HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA TWN CTR REDEV 03-04-91DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MARCH 41 1991
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RDA N0. 6
3-4-91
Inter - Com
CHRISTINE SHINGLETON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINANCING PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Agency approve the proposed financing
plan and authorize staff to proceed with additional steps towards
issuance of bonds.
BACKGROUND
In May and August 1989, the Tustin RedeveloWnent CenterAgency
Redevelopmenauthorized
t
staff to develop a financing plan for the T
Project based upon the 1989 Amendments to the Town Center
Redevelopment Plan. Staff were also instructed to proceed with any
planning for future bond issuance including hiring of necessary.
consultants ( fiscal agent, financial consultants and bond counsel) .
The Agency subsequently entered into an agreement with the -firm of
Stone & Youngberg to provide financial advisory services to the
Agency. As a summary measure of their prior experience, over the
past five years Stone & Youngberg have managed 60 California tax
allocation bond issues representing $1.5 billion as underwriter or
financial adviser.
Please find attached a Summary Financing Plan i sr theincT a -in
Project. The report addresses all those top
Agency's original request for proposal including the following:
° A summary of the Agency's capital improvement program
contained in the Town Center Redevelopment Plan including an
updated budget and schedule for each project
The Agency's available and projected revenues and financing
options
° Evaluation and recommendations regarding financing
alternatives
An analysis of the proposed financing in the context of the
existing obligations created by the 1987 bonds issued by the
Agency
Redevelopment Agency Report
Town Center Redevelopment Project
Financing Plan
March 4, 1991
Page 2
Total cash flow requirements of the Project Area over time and
the impacts of any proposed bond financing.
Staff and representatives from Stone & Youngberg will be available
at a workshop at 5:30 p.m. on March 4th to answer any questions and
also at the Agency's regularly scheduled meeting later in the
evening.
,,Christine A. Shinglet n Ron d Nault
Director of Communit Development Director of Finance
CAS:kbc\tcfinanc.cas
Community Development Department
FINANCING PLAN
TUST N CO TY REDEVELOPMENT .AGENCY
TOWN CENTER. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
STONE & YOUNGBER.G
February 25, 1991
TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TORN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FINANCING PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Review of Financing Options
o Parity Bonds
o Subordinate Bonds
MIA o Certificates of Participation
Bond Structuring Considerations
o Final Maturity
o Business Inventory Subventions
o *Low and Moderate Income Housing Set—Aside
Recommended Financing Program
V. EXHIBITS
o Exhibit I: Application of Tax Revenues & Bond Sizing Options
o Exhibit II: Projected Tax Revenue & Debt Service Coverage
o Exhibit III: Capital Program Sources & Uses
STONE & YO U N G B E R G
I.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
_l
II.
INTRODUCTION
III.
AGENCY PROJECTS
IV.
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
FINANCING PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Review of Financing Options
o Parity Bonds
o Subordinate Bonds
MIA o Certificates of Participation
Bond Structuring Considerations
o Final Maturity
o Business Inventory Subventions
o *Low and Moderate Income Housing Set—Aside
Recommended Financing Program
V. EXHIBITS
o Exhibit I: Application of Tax Revenues & Bond Sizing Options
o Exhibit II: Projected Tax Revenue & Debt Service Coverage
o Exhibit III: Capital Program Sources & Uses
STONE & YO U N G B E R G
l I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Current tax increment revenues, in conjunction with developer provided
monies, appear.adequate to support a financing to provide monies to meet
the Agency's identified capital program through Fiscal Year 1994/95 (See
Section III>., These projects include:
o Civic Center Expansion Project (1992-94)
o Various Water Wells (1992 & 1995)
o Reservoir Enlargement (1993-94)
o Columbus Tustin Park Improvements, Phase I (1991-92) and
portions of Phase II (1995-96)
The Agency may accomplish its financing objectives in one of these ways:
f (i) a sale of Bonds on a parity with its 1987 Bonds, (ii) a sale of Bonds
1 which are subordinate or junior -to the 1987 Bonds, and (iii) a sale of a
Certificate of Participation obligation of the City's General Fund with
an Agency pledge of tax increment. Each approach has certain advantages
and disadvantages, which are reviewed in Section IV of this Report.
1
Given the Agency's goals and objectives, we recommend the Agency issue
Bonds on a parity with the 1987 Bonds. This approach will:
o In combination with other funds, provide sufficient
proceeds to meet the Agency's capital needs through
1995;
o Ensure the lowest possible cost of funds to the Agency,
i.e., the lowest interest rates available;
o Leave the maximum amount of tax increment after debt
service to meet ongoing Agency needs;
o Provide flexibility in the future with respect to Agency's
requirement to fund its Low and Moderate Income Housing
obligation.
Pursuant to the Redevelopment Law, the Agency may defer its Housing
Set—Aside obligation through the 1996/97 Fiscal Year. The Agency is
currently doing this. However, the Redevelopment Law obligates the
Agency to "accrue" the amount of the deferred Housing Set—Aside and
develop a plan to provide sufficient funds to meet its accrued housing
obligation. The accrued Housing Set—Aside and the eventual 20% annual
Set—Aside constitute a significant future obligation for the Agency.
STONEIt
& YOUNGBERG
II. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the findings and recommendations of Stone &
Youngberg regarding the financing of various capital projects in the Town
Center Redevelopment Project. In the development of the Financing Plan, we
reviewed the Agency's capital needs (summarized in Section III) as well as
other future obligations of the Agency which may have a claim on tax increment
from the Town Center Redevelopment Project. Our review of the Agency's
capital and operating needs was conducted with due consideration of the
Agency's overall resources in order to provide a comprehensive approach
towards the Agency's financial needs.
The Agency possesses significant resources in the Town Center
Redevelopment Project: a healthy fund balance, a significant developer
contribution towards its major project and a strong tax increment -flow. The
Agency also faces significant demands on the resources of the Town Center
Redevelopment Project. In addition to the Agency's capital projects, these
demands include the deferred but steadily accruing Housing Set—Aside
Obligation, the annual Housing Set—Aside which commences with the 1996/9
Fiscal Year and the Agency's annual operating requirements.
The Financing Plan has been structured to meet the following objectives:
o provide adequate funds to meet all of the Agency's needs over
the five year capital program schedule;
o provide the lowest possible cost of funds for the Agency's
program;
o provide future flexibility for the Agency in managing its
operating and programmatic needs, especially with respect to
the Housing Set—Aside requirements.
With respect to the organization of this Report, Section III of this
Report provides a summary of the Agency's capital needs as provided to us by
staff. Section IV reviews the Agency's financing alternatives in the capital
markets, discusses bond structuring considerations of relevance to the Agency
and concludes with our recommended financing program. Section V provides
several spreadsheet analyses as an adjunct to our discussion regarding the
Agency's financing alternatives.
STONE & YOUNGBERG
STONE & YOUNGBERG
III. AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS & PROGRAMS
-- -
1991-1996
The following list summarizes the
Agency's five year capital
program for
the Town Center Redevelopment Project
as presented to Stone & Youngberg. We
have utilized this project list as our
baseline in examining the
Agency's
financing program in Exhibits I -III.
Civic Center
Anticipated Costs
5che-iul i ng
Construction (a)
5,000,000
1991/92
5,000,000
1992/93
1,100,000
1993/94
Project Management
99,000
1991/92
107,000
1992/93
104,000
1993/94
Street/Traffic I lKq ements
Traffic Signal (1st & B) (b)
58,500
1995/96
Street Lighting (b)
50,000
1995/96
Kates stem/Storm Drains
Water Wells
235 Main Street (b)
247,500.
1991/92
Other Site
258,750
1994/95
«
Renovate or Build Maint. Facility
(b) 437,500
1995/96
Enlarge Reservoir (b)
Design
150,000
1992/93
Construction
1,350,000
1993/94
Park/Recreation Focilities
Peppertree Park Renovation (b)
Design
50,000
1994/95
Construction
200,000
1995/96
Columbus Tustin Park
Phase IIa
125,850
1990/91
528,070
1991/92
Phase IIb
Design
230,000
1994/95
�
Construction
2,343,100
1995/96
ki,
STONE & YOUNGBERG
STONE & YOUNGBERG
Other MiscgI1ans Projects
Land Assembly
3,580,000
Unprogrammed
Rehabilitation
Residential
300,000
Unprogrammed
Commerciale (Seismic)
200,000
1991/93
Other
700,000
Unprogrammed
School Administration Building
3,500,000
Unscheduled
Amagansett Storm Drain
Design
35,000
Unprogrammed
Construction
260,000
Unprogrammed
Housing Set -Aside Receivable
1,996,763
1995/96
(FY 1985/1986 through 1989/1990)
(a) Approximately $2 million of the cost
of the Civic Center Expansion will be
paid from an expected Developer contribution
in 1991.
(b) Represents the Agency's contribution
toward total project
costs.
Olt
JA
Source: Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
Projects and figures derived from the
January 1989 Report
to City Council on
Second Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment
Plan for the
Town Center Area
Redevelopment Project, modified to reflect
completed projects
and revised
project costs including construction
cost index increases
that will occur
over time.
STONE & YOUNGBERG
IV. FINARCING ALTERNATIVES
REVI EH OF FINANCING OPT
Utilizing the tax increment revenue projections for Fiscal Year 1990/91
provided by Katz Hollis, we reviewed several financing alternatives providing
varying amounts of funds to.the Agency. These options included an issue on a
parity with the 1987 Bonds, a subordinate issue to the 1987 Bonds and City
Certificates of Participation with an Agency reimbursement agreement. This
section briefly discusses these alternatives. Each financing alternative was
structured to provide the maximum amount of net proceeds or funds given
current tax increment revenues and the appropriate coverage assumptions. The
results of our initial bond sizing analyses are enclosed in Exhibit I:
"Application of Tax Revenues & Bond Sizing Options".
1
j Parity Bonds
The Agency could pursue an issue on a parity with its 1987 Bonds which
would, given that issue's covenants, feature a 125% coverage test on the tax
increment. Sucha financing would probably qualify for bond insurance and we
have utilized a "Aaa/AAA" interest rate. in our analysis of the parity issue.
This option is attractive in that it would provide the lowest cost of funds to
the Agency, i.e., the lowest interest rate for its debt. Although the parity
bond issue produces the lowest amount of net bond proceeds of the three
alternatives, this amount is still adequate to meet the Agency's capital
program and, on an annual basis, provides the largest amount of net available
tax increment for future requirements and operating purposes.
Subordinate Bonds
If the parity structure proved overly constraining in terms of the
covenants or the amount of net bond proceeds produced, the Agency could issue
subordinate bonds and effectively redefine the terms of its debt program. For
example, the Agency could utilize a reduced coverage factor of 110% relative
to the 1987 Bonds' 12-5`/o coverage pledge, thus allowing for a greater amount of
debt. In our view, this kind of bond financing would probably be issued on a
non—rated basis, as this structure represents a diminished a►rount of security
f for investors relative to -the parity issue and therefore would require a
higher rate of interest than the Parity issue. Our analysis reflects an
average interestate which is approximately 100 basis
' points (1 .0"/0)higher
then the parity bonds alternative. While the Agency would realize a greater
amount of proceeds from the subordinate bond alternative, it will be obligated
to utilize a greater amount of tax increment for annual debt service.
Consequently, the Agency would have diminished flexibility with respect to
future requirements, such as the 20,o Low and Moderate Income Housing Set—Aside.
f
STONE &. YOUNGBERG
Certificates of Participation
As a final alternative, we reviewed a certificate of participation issue
to be sold by the City of Tustin which would be supported by a reimbursement
agreement from the Agency pledging the tax increment remaining after debt
service on the 1987 Bonds. This structure effectively leverages all available
tax increment, without allowance for a coverage factor and provides the
greatest amount of net bond proceeds as noted in Exhibit I. Because of the
combined pledge of the City's -General Fund and all available tax increment, we
believe this approach would qualify for bond insurance, which is reflected in
our interest rate assumptions. The draw -back to '1.
'h F
e Certificate o�
Participation is that this alternative effectively places the City's General
Fund as the issue's source of security should tax increment be insufficient to
meet pledged lease payments. -his use of the General Fund may restrict
flexibility should the City wish to issue General Fund obligations in the
future for other capital needs of the City.
HID STRUCTURING CONSI(DERATI�NS
1
Final Maturity
We have prepared our analyses assuming a 25 year final maturity for all
financing options. Inasmuch as the 1987 Bonds mature in 2006, we utilized the
tax increment "freed -up" at that point as an additional source of revenue for
the financing. Consequently, the debt service profile of the proposed bonds
"steps -up" beginning in 2007 to absorb the additional tax increment
available. The attached bar graph at the end of this.section illustrates the
Agency's tax increment and overall debt service profile for the 1987 Bonds and
the Parity debt alternative.
Business Inventory Subventions
Until recently, the Redevelopment Law held redevelopment agencies
harmless from the loss of business inventory replacement revenues through the
payment of special state subventions. With respect to the Project Area, Katz
Hollis has reported that the full annual Business Inventory Subvention
entitlement approximates $65,000. AB 160, enacted by the Legislature last
, year, reduced this amount by 25% for the 1990/91 Fiscal Year. The governor's
proposed budget includes provisions for a further reduction in subvention
payments for the 1991/92 Fiscal Year below that which was contained in
AB 160. AB 222, incorporating the Governor's proposal, would sharply reduce
the State's funding of Business Inventory Subvention payments. Given the
prospective elimination of Business Inventory Subvention revenue, we have
discounted these monies in sizing the Agency's potential financings in
a Exhibit I.
Low and Moderate Income Housing Set -Aside
While the Agency is not currently required to set-aside tax increment
revenues in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, the Agency must begin to
make such a deposit effective in the 1996/97 Fiscal Year. An important issue
in structuring the financing will be whether the tax increment revenues
available after the Set -Aside requirements commence are sufficient to meet
STONE & YOUNGBERG
1 debt service on a financingsold for non -housing o n ousing purposes only. With respect
to the parity bond alternative, after reviewing Katz Hollis' figures, it
appears that projected growth in tax increment will be adequate to meet the
prospective 20% Set -Aside obligation in Fiscal Year 1996/97 and provide for
debt service. Exhibit II provides a "global" cash flow for the Agency's
projected tax increment and debt service for the parity debt option. Although
coverage drops in Fiscal Year 1996/97, the Agency appears to meet debt service
in all years. The graph at the end of this section also illustrates this
projection.
Given the higher annual debt service of the subordinate financing
alternative, maintaining adequate coverage given the 1996/97 Set -Aside would
clearly be more problematic than for the parity issue. With respect to the
certificate alternative, the City would probably have to utilize up to
$200,000 of General Fund monies in Fiscal Year 1996/97 and some amount
thereafter until tax increment increased sufficiently to meet the shortfall.
To mitigate these problems, the Agency could allocate a portion of bond
proceeds for housing purposes in conformance with the Redevelopment Law and
thus garner a "credit" on a portion of the 20% Set -Aside. We have deferred an
extensive review of these alternatives in this document as our recommended
alternative (the parity financing) appears to avoid these complications.
RECOMMENDED FINANCING PROGRAM
Based on our review of the Agency's projected capital projects within the
next five years, annual operating requirements, future Set -Aside obligations,
available tax increment and other sources of funds, we recommend the Agency
pursue an issuance -of Bonds on a parity to the 1987 Bonds. This financing
program will:
o Meet the Agency's projected capital needs through Fiscal Year 1994/95
(when combined with the prospective $2 million developer
contribution).
1
o Ensure the lowest possible interest rates for the Agency's debt.
o Provide adequate remaining cash flow to meet other Agency needs.
o Minimize the impact on Bond Owner security given the commencement of
the 20% Housing Set -Aside in Fiscal Year 1996/97.
x
' o Provide flexibilityin
the future with respect to the Agency's
j requirement to fund its Low and Moderate Income Housing obligation.
1
STONE & YOUNGBERG
111000001010010
..
��\110\\\\1\\\\\\\10
_
iRNME\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\S,
•
i�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
•
•
,
Y
�\\\\\\\\\\\\\`\\\\\\\\011,
•
'
'\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\��
•
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\MEN,
-
•
i
TUa`IG(7N11tN1T `tV''PlvfVAFV
.:..Y
T� t OENTERiE�Ett�1p14ENT PRO.Et✓T :.::.::.::•:
APPLICATION OF TAX REVENUES & BOND SIZING OPTIONS
Summary of Tax Increment Revenue (1)
Tax Increment
Unitary Property Revenue
Special Subventions
County Collection Charge
Total Tax Revenues
Allocation of Revenues for Bonds (2)
Total Tax Revenues
Available for Parity Debt Svc. [ 125% Coverage
Less 1987 Bonds Max. Debt Svc.
Remaining Tax Revenues: 1991-2006)
(for Parity Bonds) 2007-2016)
Available for Junior Debt Svc 1991-20061
2007-2016)
Coverage Available to the Aaenc
Sources and Uses of Funds
Sources
1991 Bonds (3)
Uses
EXHIBIT 1
25 YEAR TERM
FULL LEVERAGE OF TAX INCREMENT
NO HOUSING PROCEEDS
$2,263,000
49,000
0
[$39,000 received in prior years]
(6,000)
------------
Parity/COP (Insured) Rate:
7.25%
2,306,000
Subord. (Non -Rated) Rate
8.25%
Panty
:.
Subordinate :
::...
Certificate of
>:: ........ ....
:..fiords.
::.
.art ic
.: P.>::...>::..>:.>::.:.:.
$2,306,000
$2,306,000
$2,306,000
1,844,800
(805,500)
------------
(805,500)
-------------
(805,500)
1,039,300
1,500,500
---------------
1,500,500
1,844,800
110% Coverage
I 1000/0 Coverage
1,364,091 1,500,500
2,096,364 2,306,000
$461,200 $136,409 $0
$13,800,000 $15,740,000 $19,060,000
Redevelopment Fund (4) $12,178,000 $13,741,200 $16,540,400
Housing Fund (5) 0 0 0
Reserve Fund (6) 1,039,300 1,574,000 1,500,500
_ Bond Insurance (7) 221,200 0 565,500
Discount (8) 241,500 314,800 333,600
a Issuance Costs (9) 120,000 110,000 120,000
------------ ------------- ---------------
$13,800,000 $15,740,000 $19,060,000
Notes:
(1) From Katz -Hollis' figures for Fiscal Year 1990/91. Excludes Business Inventory Subventions pursuant to AB 160.
(2) Tracking the Parity Bonds Test of the 1988 Bonds and the subordinate lien and COPS alternative.
I(3) Par amount of the new money bonds. Assumes a 25 year maturity and leveraging of the 1987 Bonds'
debt service after 2006.
(4) The Redevelopment Fund represents a "plug" for remaining proceeds.
(5) This analysis assumes that proceecs will not be provided for housing purposes.
y (6) Reserve Fund sized to approximate the lesser of 10�ib or average annual debt service.
(7) The bond insurance premium is assumed to equal 65 basis points on total debt service.
(8) The estimated discount equals 1.75% and 2.0% for the insured and non -rated issues respectively.
(9) Issuance costs are the fixed expenses of selling bonds, including bond counsel and trustee fees, etc.
- TRUST_RDA
Stone & Youngberg 07 -Feb -91
i (1) Tax Increment Revenue figures reflect Katz Hollis FY 90/91 Projections with a 2.5% growth rate on tax revenues thereafter.
(2) Assumes the deferral of the 20% Housing Set -Aside through FY 1996/97.
(3) Derived from the 1987 Bonds' Official Statement.
(4) Debt service on the 1991 Bonds "steps up" after the 1987 Bonds mature in 2006 to provide an average annual debt service of $1,876,000.
(5) Reserve earnings assume reinvestment at the yield of the 1987 and 1991 Bonds respectively.
(6) Represents Tax Increment Revenue less the 1987 and 1991 Bonds debt service plus Parity Bonds Reserve Earnings.
(7) Represents the "receivable" due to the Housing Fund from gross tax increment for the deferred 20% Housing Set -Aside through FY 1995/E
TUST CF
_ Stone &Youngberg, 21 -Feb -91
TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PARITY BONDS (3)
EXHIBIT II
TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
'91 Bonds
$13,800,000
Projected Tax Revenue & Debt Service Coverage
Redev. Fund
12,178,000
IHousing
Fun
0
J
' 1991 Parity Issue:
$13,800,000
Reserve Fun
1,039,300
Term: 25
Ave Int Rate:
7.250%
Bond Insur.
221,200
Issue Costs
361,500
' 1987 Bonds Reserve Fund
$805,500
-----------
Earnings Rate:
7.750%
$13,800,000
Housing
Fiscal
Tax
1987 Bonds
1991 Parity
Parity Issue
Parity Bonds
Fund(7)
Year
Increment
Housing
Debt
Debt
Debt Svc.
Reserve
Available
"Receivable"
Ending
Revenue (1)
Set -Aside (2)
Service (3)
Service (4)
Coverage
Earnings (5)
Tax Incr. (6)
1,996,763
1991
$2,296,000
$803,590
2.86
$62,426
$1,554,836
2,455,963
1992
2,352,575
803,770
1,039,300
1.28
137,776
647,281
2,926,478
1993
2,410,564
802,570
1,039,300
1.31
137,776
706,470
3,408,591
1994
2,470,003
804,615
1,039,300
1.34
137,776
763,864
3,902,592
1995
2,530,929
804,850
1,039,300
1.37
137,776
824,554
4,408,777
1996
2,593,377
802,840
1,039,300
1.41
137,776
889,012
4,927,453
1997
2,657,386
531,477
803,840
1,039,300
1.15
137,776
952,022
1998
2,722,996
544,599
802,040
1,039,300
1.18
137,776
1,019,431
1999
2,790,246
558,049
802,290
1,039,300
1.21
137,776
1,086,431
2000
2,859,177
571,835
804,985
1,039,300
1.24
137,776
1,152,667
2001
2,929,831
585,966
804,705
1,039,300
1.27
137,776
1,223,602
2002
3,002,252
600,450
801,380
1,039,300
1.30
137,776
1,299,348
2003
3,076,483
615,297
805,500
1,039,300
1.33
137,776
1,369,459
2004
3,152,570.
630,514
800,730
1,039,300
1.37
137,776
1,450,316
2005
3,230,560
646,112
803,000
1,039,300
1.40
137,776
1,526,035
2006
3,310,499
662,100
800,875
1,039,300
1.44
137,776
1,608,099
2007
3,392,436
678,487
1,876,000
1.45
137,776
1,654,212
2008
3,476,422
695,284
1,876,000
1.48
137,776
1,738,198
2009
3,562,508
712,502
1,876,000
1.52
137,776
1,824,283
2010
3,650,745
730,149
1,876,000
1.56
137,776
1,912,521
2011
3,741,189
748,238
1,876,000
1.60
137,776
2,002,965
2012
3,833,894
766,779
1,876,000
1.63
137,776
2,095,669
2013
3,928,916
785,783
1,876,000
1.68
137,776
2,190,692
2014
4,026,314
805,263
1,876,000
1.72
137,776
2,288,089
2015
4,126,147
825,229
1,876,000
1.76
137,776
2,387,922
2016
4,228,475
-----------
845,695
-----------
----------
1,876,000
1.80
1,913,688
4,266,163
$82,352,495
$13,539,809
$12,851,580
----------
$34,349,500
$4,927,453
4,927,453
$18,467,262
Total Set -Aside
i (1) Tax Increment Revenue figures reflect Katz Hollis FY 90/91 Projections with a 2.5% growth rate on tax revenues thereafter.
(2) Assumes the deferral of the 20% Housing Set -Aside through FY 1996/97.
(3) Derived from the 1987 Bonds' Official Statement.
(4) Debt service on the 1991 Bonds "steps up" after the 1987 Bonds mature in 2006 to provide an average annual debt service of $1,876,000.
(5) Reserve earnings assume reinvestment at the yield of the 1987 and 1991 Bonds respectively.
(6) Represents Tax Increment Revenue less the 1987 and 1991 Bonds debt service plus Parity Bonds Reserve Earnings.
(7) Represents the "receivable" due to the Housing Fund from gross tax increment for the deferred 20% Housing Set -Aside through FY 1995/E
TUST CF
_ Stone &Youngberg, 21 -Feb -91
.. ... ....
TUSTiN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT:AGENCY
TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.::::::*,::',:::::::,:;.,.:.,.:.:..
Civic Center Construction
CAPITAL PROGRAM SOURCES AND USES
5,000,000 1,100, 000
Sources of Funds
99,000
107,000 114,000
Street/Traffic Impr.
General
Housing
Commercial Seismic Rehab.
Purpose
Purpose
Parity Bond Proceeds
$12,178,000
$0
Subordinate Bond Proceeds
0
0
Reservoir Enlargement
-----------
$12,178,000
-----------
$0
Other Sources
Developer Funds
2,000,000
Other Capital Funds
�
2,000,000
General Purpose Capital Projects
Sources
1992
1993
Beg. FY Bond Balance
$6,203,430
Beg. FY Other Fund Balance
2,000,000
Bond Proceeds
12,178,000 (2)
Bond Interest Earnings (1)
666,300
Other/Transfers
2,000,000
Interest Earnings (3)
-----------
160,000
14,178,000
-----------
9,029 730
Earnings Rate: 7.25%
Agency Earn. Rate: 8.00%
1994
$1,512,730
2,160,000
279,700
166,400
-----------
4118830
EXHIBIT III
1995 1996
$0 $0
1,554,830 1,219,480
54,800
0
148,600
------------
1,758,230
Uses 4
1 '
Civic Center Construction
5,000,000
5,000,000 1,100, 000
Civic Center Proj. Mgt.
99,000
107,000 114,000
Street/Traffic Impr.
Commercial Seismic Rehab.
100,000
100,000
Water Wells
247,500
Renovate Maint. Facility
Reservoir Enlargement
150,000 1,350,000
Peppertree Park Renoti
'
va on
258,750 50,000
Columbus Tustin Park 528,070 230,000
---------------------------------------------
$5,974,570 $5,357,000 $2,564,000 $538,750
1 Year End Balance
J Bond Proceeds $6,203,430 1,512,730 0 0
Other Funds 2,000,000 2,160,000 1,554,830 1,219,480
Notes
(1) Earnings on the prior year's average annual outstanding amount of bond proceeds at the bond yield.
(2) See Exhibit I, net proceeds for the 1991 Parity Bond financing.
(3) Interest earnings on non -Bond funds contributed to capital program at the Agency's earnings rate.
i (4) See the Agency's list of capital projects outlined in Section II of the Financing Report.
Stone & Youngberg
0
1,760,000
111,000
3,090,480
108,500
437,500
200,000
2,343,100
------------
$3,089,100
0
1,380
TUST_CF
21 -Feb -91