|
Page 2 of 12
<br />
<br />The below scenarios assume no bonding and PMP project expenditures are shifted.
<br />
<br />Scenario D assumes no bonding, PMP project expenditures are shifted, the levy is increased by
<br />$50,000 in 2026 (previously this was 2027), and annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive
<br />fund balance through 2033. This would result in a 0.83% or $50,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-1 assumes no bonding, PMP project expenditures are shifted, the levy is increased by
<br />$100,000 in 2026, and annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2035. This would result in a 1.66% or $100,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-2 assumes no bonding, PMP project expenditures are shifted, the levy is increased by
<br />$120,000 in 2026, and by $100,000 annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund
<br />balance through 2035. This would result in a 1.99% or $120,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-3 assumes no bonding, PMP project expenditures are shifted, the levy is increased by
<br />$180,000 in 2026, and by $75,000 annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance
<br />through 2035. This would result in a 2.99% or $180,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-4 assumes no bonding, PMP project expenditures are shifted, the levy is increased by
<br />$240,000 in 2026, and by $75,000 annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance
<br />through 2035. This would result in a 3.98% or $240,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-5 assumes no bonding, PMP project expenditures are shifted, the levy is increased by
<br />$300,000 in 2026, and by $50,000 annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance
<br />through 2035. This would result in a 4.98% or $300,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />The next set of scenarios assumes no bonding and no shift in PMP project expenditures.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-6 assumes no bonding, no shift in PMP project expenditures, the levy is increased by
<br />$100,000 in 2026, and annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2029. This would result in a 1.66% or $100,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-7 assumes no bonding, no shift in PMP project expenditures, the levy is increased by
<br />$120,000 in 2026, and annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2029. This would result in a 1.99% or $120,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-8 assumes no bonding, no shift in PMP project expenditures, the levy is increased by
<br />$180,000 in 2026, and annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2035. This would result in a 2.99% or $180,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-9 assumes no bonding, no shift in PMP project expenditures, the levy is increased by
<br />$240,000 in 2026, and annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2035. This would result in a 3.98% or $240,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario D-10 assumes no bonding, no shift in PMP project expenditures, the levy is increased by
<br />$300,000 in 2026, and annually thereafter. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2035. This would result in a 4.98% or $300,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario E assumes PMP project expenditures are shifted and the City issues a bond for the PIR
<br />portion (includes bonding for the special assessments portion) of the PMP project in 2026. Debt
|