The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994 09-19 CCP Work Session �J CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 7 p.m. Council Work Session CITYAL COUNC, CHAMBERS 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Preliminary Review of 1995 Utility Rates 4. Preliminary Review of 1995 Capital Improvements Program (C.I.P.) - The C.I.P. will be distributed Monday evening. 5. Continued Discussion of Revision to Current Street Improvement Assessment Policy 6. Adjournment City of Brooklyn Center 1995 Utility Rate Review Summary The City Council annually reviews established public utility rates to ensure their adequacy in meeting financial goals. The Public Services Department strives to meet these goals while keeping rates as affordable as possible. The total utility bill paid by a resident of Brooklyn Center continues to be lower than in most area communities. Water Utility: The schedule at the end of this report labeled Option 1 shows the projected effect of the existing rate schedule. This option meets all utility financial requirements. To preserve flexibility and to provide for a revenue cushion, it is recommended that the Council adopt the WATER UTILITY 1994 :1995 rates shown on Option 1. This would result in an Type of Customer Gfarge Charge increase in rates in 1995 from $0.82 per 1000 gallons to $0.86 per 1000 gallons. HEStDEfuTrA1. Low Use 1Min�murni 57 QQ7 QQ The adjacent table illustrates the impact the recommended rate increase would have on the Summer Average tine 1881 81:16 32 68 water bills of various types of customers. The 9976. Summer bill is typically the highest bill of the year. High Ilse (I161 i 95;12 Apartment; 36 Units 16301 516fiQ 544M ' COMMERCIAL Sanitary Sewer Utility: Gar Qeafership 1235) 19Z7Q $20210 No Increase in the sewer utility rates for 1995. The schedule at the end of this report labelled Heavy GommetraafJse 1864) 708:48 743 QA Option 1 shows the projected effect of the existing rate schedule. No rates for 1996 or 1997 have been officially established, so the schedule shows the rates continuing at even increases. To even out capital expenditures over the next ten years, staff recommends that the Council consider selling General Obligation (GO) backed revenue bonds to finance the cost of these projects. Given the information above, it is recommended that _ _ the Council adopt the, No Increase, rate schedule detailed in Option 1, and direct staff to include a SEWEfi UTILITY 1994 1995 financing plan utilizing GO revenue bonds to finance Type of . Customer Charge Charge major capital improvements. This option would provide protection for the utility cash reserves. RESIDENTIAL.; The table at right, illustrates the impact the Senror 52340 MAO recommended rate increase would have on the Hesidentral . >. A250 42 50 Summer sanitary sewer bills of various types of customers. The Summer bill is typically the highest Apartment, 3fi Units 1,071 Q0 1.I}710Q of the four quarters. COMMERCIAL Car BeMersti p 5899 Q 5399 60 .> heavy Commercial Usr 1468 $0. 1;468.8Q Storm Drainage Utility The schedule labeled Option 1 shows the financial impact of the existing rate schedule. It is recommended that the council adopt the rates shown in Option 1. This would result in a rate increase from $27.00 per base acre in 1994 to $30.00 per acre in 1995. The average residential rate per lot would increase from $6.75 in 1994, to $7.50 in 1995. Recycling Utility: Changes in the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) and more importantly a decrease in funding from Hennepin County will necessitate an increase in the recycling fee from $1.25 per month in 1994 to $2.10 per month in 1995. Aside from the increase in fees, residents will see no change in their recycling services as a result of the above changes. WATERJOLITY RATE STUDY: 1995 016N 1: Publutil \watrat95 08- Sep- 95 : ... : 932........... 1 X393 99A ................:.::::::..: 1..95:::::::.::................ ........................:. ..........:....:.:::::. � :.:.. ............ .....:..:..................::...:::.:::::::::.:.......:::::.::..:..:::::::.:::.. 1................................... � ...................:::.�::::.:: 19313 .::.:�:: �. �! 97:::::::::::::::::::•:: ::::: .1..9��8:•:::.;:;• >:<.::.; EXPEND ITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 348,313 317,283 324,083 330,845 344,079 357,842 368,577 Contractual 173,799 144,216 148,542 152,999 157,589 162,316 167,186 Supplies & Materials 105,388 68,699 90,000 92,700 95,481 98,345 101,296 Heat, Light & Power 134,905 128,901 135,346 142,113 149,219 156,680 164,514 Interest on Debt 1,855 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Operating Costs 39,414 43,218 45,000 49,000 54,000 State Connection Surcharge 0 0 46,100 46,100 46,100 46,000 46,000 Depreciation Expense 233,447 267,279 297,000 260,000 297,000 325,000 339,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $997,707 $926,37 $1,080,486 $1,067,975 $1,134,468 $1,195,184 $1,240,573 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $843,697 $772,401 $943,000 1,032,000 1,080,000 1,128,000 1,164,000 � Water in �y M �+ G �ey AL 1,320,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 flA' R. T.' LFl< t`: IfJOIC'` ��'• EEE> ��?`'< EEEEEEEEE?•,`:' ; ; 2EEEE ' ;:.•.:, .> ?:` '.:. � .:.,, : ,: `EE:``:`fE': `` `' ;` .EE <''' > #EEEj<t EE'<� »<�EE <:': .;: EE6EE: EE::::< : >'::6::::'.;; ::,:::':';;:.:.:; t, .:..::::..:::::::::: fit! ? 4 82...::::::.::..:::... ..x..86.:...................... :. ................................::...::...::::::::.:::::.:::::.........;.:::.:._:::.. ............................... .............:.:::.. ...........:::::::::::::::..:.. :�... ...................... ................::::.:......... 3) Miscellaneous Operating 53,160 75,733 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 30,050 30,921 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5) 1/2 Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 114,600 84,258 47,529 21,953 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUES $1,041,507 $963,313 $1,060,529 $1,123,953 $1,150,000 $1,198,000 $1,234,000 �ja� ...........................................................................:....:.:::::...................................... ..f...........::...........��.. ��.............. �a7...::::.:.:::...51�. 878:.::::::::.:........ ..................... p .. ]�v ................... Q y 6) 1/2 Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 171,901 196,602 190,115 197,578 216,509 199,696 189,072 21 .6 <: >::::::: >::: >:: >:: /�.� ;:..:.;:.:;.;:.::.::: .................................................................................................................................................:: �.::::::............:.::.:::::::::: �:::::.:..,....................! �......... �........................... .....f}?K!.�.:.:.:........VJCVG 6.�2�..............?Ir.`I>�'� ::: :.......... ; :'•;:` •: ::5:'f•::i:::; : :... ; :;i: :::::::::::: ::: ?:::: :: :i:.y....: ::;:::::i:::::;::: ::>:::::::::: R ::::::;::: :::::::i:::: %:::2:t; ...:.:::.::............ E ..• �.........:.::.:.��; 3�.::.;: t: �3�3:::1.£l��.::::. .::.:::::::::.1: EFFECT ON CASH & ....... ...................::.::::.:::. INVESTMENTS: 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $4,450,204 $4,665,394 $4,752,886 $4,390,625 $4,330,181 $3,993,922 $3,781,435 8) Capital Outlay (188,958) (413,324) (829,420) (574,000) (598,000) (740,000) (200,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 215,701 233,537 170,159 253,556 232,041 202,512 182,499 10) Bond Debt Retired (45,000) 1 1) Depeciation Add back 233,447 267,279 297,000 260,000 29,70 325,000 339,000 .: Erin ..f]f..Ylaax.?Ias1lt.e..lnu.: ? >': > > #> .........$I# :....... 3 ...................... ............................... t..►�•�,.�•�t:::.....$e? T.5231$6.......! AtM.��.:.::::�. $�1$....:::::.$. ................................... ...........................::.: .:::::::. :.::.: ..:..:::.:::::::. �:::. .::::::::.:...... .......... f......... ...................... J... .......f....................... J. Restricted Inv 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 Unrestricted Inv 965,394 1,052,886 690,625 630,181 293,922 81,435 402,933 SANITAIPSEWER RATE STUDY: 1995 OF N1: PURates \sewra 0 9-Se p-95 ................................................................ ............................... �:.::::::. �:::.:..::::::. ;:::197. �::::::::::::.:::: :::::::::'1..��8:.::::::.:.;:.: EXPENDITURES 1) Operations Personal Service 199,990 182,430 187,903 200,798 206,822 213,027 219,417 Contractual Service 71,898 75,240 79,002 82,952 87,100 91,455 96,027 Supplies & Materials 12,995 13,999 14,699 15,434 16,206 17,016 17,867 Heat, Light, & Power 16,889 17,762 18,650 19,583 20,562 21,590 22,669 Vehicle Operating Costs 60,000 68,237 75,000 83,000 91,000 Depreciation Expense 194,879 126,055 133,000 152,000 198,000 244,000 259,000 Subtotal: City O &M Expense $496,651.00 $415,486.00 $493,253.95 $539,003.60 $603,688.97 $670,086.98 $705,980.80 MCWS Charges $1,411,582.00 $1,364,719.00 $1,341,312.00 $1,394,964.48 $1,450,763.06 $1,508,793.58 $1,569,145.32 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,908,233.00 $1,780,205.00 $1,834,565.95 $1,933,968.08 $2,054,452.03 $2,178,880.56 $2,275,126.12 REVENUES 2) Billing Revenues $1,920,796 $2,114,429 $2,229,978 $2,237,415 $2,340,541 $2,479,453 $2,539,945 Residential Accts 6,845 6,827 6,650 6,610 6,480 6,455 6,430 pia :::::•:.:;;;;:;> ct� Mar ........ $3!i r'5 40 ttp ::; :........:::::; ......................::::::: 4 $tt,a(5.................. S4i 4iY 54.. •.......::.::::.. ::::::::.............................................:.:::::.::::::::.:::::::::::::......... ............................... $ ..... #................................................ ............................... ... 1#tt....................... i49.)5tt.. Senior Accts 1,625 2,170 ................:::,. 2, 100:.:.:::.::.::::.:::: ::::.::::.2,150:.:.::::.::::..: ::.. 2,000 : ::.:::::::.::•:::.:: 0252,050 sflfilA>'. • •. • .:, �r. �l# t`' isiEE' EEE: ii: EE: EEEE: E??:::: i::: E :EEE:: ?iEi #::::::::`;::i::::`;. : .: �...+ �.! ��I ...... ..:.:...:..........�ti�,�:.�... ..........�..........E� .... ............................:.. . ....................... ��,.:::::::::::::::::::::::: ��#: 3��5� :.::::::::::::.:........... !633........::::::...:.: >::. :. ::;;:::::::::::::::::::. Apartment Accts 3,523 3,545 3,515 3,515 3,510 3,510 3,500 Quarterly Charge $25.03 $28.00 $29.75 $29.75 $31.50 $33.25 $33.95 Non- residential Water 234,600 285,000 285,000 290,700 296,500 302,400 308,400 { `ilE�'E <ytEffEEi:$ti::::EEi E :•.. :.::.:: ;:::.�::.::..;. ;:,:•r:.::...... ii' " ':,.,:.:: :::::>`.:::::' .:: : :.: : ::::: f EE6E::::<'::: ::::';::::i:;: .......... ........................... ........................::::... .. BA::::::::::.:...............$#> 7#?... ........................S1.XQ.. 1.+9tt... .................. ............. ......................................................................:.:.::::::::::.::::::.:..................................................:.:............................. .....:..:::::::::.......::::::? 3.,. 9..ff.......................... S.t +B.. ........... ........................... ............................... 3) Miscellaneous Operating 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) Miscellaneous Non - operating 560 921 1 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5) Interest Earnings (Phased Out By 1996) 1 88,619 60,327 33,225 15,265 TOTAL REVENUES $2,009,975 $2,175,677 $2,264,202 $2,253,680 $2,341,541 $2,480,453 $2,540,945 �? ..................................................................................................................................... ............................... r............................................ ..�. �.� �.,�4.:.:::::::::. �::: �.�,��` : �1,! �Tt�.:..:::.::::::::::.. � `.��.�..:4#:�.Fy:.............. .fi�rr :: 6) Interest Earnings (100% By 1996) 132,928 140,764 132,899 137,382 190,401 211,521 206,889 ...? �.......... ............................... ........�..... a ..y �'�...................�'�.'7 ff�±� 4'9'"x: �, 96 <: » >..::')... 5 .. ::::::::::::: . :::: ....... :: .t 693:: :.::::.::.................1.994 ............................1. 999 ...........:...::::::::::::::1. 998 ..:........................... 197 ............................ ::. _::. � .: . ................. ................................................................................... .......................:.:::::: :::::..:::::.:::.:::::::.: _:::. �::.:.:::::.: �:::: i.�9�:.::.:::::.:;: EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 7) Start of Year Cash & Inv $3,566,312 $3,060,463 $3,322,469 $3,052,934 $3,808,028 $2,644,018 $2,586,111 8) Capital Outlay (935,398) (400,285) (965,070) (1,854,000) (1,579,500) (564,000) (630,000) 9) Net Income or Loss 234,670 536,236 562,535 457,094 477,490 513,093 472,708 10) Debt Service 2,000,000 (260,000) (251,000) (268,500) 11) Depreciation Add -back 194,879 126,055 133,000 152,000 198,000 244,000 259,000 >:«< r td` t <rasF`;rtri », < >' > <` > >` >> tE# s»» ;:,;;:.,.,,_.;;:. > :. > ,,.;;:>;::;;:;. : .:. .,.,:. >:.>,;: ;;::.::.:< >:;<: tt ................................................... 11Y ............................... ............. r.......... f........::::::::::::.. i� +�K�+�.......:..::A .........w,�� Q. ............,.1..:::.:...:.. ... ............ . +� .. .. .......:.................................................................................................................... ............................... .....:..... J ..................................... K......... 1..................... ..................t............ .. .. ....... 5!{�r. �...........F.. ..i.i7... • ................ ............................................................. ............................... f . ..... J. ............................... R........... Restricted Investments 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Unrestricted Investments 2,760,463 3,022,469 2,752,934 3,508,028 2,344,018 2,286,111 2,119,319 STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY RATE STUDY: 1995 OPTION 1: PURATES:sdurat95 EXPENDITURES .. 8r ::.::..:. .: :..:.:.:.::::1��:...:..:::.... 1) Operations $204,025 $166,729 $154,000 $159,228 $163,000 $164,000 $165,000 Storm Sewer Maintenance 62,388 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Sweeping 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Watershed District Dues 34,868 33,581 45,000 47,500 50,000 50,000 50,000 Local Plan 66,213 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Operating Costs 6,685 7,000 9,728 11,000 12,000 13,000 Public Education 556 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Depreciation 29,000 114,000 121,000 136,000 2) Capital Outlay $3,402 $394,662 $1,177,500 $3,430,000 $275,000 $710,200 $525,000 Repair or Replace Defective Sections 0 10,000 100,000 550,000 100,000 300,000 200,000 Water Quality Improvement Projects 3,402 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 Facilities & Equipment 0 10,000 67,500 0 0 85,200 0 Improvement Projects 0 300,000 1,010,000 2,880,000 175,000 325,000 325,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $207,427 $561,391 $1,331,500 $3,618,228 $552,000 $995,200 $826,000 REVENUES 3) Billing Revenues $494,456 $639,837 $702,000 $780,000 $832,000 $858,000 $884,000 REF Acres 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 G .....::::..:..... :..::::: : :::..................:.::..4,Q $7:QQ:::.:........:..:::::i1.. Residential rate A ......... :.. ...........................................:...........................................................:.................................................... f....................... xA4............... ............................... per lot ...................... ......................... p 54.50 56.00 $6.75 57.50 58.00 58.25 $8.60 Schools & govt buildings per acre $22.50 $30.00 $33.75 $37.50 $40.00 $41.25 $42.50 Multiple family & churches per acre $54.00 $72.00 $81.00 $90.00 $96.00 $99.00 $102.00 Commercial and industrial per acre $90.00 $120.00 $135.00 $150.00 $160.00 $165.00 $170.00 4) Interest Earnings 14,030 28,138 16,035 21,365 82,191 27,757 9,354 TOTAL REVENUES $508,486 $667,975 $718,035 $801,365 $914,191 $885,757 $893,354 PR;JEG FIEF >10 £1MI5:: EFFECT ON CASH & INVESTMENTS 5) Start of Year Cash & Inv $19,649 $320,708 $427,292 $1,643,827 $114,959 $346,965 $116,928 6) Net Income or Loss 301,059 106,584 (613,465) (2,816,863) 362,191 (109,443) 67,354 7► Debt Service - 1,830,000 (241,005) (244,185) (241,595) (243,520) 8) Special Assessment /Other 1,500,000 9) Depreciation Add Back 29,000 114,000 121,000 136,000 >: E.�: rl..:stf: at.C'dstt Inv .............:. ........::..............:...... i1r 7 #.. $.42 2 ........:.:.$:� $ . ......::::::.. ; . ;;:. .. ...................... . ::....� ......................................:.........:...................................:....:.....#....................................................................... .....::........................ .:.:. 5............... ....�1r.................a;I.1.1 September 16, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Paulson City Council Members FROM: Diane Spector Director of Public Se c SUBJ: Continued Discussion of Possible Revisions Street Improvement Special Assessment Policy As you know, in the context of both of the Neighborhood Street Improvement Program and the local Storm Water Management Plan, we have discussed the proper role of special assessments in financing public improvements. In general, municipalities levy special assessments to help finance improvements to reflect the fact that some private properties benefit more from certain public improvements than do others. "Benefit" is generally described as alleviating a condition (such as lack of access to public utilities, a street in poor condition) which had had a negative impact on the property. Said in a different way, a public improvement enhances the property in some way, such as improving its marketability by providing access to public utilities. 'Benefit" has been defined as "increase in market value." In a new development, benefit is fairly simple to evaluate - the value as raw land versus the value as a lot on a street served by public utilities. However, in reconstruction projects, such as the neighborhood street program, increase in value is difficult to evaluate. In March, 1993, appraiser Brad Bjorklund, one of the few area appraisers who specializes in this type of work and who has successfully defended his appraisals in court numerous times, evaluated improvements proposed for the southeast neighborhood. Mr. Bjorklund estimated a market value increase of between $1,800 and $2,400 for four homes on typical lots, and $1,000 for a home on a narrow 40 foot lot. In staff discussions, Mr. Bjorklund stated that this benefit was lower than the typical he sees, and attributed it to the nature of the southeast neighborhood. Current Policy The City's special assessment policy was amended in 1985 to reflect a per unit assessment for R -1 properties, as compared to the previous policy of assessing on a per front foot basis. The policy established the unit assessment as a figure which was about one -third the cost of a typical street improvement. This unit assessment is increased annually for inflation by applying the Construction Index. This policy has been used for the few residential street improvements which have been competed since that time. The current unit assessment is $1,550. This applies to street improvements only; all utility improvements are paid entirely from the respective utility funds. Possible Deficiencies of Current Policy The current policy has served the City well over the past ten years, when few residential street improvements have been made. However, it is now apparent that the City must begin an accelerated program of street improvements, and the recently completed first phase of the Local Storm Water Management Plan reveals the need to construct storm drainage improvements. Both these programs would have specific financial consequences. Streets For residential street projects, the Council has essentially only two sources of funding - special assessments and the property tax levy. Under the current policy, the Council could expect a tax levy increase of about $100,000 in ears where the street improvement program includes both residential Y p and MSA streets, and between about $125,000- 175,000 in years where few or no MSA streets were part of the four mile program. By increasing the unit assessment to $2,000 (or to about 40% of the cost of a typical improvement), the annual levy increase could be decreased by an estimated $15,00 . In other words, the first year it would "save" $15,000, the second $30,000, the third $45,000, etc. The "savings" would be offset somewhat by the increased cost of the Assessment Stabilization program. Based on Brad Bjorklund's benefit analysis for the Southeast neighborhood, the $2,000 assessment could most likely be supported most everywhere in the City, except for those areas in the Southeast where there are pockets of narrow 40 foot lots. Provision could be made for a reduced assessment for those types of lots if the Council wished to do so. - If the Council desired to increase the unit assessment, I would recommend that it be phased in - say to $1,800 for '95, and $2,000 for '96. Public Utilities Most properties in Brooklyn Center have paid for the initial installation of water and sewer main. The work done on neighborhood streets can be considered to be maintenance & repair, and thus appropriate to be funded by the water or sanitary sewer utilities. Over the next several years, most of the neighborhood street improvements will include substantial new storm sewer construction in areas which never before had storm sewers. It is appropriate for the Council to consider charaingsome or all of the cost of the new storm sewers to the benefittin property owners. Other property owners in the City were assessed the full cost of installation of storm sewers when they were installed in their neighborhoods. Another issue is the cost of regional improvements such as regional ponds or trunk lines. In these cases, wide areas receive benefit from construction. For example, large sections of the western part of the city will benefit from the construction of the northwest pond and from the pond at the park and ride site. Other cities have assessed some or all the cost of these types of improvements to areas of benefit, in some cases to an entire subwatershed. In years past, the city assessed large areas for benefit from construction of new trunk lines. Should the Council wish to consider such a policy, I can contact other cities and gather more detailed information. Without some contribution towards storm sewer construction or regional improvements, the storm drainage utility charge will increase dramatically in order to finance basic drainage improvements. Council Action Requested The Council has directed staff not to proceed developing feasibility studies for proposed 1995 street improvement projects until some agreement was come to on the question of special assessments. In order to complete survey work, we will need to get started as soon as possible. It is important that the Council discuss the issue and come to some conclusion within the next few weeks. After discussion at the September 19 worksession, if the Council comes to an agreement on proposed assessments, I can draft a policy to be acted upon at the September 26 regular meeting. Or, if the Council could provide enough general direction to begin preliminary discussions with the neighborhood, more formal discussion of the assessment policy could take place at a later date. Estimated Cost of Neighborhood Street Improvement Plan Years 1995 -1999 Alternate Special Assessment Policy - $1,800 Assessment in 1995, $2,000 in 1996 and Later (see notes) (a) b c d e h i Res Non -Res Street Costs and Fund Sources Milage Units Units SA* % Bond Est Levy Incr Cumul Levy ** MSA Total Woodbine Area 2.13 184 $ 331,200 35% $ 627,300 $ 84,000 $ 156,000 $ 958,500 MSA Streets 1.52 Humboldt 26 241,440 $ 90,621 $ 270,000 $ 423,000 73rd 16 - $ 28,800 $ 135,000 $ 288,000 57th 5 - $ 9,000 $ 404,000 $1,100,000 Noble 10 98,000 $ 25,556 $ 51,000 $ 87,000 SE, Happy Hollow, Xerxes 3.2 249 15,900 $ 500,886 41% $ 714,114 $ 95,000 $ 251,000 $1,215,000 MSA Streets 1.09 67th 2 359,540 $ 69,257 $ 148,000 $ 179,000 51st 6 - $ 12,000 $ 48,000 $ 71,000 Logan 61 13,860 $ 124,516 $ 270,000 $ 423,000 E Garden City, S Northport 2.47 256 - $ 512,000 46% $ 599,500 $ 80,000 $ 331,000 $1,111,500 MSA Streets 69th 14 $ 28,000 $1,668,000 53rd ._ 27 137,800 $ 79,011 $ 247,000 $ 403,000 SE, NW 4.05 344 343,000 $ 750,255 41% $1,072,246 $ 143,000 $ 474,000 $1,822,500 38% .. ............................... .......................... Wangstad 3.84 357 498,540 $ 804,485 47% $ 923,515 $ 123,000 $ 597,000 $1,728,000 MSA Streets 0.63 41% June 62 - $ 124,000 $ 269,000 $ 378,000 5 year Total MSA Residential 1 1 $2,898 142%1 $3,936,675 1 $ 525,000 1 1 1 $6,835,500 *Assumes $1,800/$2,000 unit assessment for residential, $0.1815/sf non - residential reconstruct, $0.0771/sf non residential overlay "Cumulative includes $72,000 levied in 1995 for 1994 street projects dfs See column notes attached $ 2,000 e9engVroj)neighfea 16- Sep -94 Estimated Cost of Neighborhood Street Improvement Plan Years 1995 -1999 Assuming Current Special Assessment Policy (see notes) (a) ftes c d e h i on -Res Street Costs and Fund Sources Milage Units S A* % Bond Est Levy Incr Cumul Levy"I MSA Total Woodbine Area 2.13 184 $ 285,200 30% $ 673,300 $ 90,000 $ 162,000 $ 958,500 MSA Streets 1.52 Humboldt 26 241,440 $ 84,121 $ 270,000 $ 423,000 73rd 16 - $ 24,800 $ 135,000 $ 288,000 57th 5 - $ 7,750 $ 404,000 $1,100,000 Noble 10 98,000 $ 23,056 $ 51,000 $ 87,000 SE, Happy Hollow, Xerxes 3.2 249 15,900 $ 388,836 32% $ 826,164 $ 110,000 $ 272,000 $1,215,000 MSA Streets 1.09 67th 2 359,540 $ 68,357 $ 148,000 $ 179,000 51st 6 - $ 9,300 $ 48,000 $ 71,000 Logan 61 13,860 $ 97,066 $ 270,000 $ 423,000 E Garden City, S Northport 2.47 256 - $ 396,800 36% $ 714,700 $ 95,000 $ 367,000 $1,111,500 MSA Streets 1.8 69th 14 $ 21,700 $1,668,000 53rd 27 137,800 $ 66,861 $ 247,000 $ 403,000 SE, NW 4.05 344 343,000 $ 595,455 33% $1,227,046 $ 164,000 $ 531,000 $1,822,500 Wangstad 3.84 357 498,540 $ 643,835 37% $1,084,165 $ 145,000 $ 676,000 $1,728,000 MSA Streets 0.63 June 62 - $ 96,100 $ 269,000 $ 378,000 5 year Total MSA Residential $2,310,125 34% $4,525 $ 604,000 $6,835,500 *Assumes $1,550 unit assessment for residential, $0.1815/sf non - residential reconstruct, $0.0771/sf non residential overlay * *Cumulative includes $72,000 levied in 1995 for 1994 street projects dfs See column notes attached OengWotmigMea 15- Sep -94 Estimated Cost of Neighborhood Street Improvement Plan Years 1995 -1999 Assuming Current Special Assessment Policy (a) Is the total milage to be improved. (b) Is the total number of residential lots to be assessed. Assumes corner lots choose to be assessed at future date. (c) Is the assessable square feet for non - residential (multifamily and commercial) properties abutting streets to be improved. (d) Is the estimated special assessments. (e) Is the percent of total street cost to be recovered by special assessments. (0 Is the non - assessed street improvement cost - the amount to be paid for by levying bonds. (g) Is the estimated property tax levy increase needed to finance the bonds. (h) Is the cumultive levy increase over the six years of the program (1994 plus the 5 years shown). (i) Is the estimated MSA funding eligibility. Q) Is the estimated total street imrpvoement cost. I