My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-23-2021 JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE PACKET
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Joint Finance Committee
>
Packets
>
2021
>
02-23-2021
>
02-23-2021 JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2021 9:48:01 AM
Creation date
4/27/2021 9:46:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
date
2/23/2021
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Project Financing <br />There are generally two ways in which assistance can be provided for most projects, either upfront or on a pay- <br />as-you-go basis. With upfront financing, the City would finance a portion of the applicant’s initial project costs <br />through the issuance of bonds or as an internal loan. Future tax increment would be collected by the City and <br />used to pay debt service on the bonds or repayment of the internal loan. With pay-as-you-go financing, the <br />applicant would finance all project costs upfront and would be reimbursed over time for a portion of those costs <br />as revenues are available. <br /> <br />Pay-as-you-go-financing is generally more acceptable than upfront financing for the City because it shifts the <br />risk for repayment to the applicant. If tax increment revenues are less than originally projected, the applicant <br />receives less and therefore bears the risk of not being reimbursed the full amount of their financing. However, <br />in some cases pay as you go financing may not be financially feasible. With bonds, the City would still need to <br />make debt service payments and would have to use other sources to fill any shortfall of tax increment revenues. <br />With internal financing, the City reimburses the loan with future revenue collections and may risk not repaying <br />itself in full if tax increment revenues are not sufficient. The project financing as requested includes pay-as-you- <br />go for reimbursement of eligible costs. <br /> <br />Tax Increment Revenue Assumptions <br />The County Assessor provided a taxable value estimate for the project. To estimate the amount of available <br />TIF revenues generated by the proposed project, certain assumptions were made based on the value of the <br />project, construction schedule, and anticipated financing terms. <br /> <br />• Total existing value of $548,300 <br />o Parcel ID: 75-704-0205, 75-521-0120, 75-521-0110 <br />o Base value as of Jan. 1, 2020 <br />o Original net tax capacity (ONTC) of $6,854 <br />o Assuming classification as residential rental <br /> Rental classification is 1.25% <br />• Estimated total market value upon completion <br />o $21,759,300 <br />o 176 new units at $123,632/unit <br />• Classification for all units as rental <br />o Rental class rate (1.25% per unit) <br />• Incremental value based on difference between existing and new land/building value <br />• Construction commences in 2021 and is completed in 2022 <br />o Project values 100% complete for assess 2023 and taxes payable 2024 <br />• First increment collected in 2023 <br />o Election to delay first increment by up to 4 years <br />• Net present value (discount) rate of 4% <br />• 0% annual market value inflation <br /> <br />Tax Increment Revenue Estimates <br /> <br /> Revenue Estimates <br /> <br />Estimated annual available increment (full buildout) $332,678 <br /> <br />Total gross tax increment (15 years) $4,648,892 <br />City retainage (10%) $464,892 <br />Net amount available for development (90%) $4,184,000 <br /> <br />Estimated Present Value Revenues (15 Years) $2,819,203 <br /> <br />Financial Needs (Pro forma Analysis) including But-For <br />Upon approval of a TIF district and project, the City must make several findings, including the “but for” test: that <br />the proposed development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within <br />the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant has stated that but for the provision of tax increment
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.