The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-10-09 Chair Scott Bronson 1245 W. Highway 96 Committee Members Arden Hills, MN 55112 Maurice Gieske �RZEN HILLS 651.792.7800 410 Arlene Mitchell www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us Jeff Johnson Arden Hills James Ostlund (Vacant Seat) Financial Planning and Council Liaison Stan Harpstead Analysis Committee November 10, 2009 City Vision A strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well-maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long-standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Agenda Regular Committee Meeting Convenes 6:00 PM Call to Order 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES A. October 13, 2009 - Regular Meeting 3. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Review of the presentation by the subcommittee on Council presentation November 16, 2009 B. Review 2010 Proposed Final Budget—Informational Use Only C. Review 2010 Proposed CIP—Informational Use Only D. 2009 Final Budget Document—Submitted to GFOA- Informational Use Only 4. REPORTS 40 A. Report from the City Council B. Financial Planning and Analysis Committee Comments and Requests 5. ADJOURNMENT A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. MINUTES ZEEN HILLS • FINANCIAL PLANNING & ANALYSIS COMMITTEE Tuesday. October 13. 2009 6:00 P.M. Second Level Conference Room. Arden Hills City Hall CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by Scott Bronson at 6:00 pm. MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Bronson: Maurice Gieske; Arlene Mitchell; Jim Ostlund MEMBERS NOT PRESENT: Stan Harpstead_ Council Liaison; Jeff Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Sue Iverson: Joe Rueb Call to Order 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Motioned: Maurice Gieske Seconded:Jim Ostlund 2. APPROVAL OF September 8, 2009 --- Approved as amended_ Motioned: Jim Ostlund • ' Seconded: Arlene Mitchell 3. UNFINISHED AND NE U A. Review of the presenta -y the subcommittee on Council presentation November 16, 20 The Committe ould li Council to approach them requesting suggestions for project fundin do The group discussed and stregetized the presentation for the mber worksession. Projects from the CIP can be used as examples in the presentation. Finance Director Iverson will provide the group with updated summary sheets for the CIP books. Mitchell requested a reminder in the November packet to bring the CIP book to the November meeting. The subcommittee can meet again outside of the normal meetings if they would like. Please notify Joe Rueb of the meeting as soon as it is scheduled as all meetings need to be publicly posted. Bronson will further discuss the presentation with Johnson. B. Review Private Activity Revenue Bond Guidelines—changes made by Bond Counsel No major changes were discussed. Below are the items that need to be changed: 1) Page 5, Section 1_ Remove the extra "_". • 2) Page 6, Section 7. The"7"is still highlighted. Cit of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96•Arden Hills Minnesota 55112 Phone 651-792.7800•Fax 651.6345137 ww w-ci.arden-hi lls.mn.us Chair Initial_ F Director Initial MINUTES �I�EN HILLS • C. Review Post Issuance Policy —changes made by Bond Counsel No changes were discussed. 4. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council No report was provided. B. Financial Planning and Analysis Committee Comments and Requests Arlene Mitchell was welcomed to the FPAC committee. Mitchell's committee appointment was approved by Council. NEXT MEETING—Tuesday, November 10. 2009 5. ADJOURNMENT Motioned: Jim Ostlund Seconded: Arlene Mitchell • Scott Bronson, Chair Susan K. Iverson, Finance Director • Y � Y City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96•Arden Hills Minnesota 55112 Phone 651.792.7800•Fax 651.634.5137 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us Chair Initial F.Director Initial • �� EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6,2009 TO: Financial Planning and Analysis Committee FROM: Sue Iverson, Finance Director SUBJECT: Sub-Committee Report At our last meeting, members discussed content and strategy for the presentation to the City Council. isCommittee members were going to work on this and review at our November 10,2009 meeting. We are schedule to present this at the November 16, 2009 Council Worksession at 5:00 p.m. • • • • Long Term Capital Planning Financial Planning and Analysis Committee • • • Objective : Support the Council on evaluating LT Capital Projects • Increase confidence that LT financial decisions are fiscally sound • Identify tools/techniques that generate discussion and debate • Increase financial education within the City • Provide input from finance professionals with a vested interest • • s LT Capital Investment Categories : • Creation of New Assets : trails, parks, streets, intersection improvements, pedestrian bridges are examples • Replacement of Infrastructure : depreciated roads, fully used equipment, water towers, etc • Emergent Replacement of Infrastructure : storm damage, pump failure in lift station, damage to equipment from accidents, etc • • • Project Evaluation Criteria : • Community need and economic benefit/ROI • Funding availability : uncommitted cash/fund balances, uncommitted borrowing capacity, grants/general funding, TIF or future tax deferrals • Impact over time to : Capital Fund Balances, City Bonding, Tax Levies/Policy, Annual Budget, Grants, etc 7:1/7/47) • • • General Comments/Considerations : • Funds can be borrowed from one fund to another • Funds can be held in anticipation of an undefined use via annual tax policy/levies • Not all projects can be measured on ROl ; but, have community value ( quality of life ) • Project benefits should be aligned with those who carry the cost associated with the benefit • • • Examples of Projects/ Funding : • Creation of a New Pedestrian Bridge (-see attached ) • Repair of a Damaged Park ( see attached) • • Example l: Creation of New Pedestrian Bridge: • Cash Contribution— It would be appropriate to pay for planning and project preparation costs out of existing City funds/budget. The understanding of the community needs, the potential value added and project costs can be covered by the City Departments. Since the benefit for this project will incur to future residents, it is appropriate to consider outside fund sources or commitment of future funds. • Future Fund Sources — In this case there is evidence of a future regional and community benefit. Appropriately placed pedestrian bridges allow for non- motorized movement of people. These people can be current residents,or future residents I workers within the community. Outside funding sources can include; o Grants o Contributions from Surrounding Residents / Businesses o Assessment for Improvement District o General Obligation Bonds o TIF is not an option(State Exclusion) • Project Valuation Assessment o Criteria: • Numbers of residents impacted (residents on either side and possible destinations) ID • Frequency of movements (survey of current pedestrian movements on route) • Current Value of Businesses on proposed route benchmarked against similar business on route with existing pedestrian access • Projected life of the community asset (depreciable life) • Potential for ancillary redevelopment along the proposed route (e.g. percent of property with development greater than 30 years).\ o Cost Pro-Forma • Comparison costs to other regional assets • Pro-Forma opportunity costs (is there a property value premium for locations near to pedestrian bridges) o Historical Experience • Accident report • Anecdotal complaints • Community survey(business and residents) • Comparable experiences in other communities • • Example 2: 033 Repair of a Damaged Park: • Cash Contribution— It would be appropriate to pay for planning and project preparation costs out of existing City funds/budget. The understanding of the community needs, the potential value added and project costs can be covered by the City Department Budgets. Since the benefit for this project is expected by current residents and will also incur to future residents, it is appropriate to consider using existing funds and/or to also seek commitment of future funds. The damage to the existing park is impairment to a current community asset. Delay or deferral of repair further damages the current community and will not meet the community's expectation that taxes have been collected and paid to maintain a park asset in a functional and undamaged state. • Future Fund Sources—The project should not be expected to wait for the collection of future sources of funds. However if fund balances are insufficient it is not unacceptable to utilize General Obligation Bonds to allow the project to proceed with payment made from future tax levies_ o TIF is not an option (State Exclusion) • Project Valuation Assessment o Criteria: • Numbers of residents impacted (residents on either side and possible destinations) • • Frequency of uses (survey of current pedestrian activities) • Projected life of the community asset (depreciable life) • Potential for ancillary redevelopment along the proposed route (e.g. percent of property with development greater than 30 years).\ o Cost Pro-Forma • Comparison costs to other regional assets • Pro-Forma opportunity costs(is there a property value premium for locations near to parks? is this impaired by the current park?) o Historical Experience • Frequency of damage • Anecdotal complaints • Community survey(business and residents) • Comparable experiences in other communities