HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1985 Meeting
e
..--e
-
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
Capital Project/Revenue Work Session
McNutt Room--City Hall
June 3, 1985
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT:
Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman
Holmer, Debra Ehrman, Ruth Bascom, Jeff Miller, Roger
Rutan
Mayor Brian Obie called the work session to order. He announced that the
Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services had received an award dis-
tinguishing the program as the best in the country. City Manager Micheal
Gleason proposed an opportunity before City Council to recognize the depart-
ment.
Mayor Obie said the Conference of Mayors, scheduled for late June in Ancho-
rage, Alaska, planned to honor Eugene for its youth employment programs.
Ms. Ehrman accepted an invitation to travel to Anchorage to accept the award
for the city. Mayor Obie handed out copies of a front-page article on Eugene
from The Wall Street Journal of June 3, 1985. The article is entitled "Lost
Innocence."
I. RESPONSES TO FOLLOW-UP ITEMS FROM THE MAY 20 WORK SESSION
Finance Director Warren Wong introduced the item. Assistant City Manager Dave
Whitlow delivered the staff report. He referred to the agenda packet memo-
randum entitl ed "Fi nanci al Data. II The tabl es ill ustrate the Eugene Agenda
projected capital costs by project, and include costs for the proposed swim-
ming pool and the library. Page 9 shows projected income streams from a one
percent income tax and a one-percent employee payroll tax. Page 10 compares
the projected tax increment revenue streams without the passage of the sales
tax and with the passage of the sales tax.
Mr. Whitlow promised to have the requested comparison of per capita expendi-
tures and major revenue sources of comparable Oregon and Washington cities by
the next meeting. Answering auestions from councilors, he said this informa-
tion would provide a clear picture of the tax load of an average Eugenean com-
pared to citizens of similar cities in the northwest. A packet memorandum
entitled "Tax Increment Financing" gives a good surrmary of how this particular
revenue approach works.
Regarding distribution of costs for Eugene Agenda projects, Mr. Whitlow said
that staff recommended moving the more expensive projects further out in order
to even out the cash flow. Responding to auestions, he said "cost" referred
to the annual net cost.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session
June 3, 1985
Page 1
-
-
e
II. PRESENTATION OF REVENUE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
Mr. Wong referred to flow charts illustrating tax evaluation criteria as they
were presented at the May 20 work session. The criteria are efficiency, capa-
city, stability, and political acceptability. He introduced Ron Chastain of
Chastain Economic Consulting. Mr. Chastain referred to the statistical study
prepared by his firm which lists potential revenue streams based on: 1) a
City tax on State personal income tax taxable balance, and 2) a City surtax on
State personal income tax. He said only the figures for 1983 are actual data;
those for remaining years are projections.
Mr. Chastain said the figures in Table 1 represent the adjusted gross income
(AGI) minus deductions; the result is the taxable balance to which tax rates
are applied. A one-percent tax on the taxable balance in 1983 would have
raised approximately $7.4 million in new revenue. The second column of Tables
1 and 2 shows the percent change (I/%CH"), the annual growth assumpti on. He
called these assumptions an educated guess.
The charts on the following pages of the study show the percentage ratio of
taxes owed to AGI, the distribution of Lane County returns by AGI, and the AGI
for Lane County in 1983. Mr. Chastain said that about half the tax returns
for Lane County are to wage-earners with an AGI of less than $13,000. The
graph on page 5 entitled "Adjusted Gross Income for lane County, 1983" shows
in visual form that the greatest revenues come from those citizens in the AGI
bracket $20,000 to $40,000.
Pages 7-9 show the estimated one-percent-tax revenue stream resulting from the
exemption of a certain amount of income from the AGI. Totals are included at
the bottom of the page. Excluding $1000 per return, the total revenue collec-
ted from Eugene residents would be about $9.8 million; excluding $2000 per
return, about $9.3 million; and excluding $3000 per return, about $8.7 million
would be collected. The three tables show that, with roughly 50 to 60 thou-
sand returns in Eugene, about one-half million dollars of revenue would be
lost for every $1000 of income not counted.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Chastain what, in his opinion, would be a fair tax.
Mr. Chastain said he considered the surtax fair and easy to administer. He
added that a progressive AGI tax would exempt those with incomes below $5000.
Either tax could be built with a shelter for low-income people. It would also
be possible not to tax capital gains.
Mr. Chastain said the personal income tax was much broader than the payroll
tax, since the former taxed all incomes. He said his report included people
who live outside of Eugene but who work here. A future income tax could
include non-residents who earn their living in Eugene. However, it would not
be able to include those who moved their businesses beyond the city limits.
Mr. Chastain invited the councilors to call him if they had any further ques-
tions.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session
June 3, 1985
Page 2
e
e
III. PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM
Barbara Bellamy, City Information Coordinator, proposed a broad campaign to
gather public feedback on both the content and the means of funding the Eugene
Agenda. She proposed a three-week period, from July 15 to August 5, to get
word to the public. This would be accomplished by staff presentations at reg-
ular community group meetings and by town hall meetings within the councilors'
wards. The campaign would be geared toward a November election. Public talks
during the summer would be followed by a ballot proposal. More meetings would
follow to publicize the ballot measure.
Mayor Obie said there were four categories of items: the five Eugene Agenda
projects, the proposed new library and new swimming pool/community center, the
Federal Revenue Sharing funds issue, and the unfunded balance of the Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). The City needed to know what the public's priori-
ties were before deciding on a definite package.
Mr. Rutan said the array of programs was large and complicated. He wondered
whether town hall meetings would focus issues for the average citizen.
Mr. Holmer and Ms. Wooten both felt that City staff should go out with more
than questions; some kind of definite proposal was needed, even if it was only
provisional. Ms. Ehrman also thought a specific proposal would encourage more
public input.
Ms. Schue said it was important to let the community know that these items
would not be funded exclusively through public funds. Regarding the summer
information program, Ms. Bellamy said she was confident that enough groups
could be reached during the four weeks of July. Ms. Ehrman suggested exten-
ding the timeline to include the Lane County Fair in the third week of Aug-
ust. The deadline for filing the ballot measure will be October 2.
Discussing time outlay for public meetings, Ms. Bellamy said that each coun-
cilor would probably organize four meetings, for a total of about 36 meet-
ings. Staff will prepare documentation and support material. The length of
meetings would be about one hour. She suggested 15-minute slide shows and
flow chart presentations followed by general discussion. Ms. Wooten said the
impact of public comment may be great. Input must be taken seriously and the
councilors must be ready to rework the concept.
Ms. Wooten asked what the combined annual cost of every project presented to
council would be on a 20-year amortized basis. Mr. Whitlow said the total
cost of $342 million, divided by 20 years, came out to be about $17 million
per year.
The meeting resumed at 7:00 p.m. after a ten-minute recess.
After the pUblic
1 to October 2
2, the ordinance
Mayor Obie outlined the main goal dates along the timeline.
input campaign ending on August 5, the period from September
will be spent evaluating and reworking the plan. On October
will be adopted. The public will vote on November 5.
The councilors discussed at length which projects should be included in the
~ proposal. Mr. Holmer pointed out that the library and swimming pool, which
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session
June 3, 1985
~~3
-
e
e
are not Eugene Agenda items, would account for more than half of the total
revenues needed for the Eugene Agenda. He suggested that the Federal Revenue
Sharing Capital Projects should perhaps be omitted from the list because they
complicate thinking about the other projects.
Ms. Bascom noted that the pool and library occupied half of the item because
of ongoing operating expenses. Ms. Wooten thought the council should consider
the elimination of Federal Revenue Sharing projects, which would amount to
$82 million if that revenue were forthcoming. Ms. Wooten proposed going
around the table and letting each councilor name preferences for the package.
This would be the first step before going on to discussions of funding sources.
Mr. Miller said airport expansion was his first priority, followed by those
Capital Improvements Projects which had been funded by Revenue Sharing. It
was necessary to decide whether the public would be presented with a full or
an abbreviated package.
Mr. Holmer favored separating the pool and 1 ibrary as a separate "menu. II They
should be separate on the November ballot. He was concerned that so much was
being planned for the first ten years without additional revenue sources.
Ms. Schue agreed that the library and pool should be separated from the rest
of the items. The public needs to indicate priorities and a "menu" should be
offered. However, there should be no "menu" on the final ballot, but a cohe-
sive package.
Ms. Ehrman said she leaned towards a menu-oriented ballot. Voters should have
a chance to decide for individual items.
Mr. Hansen named his preferences in this order: airport terminal expansion,
Riverfront Science Park, and the total CIP needs. He felt these should be
offered as one package. He expressed concerns about building a new swimming
pool. Public input was necessary to guide the council in its final choice.
Mr. Rutan indicated that his contacts with the business community had con-
vinced him that they had little understanding of the Eugene Agenda and related
items. They had not had access to enough information. He called for a simple
format for introducing the items to the public and gathering feedback.
Ms. Wooten said she supported the idea of airport terminal improvements,
including improvements for the second level. She proposed removing the River-
front Science Park from the package because it will probably be financed by
tax increment funds; it did not need to be presented to the voters. On down-
town revitalization, Ms. Wooten was concerned that there was no developer.
While she expressed support for the project, she did not think it could be
included in the revenue reouest without a guarantee of what will happen there.
Regarding transportation, she thought it would be best to consider how to
blend specific transportation issues into the unfunded capital infrastructure
requirements. She said entrance beautification was not a "frill" but an
important project. The pool and library should be separate ballot items.
Finally, she proposed looking at the CIP list to make sure that it did not
contain serious omissions.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session
June 3, 1985
Page 4
e
e
Ms. Bascom wanted to test public support for eight items: the pool and
library, the beautification program, transportation and street overlays, down-
town revitalization, the airport expansion, and the Riverfront Science Park.
She was against having separate menus on the ballot. She preferred "weeding
out" one package from the total list and presenting this to voters.
Mayor Obie listed his priorities in this order: airport, Riverfront Science
Park, downtown revitalization, entrance beautification, and transportation
improvements. He said the downtown plan needed much definition; the public
plaza concept should be studied. He asked staff to consider where FRS-funded
programs would fit into the picture now that this revenue was not forth-
coming. He hoped to see these programs integrated into a new Eugene Agenda.
The library and pool should be separate ballot issues. He favored presenting
the priorities listed above as a single package.
Ms. Schue hoped there would be no gap between what was presented to the public
and what was placed on the final ballot. She said staff guidance was needed
for the question of how private funding sources will fit into the scheme.
Mr. Miller expressed concern that one big package might increase the chances
of defeat; voters' reservations might be lessened if they knew they could
choose some items and reject others. This idea should be explored during the
pUblic input campaign. The councilors reached a provisional consensus that
the library and pool should be presented during July meetings as a separate
package. Whether or not they were put on the ballot would depend on public
response. Ms. Ehrman wondered if the ballot measure was for approval of a
revenue source or for the projects themselves. Mayor Obie said there must be
assurances of what the money will go toward; therefore revenue sources and
specific projects could not be separated.
Changing the course of deliberations, Mr. Hansen said it would be foolish to
break things up and present them as separate packages. All the items should
be presented as a unit during the July meetings. Public response would deter-
mine what is then chosen as a unified package for the November ballot. The
councilors agreed this would be the best policy. Mayor Obie asked Mr. Gleason
and staff to prepare a one-page information sheet on each item for the next
meeting.
Discussing specific program descriptions, Mr. Gleason said it would be neces-
sary to separate the phrase "Federal Revenue Sharing" from these issues; FRS
was a revenue source, not a project. Regarding the library, he said the deci-
sion to build a new one or expand the old one must be made after a decision to
fund it through the public process. The cost of either decision would be
about the same. On the downtown plan, he hoped the retail projects would be
supported by tax increments. The public cost of the public plaza must be
defined. Parking for retail development will also be covered by tax increment
financing. CIP projects that do not fit under the heading "Transportation"
should be grouped under "Entrance Beautification."
IV. CAPITAL FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
~ Mayor Obie asked the councilors to state what revenue source they considered
~ most fair, effective, and feasible.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session
June 3, 1985
Page 5
e
e
e
Mr. Hansen preferred some form of income tax to a payroll tax. Ms. Schue
agreed this would be the best financing method. She added it would be neces-
sary to draw up a plan for half the proposed revenue amount if voters did not
want to give the whole amount.
Ms. Bascom and Ms. Wooten supported a City income tax on adjusted gross
income. Ms. Wooten asked for information on the possibility of exempting the
first $7500 of income. She said there should also be discussion of a phased
percentage increase in the tax rate. No tax could be levied without first
discussing the issue with Springfield and Lane County officials.
Mr. Rutan said his criterion was simplicity. He favored a one-percent per-
sonal income tax without the modifications proposed by Ms. Wooten. The first
question was whether a tax would be palatable to the public; after this was
known, then ways could be found to make the tax as fair as possible.
Mr. Hansen preferred a payroll tax since this would affect the people who work
in the community but live outside of it. An income tax would have to include
the people of Springfield and Lane County, since they use our facilities.
Ms. Ehrman supported the personal income tax on the AGI. She thought a corpo-
rate tax should be included. Also, an airport user fee would include people
who use City facilities but live elsewhere. Ms. Schue thought this proposal
was a good idea. She favored the income tax over the payroll tax. Mr. Glea-
son pointed out that the income tax would indeed tax non-residents, as well.
He said residents of Vancouver, B.C., who work in Portland, pay Oregon state
income tax.
Mr. Holmer said he would have problems with a $7500 income exemption.
Mr. Miller supported a one-percent income tax on AGI with a shelter for low-
income people. He asked what impact the recently passed State gas tax of one
cent per gallon would have on transportation projects. Mr. Wong answered that
it produced $525,000 per year dedicated to street and road improvements.
Mayor Obie proposed asking Lane County and Springfield to impose 20t per $100
of property tax for airport improvements. If a countywide ballot measure to
this effect passed, it would produce an annual revenue stream of $1.3 mil-
lion. He favored a personal income tax for both individuals and businesses,
but not on the AGI. Shelters for low-income people and for small businesses
should be further discussed by the City Council. He considered it necessary
to tax businesses for the sake of neutrality.
The councilors discussed the pro's and con's of taxing corporations.
Mr. Rutan said he was not comfortable with this proposal. Mr. Holmer said
such businesses pay taxes anyway, and they could always respond to a tax by
raising the price of goods. Ms. Wooten supported the idea of a business tax
in the interest of fairness. She proposed taking both variations--a personal
tax alone, or a personal plus corporate tax--to public hearings for comment.
She stressed the need to hone the costs of projects as much as possible with-
out shortchanging the City. Mr. Hansen wanted more information on how to
apply the income tax beyond the city limits.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session
June 3, 1985
Page 6
e
e
e
The next meeting was set for June 17, 1985, at 5:30 p.m. in the McNutt Room.
t 8:45 p.m.
WA:vr/1786C
MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session
June 3, 1985
Page 7
-
e
e
~
.. .
May 31, 1985
To: City Council
From: Warren G. Wong, Finance Director
Subject: Responses to May 20 Follow-up Items
At your May 20 worksession, you directed staff to follow-up on several items.
We have prepared responses to some of the items and have a status report on
the remainder. The follow-up items are as follows:
1. Per capita expenditures and major revenue sources of comparable cities.
Status -- Budgets have been requested from several Oregon and Washington
cities; analysis should be available in late June.
2. Fiscal schedules by individual project with all resources and require-
ments.
Status -- Included in packet.
3. Description of Tax Increment concept and response to specific questions.
Status -- Included in packet.
4. Surtax yield on Federal and State "Taxable Balance."
Status -- Information being developed for distribution at worksession.
5. Alternative project sequencing to "even out" cashflow requirements.
Status -- Further direction required from Council; see Agenda item #2.
6. Income Tax yields with low-income exemption.
Status -- Information being developed for distribution at worksession.
7. Comparison of Tax Increment yields for Riverfront Science Park and
Downtown Revitalization assuming passage and failure of Sales Tax measure.
Status -- Included in packet.
fnwgw624
M E M 0 RAN DUM
-
May 31,1985
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Eugene Development Department
SUBJECT: TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
At the May 20 meeting of the City Council, additional information was
requested from staff on tax increment financing. This memorandum reviews how
tax increment financing districts are established, how tax increment
financing works, the process for establishing a district, and the financial
considerations of tax increment financing. .
-
Background and History of Tax Increment Financing
Tax increment financing for renewal projects was passed by the Oregon Legis-
lature in 1961 following a constitutional amendment in 1959. Since that time
Eugene has established three renewal districts: the downtown Central Eugene
Project, a residential project near the University of Oregon, and the State
Street project in the Bethel-Danebo area. The two residential pro- jects
have been completed and were closed out. The Central Eugene project is still
operating and continues to address downtown goals and objectives.
Establishing Tax Increment Districts
Tax increment districts are established by action of the governing body of
the City or County. The districts are administered by a renewal agency which
has certain powers under the provisions of the State statutes. The Eugene
City Council is the official renewal agency for the City of Eugene but the
council may, as it has done in the past, appoint a separate body to
administer a renewal district.
A renewal district is established upon completion of a renewal plan. The
first step in setting up a renewal district is determining an area which
contains certain deficiencies as outlined in the State statutes. These
blighting influences form the basis for the objectives of the proposed
district. Most important, a financial analysis is undertaken to determine
the cost of correcting the blighting influences and to determine the cost of
other projects which implement the goals and objectives of the district.
In the case of the proposed Riverfront Park, the blighting influence would be
the lack of adequate access, the absence of adequate utility systems,
deficient building conditions, and areas subject to flooding.
After the costs are estimated, a financial plan is put together to show how
the projects will be financed. This is where tax increment financing becomes
,important as it can provide the primary means to finance the projects.
e
e
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
May 31, 1 985
Page 2
How Tax Increment Financing Works
Tax increment funds are generated by the incremental value of the property
in the renewal district. At the time of the adoption of the tax increment
district, the real property value is considered "frozen" for purposes of
calculating how much incremental value is generated. As the value of the
property rises due to the stimulation caused by the public improvements to
correct deficiencies in the area, incremental funds are generated. That
increased value over the frozen base is multiplied by the consolidated tax
rate for that area. The assessor collects the property tax and returns that
portion of the incremental value to the district so that the funds can be
used to implement the adopted renewal plan in accordance with State
statutes.
In order to obtain funds to initiate projects, a renewal district can
receive grants, borrow funds, or sell tax increment bonds based on expected
increment to be generated. The financial analysis in the renewal plan
report outlines how tax increment revenues and other funds can be used over
a period of time to pay for the public improvements. The size of a bond can
be determined based on this analysis. This financial plan must demonstrate
that the renewal project is financially feasible.
e How Long Can Tax Increment Districts Last?
The State statutes require a completion date for each renewal project.
The completion date is usually determined by the financing plan and would
not terminate prior to any bonded indebtedness obligation for which tax
increment revenue is pledged. A renewal district would be expected to be
closed out when both the debts have been satisfied and the objectives of the
project have been met.
Effect of Tax Increment Districts on Other Taxing Subdistricts
The formation of a tax increment district and the segregation of funds does
not take tax money away from other tax jurisdictions; thus, other taxing
districts do not lose money as a result of tax increment districts. The tax
rate is affected because the assessed value over the frozen base of the
renewaT district is available only to the renewal district. Usually the
difference in the tax rate is about a few cents on the dollar per thousand
of assessed value. When the renewal district is terminated the other taxing
jurisdictions will not receive additional revenue, but the tax rate should
decrease as a result of the assessed value not available to those
districts. The State statutes require a report on the fiscal impact of the
renewal district to other taxing jurisdictions. .
e
~
e
e
-
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
May 31, 1 985
Page 3
What Happens to Excess Revenue?
Excess tax increment funds remaining after payment of all debt and operation
of the renewal district would be returned to the taxing jurisdictions when
the district is closed out. The State statutes require that the County
treasurer disburse the funds back to the taxing jurisdictions within the
renewal area according to a proration formula.
Effect of the Proposed Sales Tax Legislation on Tax Increment Financing
The proposed sales tax will have different effects for renewal districts
established before and after the effective date of the sales tax legislation
(April 1, 1986). Since tax increment is dependent on the consolidated tax
rate of all taxing jurisdictions in the renewal area, there will be a loss
of revenue upon adoption of the legislation and the lowering of the educa-
tional districts' tax levies. That reduction is estimated at about 35
percent for Eugene. For tax increment districts established prior to
April 1,1986, the legislature has determined a formula to gradually, rather
than abruptly, reduce tax increment income. This formula will reduce the
increment tax rate by ten percent over a nine-year period or until it
matches the existing rate. The County Assessor is charged with this
determination. This gradual phase-out is intended to avoid default of
outstanding bond payments. The impact of the phase-out formula will be that
it will take longer to generate the increment flow otherwise available.
This could result in a delay of implementing some projects for two to four
years.
WW:pm/197
e
e
-
FIN A N C I A L D A T A
Pages 1 through 7 show the capital and operating costs for each of
the projects in the Eugene Agenda including the Library and the Pool.
Page 8 summarizes all the project costs and includes the other unfunded
capital and operating expenses for a total of additional cash needs.
Page 9 shows the projected income streams from a 1% Income Tax and a
1% Employee Payroll Tax.
Page 10 compares the projected Tax Increment revenue streams without
the passage of the Sales Tax and with the passage of the Sales Tax.
em IF EI.W€ )
ElroE AliOOA CIIlITIl. l:llSTS BY PIIIJa:T
lliy 28, 1'385
1m's)
VA I VH YR3 VA 4 YR5 VA 6 YR7 YR8 YR9 YR II YRII YR12 VA 13 VR 14 VR 15 VR 16 YR 17 VR 18 VA 19 VA 21 TUTIl.
RI~ SCIOCE PARK
!. CllPlTRl COST RElIJI~ElIElITS 1,- 25lI 2, 158 125 1,538 1111 1111 75 125 2,535 58 25 58 25 1,711 25 I 9,865
2- IMUUllllE PIlllJECT RE\9t( 3lIlI 1111 7N 38 5N 31 38 25 38 Il5I 15 II 15 II s:II II 3,285
J. CIIllTll. 6lI' (1-2) 7N 158 1,458 'l5 I,D 71 71 :51 'l5 1,r.&5 3S 15 3S 15 1,1:51 I IS 6,668
--
4. IHUl. CIIlITIl. MIl IOiIlEIlIItBT EXPaI)ITIIIES
Tox 1........,,1 - 2.6ll I . 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 385 385 385 J85 385 385 385 5,4'17
Tox I~I - 1.1lI! . I . . 8 I . I 8 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 2oJ2f.
C.pihl EJ<~il...... 7M 158 . 8 8 45 71 58 'l5 . . I I . 1,145 I 15 . I . 2,m
Tohl EJ<~i\",," 711 158 J85 385 315 3SI m 35:l 4iI --m 517 517 517 -W I,r.r.z -W 532 -W 517 517 18,8'33
LESS.
S- In I CATtII IIE'w9((S
AVAlUiU FtlR CIIlITIl. &
IIllIClED DEBT EXP. 17 26lI 5N 751 !175 1,2:51 1,668 1,751 1,621 I, '351 2,11.,1 2,171 2, IN 2,198 202M 2,215 2,2f5 2,235 2,235 31,542
6- ADO I TIIJllI. AEVEII.E NEElS
FOR IIJ1IIED DEBT 7N 133 45 (195) (445) 12381 I I .
Ie. D & " FtlR EI.EEHE AIDDA
m: I.N I.N I.N 5.111 50N 6.N 6.118 6.N 6.111 7.N 7.88 7.11 7.81 7.N 7.N 7.11 7.111 7.111 7.11 7.N 7."
PnlJlchd Cosh Jt let 111I 318 347 413 411 433 449 517 5J(, ~ 576 5'.17 619 S4Z 666 698 716 742 9,614
TOTIl. AMJtE I&DS
FOR RI~IlFROO !l:10CE
PA!IJI. ( 6 +III 731 313 2f5 123 (91) IllS 411 433 "9 517 5J(, ~ 576 5'.l1 m S4Z 666 698 m 742 9,614
--
A59JClTllNh 1.) Pnlill' of Shll SAI.. To ...., hopollUon of 1ri1flci.1 COMOlIdalld pr'Oll8I"ty I.. ral. for To I,.,.,..-M DilIrid.. 2.) Ri_fronl
T.. Inc.....I Dillrlcl IIhblllllld prilli' 10 April I, 1986. J.) o...-Ihird of Infrlllructon 001\ flnarad by _I.. ....1."... 4.) llill..
_Iopor prcwldll parki"ll faclllli... 5.) Oporall"ll and ..lnllNld _I not fllndod by T.. 1.....-1. 6.) To 1....-1 .IU..\oly
a..... dolll ......l~ and ~1' GlMral FIInd f... d.bl ......l~ pa~h _ durl"ll lotllhl pll"iod of dobt.
PA6E 2 armRltTHIl PERlllh 17 yH,.. - PnlJoc:t built In Ihroe II'RII, wilh IIclI ~ COI9lotod ~I '.ppro....1I1y f1.. 1'''' lot....al..
e e e
CITY IF El.GI€ ) )
ElmE AliENllA ClI'ITII. alSTS BY PRllJECl
IUy 28, 1'l8:5
(IM',I
IXIIITlWI REYlTIl.IZATIlJl YllI Yll2 VR 3 VR 4 Yll5 VR 6 VR7 VR 8 VR 9 YR II YRII Ylll2 YllI3 Ylll4 VR 15 VR 16 VR 17 VR 18 VR 19 Yll21 TUTII.
I. Cll'ITII. alST REWIREJEIr.S 6,112 6,218 8,2'.12 8,_ I I I I I I I I 21,828
2. IMlILRIlI.E PRlllEI:T IeIEIU 219 2,221 I I I I 2,448
3- ClI'ITII. 6lII (1-2) 6,112 5,999 "171 8,J16 I I I I I I I I 26,388
4- INUl. ClI'ITll AIGl BlNID DEBT EXPEKlITtllES
Tu I~ - 2.611 I 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,41. 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,41. 1,411 1,411 1,411 26,781
Tul~-1.8Il I I I 785 785 785 785 7115 7115 7115 7115 785 785 7115 785 7115 7115 7115 7115 785 11,981'
Clplhl Expll'dltUJ'ft I I I I 941 941 941 941 948 941 948 941 941 941 948 948 948 94t 94t 948 15,13:1
Tot II Exp...1Il UJ'ft I 1,411 1,411 2,114 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,1154 3,854 53,797
LESS,
50 DEDICATED REVEMJES
IMllUULE FOR ClI'ITlI. l
IICNlEIl DEIlT ElP.
Till IlO'NI!lt IlovInut 681 1,461 1,52:1 I, r.34 1,732 1,818 I,R! I, CJ53 1,1lS! I,~ 1,827 I, 'l82 1,'J79 2,169 2,368 2,577 2,797 31,926'
Prking Progr.. Rrttnul 428 818 ~ 'l82 947 993 1,843 1,896 1,1:18 1,218 1,2f>9 1,331 1,3'.l8 1,468 1,541 1,618 1,699 19,769
6. IIIlDlTIlJR. REVEllE NEEDS
FOR IOIIlED DEIlT 1,411 1,411 .1,885 775 671 518 375 243 119 5 47 92 (42) 1I79) 13231 (5831 1m> U,141l U,4-42) 2,111
1" o l " fOIl EI&IE lmO\
FTE UI ...1 .._ I." I." 2._ 2._ 2._ 2.N 2.88 2." 2." 2." 2.N 2." 2.N 2.N 2._ 2." 2." 2."
ProJICled CoIh I I I 31 31 72 74 n Be B3 86 89 92 95 98 182 116 189 113 117 1,454
T1ITII. AEVEIU NEED!l FOlI
00lM0IIIl REYITII.IZATllJI 1 1,411 1,411 1,13:1 816 742 S92 452 323 212 91 136 184 53 C81l 12211 (m) 17461 U,828) U,211 3, 55:l
( 6 . II ) --~- ---
AS9JIlTIlJI!h I.) Pu..gl of SlIl. Soln Tu IJld 1..ltlOll of orhfiei.1 conoolidlled proporty lu ..t. fot' Tu l.....-rt Dlllrieh. 2.) Bulld-oul 0'
...... Iqllitl fill, 1111'I' MJOI' IrdIors. 3.1 Clly lCljuirn Iud ud ...Ioc.ln CIII'1'IIlt bull__, 11111 l.rd 10 _lopo1'" .1 urltdClOlllo
4.) CIly buildl pII'kJ"lI helllll" 11,_ ."..,..). 5.) Opll".lIng ud Mlnt-.cl COlt. fO!' public 'peeI nol 'urded by r.. 1~1. 6.1 P,Id partll.g,
..y ..1,1I11l11'1d or .,lIdlled prltl"ll 11th In i.Itiol 'r.. pirlllng pll"iod. 7.1 DpII".lI"l1 ud MlntlNftCl cool for pirlling .lnlCtlll'ft funded by partll"l
revtflUl. 8.1 P.,.U"llI'l't.... ,upporh part of !llbl servicl on poIr~ing .lrllClurn. 9.) Tu I~I .1I111111y '10." a.bl servlco ord "'poI)'I
s.-.I FlIrd"fOl' dtbt ......Ico pI~' lid. during inl\hl pll"iod 0' dobl. II.) CoII.....I baud ... ori;11II1 'foolprlnl' ,ublilhd by ....Iopor.
PAlE 3 e ClJ/STIltTIlJl PERIOD, 4 )'I.....
e e
em rF ElIiEI€ ) ) )
~ I&lIIlll ClIllll\. CIlSTS i1 ll1WEC\
lIoy 28, 198:1
(M',) ,
VAl Yll2 Yll3 YR 4 YR 5 Yll& YR 7 YR 8 YR 9 YR II YR II Ylll2 YR 13 Ylll4 YR 15 YR 1& YR 17 YR 18 YR 19 YR2I TUTl\.
TIPlSllOIlTAT I lJI
I. CIlPITIl. lDST REllJlREIIOOS 75 &,311 8.~ 28 5,1!;l; r.,ln 4,372 28 21 1,115 I 31,414
2. A'lAI1.llIU PlIOJECT RNIU ~ 5, 788 8,111 4,581 r.,19 4, J:52 I . 1,- I . . . 29,743
J. ClPITl\. GAl (1-2) 25 5JI JJ5 21 Ii66 28 21 21 21 15 I . I 1,&71
4. INUI. ClIlITl\. All) IIlIlDED DEBT ElIlElllITUlES
C.pil.1 E>cperllil1ll'ft 25 5J8 JJ5 28 Ii66 28 21 28 28 15 I 1,&71
Tot.1 ElperIlil,", 25 5JI JJ5 28 Ii66 28 21 21 28 15 I I 1 1,&71
liSS.
5. lIEDlCArol REVDtEl
IMlluaE FOR ClPITII. I
BlJCIEI) DEBT EXP. I I 1 I I I I I I,
&. AllIlITIIJR REVEJft.( NEEDS
FOR IIt1lDED DEBT 25 5JI JJ5 28 Ii66 28 21 28 28 15 I 1 1,&71
II. o , " FOR ElEEIE IlliEICIA
FTE I.N .... 1.11 1.21 1.22 1.22 ..35 1.35 1.35 1.3& 1.45 "46 1.46 1.47 I.H 1.\41 1.\41 ..48 1.49 1.49 ..49
ProJod" Cooh I I 7 14 15 15 i!5 2(, 27 28 11 38 48 " 4J 44 46 48 51 52 595
TOIII. RMIU tEml FOIl
TIASlOATATIlJI 25 5JI J42 J4 &81 35 4S 46 47 43 11 38 48 41 4J 44 46 48 58 52 2,266
1&. II I
AS9M'TIIJ6. 1.1 &lhl7th Amwn pI'OJocl furxlod by Drovon Dtporl..,,1 of Tronsporhlion. 2.) Forry StrMl Bridge """,Ir""lion nol fundtd by loc.1 ....,1ll\II.
J.) 51 lie .rd CoUllly fIlrdill\l reqdred 10 inltl.le .rd ",,"plele proJodL 4.1 ProJICh 1r",11III1I &lhl7lh Widening' EltoMio.. ROOMVIIl -
Higlltoly 9'l 10 IIople, ROOHVIIl - 811tllrw 10 D'rIIbo, Forry 51rMl Bridge Doeig.. R.ilrood Cl'oI.ill\l Upgrldn, 181h Av..... Wid.nill\l - Cily VI" 10 Arth...,
Iltlllirw EJI...I"" - IIlh 10 Will.. Crtt4<, Torry - IIlh 10 Borill", Will.. CrIIIk Rood - IIlh 10 181h.
C1J61RlI:TIllIl PERHlh II YHF'I - ProJod elort dill dlponoWnl on 'urdill\l .v.ilobilily ,.... ,hI. ond ","""y ~L
IlG 4
e e e
CITY CF El.6E.'€ ) )
El&lE &NDA tIIlITIl. cans BY PIIlJEC,
Illy 28, 19&5
IM'll
~I ~2 YRJ YR 4 YRS YR6 YR 7 YR 8 YR 9 YR II YR 11 YR 12 ~13 YR 14 YR IS YR 16 YR 17 YR 18 YR 19 YR 21 TOTIl.
00RAlCE IlElIITIFICllTlOl
10 ~ITIl. OOST REOOIR9EMTS G02 641 2S 611 2S 2S I I I, CJ28
2. RYAIUaE PROJECT REVEIU I 61 I 61
3. tIIllTll. IllP lJ~1 682 641 2S 551 2S 2S . . I 1,868
4. INlR. till ITIl. IWGl IIlNIEIl IEBT EJIlEHlII1\.IRES
C&?ihl EKlJ8ldit...... 682 641 2S 551 2S 2S e e I 1,868
Totol E.lJ8ldltUl'lll 682 641 2S 551 2S 2S e I 1,868
LESS:
5. llEDICllml IlEVEftS
A'IllIUlllE FIlA tIIlITIl. I
00IIlED DEBT EXPo I I I e I I I I
6- ADOITIOIIl. REVm.E IEmi
FOR lQClfI) DEBT 682 641 2S 551 2S 2S I I I I 1,868
II. o , " FIlll aIlllE l&JlIIA
FTE 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.11 3.88 3.N 3.N 3.11 3.. Jo. 3.N 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.N J." J.N JoN 3.. 3.11 3...
ProJl!ded Coth 'lI 'l4 97 III IS9 16S 172 I7B 186 193 211 219 217 i!26 23:5 2H ~ 264 275 286 3,845
l1ITll. REVEIU NEEDS
FOR EHTIlIN:E IIElI1IIFICllTIQN
16+ II I 692 735 1i!2 6S1 184 191 172 178 186 19J 211 2t9 2J7 i!26 2J:5 2H ~ 264 275 28li 5,713
Il5S1.K> TIlRh 1.1 IIp....ti'''l lI'd ..lnllll\lJn OO$tl not ful'llld by proJocl .........ted nrvlllUlo 2.) ProJodl 1,.,ludo, Rlrport ArH L.ndsc.pin., Big Y Arol LmllCljling,
High.., 99 0w0rjlI1' IOIlh of ~ T..... B.nki"i 61hl7th Avtnuos, Yi....1 I.~h .t hi IIld YIIl JMoon 10 01uber1 Comoclor,
Jeth _Ill LlI'IlSClpl"i - Ag.tl 10 Hllyl1'll, Ibt"k Station Area LlI'd...pi"i, \loot 1I1h BolullfiuUOII - 01IIIb0rs to City L1lil.,
HI"",,y 99 Pondl Bo..UfinUOII, Bignl"'l .1'Il Lighting al City Entr_
CONSTRlCTlll'l PERI III , 6 Y""o
IlI& 5
e e e
C If! Of" El.GENE ) )
E\JWE I&IOl ClI'ITIl. COSTS BY PRllJ!t:1
lIoy 28, 1911S
I~'.I
YRl YH VII 3 YR 4 YR S YH YR 7 YR 8 VII 9 YR I' YR II YR 12 VIIIJ YR 14 YR 15 YR 16 VII 17 YR 18 YR 19 YR 28 TOTIl.
POl. & ClMUiITY COOO
I. ClVlITRl. COST Rf:lllIlREMOOS 41 2,586 I,SH . . . . 4,201
2- AllAILJaE PIlOJECT RE\9U: . . . .
J. ClI'ITIl. SAP (1-2) 41 2,586 1,574 . . . . 4,201
4. INUl. ClI'ITIl. IIoll lIOOlED DEBT EJPENDIT\JIIEll
6. O. eo", - 4.2lI 8 . 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 1,387
~ih1 Expol'dil...... . 41 . . . . 8 . . . I I . . . . I . . 41
Tohl Expordlt...... 41 493 493 4'13 4'13 4'13 493 4'13 4'13 493 493 4'13 4'13 493 4'13 4'13 493 4'13 I, 427
LESS:
5. DEDICATED ~
Rl'AlLAlllE FOR ClI'ITIl. &
lIlNlEIl DEBT EXP. . I . . . I
r.. IUlOITItM. REV9Il.E NEIDS
FOR OONDED DEBT 41 493 493 493 493 4'lJ 493 493 493 ,493 4'13 493 493 493 493 493 493 4'lJ 8,427
II. o & M FOR ruDE I&NDA
m ... a.. a.1t I.. 8... 8... 8... 8.. a... a... a... 8... a.. 8." a... a... a.. a... 8." 8." 8."
ProJoctld Cosh 8 . I . 258 268 278 289 J8I 311 J23 336 349 362 376 391 416 42J 439 457 5,566
TOTIl. REVEIU NEEDS
FOR POl. & (DOUj1TY
lI'im I 6 + 18 ) 41 493 7'.i2 761 771 782 7'lJ 814 816 829 842 85:i 87. 884 - 916 933 951 13,993
ASSJI'TIlNh I.. 25 yll'd pool .I'd ..-unily ..nllr 111111.,. to Sl1eldcll c-mlty tont...., 2.) Slgnilie..t _.ting ond IdntlllUla COlt..
ClMT1I\.CT1l1l PERllIlh 3 yo.....
PAll 7
e, e. e.1
CITY IF EI.6EIf: ) )
E\IEE I&NIlA ClIllTll. asT5 BY PlIlJECI
'~y 28, 1985
(.... I)
VA I VR 2 VR 3 VH VR 5 VB YR1 VR 8 YR9 VR II VR 11 VR 12 VR 13 VR I~ VR 15 VR 16 YR 11 VR 18 VR 19 VR 21 TDTll.
16- TOTll. IlMllE moo FIJIl El&IE RIDM BY PlIlJECT
Suaory of P.gn I througll 1.
Airport Yo",i",1 Ex"""ion 1,~11 1,386 1,386 I,22\! I,22\! 1,188 1,188 955 955 918 819 837 ~ 7~9 111 ~I 598 ~3 48S 42~ 18, 293
Riverfront Science Pri 738 313 ~ li!J (98) I~ 411 433 "9 511 536 5S:s 516 5'11 619 642 66Ii 691 116 742 9,61~
Doont.... ~i t.li ution I 1,418 1,418 1,Il3:i 8e6 742 592 4Si! 323 2e2 91 136 164 53 (811 (2211 (4711 (7461 U,e281 U,3251 3, 5S:s
Tr.".porhlion 25 531 342 ~ 681 3:l 4:1 46 ~1 43 :17 38 41 ~I 4J " 46 48 sa 52 2,21>6
Entrince ~.utific.tiOll 692 135 122 651 164 191 172 118 186 193 211 2I'J 211 22li i!J5 '2" 254 2&4 275 286 5,113
11 briry I I,IM 1,896 1,938 l,ti 2,11I3 2,142 2,182 2,125 2,169 2,215 2,262 2,312 2,3M 2,~19 2, ~76 2,535 2,596 2,661 2,728 ~1,81~
Pool I ec-mi ty OInt.. 8 . 41 493 7:i2 761 m 782 7'J3 884 816 829 842 ~ 87. 884 9IlII 916 933 !r.it 13,993
TOTll. IlMllE NEEDS
FIJIl EI&JE l&lClA 2,864 5,487 5,421 5,487 5,51' ~,985 5,128 4,92'J 4,8n ~,846 ~,n~ ~,866 4,965 "88:5 ~, 88:l ~, 728 ~,52Z 4,311 4,891 3,857 95,248
1. FRS ClIllT ll. P1lOJa:TS 2,71l1 2,835 2, 'l77 3,12li 3,282 3,w. 3,618 3,m 3,98'l 4,189 ~,398 "618 ~,649 5,1I'l1 5,346 5,&13 5, 894 6, 188 6,~98 82,4:15
8. lH'IHlEll IllUK€ IF CIP 2, :i18 2,415 2,536 2,&.3 2,196 2,935 3,1l!2 3,m 3,398 3,568 3, 746 3,934 4,138 ~,337 ~,~ ~, 782 5,il21 5,272 5, 53:l 5,812 76, 152
11. 6&Rll. FlHl SERVICE SY5TElI
R. lIIinl_..... of Curnml
Sorvi.,. 5yotl1l 1,224 1,892 82Z 22li . . . 8 . . 8 8 . 8 8 . 8 8 I 3, 3M
B. Workl..., IncrH!IlI 429 845 1,274 1,187 2,145 2,587 3,133 3,484 3, 93'J 4,399 4,8M 5,333 5, 817 6,~ 6, 769 7,257 7,75t 8,248 8,151 84, 891
TOTll. IF 6R SERYlCE S'lSTDl 1,644 1,9:17 2,196 1,933 2, 14:1 2,587 3,133 3,484 3,93'J 4,399 4,8M 5,333 5,811 6,~ 6, 769 7,257 7,75t 8,248 8,151 88,2li1
13. TOIll. IlEQJ I RElINTS
(16 . 1 . 8 . III 5,1&4 12,166 12,729 13,223 13, 365 13,~1 14,243 14,816 15,558 16,342 17,1~ 18, t6C! 19,846 19,878 ze,m 21,617 22,413 23, 2Z7 24, I6Z 24,918 342, .16
-
PAIl 8
e
e
e
em IF E\JlElE "
EI.IlI€ I&lGlIl ClIlITIl ClSTS BY PlWEt. )
"oy 28, 1'l8:I
(NI'.I
YI I YR2 YR 3 YR 4 YR5 YR6 YR 7 YR 8 YR 9 YR II YRII YR 12 YRIJ YR 14 YR 15 YR 16 YR 17 YB 18 YR J9 YR 21 TOTIl
14- lICK TAX - PERSOR. tl~ of Il6Il
A. ProJedtd ~.. 12,", 12,. 13,6ll8 14,"", 15, 2t8 16, 2t8 17,11' 17,861 J8,75+ J9,69J 21,676 2J,718 22,795 23,935 25, J32 26,388 27,717 29,193 Je,54I 32,175 417,:573
8. !iur1lluslIDtfi.il)
( 141 - 13) b,aJ(, r.l4 871 1,ln 1,835 2,853 2, 767 3,~ 3,195 3,349 3,:568 3,647 3,749 4,1157 4,397 4,nl 5,295 5,866 6,485 7,157 75,557
I:l. PAYra.l. TAX - ElRllYEE f U)
A. ProJedtd """enlll 9,4lllI 11,_ 'I, 6118 11,_ 11,918 12, 6118 13, 238 13, 892 14,586 15,315 16,1Ill1 16, 885 17,729 18,616 19,547 21,524 21,5ll8 22,6Z8 23,759 24,947 325,191
8. SurplusllDofidll
( 1:11 - 131 4,236 (2, 166) (2,1291 (I, CJ23) lI,4(,5) 17m lI,e131 19251 (972) (1,127) (1,1271 lI,lm 11,3171 tl,262) tl,l881 tl,lI9J) (862) (5991 (383) 29 116, '/26)
PIa 9
e
e
e
CITY IF ElIiEhE ) )
WIlARI~ IF TAX IIDElENT IIE\9IE WIlli PAS9& IF SlUS TAX IEJISIJRE IWD WITlIlIT PAS9& If 9US TAX IEJISIJRE
"oy 31, 1'l8:l
1_.)
YRI YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 YR6 YR 7 YR 8 VA9 YR II YR 11 YR 12 YR 13 YR 14 YR 15 YR 16 YR17 YR 18 YR 19 YR 28 TOTII..
Rll,9FROO SCIEla PARK
1. To, I"""""",t iItwfoIe
.ithout Sol.. To, 17 252 4&3 721 989 1,386 1,932 2,155 2, 2M 2,583 2,688 2,611 2,5J<J 2,666 2,m 2,939 3,886 3,248 3,413 38,m
2. Tow I~t R.v....
.ith Sol.. Tow 17 261 5N 75ll m 1,251 1,661 1,75ll 1,62t I, !l58 2,1611 2,178 2, 188 2,191 2, 2M 2,215 2,225 2,~ 2,235 31,542
3. D. ff......... I 1 - 2 ) I (8) un (29) 14 136 272 4<<l 644 553 528 "1 359 476 599 724 861 l,N5 1,1611 8, 131
--=--- ~:z ===:2;::1 ~
4. Ilcldi liOlliI 1!rmIu..
Amloblt to Hlti...
Go_ol Fund Advun . (8) 111) 1291 14 .. . I
DDMTM ~ITII..IZATlDl
I. To. In<roIIIf\t Rrnnuo
Olthout Sol.. T.. 768 1,876 2,135 2,484 2,8.'lI 3,236 3,642 4,171 4,228 4, 3'32 4,563 4,742 4,928 5,265 5,619 5,991 6,382 67,172
2. T.. l""""",,"t R......
..th Sol.. Tow 681 1,461 1,525 1,634 1,732 1,818 1,892 1,953 1,857 1,754 1,827 1,912 I,m 2,169 2,368 2,~7 2,197 31,926
3. Di If.....,.,. I 1 - 2 I . 87 415 611 ll5I 1,118 .,418 1,751 2,117 2,371 2,638 2,736 2,841 2,~9 3,196 3,251 3,414 3,5Il5 35,246
4. llcld,tiOlliI Rov"","
A.oi lobI. to Hllin
Gono.ol Fund ~vun . 87 415 611 851 1,118 1,418 1,75lI 421 6,669
MiE II
e
e
e