Loading...
19246I 2 ORDINANCE NO. 19,246 3 AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR 4 CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, 5 PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS; APPROVING THE PROJECT PLAN 6 FOR THE DISTRICT; PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS RELATING 7 THERETO; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 8 9 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, has 10 determined that it is in the best interest of the City to create a redevelopment district as 11 authorized by Amendment No. 78 to the Arkansas Constitution and Act No. 1197 of 12 2001 (Ark. Code Ann. (2003 Supp.) §§ 14 -168 -201 to —322) consisting of all property in 13 the City located in the Port of Little Rock, and to approve a project plan for the district; 14 and 15 WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing on the questions of the formation of the 16 redevelopment district and the approval of the project plan, to be held before the Board 17 of Directors on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., at Little Rock City Hall, 500 18 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, was sent by first -class mail to the chief 19 executive officer of all local governmental and taxing entities having the power to levy 20 taxes on property located within the proposed redevelopment district and to the school 21 board of any school district which includes property located within the proposed 22 redevelopment district, specifically, the Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock 23 School District of Pulaski County, the School Board of the Little Rock School District of 24 Pulaski County, the Mayor of the City of Little Rock, and the Pulaski County Judge, on 25 November 15, 2004, and was published one time in the Arkansas Democrat - Gazette, a 26 newspaper of general circulation in the City of Little Rock, on November 17, 2004; and [Page 1 of 7] I WHEREAS, representatives of the Little Rock Port Authority have met with 2 representatives of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Pulaski County, 3 and Central Arkansas Library System; and 4 WHEREAS, a proposed project plan has been presented to the Board of Directors 5 and is on file with the City Clerk, which project plan provides for completion of the 6 Capital Improvement Plan of the Little Rock Port Authority, consisting generally of 7 public infrastructure projects including reconstruction of streets within the 8 redevelopment district to bring them to interstate - weight capable standards, installation 9 of water and sewer lines to areas within the redevelopment district that are currently 10 not served, construction of dockside improvements including cranes and warehouses, 11 construction of additional railroad facilities, and site preparation; and 12 WHEREAS, the public hearing has been held on this date at the time and in the 13 place advertised, and interested parties have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to 14 express their views on the proposed creation of the redevelopment district and its 15 proposed boundaries and on the project plan; 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 17 OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, that: 18 Section 1. The following land is hereby laid off into a redevelopment district: 19 A parcel of land situated in Sections 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 20 23, Township 1 North, Range 11 West, all lying south of the Arkansas 21 River in Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: 22 Commencing at the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 said Section 15; 23 thence N 01 degrees 41'50" E along the west line of said SE 1/4, Section 15, 24 for a distance of 1,801.12 feet to a point being on the centerline of Old 25 Fourche Creek; thence N 38 degrees 20'50" E approximately 2,356 feet to 26 the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Arkansas River being the Point of 27 Beginning; thence northwesterly along the Ordinary High Water Mark of [Page 2 of 7] I the Arkansas River to the intersection of the west line of the SE 1/4, Section 2 9; thence southerly along said west line of the SE 1/4, Section 9 to the 3 intersection of the centerline of Old Fourche Creek, being approximately 4 2,400 feet north of the southwest corner of said SE 1/4, Section 9; thence 5 southeasterly along the centerline of Old Fourche Creek to a point which 6 is the intersection of Old Fourche Creek and the south line of Hermitage 7 Home Sites Subdivision extended; thence N 89 degrees 34'51" W along the 8 said south line 137.12 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 99, Hermitage 9 Home Sites Subdivision; thence S 11 degrees 28'14" E, 202.85 feet to a 10 point; thence S 23 degrees 41'56" E, 170.20 feet to a point; thence S 29 11 degrees 12'48" E, 141.20 feet to a point; thence S 25 degrees 56'21" E, 12 205.30 feet to a point; thence S 36 degrees 44'33" E, 134.3 feet to a point on 13 the south right -of -way the following bearings and distances: S 59 degrees 14 21'26" W, 319.16 feet to a point; thence S 66 degrees 52' W, 426.1 feet to a 15 point; thence N 74 degrees 09'E, 516.6 feet to a point, thence N 64 degrees 16 50'E, 204.0 feet to a point; thence S 58 degrees 41' W, 366.9 feet to a point; 17 thence S 63 degrees 00'11" W, 308.0 feet to a point; thence S 70 degrees 18 25'35" W, 100.5 feet to a point, thence S 55 degrees 35' W, 85.4 feet to a 19 point; thence S 08 degrees 56' W, 144.4 feet to a point on the east right -of- 20 way of Fourche Dam Pike; thence leaving said south right -of -way of East 21 Belt of Freeway N 01 degrees 30'32" E, along said east right -of -way of 22 Fourche Dam Pike 217.2 feet to a point; thence S 81 degrees 06'14" W, 23 122.12 feet to the intersection of the west right -of -way of Fourche Dam 24 Pike and the south right -of -way of East Belt Freeway; thence N 89 degrees 25 46'32" W, 670.15 feet along said south right -of -way the following bearings 26 and distances: thence S 84 degrees 40' W, 202.2 feet to a point; thence S 75 27 degrees 09" W, 1,118.1 feet to point; thence S 89 degrees 35" W, 421.1 feet [Page 3 of 7] I to a point; thence N 87 degrees 53' W, 703.2 feet to a point; thence N 89 2 degrees 43' W, 900.5 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 48'47" W, 491.6 3 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 04'32" W, 270.0 more or less to point 4 on the Centerline of Fourche Bayou; thence, leaving said south right -of- 5 way of East Belt Freeway, southwesterly along the centerline of Fourche 6 Bayou approximately 900 feet to the intersection of the north right -of -way 7 line of Lindsey Road; thence N 87 degrees 17'02" W along said north 8 right -of -way line approximately 5 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 9 54'02" W, 93.68 feet to a point; thence N 75 degrees 01'45" W, 117.33 feet 10 to a point; thence N 71 degrees 16'09" W, 650.10 feet to a point; thence 11 northwesterly along a curve to the right whose radius is 703.94 feet, a 12 distance of 707.17 feet to a point; thence N 13 degrees 43'08" W, 1,091.00 13 feet to a point; thence northwesterly along a curve to the left whose radius 14 is 1,969.86 feet, a distance of 339.32 feet to a point; thence 23 degrees 15 35'08" W, 119.50 feet to a point; thence N 20 degrees 43'23" W, 200.25 feet 16 to a point; thence N 23 degrees 35'08" W, 200.0 feet to a point; thence N 26 17 degrees 17'43" W, 211.54 feet to a point; thence N 23 degrees 35'08" W, 18 275.0 feet to a point; thence N 31 degrees 50'16" E, 54.15 feet to a point, 19 said point being the intersection of the east right -of -way line of Lindsey 20 Road and the south right -of -way line of East Roosevelt Road; thence N 88 21 degrees 03'39" W along the south right -of -way line of East Roosevelt Road 22 215.0 feet, said point being the intersection of the west right -of -way line of 23 Lindsey Road and the south right -of -way line of East Roosevelt Road; 24 thence S 45 degrees 26'23" E along said west right -of -way line of Lindsey 25 Road 79.06 feet to a point; thence 23 degrees 35'08" E, 1,055.80 feet to a 26 point; thence southeasterly along a curve to the right whose radius is 27 1,849.86 feet, a distance of 318.64 feet to a point; thence S 13 degrees 43'08" [Page 4 of 7] I E, 1,091.0 feet to a point; thence southeasterly along a curve to the left 2 whose radius is 823.94 feet, a distance of 827.70 feet to a point; thence S 71 3 degrees 16'09" E, 650.10 feet to a point; thence S 68 degrees 3923" E, 4 134.87 feet to a point; thence S 81 degrees 4654" E approximately 90 feet 5 said point being the intersection of the south right -of -way line of Lindsey 6 Road and the centerline of Fourche Bayou; thence southwesterly along the 7 centerline of Fourche Bayou approximately 2,800 feet to the intersection of 8 the centerline of Fourche Bayou and the west line of the NW 1/4, NE 1/4, 9 Section 20; thence S 01 degrees 16'34" W along the west line of the NW 1/4, 10 NE 1/4, Section 20, approximately 520 feet to the southwest corner of the 11 NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Section 20; thence S 88 degrees 4845" E, 2,619.66 feet along 12 the south line of the N 1 /z, NE 1/4, Section 20 to the southwest corner of the 13 NW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 21; thence S 88 degrees 47'55" E, 5,275.91 feet along 14 the south line of the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 and the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 15 21 to the southwest corner of the NW 1/4 and N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 16 22; thence S 87 degrees 48'31" E, 2,603.87 feet along the south line of the N 17 1/2 of the NW 1/4, Section 22 to the southwest corner of the NW 1/4, NE 1/4, 18 Section 22; thence S 87 degrees 50'37" E, 1,647.39 feet along the south line 19 of the N 1/2, NE 1/4, Section 22 to a point on said south line, said point being 20 on centerline Fourche Island Drainage District No. 2 levee; thence N 29 21 degrees 14'21" W, 1,550.80 feet along the centerline of the Fourche Island 22 Drainage District No. 2 levee to a point on the north line of Section 22; 23 thence S 87 degrees 54'21" E, 774.22 feet along the north line of Section 22 24 to a point of intersection between said north line and the centerline of Old 25 Fourche Creek; thence continue S 87 degrees 54'21" E, along the north line 26 of Section 22 for a distance of 1,024.87 feet to the NW corner of Section 23; 27 thence continue S 87 degrees 54'21" E, along the north line of Section 23, [Page 5 of 7] 1 1,857.24 feet; thence S 02 degrees 05'39" W, 31.0 feet to a point; thence S 87 2 degrees 54'21" E, 385.0 feet to a point; thence S 73 degrees 24'21" E, 1,610.0 3 feet to a point; thence S 86 degrees 00'E, 300 feet more or less to the 4 Ordinary High Water Mark of the Arkansas River, right bank; thence 5 northwesterly along said Ordinary High Water Mark, 7,500 feet more or 6 less to the point of beginning; containing 1,558 acres more or less. 7 Section 2. The redevelopment district is created as of the date of adoption of this 8 ordinance. 9 Section 3. The name of the redevelopment district is "Port of Little Rock 10 Redevelopment District No. 2 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas." 11 Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that the real 12 property within the redevelopment district will be benefited by discouraging the loss of 13 commerce, industry, or employment and by increasing employment. 14 Section 5. The Board of Directors hereby finds that the project plan includes the 15 information required by Ark. Code Ann. § 14- 168- 306(b) and hereby approves the 16 project plan in the form presented to the Board of Directors at this meeting. 17 Section 6. The Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that the project 18 plan is economically feasible. 19 Section 7. There is hereby established a special fund as a separate fund into 20 which (a) ninety percent (90 %) of all tax increment revenues and (b) other revenues, if 21 any, designated by the Board of Directors for the benefit of the redevelopment district 22 shall be deposited, and from which all project costs shall be paid. The special fund may 23 be assigned to and held by a trustee for the benefit of bondholders if tax increment 24 financing is used. Ten percent (10 %) of all tax increment revenues shall be distributed to 25 the taxing units in which the redevelopment district lies. 26 Section 8. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, 27 clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or [Page 6 of 71 I unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining 2 portions of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so 3 declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of this 4 ordinance. 5 Section 9. Repealer. All ordinances or resolutions of the City in conflict herewith 6 are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 7 Section 10. Emergency. The Board of Directors hereby determines that the actions 8 authorized in this ordinance must be accomplished as soon as possible in order to 9 obtain the funds necessary to discourage the loss of commerce, industry, or 10 employment and to increase employment in the City and, therefore, an emergency is 11 hereby declared to exist and this ordinance, being necessary for the immediate 12 preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, shall take effect and be in full force 13 and effect from and after its passage and approval. 14 PASSED: December 7, 2004 15 16 ATTEST: 17 18 19 Na cy Wo , City Clerk 20 21 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: 22 24 Thomas M. Carpenter, CityVAttorney 25 26 27 APPROVED: Jim D it ,Mayor [Page 7 of 7] PORT OF LITTLE ROCK REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. _ OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PROJECT PLAN December 7, 2004 TAB 1) A statement listing the kind, number, and location of all proposed public works or improvements within the district or, to the extent provided, outside the district. 2) An economic feasibility study. 3) A detailed list of estimated project costs. 4) A description of the methods of financing all estimated project costs, including the issuance of tax increment bonds, and the time when the costs or monetary obligations related thereto are to be incurred. 5) A certification by the county tax assessor of the base value, total ad valorem rate, debt service ad valorem rate, and applicable ad valorem rate for the redevelopment district. 6) The type and amount of any other revenues that are expected to be deposited to the special fund of the redevelopment district. 7) A map showing existing uses and conditions of real property in the district. 8) A map of proposed improvements and uses in the district. 9) Proposed changes of zoning ordinances. 10) Appropriate cross - references to any master plan, map, building codes, and city ordinances affected by the project plan. 11) A list of estimated nonproject costs. 12) A statement of the proposed method for the relocation of any persons to be displaced. 1. A statement listing the kind, number, and location of all proposed public works or improvements within the district or, to the extent provided, outside the district. The project plan provides for completion of the Capital Improvement Plan of the Little Rock Port Authority, consisting generally of public infrastructure projects including reconstruction of streets within the District to bring them to interstate - weight capable standards, installation of water and sewer lines to areas within the District that are currently not served, construction of dockside improvements including cranes and warehouses, construction of additional railroad facilities, and site preparation. All improvements are within the District. A detailed list appears on the following page. Capital Improvements Needs 2004 Little Rock Port Authority Complete dredge and fill of Slackwater Harbor $ 5,010,000 Industrial Area/110 Acres Slackwater Harbor Dockside Equipment $ 1,210,000 Road Construction $ 1,810,000 South Slackwater Blvd. $ 690,000 Alden Bowen Road $ 415,000 Upgrade Zeuber Road $ 320,000 Upgrade W. Sloane Drive $ 385,000 Utilities $ 964,000 Water: Zeuber Road Area $ 60,000 Sewer: Slackwater Harbor -South $ 550,000 River Terminal Area $ 310,000 Zeuber Road Area $ 44,000 Complete the Railroad Network $ 5,160,000 Slackwater Harbor Sidings $ 3,360,000 Slackwater Harbor Yard $ 1,500,000 Extend past Sloane Site $ 300,000 Expand Intermodal Growth Area $10,000,000 Riverside Dock Improvements $ 110,000 Repair Terminal Building $ 110,000 Total Capital Needs $24,264,000 Total Priority Item Needs $ 6,220,000 Fill Harbor Site $ 5,010,000 Slackwater Dockside Equipment $ 1,210,000 2. An economic feasibility study. The Economic and Financial Impact Projections of the Redevelopment Finance Proposal: Little Rock Port Authority, submitted by Ashvin Vibhakar, Ph.D., John Shelnutt, Ph.D, and Vaughan Wingfield, The Institute for Economic Advancement, College of Business, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, dated December 6, 2004, is attached. Economic and Financial Impact Projections of the Redevelopment Finance Proposal: Little Rock Port Authority Submitted by: Ashvin Vibhakar, Ph.D. John Shelnutt, Ph.D Vaughan Wingfield The Institute for Economic Advancement College of Business University of Arkansas at Little Rock December 6, 2004 Overview The Little Rock Port Authority has proposed the formation of a redevelopment district to enhance the public infrastructure in the area to attract more businesses to Little Rock. This work is consistent with its nonprofit development mission for the City of Little Rock. The redevelopment effort represents an enhancement of the unfunded mandate for generating jobs and developing the Port lands. The project plan provides for completion of dredging and fill work at the slackwater harbor industrial area, which will create 110 acres of marketable property. Currently, the land is unusable due to the minimum flood plain requirement for industrial development. This will enhance the value of this land not only in terms of increased valuation of the land, but also in the ability to attract major businesses to the area. Considering the location, surrounding infrastructure, and size of the land area, this is an extremely attractive site for potential location of medium -sized manufacturing facilities. The project plan also calls for general public infrastructure projects, including construction of streets within the redevelopment district to bring them to interstate weight - capable standards. The plan includes installation of water and sewer lines to areas within the redevelopment district that are currently not served, construction of dockside improvements such as cranes and warehouse space, construction of additional railroad facilities, and site preparation. It should be noted that the entire project plan involves public infrastructure improvement for which the city does not contribute. The proposed improvement is on land that is currently owned by the city and is not on the tax roll. The total cost of the complete project is estimated at $24, 264,000. The project is divided into two phases with $6,220,000 of the expenditure planned for the first phase. The entire project may need to be completed in a short time frame in the event that a mega project is attracted to the Little Rock Port area. An example of a mega project would be auto assembly plants which would require further investment for parts manufacturing companies and support operations. The Little Rock site was one of two sites considered in the state for an auto plant in the recent round of site evaluations by prospective investors. The proposed redevelopment district consists of land parcels situated in sections 9,10,15,16,17,20,21,22 and 23 Township 1 North, Range 11 West, all lying south of the Arkansas River. It should be noted that when the LR Port was started, all the land belonged to the city and was not included in the tax roll. Over time, in order to develop some of the infrastructure, the Port Authority sold some of this land to develop the businesses that presently exist in the area. Since inception, the Port Authority has sold over 575 acres of land for business development, and has almost 236 additional acres of land available for sale. In addition, the Port Authority leases approximately 45 acres of land and has over 400 acres of land that can be leased once it is developed. Any development in terms of leasehold improvement as more businesses locate in the area will eventually get on the tax roll. However, the Port Authority will be much better positioned to attract new businesses once the necessary infrastructure is developed and land improvement is provided. In short, none of the unimproved property is currently on the tax roll and does not result in any loss of revenue to the beneficiaries of ad valorem taxes. Only 40% of the land is creating taxable value, either as developed and sold sites, or leased sites with taxable buildings. Some of the existing industrial properties were developed with Act 9 bonds and do not contribute to the tax roll. The Port Authority is also able to leverage some of the funds created from the sale of land to obtain federal grants to enhance the infrastructure of the Port. The Port Authority has obtained over $7 million in recent years from the federal government to enhance the capacity of the Port. Once the infrastructure is developed, the Port Authority can expect to attract the business operations of industrial users suited to the specialized mix of infrastructure and multimodal transportation services. These businesses will add to the wealth of the community from increased activity levels from taxable operations, significant additions from taxable consumption by the expanded employment base, and sizable property tax gains from business expansion. Increased tax revenues from the expanded employment base will also enhance property tax collections, sales taxes, and franchise fees in the City and the school district. Increased tax revenues are expected in part from the higher quality jobs associated with this project and higher per capita income of local residents. A later section of this report provides for the economic impact of some plausible business location scenarios. It is critical that the redevelopment district is approved now, in order for the Port Authority to provide incentives for the businesses to locate in the industrial area. Incentives, in this case, apply to investment toward improved property, and industrial service capability. An established redevelopment district will allow for the Port Authority to guarantee issuance of bonds to complete the infrastructure in a timely manner if a business chooses to locate in the proposed area. This makes attracting a new business much more plausible. The development in this area would not occur without this assistance. The majority of the investments are made in the public infrastructure and improvement of land that is owned by the city. Substantial improvement to the slack water harbor has already been made with the assistance of some federal government grants. In order to attract the new businesses, the Port must get the sites ready for business location. Upon successful attraction of businesses the community will benefit greatly from increased employment, increased demand for housing, and increased standard of living for the community residents. There is little to no negative impact to the beneficiaries of tax roll recipients, since most of the land is presently owned by the public and is not on the tax roll. C Historically, the Port Authority has sold land to provide for development of infrastructure that otherwise would not have been developed. The new leadership has made substantial strides in making sure that all the future businesses that locate in the area would produce substantial economic benefits to the community. The establishment of the redevelopment district will make this process feasible, and will provide for long- term benefits to the community, with a much higher level of benefit than would otherwise be possible. The Port Authority does not have any businesses that necessarily deal with retail sales, nor does it provide any incentives that directly provide funds for the benefit of private property. It only makes investment in the public infrastructure. It is expected to target major industries in the area of auto parts, steel, and food processing, that provide high property value and are generally high- income providers. This will create quality jobs and expand the tax -base of the community. It will also allow the Port Authority to leverage other federal, state, and private resources for further development. The Port Authority is not expected to sell bonds and make financial commitments, accepting the risk of slow development that would make risk of inability to make financial payment likely. The bond will be issued only when there is a guarantee for the mega project to locate in the area, providing the high likelihood of receiving financial payment that can fund the bond issue. In that sense, the plan is multi -year, depending on the rate of business development in the area. The plans are designed to bring new development while growing the existing businesses in the area. Economic Impact Projections Three scenarios of development impact are presented in this study, with projections of activity and benefit through 2016. These consist of the Slow Growth, Mega Project, and Full Occupancy scenarios. All three scenarios assume a redevelopment finance capability is in place and that all development is constrained by property availability for the existing Port facility. The scenarios differ primarily in the rate and scope of development. The Slow Growth Scenario assumes that the least amount of expansion occurs through 2016. A total of three new employers are projected in this scenario, with the first new employer on site by 2006, the second by 2009, and the third by 2011. Industry assumptions used in this scenario consist of one new plastics operation, one new metal fabricator operation, and one new auto parts facility. Direct employment is assumed to grow by 130 from metal fabrication starting in 2006, 450 jobs from auto parts operations starting in 2009, and 75 additional jobs starting in 2011 in plastics (Appendix la). Projected economic impact from this scenario is provided in Appendix lb. In general, this scenario of modest gains through 2016 indicates a direct impact of 655 new jobs and another 600 indirect jobs in other sectors of the local economy. Total economic output, the broadest measure of impact, is estimated at $25 million in the early stages of development (2008) and $183 million by 2016. Total output includes the effects of both business and household gains (Table 1). Total personal income impact from the project scenario is expected reach almost $10 million by 2008 and $72.5 million by 2016. Most of the gains in personal income will be derived from wage and salary disbursements from direct and induced employment. Wages in the direct jobs are expected to exceed the average of the induced jobs. Induced employment derived from activity in this scenario amounts to a moving target of jobs in the broader economy, including services, retail, and others. Induced employment is expected to peak at 610 jobs in 2011. Small declines below this peak represent productivity among support sectors in relation to the direct employment effects on the general economy. The economic impact estimates are conservative in that the employment multiplier is 1.82. This multiplier represents the ratio of direct and induced employment divided by direct employment alone. Selected tax revenue effects of the scenario on the local economy include estimates of $600,000 per year for general sales taxes, starting from the middle of the projection to 2016. Estimated property tax growth is expected to reach $645,000 by 2016. Other tax and fee revenue is expected to reach $96,000 per year by 2016. An estimate of state intergovernmental transfer effects is also provided. It is based on correlations of economic and demographic growth from the Census of Government reports. This measure includes revenue sharing based on total population, student enrollment, and pass- through of federal funds to local programs. A total of $1.1 million is expected from state intergovernmental transfers by 2016. Table 1. Simulation 1 Slow Growth Economic Impact: 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Total Output - -Value Added (mill $) 23.4 25.7 136.8 162.8 172.3 183.5 Total Personal Income (mill $) 8.2 9.8 47.9 60.4 66.6 72.5 New Employers 1 1 2 3 3 3 Direct Employment 130 130 580 655 655 655 Induced Employment 112 110 558 593 560 537 Total Employment (Direct & Induced) 242 240 1,138 1,248 1,215 1,192 Local Revenue Impact (thou $) (selected taxes and transfers) 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 General Sales Tax 105.5 103.0 598.8 641.6 619.3 603.8 Property Tax 220.4 387.2 527.7 645.9 Public Utility Sales Tax and Fees 18.68 19.58 69.8 86.5 90.8 96.3 State Intergovernmental Transfers 125.1 434.3 732.7 967.4 1,155.0 The Mega Project Scenario assumes the fastest rate of development in response to a major industrial operation adjacent to Port properties. The surge of investment is assumed to consist of five major new employers at the Port in this scenario, with startup assumed for the 2007 -08 period. Industry assumptions used in this scenario consist of a new plastics operation, one new metal fabricator operation in support of auto parts or steel fabrication, one other new auto parts facility, one trucking and distribution center, and one miscellaneous manufacturing operation related to the mega project. Direct employment is assumed to surge by 890 in 2007 with four of the five new employers in operation. An additional employer is assumed to in operation by 2008, bringing total direct employment to 1,020. An expansion phase is also assumed in this scenario with direct employment rising to 1,175 by 2012 and beyond. Total economic output is estimated at $180 million in the surge stage of development (2008) and $302 million by 2016. Total output includes the effects of both business and household gains, with expansions associated with the industrial operations (Table 2). Total personal income impact from the project scenario is expected to exceed $68 million by 2008 and almost $127 million by 2016. Most of the gains in personal income will be derived from wage and salary disbursements from direct and induced employment. Wages in the direct jobs are expected to greatly exceed the average of the induced (support and secondary) jobs. Induced employment is expected to peak at 925 jobs in 2012. Small declines below this peak represent productivity among support sectors in relation to the direct employment effects on the general economy. The economic impact estimates are conservative in that the employment multiplier is 1.79. This employment multiplier represents the ratio of direct and induced employment divided by direct employment alone. The composite multiplier from the scenario is unique to the collection of industries built into the scenario and their relative size compared to the scenario total. The addition of a trucking operation into the scenario effectively lowers the overall multiplier by a fractional amount. Selected local tax revenues generated by this development scenario include estimates of $782,000 per year for general sales taxes, starting from the onset of the investment and employment surge. Estimated annual property tax growth is expected to exceed $1 million by 2016. Other tax and fee revenue is expected to reach $192,000 per year by 2016. An estimate of state intergovernmental transfer effects is estimated at $612,000 in 2008 and $2.5 million by 2016. This measure includes revenue sharing based on total population, student enrollment, and pass- through of federal funds to local programs. 6 Table 2. Simulation 2 Mega Project Economic Impact: The Full Occupancy Scenario (of available property) assumes all existing and primary infill properties are sold or leased by 2016. The defined capacity excludes areas of fill that go beyond the identified phases of development. This scenario is similar to the Mega Project Scenario, except that it assumes less concurrent investment over the projection period. Growth in this case is assumed to proceed in response to favorable infrastructure and regional factors, as opposed to a mega project in the immediate area. It also assumes generally later dates for development over the projection period. Industry assumptions used in this scenario consist of a set of investments and operations that are appropriate for the level of unique infrastructure contained in the Port presently, and in the redevelopment plan. The recruited mix of industry consists of one chemical operation, two miscellaneous manufacturers, one electrical equipment producer, one new plastics operation, one new metal fabricator operation in support of auto parts or steel fabrication in the region, one other new auto parts facility, and one trucking and distribution center. Direct employment is assumed to rise by 195 jobs in 2007, 945 jobs 2009, and 1,235 jobs by 2016. A total of eight medium- to large -scale employers are expected to be in operation by 2013, with four of the eight new employers in operation by 2009. Expansion phases are not assumed in this scenario. Total economic output is estimated at $35.7 million in the early development stage (2008), $252.8 million by 2010 and $388 million by 2016. Total output includes the effects of both business, government, and household gains (Table 3). Total personal income impact from this project scenario is expected to exceed $13 million by 2008 and over $133 million by 2016. More than half of the income gains are 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Total Output - -Value Added (mill $) 0.0 180.0 202.0 252.5 275.4 302.3 Total Personal Income (mill $) 0.0 68.6 82.1 103.5 115.2 126.9 New Employers 0 5 5 5 5 5 Direct Employment 0 1,020 1,045 1,175 1,175 1,175 Induced Employment 0 821 825 925 911 913 Total Employment (Direct & Induced) 0 1,841 1,870 2,100 2,086 2,088 Local Revenue Impact (thou $) (selected taxes and transfers) 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 General Sales Tax 782.0 787.1 896.3 890.0 892.4 Property Tax 228.3 452.7 682.3 884.5 1,059.0 Public Utility Sales Tax and Fees 123.2 133.9 164.2 177.1 191.8 State Intergovernmental Transfers 612.6 1,176.0 1,719.0 2,165.0 2,534.0 The Full Occupancy Scenario (of available property) assumes all existing and primary infill properties are sold or leased by 2016. The defined capacity excludes areas of fill that go beyond the identified phases of development. This scenario is similar to the Mega Project Scenario, except that it assumes less concurrent investment over the projection period. Growth in this case is assumed to proceed in response to favorable infrastructure and regional factors, as opposed to a mega project in the immediate area. It also assumes generally later dates for development over the projection period. Industry assumptions used in this scenario consist of a set of investments and operations that are appropriate for the level of unique infrastructure contained in the Port presently, and in the redevelopment plan. The recruited mix of industry consists of one chemical operation, two miscellaneous manufacturers, one electrical equipment producer, one new plastics operation, one new metal fabricator operation in support of auto parts or steel fabrication in the region, one other new auto parts facility, and one trucking and distribution center. Direct employment is assumed to rise by 195 jobs in 2007, 945 jobs 2009, and 1,235 jobs by 2016. A total of eight medium- to large -scale employers are expected to be in operation by 2013, with four of the eight new employers in operation by 2009. Expansion phases are not assumed in this scenario. Total economic output is estimated at $35.7 million in the early development stage (2008), $252.8 million by 2010 and $388 million by 2016. Total output includes the effects of both business, government, and household gains (Table 3). Total personal income impact from this project scenario is expected to exceed $13 million by 2008 and over $133 million by 2016. More than half of the income gains are expected from direct employment gains and higher average salaries of the direct job growth. The balance of income growth will be derived from secondary job growth in the area, with lower average wages than the recruited (direct) jobs. Induced employment is expected to peak at 925 jobs in 2012. Small declines below this peak represent productivity among support sectors in relation to the direct employment effects on the general economy. The economic impact estimates are conservative in that the employment multiplier is 1.79. This employment multiplier represents the ratio of direct and induced employment divided by direct employment alone. The composite multiplier from the scenario is unique to the collection of industries built into the scenario and their relative size compared to the scenario total. The addition of a trucking operation into the scenario effectively lowers the overall multiplier by a fractional amount. Selected local tax revenues generated by the development scenario include estimates of $782,000 per year for general sales taxes, starting from the onset of the investment and employment surge. Estimated annual property tax growth is expected to exceed $1 million by 2016. Other tax and fee revenue is expected to reach $192,000 per year by 2016. An estimate of state intergovernmental transfer effects is estimated at $612,000 in 2008 and $2.5 million by 2016. This measure includes revenue sharing based on total population, student enrollment, and pass- through of federal funds to local programs. Table 3. Simulation 3 Full Occupancy Economic Impact: 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Total Output - -Value Added (mill $) 23.4 35.7 188.6 252.8 358.0 388.8 Total Personal Income (mill $) 8.2 13.2 71.3 96.0 120.8 133.0 New Employers 1 2 4 7 8 8 Direct Employment 130 195 945 1,115 1,235 1,235 Induced Employment 112 154 797 953 1,107 1,071 Total Employment (Direct & Induced) 242 349 1,742 2,068 2,342 2,306 Local Revenue Impact (thou $) (selected taxes and transfers) 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 General Sales Tax 105.5 152.7 816.5 989.8 1269.0 1254.0 Property Tax 17.7 62.1 300.8 551.3 825.8 1,059.0 Public Utility Sales Tax and Fees 18.7 25.0 100.4 142.1 190.0 203.3 State Intergovernmental Transfers 46.0 157.4 686.7 1,207.0 1,708.0 2,109.0 Financial Projections The financial projections for the redevelopment district plan account for three different types of growth in property valuations. These consist of 1) land sales to new industries with title transfer from public lands to private ownership, 2) new development of public lands that are leased to industrial users with taxable buildings added, and 3) annual growth of valuations in existing facilities of the industrial park. At the present time, approximately 40% of the land is either sold or leased, 22% of the land is available for sale, and 38% of the land is available for lease with varying amounts of improvement. The potential bond repayment is based on a $45,657 yield for every $1,000,000 of assessed value ($5,000,000 appraised value), accounting for a 3 % county collection fee and 56 mil of available yield, and a 10% share for the beneficiaries. The benefits of this revenue will come from the three types of growth as mentioned earlier. The increase in revenue from the expanded activities can fund the infrastructure development either on a pay as you go basis or through bonded revenues. The Port Authority will have to issue bonds in the event it attracts major industries to locate in the area. In general, infrastructure improvement would have to be completed prior to the location of a company in the area. The analysis assumes that the Port Authority will sell bond issue in the event it acquires major industry in the area. To that end we have created three scenarios. In one scenario the growth occurs on a slow basis and would not necessarily create sufficient funds to pay for the bonded debt. The second scenario assumes that the Port Authority acquires a mega project in the vicinity leading to expansion of existing businesses as well as attraction of new businesses. The third scenario assumes that the majority of the available land is used for medium and small businesses. It does not account for any sites under 10 acres. Any expansion in these sites will add to the revenue. In that sense, all the three scenarios are conservative forecasts. The analysis also assumes that the existing businesses will make an additional investment of $5,000,000 per year. This is consistent with the past experience of the existing businesses located in the area. It is also assumed that the land and leasehold improvement values will increase at the rate of 6% annually. The project plan is divided into three phases for ease of analysis. The first phase is completion of dredge and fill of slackwater harbor and industrial area of 110 acres. The cost of this phase is $6,220,000. The second phase involves road construction, utilities, railroad network, and riverside dock improvements. The cost of this phase is $8,044,000. The third phase involves expansion of the intermodal growth area. The cost of this phase is $10,000,000. The analysis examines the annual payment of bonded debt required for each phase using 20 year bond financing and 15 year bond financing. Assuming 5.5 percent market rate for a 20 year bond and 5.00% market rate for a 15 year bond, Table 4 provides annual bond payment and the increased assessed value necessary for the payment of the bond. 9 Increased investment need ranges from $207,659,499 for 20 -year bond to $239,083,881 for 15 year bond. These projected needs are reasonable for a mega project. It is assumed that the Port Authority would not issue a bond unless it has secured the necessary projects to provide the repayment of the bond issued. Table 4 also allows for the examination of the maximum bond issue that can be floated, based on expected expansion of the investment value, based on the type of industry that is attracted. Table 4. Analysis of Bond Payment and Increased Valuation Needed To Support Bond Issuance Assuming 52.3 mills, 3% County Collection Fees and 90% share, the Yield per $1,000,000 Increase in Assessed Value ( $5,000,000 increase in investment value) is $45,657.9 A) Phase Phase II Phase III Total B) Phase I Phase II Phase III Total Assuming 5.5% Market Interest Rate and 20 years Maturity, the Project Requires a Bond Payment of $83,680 per one Million Dollars of Bond Debt Investment Needs 20 Year Bond Needed Assessed By Phase Payment Value $6,220,000 $520,490 $11,399,771 $8,044,000 $673,122 $14,742,726 $10,000,000 $836,800 $18,327,606 $24,264,000 $2,030,412 $44,470.103 Total Investment Needed Assuming 5.0% market interest rate and 15 year maturity, the Project Requires a Bond Payment of $96,343 Per Million Dollars of Bond Debt Investment Needs 15 Year Bond Needed Assessed By Phase Payment Value $6,220,000 $599,253 $13,124,858 $8,044,000 $774,983 $16,973,691 $10,000,000 $963,430 $21,101,058 $24,264,000 $2,337,667 $51,199,607 $56,998,855 $73,713,631 $91,638,030 $222,350,515 Total Investment Needed $65,624,291 $84,868,456 $105,505,290 $255.998,037 Estimates and projections presented in Table 5 provide anticipated increases in revenue that the redevelopment district can expect under differing scenarios of growth. The cash - flow forecast is based on the same scenarios as the economic impact projections with some modifications. The first section of the table shows a projection of average annual growth at the Port Authority for twenty years, derived from historical growth rates. The Slow Growth, Mega Project, and Full Occupancy scenarios have two tables comparing fifteen and in twenty year growths with different interest rates. Increases in values stem from the continuing average annual growth (historic rate), a growth rate of six percent, the incremental increase in values of properties that retire Act 9 bonds, and from the sale of property with new facilities. The sale of property and its improvement have the most dramatic effect because the properties were not on the tax rolls before their sale. The entire value is incremental. The value of the property was assumed to be $40,000 per acre. The value of improvements was assumed to be $18 million for a trucking facility, $25 million for a small facility, and $40 million for a large one. The change in values start at the same time that employment starts in the three scenarios. In the first two scenarios, all properties were assumed to be from land sales, so all have a combination of property and plant facilities. In the Full Occupancy scenario, Chemicals and Electrical Equipment will lease property, so only their plant facilities are taxable. Table 5. Summary of Projected Debt Capacity Projected Debt Capacity 15 Year 20 Year Slow Growth $14,147,559 $17,345,904 Mega Project $18,257,033 $22,142,857 Full Occupancy Over 10 Years $19,793,172 $24,322,423 Total bonded debt capacity ranges from a low of $14.1 million to a high of $24.3 million The Slow Growth Scenario is projected to provide a debt capacity to the Port of $14.1 million net present value over a 15 -year period, assuming an interest rate of 5.0% and valuation growth that is consistent with the economic scenario. Only the scenario of Full Capacity over ten years and 20 -year bond indebtedness will allow for full financing of all phases of proposed development. The Little Rock Port Authority will need to seek federal funding as well as other sources to reach its development goals under the other scenarios. The Mega Project Scenario is projected to provide $18.2 million debt capacity under the 15 -year time horizon and $22.1 million in the 20 -year finance version. Although the Mega project falls short of the total project goals, it could provide full project funding with matching grants. Other assumptions on the pace of expansions in response to establishment of a mega project nearby would also accomplish full project funding. The projections provided in this report are conservative in that they do not consider many small (available) properties in the projections. These are properties of less than 10 acres that have limited potential for development and contribution to the projections. Some of the small properties have potential for expansion of adjacent facilities, however. Benefits to the Community The primary benefit of the redevelopment finance plan will be to extend and potentially accelerate the process of developing the Port Authority's infrastructure and to attract new jobs to the area. A range of 650 -1,200 new jobs would be expected in the Port area as direct impact. Estimates of total employment impact from direct and induced employment growth range from 1,200 to 2,300, depending on the development scenario. The Little Rock Port Authority is adjacent to several high poverty and low - income neighborhoods. The Authority has received several federal grants for piecemeal development, in part because of the eligibility of the area In addition, surveys of employers from the Port and adjacent areas indicate significant benefit to east Little Rock residents. Surveys of employment by zip code indicate sizable concentration in the radius that includes East Little Rock and Southeast Little Rock. Occupations associated with these employment centers include welders, mechanics, forklift operators, truck drivers, and a variety of other transportation service occupations. Benefits to the Little Rock School District and the Central Arkansas Library System The users of ad valorem property tax revenues will benefit from the port redevelopment finance plan by receiving tax revenue derived from improved property, and new buildings that are not on the tax rolls today. The redevelopment plan will generate new valuations from the sale of enhanced public property and creation of new leasable lands for building development. The other benefit of the plan to the school district is in the accelerated rate of development in an area that has historically underperformed. The Port Authority has struggled over the last two decades with inadequate funding for infrastructure development and land sales to low intensity users to raise Port operating funds. A third, and less obvious benefit to the school district, is the role of the Port Authority in producing base economy jobs that support the growth and development of other types of taxable property growth in commercial, retail, and housing sectors. The addition of 600- 1,600 new jobs in the area, possibly in connection with a mega project, would drive a variety of other benefits to the school district and library system. Conclusions Substantial benefits accrue to the community by forming the district in terms of enhanced ability to attract new business and the economic impact derived. The redevelopment finance plan for the Little Rock Port Authority represents a logical step in the right A direction for completing its public service mission and to promote economic well being in the area. The economic development process requires that the community maintain its readiness with the needed infrastructure and sites that are improved for competitive business location. To that end, having the redevelopment district formed will allow the Port Authority to market the facility and attract the new businesses by making the area more competitive and responsive to investor needs. The benefits derived by the community in terms of increased employment base and secondary effects far outweigh the cost of creating such a redevelopment district. Other states have used similar tools in effective ways and continue to compete with Arkansas for successful projects. In our expert opinion in the field of economic development, the city should encourage such use of the TIF district that will provide for new investment in the public infrastructure. 13 (D O N LO T O N O N'. i _M 0 N N r O N N r p co 0 r N � N tO � O ci N O N •+ > V (1) � J CL C O > 0 �.% a J •E W N C c CO p `o ° 0 0 O aN 11.1 a0i w L (n N a N C O a O E _ 0 7 a N M o N � a LO (, O O N N C ci E x o c a_ co a) p a> = 3 CL E a in 0 LO 0000Ln 00LO LO MLO n to0000� MLnr- O T r LO co LO T T M r CD co LO N r N 00LO OOOOLO 00LOLO MLn� LO(DOO(D� Cl) LO N O r Ln Lo LO T T Cr) T LO r co N r N O O LO O O O O LO U') O O LP) U) M V) r.. W) CD O O (D co LO r- Co rItT L LO T r M T O N r N O O U) 0 0 0 0 LO O O LO LO Cl) LO r- CTO Or (D ^ ce) LO r- CD T LO LO LO M CO r M T LO LO O T N T T N 00 LO 0000th 00LOLO CV) U) n LOw000n r V)r- CD LO N T N LO O N T N 00 LO 0000 U') OOLOLO Cl) LO h LO M 0 O CD M LO h CD T q L r LC) T T M r r r O T N - T N OMOO' cc LO (Y) LO LO (D 't C LO (D O 0� r M O O r Cr T N N O� O LO N cc LO M LO LO ( CD N Cl) C LO CD 0 C lq' M O O T't > 0 ♦� > 0 LO (1) N N N J J M O� CD0 r- LO M r T LO ( O CD CD r T O ap CO co O O O r N N W W M t- O0O LO M Ln CDco (o O O[Y M r O Cl) N r N M M 0 O r co O 0 N N LO L Lo 0 N 0 O O «C � coo i H v H Q U co 0 a CO C cn co �. V co co o a� a N c a Cl) 4 'o V- a °' c, a a) ° co xx a� coo rn r- L) a a) C ° cVi p a a) ° « O Y _ O N Li Q � v) 3 Li Q � - u) Li Li Q CC Ln0001 t LnT�M'M N Lo O O O LO T M CO N 110: LA O O O .0- Lo CvMM N O O O �0 N O COM N � LO LO M T LO 0100 O C E Q Q U N N as p � V E U E NU N U U E Z CD O 10 CO O O LO LO Co ILO 0) T ■P O co T O L� r N O /W V Cl) yr v Q. E .O C O V w .0 r x C Q fl. a CD O N _O O N d' O N co O N _N O N O N O O N CA O O N co O O N t- O O N Cl) Lq Lo C� co U M co � CD O T CR Lo LO co C (OD M COD � N T T cr\l CO M LO (D N r co CO O T co 6 M V) r co V) co CO O N r cq O Cl) co C M COD LO r 17 oo O M CO M CLo Or N LO O CO W r co N W) tL M O r O ' M� N co L T T T N T M N O p 0 - - "t T M r � N a) T T N O M N O N N 00 CO r M r N N T r N a7 (D a) 0) a O O N W a a O W W Q c N U a) =Z N :3 is > ` c C CD a n a M cif O CL c O~ E T =► a C F- U 3 O Cn in W CO O N _O O N O N M O N' NI Ni T NII _O O N O O O N co O O N fl- 0 0I' NI co O O N O z O C cif CO CL c E cm to M CO CD w N � U U N O CO O Cl? ui Cf) LO COD t�O � r T O O M O CO aMj O T M f� co et O N C5 CD Cfl O O CA Cn O CO "I' (NO I O co O co r- (D� N m co N r O O tt (0 U') M O to GO r! co M co 0 O LO N CD � M N n O T CO O CO CTD r O co p CO r O CA N T T T CD 0) cli O co T T O 00 LO 1p O OO r r co co a) y All N N 'C 'O m U) O .- F-' a F- c a) m E � a`� Z, o U C � m CL co ro CO O N O O N O N M O N N O N O N' OI O N O O N co O O N fl- O O N M q 00 w O N O ^ M r O 1- Cl) r r N '- M O L O � co O N O r O N r r N It N L T CD O T � - r p O N T r N 'Id: � (O —C COOOT' N — r O N U') O N O O O O N N 0 r, O r O r N — T N 0n r Cl) O M co O O O N O T O T O N O T O O O O Cp ON � C V r r co r O M O 00 OOD rl O CO r r O OD � O T O 00 O N M O T co O LO ,It LC) r o C co D T C) Cj 0 0 0 0 0 N - - a _O _O 0 E W a a � O O W W Q c a3i a) — Z c W co > co c c O CD CL d o 5 fd +. tC O_ ~ W a N E O 41 N O O U ~ O 0 F- U in W CO O N O O N tt O N M O N N_ O N 9,09 U cc N +) O O O O CO T T N N O M 0) O) 0 LO It O co 0 co N O O O O .4 Cp 00 00 r N N N ONOD co O O T M M N CDN4� O CO co CO � T r CO T CO 0 TCDO4O N 00 U T r p - I� N M N G^O � - r T Q� CA M CD O O M N N CD N C M T 000 CO O M N CO O N 00 M N O co N T r N h N O �MO'It t- O CD CD r% N O - O O O N CD T T Cl) O O N X X to fA aS cd N F- N O W cn Y C N a c a Oc0 F- Co Co 0. E N � a F- E N a> m a) ci E cx(D a_ a� o cc t5 a) (0 v U C U O N J � a. \ c / \ / « ©60 qRE G%q «C\1Rn mn- - - C\J rgR $00q Gr- \�qRn q Cr) _ __C\j / q \ 04 \ q C\l \ cli \ q \ m \ m 2o�k q�k --mow N q $ q $ # # � _ n $- __N OR o 2nco cm LO CY) R \�w /�� 00 It M N 2w =¥� C\l5 r_n2 C\' Lo wm rVo k -N3f7 =o rmo CO \ ~22q / o m m \d= 2Q\ @ 6 £ £ -0 _ . m m m E Ea\\'D _ (D E a £ m E w 2 S R E w <cW - =0 § \Z GO) ER >0 62� > 7 c CIL \ v M \ E 7 k ± CL w 0 g Z g 0 iz LL w q �- \o �\c/ w ®fC\l ©/ CV �Rco oR G2gk/C,J r" no0n0 �k OD M (ak� 2 q @moo ��k,� _bo=o GNddd o R OR # GfEE$ mco n - c @§r,� =o oom 6 a oncon N co V- co 5 ll� Vi 0 cm C'i - ¥ R Lo f � \kItc/ ELnN ¥ o q0 \k$ x x m m Co CO CD 0 U -cn /\ƒ\/ Ecua) c c \\ kk m� \ �2 =7 \f /7 &£ 2 -C� U) Appendix 2a. Slow Growth a 1�G �d�Irch��1�+w�111CVd�,�'h Growth perYtrar "nrb� °� �'� °' °�,�� , ,� � ��nx °�° u� r ,m���s�, ,�i ";�I ,� 4 °� �� „ Interest 5A %a Historical Average Improvements per; Year" � 5,107~500 ��n „ °�, Years,, 15 ry " Year Total of$0 %Net Millage Available to TIF „52 3 "" w r ,+ Available Yield 29;411,759 Net'Present Value of 15 Share to School 3 „ „% Total 14,147,559 Shared W11 I Year 1 2 3 4 5 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 22,295,246 24,731,510 34,816,791 37,767,663 40,865,928 Increment 9,381,500 11,817,764 21,903,045 24,853,917 27,952,182 Available Yield 490,652 618,069 1,145,529 1,299,860 1,461,899 County Collection Fee 14,720 18,542 34,366 38,996 43,857 Yield Less Fee 475,933 599,527 1,111,163 1,260,864 1,418,042 10% Shared 47,593 59,953 111,116 126,086 141,804 90% Net Available Yield 428,340 539,574 1,000,047 1,134,778 1,276,238 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 49,278,999 52,992,664 56,773,236 60,718,682 64,837,942 Increment 36,365,253 40,078,918 43,859,490 47,804,936 51,924,196 Available Yield 1,901,903 2,096,127 2,293,851 2,500,198 2,715,635 County Collection Fee 57,057 62,884 68,816 75,006 81,469 Yield Less Fee 1,844,846 2,033,244 2,225,036 2,425,192 2,634,166 10% Shared 184,485 203,324 222,504 242,519 263,417 90% Net Available Yield 1,660,361 1,829,919 2,002,532 2,182,673 2,370,750 Year 11 12 13 14 15 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 69,142,884 73,631,340 78,335,321 83,260,258 88,434,512 Increment 56,229,138 60,717,594 65,421,575 70,346,512 75,520,766 Available Yield 2,940,784 3,175,530 3,421,548 3,679,123 3,949,736 County Collection Fee 88,224 95,266 102,646 110,374 118,492 Yield Less Fee 2,852,560 3,080,264 3,318,902 3,568,749 3,831,244 10% Shared 285,256 308,026 331,890 356,875 383,124 90% Net Available Yield 2,567,304 2,772,238 2,987,012 3,211,874 3,448,120 Appendix 2a. rowth Vivt�a1 ;Gan i 4i ld ua {P r a) ulw. vv. Historical Average Improvements pef dear � a' S,i� , oo w��, � ���� �'� ° � , Years 20 a ' ,� y��o- rw ��r, � u��r�tlwC 41 arm �� 1',�u �, r ;� ���,�� r a,� „, "0 Year Totai of 90 °10 Net MiUage Available to TIF N �2; ���iia` °4' available Yield 5(j 611' 142 '� S� t iy ad i � 1�`�ti f ,Net Present Value of 20 Share to School �� ° 'r�% a �" �° a� Year Total 17,345,904 ' ,� ' n'1 d rr t 1 r�G4 aH w Ary, a Shared ��. o�. , �u,�nta1,0 %ti , Year 1 2 3 4 5 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 22,295,246 24,731,510 34,816,791 37,767,663 40,865,928 Increment 9,381,500 11,817,764 21,903,045 24,853,917 27,952,182 Available Yield 490,652 618,069 1,145,529 1,299,860 1,461,899 County Collection Fee 14,720 18,542 34,366 38,996 43,857 Yield Less Fee 475,933 599,527 1,111,163 1,260,864 1,418,042 10% Shared 47,593 59,953 111,116 126,086 141,804 90% Net Available Yield 428,340 539,574 1,000,047 1,134,778 1,276,238 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 49,278,999 52,992,664 56,773,236 60,718,682 64,837,942 Increment 36,365,253 40,078,918 43,859,490 47,804,936 51,924,196 Available Yield 1,901,903 2,096,127 2,293,851 2,500,198 2,715,635 County Collection Fee 57,057 62,884 68,816 75,006 81,469 Yield Less Fee 1,844,846 2,033,244 2,225,036 2,425,192 2,634,166 10% Shared 184,485 203,324 222,504 242,519 263,417 90% Net Available Yield 1,660,361 1,829,919 2,002,532 2,182,673 2,370,750 Year 11 12 13 14 15 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 69,142,884 73,631,340 78,335,321 83,260,258 88,434,512 Increment 56,229,138 60,717,594 65,421,575 70,346,512 75,520,766 Available Yield 2,940,784 3,175,530 3,421,548 3,679,123 3,949,736 County Collection Fee 88,224 95,266 102,646 110,374 118,492 Yield Less Fee 2,852,560 3,080,264 3,318,902 3,568,749 3,831,244 10% Shared 285,256 308,026 331,890 356,875 383,124 90% Net Available Yield 2,567,304 2,772,238 2,987,012 3,211,874 3,448,120 Year 16 17 18 19 20 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 93,855,858 99,528,187 105,479,576 111,726,772 118,287,525 Increment 80,942,112 86,614,441 92,565,830 98,813,026 105,373,779 Available Yield 4,233,272 4,529,935 4,841,193 5,167,921 5,511,049 County Collection Fee 126,998 135,898 145,236 155,038 165,331 Yield Less Fee 4,106,274 4,394,037 4,695,957 5,012,884 5,345,717 10% Shared 410,627 439,404 469,596 501,288 534,572 90% Net Available Yield 3,695,647 3,954,633 4,226,361 4,511,595 4,811,145 Appendix 2b. Mega Project ,„ % Historical Average Improvem nts per Year 5 t07 5 0 �'�� �� ^ "� `� ' ^`� "Years � 1 15 rBa ^h4PVna k '{ '15 Year Total of 90 %`Nets, Millage Available to 71F „�'�523 �� �� My '� ��, Available yield 37,955,060 , Net Present Value of 15 Share to$c1hooA ;, 1 ,' ° � � 1��'" ��MM�' "��� °Year�7otal r ", " .;a � ���;� 'i82y571033 I Y M 1 A Sh ared . ,'�G a r ,�1'poo u�� 1 W' 1, 1 , i� ��,q ��;�, MM lye `�Q ti d�d�) �'. r. , „�. a Year 1 2 3 4 5 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 13,935,246 37,437,910 45,285,575 48,864,574 52,628,654 Increment 1,021,500 24,524,164 32,371,829 35,950,828 39,714,908 Available Yield 53,424 1,282,614 1,693,047 1,880,228 2,077,090 County Collection Fee 1,603 38,478 50,791 56,407 62,313 Yield Less Fee 51,822 1,244,135 1,642,255 1,823,821 2,014,777 10% Shared 5,182 124,414 164,226 182,382 201,478 90% Net Available Yield 46,640 1,119,722 1,478,030 1,641,439 1,813,299 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 56,499,488 63,646,383 70,066,178 74,809,201 79,773,892 Increment 43,585,742 50,732,637 57,152,432 61,895,455 66,860,146 Available Yield 2,279,534 2,653,317 2,989,072 3,237,132 3,496,786 County Collection Fee 68,386 79,600 89,672 97,114 104,904 Yield Less Fee 2,211,148 2,573,717 2,899,400 3,140,018 3,391,882 10% Shared 221,115 257,372 289,940 314,002 339,188 90% Net Available Yield 1,990,033 2,316,346 2,609,460 2,826,016 3,052,694 Year 11 12 13 14 15 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 84,974,990 90,413,373 96,124,275 102,116,550 108,422,181 Increment 72,061,244 77,499,627 83,210,529 89,202,804 95,508,435 Available Yield 3,768,803 4,053,230 4,351,911 4,665,307 4,995,091 County Collection Fee 113,064 121,597 130,557 139,959 149,853 Yield Less Fee 3,655,739 3,931,634 4,221,353 4,525,347 4,845,238 10% Shared 365,574 393,163 422,135 452,535 484,524 90% Net Available Yield 3,290,165 3,538,470 3,799,218 4,072,813 4,360,715 Appendix 2b. Mega Project rr a a i Grovvth per41(earµ+ n° �rf° /p a au� �� ��h ^Interest 5.5 °10 u R A +v�" dui' w:�N ii � Histon0al Avgrage� ' �° i P q huav + �� a v� v a oN � r b a ,�;v u ; Improvements per'Year ^, 0700 ,����° , ���r ;�� Years X20 A + � , 20 `Year Total of 90 % Net " Millage Availale t6 71F '! ;ul 52.3 Available Yield 64,607,488 N� NetPresent Value of 20' Mu t N A b d 4 ti B She to Shoot n „n�, ���' % °�� a "Year Total 22,142,857 On Shared MIN 1h0%�r1 Year 1 2 3 4 5 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 13,935,246 37,437,910 45,285,575 48,864,574 52,628,654 Increment 1,021,500 24,524,164 32,371,829 35,950,828 39,714,908 Available Yield 53,424 1,282,614 1,693,047 1,880,228 2,077,090 County Collection Fee 1,603 38,478 50,791 56,407 62,313 Yield Less Fee 51,822 1,244,135 1,642,255 1,823,821 2,014,777 10% Shared 5,182 124,414 164,226 182,382 201,478 90% Net Available Yield 46,640 1,119,722 1,478,030 1,641,439 1,813,299 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 56,499,488 63,646,383 70,066,178 74,809,201 79,773,892 Increment 43,585,742 50,732,637 57,152,432 61,895,455 66,860,146 Available Yield 2,279,534 2,653,317 2,989,072 3,237,132 3,496,786 County Collection Fee 68,386 79,600 89,672 97,114 104,904 Yield Less Fee 2,211,148 2,573,717 2,899,400 3,140,018 3,391,882 10% Shared 221,115 257,372 289,940 314,002 339,188 90% Net Available Yield 1,990,033 2,316,346 2,609,460 2,826,016 3,052,694 Year 11 12 13 14 15 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 84,974,990 90,413,373 96,124,275 102,116,550 108,422,181 Increment 72,061,244 77,499,627 83,210,529 89,202,804 95,508,435 Available Yield 3,768,803 4,053,230 4,351,911 4,665,307 4,995,091 County Collection Fee 113,064 121,597 130,557 139,959 149,853 Yield Less Fee 3,655,739 3,931,634 4,221,353 4,525,347 4,845,238 10% Shared 365,574 393,163 422,135 452,535 484,524 90% Net Available Yield 3,290,165 3,538,470 3,799,218 4,072,813 4,360,715 Year 16 17 18 19 20 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 115,042,788 121,986,332 129,285,210 136,960,745 145,035,535 Increment 102,129,042 109,072,586 116,371,464 124,046,999 132,121,789 Available Yield 5,341,349 5,704,496 6,086,228 6,487,658 6,909,970 County Collection Fee 160,240 171,135 182,587 194,630 207,299 Yield Less Fee 5,181,108 5,533,361 5,903,641 6,293,028 6,702,670 10% Shared 518,111 553,336 590,364 629,303 670,267 90% Net Available Yield 4,662,998 4,980,025 5,313,277 5,663,725 6,032,403 Appendix 2c. Full Occupancy Over 10 Years wu "P'' q Growth per'Year ,,'� 4yy ,' "` , fi w 5 0 °l0 I V ° r a! Years 50 r,tNn a i5 otaI of 90%, Y 1 r N'M'Y wNiu"4 Mr a, 1, Milla,ge pva;lable Avallabl� 1field pt 41 14$ 5$3 X e 20 ' Na'Y i w, w'•w u"uakk^ , ww wd , „% Y , N `� n,� J Net Present Yaiue of 15;^ ^ G� w4 "� �Nff", '"♦ ,uN^Yr,�N � � dr, � e ar 1 r i 'r ; 1 rM u! t w w ".� n•ww wr" k„ V `�,N`wyb!"rl , Na N� ,Nlr� wti,, ,4arn l,�r � ^ ��u� �YBaipw OtaIfY4P �u�l��noaa. 1'�,N� r + '�`�� r, `� µy.d„ "Jw',� Yw "�'r�N r n " � �1:0 ✓O .Mfr 'rJtl uw" w�,r:. , �'+ r!uN �" �, ap, RN� nNN,r 4 1�5P ,¢6 i�+r, Year 1 2 3 4 5 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 22,295,246 29,835,510 32,547,031 46,897,718 50,543,786 Increment 9,381,500 16,921,764 19,633,285 33,983,972 37,630,040 Available Yield 490,652 885,008 1,026,821 1,777,362 1,968,051 County Collection Fee 14,720 26,550 30,805 53,321 59,042 Yield Less Fee 475,933 858,458 996,016 1,724,041 1,909,010 10% Shared 47,593 85,846 99,602 172,404 190,901 90% Net Available Yield 428,340 772,612 896,415 1,551,637 1,718,109 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 61,641,528 68,096,945 77,783,774 82,989,852 88,445,383 Increment 48,727,782 55,183,199 64,870,028 70,076,106 75,531,637 Available Yield 2,548,463 2,886,081 3,392,702 3,664,980 3,950,305 County Collection Fee 76,454 86,582 101,781 109,949 118,509 Yield Less Fee 2,472,009 2,799,499 3,290,921 3,555,031 3,831,795 10% Shared 247,201 279,950 329,092 355,503 383,180 90% Net Available Yield 2,224,808 2,519,549 2,961,829 3,199,528 3,448,616 Year 11 12 13 14 15 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 94,166,770 100,156,660 106,452,160 113,064,107 120,026,592 Increment 81,253,024 87,242,914 93,538,414 100,150,361 107,112,846 Available Yield 4,249,533 4,562,804 4,892,059 5,237,864 5,602,002 County Collection Fee 127,486 136,884 146,762 157,136 168,060 Yield Less Fee 4,122,047 4,425,920 4,745,297 5,080,728 5,433,942 10% Shared 412,205 442,592 474,530 508,073 543,394 90% Net Available Yield 3,709,842 3,983,328 4,270,768 4,572,655 4,890,548 Appendix 2c. Full Occupancy Over 10 Years Growth per ":Year Interest 5.5% Historical Average � �! i �,�r�, �� u � , Improvements,per� ear 5 107,500 ,�I, , Years 2Q ; „ r 20 Year Total �� of 90% Neil Millage Available to TIF �� 52 3i,d 'gyp ���� Available Yield 7Q966,932 " �,: � Net Present Value of 20 Share to School � ;;, ,� , °(p " "' „Year Total 24,322,423 Shared w: 1 4 '' "� ":1'0%0 " Year 1 2 3 4 5 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 22,295,246 29,835,510 32,547,031 46,897,718 50,543,786 Increment 9,381,500 16,921,764 19,633,285 33,983,972 37,630,040 Available Yield 490,652 885,008 1,026,821 1,777,362 1,968,051 County Collection Fee 14,720 26,550 30,805 53,321 59,042 Yield Less Fee 475,933 858,458 996,016 1,724,041 1,909,010 10% Shared 47,593 85,846 99,602 172,404 190,901 90% Net Available Yield 428,340 772,612 896,415 1,551,637 1,718,109 Year 6 7 8 9 10 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 61,641,528 68,096,945 77,783,774 82,989,852 88,445,383 Increment 48,727,782 55,183,199 64,870,028 70,076,106 75,531,637 Available Yield 2,548,463 2,886,081 3,392,702 3,664,980 3,950,305 County Collection Fee 76,454 86,582 101,781 109,949 118,509 Yield Less Fee 2,472,009 2,799,499 3,290,921 3,555,031 3,831,795 10% Shared 247,201 279,950 329,092 355,503 383,180 90% Net Available Yield 2,224,808 2,519,549 2,961,829 3,199,528 3,448,616 Year 11 12 13 14 15 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 94,166,770 100,156,660 106,452,160 113,064,107 120,026,592 Increment 81,253,024 87,242,914 93,538,414 100,150,361 107,112,846 Available Yield 4,249,533 4,562,804 4,892,059 5,237,864 5,602,002 County Collection Fee 127,486 136,884 146,762 157,136 168,060 Yield Less Fee 4,122,047 4,425,920 4,745,297 5,080,728 5,433,942 10% Shared 412,205 442,592 474,530 508,073 543,394 90% Net Available Yield 3,709,842 3,983,328 4,270,768 4,572,655 4,890,548 Year 16 17 18 19 20 Frozen Assessment 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 12,913,746 Total Assessment 127,343,463 135,025,048 143,106,249 151,611,046 160,564,854 Increment 114,429,717 122,111,302 130,192,503 138,697,300 147,651,108 Available Yield 5,984,674 6,386,421 6,809,068 7,253,869 7,722,153 County Collection Fee 179,540 191,593 204,272 217,616 231,665 Yield Less Fee 5,805,134 6,194,828 6,604,796 7,036,253 7,490,488 10% Shared 580,513 619,483 660,480 703,625 749,049 90% Net Available Yield 5,224,621 5,575,346 5,944,316 6,332,627 6,741,440 3. A detailed list of estimated project costs. Capital Improvements Needs 2004 Little Rock Port Authority Complete dredge and fill of Slackwater Harbor $ 5,010,000 Industrial Area/110 Acres Slackwater Harbor Dockside Equipment $1,210,000 Road Construction $ 1,810,000 South Slackwater Blvd. $ 690,000 Alden Bowen Road $ 415,000 Upgrade Zeuber Road $ 320,000 Upgrade W. Sloane Drive $ 385,000 Utilities $ 964,000 Water: Zeuber Road Area $ 60,000 Sewer: Slackwater Harbor -South $ 550,000 River Terminal Area $ 310,000 Zeuber Road Area $ 44,000 Complete the Railroad Network $ 5,160,000 Slackwater Harbor Sidings $ 3,360,000 Slackwater Harbor Yard $ 1,500,000 Extend past Sloane Site $ 300,000 Expand Intermodal Growth Area $10,000,000 Riverside Dock Improvements $ 110,000 Repair Terminal Building $ 110,000 Total Capital Needs $24,264,000 Total Priority Item Needs $ 6,220,000 Fill Harbor Site $ 5,010,000 Slackwater Dockside Equipment $ 1,210,000 4. A description of the methods of financing all estimated project costs, including the issuance of tax increment bonds, and the time when the costs or monetary obligations related thereto are to be incurred. Initially, the District intends to pay for the improvements in the Project Plan on a pay -as- you -go basis. When economically feasible, the District intends to issue tax increment bonds to finance all or a portion of the project costs. Reference is made to the Economic Feasibility Study at Tab 2 of this Project Plan for three scenarios for timing of the issuance of tax increment bonds: (1) growth on a slow growth, (2) acquisition of a "mega" project in the vicinity leading to expansion of existing businesses as well as attraction of new businesses, and (3) the majority of the available land is used for medium and small businesses. The Project Plan is divided into three phases for ease of analysis. The first phase is completion of dredge and fill of slackwater harbor and industrial area of 110 acres at a cost of $6,220,000. The second phase involves road construction, utilities, railroad network, and riverside dock improvements at a cost of $8,044,000. The third phase involves expansion of the intermodal growth area at a cost of $10,000,000. Any project costs not paid from the tax increment or from the proceeds of tax increment bonds will be funded, if possible, from governmental grants and operating revenues of the Little Rock Port Authority. The timing of the issuance of tax increment bonds, if any, depends upon the acquisition of new businesses in the District. Tax increment bonds will be issued in the principal amount of not to exceed $25,000,000 and will mature not later than December 7, 2029. 5. A certification by the county tax assessor of the base value, total ad valorem rate, debt service ad valorem rate, and applicable ad valorem rate for the redevelopment district. A certification of the Pulaski County Tax Assessor is attached. CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, County Assessor for Pulaski County, Arkansas, hereby certify the following information, to be a true representation of the assessed values of all property subject to ad valorem taxation, as shown in our Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System as of December 7, 2004, as it pertains to the real property described on Exhibit A provided to the Assessor's Office by the Little Rock Port Authority, and attached hereto. Base Value $15,596,410.00 Total Ad Valorem Rate 69.0 mills Debt Service Ad Valorem Rate 16.7 mills Applicable Ad Valorem Rate (Total Ad Valorem Rate Minus Debt Service Ad Valorem Rate) 52.3 mills Given under my hand this December 7, 2004. Janet Troutman Ward i /Pulaski County Assessor EXHIBIT A A parcel of land situated in Sections 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 23, Township 1 North, Range 11 West, all lying south of the Arkansas River in Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the SE 1/4 said Section 15; thence N 01 degrees 41'50" E along the west line of said SE 1/4, Section 15, for a distance of 1,801.12 feet to a point being on the centerline of Old Fourche Creek; thence N 38 degrees 20'50" E approximately 2,356 feet to the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Arkansas River being the Point of Beginning; thence northwesterly along the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Arkansas River to the intersection of the west line of the SE 1/4, Section 9; thence southerly along said west line of the SE' /a, Section 9 to the intersection of the centerline of Old Fourche Creek, being approximately 2,400 feet north of the southwest corner of said SE 1/4, Section 9; thence southeasterly along the centerline of Old Fourche Creek to a point which is the intersection of Old Fourche Creek and the south line of Hermitage Home Sites Subdivision extended; thence N 89 degrees 34'51" W along the said south line 137.12 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 99, Hermitage Home Sites Subdivision; thence S 11 degrees 28'14" E, 202.85 feet to a point; thence S 23 degrees 41'56" E, 170.20 feet to a point; thence S 29 degrees 12'48" E, 141.20 feet to a point; thence S 25 degrees 56'21" E, 205.30 feet to a point; thence S 36 degrees 44'33" E, 134.3 feet to a point on the south right -of- way the following bearings and distances: S 59 degrees 21'26" W, 319.16 feet to a point; thence S 66 degrees 52' W, 426.1 feet to a point; thence N 74 degrees 09'E, 516.6 feet to a point, thence N 64 degrees 50'E, 204.0 feet to a point; thence S 58 degrees 41' W, 366.9 feet to a point; thence S 63 degrees 00'I I" W, 308.0 feet to a point; thence S 70 degrees 25'35" W, 100.5 feet to a point, thence S 55 degrees 35' W, 85.4 feet to a point; thence S 08 degrees 56' W, 144.4 feet to a point on the east right -of -way of Fourche Dam Pike; thence leaving said south right -of -way of East Belt of Freeway N O1 degrees 30'32" E, along said east right -of -way of Fourche Dam Pike 217.2 feet to a point; thence S 81 degrees 06'14" W, 122.12 feet to the intersection of the west right -of -way of Fourche Dam Pike and the south right -of -way of East Belt Freeway; thence N 89 degrees 46'32" W, 670.15 feet along said south right -of -way the following bearings and distances: thence S 84 degrees 40' W, 202.2 feet to a point; thence S 75 degrees 09" W, 1,118.1 feet to point; thence S 89 degrees 35" W, 421.1 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 53' W, 703.2 feet to a point; thence N 89 degrees 43' W, 900.5 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 48'47" W, 491.6 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 04'32" W, 270.0 more or less to point on the Centerline of Fourche Bayou; thence, leaving said south right -of -way of East Belt Freeway, southwesterly along the centerline of Fourche Bayou approximately 900 feet to the intersection of the north right -of -way line of Lindsey Road; thence N 87 degrees 17'02" W along said north right -of -way line approximately 5 feet to a point; thence N 87 degrees 54'02" W, 93.68 feet to a point; thence N 75 degrees 01'45" W, 117.33 feet to a point; thence N 71 degrees 16'09" W, 650.10 feet to a point; thence northwesterly along a curve to the right whose radius is 703.94 feet, a distance of 707.17 feet to a point; thence N 13 degrees 43'08" W, 1,091.00 feet to a point; thence northwesterly along a curve to the left whose radius is 1,969.86 feet, a distance of 339.32 feet to a point; thence 23 degrees 35'08" W, 119.50 feet to a point; thence N 20 degrees 43'23" W, 200.25 feet to a point; thence N 23 degrees 35'08" W, 200.0 feet to a point; thence N 26 degrees 17'43" W, 211.54 feet to a point; thence N 23 degrees 35'08" W, 275.0 feet to a point; thence N 31 degrees 50'16" E, 54.15 feet to a point, said point being the intersection of the east right -of -way line of Lindsey Road and the south right -of -way line of East Roosevelt Road; thence N 88 degrees 03'39" W along the south right -of -way line of East Roosevelt Road 215.0 feet, said point being the intersection of the west right -of -way line of Lindsey Road and the south right -of -way line of East Roosevelt Road; thence S 45 degrees 26'23" E along said west right -of- way line of Lindsey Road 79.06 feet to a point; thence 23 degrees 35'08" E, 1,055.80 feet to a point; thence southeasterly along a curve to the right whose radius is 1,849.86 feet, a distance of 318.64 feet to a point; thence S 13 degrees 43'08" E, 1,091.0 feet to a point; thence southeasterly along a curve to the left whose radius is 823.94 feet, a distance of 827.70 feet to a point; thence S 71 degrees 16'09" E, 650.10 feet to a point; thence S 68 degrees 39'23" E, 134.87 feet to a point; thence S 81 degrees 46'54" E approximately 90 feet said point being the intersection of the south right -of -way line of Lindsey Road and the centerline of Fourche Bayou; thence southwesterly along the centerline of Fourche Bayou approximately 2,800 feet to the intersection of the centerline of Fourche Bayou and the west line of the NW 1 /a, NE ' /a, Section 20; thence S 01 degrees 16'34" W along the west line of the NW 1 /a, NE 1 /a, Section 20, approximately 520 feet to the southwest corner of the NW 1 /a, NE 1 /a, Section 20; thence S 88 degrees 48'45" E, 2,619.66 feet along the south line of the N 1 /s, NE 1 /a, Section 20 to the southwest corner of the NW 1 /a, NW 1 /a, Section 21; thence S 88 degrees 47'55" E, 5,275.91 feet along the south line of the N 1h of the NW 1/a and the N 1/z of the NE 1/a of Section 21 to the southwest corner of the NW 1/a and N 1/z of the NE 1/a of Section 22; thence S 87 degrees 48'3 1 " E, 2,603.87 feet along the south line of the N 1/i of the NW 1 /a, Section 22 to the southwest corner of the NW 1 /a, NE 1 /a, Section 22; thence S 87 degrees 50'37" E, 1,647.39 feet along the south line of the N 1 /z, NE 1 /a, Section 22 to a point on said south line, said point being on centerline Fourche Island Drainage District No. 2 levee; thence N 29 degrees 14'21" W, 1,550.80 feet along the centerline of the Fourche Island Drainage District No. 2 levee to a point on the north line of Section 22; thence S 87 degrees 54'21" E, 774.22 feet along the north line of Section 22 to a point of intersection between said north line and the centerline of Old Fourche Creek; thence continue S 87 degrees 54'21" E, along the north line of Section 22 for a distance of 1,024.87 feet to the NW corner of Section 23; thence continue S 87 degrees 54'21" E, along the north line of Section 23, 1,857.24 feet; thence S 02 degrees 05'39" W, 31.0 feet to a point; thence S 87 degrees 54'21" E, 385.0 feet to a point; thence S 73 degrees 24'21" E, 1,610.0 feet to a point; thence S 86 degrees 00'E, 300 feet more or less to the Ordinary High Water Mark of the Arkansas River, right bank; thence northwesterly along said Ordinary High Water Mark, 7,500 feet more or less to the point of beginning; containing 1,558 acres more or less. 6. The type and amount of any other revenues that are expected to be deposited to the special fund of the redevelopment district. Other revenues that are expected to be deposited to the special fund of the District are as follows: • With respect to each parcel in the District for which there is a Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreement currently in effect and which agreement calculates the amount of the annual payment in lieu of taxes as a percentage of the value of the property: 90% of the City's share of the payments in lieu of taxes on incremental value • With respect to each parcel in the District for which a Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreement is entered into after the date of creation of the District: 90% of the City's share of the payments in lieu of taxes 7. A map showing existing uses and conditions of real property in the district. A map showing existing uses and conditions of real property in the District appears on the following page. w ICI I tll�l ��� a , H z$ H O ai a U O W a H H H a Lys y H E e 8. A map of proposed improvements and uses in the district. A map showing proposed improvements and uses in the District appears on the following page. a H f't ! tilt[t [E z * 9 a z W w O _ E + ^ y H r a° 1 ® S ` ,/ � +? y s �• ill t z: . [ -s er�z U Proposed changes of zoning ordinances. No changes are proposed in zoning ordinances. 10. Appropriate cross - references to any master plan, map, building codes, and city ordinances affected by the project plan. No master plan, map, building codes, or city ordinances will be affected by the project plan. 11. A list of estimated nonproject costs. No nonproject costs are estimated to be made. 12. A statement of the proposed method for the relocation of any persons to be displaced. No persons will be displaced.