Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-29-20 Finance Committee Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE OF DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 29, 2020 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Minutes of Meeting Chairperson Alutto called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Committee Members present: Ms. Alutto, Chair; Mr. Keeler and Mr. Peterson. Staff members present: Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Stiffler. Others present: Brian Cooper, Director, Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors; Thomas Ricchiuto, Senior Consultant, Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors Approval of Minutes of February 18, 2020 Mr. Peterson moved approval. Mr. Keeler seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Debt Issuance/Callable Debt – BakerTilly financial advisors presented Mr. Stiffler noted that Brian Cooper and Tom Ricchiuto of Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors are present tonight. They worked with the City on the last bond offering and help manage the City’s debt portfolio. (Note: technical problems were experienced with the call-in format to the meeting and a portion of the comments by the consultants was unintelligible. Slides are attached from their presentation.) Mr. Cooper stated they have reviewed and had several consultations with Mr. Stiffler on these matters. He provided an overview on their firm and the work they do for the City. They focus on public finance, economic development matters and other financial matters related to cities, counties, states and local issuers. He provided more detail on the services they provide to clients. Their role is to advise as a fiduciary. They are not selling a financial product, but act in the best interests of their clients. Most of their roles and responsibilities for Dublin revolve around helping the City plan for debt for capital projects and providing recommendations for this. They also help manage and review the outstanding debt portfolio. He noted that Mr. Ricchiuto will lead the discussion on the City’s debt profile. Mr. Ricchiuto stated that the City has three types of credit outstanding: Limited Tax General Obligation, Unlimited Tax General Obligation and Nontax Revenue Bonds. The majority of the debt is in the LTGO category. Approximately $155.868 million is outstanding in total principal for this category. The other categories are one UTGO issuance and two nontax revenue bonds. The nontax revenue bonds were issued for the parking garages and the Bridge Street District. The slide shows the pertinent details of each of the issuances, including the call date if they are callable – either through a new series of bonds, which is a refunding or with cash. It also shows the original par Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 2 of 15 amount, the current outstanding par and how much can be called if there is a call date associated with it. The primary focus of tonight’s meeting concerns the LTGO bonds. He highlighted the sources of repayment for these bonds, noting they are also secured by the full faith and credit of the City. That means that property taxes can be levied in order to pay the debt service associated with these bonds. The City has dedicated specific revenue streams to pay down different series of outstanding bonds, including income tax, TIFs, sewer and water, special assessment and hotel tax. On an annual basis, on average, there is approximately $5.5 million of income tax per year used to pay debt service and $4 million of TIF revenues per year to pay down debt service. The schedule on the chart lays out the City’s debt service from 2020 through 2040 from each individual repayment source. Mr. Cooper noted that as Bridge Street and other TIF districts build out over time, more and more of the debt that currently is supported by income tax will begin to shift to the TIF column, freeing up more income tax dollars over time. Mr. Ricchiuto stated that the only exception is City facilities projects that are financed with debt. The income tax supported debt for City facilities is not necessarily able to be supported in the future by TIF revenues. These include a portion of the 2015 and 2017 bonds issued for the City facilities. As shown on the slide, the cash that would need to be set aside on an annual basis to redeem these on the call date would be $1.626 million. The call date for 2015 bonds is 12/1/2025 and the call date for the 2017 bonds is 6/1/2027. In terms of savings, the interest for these series on an annual basis is 3.91 percent for the 2015 bonds and 4.31 percent for the 2017 bonds. Mr. Cooper stated to reiterate, these two bond series are for City facilities and income tax revenues are being used to pay the debt service. The outstanding par for the 2015 bonds is $9,095,000 and $6.3 million is available to be called in 2025; $2.1 million is available to be called in June of 2027 for the 2017 bonds. To accomplish and pay down this debt – at the City’s option - $1.2 million would need to be set aside each year for the 2015 bonds and $350,000 per year for the 2017 bonds. Those dollars would either come from cash reserves or from the capital budgeting and planning process. Mr. Ricchiuto continued that there are two ways to manage the outstanding debt for the City: prepay outstanding debt (principal and interest) which would mean setting aside funds on an annual basis to redeem at the call date. The second option would be to refund bonds for annual interest savings, similar to refinancing a home mortgage when the interest rates are more favorable. He noted that the City’s bonds are all tax exempt with exception of the nontax revenues bonds for the parking garages and Bridge Street. The City does not have the ability to issue new debt to refund these 2015 and 2017 bonds for City facilities. We would have to wait until 2025 and 2027, respectively, in order to do this on a tax exempt basis. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the ability to do tax-exempt advance refundings (refundings more than 90 days before the call date). Bonds can still be advance refunded on a taxable basis. To summarize, you can look at prepaying debt or otherwise refunding debt with new lower interest debt. The next page provides a tax exempt current refunding example. The City has 2013 bonds outstanding that could be called in December of 2021. The chart shows the Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 3 of 15 principal and interest schedule for these for 2014 through 2021 when it is not callable. Beyond that, from 2022 to 2033 the debt is callable. We would target those specific maturities from 2022 to 2033 with a new refunding issuance next year to achieve annual interest rate savings. To that end, a hypothetical scenario is shown that indicates principal of about $7.2 million to refund the outstanding debt. The interest rate in that column is far lower than what was issued in 2013 – 1 percent versus 3.25-3.26 percent. In the far right column, the annual savings is calculated between the principal and interest payments now versus principal and interest payments with a new issuance. This would be just over $100,000 in savings per year or $1.2 million throughout the life of the bonds. He offered the opportunity for questions. Ms. Alutto asked Mr. Stiffler how often he meets with Baker Tilly to look at the callable options coming up in the next few years. Mr. Stiffler responded that this occurs about once a year as the interest rates could change the further out into the future. The next option to refund would be for the 2025 and 2027 issuances. It is a significant sum, if Council desires to refund the debt versus reissuing it. If Council is interested in that option, staff could review how to achieve this. It is clearly a policy discussion that would be needed. Mr. Peterson stated that with refinancing mortgages, it is possible to determine the savings after paying the administrative costs to do so. How much of a fluctuation in the bond interest rates is needed before it makes it worthwhile to refinance? Mr. Cooper responded that there are some variables – the overall interest rate change and the cost per basis point. Secondly, the timeframe between the bond issue and when the bonds are paid off. Third, the cost of issuance. Mr. Keeler stated that is a good question, as this is somewhat like a mortgage refinancing. From a high level, is a question tonight whether there should be a policy in place with respect to bond calling and should the policy include certain parameters – an interest rate spread and the time left to maturity? Do the advisors have a boilerplate verbiage that other cities have used in creating a call policy? Mr. Cooper stated that, generally speaking, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends taking advantage of a refunding when the savings percent are about 3-5 percent – the total present value savings as compared to the amount of debt outstanding. They are a little more conservative and would look at 6-10 percent of present value refunded par. Since there is market variability, they try to shoot for 6-10. With those types of savings, once they are authorized by Council, Council delegates the savings threshold to the Finance Director. We are not obligated to go to market if there is some change and the savings could not be achieved. When looking at the existing debt structure and considering refinancing it, a decision depends on the goals and objectives of the City. The savings can be advanced or deferred, based on the City’s goals and objectives. Mr. Ricchiuto stated that the 2013 refunding, for example, is approximately $6,700 a basis point. Mr. Cooper provided more details on the calculation and savings. Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 4 of 15 Mr. Stiffler added that the City does have a policy on refunding, which is part of the debt policy. It is specified as the 3-5 percent mark as GFOA recommends. We do specify in the policy that at times, when appropriate, lower amounts of savings will be considered, as well. Staff will continue to bring forward to Council any recommendations related to debt. In the last two capital budget discussions, there were concerns expressed about the City’s debt level and some instances where people wanted to identify policy options to reduce that faster. That is not something that can be done in one capital budget of any scale that would address the policy concern raised. Tonight’s meeting identified that if an extra $1.6 million was planned in debt service payments, it would have to be from capital improvement funds or General Funds. This would enable payoff of that principal in 2027. That would be a good starting place, if Council has interest in doing this. Ms. Alutto stated she thought the 3-5 percent figure was included in the debt policy when it was drafted. That is a good rule of thumb to follow. If we choose to save certain amounts of money now in order to pay that debt, then we forgo doing other things through the capital plan. It is important to look at the savings as well as what would need to be eliminated from the capital plan. Mr. Peterson agreed that there has been a trend with this Council to review the debt big picture. Whenever Council is spending taxpayer dollars, he views it through the lens of where he would want to spend his money. There is a portion of that analysis, however, that is different from a home mortgage. With home or auto debt, people desire to pay that off as quickly as possible. But in talking with financial experts and clients, they take on debt in order to leverage that debt for opportunities. In this way, it is different from a family budget. In the business world, debt translates to opportunity. If you have capacity to undertake something by taking on debt, you are relying upon the ongoing success of the entity that you are – business or city. He is confident that this city will continue to generate income tax revenue. The City should continue to consider opportunities that are presented in the future by the financial advisors. Ms. Alutto agreed. Perhaps the goals and objectives need to be the focus as we look at debt issuance, callable debt, etc. The policies should not be so restrictive that they tie the City’s hands into the future. From her perspective, the debt policy has fit us well. Maybe it is a process question of having the Finance Committee annually review the City’s overall debt position. Mr. Keeler stated that to him, when evaluating debt the questions are how great is the debt and how much leverage do you have related to your ability to pay? For mortgages, people may qualify for a $500,000 loan and their income is $150,000. With the City, the total debt of $134 million is not even one year’s total revenue. A homeowner has limited sources of income. The City’s revenue sources are many and diversified. He is not advocating greater leverage, but he believes in using other people’s money – OPM. Les Wexner could have liquidated Limited stock to buy the real estate in New Albany to build Easton. But why would he do that, given his assets are growing by 7-8 percent and money can be borrowed for 3 percent? He has the means to pay it off if desired, but Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 5 of 15 will borrow it anyway. The two bond issuances highlighted as callable debt – for City facilities – using the 6-10 percent guide, those would be the candidates for refunding. It seems both would meet that requirement, if we wanted to pursue that. Ms. Alutto stated this is probably the test of the debt policy that Council adopted. It still works, and she doesn’t believe any changes are needed. Mr. Peterson stated that just having this conversation each year gives him assurance that we are “coloring inside the lines.” Ms. Alutto summarized that each year, a portion of a Finance Committee meeting should include taking an overall look – before the CIP process begins – to assess where we are overall with our debt compared to where we could go with our debt. Mr. Stiffler stated that this type of conversation has occurred at this time of the year in previous years. He wanted to have this conversation with the Committee. He is comfortable with the City’s debt level. The City pays off approximately $8.5 million of principal per year. That is significant. Ms. Alutto stated it is important to be cognizant of that as we go into the CIP discussions. Summary – Committee desires to review the overall debt status/ceiling on annual basis, prior to the CIP review process; debt policy in place provides guidance on appropriate triggers for debt refunding, if desired to be pursued based upon market conditions; Committee indicated they are comfortable with overall debt profile. TIF Performance Reviews Mr. Stiffler provided a brief overview of how a TIF works and where they are located in the City. (See attached information) A TIF creates a revenue stream out of the increased assessed valuation of a parcel when it is developed to pay for the public improvements necessary for that parcel to develop. It does not change the distribution of property taxes that existed on the parcel prior to development and so the base assessed value property taxes continue to be distributed as they were prior to the parcel’s development. This is significantly different from other forms of development incentives, such as an abatement. In essence, TIFs create a revenue stream while abatements destroy all revenue streams. Dublin has historically used TIFs to incentivize economic development. There are conditions to be met to use a TIF: 1) The public improvement must benefit the parcel(s) in the TIF. TIF funds re restricted to capital items that benefit a specific geographical area. TIF funded projects must be identified to ensure the project benefits the TIF area. 2) The public improvements must support economic development. Eligible projects are outlined in the Ordinance establishing the TIF district. 3) Incentive District (residential TIFs) rules are slightly different and are used to fund public infrastructure. They must benefit the district -- not necessarily the individual Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 6 of 15 parcels. Incentive Districts function similarly to a commercial TIF but are over residential units versus commercial units. He shared a map of the TIFs, generally lining the commercial corridors – 270, Route 33, Emerald Parkway and SR 161. This provides coverage over the City’s commercial areas. The benefits to an economic development deal have to benefit those parcels so geographic diversity is needed. TIF funds must be tied to that individual TIF in that location. In terms of TIF performance overall, the chart shows that $205 million in public improvements has been leveraged into $879 million in private improvements. That is an ROI of about 4.5 across the City’s TIFs. The $879 million will grow substantially in the next two to three years as the Bridge Park TIFs come on line. The graph reflects $130 million in Bridge Park assessed valuation. Crawford Hoying estimates they are currently at about $600 million. In addition, 18,000 jobs are located in the City’s TIF districts – a significant portion of the employers in our community. He pointed out that nearly all of our TIFs, especially the most recent are non-school TIFs. What that means is that in the increased valuation, the City does not take all of that. The City only takes the non-school portion of that. About two-thirds of all property taxes go to the Schools. Therefore, the Schools continue to receive their share and the City only takes the remaining third of that increased valuation. The TIF districts are therefore a significant benefit to the Schools revenue as well as the projects the City is taking on. Ms. Alutto stated that even in a non-school TIF, the township does not receive their portion of the increase. Are there other entities so impacted? Mr. Stiffler responded there are some Incentive Districts that in later years have to pay a township portion. He would argue that the property taxes that are then reclassified as service payments are not so much redistributed from the school or township, but rather created. Absent the development, they did not exist and would not exist without the public infrastructure necessary for the development. The township would argue that there is some lost revenue, but that matter warrants further discussion. Ms. Alutto agreed that absent the infrastructure that is facilitated with a TIF, the revenue is not really lost for the township, but revenue that will not come until later for them. Mr. Keeler asked about the Delta Energy TIF on what is now the City-owned land and City Hall building. How does changing from a private enterprise to a public ownership affect the performance of that TIF? Mr. Stiffler responded that the TIF will be removed in a year or two, depending upon the timing of the Auditor payments. That parcel was placed in a TIF and the only parcel in that TIF is the 5555 Perimeter building. That building will now be exempt from taxation because it is owned by the City. Essentially, we could continue to run the TIF for the remainder of its life cycle at zero revenue until it expires, but we will likely just end that TIF and move forward with the building under an exemption for property taxes. The Delta Energy building had a 30-year plan, but now its plan is very different. The McKitrick TIF had a plan, but it did not contemplate one of the buildings becoming the Dublin Schools Emerald Campus. Now the plan has to adjust moving forward. In two to Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 7 of 15 three years, there will likely be a Board of Revision hearing for the Emerald Campus property and generally, the assessed valuation will decrease significantly. We will continue to adjust our schedules on an annual basis. With a 30-year timeline for TIFs, changes can occur. In regard to the anticipated expiration date for TIFs shown on this chart, the City began establishing TIFs in the mid-1990s and there are some that will expire in the mid-2020s. Then a few will roll off the books every few years. For the last 26 years, the township would not have received revenue from the assessed valuation of the McKitrick TIF – but beginning in 2025, they will receive 100 percent of their portion. We are still in the initial 30-year timeframe for the TIFs, but moving forward as the timeframes expire, there will be benefit to all of the entities that rely upon property taxes. In year 31, they will be collecting at the increased value – and that would not have happened absent the development facilitated by a TIF. Ms. Alutto stated they will benefit long term, but she does understand the perception that these negatively impact the entities such as the township on the front end. Mr. Stiffler added that parcels around TIFs immediately begin to gain value, such as around the Bridge Street. The rising tide benefits all. Mr. Stiffler shared a slide with the fund balance for each of the City TIFs. He pointed out there are healthy balances in many of the City’s TIFs. The debt policy document speaks to a 10 percent reserve per TIF versus an overall TIF policy. We will use the eligible TIF revenues to pay eligible TIF debt up to 90 percent on a per TIF basis. In addition, he shared a slide with the each of the TIF fund purposes (attached in slides). TIFs are generally used to pay debt service or to pay back advances. The City has a policy of not issuing TIF debt for two reasons: TIF financed debt will be at a higher rate than AAA debt; secondly, by advancing money, flexibility remains in the future to do other things aside from debt service, should opportunities arise that are more advantageous to the City. Much of the current debt service relates to the 270/33 interchange; there are some CIP projects, such as Rings/Frantz for the Corners development. The new Bridge Park TIFs are subject to the Bridge Park Development Agreement and there is a waterfall associated with that. At this point and for the next several years, he would expect those fund balances to be 0, but they will grow at some point and become usable for paying back advances and other debt. He next shared information about how TIFs impact the five year CIP. Repayment of advances are typically TIFs that were advanced money and are now fully mature and capable of paying those initial investments back. In 2019, the City received upwards of $14 million in service payment revenue, so it is a significant funding source. Twenty percent of the funding for the 2020 capital budget is actually TIF service payments. Another 3 percent is repayment of advances. Therefore, about one quarter of the 2020 operating budget is funded in some way through TIF districts. TIF service payments are based on underlying property values. Property values are the most stable form of taxation. This became more evident in the pandemic experience and its other budget impacts. The diversity of resources that the City has is essential in maintaining a stable CIP program. He noted that the Dublin debt policy was adopted in 2016 and modified in 2019. The modification was to include that TIF language. The debt policy provides that for the two percent income tax revenue, 75 percent goes to the General Fund, 25 percent to the Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 8 of 15 Capital Improvement Tax Fund. Sixty percent of the Capital Improvement Tax Fund goes to debt service on capital projects – with a limitation of 90 percent of available revenue as a buffer against declines in income tax revenue. Forty percent of the Capital Improvements Tax Fund is used to cash fund capital projects. In terms of how TIFs impact the five-year CIP: Outstanding debt supported by Income Tax Revenue include:  Service Center Expansion – expires in 2021  Swimming Pool Construction – expires in 2025  LED Street Lights – expires in 2022  Justice Center Addition – expires in 2035  Service Center Expansion – expires in 2037 The following income tax backed debt projects are not yet backed by a TIF, but eligible to be:  Pedestrian Bridge/High Street  Riverside Crossing Park  Riverside Crossing Park Hopefully, as the Bridge Street District continues to mature, these three debt issuances will move from this chart to the TIF chart. In addition, the North Pool is to be paid by user fees, subject to the cost recovery policy. A discussion will be held in more detail at the time of the cost study. COVID has impacted the recreation revenues, as all are aware. He shared information about the capital projects funded by TIFs. These are all infrastructure projects. (Slide attached) In terms of the impact of TIFs on the five-year CIP, the City is spending just over $10 million a year in TIF revenues to support debt service. That is how TIFs are designed. This $10 million in debt supported by TIFs allows us to only support $5 million in 2019 in income taxes. According to the debt policy, 60 percent of the 25 percent was about $13.4 million in 2020. All told, the City spent $5 million in income tax, leaving $8 million in the income tax debt allocation to be used for debt for other things. This is actually less than the $10 million in TIF debt that we supported through those revenues. The TIF revenues therefore have a significant impact on our ability to utilize income tax revenues to fund the maintenance and the new projects in the CIP. He summarized the takeaways:  Service payment revenue must be used for capital improvements that provide an economic development benefit to the parcel(s) in a TIF district.  Service payment revenue from TIF districts is a significant revenue source for the City’s CIP program, particularly regarding debt service.  Service payments diversify the CIP program’s revenues, making it more resilient to economic shocks.  The City’s TIF districts are strong and functioning well. In terms of future actions regarding TIFs:  He expects the City to bring forward TIFs with development agreements, such as occurred with The Corners. Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 9 of 15  He expects modification of existing TIFs to allow for new public capital infrastructure projects to be funded. Examples include the 270/33 interchange; Route 33/Post Road interchange; and Avery/Rings/Cara intersection improvements.  He expects creation of new TIFs, particularly in areas where TIFs could be used to pay debt service currently supported by income taxes. For example, Riverside Crossing Park and the Pedestrian Bridge could be possibilities. Mr. Stiffler noted that detailed information regarding each TIF was also provided in the packet. Ms. Alutto stated it is important to recognize what is coming in to help pay for debt service, such as these TIF revenues. This was an important conversation relative to our position on debt. Mr. Keeler noted that he had asked Mr. Stiffler if there would be a secondary market for these TIFs, and he responded that in some part, there is. Mr. Stiffler stated that if the City wanted to issue debt specific to a TIF we could issue it as a TIF revenue bond and use the TIF proceeds. For any future TIFs, we could do something similar. If a TIF district needed $5 million in public improvements and we did not feel comfortable using the General Fund to advance that money, we could issue a debt issuance backed only by the TIF to secure that $5 million. However, this would result in a higher interest rate, which is why we don’t do this. Ms. Alutto commented that everyone is aware that the Bridge Street District TIFs are distinct and she does not want to spend time tonight focusing on those. She encouraged anyone interested in understanding the particulars of the Bridge Street District TIF to contact the City. Absent these TIFs, she is not certain that area could have been developed so successfully. Mr. Peterson commented it is important to keep in mind the City’s Economic Development staff and their available tool box. Many communities do abatements and forgive the taxes – enabling the companies to redirect what would otherwise be paid in taxes internal to their own organization to fund their own development. One of the things that makes Dublin exceptional is the TIFs – they still require the investment, but the investment goes to the infrastructure that helps the community overall. Our staff is up against communities offering 100 percent tax abatements in their negotiations. On balance, looking at the TIFs and what has resulted, it actually requires the development to also invest in this community. He asked if any of the TIF funds can be used to purchase land. Mr. Stiffler responded only if it was for economic development that benefitted the parcels in a particular TIF. It might be difficult to develop a justification, unless the land were adjacent to that TIF land. He could have that conversation with Greg Daniels, the City’s public finance counsel. Mr. Peterson added that this could be another tool the City would have in its tool box, if that is possible. The OSU medical facility development occurred with the City having the land available to facilitate it. Purchasing land is virtually risk free in terms of the Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 10 of 15 investment value for future economic development. He was just curious if some of the TIF revenues could be utilized for this purpose. Mr. Stiffler noted that the fund balances do have a specific purpose and they are being utilized presently or in a future year. Wherever possible, the City amends TIFs to enable other projects to be included in the list of public improvements in that district. Mr. Peterson stated that being able to control land beyond just the zoning is something to discuss going forward. Mr. Alutto commented that a great point was made about abatements. Especially for small businesses, as their abatement expires and they don’t receive a renewed abatement, they often leave that community. The benefits of abatements are short- lived. TIF utilization has been critical to the successful growth of Dublin. Mr. McDaniel noted that the City has not traditionally done residential TIFs. However, looking at the Bridge Street District area, there may be different conditions given the mixed-use aspect. To summarize, the Committee is satisfied with current status of TIFs. The Committee supports modifying TIFs when opportunities arise to allow for new public capital infrastructure projects to be funded. A question was raised of whether fund balances in TIFs could be used toward land acquisition to facilitate future economic development; staff will research this matter further with public finance attorneys. Follow-up on Suspension/Forgiveness of Lease Collections Mr. Stiffler reported that at the last Finance Committee meeting, there was discussion about some small commercial leases and agreements. The Committee recommended and Council concurred with forgiving the lease payments for three months for the Dublin Village Tavern and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, and for Subway for the period the DCRC was closed to the public. The Committee was to re-evaluate this at the end of three months. These lease payments for the DVT and the Chamber were forgiven for April, May and June. With regard to Subway, the thinking pre-social distancing/COVID was that the DCRC could be opened or closed, but not that it would open with a lower ability to see customers due to the health concerns. Because of that, Subway does not believe they have enough traffic for them to open – even if the DCRC reopens. Committee discussion is needed about a plan going forward. The lease is $1,000 per month and the point of having Subway at the DCRC is not to earn a commercial rent, but to have Subway available to patrons in lieu of using vending machines. Staff would suggest forgiving the lease payments through December of 2020 and then revisiting it. Mr. Peterson moved the following recommendation to Council: o Forgiveness of lease payments ($1,000/month) for Subway as long as they remain closed, which is projected as end of 2020; re-evaluation to be done at the end of 2020. Mr. Keeler seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 11 of 15 Mr. Stiffler reported that he is seeking additional direction regarding the DVT and Chamber leases going forward. They have not contacted the City regarding any further relief. The DVT lease is $3,734 per month and the Chamber lease is $2,100 per month. Following brief discussion about the impacts on DVT and the support provided by the Chamber throughout the pandemic, Ms. Alutto moved to: o Recommend to Council to forgive lease payments for the Dublin Village Tavern ($3,374/month) and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce ($2,100/month) for the month of July 2020; should conditions change, further evaluation to be done after that time. Mr. Keeler seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. Mr. McDaniel stated that this recommendation can be brought to Council at the next meeting. Staff will provide a heads up on this recommendation to DVT and the Chamber. School Resource Officer contract Mr. Stiffler stated that for the 2019-2020 school year, the City and School District have a reimbursement agreement totaling $306,126 for a total of 7 officers located in the middle schools and high schools. This amount is billed at $30,612 over the 10-month school year. The City has not billed the schools for the final two months of the 2019- 2020 school year, given the closures. He is seeking direction going forward. The School Resource officers performed minimal work for the school during the time of closure. It was also beneficial to the City to move those officers out of the schools and into the City’s pool of available officers during the initial response to the pandemic. Staff’s recommendation is to forgive the final two months of the contract, but is seeking input from the Committee. Mr. Peterson agreed, adding that he personally believes that having SROs is a more effective way of policing versus having officers on the street. He does not understand why the City charges the school for these SROs – for him, the schools are the most effective place to put Police officers in the community. Ms. Alutto agreed that the City should not bill for those two months. Since it is unknown what the school year will look like, it is important to have the ability to modify the contract going forward, if needed. Mr. Stiffler stated that, based on the direction from the Committee and then Council, staff will modify the 2021 contract to allow the City Manager the ability to implement the future contact in such a manner as to address what is a foreseeable potential event. Ms. Alutto moved to recommend the following to Council: o To refund Dublin Schools for two months of payments made under the current SRO contract to account for the time period when Schools were closed and SROs diverted to other duties. The Contract for 2020-2021 will include language to allow the City Manager the flexibility to address such unforeseen circumstances going forward. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 12 of 15 Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. 2021 Hotel Motel Tax Community Grant Policy and Appropriation Mr. Stiffler provided some history, noting there is no policy guiding the level of community grant funding to be awarded in a particular year. Staff recommends an amount as part of the operating budget and Council has the ability to increase or decrease that as they desire. Since 2009, that appropriation has been $200,000. The fund balance at the beginning of 2020 was $4 million, and the current fund balance is about $3.6 million. The 2021 projected fund balance is $2.7 million by the end of this calendar year. The unofficial Fund Balance policy is to maintain a reserve of $2-2.5 million for expenditures associated with the Dublin Irish Festival in case bad weather impacts the revenues. Hotel motel tax fund revenues are expected to be significantly impacted by COVID-19. This impact will last into 2021 and potentially beyond. Dublin hotel occupancy had been 80-85 percent, and much was business travel. That market may be slower to return than leisure hotel stays. There will be a significant reduction from historical occupancy rates, even if there is some recovery this year. It is therefore critical to monitor the Hotel Motel Tax Fund going forward. In terms of the community bed tax grants, he reviewed the history of the past four years. Requests have tended upward over time and the appropriation has stayed at the level of $200,000. There were some new applications – the Crawford Hoying Foundation with $25,000 and $50,000 requests for events. The grant applications tend to come from a similar group of applicants each year. The new entrants have increased the total amount of bed tax applications to the 2020 requests for $275,000. In regard to the Hotel Motel Community Grant Policy, there is a policy for administrative approval for requests for City services to support events – such requests having been approved within the previous five years for a similar dollar amount. Any request for City services in which approval has been granted within the previous five years and the dollar value exceeds the amount granted in any one year of the previous five – within a reasonable amount – will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation to Council. The term “reasonable amount” can be subject to interpretation. Any request from an organization for the cost of City services related to a race event will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation to Council. Any request for funding beyond the cost of City services will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation. The policy allows for administrative denial of grants for funding applications that are received for events, which require the temporary closure of public roadways. In terms of events eligible for funding, they are available for entertainment/cultural events and beautification projects that enhance visitor appeal, encourage overnight stays and enhance the quality of life in the City. In terms of events not eligible for funding, the following are not eligible for funding: individuals; organizations that support political candidates or philosophies; organizations whose primary purpose is to influence, promote, or attempt to initiate legislation; organization in need of funding for travel outside of Dublin; for-profit ventures; budget Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 13 of 15 deficits incurred prior to application; endowments; and walking, jogging, running or biking events which would require the temporary closure of any public roadway. Policy Questions Would the Finance Committee like to explore any policy changes relative to the administrative approval process or with regard to the eligibility of grants? Staff would support the elimination of the administrative approval process or would alternatively recommend adding a monetary cap to requests eligible for such approval and/or the development of additional guidelines. Staff recommends a cap of $5,000 or perhaps $10,000. The intention in the 2014 memo about administrative approvals was that the committee did not want to require the same applicants who request small amounts to return each year – that we could agree in advance that their application would be funded. The difficulty for him, for example, is the World of Archery requests of $25,000 for city services in the past three years. If they ask for $25,000 in 2021, it would be eligible to be approved administratively under the current policy. Contrast that with the understanding that events should be self-sufficient over time. These two approaches are not compatible. He is uncomfortable with awarding one eighth of the total grant monies available without any input from Council. Having a cap would enable meeting the policy objectives or the administrative approvals could be eliminated in the future. Ms. Alutto asked for the total dollar amount of the administratively approved grants. Mr. Stiffler responded that he will have to find this in the documents. Mr. McDaniel added that the archery event is one that the DCVB secured for three years. Sometimes those events want to continue to come to the same community, and the event fills the hotel rooms that justifies the grants they request. Compared to some others that recur and are programmatic traditions for local organizations, although they don’t drive hotel room stays. They are quality of life enhancements for the community. There was a discussion at one time with Council about whether those community enhancing events should be funded from hotel-motel tax or somewhere else. However, another means of supporting those was never established. Mr. Stiffler stated that the administrative approvals included the Arthritis Foundation at $10,000; the Kiwanis for $5,000; Special Olympics for $2,000; and the high school for $1,685. Mr. Peterson suggested a $10,000 cap for administrative approvals. Under that, if the nature of the services being provided is not changing, an administrative approval can be done. Mr. Stiffler stated this is similar to the unofficial policy of how he was handling these last year. He was comfortable up to the $10,000 within the confines of the policy – similar services, similar costs, under $10,000. Ms. Alutto stated she is comfortable with this approach as well. Mr. Keeler agreed. Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 14 of 15 Committee recommends that Administrative approvals be done for grant requests of up to $10,000, provided the nature of the services requested is not changing from previous requests in terms of similar services and similar costs. Mr. Keeler asked for clarification about the Arthritis Foundation. He recalls they asked for more, but were granted a reduced amount. Mr. Stiffler stated he will verify that amount. (It was later verified that they were granted $10,000 of their original $25,000 request, and then were granted an additional $10,000 in a request to Council on June 8, 2020. Policy Question Mr. Stiffler asked if the Finance Committee wants to recommend a change to the 2021 Hotel Motel Tax Community Grant award appropriation, which is currently $200,000. Secondly, if so, would the Committee want staff to explore the creation of a policy to identify what that appropriation should be in subsequent years? He could certainly come to the Committee prior to October to discuss what an amount might be. Ms. Alutto stated that would make sense, as the amount has been the same since 2009. Mr. Peterson asked how that $200,000 amount was determined. Mr. Stiffler responded there is no history in the records of how this determination was made. Mr. Peterson stated that perhaps a percentage formula of the Hotel Motel Tax Fund balance would make sense. Ms. Alutto stated that discussion is also needed about whether there should be a ceiling and a floor to the grant appropriation. Mr. Keeler stated he would support having a percentage and using the projected 2021 Hotel Motel Fund Balance would be the basis. Ms. Alutto suggested looking at the fund balance in 2009 and what percentage $200,000 represented. Mr. Keeler added that if it is a percentage and the fund experiences a really good year, the City would need to have enough applications for the increased grant appropriation. If the money is not awarded in grants, what happens to it? Mr. Stiffler stated it simply becomes part of the fund balance in subsequent years. It would expire at year end if the appropriation is not used. Mr. Stiffler noted that his only concern with increasing the community grant award appropriation is to be cognizant of the fund itself – not just its balance this year – but structurally, the expenditures and revenues of the fund are well matched since 2016. That is the time the DCVB and DAC adjustments were made. Prior to those adjustments, the balance was increasing significantly on an annual basis to build to that $4 million fund balance. It has essentially been flat since 2016. If hotels return to their previous occupancy, we can expect the fund balance to remain flat at $2.7 million. It is definitely a fund that is precariously perched close to what he would consider its reserve fund balance at this point. It would be very difficult to raise the fund balance by $.5 million if that were the policy. It will not be easy to do. This is one of the few special revenue Finance Committee June 29, 2020 Page 15 of 15 funds that is not supported in any way by the General Fund. It does not receive any income tax funding. Ms. Alutto stated this would be worthwhile for the Committee to consider. Staff could review this and provide some options, and bring them back to this Committee. Mr. Stiffler stated that the Committee will be meeting in the early fall for budget hearings and there would be opportunity at that time for this discussion. The Committee consensus was that staff will provide background on the basis for the (2009 to present) $200,000 per year allocation for hotel-motel tax grants. The Committee will schedule a meeting for further discussion and recommendation to Council about a policy for a formula/percentage to establish the annual allocation for hotel-motel tax grants. The meeting was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. ~C-~· Clerk of Council About Baker Ti ll y Pub c Fnance Bonds & Notes TIF Management and Report ng Economc Development Consulting Wate &Sewer Ut• ty Cost of SeiVIce and Rate Studies Accountng& Fnanc al Management Reporting ($ bakertilly MU:"'C~~C't"!SSOtS Cap tal Planmng Budget1ng and Forecasting Baker Tilly Investment Services -(i bakertilly ---.,,__ About Baker Tilly AdVJSOty. o~N "'l' a .., i.coX Wolh mo<e lhan 3.(>00 ream m<mbe<s oncludong 310 partners and o.., 50 regosterl!d munec•pal adv.sors, we have grow" 01/ef the yeats to one of che 15 lartJe$1 accounoog and ~~:/;~~~~ ~o~rn~=~c~~~e offet•ngs and expandeng our oeoQfaPhle -t"llfoWC\.IWietfO .n f..;ht~.IL "''""more than ;jll us olfceoloc.illiOI'Il~tto«*ot~noaUOO ill>l•·• .. lnlfmltlotll'lllol foolpflnt w1th oriiCft locatL-d Qloboly -Aanlo«''lflttW\ 1M lop IS l<tfQ<>SI ~ountll\l) t'ncl ldVIIOfy f111M •n ~~US. by AQ::ounMo foday's '0181•stot•rop 100r!1m5· -i'Ol')GII"Aif'&.'KrtOWOrkbyl~lW~plt}C6 -LDtQt·tt mMWN fum of (\.1ket f11fy lll\•f~hoool tl\1" WUfld's 10t'l loWQMt netwOflt ~ acoount!ftQ lonn1 OHIO "IIIIACTtel Team members ($ bakertilly "\1( loi....:l'o t.lke. roloy's Or ru loam of seven employees represents lhe largest munocopal advrsory ptactiCe 111 the suce by headcounc Pr mary team members fe< our e'l939eme<ll Woth the C ty Include Dorector Munoapal Advose< Ro le of the Municipal Advisor A hduc•ary duty to mun•c•pal cloents Mumc•pal SeciJr,!les Rulemak•ng Board (MSRB) Rule G·42 Duty of Care aod Duty of Loyalty Must pu: munte•pal eootys 1merests ahead of •ts own Mun-c pal Advisor ass1sts wi\r. Develop ng the plan of fmar.ce ProVtd•ng recommendauons on structure. t•m•ng and proposed terms Develop•ng req~est for p1oposals Selecung underwnter(s) or bank pan•c•pant(s) Analyz•ng f•nanc•ng alternat•ves Adv•s•ng 0<' the method of sale - L TGO Bonds -Sources of Repayment 11!!!11!1 ---ll!liiil , ....... ~ -........ ·-, ___ ... -"''' .... ... _ ,,_ ------...... tf.lMA" IUJUOO ····~"' -'""'' ............. o.e-... -~· "'"" ........ , tlotnt '-·----.;;;;;;---... ... ,.,...,. _.,. -·-u~•• ""'* .... -·-..... . ..... --·~---..... --..... ..... un.-..,M --..... ,...,. ... ... -... ·-,__ -·-"''" ---.., ... -•v•" -....... """ ,.,_,., -~ ....... --·-,_ -...... ..... ... .... -1.11'1.1. ... _ ··-"" ....... '""' -....... --,..,.,. --,~--t'l~l· -s••urr.-. .,:: ,,_ <f bakertilly 11\,j ........ NiN' --··-, .. _ .... _ ·-114)'11a..ln tl-.l-ll&JMUf l'.ltlll'lll, ·--....... """'' ....... ....... """~ ·-,_ ,_ ...... ,, .. , ... tllliiU•I -.. ,. . "''"* .. _ ,., .. ~tJ/flfOI~,...aQ,ll,ll'1lldtrh:lo'!wr.,.,.,.,_•f'9C*ftll•.....-er...,.,..~._...~...._Sitf'PI' ""'"'"'"~ -• bakertilly ........... IIZMOI'Jitl, Debt Pro file C1ty of Dublin Outst•od1nq Bonds by Cttdtl Typ• c....rll! ----.. -,..,~ -·· o.~.., .._ ... .......... ...-.,... "'~~ '"-..__ -" ._._"'-"-'...,..._ ........................ _ ·-·-·---p_.._ .__ ....... ~ ..................... II!Oift .. l .....,., ... ,.. .. _ 1-·--C....f•-......-...... ~JIIU ,....., ...... -·--"...-........ --............ ---· .•. _, .. _ M,_ ·-,_,........ ......... ..s .......... ·---... _ ,...,,_._.. ...... ,..,, . ...... ........ ......... -,_ . ....._ ....... ..,.." --· ..,_, '""'"" ,_ '""UIOt ......... "-....,_ ...... woo. .. .,. ........ ,,_ P&-l1t.DIQ.OOt IU,VO,IIIOt ,.,....""'-" ............ 11(1tn011 I)/II*' ,,,_ ........ -........ , ...... ,~ ....... -~ -1)/lntla -... ....,. $!f.17'UOit ... 1-'M\J ... OOO ···~·-...... tto,.aOO "'"' YJII-I'vfpoM~Ionlls.a-.2U* ttll/2021J ..... Ol.OOO .,..,. ....... ... 111,1-001 .,.., ... ·------~---.............. '-.,-"' ......... u.M»M ··--1• ........ .. _ ........,....,_ .................. s..o.. .. ,. ,.,.,, """"' ,,,,.. l1UDO..OOO .,_,., .......... .... -Ul ........ Ut.t...,_ -·-.,. ....... .-... ,~ -• bakertilly ..._ ~ ... ~ Income Tax Supported Debt (City Facilities) l TGO Income T•x Support~ Debt Stria N.-e D•tedDate c.tD•• y;;;;;;-PutOOit io"d' Senn 'lOlS FINIIMMurity OrigirWP• ..... ........, ... C•tt.blePar .NstJCeC«<lt't 'l/3011.015 1VIt2015 121112035 $1MOO.OOO $9.09~000 S<i.380.000 Vtnovs Purpo .. Bondt. SHIH 2017 C1ll Feti11Utl 81212017 61112027 12/112037 $3.300.000 $3.006.000 $2.10S.OIXI ..... $13.900.000 SU,lto.ooo Sl • ..qs,ooo Soonmaty of Coloblo DltJc AvfR9t Coupon of CMh Stc AIICM Ptr Ye• to Senft Naont c.l Dltt calllblf P• Clll4lbat ~ Yt.WS\0 c.ll RtdHm on Cll Date -~·s 12111202S S6,38Q,ooo 391"' s.•s $1.216.000 s.n.s~17 &/lnm:l $2.105.000 •-""' 6.95 $351l.1133 TOO.I $8,485,000 --"'='------~""'----$1,626,833 -~ bakertilly ......... lbf ..._ Manag1ng Outstanding Debt Prepay outstandong debt (pnncopal and mterest) ldent1ly spec•f•c bonds to pu~pay and sN as1de funds to redeem at the call date. Funds set as 1de ar~ on add1t1on to annual debt serv•ce requl<ements on outstand1n9 debt Refund bonds for annual interest savongs On a tax'i!xempt bas•s. bonds can only be refunded within 90 days of the" call date . Tax'i!xempt advance rrfund1ngs (refund •ngs more than 90 days before the call date) were el•m•nated w•th the 201 7 r ax Cuts and Jobs Act. Bonds can st•ll be advance refunded on a taxable bas•s. Questions and Discuss1on Bnan S. Cooper Baker T•lly Mun•c•pal Adv•sors. LLC (614)987·1681 bnan cooper@bakert•ly com ThomasJ . RJCChiuto Baker T dJy MuniCipal Advisors. LLC (614)987 1686 :om.ncc:h :o@bakelt lfy com <& bakertilly .. .., .... .,.,.,L;t.:0WoQI• . , ~ .. /Ouhlhl -~ bakertilly -... - Tax-Exempt Current Refunding Example -::-.... .... .... .... ""' ... ""' ,., "" ""' --,.,, ---.... .,N -""' , ... ~ c.,.t .. , ..... ....,..__.. ...... s.n.2t1J ~~~-~i.!§cl!!ii~ ·- .. _ $10IIll0 ...... ...... .. ,. .. ....... -... ''""" ....... -... -tiU.OOO .,. .. ..... '"'"' ..... _ .. ~-- 1 ......... " .. ~ -....... -... ""·"' ....... P».- I:Jn,Q\o tm"42~ t:mm tt.n.m $111lm "J'U1t. tlO!tl'l •lltr. PM4~-M14.4" »t4U' lllH)t SNI.!Ut tm.61t ln\1111 ...,....., RIO.Iolll trl'5,$11 1111.~ .,.,,,. t1U.10Q .,.,,. .... ,. .l'UJ't ''"-* •nl50 -IM •n.no SY.ICIO llr.llOD ...---...._ ...... c.;..,-,_ ,._ ·--·-,_ --.,_ .,_ ,_ ·-= .,:::;;;:;:;---==-- --..,. .. ....... ....... ........ ... ...,. ..,...,. """' ......, ,_ ., ...... .,......., .,._ lll»liOIIIII ...... ft (UI~"901111~~ -.. . ..... .. ...., """"' '"""' $101.~1$ ...... ,,_ Slot•rs .,..,. .,., .. $10&,41& ........ ""''"' a1or.m ''"""' ,..,..,.. ., ...... ····-'""" $10'.!100 $1li.GQ) """"' $101,0l'l tl11.etl) _ ... tlot.M -_ ... ....... ...... -, ..... ...... -... l10(.1'l ......... -.. ....... Finance Committee Clllallle Debt, Tax lnaement Fonancng (TIF), 2021 Bed T.s• Communtty Grancs, Cornrnerdall.eases and AgrEmlents ~29 2020 10 . ---~--~~--~ .. " . i!~blin Finance Committee -Callable Debt Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors Brian S. Cooper Dir~clor, Munidpdl Advisor Thomas J. Ricchiuto Senior Consu ltant ~ ''"' ''"'' i!:blln Finance Committee -TIFs: How does a nF work? TIF Assessed Value (AV) Over Project Ufe PutGc~ necessary to ~:.. the CllnlfjtJons '"' prlvate IIWestment and development to OCCUt are paid lOt through the Increased property valuat.., that res<Jits from the prlvoto ~topmen~ ~ " "' '. ". i!;Ni'n Finance Committee -TIFs: What can they be used for? ~- •LA ln....~ ........ r .. _..(l,'V _., ...... used If the l........vN •19 uJO :::..~=:-=:::::::r-:=-:.--=::: cond•bons are met: =·-:=::.:..-::;.=~·-·-­ :J The publiC~ .....s provide. bencf,t to the partel(s) In the T1f Wllot this means Is th.>t TIF turds ere very rtStricled to capital •tcms that bondit e opec~roc: geographical erea. TJF lunded P<OJ«<s m\ISI be carefully idenblled to ensure the P<Oject benellts the TIF area :J The P1Jbllc Improvements mu.t SIJPilO<t economic di'"'l:lopment • O.g•blo projects ere outlined 1n the Ordinance eotabl shing the TIF dlstra CJ IOCI!ntlv<! O~trlcts (ResldenUal TIFS) rula ere sllgh~V dilforent • Fund publiC infra'..>tructure . :::....--=-----.. -·-. -·---------=..:;:=---=....~~==== ·---·-----;...~:.=:-~::===:.:=· .... ·:-.:_7.:!-::.: --~---~ . ;;:::;=~~E€? . ____ .... ____ _ . ~-:_~g.~~:;-~:.:; §:-=G,'";_""E::=a:.::.=::.: . ~~~--~. _-:§ Finance Committee -TIFs: Performance Review Overall ~in Finance Committee-TIFs: Where are they located? Cfty of~ ::------, ....... ·:-~. -----=~~-----Es-~~= .. ==-· ~ ;~:. E~= ---· ·-· a a o ,..~.:. ~ . li-.a . f!:i:11, Finance Committee -TIFs: Fund Balance <11.1•TW''WOinlllltr-J.,.. $1 1'9,105 "~ • TF BrUgt W H9t1 St..t ......... ,.. •U)•f•~ S1,009,191 •sJ-a~Methcldi&lHco!II>CAf ".S5,071 41l·fll~J U,I2S,161 1S4•TifliOI)IrC.IIIItre $1 .. .071 41t r• n .. ,_...,llrt t4.ll4."1 4SS ·,... '-'U/Oul*l-..s Jill. 1M .. , .. .,.....__ ... ~~ U.S44.·00 4$6 • TF Deb (MfVt' S70 •• S1 4JS•f•~ttC.Cer n.a04.W 4Sa·TF._.. st.J71~J 416 T .... IIIMd tl'94.174 .. SJ.n'Wa....,.._ SU40,JV <~JI•T•~'W<I'II u ..... eu 460·TFOIIIo~ ....... •u . r• U~~Mr •• ,_. SJ.165.t97 461·T'FTwlrt' .. ,.,. •u n....,.,_, suo~...-46l·1Y~ UM.MJ ••·n~o.Mo~,.... s60,U4 46Jo.f'W ..... u . .,. .. 10 +41 ·Til ••••••u• u.. su.m ............... Cia .. , ... -M)•TJIT.-.MW .. u.ua.-. 46$•TF ..... .._ .... ,.~ ... i141.0Jl .... .. n~ UUII .... fWI...,., i JSS..Dl) ... 7•1YKUtOtel u.n.nt +47•TIIll4f,._A,.. i4t5.J51 *·"Bldftfi'a'\:axtl .. ..,.nr ....... S17,Sl7 ..,•TFad:A .. 410 , .. .,... ........ st.5)) ., ... ,.. ............... 0. .. 4}l•TW~o..-,. ssat,aiJ i!;w. Finance Committee -TIFs: Fund Purpose "' llF ....... T ..... UPI.,l01 ..... _ "' , • ....,.. .... St .. ........ ___ ,_ -411·1?---....... ,,. 111/JJ D!tti;W.• 4'!0)·lY~I'II!fbodiiMrlelil~ Mss.on 1?0/U DIM Sena 416 1Y,...., $1,111-Ml lJlO/lJDitlt~ ... flf.....,C.Coe iii4.07J ----419 ... "*"'-'""'*' lo4,.1)4.\91 .., __ 4U •TIJ~ .... UU.Ii6 , . ......,.. .... 4.!1 -3ftcQ&t~ U.M4,411 Milc-0..~· .,. • " Get• [MI9f S'f.6S1 ... ,._ 4» ,.,..,....t~~*' U.,I04_.\t "'-· 45a •l iJ 'f',... $1,171.)2) ----.,. .... ...., ... tH4.1H "'-· 4)9-TIJW-~«<n S:I,H),Sil 01114¥ ........... "' Tlf~efW .. 11 ....... \ ---46t ·TIF C..~y ....... TFc..-OI'IIIOlNI!CI •n TrU~>Mo""""••"""--,,,,.,,,.,, ,,.,,"""'~· J67f,)SS ... .,... ...... 4lJ ·T·~~ .... 101 ... O..,.lf714o-4tJ -n-..... \e U69,.l•U .,....,_ 4l6-TFHIII~~~ ,60,1)4 (M f-.. a. ,...Q .. , Tlfllr\ftt'*" $1,..,5,410 Qwave.:OI:IIt~ 442 Tlf~tfU!oll Ul.ttl QltAftllllt.....,._. ... ... '" .,__...,. $1/,.JSO Milt.OtbtW.U 44J·fPT-'~Wft U.U1,60t .,._ ... ,c. ..... .. ,.nr......., SJ96,Mt ... Otbt~ 444TIF~II IM! UU,OJJ QI'Ait¥ IWCMV""~tnt .,..Tir~~M~~~~M U6,701 .... Otbl S4tMat 446-TII'IMJ_,.,. "~\.o-n Mil(, Ot.,_SM!c:. 447 -llfiOttllt41 Jl7l,U9 Hllt.CJtobtSI!....a +t1 ·Tif'~ltlhltA~ s.44J,351 ,_. O.bt StM.e 461 -tu ~hrt-.c:kz .. ~.NJt./Witt!tl. <Mt •Tiflldlnl'lla 111,\11 c-',.. "".,......"' 46f •llPitKIIA .. De¥./q,fWttelftl 450·TIF$ti"RI'IOt-.cJ ... UJ C'IP....,If'th -.t4TD~ .... II IJIOtnt ... OIIII .. Ot¥./lqi./Witl"lf .. 4.S1 ·11P'~OoWot , .... ., ~ ........... .0.. ..... f!d:1in Finance Committee -TIFs: How do TIFs impact the 5 yr CIP? Of' the tncome Til~~~ to.,..Capbl ~ Tu FW.S 10-4 will• ~ 1b pay41Ct teMCe onprGj«b.,..,__~.a.,'lflliMioiMdiOtah~proj«;!s Thl ~tmOUI"'!oldebl: tbal\.......,...., prGCIOied).,....,.,. exceed tiiO'!l Glh ~dii'ICIOIIM tax ,....,..,.~.pey6ttlr~ I ...,._.•"""' \ --............ , -·-\ -............ f!.i~in Finance Committee -TIFs: How do TIFs impact the 5 yr CIP? 2020 Capital Budget Resources Total $73,490,342 .... - . ..... ·~'- Finance Committee -TIFs: How do TIFs impact the 5 yr CIP? Outstanding debt supported by Income Tax rev enue (year debt re~redl ;coC...!Of £><-(2021) """'9 Pool Coos!Ntt.On (2025) -Ugh!s (2022) .,. eo--(2035 ..... c.-&:=a'on1203n -~'ltg!>~l203•r """"o.-.a """' (203ar ~ erou..o p.,. 12000r N<n~ Pool (2GC<lr· .._._._.._..aa_,.___.._,.___ ....... _....,...,.. .. '-'~-... _... ""lo.,.,...,.uw._....._. • ._........._eo....._,,_,__. • .._ i!:i':tin Finance Committee -TIFs: How do TIFs impact the 5 yr CIP? O<lt&land•ng debt supported by TIF revenue (~ relited) ·--C2020) nw'·T~RC*ICZC20) rwwonw-!~(202':) r.td ~ ... PtiMe 7A {2020) .... r~I'CA t01 ~C2Wt> r'llci~ .. Pt-.aul(2'l33) V$l31$Rl&11n-(ROW 2023~ :!OJA) r r, l•nciA.oq\,hiiOn(b R:~}(2Q33) ' .,..,...,. 0t RMilgM11nt'R~1' .. rt 120'35) S.l'lleiiJI P'arllw .. y Pt\au II {2036) • 8,_ P•rk fito.edw..,. N&tworl( (2035} ~ Pi11rk P1r1llnQ SINd.,.. 12035.'20441 i!.hlr.. Finance Committee -TIFs: How do TIFs impact the 5 yr. CIP? ----(~--------... .._._ .... "2 ~~ M : . ·-.. ... -· -----·-· --· -. --· -. -· -· -~ -· --. "-a\ i ., .:e .&; ..... -I I ($-·- ---------::.:--""::.---__ ...,_._ =--===-----.. _,.,__, ___ _ . -· . I w.-1 .. ._ .. , tuull N.la: _, . cG. +-------o..~\~;(,':·-~: I ·-Uii;L:I I :;::=--:::....- ::.:...-==-"'-.::: .... -..... ~--I --· ---··-I _ ...._.L_..--I ... : I ...:\.'.': . """'-. ..,..~ =t:.. ....... l., .... ~--·...., ~~.!..~ -----"~ I llllt!l. I l:!A:I: I a-·:1 I ii:AC ·~-· I m•1•e I ~;•~;·-. 4_ .. , I 'IC!I"I _, __ .,_.,,. I ... ,. I ........ I •N.,., . C'C" I ,..,., --·-·....iiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiDiiiliii ~.... Finance Committee -TIFs: How do TIFs impact the 5 yr. CIP? { Ot'abHn t;;;;m e.r:-= .. "'I a; "' ........ ~CJIMI --. . -· ..... -.-) -·· ' .... . . _.__.,.., ..... . . ........ ....__,QIIII:)J -. -* . . ........ ._..llliil_ ~ . ~-. -...... . -~ . ...... .__.~ -. -. ~ . ~ . ..... . ~-"'........_...-~ -~ . .-. -~ . --. ~ ....... ~ -' --. .... . . ........ -. . --. __ • .......,_ • -JIIIlj -. .......... ...,. . ~ . ._ ..... ___ c-. -. -. --. -. .,.._._.,......__ .... -I:J'W ... . """' -~ -. .._-....... -.......-..... c-~ .. ~ . ., . ...... . ~-~-:::: . ----·..-J .... . ..... . -. -· . """'" ....... llooiO--!a.! -. uo* . .... "".., . . UBI I -b# ..... . _,. . ....... I ~biin Finance Committee -TIFs: Takeaways 0 Service payment revE!nu~: must be used for capital improvements that provide an economic development benefit to the parcel(s) In a TIF district. 0 Service payment revenue from TIF districts are a significant revenue source for our CIP program, particularly regarding debt service . 0 Service payments diversify the CIP program's revenues making it more resilient to economic shocks . 0 The City's TIF districts are strong and functioning well. ----·--·· ·~ ~,.,_ ~-.. .. 1 ... CiblA i!wr.. Finance Committee -TIFs: Future Actions Regardi ng TIFs 0 T lfs with development agreem..:nt. .J For ~. lbe COmers TIF " ll'ee------!OIIo .................... __ ~mam to* DICk t::~e~fM7 arne ~ Mocllflcabon or existing TIFs to allow for new public capotalmfrastructure projects to be funded :l ::rm~O:U~an~~llrge~dtner:ty...-tt~fftJ~'nF :J Z>O/D-- :J -3~---:J ._'RlnQs/CM>, __ 0 Creation or new TIFs, particularly in area~ where TIFs could be used to pay debt service currently supported by income taxes .J ThtCltyhasmade~nlfiGat1t ln«::lrr.cnt:s In pybllc •nfrtttructlft, Po)rtieularlywth f'l!9i-rds to Ernt'fJid Pamvllv and trot Bndge Street Dllotrkl. The dcYe'lopmmt thilt rer..ub from these' PUbliC lnfra5UV:ture ~nt:s car1 be placed In 1 Tif d :;tttct tD pey fat t.hr Otv"s ~~;nent In PIA* lnfrt-Jruaure. ~ '""' ''"" i!;hifn Finance Committee-2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Appropriation History There is no policy guiding the level of community grant funding to be awarded In a particular year. Staff recommends and amount as part of the operating budget process and City Counci l has historically approved that amount without making any modifications. 2020 Appropriation: $200,000 (Awarded $203,785) The appropriation has been $200,000 smce 2009. ~ , ..... .... f~n Finance Committee -2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Hotel Motel Fund Summary 2020 Beginning Fund Balance: $4.0 million Current Fund Balance: $3.6 million 2021 Projected Fund Balance: $2.7 million • Unoffidel Fund Ba ldnLo: vol iLy i ~ to ma inta in a reserve of $2.0 to $2.5 million fo r expenditures associated with the Du blin I rish Festiva l. • Hotel Motel Tax Fund Revenues are expected to be signi fi cantl y Impacted by COVI D19. Th is Impa ct will last in to 202 1 and potentia lly beyon d. • Dublin hote l occ upa ncy is depe nde nt on bus iness trave l which may be slower to return than leis ure hotel stays. An estima te for 2021 hotel tax revenue is not yet available. -- • .... f Dublin Finance Committee-2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Hotel Motel Community Grant Policy Administrative Approval Any request for City services in which approval has been granted within the previous five years and the dollar amount req uested does not exceed the amount granted in any one year of the previous five years, wi thin a reasonable amount will be administratively approved . The organization must have fulfilled all grant requirements in previous year(s) In order to qualify for administrative approval. Any request for Oty serv~ces In which approval has been granted within the previous five years and the dollar value exceeds the amount granted in any one year of the previous five years, within a reasonable amount will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation to City Council. Finance Committee -2021 Bed Tax Community Grants 2017 .~~~lon -d Arthnt•• f-01.1,.\"'n • woao- OVbllnAMfltot.rv • 10,000 OUbltn At.r,.t fltot..-y •net tfOM Dublin Arts C:OunUI $ 25,000 S 2S,OOO • u.ooo • >s.ooo $ u.ooo Dublin , .. ,om.~ kn. ca •• $ >.S6S $ 1.,475 $ ~-$ l,U.Z • 1.112: Dublin t..otu•lc. Boo•t•~ Oublln kioto ~·• aoo..t•r• $ 6,29S $ 0.000 s 7.COO $ 11.000 • 0.000 OubHn ~CAtr l •••v• $ 1.0,000 • ....... $ U.820 $ U .798 $ U.79& tlvbUn ~P•~•:IM ~,o~tvmDu::s • '1.000 s .. ,.,. • OubUn UnU•d Soc:ur Cii.IP $ 5,340 • 0.000 s •.ooo $ 7,875 $ •.ooo Dvbfln Youtt, Athl•t" • $ >>.000 $ Club OhiO Sou«.. I' >5,000 $ Zl-.000 $ 2.2,\!SO $ u.uo s '·""' s 15,000 $ 7.000 $ u,ooo c ... wlord ttovln& fuun•l•tiQn $ u.ooo Crt~wford Hovlr'l& f:out'd•tton $ 1.:a',()(X) Crohn't •1\d CoUU• f-ounct•UOn s '-000 $ Gtont~l ~ $ 1,000 s 1,000 HOOA $ •,5,000 s ""-000 $ 60,000 s <o,ooo $ 50.000 s !JO,QOO l<lwo1nl' c;lub of OVblln $ 5.000 unc••h•d s 5,000 • 5,000 $ so.ooo $ '\Q,OOO s 6,000 s >.500 $ 5.000 $ >.000 Ohio Pr•ml•r ~1oCiet Club $ MOO $ 7,'100 $ . .-$ 7,300 $ 0.000 s 7.000 $ lO,SOO $ 7.000 Ohio Unlver81tv .$MlCON s >o.ooo $ 20,000 $ 18.000 • 10.000 $ 10.000 $ 10.000 ~ Wotld An;hery ot O~io >5000 $ 25000 $ 25000 s .., 1SO $ 2 280 $ 18);,,28S $230,765 ·--S U9,429 s:toz.ooo $Z24,9J$ $1M.060 • ..... r~·ahlln Finance Committee -2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Administrative Approval (con't) Any request from an organization for the cost of City services related to a race event (I.e. charity run) will be forwarded to the F1nance Committee for review and recommendation. Any request from an organiZation that has not received funding w1thin the previous five years, whether for Gty services or other funding, will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation. Any request for funding beyond the cost of Gty services will be forwarded to the Finance Committee for review and recommendation. Al lows for adminiStrative denial of grants for funding events that are received for events which require the temporary dosure of public roadways. ~ .... /Ji..blin ~ .... (Dublin Finance Committee -2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Events Eligible for Fundin g Grants are available for entertainment/cultural events and beautification projects that enhance visitor appea l, encourage overnight stays and enhance the qua lity of life in the Oty. Finance Committee -2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Policy Discussion and Questions: 0 Would the Finance Committee like to explore any policy changes relative to the administrative approval process or with regard to the eligibility of grants? • Staff would support the elimination of the administrative approval process • Alternatively, Staff would recommend add1ng a monetary fimit to requests el1g1ble for administrative approval and/or the development of additional guidelines • Recommend cap of $5,000 or $10,000 ~-­( Oubau1 ~~­r ~·ll:JIIn Finance Committee-2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Events No t-Eligible for Funding The following are not eligible for funding: • Individuals • Organizations that support political candidates or political philno;ophies • Organizations whose primary purpose is to mfluence, promote or attempt to lmtiate leg1slation • Organization In need of funding for travel outside of Dublin • For· profit ventures • Budget deficits incurred prior to appl ication • Endowments • Walking, Jogging, running or biking events which would require the temporary closure of any public roadway Finance Committee -2021 Bed Tax Community Grants Policy Discussion and Questions: 0 Would the Finance Committee recommend a change to the 2021 Bed Tax Community Grant Award amount? 0 Would the Finance Committee like to explore the creation of a policy regarding how the appropriation regarding the Bed Tax Community Grant Award amount is detenmined? i!,'btin Finance Committee -Commercial Leases Policy Djscussjon and Questions: 0 Does the Finance Committee recommend modifying the rent forgiveness associated with Subway? ::rent re>t lorg~Yencss "llilc the OCRC Is da5ed (Opened J\Joe a<') ~ 111C1Gfotlcn whlleSutway Is closed net toexteed December 2021 0 Does the Finance Committee recommend extending the rent forgiveness for Dublin Vtllage Tavern and/or Chamber of Commerce' Relt lorgiYI>l t April, May and June ~ ....... . i!.blin Finance Committee -Commercial Leases Recao of Council actjons regarding the City's leases: For Subway, forgive all lease payments while the Dublin Recreation Center remains closed to the public; For the Dublin Village Tavern and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, forgtve the lease payments for 3 months; Reevaluate this loan forgiveness prior to the end of the 3 month period for additional consideration; Authorize the City Manager to take the actions necessary to modify the lease agreements as necessary to execute the lease forgiveness. {!;i;1in Finance Committee -School Resource Officers Polley Djscussjon and Questions: 0 For the 2019-2020 school year the City and the School District have a reimbursement agreement totaling $306,126.36 for a total of 7 officers located in school buildings. :J This amount Is btllod II $30,612.64 <Net 10 roonth schocl VW' :.J The O:y has not billed the schocl tor the final two rnont1>s ol the 2019-2020 schocl Y"!< 0 Would the Finance Committee recommend a modification to the 2019·2020 SRO contract to forgive the final two months of the sc11ool year while the schools were closed? :.J SRO clfars porformed rrinomal ~ tor the schocl d<.wlng th<s tl.1>C :J MoVng the SRO ot!lces cut ol the sdxxlls and ll1tD the City's 1)001 ol available clfars wos beneficial to Oty opeabCin$ w!y tn the CCMD 19 ~period ~ ........ ..