative: Professional: Technical: Clerical: Administrative: Professional: Technical: Clerical: Maintenance: Maintenance: Other: Other: Year 5 Ii. i Administrative: Professional: Technical: Clerical: Maintenance: Other: Pa~e 3 Exhibit 1 SCOTT COUNTY APPLICA nON FOR LOCAL EFFORT ASSISTANCE 6. Total Estimated Market Value at completion: $ a. Land $ b. Buildings $ c. Fixtures $ d. Machinery $ 7. Source of Financing a. Equity $ b. Bank Loan $ c. Tax Increment Assistance $ d. Industrial Revenue Bonds $ e. Governmental Assistance $ f. Other $ List all types of governmental assistance: 8. Project construction schedule: a. Construction Start Date: b. Construction Completion Date: c. If phase project: Year _ % Complete Year % Complete Paee 4 Exhibit 1 SCOTT COUNTY APPLICA nON FOR LOCAL EFFORT ASSISTANCE 9. Describe amount and purpose for which Local Effort Assistance fmancing is required. 10. Statement of necessity for use of Local Effort Assistance for project. 11. Please indicate how the project and use of Local Effort Assistance would meet one or more of the following Scott County Economic Development goals; job retention, job creation, head-of-household jobs, and tax base expansion. 12. Please describe your commitment to provide job training and/or jobs to low income families. Paee 5 Exhibit 1 SCOTT COUNTY APPLICATION FOR LOCAL EFFORT ASSISTANCE 13. Municipal Reference (if applicable). Please name any other municipalities wherein the applicant, or other corporations the applicant has been involved with, has completed developments within the last five years. 14. Please provide current and projected Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Statements. Exhibit 2 SCOTT COUNTY EVALUATION CRITERIA weAL EFFORT ASSISTANCE 1. Number of Employees (FTE) Estimated number of new/additional employees within two years of full operation: Number of Employees 1 Point Value o 1 2 3 4 5 Points Assigned 2. Public Investment (Assistance) Per Employee Estimated number of new/additional employees within two years of full operation: Total requested assistance (pV at Prime) $ Assistance per Employee $ Investment per employee Point Value $ _ or greater - 0 $- - 1 $ - 2 - $ - 3 - $ - 4 - $ - 5 - Points Assigned 3. Average Pay Level of Positions A verage Pay Level Point Value $ or less - 0 - $ $ - 1- - - $ - $ - 2 - - $ - $ - 3 - - $ $ - 4 - $ - $ - 5 - Points Assigned Page 2 Exhibit 2 SCOTT COUNTY EVALUATION CRITERIA - LOCAL EFFORT ASSISTANCE 4. Projected Property Tax Revenues Proiected Tax Revenue $ or less $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Point Value o 1 2 3 4 5 Points Assigned 5. Commitment to job training programs and/or lobs to low income families Point Value o 1 2 3 4 5 Points Assigned Job Training Programs or less Point Value o 1 2 3 4 5 Points Assigned Low Income Families or less Page 3 Exhibit 2 LOCAL EFFORT ASSISTANCE EVALUATION CRITERIA SUMMARY SHEET Total Points Assi2ned Weililitin2 Weililited Point Value #1 X #2 X #3 X #4 X #S X Total Weighted Points Value Desirability Rating No Consideration Low Medium High Exhibit 3 ESTIMATED TAX CALCULATIONS FOR WCAL EFFORT TIF MARKET VALUE TOTAL NTC FISCAL NTC LOCAL NTC 96 COUNTY TAX 20,000.000 918.400 284,670 633,730 $291.896.04 10,000,000 458.400 142,087 316,313 $145,693.77 5,000,000 228,400 70,796 157,604 $72,592.40 2.500,000 113,400 35,150 78,250 $36,041.95 1,000,000 44,400 13,762 30,638 $14,111.86 900,000 39,800 12,337 27,463 $12,649.46 500 000 21. 400 6,633 14,767 $6,801.68 100,000 3,000 930 2,070 $953.44 The table above show the tax that would be gernerated on commercial property having the stated estimated market value. These amounts are calculated using the payable 1996 County rate for a property located in the City of Shakopee, after fiscal disparities.