The URL can be used to link to this page

COW Minutes 2002 04-30-02 Town Meeting UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE TOWN MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2002 APPM BEECHER COMMUNITY CENTER 7:00 P.M. In attendance: Mayor Prochaska Alderwoman Burd Alderman Kot Alderman Munns Alderwoman Spears Alderman Besco Alderman Sticka Treaswer Allen City Clerk Milschewski Administrator Graff Finance Director Pleckham Public Works Director Dhuse Guests: Peter Wallers - Engineering Enterprises, Inc.(EEI) Jeff Freeman - EEI Kevin McCanna - Speer Financial Inc. See attached sheets CITY WIDE WATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mayor Prochaska called the meeting to order and explained that the Town Meeting was being held to discuss the proposed water treatment project. He explained that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) set a standard at the end of 2000 for the level of radium in the water supply. As Yorkville's water did not meet the standard, the City began planning to bring the water supply into compliance. The Mayor introduced representatives from Engineering Enterprises, Inc. and Speer Financial, Inc. who will be explaining the project and the financing for it. Peter Wallers, Senior Vice President of Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEI) thanked the Mayor for the opportunity to make a presentation to the public. He turned the floor over to Jeff Freeman, Project Manager for EEI, who continued the presentation accompanied by a slide presentation. The presentation discussed the following items: * Combined radium regulatory history • Project plan process/content introduction • Water works system inventory • Water works system needs assessment • Source water evaluation • Radium compliance options • Cost - effective alternatives analysis • Proposed water works system improvement projects summary • Lime softening treatment system general schematic • Preliminary cost estimate • Projects benefits summary • Implementation schedule Please see attached detailed summary of the presentation. Mr. Freeman turned the floor over to Kevin McCanna of Speer Financial. Mr. McCanna provided a handout to the group (see attached) and discussed the following payment sources for the water project: 2 • Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) low interest loans. The IEPA charges municipalities half the going market rate for loans. • Revenues from the City's water system of approximately $275,000.00. Additional income from the proposed surcharge of $150.00 per user annually of approximately $350,000.00. Mr. McCanna went over the types of debt in addition to the IEPA loan: • Installment contract debt - 20 year term with no back door referendum option. • Water revenue bonds - 40 -year term subject to a backdoor referendum. City's revenues are not sufficient to afford this. More expensive because reserves needed adding 10% to 15% to the size. Mr. McCanna discussed the spreadsheet on page three of the handout. The chart indicates $2,750,000.00 being borrowed through Debt Certificates in 2002 and $14,250,000.00 from the IEPA Loan in 2003 for a total of $17,000.000.00. The spreadsheet lists the following under the Analysis of Water Revenues: • Year • Current revenues available • Number of accounts including the projection of 500 new accounts per year • Proposed water surcharge • Additional revenues calculated by the number of users paying the $150.00 surcharge. • Total available revenue from current revenue plus the projected additional revenue The following under Debt Issuance: • Certificates 2002 • IEPA 2003 The following under Revenue Minus Debt Service: • Annually • Cumulative After reviewing the spreadsheet Mr. McCanna concluded his presentation and opened the floor for questions. John Purcell of Yorkville asked where the current revenue of $275,000.00 came from. Mayor Prochaska noted that several years ago the city created the Water Expansion and Improvement Fund. Every year funds from connection fees are diverted into this fund. These funds will be used toward the new water tower that is needed. Sue Bartosik, 569 W. Barberry Court, clarified that the immediate problem was the radium in the water. She asked if the amount of radium depended on the depth of the well. Mr. Wallers stated that radium is a naturally occurring element found in deep wells. Ms. Bartosik stated that the plan indicated still using the deep wells versus shallow well. Mr. Wallers stated that EEI looked at using shallow wells in the system however these wells are in remote locations and are not cost effective to utilize at this time. As the City grows these may be utilized. Mr. Wallers explained that the deep sandstone well has radium in it but is still a safe supply considering it is low in other elements such as iron. EEI was trying to find a safe and economical solution to the problem. Robert James, 508 Heustis Street, asked where the water treatment plant would be located and what will be done with the sludge produced by the plant. Mr. Freeman stated that the proposed site for the plant is 25 acres outside of the City east of Tuma Road south of Route 34. He also stated that the sludge would be stored in lagoons on the plant site. There are two options to the I mo! 3 disposal of the sludge, one being farm land application and the other land fill. Mr. James asked if the radium neutralizes and Mr. Freeman stated that the amount of radium mined in the lime sludge is minute. The IEPA has standards for the disposal of this also. If the radium level is too high, the sludge will be sent to a landfill where it will contained. Don Martin, 220 Elizabeth, asked why the new water tank will be located so far to the north of the City. Mr. Wallers stated that the location provided the maximum ground height needed so that the water can flow down back to the City. Richard Brwnmel, 1020 Independence Blvd. asked how stable the aquifer was and how much has it dropped in the last twenty years. Mr. Wallers stated that in the 1970's there were reports of the decline of water in the deep sandstone aquifers near the City of Chicago. In the 1980's many areas converted to Lake Michigan for their water supply and the amount of water drawn from the deep aquifers declined and the water levels have rebounded and stabilized. He also noted that the water treatment plant could utilize shallow well water and river water if necessary. The cost to process the river water is higher than to process water from deep sandstone wells. Mr. Wallers discussed water from the bedrock valley as another source but test drilling and pumping is necessary to determine the yield from this type of well. Mayor Prochaska reiterated that the shallow wells are away from the City and are not cost effective at this time. Ms. Bartosik asked if the project would accommodate the population in twenty years. Mr. Freeman commented that it would not be good planning not to consider the future. Based on EEI's calculation they approximate that an additional 19,000 to 20,000 water consumers would bring the plant to capacity. Mayor Prochaska noted that new developers might need to build water towers on their sites and the City is looking at new development paying for the additional needs they are placing on the community. Mr. Brummel asked what the current radium level is and how did this effect the previous generations. Mr. Freeman stated that the current radium level is around 14 pCi/liter but it varies through the year. It can be as low as 8 pCi/liter and as high as 15 pCi/liter. The USEPA established a standard of 5 pCi/liter in 2000. Mayor Prochaska indicated that the reason the City held off addressing the radium in the water was because in 1991 the USEPA thought that the standard should be 20 pCi/liter and then the city would have been in compliance. Mayor Prochaska stated that it was tough to answer how the radium has effected people in the City. The current wells (wells number 3 & 4) are forty to fifty years old. The Mayor stated that several communities have brought up this issue many times over the years and the true worth of reducing the radium has never been fully explained. Mr. Purcell asked if the plant will be built in such a way as to be expandable in the future. Mr. Freeman stated that yes it will be built on approximately 25 acres so there will be room for expansion. He stated that the City is looking at long -term needs. Lynne Johnson, 114B Colonial Parkway, asked if the 2500 accounts included business and residences and she asked if business would be paying the same surcharge as residents. Mayor Prochaska stated that the fee was the same for both. She expressed her concern that people using more water would be paying the same as those with low usage. The Mayor explained that those using more would still be paying for the amount of water they use. Mr. McCanna stated that the surcharge was per customer. Mayor Prochaska stated that it might be possible to look at the surcharge being applied on a graduated scale. Ms. Johnson questioned why water tower #5 was not being used. Mayor Prochaska explained that there is no water tower at the site but there is a shallow well that is beyond the development 4 of the City. He explained that this was a test well that was never finished and it is actually on the Plano side of the boundary agreement. The City could still run a line to the well when the area develops in the future. Now it is not cost effective. Mr. Purcell asked that if Yorkville does not grow as projected how will the debt be paid off. Mr. McCanna stated that there are a couple of options. One would be to take funds from the operating side of the ledger to pay the debt and the other would be to restructure the debt and get more time to pay it off. He indicated that he used builder's projected numbers and stayed on the conservative side. Mayor Prochaska stated that as new growth comes into the City, the new homes are paying the water fee each month. Mr. James asked about the surcharge and how it is charged to apartment buildings. Mayor Prochaska indicated that the surcharge would be applied to every meter. Steve Booth, 904 E. Spring Street, asked what the route would be for the collector line. Mr. Freeman indicated that the watermain would come down Route 34 south and over to Liberty Street and then down across the Fox River. Ms. Johnson asked that when the debt has been paid would the surcharge be taken off the water bill. Mayor Prochaska stated that this is how the surcharge is being plamied at this time. Mr. Bru mnel asked if the rate for IEPA loan was frozen at 2.5 %. Mr. McCanna explained that the rate changes every six months but once the City has applied for the loan the rate is frozen for twenty years. If the City applied tomorrow, the rate would be frozen at 2.5% however the rate could fluctuate in the next six months. Mr. Brummel asked if the loan is renewable in twenty years and Mr. McCann stated it was not. Ms. Bartosik asked why the City was increasing its storage capacity before taking care of the radium problem. Mr. Freeman explained that the City was proactive in planning for this. The storage facility is the easier project to complete whereas the treatment plant will take longer to plan and implement. Mayor Prochaska noted that not only is the tower being looked at but also a well. As the new water lines are being built, they will affect the City's current well. He stated that he did not want to the City down to one well while this takes place. He also stated that the funds have already been set up to do this. Mi. Purcell asked why the Debt Certificates only go to 2008. Mr. McCanna explained that this is what makes them affordable and the City has full discretion to format the repayment. He also explained that the certificates are like savings bonds there is no interest paid until the bonds are cashed in. Ron Bruck, 538 Buckthorn Court, asked about the projected maintenance cost on the water treatment plant are and the lime sludge disposal. Mr. Freeman stated that EEI is still working through the operating costs and doesn't currently have a figure. Mr. Bruck asked if EEI checked with other similar facilities. Mr. Freeman stated that they spoke with Aurora and Montgomery. Mr. Bruck noted that the operation and maintenance (O &M) costs could be significant but only the construction cost are given in the report. Mr. Wallers stated that they did a cost - effective analysis, including O &M costs, on smaller plants when they were analyzing alternative types of plants. The lime softening plant was most cost effective. Mr. Bruck asked what a ballpark figure was for smaller plants and Mr. Freeman noted that the O &M costs for a 4.3 million gallons /day (MGD) plant were approximately $940,000.00 /year running at capacity. Mr. Bruck asked if the Yorkville plant would be bigger and Mr. Freeman stated that yes it would be bigger and the cost would be relative to the plant's production. 5 Doris Dick, 504 Teri Lane, asked if the 1 million - gallon tank was needed for the plant or just for expansion. Mr. Walters stated that the tower was necessary for the City, which currently has a storage deficit. He also noted that it is more efficient to build a larger tower to eliminate the deficient and provide additional storage. Mr. James asked if there would be storage at the plant and Mr. Walters stated that the plan of the plant does include an additional well and ground storage. Nancy James, 508 Heustis Street, asked how it is determined if the lime sludge used by farms meets standards. Mr. Freeman stated that the IEPA standard for the radium in sludge mixed with soil is .15 pCi/gram. Farmers accepting the sludge are made aware of the content. He explained that as part of obtaining the permit for the water treatment plant, the amount of radium in the sludge needs to be calculated, the sites of application are identified and the amount of sludge per acre need to be identified. The City is responsible for the testing of the sludge. Mr. Brummel stated that according to the figures presented it does not appear that there will be funds to operate the plant. Mr. McCanna stated that the figures were strictly for the capital needed to fulfill the engineering plan and has nothing to do with the O &M of the plant. Mayor Prochaska stated that the amount to operate the plant based on today's usage was needed. Mr. Freeman indicated that they would look at this cost. Mayor Prochaska stated that the $150.00 surcharge was just for the improvement loan and everyone is still paying his or her water fee. He stated that the budget for water operations this year is slightly over $1 million. He also explained that the City has revenue of $687,000.00 with a bill of $923,000.00. The fast payment on the loan isn't due until 2004 but the fee will be collected before this to create a cushion to use before the number of users increase. City Administrator Graff indicated that the City's revenues are strong and should produce enough to cover the O &M costs. He also noted that the commercial interests coming to the city will use more water than homes and this will provide more revenue. Mayor Prochaska noted that he personally hasn't seen evidence indicating that the level of radium in Yorkville's water is harmful. However, this is a federally mandated project and if the City of Yorkville does not control the project, the federal government will step in and the citizens will still have to pay for the program but at the goverminents cost. There were no further comments from the audience. Mayor Prochaska thanked Mr. Walters, Mr. Freeman. and Mr. McCanna for their presentations and time and adjourned the meeting at 8:30 P.M. Minutes by Jackie Milschewski, City Clerk United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) 'I WATER WORKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT PLAN Town Meeting Presentation April 30, 2002 Consulting Engineers Specializing in Civil Engineering UNITED CITY OF and Land Surveying YORKVILLE KENDALL CO., IL Presea'="':z;; Zu"m Ini • Combined Radium Regulatory History • Project Plan Process /Content Introduction • Water Works System Inventory • Water Works System Needs Assessment • Source Water Evaluation • Radium Compliance Options • Cost - Effective Alternatives Analysis • Proposed Water Works System Improvement Projects Summary • Lime Softening Treatment System General Schematic • Preliminary Cost Estimate • Project Benefits Summary • Implementation Schedule t e...pra... United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) eau maza=ry ni ri - - -__ _ .— _._��— �.._ °`r fl ri.'; �tl49i14YDYil:dlYSpcf61N ➢I:llilllliJ. el, i, ln s Ill dl iJ.11lll II i if i t I i II ilid I • 1976 - USEPA Establishes National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation For Combined Radium -226 and Radium -228 at 5 pCi /I • 1991 - USEPA Proposes To Raise Radium Standard To 20 pCi /I For Radium -226 and 20 pCi /I For Radium -228 • 2000 - On December 7, 2000 the USEPA Finalizes the Standard At a Combined Radium -226 and Radium -228 Level of 5 pCi /I. ✓ Final Rule Becomes Effective December 8, 2003 -----'- � - ` - ` - - - ` - gym`- _ fe.V�i illeotll ln,uhwul 11411i1 LII liil 1 LOW INTEREST LOAN PROGRAM i I PraJppir�donF «FnandalASdslanosuM i Why Do We Need W r:fidsatlon of Pm�ed a b b Fwdm A Project Plan? Prv(eM i FIIwiY11DMOmJ�uEm Project Plan • To Identify Current and Projected DeebpmeMelPb�andSp.Mbtlna Strengths and Deficiencies Within the Fa Na Proposed Impov —. 1 Water Works System IEPADN=Pabio NblN Arpply- Permis Ravlew t To Ensure the Most Effective Solution is + ; Selected CLI Adopts DeG lWNwixa6on Ordbaas I I V Cwnple5on olLwnAppf 6onhdapo • It is Required For the City To Participate Fwd 'npAn]abbforNOpnsad4nprovemeMS i in the IEPA Public Water Supply Loan ConelrvgbnandbgdemeMalbn Program FNMlnspxWn Loan Payhxk 2 enoin .Lno lnb.prl��. United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) pre Mam P -_ -._- r-° .' �- ��,- � � �- ' a�L¢Fa "t ih Lli6aLrlu. ui.tl, 6usa iii i, i iLn6:e mini iii i ii it ids, Ji p What Are the Elements - =- of a Project Plan? Water Works '.• system • Description of Existing Facilities and Needs Present Service Area Assessment • Definition of Need for Improvement and • Population Projection ": ' Project Plan • Cost - Effective Alternative Analysis FOR • Potential Environmental Impacts of Proposed Improvements crwoFVOrtKV�uE KEII COUNTY, • Demonstration of Financial Capability/ = ILLINOIS Dedicated Revenue Source == • Current and Projected Water Rate Structure _ ' PAEPAAEDBY • Implementation Schedule • Project Plan Review By IEPA - -- • State Environmental Review • Public Hearing Enginooring • Revisions and /or Additions —__ Enterprin�s, - Agency Acceptance t_ --- ' W FN We W1 - LF -_ �'. 4 - -v ivelft • Water Works System Components ,, 'Supply: Water Wells ➢Quantity ➢Quality , /Treatment: Chemical Addition ✓Distribution: Water Main Network And Appurtenances ➢Booster Pump /Pressure Reducing Valve (BP /PRV) Station ➢Water Main Break Inventory ✓Storage: Water Storage Facilities ✓Controls: Local Telemetry 3 e..a....rino lnaRrl��. United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) Ty UpE W" Waft j I a A . ..... ...... NO 1, 14 ,,I A'. I 4� 22 21 Existing 2 WELL No. 4 . AND Water Works 300,000 GAL. ELEV. TANK BOOSTERPUMPING1 PR System A � ,r S'URE REDUCING `fir 7, T I ST TOM vil 500,000 GAL. ELEV TANK N CATON FAnM FD. 2 72 MILES TO SOUTH • a- kneme Water Use Inventory and Projections ✓Historical and Existing Water Use -/Population Projection -./Future Water Use • Water Works System Evaluation Parameters ✓Ultimate Source Capacity ✓Reliable Source Capacity ✓Peak Hour Storage -/Fire Flow - Supply 4 United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) Sam— a— • Year 2001 ✓ Supply (535 gpm Deficient) ✓ Storage (200,000 gallons Deficient) • Year 2021 ✓ Supply (3,600 gpm Deficient) ✓ Storage (2,000,000 gallons Deficient) • Additional Supply? Shallow Wells Deep Wells Surface Water 5 United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) KANEf KENDALL COUNTY LINE 6. 2 sour" AURORA VALLEY w r END O STUDY A REA LL No Shallow Sand and Gravel I WELL No. 4 ND300,WOGAL AND L Bedrock ELEVIANK 0 00O'9TERPUA' WPINGI Valley WE PRESSURE R& UWN STATION % w'. 3 = 500 ,000 GA TAN ELEV f L N rATON FARM FIR 2.72 MILES TO SOUTH GIIOUP ON . THIEdbEtE 3411 1 aim 5 EVIIINI aden 07 WII Generalized - _ Dbrc - 0210 f °°� °�°`�l°� Geologic Stratigraphic Units Underlying Kendall f- County - nty 1 Qwmlafs ' � Flm`unl -� :: -.. ],00]r Ybww lWr; y,aa.r Ol WbaM 6 En01n e1110 United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) Radium Cam;Nam-ais 0 qui 9 Blending * Cation Exchange Treatment e Reverse Osmosis Treatment 9 Lime Softening Treatment . Other • ZA Vr Considerations and Options ✓Radium Standards ✓City Land Use and Growth Trends / Physical Geography and Geology V Existing Facilities Projected Needs , / Existing and Projected Water Quality (iron and Manganese, Hardness, Etc.) • Nine Radium Compliance Alternatives Analyzed -/ Existing Facilities (Wells No. 3 and 4) With: -�Additional Shallow Wells [Five (5) Alternatives] c:>Additional Deep Wells [Three (3) Alternatives] ->Fox River Integration [One (1) Alternative] 7 United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) 7 ME -Qz Z-as "80311 • Selected Alternative ✓6.30 MGD Lime Softening Treatment Facility ✓1,000,000 Gallon Elevated Water Storage Tank V1 000 GPM Water Well ✓Raw Water Main ✓Reinforcing Distribution Water Main KANV KENDALL COUNTY LINE' & t€ 1000, 000 OAI. ,e t- z z a ��/ I ELEVATED TANK e F: Kd. I IS WATER - 7 i u I ° = y , DISTRIBUTION- 2 ' VAIN' ,l a ^v. .E a •- I � a , '�.. i K t - PRESS�I�tEREQyC /NG% ) - r bl WATER I a _ STATION UA WBUTfON L Improvement - - ^'" F J r . WELL NO.0 (1000 SPAS ND 6 30 Project.? �A013 ESOFTEN/NG` 16 "RAW TREATMENT FAC/L?Y_ ^a w k lxraSx ` WELL No 4 Summary Map z s. a ?� ;; AND 300,000 GAL � _ =12 RAW -'= a s �` - ELEV. TANK - WATE_RMAI_N •" 3 i BOOSTERPUMP/NO/ - -"' WELL N0.3 - t,j : PRESSURE REDUC/NQ L egend -� _ __'' I - _ -r' STATION .t v 13 WATER 4 ` • Ot g Existin �' - DISTRIBfiTION s___, f fe WAfiER a s • ; 0151'�BCrrioN •�- Proposed { ( �� 500, 000 GA , I E TANK 1t.' 12 '• r' - -T'- -• 1 " 91D LCP^ °� `' COON MnMnO.2.72 MILESTO SOUrN 8 »rind lnbrprl��. United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) Ume b TM=9R1 atei Generalized Treatment Process Dee p ...Shallow ......................... ............................... FUTURE Well Trarsn+sebn Well Water �qro OPTIONS' tm Transrris�an Water ! lire e 1 4 g T,a=a«r L m Air Contact/ Stripper Flocculation Basin Distribution System High Service Rewlbonellon b time. Pdynier Tank Filler Clear Well Pumps �!— C12 Carbon �I I Oioiide '�X/ RadurS troR and Or�rica. Tasb, Hard— Ions rd Odor wltlrn Shatae Wash 300.000 Gallon 500,000 Gallon 1,000,000 Gallon Elevated Tank Elevated Tank Elevated Tank i Lstlmated Contract Construction Number Project Cost A.1 Elevated Water Storage Tank $1,391,655 A.2 RL 47 Finished W.M. & BP/PRV Station $1,085,243 Subtotal Contract Construction Costs $2,476,898 Engineering (Contract A) $198,154 Subtotal Contract A Improvements $2,676,052 B.1 Lime Softening Treatment Facility $9,062,235 B.2 Well No. 6 $760,000 B.3 Wells No. 3 and 4 Raw Water Main $1,771,375 B.4 Central City Finished Water Main - North $2,054,350 B.5 Central City Finlshed Water Main - South $687,450 Subtotal Contract B Construction Costs $14,335,410 Engineering (Contract B) $1,773,494 Legal Surveying, Grant and Loan Admin. and Soils Testing $100,000 Site Acquisition $450,000 10% Contingency (Contract B) $1,433,541 Subtotal Contract B Improvements $10,092,445 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $20,767,497 9 En01n rin0 lne�rprl��. United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) Cost Distribution Radium Compliance and Water Treatment Improvements - Projected Developer Contributions $3,760,000 Radium Compliance and Water Treatment Improvements - City Contribution $12,588,000 $4,419,000 Supply, Storage, and Distribution System Improvements am rreiecl " 2 1 ; W Z U ia� ' Zommuri • Brings City Into Compliance With Federal Standards (Safe Drinking Water Act) • Provides Significant Improvement To City's Fire Flow and Water Storage Capabilities • Provides Reinforcement To the Existing Water Distribution System - Provides Improved Water Delivery To Users (Especially Fire Flow) • Provides High Quality Soft Water To Users • Provides Treatment Flexibility To Utilize Shallow and Deep Water Wells and Surface Water Sources Into the Future • Majority of Project Is Eligible For Low Interest Loan Funding (2.675 % Interest Rate) 10 E.�,n...n. lnaea..pNu�, United City of Yorkville Water Works System Needs Assessment and Project Plan Town Meeting Summary Presentation (April 30, 2002) IMIIIIDfflMQI==IIGn piall =y_. §as4it" 'd ll"- 46J21r knr.ald a u .a.IHI ., ,i iLI al iul COO, 2001 7¢¢] 1007 3W6 N. Pro Wo rk If— J A 8 0 N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S� P led Plan mleq PlkrtftevNbn- - - EIW_SlggeQsRl/CgpBM hd.CS6 tMe� - Efiv�SFawBk Ray[ew L = - _ _ _ _ _ _ nl id Project PI nRevleW =IEPA - _ - _ _ - - - - -- Rete a _- -= &E.Ip- IEpA - -__ - _- —_ - - - - - - - - - == Purposas On W- - A.7 ;El..tW W H S e A Con".. S(or"a Tank Desi5in IEPA Plan Review I SMdVq and C.M..ti g C-4. A.7 I iou:eaT Flnlshed maps : I Vater Main B BPIPRV IIEPAPI n Rewew _�SUllon IBlddrgand CCrdnd4o IConfINCUOn B.d ILfne Sollenlnj ISlte Aegdanbn Can,ok. ITrulment Facility IUeslo :IEPAPIn Review IBIMT:nd ConlradNo - I ICansNw4on B.R IWe11N0.5 I�L pn dEPA PI an R<view _ BI Imr� COrind4q I I Dlt- uctlon B.J IWella NO.Jarga RaW ,Desr — Water Main IIEPAPIMReview IBldfl and C.rdrad4q :COneuudbn 9Z — ICentraICHYFlniahed voesi rI (Water Main -North DEPA Plan Review I rBltldnjand CordndYg ICOnslruaeon — — B.6 ICentrAl CltV Flnlshad :Dear - _(Wales Main• South :IEPA Plan Review _ll rOkki'm Yq Conlndhg 1 :Construction IIEPA Loan Documn. ILOan gpikatbn Prep. Ilation :Financial Su ndtal 1 IResalullons 1 1 rOed Adinrhaibn Ord. 1 1 IPUhflc COmmed I "ter Use Ordnance Rev. I I :ApIIpBOn COmYale 1 Loan A¢reemedlssued I I l i 11 Era — . Ene�PpN.r.r•, TOWN MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 7 OF 2 WATER WORKS SYSTEM NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND PROJECT PLAN United City of Yorkville, Kendall Co., IL April 30, 2002 Town Meeting Executive Summary • Radium -226 and Radium -228 Are Naturally Occurring Radionuclides That Are Present In the Deep Sandstone Aquifers Within Northeastern Illinois • Radium Compliance Is Mandated By the Federal Government; Regulatory History ✓ 1976 — National Interim Primary Drin Water Standard For Combined Radium -226 and Radium -228 Was Established At 5 pCi /I ✓ 1991 — USEPA Proposes To Raise Radium Standard To 20 pCi /I For Radium -226 and 20 pCi /I For Radium -228 ✓ 2000 — On December 7, 2000 the USEPA Finalizes the Standard At a Combined Radium - 226 and Radium -228 Level of 5 pCi /I. ➢ Final Rule Becomes Effective December 8, 2003 • City Is Working Through the Planning Process For Radium Compliance and Overall Water Works System Capacity and Distribution Improvements Via the Project Plan Process. • The City Water Works System Contains Two (2) Active Deep Sandstone Water Wells, One (1) Inactive Shallow Sand and Gravel Well, Two (2) Elevated Water Storage Tanks, and One (1) Booster Pump /Pressure Reducing Valve Station • Current and Projected Water Use Trends Indicate the City Requires Additional Supply and Storage To Meet Existing and Then Projected Water Demands • The City Considered the Three (3) Available Supply Sources and the Three (3) Best Available Treatment Technologies To Meet the Supply and Treatment Needs • The Needs Assessment and Cost Effective Analysis Has Identified a Need For an Additional Elevated Water Storage Tank, an Additional Deep Sandstone Water Well, a Lime Softening Treatment Facility, and the Additional Associated Raw and Finished Water Main Required To Integrate the Facilities Into the System. • Total Estimated Cost of Improvements: $20,787,000; Cost Distribution ✓ Supply, Storage, and Distribution System Capacity Projects: $4,419,000 ✓ Radium Compliance and Water Treatment Improvements — Developer's Contribution: $3,760,000 ✓ Radium Compliance and Water Treatment Improvements — City's Contribution: $12,588,000 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. SUGAR GROVE, IL TOWN MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 2OF2 The Primary Benefits Of the Proposed Facilities Are: ✓ Brings City Into Compliance With Federal Standards (Safe Drinking Water Act) ✓ Provides Significant Improvement To City's Fire Flow and Water Storage Capabilities ✓ Provides Reinforcement To the Existing Water Distribution System - Provides Improved Water Delivery To Users (Especially Fire Flow) ✓ Provides High Quality Soft Water To Users ✓ Provides Treatment Flexibility To Utilize Shallow and Deep Water Wells and Surface Water Sources Into the Future ✓ Project Is Eligible For Low Interest Loan Funding (2.675 % Interest Rate) • The North Elevated Water Storage Tank Is Projected To Be Completed By August 2003; The Lime Softening Treatment Facility Is Projected To Be Completed By September 2004 ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC. \\EEINIIEEI -DOCS \PUBLIC \Yorkville %1999\Yo9901 Water Works Improvements \Presentation \Town Meeting \exec summary.doc SUGAR GROVE, IL SPEER FINANCIAL, INC. PUBLIC FINANCE CONSULTANTS SINCE 1954 KEVIN W. McCANNA DAVID F. PHILLIPS LARRY P. BURGER DANIEL D. FORBES BARBARA L CHEVALIER PRESIDENT SR VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICEPRESIDENT CITY OF YORKVILLE Financial Overview for Water The City's current and expected growth necessitates major water system improvements. Additionally, a portion of the improvements is needed to comply with current water standards. The estimated cost of these improvements is $20,250,000. Most of this may be available from the IEPA low interest loan program. Some will be funded by special service area (SSA) debt. For discussion purposes, the sources of the borrowed funds will be shown as either the general market at 5.5% or IEPA at 2.5% with $3,400,000 assumed to be supplied by a SSA. Revenue Availability The City has net revenues in the water system of some $275,000. The proposed water surcharge of $150 per user should generate some $350,000 annually from existing users. Growth is expected to be some 500 customers annually for ten years beginning mid -2004. It is assumed that additional net operating revenues will be generated; these funds are not budgeted for debt service. Types of Debt The City may use installment contract debt or water system revenue bonds to borrow the funds. A combination is also possible. Installment contract debt, like that used for the new City Hall, is a general promise to pay, has a 20 -year maximum term and has no back door referendum option. Water revenue bonds pledge only water system revenues, have a maximum 40 -year term and are subject to a backdoor referendum. Reserves are usually needed for this type of issue, adding 10% to 15% to the size. A subordinate pledge of revenues, without a reserve, may also be issued to the IEPA which was only funds loans of 20 years. Given the current and historical level of water system revenues, water revenue bonds at this time would not be feasible for a general market sale although should be acceptable credit for the IEPA loan program. I SUITE 4100.ONE NORTH LASALLE STREET - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 • (312) 346 -3700 - FAX (312) 346 -8833 SUITE 608.531 COMMERCIAL STREET • WATERLOO, IOWA 50701 • (319) 291 -2077 • FAX (319) 291 -8628 SPEER FINANCIAL, INC. Debt Structure Exhibit A demonstrates the expected debt plan. Existing and projected revenues are demonstrated. Installment contract debt for the water tower is proposed for mid -2002. IEPA loans are assumed for the balance of the financing. KWM /mj 4/24/02 I United City of Yorkville Accounts Debt Needs Number of Existing Accounts: 2,500 2002 Debt Certificates $ 2,725,000 �(As of March 2002) 1 2003 IEPA Loan $ 14,250,000 Analysis of Water Revenues Current Accounts Calendar Revenues Number of Water Additional Total Debt Issuance Revenue Minus Debt Service Year vaA ilable Accounts us owl, Surcharoe Revenue Available Certificates 2002 IEPA 2003 Subtota Annual Cumulative 2003 $ 275,000 2,500 - 2,500 $150 $ 375,000 $ 650,000 - - $ 650,000 $ 650,000 2004 275,000 2,500 250 2,750 150 412,500 687,500 - $ 923,063 923,063 (235,563) 414,438 2005 275,000 2,750 500 3,250 150 487,500 762,500 - 917,938 917,938 (155,438) 259,000 2006 275,000 3,250 500 3,750 150 562,500 837,500 - 923,438 923,438 (85,938) 173,063 2007 275,000 3,750 500 4,250 150 637,500 912,500 - 918,500 918,500 (6,000) 167,063 2008 275,000 4,250 500 4,750 150 712,500 987,500 60,000 923,250 983,250 4,250 171,313 2009 275,000 4,750 500 5,250 150 787,500 1,062,500 145,000 917,563 1,062,563 (63) 171,250 2010 275,000 5,250 500 5,750 150 862,500 1,137,500 215,000 921,563 1,136,563 938 172,188 2011 275,000 5,750 500 6,250 150 937,500 1,212,500 285,000 925,063 1,210,063 2,438 174,625 2012 275,000 6,250 500 6,750 150 1,012,500 1,287,500 365,000 918,125 1,283,125 4,375 179,000 2013 275,000 6,750 500 7,250 150 1,087,500 1,362,500 440,000 920,875 1,360,875 1,625 180,625 2014 275,000 7,250 250 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 475,000 923,125 1,398,125 1,875 182,500 2015 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 475,000 924,875 1,399,875 125 182,625 2016 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 475,000 921,125 1,396,125 3,875 186,500 2017 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 480,000 917,063 1,397,063 2,938 189,438 2018 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 480,000 917,563 1,397,563 2,438 191,875 2019 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 480,000 917,563 1,397,563 2,438 194,313 2020 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 475,000 917,063 1,392,063 7,938 202,250 2021 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 470,000 926,000 1,396,000 4,000 206,250 2022 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 400,000 924,250 1,324,250 75,750 282,000 2023 275,000 7,500 - 7,500 150 1,125,000 1,400,000 - 922,000 922,000 478,000 760,000 $ 5,775,000 5,000 $ 127,500 $3,150 $19,125,000 $ 24,900,000 $ 5,720,000 $18,420,000 $ 24,140,000 $ 760,000 The current revenues available are from the fiscal 2001 audit. The accounts show existing and expected home buildout. The water surcharge is a proposed $150 annual fee per account. The Certificates 2002 are In the amount of $2,725,000 for storage. The IEPA 2003 loan is at 2.50% for all other non- SSA system needs. r Preliminary CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS $2,725,000 Debt Cettdicbtes, Seriac 2002 DEBT SERVICE. SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P +I FISCAL TOTAL 7/01/2002 - - 5/O1 /2008 43,721.40 5.500% 16,278.60 G0400.00 60,000.00 5/01/2009 100,080.45 5.500% 44.919.53 145,000.00 145,000.00 5/01/2010 140,55G.Z5 5.500% 74,443.75 215,000.00 215,000.00 510112011 176,480.55 5.500% 108,519.43 285 '185,000.00 5/01/2012 214,083.45 5.300% 130,91G.55 3133,000.00 3G5,000.00 3/01/2013 244,442.00 5.300% 195,558.00 440,000.00 440,000.00 5/01 /ZO14 249,949.75 5.500% 225,050.25 473,000.00 475,000.00 510112015 Z36,749.50 5.500% Z38 250.50 475,000.00 475,000.00 51011201 G ZZ4,Z47.50 5.300% Z50,75Z.50 473,000.00 475,000.00 5/01/2017 214,636.80 3.500% 265,363.20 480,000.00 480,000.00 5/01/2018 203,304.00 5.500% 276,696.00 480,000.00 480,000.00 5/01/Z019 192,566.40 3.500% 257,433.GO 450,000.00 480,000.00 3/01 /ZOZO 180,495.23 5.500% 294,304.75 475,000.00 475,000.00 5/01/2021 1G9,1GZ.40. 5.500% 300,837.60 470,000.00 470,000.00 5/01/202'2 13G,3G8.00 3.500% ZG3,G32.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 Total Z,7ZG,843.70 - Z,993,1 3G.30 3,7ZO,000.00 - YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Doll ars .............................................................................................................. ............................... S36,203.90 AverageLife ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 13277 Years AverageCoupon ................................................................................................................ ............................... 8.2674970% NetInterest Cost ( NIC) ...................................................................................................... ............................... 8.327752'2% TrueInterest Cost ( TIC) .................................................................................................... ............................... 5.5622741 % Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes ................................................................................... ............................... 5.5000837% AllInclusive Cost ( AIC) ..................................................................................................... ............................... 3.5622741% IRS FORM 8038 NetInterest Cost ............................................................................................................... ............................... 8.ZG74970% WeightedAverage Maturity ............................................................................................. ............................... 13277 Years SpeerlFnenciol, Inc. IFIe = )brkWf..sf- -Debt 0--rti6cetes Series 2002- SINGLEPURPOSE Public,Rnence Consultants Since 1.954 312712002 2.37PM it CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS $19,250,000 11Linois EPA Loan Series 2003 DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Dale Principal Coupon Interest Total P +I F7SCALTC+rAL 5/01 /2003 - - - - 5/01/2004 105,000.00 2.500% 356250,00 46125000 11/01/2004 285,00000 2.500% 176,81250 461 ,812.60 9Z3,0G250 5/0112005 285,000.00 2.500% 173,25000 45825000 - It/01/2005 290,001100 2.500% 169,687 50 459,687 50 917,93750 5 /01 /Z006 295,000 -00 2.500% 1GG,0GZ 50 461,062 50 11 /01 /2006 300,000.00 2.500% IG2,375.00 462,375.00 923,43750 5101/2007 300,00000 2.500% 158,G2500 4M,GZ500 11101/2007 305,00000 2600% 154,875 -00 459,87500 918,500,00 5/01/2008 310,00000 2500% 151,062,50 -161,06250 11 /01/2008 315,000.00 2.500% 147,187.50 462,187.50 92325000 5/01/2009 315,000.00 Z, 500% 143,250.00 45825000 11/01/2009 320,000.00 2.500% 139,312.50 459,31Z.50 917,56Z.50 5/0112010 325,00000 2.500% 135,31250 460,31250 - 11/01/2010 330,00000 2.500% 131,250.00 4G125000 921,66250 5/01/2011 336,000.00 2.500% 127,12500 462,126.00 11/01/2011 340,000.00 2600% 12Z,937.50 •162,937.50 926,06250 5/01/2012 340,00000 2500% 118,G8750 468,G87SO - 11/O1/2012 345,00000 2500% 114;13750 459,43750 918,12500 5/01/2013 350,00000 2,600% 110,12690 460,12500 - 11/01/2013 355,000.00 2500% 105,750 -00 460,75000 920,87500 5/01/2014 360,000.00 2500% 101,312.60 4G 1,312.50 - 11/01/ZO14 3G5,00000 2.500% 96,81250 461,81250 9',3,12600 5/01/2015 370,00000 2.500% 92,250.00 46225000 - 11/O1/2015 376,000.00 2500% 87,62500 462,GZ5.00 924,87500 5/01/2016 380,000.00 Z 500% 82,937.60 462,937.60 11/01/2016 380,000.00 2500% 78,187.50 458,187.50 921,12500 , 5/01/2017 386,00000 2500% 73,437.50 458;13750 - 11/01/2017 390,000.00 Z 500% 68,62600 458,625.00 917,062.50 5/01/2018 395,000.00 2.&00% 63,750.00 458,76000 - 11/01/2018 400,000.00 2.500% 58,812.50 458 .812.50 917,SG2 50 5/01/2019 405,00000 2500% 53,81250 458,812.50 - 11/01/2019 410,00000 2.500% 48,75000 458,760.00 917,5G250 5/01/2020 415,00000 2600% 43,62600 458,GZ5.00 - 11/O1/2020 420,00000 2.500% 38,43750 458,43750 917,062.50 5/01/Z021 430,00000 2.500% 33,187.50 4G3,187.50 - 11/01/2021 435,000,00 2500% 27,812&0 462,812.50 926,00000 5/01/ZO22 440,0110,00 2.500% '22,375.00 462,375.00 - 11/01/2022 445,00000 2500% IG,87500 461,875,00 92425000 5/01/2023 450,000 -00 2600% 11,312 -50 461,31Z.50 - 11/01/2023 455,000.00 2 500% 5,G87.50 460,G87.50 922,000.00 Total 14960,000.00 - 4,170,000.00 18,420,000.00 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars ......... ... .. ......... ....................... ........ f 166,800.00 AverageLife ........ ............. ... ......... ... ..... ................... .... ........ . 11.705 Years Average Coupon ............. _....._.._......- .............................. 2.5000000% Net tnlesrsl Cost (NIC)......._.- _ ...... ......... .............. ..... ..... 2.5000000% True Interest Cost M C) .................. _ ...... ....-- -- ...._.......... 2.4984452% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes- . ............... . Z4984452% All Inclusive Cost (AIC) ... . ....... ......__ ...._ ...... ........ ... 2.4984452% IRS FORM 8038 Net tnterest Cost ........... ....... -- ...., ...... _,....... _ _ -...... 2.5000000% Weighted Avenge Maturity .......... .......................... ..... 11.705 Years Slyer Fummial, Mc. R& = Yortn7Lsf ,EPA loan Scrxi ZOO.5- SIA'i.WrfRMSB Public•! Brant,• Com"JILM& Slmv 1.954 31271ZO02 Z_Z9 PAf UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE TOWN MEETING April 30, 2002 SIGN IN SHEET NAME (PLEASE PRINT!) ADDRESS PHONE # S u't �b vJ . 13A f Lerrl 36 .53 3 - 2 IN fr1l (13G� llq� 4��aj) 4/'Jc/ U 4 ° U of y ou P�� -.� 22� �l,z�c1� -, ��o,1C�.t ►.L %r UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE TOWN MEETING April 30, 2002 SIGN IN SHEET NAME (PLEASE PRINT!) ADDRESS PHONE # hl Tp.rl' Zany J IM /V G 5 SZ I,rJ /F�� G %.1 GL6 •c e Q G�— j c� �— U