City Council Planning Sessions

1. City Council Planning Agenda Documents: 2016-08-22 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AGENDA.PDF 2. City Council Planning Minutes Documents: 2016-08-22 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING MINUTES.PDF 3. City Council Planning Draft 2016-08-08 Minutes Ps02 Documents: 2016-08-22 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DRAFT 2016-08-08 MINUTES PS02.PDF 4. City Council Planning Downtown Strategic Plan Infrastructure Scope And Funding Ps04 Documents: 2016-08-22 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE SCOPE AND FUNDING PS04.PDF  WHEATON CITY COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION WHEATON CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 303 W. WESLEY STREET, WHEATON, ILLINOIS MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2016 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Minutes – August 8, 2016 III. Public Comment IV. Downtown Strategic Plan Infrastructure Scope and Funding V. City Council/Staff Comments VI. Adjournment During the Public Comment portion of the agenda, the presiding officer shall recognize any person requesting to be heard on any of the planning session agenda items only. Persons speaking during Public Comment shall not speak longer than three (3) minutes and shall be permitted to speak only once. Visitors must remain quiet and not engage in behavior that interferes with the Planning Session. The presiding officer may, or upon a majority vote of the council, request any visitor who violates any provision of this paragraph to leave the council chambers, and such visitor shall thereupon leave. Any person providing public comment shall address the presiding officer only and shall not proceed with remarks until recognized. When recognized, the person shall state his or her name and address. Cross floor discussions are prohibited. If a member of the City Council has questions of any person who has provided public comment, that person may address the specific question.  MEMORANDUM TO: Record FROM: Susan Bishel, Public Relations Coordinator SUBJECT: Aug. 22, 2016 City Council Planning Session Minutes DATE: Aug. 23, 2016 CC: Mayor and City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Department Heads The Planning Session took place in the Council Chambers, Wheaton City Hall, 303 W. Wesley St., Wheaton, Illinois. Those attending the Planning Session included: Mayor Gresk, Councilwoman Fitch, Councilman Prendiville, Councilman Rutledge, Councilman Saline, Councilman Scalzo and Councilman Suess. Also in attendance were City Manager Dzugan, Assistant City Manager Duguay, Director of Planning & Economic Development Kozik, Director of Finance Lehnhardt, Director of Engineering Redman, Public Information Officer Thrower, and Public Relations Coordinator Bishel. The session began at 7:00 p.m. and concluded at 8:30 p.m. The following items were discussed: I. Call to Order The Wheaton City Council Planning Session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gresk. City Manager Dzugan introduced Arin Thrower, the new Public Information Officer in the City’s Communications Department. II. Approval of Aug. 8, 2016 Planning Session Minutes The Council approved the Aug. 8, 2016 Planning Session Minutes. III. Public Comment There were no public comments. IV. Downtown Strategic Plan Infrastructure Scope and Funding City Manager Dzugan summarized the key milestones in developing a Downtown Strategic Plan, which began in 2012. In June, Design Workshop presented the Council with plan implementation options broken down into “good,” “better” and “best” categories. City staff looked at ways to scale back elements of the project in order to make it more economically feasible. Director of Planning & Economic Development Kozik stated the difference between the good/better/best categories would be a greater quantity of the higher-end materials in the better and best categories, such as more permeable pavers and holiday lighting. City Manager Dzugan reviewed a number of assumptions and acknowledgements that will guide this project. These include a project length of 4-5 years, using design concepts from the “good” category developed by Design Workshop, changing some of the street types from the original Strategic Plan, and not including the category of “other streets” from the original plan. City Manager Dzugan also outlined costs that are not included in the scope estimates, including traffic signals, some street lights outside of the immediate project area, alley improvements, possible sidewalk repairs outside of the project area, and upgrades to Martin Plaza. City staff also developed assumptions for project phasing, including that the project would address failing or deteriorating infrastructure first and use a linear construction approach rather than block by block for improved efficiency and pedestrian access. In response to Council questions, Director of Engineering Redman stated projects could take up to the entire construction season. City Manager Dzugan reviewed three scopes of work and the associated costs for each. Scope 1 would be a 4-year project costing an estimated $23.8 million, including $1 million for a park concept south of the railroad tracks and $1.5 million invested in French Market improvements. Scope 2 would be a 5-year construction period with estimated costs of $31 million, including $1.5 million for the park construction and $2 million for the French Market. This scope also added 5 street segments. Scope 3 is estimated to cost $36.6 million, with $2 million for the park construction and $3.5 million for the French Market. This scope would add 3 sections and would take 5 years to complete. City staff also developed assumptions that shape the recommended funding options. The figures in these proposals assumed a 1.5% annual increase for TIF 2 and no significant tax assessment appeals, that expenses will be TIF-eligible within TIF Districts 2 and 3, and TIF 2 expires in 2022-23 with no extensions. Staff estimated that a 0.25% sales tax increase would generate approximately $900,000 of new revenue per year, and a new 0.25% Food & Beverage Tax is estimated to generate $200,000 annually. City Manager Dzugan reviewed the City’s Capital Projects Fund Reserve, current debt obligation, and stated the proposed scopes of work assume the City would not rely on property tax for funding. The City will also need to consider other capital needs for future projects, including the Road Program, street reconstruction, stormwater management and other infrastructure needs. City Manager Dzugan reviewed two funding options for Scope 1, one of which use $17.6 million in TIF funding, issue a $5 million 10-year bond, implement a 0.25% local sales tax, borrow about $2 million from the General Fund to meet cash needs, and fund the remaining $1.2 million from the Capital Projects Fund. The other option would also use $17.6 million in TIF funding and borrow the same amount from the General Fund, and fund the remaining $6.2 million from the Capital Projects Fund. The two options for Funding Scope 2 include $20.6 million of funding from TIF 2, borrowing $2 million from the General Fund to meet cash needs, issuing a $10 million 15-year bond, implementing a 0.25% local sales tax, and using $30,000 from the Capital Projects Fund. The second option would fund the entire $10.3 million in non-TIF related expenses through the Capital Projects Fund, rather than issuing a bond and a 0.25% sales tax. The funding option presented for Scope 3 would use $21 million of TIF 2 revenue, issue one $10 million 15-year bond and one $5 million 10-year bond, and implement a $0.25 sales tax. 8/22/16 Planning Session 2 City Manager Dzugan recommended the City Council consider Scope 1, Funding Option A. In response to a Council question about why the City wouldn’t borrow the full $6.2 million of non- TIF eligible funds in Scope 1, City Manager Dzugan stated the City would need to levy for the debt service. The next steps for this project would be to contract with a civil engineer to begin developing drawings and specifications for Phase 1, Front Street from West to Cross, continuing to work with Design Workshop and CCS to oversee the process, and establishing an oversight/review process with pre-determined checkpoints for design development and other stages. Some Council members expressed a desire to use the portions of Scope 2 and 3 that related to the French Market and improvements south of the railroad tracks. Other Council members disagreed and expressed concerns about investing in the French Market, which would not benefit the community year-round. In response to Council questions, Director of Planning & Economic Development Kozik stated he believes that Design Workshop did not create a plan for Martin Plaza because their project would shift the focus to the new park and festival street on Liberty Drive. The Council expressed a desire to include improvements to Martin Plaza in the Front Street portion of this project. In response to a Council question, Director of Planning & Economic Development Kozik stated the off-street spaces along Liberty Drive are part of a long-term lease agreement with RJN. The City has discussed with RJN moving these spaces to a City garage, and RJN expressed support for this project. Director of Planning & Economic Development Kozik stated the City oversells leases to the garage on the south side of the railroad tracks by 25-30% of its capacity, yet there are still vacancies. City Manager Dzugan stated City staff would like to start on Front Street to give the city a better picture of the rest of the project and serve as a template for future work. By putting the French Market portion of the project last, it would give the City time to revisit the plan and modify them if needed. Starting with one part of the project would also allow the City to move forward with Front Street and Martin Plaza improvements yet hold off on increasing the local sales tax until the City determines if it is needed. Based on the City Council’s input City Manager Dzugan stated City staff will put together a Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals for the Front Street project, which could potentially go out to bid for the next construction season. V. City Council/Staff Comments Councilman Prendiville thanked City staff for all of their work on the Downtown Strategic Plan. VI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 8/22/16 Planning Session 3  MEMORANDUM TO: Record FROM: Susan Bishel, Public Relations Coordinator SUBJECT: Aug. 8, 2016 City Council Planning Session Minutes DATE: Aug. 9, 2016 CC: Mayor and City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Department Heads The Planning Session took place in the Council Chambers, Wheaton City Hall, 303 W. Wesley St., Wheaton, Illinois. Those attending the Planning Session included: Mayor Gresk, Councilwoman Fitch, Councilman Prendiville, Councilman Rutledge, Councilman Saline, and Councilman Suess. Councilman Scalzo was absent. Also in attendance were City Manager Dzugan, Director of Finance Lehnhardt and Public Relations Coordinator Bishel. The session began at 7:00 p.m. and concluded at 7:59 p.m. The following items were discussed: I. Call to Order The Wheaton City Council Planning Session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gresk. II. Approval of June 27, 2016 Planning Session Minutes The Council approved the June 27, 2016 Planning Ill. Public Comment — There were no public cn’rents. IV. Investment Policy The City enlisted Marquette Associates, Inc. to help develop an investment strategy and review the City s Investment Policy which was last updated in 2005 Director of Finance Lehnhardt stated Marquette reviewed other communities’ policies and applied best practices principles in their review of the Investment Policy The review also ensured the policy complies with the Illinois Public Funds Investment Act Paul Marchese of Marquette Associates, Inc. explained that the types of funds in which the City would invest would be only govérnFnent-backed funds, as required by state statutes. The Council requested that Mr Marchese modify the language in the investment policy to reflect that the investment funds cannot be lower than AA-rated, without regard to any rating modifiers. In response to Council questions about managers selected to oversee the City’s investments, Mr. Marchese stated Marquette Associates recommends the City use two investment managers, which follows best-practice standards allowing the managers to have enough assets for liquidity purposes. Council members requested Marquette add language stating that no more than 40% of the City’s investments can be managed by one investment manager to ensure diversification across managers. Mr. Marchese reviewed the returns Marquette expects the City will realize. Compared to investing in money market accounts, Marquette estimates the City would see a return of 1-1.5%. Council members requested that Mr. Marchese define the requirements for collateral in the investment policy. City Manager Dzugan stated Marquette will hire investment managers and provide regular reports to the City’s Finance Department to monitor compliance and reports. The City Council requested Mr. Marchese remove some of the language in the draft policy that is not applicable, such as a section from the state statutes related to bonds. In response to Council questions, Director of Finance Lehnhardt stated these investments would apply to the City s reserves and the City will hold approximately $5 million in cash reserves separate that the City could use for emergency funding purposes. City Manager Dzugan stated City staff and Marquette will work to have a revised investment policy ready for the next City Council meeting for the Council’s review. V. Honorary Street Signs ‘ City Manager Dzugan stated the City h rec equests to erect honorary street signs to recognize outstanding residents. Special Projects Assistant Brandon Kowalke researched other 4 and identified criteria for the City icil to consider if it would like to municipal sign programs develop an honorary street sign policy. Among the criteria included: only onoring individuals, the person must have been a resident or previous resident, the person m significant contributions and street signs are limited to one sign The suggested policy cotild charge a fee to cover the costs of creating and installing the sign, and the City would remove the sign after 3 years and make it available to the applicant. Council members requested the City develop a policy for honorary street signs that include the requirement that only deceased individuals will be considered for honorary street signs, and the City would approve no more than two honorary street signs per year. In response to a Council question, City Manager Dzugan stated the City can choose whether or not to require a percentage of property owners adjoining the proposed sign location to sign a petition of support. The majority of the Council requested the City not make a petition a requirement, as the petition process could be burdensome. VI. City CouncillStaff Comments There were no comments. VII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. 8/8/16 Planning Session 2  emorandum Michael G. Dzugan City Manager TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council DATE: August 19, 2016 SUBJECT: Downtown Strategic Plan Infrastructure Scope and Funding Objective Establish a scope and funding approach to begin implementation of certain elements of the Downtown Strategic Plan infrastructure (streetscape) improvements. - Overview At the June 27, 2016 Planning Session, the staff presented the City Council with information relating to the streetscape concepts derived from the recommendations and strategies identified in the Downtown Strategic and Streetscape Plan. The information included costs of the various components of three street types (Festival, Pedestrian and Other) and an identification of achieved metrics. Working with Design Workshop and CCS, costing for each of the three street types were presented in Good, Better and Best categories. The metrics in each of these categories were prioritized so that the Good category would include only those metrics with the highest priority and the Better and Best categories would include metrics that would be desirable to meet but come at a much higher cost. One of the more important metrics was creating greater sidewalk width in an effort to create a higher level of usability. The chart below is cost estimates previously provided to the Council. Good, Better and Best Cost Estimates Component Good Better Best Park $ 1,945,079 $ 2,339,602 $ 3,030,985 French Market $ 3,831,470 $ 3,831,470 $ 3,831,470 Festival Streets $ 5,736,251 $ 6,962,438 $ 8,994,696 South Main Street $ 2,921,182 $ 3,604,636 $ 4,699,571 Pedestrian Streets $ 28,659,195 $ 34,438,164 $ 53,137,171 Other Streets $ 3,684,261 S 7,081,790 $ 14,590,727 TOTAL $ 46,777,438 $ 58,258,100 $ 88,284,620 In previous correspondence to you, I recommended that the 546.7MM estimate for the Good category was too aggressive from a funding, revenue to support, standpoint. I also indicated that Page 1 the staff believed certain strategies could be employed to reduce the funding demand. This memorandum sets forth these strategies for the Council’s consideration. Principally, the staff believes the scope (size of project area and number of streets) is too large. Please see Exhibit A for Strategic Plan identified project area and street type designations. The Strategic Plan attempted to recognize potential growth and redevelopment within and around the core area of the downtown. Therefore, a large area with a number of perimeter streets, known as “Other Streets,” was added. These Other Streets were included with the thought that should redevelopment occur, certain standards would be established to guide the streetscape design as part of the redevelopment effort. Secondarily, the costs to achieve more of the lower priority established metrics through the Better and Best categories are difficult to justify from a cost/benefit perspective. The staff has developed three scope options for your review. Each of the individual scope options includes a phasing approach. Scope and Phasing Plans In developing the three scopes options, the following acknowledgements and assumptions were instrumental in shaping the scope options and the final recommendation: • Project length. Complete project in 4-5 years. • Use Good Category. Values of all street types and segments are based upon the Good category. Moving to the Better value increases cost by 25% and to Best an 89% increase. It is staff’s opinion that there is not a significant increase in benefit to justify moving from the Good category to either Better or Best. • Street Segment Types. Changed some street segments to a different street type from what the original Strategic Plan recommended. For example, Hale Street between Front and Wesley was changed from a Festival Street to a Pedestrian Street type. • Other Streets Not Included. The Other Streets identified in the Strategic Plan are not included. The Engineering Department has prepared a map showing the PCI scores of these Other Streets, see Exhibit B. The Other Streets category will be maintained and included in our annual Road Program. • Costs Not Included. Costs not included in the street segments and therefore are not included in the scope cost estimates are: 1) Traffic signals traffic signals along Main Street at Wesley, Front, Liberty - and Willow; Front/West; and Liberty/West will minimally need an upgrade to be ADA compliant. A new signal at Illinois/Main Street may also be necessary. 2) Street lights need to determine whether street lights for those streets that - currently have ornamental fixtures that are not included in a street segment Page 2  designated for construction need to be upgraded to be consistent with the new fixtures. The Engineering Department has prepared a map showing the inventory of the ornamental fixtures, see Exhibit C. 3) Alley improvements there are a number of alley spaces that are in need - of significant maintenance, reconstruction, or redesign. 4) Sidewalks — evaluate condition of sidewalks not included in street segment construction. 5) Martin Plaza the Martin Plaza area needs to be upgraded and perhaps — reconfigured based upon a new design. Phasing In all three of the scopes, staff believes it important to begin our efforts in the core of the downtown where the existing condition of the infrastructure is demanding either significant repair or reconstruction. In each of the three scopes, the first phase (year of construction) will consist of the entire length of Front Street from West Street to Cross Street. All construction years are generally based upon the ability to move traffic throughout the downtown and staying within a $6MM construction amount. In all of the scope options, the phasing approach was based upon the following: • Address failing/deteriorated infrastructure first. Although the Strategic Plan called for initiating the project with the French Market and Park, and their associated Festival Streets, the staff felt it more urgent to address infrastructure areas within our core downtown area that are demanding attention. • Use a linear approach to construction versus block by block. In discussions with contractors, it was suggested a linear approach with construction occurring on one side then move to the opposite side would be most efficient. This approach would also allow pedestrian access to the block from one side for most of the time. • Incorporates the ability to move vehicular and pedestrian traffic throughout and through the downtown as street closures will be necessary. Scope Options Under each of the scope options, there will be an opportunity to review the street types, particularly those adjacent to the French Market and Park area. For example, it may not be necessary to have Festival Street features adjacent to the Park. Scope 1- Total estimated construction cost of $23 .8MM. Includes $1 MM earmarked for the Park and $l.5MM for the French Market. Exhibit D provides a map of the area and street segments that would be completed under Scope 1. A 4-year construction effort is proposed for Scope 1. Scope 2 Total estimated construction cost ofS3lMM. Includes $l.5MM earmarked for the - Park and $2MM for the French Market. Exhibit E provides a map of the area and street segments that would be completed under Scope 2. Street segments added in Scope 2 but not in Scope 1 are Page 3 Liberty Drive from Hale to West Street; Hale Street from Liberty to Willow; Willow from Hale to Main; Cross Street from Liberty to Willow; and Main Street from Illinois to Indiana. A 5-year construction effort is proposed for Scope 2. Scope 3 Total estimated construction cost of $36.6MM. Includes $2MM earmarked for the - Park and $2.5MM for the French Market. Exhibit F provides a map of the area and street segments that would be completed under Scope 3. The street segments added to Scope 3 not in Scope 2 include Main Street from Indiana to Roosevelt Road; Willow Avenue from Main Street to Reber; and Liberty from Cross to Reber. A 5-year construction effort is proposed for Scope 3. Funding Improvements/Revenue Sources In establishing how the City would fund the construction of the improvements and the revenue sources needed to pay for the funding, the following acknowledgments and assumptions shaped funding and revenue approaches: • TIF 2 Assessed Values. The assessed values were estimated to increase 1.5% annually and no tax assessment appeals are anticipated. • TIF Eligible Expenses. TIF statutes provide a list of approved expenses for which TIF revenue can be used for. The primary requirement is that the expense must be within the TIF boundary. Exhibit G provides a map delineating TIF 2 and TIF 3 boundaries. • TIF 2 Expiration. Expires in fiscal year 22/23 (12/31/2022) with no extension or expansion of the TIF boundaries contemplated. • Local Sales Tax. An additional City-wide .25 % local sales tax is estimated to generate $900,000 of new revenue annually. • Food and Beverage Tax. A new City-wide .25% Food & Beverage Tax is estimated to generate $200,000 annually. Unlike a local sales tax, a food and beverage tax is administered locally requiring significant oversight from the City’s Finance Department. • Capital Projects Fund Reserve. The Capital Projects Fund has an estimated $1 1.4MM reserve balance. • Current Debt Obligation. Current annual non-TIF debt service obligation of the City is at $3.2MM annually, with all debt fully retired in fiscal year 24/25 (12/1/2024). • TIF 3 Revenue. Due to financial obligations and assessed values, TIF 3 is not considered to have significant revenue available to be used for the project. Additionally, only a small amount of project infrastructure is included in the TIF 3 boundary. • TIF 2 Ongoing Expenditures. TIF 2 currently has $150,000 annual funding obligations: DWA Agreement (SSA #7), grant opportunities for business owners, and Toms Price agreement. Page I 4  • Bonding. Carefully plan the timing to issue bonds to take advantage of current low interest rates and avoid arbitrage. Issue bank qualified bonds which lower debt costs and lower interest rates; would require issuing no more than $1 0MM annually. Avoid arbitrage, 85% of the proceeds spent within three years, and 5% spent within 6 months. Look to have a callable feature placed at the end of 9 years, when issuing a 15 year term bond. • Cash Flow. For construction contracts and general operating needs. • Income, French Market. Operator’s contribution not yet defined. • Other Property Owner Taxes. Special Assessment, Special Service Area, general or area specific Food and Beverage Tax, or Business District Sales Tax as financing tools is not contemplated. • Property Tax. Avoid reliance on the property tax. • Other Capital Needs. The City will be challenged to meet the funding needs for other future capital projects including Road Program (achieving and maintaining desired PCI), street reconstruction, sanitary sewers, water system, storm water, sidewalks, etc. Funding Scope 1 Total cost for Scope 1 is estimated at $23.8MM, $17.6MM of costs are TIF 2 eligible, and $6.2MM are non-TIF related expenses. Attached as Exhibit H is a breakdown of Scope 1 costs and funding needed for the 4-year project. To get a sense of cash flow needs, the expenses are shown in a cumulative manner for both TIF 2 and other expenses. To fund Scope 1, two options are provided below. The options consider both cash available to pay construction costs and revenue sources to fund the project. Option A 1) TIF 2 revenues are able to fund all expenses that are TIF eligible: $17.6MM. Total TIF 2 revenue projected at $21MM thru the end of the TIF. 2) Borrow $2MM from the General Fund to meet cash needed for TIF 2 eligible expenses which exceed hF 2 revenue in fiscal year 2020/2021. Revenues estimated from TIF 2 during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 are sufficient to pay back the General Fund. 3) A $5MM bond issuance, 10-year term, in the 2017-18 fiscal year to fund $5MM of the $6.2MM of other expenses. 4) Remaining $1 .2MM of the other expenses will be funded from the Capital Projects Fund. 5) Implement .25% local sales tax as additional revenue to support the $5MM debt service obligation ($600,000 annually for 10 years at 3.5 %). The .25% local sales tax Page I 5  is estimated to raise $900,000 annually. The remaining $300,000 would be dedicated to the Capital Projects Fund. Option B 1) Use of TIF 2 revenues, same as option A (1). 2) Borrow from the General Fund for TIF 2 eligible expenses, same as Option A (2). 3) Fund $6.2MM of other expenses in the Capital Projects Fund. Funding Scope 2 Total cost for Scope 2 is estimated at $3 1MM; $20.6MM of costs are TIF 2 eligible and $ 10.4MM are non-TIF related expenses. Attached as Exhibit I is a breakdown of Scope 2 costs and funding needed for the 5-year project. To fund Scope 2, two options are provided below. The options consider both cash available to pay construction costs and revenue sources to fund the project. Option A 1) TIF 2 revenues are able to fund all expenses that are TIF eligible: $20.6MM. Total TIF 2 revenue projected at $2 1MM thru the end of the TIF. 2) Borrow $2MM from the General Fund to meet cash flow needed for TIF 2 eligible expenses which exceed TIF 2 revenue in fiscal year 2020/2021. Revenues estimated from TIF 2 during fiscal years 2022 and 2023 are sufficient to pay back the General Fund. 3) A $1OMM bond issuance, 15-year term, in the 2018/19 fiscal year to fund $1OMM of the $10.3MM of other expenses. The Capital Projects Fund would fund the difference in project costs. 4) Implement .25% local sales tax as additional revenue to support the $1OMM debt service obligation ($870,000 annually for 15 years at 3.5 %). The .25% local sales tax is estimated to raise $900,000 annually. The remaining $30,000 would be dedicated to the Capital Projects Fund. Option B 1) Use TIF revenue, same as Option A (1). 2) Borrow from the General Fund to cover TIF expenditures, same as Option A (2). 3) Fund $10.3MM of the other expenses in the Capital Projects Fund. Funding Scope 3 Total cost for Scope 3 is estimated at $36.6MM, $24.4MM of costs are TIF 2 eligible; $1.2MM are TIF 3 eligible, and $1 1MM are non-TIF related or general fund expenses. Attached as Exhibit J is a breakdown of Scope 3 costs and funding needed for the 5-year project. To fund Scope 3 the following option is offered. Page 6  Option A 1) TIF 2 revenues are not able to fund all expenses that are TIF 2 eligible: $24.4MM. Total TIF 2 revenue projected at $2 1MM thru the end of the TIF. 2) Issue one $1OMM 15-year term bond and one $5MM 10-year term bond to fund $3.4MM of expenses exceeding total TIF 2 revenue, $1.2MM of TIF 3 eligible expenses, and $1IMM of other expenses. 3) Implement .25% sales tax as additional revenue to support $1 5MM debt service ($870,000 annually for a $1OMM 15-year issue and $600,000 annually for $5MM 10- year issue, both at 3.5%). Other revenue may be necessary to fund debt service not covered by .25% sales tax. Recommendation It is important to emphasize that this recommendation is shaped by the assumptions and acknowledgements set forth above for scope, phasing and funding. A change in one or more of these assumptions and/or acknowledgments could have an impact on the staffs specific recommendation. For example, a stated assumption is to avoid reliance on the property tax as a tool to fund the project. This assumption impacts scope and funding recommendations. Scope 1, Funding Option A. Scope 1 is recommended at a cost of $23.8MM; includes $1MM earmarked for the Park and S 1.5MM for the French Market. A 4-year construction effort is proposed for Scope 1. First phase would be Front Street from West to Cross; second phase, Wesley Street and Cross Street north of the tracks; third phase, Main Street from Illinois to Wesley and Wheaton Avenue from Liberty to Wesley; and fourth phase, Liberty Drive from Hale to Cross, Cross from Liberty to tracks, and French Market and Park. Funding Option A would provide TIF 2 revenues to fund all expenses that are TIF eligible; borrow 52MM from the General Fund to meet cash needed for TIF 2 eligible expenses which exceed TIF 2 revenue with a payback within two years; issue 10-year $5MM bond to fund 55MM of the 56.2MM of other expenses; remaining $1 .2MM of other expenses funded from the Capital Projects Fund; and implement additional .25% local sales tax as revenue to support the $5MM debt service obligation. The additional .25% local sales tax is estimated to raise $900,000 annually with the remaining $300,000 dedicated to the Capital Projects Fund. Scope Scope 1 addresses the minimum number of streets that currently make up the “core” — downtown area and accomplish the highest priority metrics. Those identified Pedestrian, Festival, or Other Streets not included in Scope 1 can be addressed in partnership with private development once development occurs in or the need presents itself through inclusion in the City’s annual Road Program. Phasing Scope 1 phasing places emphasis on existing infrastructure that is most in need, — showing signs of significant stress. A linear construction approach will provide construction efficiencies, and optimum pedestrian access and vehicular movement thru and within the downtown area. Page I 7 Funding Reserves in TIF 2, General Fund, and Capital Projects Fund will support the cash - needed for construction contracts. There would also be available funding should it be necessary to complete other elements such as existing traffic signal upgrades. Revenue TIF 2 is providing 73% of the revenue to fund the project. Implementation of an — additional .25% local sales tax will support the $5MM debt service obligation, with remaining S300,000 annually dedicated to the Capital Projects Fund. Additional dedicated funding flowing to capital projects creates greater opportunities to continue efforts to focus on completing necessary capital projects that are critical to the City. Next step Contract with a civil engineer to begin development of design drawings and - specifications for Phase 1 Front Street from West to Cross. The staff would initiate a request — for qualification and a request for proposal process to select an engineering firm. It is recommended that Design Workshop be engaged to provide general streetscape design oversight relating to the design elements to ensure consistency with the quality identified in the Strategic Plan documents. Also, staff recommends contracting with CCS to continue costing oversight and value engineering as the drawings and specifications are prepared. Check points for scope, cost and streetscape feature alignment at specific stages of speciation and drawing development would be provided to the City Council. This includes scope, cost, and streetscape feature checks at Design Development, Schematic Design, and 50% completion of construction drawings. This type of approach best manages scope creep, and establishes a structured process for continued value engineering and achievement of desired streetscape elements. Attachments Page 8  EXHIBIT A Strategic Plan Identified Project Area and Street Type Designations flh1h 1i Fetiva Street Oxflhfl Pedest,ian Focused Street Other Downtown Street t zflwa Page I 9  EXHIBIT B Other Streets I ‘a I C t I, Is a N Page 110  EXHIBIT C Ornamental Fixtures I il a ii I I Page I 11  EXHIBIT D Downtown Street Program Scope I Good Level - Seminary Av svnl!nary Ae Sixuiitry Ave Seminary Ave S Kadskoga Ave 4’, I • ““i r I -- Literry Dr Liberty Dr 4) WiltiwAvo q2 El U) U ft. Child St ft llhnois St 4, ni at a Indiana St Indiana St ndiana St Scope I Streets Evergreen St Year 1 W Year 2 Year 3 U) [Year4 Roosevelt Rd Total $23,$16549 Phases $7,392,768 $6,647, 193 $5,089,725 $4,6a6,863 I Othir • TIF2 Ynir 1 Year 2 Yir 3 Yr’d 4 Page 112  EXHIBIT E Downtown Street Program Scope 2 Good Level - Seminary Ave r Seminary AcC Seminary Ave Sefihlilary Ave s Karlc)roga £ Ave I I - Weslay St LibertY Dr UI Lbertt Dr - I 4; iw WilluN Ave i ChiId St Illirtuis St ‘I) m in C Indiana St Indiana St Inalafla St Year 1 Evergreen St - Year 2 Year3 Year 4 Cl) Year 5 Roosevelt Rd Total $31,047,779 Phases $81A 3.21 $S,fl4,612 $Ss7O,947 $SrO€9,725 • Other • 11f2 II Yea1 Year2 Var. Year4 Year S c ,o-a4r4 Page 13  Ave :1 1E Wostivy St Liberty Dr - LibertyOf WiIIoWAv & ChiId St ri. 1tIInoS St di ID Indiana St Indiana St %ndiafla St ‘(earl Evergreen St Year 2 Year 3 Year4 U) I Year 5 Roosevelt Rd Total $36,681,953 Phases $11,23-6250 • Other •TIF2 • 1II $5,059,123 ii $71U626 S5O27G $6,fll,07 61 Yer1 Year2 Year3 Yr4 ear5 F*’,:F.’ ,,.d-d.c3i Page 14  EXHIBIT G TIF 2 and TIF 3 Boundaries Semlnarl Au’ z 4 3::, - J .‘ 1t2 3 4j.Lt Page 115  EXHIBIT H Scope 1 — Good Level $23.8MM (Park at $1MM and Market at $1.SMM) FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY19/20 FY2O/21 FY2I/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 FY24/25 Year 1 Engineering $500,000 Construction $4,590,000 Year 2 Engineering $665,000 Construction $5,980,000 Year 3 Engineering $469,000 Construction $4,220,000 Year 4 Engineering $740,000 Construction $6,660,000 TOTAL $500,000 $5,255,000 $6,449,000 $4,960,000 $6,660,000 TIF Cumulative Expense $240,000 $2,908,000 $7,408,230 $10,975,630 $17,635,60 OTHER Cumulative Expense $260,000 $2,847,000 $4,795,770 $6,188,370 $6,188 70 TIF Annual /“‘ Revenue $5,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,600,000 $2,700,000 ,/$2,700,000 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 TIF Cumulative $10,000,000 $12,700,000 $18,200,000 $21,000,000 Revenue $5,600,000 $7,400,000 4$15,400,000 Debt Service Obligation $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $900,000 Page 16  EXHIBIT I Scope 2 — Good Level $31MM (Park at $1.5MM and Market at $2MM) FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FYI9/20 FY2O/21 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 FY24/25 Year 1 Engineering $500,000 Construction $4,590,000 Year 2 Engineering $570,000 Construction $5,130,000 Year 3 Engineering $650,000 Construction $5,850,000 Year 4 Engineering $560,000 Construction $5,040,000 Year 5 Engineering $810,000 Construction $7,290,000 TOTAL $500,000 $5,160,000 $5,780,000 $6,410,000 $5,850,000 $7,290,000 TIF Cumulative Expense $240,000 $2,839,000 $6,735,500 $9,684,000 $13,338,000 $20,628,000 OTHER Cumulative Expense $260,000 $2,821,000 $4,704,500 $8,166,000 $10,362,000 $10,362,000 Annual TIF Revenue $5,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,600,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 Cumulative TIF Revenue $5,600,000 $7,400,000 $10,000,000 $12,700,000 $15,400,000 $18,200,000 $21,000,000 Debt Service Obligation $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $900,000 Page 117  EXHIBIT J Scope 3 — Good Level $36.6MM (Park $2MM and Market $3.5MM) FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FYI9/20 FY2O/21 FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 FY24/25 Year 1 Engineering $500,000 Construction $4,590,000 Year2 Engineering $710,000 Construction $6,390,000 Year 3 Engineering $650,000 Construction $5,850,000 Year 4 Engineering $670,000 Construction $6,030,000 Year 5 Engineering $1,120,000 Construction $10,080,000 TOTAL $500,000 $5,300,000 $7,040,000 $6,520,000 $7,150,000 $10,080,000 TIF Cumulative Expense $240,000 $2,887,300 $8,418,500 $11,509,200 $15,223,800 $24,441,000 OTHER Cumulative Expense $260,000 $2,912,700 $4,421,500 $7,850,800 $11,286,200 $12,149,000 Annual TIF Revenue $5,600,000 $1,800,000 $2,600,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 Cumulative TIF Revenue $5,600,000 $7,400,000 $10,000,000 $12,700,000 $15,400,000 $18,200,000 $21,000,000 Debt Service Obligation $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $900,000 Page 18