1. Case Study:
FINANCING THE 169 / BREN ROAD INTERCHANGE
Merrill Shepherd King
Finance Director, City of Minnetonka, MN
104th GFOA Annual Conference
Atlanta, Georgia
June 9, 2010
2. The Plot
Crucial economic development zone
Development pressures
Capped transportation capacity
Expensive infrastructure fix
NO MONEY
4. The Lead
$7.8 billion assessed market value
¾ residential, ¼ commercial
~$12 million major water/sewer
enterprise
$11-$12 million annual capital budget
$27.5 million FY10 gen’l fund budget
5. The Lead
No local sales tax
$21 million total debt - legal limit debt
capacity of $255.5 million (3%)
~50% total budget & 75% of gen’l
fund budget from property taxes
No local income taxes
6. Opus Business
Park
• 1 sq. mile
• 80% comml
20% resid
• 12,400 jobs
3x by 2030
• 775 hholds
• Light rail
in 2016
8. The Other Players
State
Other cities
County School district
Area residents
Interested businesses
Other district businesses
9. Est. cost of new interchange $19.7 m.
State partnership - grants -$9.7 m.
Remainder to be financed $10.0 m.
10. Options Considered
• Tax abatement
• Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
• Transportation improvement district
County School district
Other district businesses
12. The Concept - Fairness
New development “pays its own way.”
Only property wishing to expand
beyond current use is affected.
Residential property is not impacted
unless redeveloped to commercial use.
13. Traffic Trip – single PM peak-hour traffic
count using the 169/Bren Road interchange
(from engineering traffic studies)
Definition:
14. The Baseline
Max. capacity (traffic trips) of current interchange
minus
Current traffic trips to current interchange
equals
Excess current capacity to be allocated
15. The Baseline
Allocation of current capacity based upon:
• Zoning – land use and max. density
• Trip generation rates – engineer standard
• Regional adjustment – Transit use,
carpooling, parcel peak times, etc.
• Geographic area in business district
17. Parcels below allocated capacity may develop
up to allocated traffic trips.
Parcels above allocated capacity are
grandfathered, but must pay for new
development traffic trips, i.e. the
capacity added by the new interchange.
No costs for status quo, no development.
18. Cost yet to be financed $10 million
Add’l capacity added by
new interchange
÷ 789 trips
Traffic Trip Fee
~$12,700 per
trip to new
interchange
19. Traffic Trip Fee Example
• Parcel at max. allocated trips
• Redevelopment will generate
total 35 new trips
• Located in pink zone (40%)
20. 35 new trips
x 0.4 geographic factor
14 trips to interchange
x $12,700 @ trip fee
$177,800 total trip fees due
Traffic Trip Fee Example
21. Private Partnership
• Its proposed new development will use
37% of new interchange add’l capacity.
$10 m. local cost x 0.37 = $3.7 m.
• Willing to contribute $5 million of costs.
UHG participation $5.0 m.
$1.3 m.UHG trip fee revenue share
22. Final Budget
UHG “trip fees” $3.7 m.
UHG partnership $1.3 m.
City investment $5.0 m.
Total project costs $19.7 m.
State grants $9.7 m.
20:80 UHG:city
23. Selling the Plan
Businesses, commercial property
owners, chamber of commerce
Residential properties, condo &
tenant associations
Commercial real estate group
City council, ordinance
25. Measuring Success
Benefits:
Property tax base increase $40 million
Permit revenue – initial,
one-time
$700,000
Job creation - initial devpt. 1,700 to city
900 to region
20-year capacity for increased traffic &
economic development
26. Traffic Trip Financing
KEY INGREDIENTS
Initial capital – existing assets, public or
conduit debt
No state or other legal constraints
Devpt analysis – traffic, market, planning
Ordinance
Partnerships – private, other governments