City Council Minutes 2010 11-23-10 I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
800 GAME FARM ROAD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2010
Mayor Burd called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked everyone present to rise for the Pledge of
Allegiance. Boy Scout Troup 440 posted the colors and led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Deputy Clerk Pickering called the roll.
Ward I Gilson Present
Werderich Present
Ward I I Golinski Present
Plocher Present
Ward III Munns Present
Sutcliff Present
Ward IV Teeling Present
Spears Present
Also present: Deputy City Clerk Pickering, City Treasurer Powell, Attorneys Orr and Gardner, City
Administrator/Interim Director of Park and Recreation Olson, Police Chief Hart, Deputy Police Chief
Delaney, Public Works Director Dhuse, Finance Director Fredrickson, City Engineer Wywrot,
Community Relations Officer Spies and Community Development Director Barksdale - Noble.
QUORUM
A quorum was established.
INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS
Mayor Burd asked the staff and guests to introduce themselves. She welcomed the guests and asked them
to enter their names on the attendance sheet provided.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to table Mayor's Report Item #12 — CC 2010 -99 Ordinance Amending
City Code Providing for an Admission Fee at Inter -Track Wagering Locations to the City Council
meeting held on December 14, 2010. So moved by Alderman Sutcliff; seconded by Alderman Golinski.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Gilson -aye, Sutcliff- -aye, Munns -aye, Spears -aye,
Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye
Alderman Gilson requested that Consent Agenda Item 47 — PW 2010 -80 Prairie Meadows — Warranty
Bond Release be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda under the Public
Works Committee Report for further discussion.
Amendment approved unanimously by a viva voce vote.
Mayor Burd entertained a motion that the executive sessions be moved up on the agenda to take place
following Citizen's Comments. So moved by Alderman Sutcliff; seconded by Alderman Plocher.
Amendment approved unanim ously by a viva voce vote.
COMMITTEE MEETING DATES
Public Works Committee Meeting: 6:30 p.m., December 21, 2010
City Hall Conference Room
Economic Development Committee: 6:30 p.m., December 7, 2010
City Hall Conference Room
Administration Committee Meeting: 6:00 p.m., December 16, 2010
City Hall Conference Room
Public Safety Committee Meeting: 6:00 p.m., December 20, 2010
City Hall Conference Room
The Minutes of the Re lar Meetin of the City Council — —
�u g tv Cou cil November 23, 2010 Wage 2
PRESENTATIONS
Certificate of Recognition for Achieving the Rank of Eagle Scout
William D. Parker
Mayor Burd presented a Certificate of Recognition to William D. Parker for his achievement in reaching
the Rank of Eagle Scout. She asked him to explain his Eagle Scout project. He explained that he had
chosen the Hoover Outdoor Education Center's educational classroom sites. As part of his project, he re-
mulched, provided definition to the area, and re -built the benches to add back support to them. He
devoted approximately 250 hours of time to this project. Mayor Burd expressed her appreciation to Mr.
Parker for the work that he had done.
Certificate of Recognition to Essay Winners
Lezi Weiss, Ryan Yezak & Kyle Yezak
Mayor Burd presented Certificates of Recognition to the winners of the Holiday Under the Stars essay
contest. First place winner was Lexi Weiss, second place winner was Kyle Yezak and third place winner
was Ryan Yezak. All three essay winners read their essays to the City Council. Mayor Burd mentioned
that both Kyle and Ryan were present at the Holiday Under the Stars event for the tree lighting ceremony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
None.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to go into Executive Session for the purpose of
1. For litigation, when an action against, affecting, or on behalf of the particular public body has
been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds
that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded
and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting.
2. For the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance or dismissal of specific
employees of the public body or legal counsel for the public body, including hearing testimony on
a complaint lodged against an employee of the public body or against legal counsel for the public
body to determine its validity.
So moved by Alderman Spears; seconded by Alderman Gilson.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Gohnski -aye,
Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye, Sutcliff-aye, Mums -aye
The City Council entered into executive session at 7:17 p.m.
The City Council returned to regular session at 7:49 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Water Department Report for July 2010 (PW 2010 -70)
2. Water Department Report for August 2010 (PW 2010 -71)
3. Resolution 2010 -29 Game Fann/Somonauk Project — Engineering Supplement 42, Federal
Participation Agreement & WT Appropriation Resolution — authorize increase to engineering
supplement 92 in an amount not to exceed $16,810 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute all documents (PW 2010 -72)
4. Cozy Corner Subdivision — Final Acceptance and Bond/LOC Reduction — authorize reduction to
Developers Surety & Indemnity Company Bond # 718397S in the amount of $36,842 52, authorize
reduction to Old Second Bank Letter of Credit #305000082 in the amount of $30, 625.88, and
authorize the acceptance of the public improvements of watermain and sidewalk for the Cozy
Corner Subdivision for ownership and maintenance, all subject to verification that the developer
has no outstanding debt owed to the city (PW 2010 -73)
5. PW 2010 -78 Temporary Easement — 102 E. Washington Street — authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to Execute (PW 2010 -78)
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — November 23 2010 — Dage 3
6. 802 S. Bridge Street — Bond Expiration — authorize the City Clerk to call Old Republic Surety
Company Bond #RLI0627158 in the full amount of $10,000 if a replacement bond is not received
by December 10, 2010 (PW 2010 -79)
7. Route 47 Project — Proposed Detour Route — authorize IDOT the use of Countryside Parkway
between Route 34 and Route 47 as a detour route during a portion of the Route 47 reconstruction
project (PW 2010 -81)
8. Raintree Village Units 2 & 3 — Warranty Bond Release — authorize the release of Bond Safeguard
Company Bond Nos. 5035418 in the amount of $152, 905.79 and 5035419 in the amount of
$99,04 7 98, subject to verification that the developer has no outstanding debt owed to the city
(PW 2010 -84)
9. Fountain Village — Sitework Letter of Credit Reduction No. 1 — authorize a reduction to the
sitework letter of credit in the amount of $665, 377.90, subject to verification that the developer
has no outstanding debt owed to the city (PW 2010 -65)
10. Treasurer's Report for September 2010 (ADM 2010 -51)
11. Treasurer's Report for October 2010 (ADM 2010 -52)
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. So moved by Alderman
Werderich; seconded by Alderman Golinski.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Werderich -aye, Plocher -aye, Spears -aye, Munns -aye,
Sutcliff -aye, Gilson -aye, Teeling -aye, Golinski -aye,
PLAN COMMISSION /ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL
Director Barksdale -Noble reported that three public hearings were held at the November 10 Plan
Commission meeting. The public hearings were for a rezoning request, a zoning code amendment and a
special use request for an off -track betting facility. These items will move forward to the December 7
Economic Development Committee meeting and then to the December 14 City Council meeting.
- MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
A motion was made by Alderman Sutcliff to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of
September 28, 2010 as presented; seconded by Alderman Munns.
Motion approved unanimously by a viva voce vote.
BILLS FOR APPROVAL
A motion was made by Alderman Sutcliffto approve the paying of the bills listed on the Detailed Board
Report dated November 18, 2010, totaling the following amounts: checks in the amount of $629,467.33
(vendors); $238,564.54 (payroll period ending 11/6/10); for a total of $868,031.87 (total); seconded by
Alderman Munns.
Mayor Burd asked if there were any comments or questions on the bill list. Alderman Spears questioned
the charge on page 29 for the Yorkville Economic Development Corporation Annual Meeting that was
coded to the training and conferences line item. She questioned Administrator Olson as to whether there
were funds in that line item. City Administrator Olson said that if there was not money in that line item,
then it should have been coded to travel, meals and lodging. He said that one of those two line items had
money in it. Alderman Spears said that she wanted to verify that this charge was for the meeting that both
Administrator Olson and Mayor Burd had attended. Mayor Burd clarified that Alderman Plocher had
attended on her behalf as Mayor Pro Tem.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -7 Nays -1
Plocher -aye, Spears -nay, Munns -aye, Sutcliff -aye,
Gilson -aye, Teeling -aye, Golinski -aye, Werderich -aye
REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT
Appointments to the Cultural Commission
(CC 2010 -85)
Gary Schirmer
Mayor Burd stated that she had three appointments to the cultural commission. The first person whom
she wished to appoint is Gary Schirmer, a local artist who resides in Ward 2.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — November 23 2010 — page 4
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve the appointment of Gary Schirmer to the Cultural
Commission. So moved by Alderman Sutcliff; seconded by Alderman Teeling.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye, Spears -aye, Plocher -aye,
Werderich -aye, Gohnski -aye, Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye
Howard Manthei
Mayor Burd stated that the second person she wished to appoint to the Cultural Commission is Howard
Manthei, a resident of Ward 1, who is a former president of the Kendall County Historical Society and is
a docent and member of the board of the Old Barn museum.
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve the appointment of Howard Manthei to the Cultural
Commission. So moved by Alderman Werderich; seconded by Alderman Sutcliff.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye,
Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye
Stephenie Todd
Mayor Burd said that the third person she wished to appoint to the commission is Stephenie Todd. She
explained that Ms. Todd is the chairman of the Kendall County Historical Preservation Commission and
is a liaison to the citizen's advisory committee of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve the appointment of Stephenie Todd to the Cultural
Commission. So moved by Alderman Golinski; seconded by Alderman Teeling.
Alderman Spears questioned if Ms. Todd lived in Oswego. Mayor Burd verified that Ms. Todd would be
one of the non - resident members of the commission.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye,
Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye, Spears -aye
Mayor Burd said that there were still four positions open on the Cultural Commission and that anyone
who was interested in serving on the commission should contact the city secretary or download an
application form off of the city website.
Appointment to Human Resources Commission
(CC 2010 -89)
Anna Schwein
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve the appointment of Anna Schwein to the Human Resources
Commission. So moved by Alderman Plocher; seconded by Alderman Golinski.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Munns -aye, Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye,
Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye
Proclamation for National Drunk and Drugged Driving (3 -D) Prevention Month
(CC 2010 -90)
Mayor Burd read a proclamation for National Drunk and Drugged Driving (3 -D) Prevention Month (see
attached).
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — November 23 2010 — page 5
Ordinances Abating Special Service Area Taxes
Ordinance 2010 -48 Abating Special Service Area Taxes for Special Service Area
Number 2003 -100 (Raintree Village Project) and
Approving the Amended Special Tax Roll
(CC 2010 -91)
Ordinance 2010 -49 Abating Special Service Area Taxes for Special Service Area
Number 2003 -101 (Windett Ridge Project) and
Approving the Amended Special Tax Roll
(CC 2010 -92)
Ordinance 2010 -50 Abating Special Service Area Taxes for Special Service Area
Number 2004 -104 Central Grande Reserve) and
Approving the Amended Special Tax Roll
(CC 2010 -93)
Ordinance 2010 -51 Abating Special Service Area Taxes for Special Service Area
Number 2004 -106 (Total Grande Reserve)
(CC 2010 -94)
Ordinance 2010 -52 Abating Special Service Area Taxes for Special Service Area
Number 2004 -107 (Raintree Village II Project)
(CC 2010 -95)
Ordinance 2010 -53 Abating Special Service Area Taxes for Special Service Area
Number 2005 -108 (Autumn Creek Project) and
Approving the Amended Special Tax Roll
(CC 2010 -96)
Ordinance 2010 -54 Abating Special Service Area Taxes for Special Service Area
Number 2005 -109 (Bristol Bay I Project) and
- Approving the Amended Special Tax Roll
(CC 2010 -97)
Mayor Burd stated that Mayor's Report Items #4 through 410 are all ordinances abating taxes. They are
abatement ordinances that the city has to pass every year to prevent these taxes from going onto the tax
rolls.
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve the abatement ordinances for Items CC 2010 -91 though CC
2010 -97 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. So moved by Alderman Golinski; seconded
by Alderman Plocher.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye,
Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye, Spears -aye, Plocher -aye,
Ordinance 2010 -55 For the Levy and Assessment of Taxes for the Fiscal Year
Beginning May 1, 2011 and Ending April 30, 2012
(CC 2010 -98)
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to approve an ordinance for the levy and assessment of taxes for the
fiscal year beginning May 1, 2011 and ending April 30, 2012 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute. So moved by Alderman Sutcliff, seconded by Alderman Teeling.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -5 Nays4
Munns -aye, Spears -nay, Plocher -aye, Werderich -nay, Golinski -nay,
Teeling -aye, Gilson -nay, Sutcliff -aye, Burd -aye
I
The Minutes of the Reeular Meeting of the City Council — November 23 2010 — Daze 6
Debt Obligations
(CC 2010 -100)
Mayor Burd stated that she wanted to explain what options the city has regarding its water and sewer
bonds that are coming due. She mentioned that the city's bond counsel was present to answer any
questions that the city council had about the city's bonds. She said that the repayment of these bonds is
not something that can be taken care of just by cutting staff. The city staff currently totals close to 30 full
time police officers and 52 full time employees in the other city departments which includes employees in
both the library and parks and recreation department. She explained that unlike surrounding
municipalities, Yorkville does not have a separate library district or park district; therefore, the city
budget has to cover everything. Approximately a third of the city's tax levy goes directly to the library,
because under state law the library is allowed to levy for a certain percentage of their own; however, the
parks and recreation department is totally within the city budget.
City Administrator Olson said that his memo (see attached) explained the three options for the repayment
of the water and sewer bonds. The options that the city is looking at are not abating certain property
taxes, creation of a sewer maintenance fee, and refinancing the bonds. He said he is not suggesting that
the bonds be refinanced or restructured due to the additional interest that the city would be paying.
Administrator Olson mentioned that in his original memo, he had missed one of the sewer bonds, Series
2004A, and pointed out that once you add that bond in, it makes scenarios 1 and 2 worse. He handed out
additional information to the city council on this (see attached). Administrator Olson explained that the
city had already restructured the Rob Roy Creek Bond, Series 2005D, two years ago. The city previously
had a seven to eight year bond that had large principal payments that were supposed to be paid for with
infrastructure participation fees that would be collected when developments annexed into the city,
connection fees, and sewer fees. A couple of years ago, the city realized that it couldn't make the
payment that year; but thought that there would be growth in the future to make the payment, so the bond
was restructured to postpone the payments into the future. The city delayed two payments that should
have been made in prior fiscal years to the back end of the bond to fiscal years 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.
The two delayed payments were for a million dollars each for a total of two million dollars in delayed
payments. The cost to delay these payments was an additional million dollars in interest.
Mayor Burd explained that one part of the problem with the water fund is that the city had to fix the
radium problem, which was an unfunded mandate by the state and another part of the problem was that
the previous administration left the city with $800,000 of repayment that should have been set aside in
2006 and wasn't, and it wasn't discovered until after she became Mayor. To repay this money, the city
attorney negotiated an agreement with Bank of America and under the terms of the agreement, the city is
now required to pay $27,000 a month for approximately three years. City Attorney Orr confirmed that
the total payment owed was $825,000 and that they had negotiated a monthly repayment plan with no
interest. Mayor Burd said that money for this repayment was supposed to have been set aside as each
entity came to the city and it wasn't. Now this repayment money has to be taken out of the water fund
and this is one of the reasons that the water bills went up. She further explained that as we look at the
issues with the sewer fund, the debt is so large that even if all of the Administration staff is laid off the
city would still be unable to make the bond payments. If the city does not make these bond payments,
then the bond payments will be made from the real estate taxes because these bonds are ultimately
guaranteed by real estate taxes. The city can either refinance the bonds which will cost the tax payers
millions of extra dollars in interest or the city council can let it go on the tax bills which will be a
guaranteed revenue stream and may allow the city to refinance the bonds with a lower interest rate in the
future.
Mr. Peter Raphael from William Blair explained that the city tried to take precautionary measures two
years ago when the city refinanced the Rob Roy Creek bond. The goal was that as the city expanded to
the north, the water and sewer tap-on fees would be used to pay the bond down; however, with
development virtually stopping, revenues have not materialized and to the extent that the city doesn't
generate fees to repay the bonds, then the repayment goes on the tax bills. He stated that in order for the
city to refinance these bonds, the city would have to show a revenue stream to repay these bonds. Right
now all of the city's revenue has already been pledged to other debt obligations. There are not a lot of
options for these bonds. A massive restructure of all of the city's debt would add millions of dollars in
interest and would stretch the payment out over twenty years.
Administrator Olson said one option that city council would have, if they want to entertain the idea of a
bonding fee, would be to roll the first year of bonding fees in over nine billing periods instead of six. He
explained that we are halfway through this fiscal year and did not plan to implement anything now, but if
the bonding fee was implemented now, it would nunn a lower payment per month spread over more
months. Administrator Olson then explained that if city council enacted a straight user fee there are a lot
more residential accounts than commercial, so any straight user fees would be weighted more toward the
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — November 23, 2010 — page 7
residents. If the repayment is put onto the property taxes, the commercial properly is worth more, so then
repayment is weighted towards commercial. He mentioned that one benefit of putting the repayment onto
property taxes is that property taxes are income tax deductible.
Alderman Sutcliff asked Mr. Raphael for his opinion on which of the options would be the best scenario
for the city. Mr. Raphael responded that if the city decided on option number three, that the Rob Roy
restructuring, which is the portion which hits the real estate tax, is flexible and can be reviewed annually.
If development starts and revenues increase, then the city can decrease the tax levy in future years.
Additionally, there may be opportunities at a later date to refinance that bond. For this year, the city does
not have the revenue, and if there is no revenue, then the city must levy. Alderman Sutcliff asked if the
bonding fee would mean that additional charges would be added to the water bills. Administrator Olson
said that the bonding fee would be listed separately on the water bills.
Alderman Sutcliff commented that we are going to pay regardless. She said that she personally would
prefer to pay this money through property taxes so that she can get the income tax deduction.
Alderman Golinski questioned if anyone had talked to YBSD about the possibility if they could help the
city with some of our sewer obligations as these are assets that will eventually be turned over to them.
Administrator Olson said that he had spoken to their finance director and she did not feel that they had
money in their budget to sustain this debt.
Mayor Burd asked the city council if they would give their opinion as to which option the city should
pursue regarding these bond payments.
Alderman Teeling stated that she doesn't like the idea of refinancing, and even though none of these are
very good scenarios, she feels that she would go with option three.
Alderman Gilson said that this situation needs to be looked at with a critical eye. He feels that more cuts
need to be made to personnel and spending first. Before they make any final decisions and discuss the
sewer fund obligations and potentially adding another sewer fee, he wants to see the numbers finalized
including budget and staff cuts. He said that in previous years, the city decided to front fund sewer debt
to the tune of twenty five million dollars in the name of growth. He was told that our sewer fund was
supposed to be self - sustaining and it's not. He said that we are also currently paying back the Grande
Reserve developer for water connection fees that we agreed to rebate once collected and we never rebated
them. Additionally, we also have an estimated 1.3 million dollars of bad debt due to non collection of
developer fees and deposits. He feels that once again the city wants the residents to pay for these issues
and he thinks the city should look outside the box and get creative to find a solution, whether its cut
spending or cut personnel. He said that he can't vote for a sewer fee increase in addition to the water
infrastructure fee that was already added to the bills.
Alderman Sutcliff stated that even though most of the current council members were not in office when
these decisions were made to take out these bonds, the city still owes this money and has to pay its bills.
The city put these sewers in the ground, so we have to pay for them. She feels that there is no fat in the
budget at any of the department levels as the city has already made cuts. She understands that no one
wants to pay more; however, she is a resident and has to pay these bills also. She thinks that of the three
options that the council has been given, that it would be irresponsible to pick options 1 or 2. She would
like to look into option 3 and how much of could be put into property taxes, so that residents could at
least get the income tax deduction.
Alderman Munns stated he has a hard time with these options as he feels that YBSD has extra cash while
the city is struggling. He said that most people cannot afford to pay any more money for their water and
sewer. He thinks that pretty soon water and sewer will cost more than any other service that you have and
he doesn't think that's right. He said that he is not ready to choose from any of the options that were
presented. Mayor Burd said that in the past, the YBSD did not want to expand the water and sewer lines
for new growth to the extent that the city did, so the city made the decision to take on the obligation. The
former city council made this decision to expand the sewer, so the debt obligation is ours.
Alderman Spears stated that she wanted to receive all of the information before she made a decision.
Alderman Plocher said that he doesn't want to see the city refinance.
Alderman Werderich stated that this is a debt that we need to pay and he agrees with Alderman Sutcliff
and would choose option 3.
The Minutes of the Regular Meetine of the City Council — November 23 2010 — naze 8
Alderman Golinski said that first he would like to see some additional spending cuts proposed. He said
that since he has been on the city council, garbage fees have gone up, the water rate has increased, a water
infrastructure fee was added and the tax levy that was just approved means that the tax rate will be going
up about 12 %2 percent. Before he makes a decision, he would first like to see more spending cuts and
thinking outside of the box for other ideas, as it makes it a lot easier for the residents if they see the city
making cuts before it comes to the residents for more money. Mayor Burd commented that the city
would be making further cuts, but those cuts would be related to the general fund and would not affect the
sewer fund at all. She stated that there are only three people who are paid out of the sewer fund and all
three are needed to handle the sewer lines. She said they will be reviewing the budget again, but
reiterated that the cuts will not affect the sewer fund problem. She added that she has received calls about
the Holiday Under the Stars from residents who wonder why the city is wasting money on a holiday
event. She wanted to point out that the Holiday Under the Stars was not paid for by tax dollars; instead
businesses, organizations, and residents all donated to make this event possible. She also mentioned that
the Old Jail is an example of flow through tax dollars that residents gave to the state and these dollars
came back to our community and additionally, enough money was raised from the Jail of the Dead
haunted house to pay for the insurance, closing fees, and a few other incidental costs. With all of these
items, the city is trying to be fiscally responsible. She also pointed out that the city council did not go the
Illinois Municipal League meeting this year to save money, which is something that the city council has
always gone to during her twelve years on city council. She stated that she remembers that when she was
on the city council, both she and Alderman Spears would ask questions and sometimes they weren't
provided with the information that they were looking for. Knowing what she knows now and looking
back, she doesn't know that she and Alderman Spears could even have affected the vote because they
were minority members. She wishes that some of the decisions that were made back then could have
been done differently, but those decisions can't be changed now; the city needs to move forward. She
doesn't believe that any member of the city council wants to raise anyone's taxes. Mayor Burd
mentioned the alternative energy proposal that has been written about in the newspapers as an example of
the kind of outside of the box idea that everyone is talking about. She is constantly trying to encourage
new people to come to the community.
Alderman Sutcliff questioned the timeline for making a decision on the bond repayments. Administrator
Olson responded that almost all of the debt service payments are due in the month of December. He said
that we are okay for this year and we are looking at this issue for December 2011.
Alderman Golinski wondered how the payment is calculated on these bonds if the city doesn't abate
them. Administrator Olson said that there is a debt payment schedule within the bond ordinances that
dictates the payment. Attorney Orr also added that if there is portion of the debt service available, then
you could partially abate the taxes. She recommends an annual analysis of these bonds. Mayor Burd
asked if Kendall Marketplace was serviced by the Rob Roy Creek sewer interceptor and City Engineer
Wywrot responded that it was. Mayor Burd mentioned that if it wasn't for Kendall Marketplace taking up
the slack in our sales tax revenues when F.E. Wheaton's went down, we would have been in really bad
shape. She felt that the Kendall Marketplace development helped to keep the city even when everyone
else was showing a huge decrease in their sales tax revenues.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
No report.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No report.
CITY CLERK'S REPORT
No report.
CITY TREASURER'S REPORT
No report.
CITY ADMINISTATOR'S REPORT
Administrator Olson reported that RFP submittals were recently opened for the Riverfront Building
located at 301 E. Hydraulic. The city received proposals from Geneva Kayak and Yak Shack, which are
both kayak vendors. The proposals will be discussed at the Park Board meeting on December 16, 2010.
DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION'S REPORT
No Report.
The Minutes of the Rezular Meeting of the City Council — November 23 2010 — uage 9
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Fredrickson reported that the audit is progressing and field work will begin on December 6,
2010.
CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
City Engineer Wywrot reported that the Fountainview developer has obtained their IDOT highway
permit. He said that they will be removing the existing traffic signal and a temporary signal will go up
while the permanent signal is being modified. After the work is completed the permanent traffic signal
will be put into place.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS REPORT
Director Dhuse reported that the city wide leaf collection has been completed. If residents have leaves
that still need to be disposed of, they can bag the leaves and put them out for garbage pickup until the end
of November.
CHIEF OF POLICE'S REPORT
Mayor Burd commended the police department, Community Relations Officer Spies, and everyone else
who helped with traffic control at the Holiday Under the Stars event. She felt that they did a great job and
traffic flowed very well. Chief Hart mentioned that the Public Works department had also been
instrumental in helping with the traffic control for the event. Mayor Burd said thank you to all of the staff
members in the city who helped with the event.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT
Director Barksdale -Noble reported that the Kendall County Planning Consortium would be holding their
next meeting on November 30, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the Kendall County Historic Courthouse.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS OFFICER'S REPORT
Community Relations Officer Spies said that she wanted to give a big thank you to the police department,
public works department, parks and recreation department, and all of the community groups who helped
make the event such a tremendous success. She felt that there was a great turnout to the event.
Officer Spies also reported that she is looking for volunteers to help with an income tax assistance
program that she is starting in conjunction with the Kendall County Food Pantry for low income families.
An orientation session has been scheduled for Thursday, December 2, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall.
COMMUNITY & LIAISON REPORT
KenCom
Mayor Burd reported that she attended the last KenCom meeting and that the City of Yorkville joined
with Oswego and Plano in vetoing the new intergovernmental agreement that was presented at that
meeting. Their veto was overridden by a vote of 8 -3. Mayor Burd said that the city would continue to
review this.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT
River Road Bridge Replacement — Intergovernmental Agreement
(PW 2010 -69)
A motion was made by Alderman Plocher to approve an intergovernmental agreement for the replacement
of the River Road Bridge over Blackberry Creek and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute,
subject to legal and staff review; seconded by Alderman Munns.
Alderman Gilson questioned if this item would be paid for completely out of MFT funds or if some of the
funding would come from the general fund. Administrator Olson responded that this project would be
paid out of the MFT funds.
Alderman Spears asked if the city had this amount in our MFT account currently. Administrator Olson
stated that it was not in the current year's budget nor was it in next year's budget. He said that the city
would be receiving additional MFT disbursements from the state. The engineering costs will be coming
in over the next 2 -3 fiscal years and then the construction costs will come in years 4 and 5. Alderman
Spears said this means that the city will need to come up with funds to reimburse the county in 2012 and
that the city is counting on funds coming in from the state to reimburse the county with. Administrator
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — November 23 2010 —page 10
Olson confirmed that was correct. Alderman Spears felt that the city was committing funds that we don't
know if we have. Mayor Burd said that this was a safety issue because the bridge is failing. She said that
the city can't afford for the bridge to collapse.
Alderman Sutcliff commented that of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 engineering, 80% of the costs are being
covered by the Federal Highway Bridge Program, and of the Phase 3 construction, 80% of the costs are
being paid by IDOT funding, so the city will only be responsible for 20% of the cost of this project.
Alderman Plocher pointed out that the city already has a weight restriction on this bridge and he also
mentioned that there is exposed rebar on this bridge. He stated that if the city does not fix this bridge, the
bridge might have to be closed.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye,
Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye, Spears -aye
Proposed Revisions /Clarifications to Letter of Credit Policy
(PW 2010 -75)
City Attorney Orr asked the city council to consider tabling this item -so that she can do further research
on this. Alderman Werderich made a motion to table this item to the December 14, 2010 City Council
meeting; seconded by Alderman Golinski.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Golinski -aye, Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye,
Munns -aye, Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye
Prairie Meadows — Warranty Bond Release
(PW 2010 -80)
A motion was made by Alderman Plocher to authorize the release of American Casualty Company
Bond No. 929306354 in the amount of $659,680.07 on December 22, 2010, subject to verification
that the developer has no outstanding debt owed to the city; seconded by Alderman Teeling.
Alderman Gilson stated that he thought that the committee agreed to wait until December 22 when
the warranty period ended to consider releasing this bond. Alderman Plocher responded that the city
would not be releasing this bond until December 22, 2010.
Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes -8 Nays -0
Teeling -aye, Gilson -aye, Sutcliff -aye, Munns -aye,
Spears -aye, Plocher -aye, Werderich -aye, Golinski -aye,
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT
No report.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Joint Meeting with YBSD
Alderman Plocher asked if a joint meeting could be held with the YBSD. Mayor Burd said that the City
Administrator would call and set up a joint meeting with YBSD.
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council — November 23 2010 — uage 11
Old Second Bank
Alderman Plocher inquired about the city's funds being held in Old Second Bank. Administrator Olson
responded that the city's funds with Old Second are collateralized.
Fox Hill Stoplight
Alderman Sutcliff inquired about the status of the Fox Hill stoplight becoming a permanent stoplight
instead of just a temporary stoplight. She thought there was a limited amount of time before the city had
to put in a permanent stoplight. City Engineer Wywrot explained that the city was granted an extension,
so the temporary stoplight can remain in place for a longer period of time. Administrator Olson said that
the permanent stoplight is a budgeted item for fiscal year 2012 -2013.
Homeowner's Assocations
Alderman Sutcliff stated that many of the Homeowner's Associations (HOA) in town are in arrears,
which prevents people from purchasing homes in those subdivisions. She asked if there was anything that
the city could do about this. Administrator Olson said that there is no official action that the city can take
as this is a situation between the homeowners and the management association. Alderman Sutcliff asked
if the subdivisions were bank owned, could these banks bring their HOA current so that they could sell
their properties. Administrator Olson said that he has spoken to two different HOA management
companies and both have declined to pay the HOA dues that are in arrears.
Holiday Under the Stars
Alderman Sutcliff mentioned that she had attended the Holiday Under the Stars event with a friend from
Oswego and her friend thought that our celebration was better than Oswego's holiday event.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Burd entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting. So moved by Alderman Golinski; seconded by
Alderman Werderich.
Adjournment of the meeting was unanimously approved by a viva voce vote.
Meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
060—
Lisa Pickering,
Deputy City Clerk, City of Yorkville, Illinois
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 23, 2010
PLEASE PRINT
NAME: SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
` fi �- �y�4`� ��I,'L��✓�'�✓I.S G:,Jl�rs -n�N' i�' �}�Ci�JS �c,:7
f ,. ► b Ll
z ),)
kvl e- 7
k
I�C�VAT\ MoRom mno4n
l ,
r i
SIGNIN
i
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
23
November , 2 010
PLEASE PRINT
NAME: SUBDIVISION OR BUSINESS:
V S' f 11 5
/ a
f ,� Z o r-o / Vl y� i ��, ��e e Vpllc, e
SIGNIN„
� /p , �i�_a ��_—�����_� ��_�����_ ��a � � a ��a���i��� i�� �� .��w \�
/ / / / / ii /iii ����.�.i ���'�.�� �����.�.� ����.���i ►� ��������� ��.���i��s�l.� �� — Af' —
i %� /�/ o•re1 A ♦,unur�A A�uuru �A A�ruun �A A�ii. iir �A�A�iiiii �A�A��iiiir�A�A� iir�A�1��. .�� � ��.�.�� � ��.�.�► � ��,�.�► � e•��•n`���
...•• 1 • 1 • f •r f •' 1 •'• f •r.r. 1 ,r.r.rer/ ♦ t, ■r�rerl ♦ ♦,.r.rer• ♦ ♦,r•r�r.r ♦ ♦ �... e. � ` �.
•/ u• •.• of u• u• u• •.• u• ,I :•. \11i • \,�/ cr \��/ °•- 1••
.;,r/ .,•.�1!!li,.•:.�1� �li.•_. A li ; .•alll_Ali... a1 -2 -- -1 �2�1i.:e•. X112! Ii.... � ZII! li �12 1_ i.:_.. �1.2 _l_i.::_.a >.._:.�121i...
'►,:`, i �.– �,.– a __ -�" -- �._.. .. � - -� �b�- y �, ,�1��._�� .�g�_. -. �;�, i:; 1"
I I ill h°;•� �I r °i�►Ijl�
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ° % UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE :!dull
I ° � �:r'��1
I' 11► ° % I J '� 1 1i1111
lllle�.� NATIONAL DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING (3D) PREVENTION MONTH *9 * 411
r 111111,%' ; ±,o / ►
DECEMBER 2010
WHEREAS motor vehicle crashes killed 911 people in Illinois during 2009• and
�1 � I p p 111
►:�. �j g •
�r� 5l l
WHEREAS, 319 of those deaths involved a driver impaired by alcohol; and
111 i t ;°
�; 1 ► 1 ;;:. %� i� WHEREAS the December holiday season is traditionally one of the most deadly times of 1 �` ®1111
,i
►i'•� e; ;i year the ear for impaired driving; and
i
I! 111 ► � I ; . e , 111 11 �
WHEREAS, for thousands of families across the state and the nation, holidays are a time
�� l�l ► 1'1 %� II to remember loved ones lost;
111 ►1,v — ; an
II 1 11. -a D / ►111
��� WHEREAS, organizations across the state and the nation are joined with the You Drink & °t. t : i�
I r�•_•ti ►1
ii (l ► 1'1'i` f
Drive. You Lose and other campaigns that foster public awareness of the dangers of
11111 �., = :D'1111
1 °•-��
impaired driving and anti-impaired driving law enforcement efforts; and +;l
1'1 1
WHEREAS, the community of the United City of Yorkville is proud to partner with the
111111° ;. °11111
Illinois Department of Transportations Division of Traffic Safety and other traffic safety
:': groups in that effort to make our roads and streets safer;;,�;�11
I1111> -a ;.-�. +1111
1 a6 ; ;;,1
1 ► I�g;. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Valerie Burd do hereby proclaim December 2010 as -4 4
► ►•.�•;� Drunk and Drugged Driving (31)) Prevention Month in the United City of Yorkville and do i`���'�1'
�ll,',
hereby p , government agencies �%/� ►�01
, business leaders, hospitals and health Q! 44
11111' y call upon all citizens '
11►1►1;;, °, care providers, schools, and public and private institutions to promote awareness of the �:1,��Ijll
impaired driving problem, to support programs and policies to reduce the incidence of ►�''��"
;111 / impaired driving, and to promote safer and healthier behaviors regarding the use of alcohol ���11111
1 ' °rte
i 1 ► �••.�a and other drugs this December holiday season and throughout the year. �� r
I1 ►i � I '''::�u�
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1;° I Dated this 23' day of November, 2010 A.D. °1111
► ° ►I
��� Illlll ,� f � ` iv I �a +1'111
�l►�,,�� Valerie Burd, Mayor ; •��1
I 1� - �� °1
fir, r _ I �• =6111
/, i ,� 1' i /1
P
lIt IL ... lIL :: !IL l lIt ;::
`Sr.,. I �A A�nunr•�A /rnuu•A Alnuru•�Aluuru•� 1- �A A:
"W
I 'm a
• .r �
C '''y Memorandum
� � o
To: City Council
esr. 1836 From: Bart Olson, City Administrator
.�� CC:
Ca Date: November 19, 2010
Subject: Debt Obligations
KaMo Couny `
SCE
The purpose of this agenda item is to discuss options for satisfying the City's current debt
obligations. This item was requested by Mayor Burd, and she has asked that we study options for
refinancing and/or restructuring existing debt obligations into terms that are more favorable to the City.
The City's bond underwriter, Peter Raphael of William Blair and Co., will be on hand to answer
questions about the details of this report.
Debt Obligations
The complete list of City debt obligations is contained within my October 22 memo that was
presented to the City Council on October 26 Within that report, there are 16 different debt obligations.
Of these 16 debt obligations, there are four that are either low- interest loans, or debt for which have not
bonded. These four are listed below, and are not candidates for restructuring because they have either
very low- interest rates or no interest.
1) Grande Reserve Court Order
a. Referred to as WFDO #1
b. Paid out of the water fund
c. A three year payment of an obligation within the Grande Reserve annexation agreement
(no interest, because there was no borrowing)
2) IEPA Drinking Water Loan
a. Referred to as WFDO #3
b. Paid out of the water fund
c. Low - interest loan from the IEPA
3) Sanitary Siphon IEPA Loan
a. Referred to as SFDO #7
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
c. Low - interest loan
4) IEPA Waste Water Loan
a. Referred to as SFDO #8
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
c. Low - interest loan
The remaining 12 debt obligations are:
1) Bond 2004C — In -town Road Program Phase I
a. Referred to as GFDO #1 (in October 26` memo)
b. Paid out of the debt service fund, via a transfer from the General Fund
2) Bond 2005A — In -town Road Program Phase II
a. Referred to as GFDO #2
b. Paid out of the debt service fund, via a transfer from the General Fund
3) Bond 2003 — Radium Compliance Bond
a. Referred to as WFDO #2
b. Paid out of the water fund
4) Bond 2006A — Issuance refunding
a. Referred to as WFDO #4
b. Paid out of the water fund
5 Bond 2002A — North Water Tower
a. Referred to as WFDO #5
b. Paid out of the water fund
6) Bond 2005C — Alt Rev Water and Sewer
a. Referred to as WFDO #6
b. Paid out of the water and sewer funds
7) Bond 2007A — Refunding bond
a. Referred to as SFDO #1
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
8) Bond 2008 — Refunding Rob Roy Sewer
a. Referred to as SFDO #2
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
9) Bond 2003A — Bruell Street
a. Referred to as SFDO #3
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
10) Bond 2004B — Countryside Alt Revenue Bond
a. Referred to as SFDO #4
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
11) Bond 2004A — ComEd Hydraulic Principal
a. Referred to as SFDO #5
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
12) Bond 2005D — Rob Roy
a. Referred to as SFDO #6
b. Paid out of the sewer fund
Paring down the list of 12 bonds
Of the 12 bonds listed above, there are two bonds that are refunding (restructuring) of previous
debt issuances. Because of the nature of the restructuring that was done, these bonds either can not be
restructured again, or there is a severe financial penalty for doing so. These two bonds are item #4 and
item #7 in the list above. The bond numbers are 2006A and 2007A, and are referred to as WFDO #4
and SFDO #1, respectively, in my October 22 City Council report. Therefore, these bonds have been
removed from the list of potential bonds for restructuring.
The list is now down to 10 bonds. Of the remaining ten, there are two that are due to be paid off
by FY 12/13, and a third that will be paid off in FY 14/15. Since these bonds are set to be paid off in the
near future, and are relatively small amounts, it does not make sense to refinance or restructure these
over 20 years. The two bonds that are set to be paid off in FY 12/13 are item #1 and item #5 on the list
above. The bond that is set to be paid off in FY 14/15 is item number 11 above. The bond numbers are
2004C, 2002A, and 2004A and are referred to as GFDO #1, WFDO #5, and SFDO 95 respectively, in
my October 22 City Council report . Therefore, these bonds have been removed from the list of
potential bonds for restructuring.
The list is now down to 7 bonds. Of the remaining 7, there is one that has a dedicated revenue
stream (via the water infrastructure improvement and maintenance fee) and one that is being paid out of
the general fund, somewhat comfortably. Because we have ways to pay off both of these bonds, and
refinancing would add significant interest costs, I do not recommend we restructure or refinance these
two. These two bonds are item #2 and item #3 on the list above. The bond numbers are 2005A and
2003, respectively, in my October 22 City Council report. Therefore these have been removed from
the list of potential bonds for restructuring.
The list is now down to 5 bonds, and all of them are included within the sewer fund. For clarity,
the 5 bonds are listed in the attached table:
United City of Yorkville
Proposed Bond Debt Restructuring
Existing Debt Service on These Issues
2005C
Alt Rev Water
and Sewer 20048
(Sewer only Countryside 2003AIRBB
Period listed) Sewer Bruell Street 2005D 2008 Rob Roy TOTAL DEBT
Ending Dtd 09/01/05 Dtd 03/01/04 Did 09/01/03 Rob Roy Restructuring SERVICE
FY 10/11 $ - $ - $ 126,826 $ 537,541 $ - $ 664,367
FY 11/12 $ 83,863. $ 258,650 $ 165,143 $ 1,578,925 $ 165,135 $ 2,251,716
FY 12113 $ 82,288 $ 263,850 $ 166,248 $ 1,944,450 $ 110,090 $ 2,566,926
FY 13/14 $ 82,988 $ 368,750 $ 162,048 $ 1,978,050 $ 110,090 $ 2,701,926
FY 14/15 $ 83,588 $ 453,950 $ 162,648 $ 2,207,500 $ 110,090 $ 3,017,776
FY 15/16 $ 84,088 $ 460,825 $ 162,870 $ 3,124,500 $ 110,090 $ 3,942,373
FY 16/17 $ 84,488 $ 462,000 $ 162,755 $ - $ 1,095,090 $ 1,804,333
> FY 17/18 $ 82,288 $ 470,600 $ 162,293 $ - $ 1,091,408 $ 1,806,589
FY 18/19 $ 85,088 ' $ 473,200 ; $ 166,233 $ - $ - $ 724,521
FY 19/20 $ 82,688 - $ - $ 164,668 $ $ $ 247.356
FY 20/21 $ 84,388 ' $ - $ 162,850 $ - $ - $ 247,238
FY 21/22 $ 83,313 .. $. -_ - $ 165.710 $ - $ - $ 249,023
FY 22/23 $ 82,100 $ - $ 163,060 $ $ - $ 245,160
FY 23/24 $ 83,250 $ $ - $ _ $ $ 83,250
FY 24/25 $ 79,125 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 79,125
FY 25/26 $ - $ .- - $ - $ $ - $ -
FY 26/27 $ - $ $ $ $ $
FY 27/28_ $ $_ = $ $ - $ $ -
FY 28/29 $ - $ $ - $ - $_ $
For all of these bonds, the City is currently working with an estimated $600,000 in revenues next year,
$325,000 the year after that, and only $200,000 in revenue every year thereafter (assumes no growth).
Don't forget, there are also three other debt obligations that we can not, or clearly should not, refinance
or restructure.
How to meet our sewer debt obligations
The first item to be discussed is eliminating the option that we can cut from other departments to
pay sewer debt. First, the City has no fund balance in the general fund, and we are working on
eliminating a deficit in FY 10 /11. Therefore, we have no money in which to pull from a proverbial-
savings-account in which to pay these sewer debts. Second, the City likely has $275,000 in fund
balance within the sewer fund. This $275,000 is part of the estimated $600,000 in total revenues that I
reference in the paragraph immediately above this paragraph. Clearly, that is not enough money to meet
our debt obligations. Third, the sewer fund is an enterprise fund, which means all sewer revenues
should offset all sewer expenses. It would not be proper budgeting to cut from other funds and transfer
money into the sewer fund to pay these obligations. Finally, in the event that you decided it was proper
to cut from other funds and transfer money into the sewer fund, you would have to lay off everyone
within the Administration, Finance, Engineering, Community Development, Community Relations, and
Streets departments, and every Police officer to meet debt obligations next year (and remember, the debt
obligations increase next year). To reiterate, that would leave you with a Police Chief, two Deputy
Chiefs, a Lieutenant and 4 Sergeants within your general fund. Obviously, that is an absurd
recommendation given the needs of the community, and is only used for illustration purposes.
The above determinations leave us with fixing the sewer fund issues within the sewer fund. This
means cutting expenses or raising revenues. As discussed previously, there are two sub -funds within the
sewer fund: the operations side, and the improvement side. The operations side includes sewer
department employees, and their costs. These expenses are being properly covered by operational
revenues, namely the $18 maintenance fee that is on a utility bill. So, that leaves us with the
improvement side. The only way we can reduce expenses on the improvement side of the budget is to
refinance or restructure the existing debt. Defaulting on the debt is not an option, because the debt
consists of alternate revenue bonds.
When a bond is an alternate revenue bond, it means the City has passed an ordinance declaring
that a revenue stream will be pledged to pay back the bonds. The revenue streams pledged were sewer
connection fees, IPF fees (from YBSD), or other streams - all of which have substantially decreased.
When these streams are not available, the ordinances for each bond declared that the City would pledge
general obligation bonds for each debt. That means that the City promised to pay the bonds with
property taxes that are above and beyond the existing tax cap. Each winter, we analyze our ability pay
each bond and pass an abatement ordinance that says we have enough revenues to make the bond
payments, and that the general obligation property taxes do not have to be levied. If we do not have
enough money to pay each bond, the debt service will be satisfied automatically through general
obligation property taxes. This means that if we get into a scenario where the City determines that it
does not have enough money and passes an abatement ordinance anyway, and then refuses to pay the
bond, the bondholders will sue the City, we will lose, and the judge will direct the general obligation
property taxes to be levied. Clearly, allowing our actions to result in litigation is not an acceptable
option.
This leaves us with four viable, but difficult options: the creation of a sewer infrastructure
improvement and maintenance fee, the refinancing or restructuring of our existing debt, the automatic
implementation of general obligation property taxes, or a combination of the three.
Scenario 1- no refinancing, abate all taxes, creation of a bonding fee
United City of Yorkville I
Proposed Bond Debt Restructuring
Existing Debt Service on These Issues
.... -_._. 2005C
Alt Rev Water _
and Sewer 2004B� -
(Seweronly Countrysides 2003AIRBB Sanitary '. Amount of
Period risled) -. Sew er Bruell Street 2005D 2008 Rob Roy Siphon Loan - IEPA Waste, TOTAL DEBT Connection; Gap to be Bonding
Ending D 0 Did 03/01/ Old 09101 /03 Rob Roy. Restructuring' IEPA. Water Loan Bond 2007A , SERVICE Fee Revenue covered,- Fee
FY 10/11 $ - $ - $ 126,826 $ 537,541 $ - _ $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ - $ 810.398 $ -
FY 11/12 $ 83,863 $ 258,650 $ 165,143 $ 1,578,925 $ 165,135 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 ` $ 133,866 $ 2,531,613 $ 600,000 $ 1,931,613 $ 27.28
FY 12/13 $ 82,288 $ 263,850 $ 166,248 $ 1,944,450 $ 110,090 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,454 $ 2,846,411 $ 325,000 $ 2,521,411 $ 35.61
FY 13/14 $ 82,988 $ 368,750 $ 162,048 $ 1,978,050 $ 110,090 $ - $ 107,051 $ 138,041 2,94T018. $ 200,000 $ 2,747,018 $ 38.80
FY 14115 $ 63,588 $ 453,950 $ 162,648 $ 2,207,500 $ 110,090 $ - $ 107,051 $ 137,423 S 3,262,250 $ 200,000 $ 3,062,250 $ 43.25
FY 15/16 $ 84,088 $ 460,825 $ 162,870 $ 3,124,500 $ 110,090 $ - $ 107,051 $ 136,793 $ 4,186;217 $ 200,000 $ 3,986,217 $ 56.30
FY 16117 $ 84,488 $ 462,000 $ 162,755 $ - $ 1,095,090 $ - $ 107,051 $ 136,163 $ 2,647,547.- $ 200,000. $ 1,847,547 - $ 26.10
FY 17/18 $ 82,288 $ 470,600 $ 162,293 $ - $ 1,091,408 $ - $ 107,051 $ 135,525 $ 2,049,165,' $ 200,000 $ 1,649,165 $ 26.12
FY 18/19 $ 85,088 $ 473,200 $ 166,233 $ - $ - $ - $ 107,051 $ 134,888 $ 966,460 $ 200,000 $ 766,460 $ 10.83
FY 19/20 $ 82,688 $ - $ 164,668 $ - $ - $ - $ 53,525 $ 799,250 $ 1,100,131. $ 200,000 $ 900,131 $ 12.71
FY 20/21 $ 84,388 $ - _: $ 162,850 . $ $ $ - $ - $ 785,350 $ 1,032,588 $ 200,000 $ 832,588 - $ 11.76
FY 21122 - $ 83.313 $ - $ 165,710 $ - $ - $ - $ $ 785,813 $ 1,034,836'.. $ 200,000$ 834,836 $ 11.79
FY 22123 $ 82,100 $ - $ 163,060 $ - $ - $ $ - $ 780,000 $ $ 200,000 $ 825,160 $ 11.65
FY 2324 $ 83,250 $ $ $ _ _ - $ $ $ $ $ 83,250 ,. $ _ 200,000. $ ..... - _ ' $ -
FY 2425 $ 79,125 $ - $ - $ - _ $ $ - $ - $ $ .79,125 $ 200,000 $
FY 2526 $ $ $ _- .$ - - $ - $ - $ - $ $ _$ $ $ _
FY 26/27 $ $ $ .. - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ $ -
FY 2728 $ - $ - $ $, $ $ $ $. $ $. -$
_ . FY 2829 _ .. $ $ _ $ - $ - - $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $
I do not recommend this as an option due to the dramatic increase in a user fee. This user fee would also
be regressive, and would be inequitably paid by residents as opposed to businesses.
I
Scenario 2 - refinance all available debt, abate all taxes, creation of a bonding fee
United City of Yorkville j
Proposed Bond Debt Restructuring
Existing Debt Service on These Issues
2005C,20048,
and
20031RBB 2005D and 2008
Period Refinanced into one Refinanced into one Sanitary Siphon IEPA Waste Water TOTAL DEBT Connection Gap to be Amount of
Ending package_ package, Loan -[EPA Loan Bond 2007A SER Fee Revenue covered bonding fee
FY 10/11 - $ - $ - $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ - $" 146,031'. $ -
FY 11/12 $ 404,174 $ 892,304 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,866 $.- 1,576,375 $ 600,000 $ 976,375 $ 13.79
FY 12/13 $ 405,300 $ 892,928 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,454 $- 1,577,713 $ 325,000 $ 1,252,713 $ 17.69
FY 13114 $ 405,300 $ 890,537 $ - $ 107,051 $ 138,041 $,1,540,929 $ 200,000 ' $ 1,340,929 $ 18.94 .
FY 14/15 $ 405,300 $ 892,365 $ $ 107,051 $ 137,423 $' 1,542,139 $ 200,000 $ 1,342,139 $ 18,96
FY 15/16 $ 405,300 $ 892,969 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,793 $ ..1,542,113 $ 200,000 $ 1,342,113 $ 18.96
FY 16/17 $ 405,300 $ 892,137 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,163 $ 1,540 $ 200,000 $ 1,340,651 $ 18.94
FY 17118 $ 405,300 $ 889,570 $ $ 107,051 $ 135,525 $' 1,537,446 $ 200,000 $ 1,337,446 $ 18.89
FY 18/19 $ 405,300 $ 890,535 $ $ 107,051 $ 134,888 $ 1,537,774 $ 200,000 $ 1,337,774 $ 18.90
FY 19/20 $ 405,300 $ 889,852 $ $ 53,525 $ 799,250 $ 2,147,927 $ 200,000 $ 1,947,927 $ 27.51 .
FY 20/21 $ 405,300 - $ 892,642 $ - $ - $ 785,350 $'2,083,292. $ 200,000 -. $ 1,883,292 $ 26.60
FY 21/22 $ 405,300 $ 889,355 $ $ $ 785,813 $ 2,080,4W $ 200,000 $ 1,880,468 $ 26.56
FY 22/23 $ 405,300 $ 892,418 $ - $ - $ 780,000 $ 2,077,718. $ 200,000 $ 1,877,718 $ 26.52
FY 23/24 $ 1,085,300 $ 888,506 $ $ $ - $ 1,973,808 $ 200,000 $ 1,773,806
$ 25.05
FY 24/25 $ 1,089,500 $ 888,307 $ $ $ $ 1,9771807 $ 200,000 $ 1,777,807 $ 25.11
FY 25/26 $ 1,086,000 $ 891,665 $ $ $ $ ,'1,977,665, $ 200,000 $ 1,777,665 $ 25.11
FY 26x27 $ 1,090,100 $ 888,618 $ $ - $ - $- 1,978,718 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,718 $ 25.12 ,
FY 27/28 $ 1,086,200 $ 892,636 $ $ $ $ "1,978,836` $ 200,000 $ 1,778,836 $ 25.12
FY 28/29 $ 1,089,600 $ 889,355 $ $ - $ - $ 1,978,955 200,000 $ 1,778,955 $ 25.13
FY 29/30 $ 1,089,700 $ 889,198 $ $ $ $ 1,978,898 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,898: $ 25.13
FY 30/31 $ 1,086,500 $ 891,877 $ $ $ 1 - 1,978,377 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,377 $ 25.12
FY 31/32 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ _ $
.. .Refinanced Refinanced Not -
Original Cost $6.5m Original Cost $13.6m advantageous to Not advantageous
Refrd Cost $13.5m Refi'd Cost $17.8m rail to refi Can not refi -
While the bonding fee in this scenario is less than in scenario #1, the additional cost in interest is over
$11 million. Anew scenario could be created wherein you could only refinance one of the two
packages above, but in either case you are creating millions of dollars in additional debt via interest. In
either case, the short-term advantage to residents (the bonding fee is lower in the near term) is greatly
overshadowed by the long -term cost (the fee is higher in the long term, and is needed for an additional
ten years). For these reasons, I do not recommend any refinancing of existing bonds.
Additionally, this option is still regressive, and still inequitably impacts residents as opposed to
businesses. Therefore, I do not recommend this option.
Scenario 3 - refinance nothing, GO property tax on Rob Roy bonds, creation of a bonding fee
United City of Yorkville i
Proposed Bond Debt Restructuring
Existing Debt Service on These Issues
... _ _ .,. 20050,_. .. - .. ... - .. -
Aft Rev Water
and Sewer 20048 2003AIRBB.
Period (Sew er only listed) Countryside Sewer Bruell Street Sanitary Siphon IEPA Waste Water - TOTAL DEBT Connection Gap to be Amount of
E nd i ng Did 09/01/05 Old 03/01/04 Did 09/01/03 Loan - IEPA Loan Bond 2007A SERVICE Fee Revenue covered bonding fee
FY 10111 _ $ - $ - $ 126,826 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ ,.$..,:,_272,857 $
FY 11112 $ 83,863 $ 258,650 $ 165,143 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 -: $ 133,866 $ 600,000 $ 187,553 $ 11.12
FY 12113 - $ 82,288 $ 263,850 $ 166,248 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,454 -$ 791,871 $ 325,000 $ 466,871
FY 13/14 $ 82,988 $ 368,750 $ 162,048 $ $ 107,051 $ 138,041 $ 958,878 $ 200,000 $ 658,878 $ 12.13
FY 14/15 $ 83,588 $ 453,950 $ 162,648 $ - $ 107,051 $ 137,423 $ 944,660 $ 200,000. $ 744,660 $ 13.34
FY 15/16 $ 84,088 $ 460,825 $ 162,870 $ - - $ 107,051 $ 136,793 $ 951,627 $ 200,000 $ 751,627 $ 13.44
FY 16/17 $ 84,488 $ 462,000 $ 162,755 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,163: $ 952,457 $ 200,000 $ 752,457 $ 13.45
FY 17/18 $ 82,288 $ 470,600 $ 162,293 $ - $ 107,051 $ 135,525 $ 957,757: $ 200,000 $ 757,757 $ 13.53
FY 18/19 $ 85,088 $ 473,200 $ 166,233 $ - $ 107,051 $ 134,888 $ 966,460 $ 200,000 $ 766,460 $ 13.65
FY 19/20 $ 82,688 $ - $ 164,668 $ - $ 53,525 $ 799,250 $ 1.100,131 $ 200,000 $ 900,131 $ 15.54
FY 2021 $ 84,388 $ - $ 162,850 $ - $ - $ 785,350 $ 1,032,588. $ 200,000 $ 832,588 $ 14.58
FY 2122 $ 83,313 $ - $ 165,710. $ - $ - $ 785,813 `$ 1,034,836 $ 200,000 $ 834,836 $ 14.62
FY 2223 $ 82,100 $ - $ 163,060 $ - $ - $ 780,000 $ 1,025,160 $ 200,000 $ 825,160 $ 14.48 -
FY 2324 $ 83,250 $ $ - $ $ - - - $ - $ 83,250 $ 200,000 $ - $ -
FY2425 $ 79,125 $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ 79,125 $ 200,000 $ - $ -
FY 2526 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ -
_FY2627 $ $. $ $ $ ...$.. $ .;:, $ .$ - $
- ... FY 2728 $ . $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ _, ;.` $ $ $ ...
FY 28129 $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $
FY 29/38_ .. $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - :$ . -.:_ $. -..$
FY 30/31 $ _.,,.$ .. $. $ $. $ -$ $. -.$.. $ -
FY 31/32 $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ _
_.. - - ... - Not
-. _..
advantageous to Not advantageous
Not refinanced Not refinanced Not refinanced . refl to refi Can not rail
Period 2005D 2008 Rob Roy TOTAL DEBT Est. Property Yearly Tax for Yearly tax for Yearly tax for Yearly lax for
Ending Rob Roy Rest S ERVI C E T ax Ra $100k house $250k house $500 h $2m business
FY 10/11 $ 537,541 $ $ 537,541 $ $ - $ - $ - $ -
FY 11/12 $ 1,578,925 $ 165,135 $ 1,744,060 $ 0.3071 $ 87 $ 241 $ 496 $ 2,032
FY 12/13 $ 1,944,450 $ 110,090 $ 2,054' $ 0.3617 $ 102 $ 283 $ 585 $ 2,393
FY 13/14 $ 1,978,050 $ 110,090 $ ,2,088,140` $ 0.3676 ` $ 104 $ 288 $ 594 $ 2,432
FY 14/15 $ 2,207,500 $ 110,090 $ 2,317,590 $ 0.4080 $ 116 $ 320 $ 660 $ 2,700 -
FY 15/16 $ 3,124,500 $ 110,090 $ 3,234,590 $ 0.5695 $ 161 $ 446 $ 921 $ 3,768
FY 16/17 $ $ 1,095,090 $ 1,095,090 $ 0.1928 $ 55 $ 151 $ 312 i $ 1,276
FY 17/18 $ $ 1,091,408 $ "1,091•,408 $ 0.1921 ' $ 54 $ 151 $ 311 $ 1,271
FY 18/19 $ $. $ $. $ $ _ $ $ _
Available for refi Available for refi
This is the option I recommend. While it is a difficult decision to create a fee and allow a portion of the
debt to revert back to property taxes, this scenario contains a portion of revenue generated from a
bonding fee, which is advantageous to the businesses as opposed to the residents, and property taxes,
which is advantageous to the residents as opposed to the businesses. Additionally, the tax is partially
progressive (real estate taxes) and regressive (bonding fee). Property taxes are able to be deducted from
income. Finally, this scenario results in no additional interest costs, because there is no refinancing or
restructuring.
For any of the scenarios, we have the ability to decrease the bonding fee or abate the property taxes in
the future.
United City of Yorkville
Proposed Bond Debt Restructuring
Existing Debt Service on These Issues
2005C
All Rev Water
and Sewer 2004B Omission
(Sewer only Countryside 2003AIRBB Sanitary 2004A
Period listed) Sewer Bruell Street 2005D 2008 Rob Roy Siphon Loan - IEPA Waste ComEd TOTAL DEBT Connection Fee Gap to be Amount of
Ending Dld 09/01/05 Dld 03/01/04 Dtd 09/01/03 Rob Roy Restructuring IEPA Water Loan Bond 2007A Hydraulic SERVICE Revenue covered Bonding Fee
FY 10111 $ - $ - $ 126,826 $ 537,541 $ - $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ - $ - $ 810,398 $ -
FY 11/12 $ 83,863 $ 258,650 $ 165,143 $ 1,578,925 $ 165,135 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,866 $ 194,093 $ 2,725.706 $ 600,000 $ 2,125,706 $ 30.02
FY 12/13 $ 82,288 $ 263,850 $ 166,248 $ 1,944,450 $ 110,090 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,454 $ 193,737 $ 3,040,148 $ 325,000 $ 2,715,148 $ 38.35
FY 13/14 $ 82,988 $ 368,750 $ 162,048 $ 1,978,050 $ 110,090 $ - $ 107,051 $ 138,041 $ 193,050 $ 3,140,068 $ 200,000 $ 2,940,068 $ 41.53
FY 14/15 $ 83,588 $ 453,950 $ 162,648 $ 2,207,500 $ 110,090 $ $ 107,051 $ 137,423 $ 196,840 $ 3,459,090 $ 200,000 $ 3,259,090 $ 46.03
FY 15/16 $ 84,088 $ 460,825 $ 162,870 $ 3,124,500 $ 110,090 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,793 $ - $ 4,186,217 $ 200,000 $ 3,986,217 $ 56.30
FY 16/17 $ 84,488 $ 462,000 $ 162,755 $ - $ 1,095,090 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,163 $ $ 2,047,547 $ 200,000 $ 1,847,547 $ 26.10
1 135525
107 OS $ $ $ 2,049,165 $ 200,000 $ 1,849,165 $ 26.12
470600 162293 $ $ 1,091,408 $ $ ,
FY 17!18 $ 82,288 $ $
FY 18/19 $ 85,088 $ 473,200 $ 166,233 $ $ - $ $ 107,051 $ 134,888 $ $ 966,460 $ 200,000 $ 766,460 $ 10.83
FY 19/20 $ 82,688 $ - $ 164,668 $ $ $ $ 53,525 $ 799,250 $ $ 1,100,131 $ 200,000 $ 900,131 $ 12.71
FY 20/21 $ 84,388 $ $ 162,850 $ $ $ $ - $ 785,350 $ $ 1,032,588 $ 200,000 $ 832,588 $ 11.76
FY 21/22 $ 83,313 $ $ 165,710 $ $ $ $ $ 785,813 $ $ 1,034,836 $ 200,000 $ 834,836 $ 11.79
FY 22/23 $ 82,100 $ $ 163,060 $ $ $ $ $ 780,000 $ $ 1,025,160 $ 200,000 $ 825.160 $ 11.65
FY 23/24 $ 83,250 $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ 83,250 $ 200.000 $ - $ -
FY24/25 $ 79,125 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 79,125 $ 200,000 $ $ -
FY 25/26 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
FY 26/27 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
FY 27128 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
FY 28/29 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Not Not
Available for Available for Available for Available for advantageous advantageous
refi refi refi refi Available for refi to refi to refi Can not refi
Z - - vi 70
United City of Yorkville i
Proposed Bond Debt Restructuring
Existing Debt Service on These Issues
2005C, 2004B, and Omission
2003IRBB 2005D and 2008 2004A
Period Refinanced into one Refinanced into one Sanitary Siphon IEPA Waste Water ComEd TOTAL DEBT Connection Fee Gap to be Amount of
E package package Loan - IEPA Loan Bond 2007A Hydraulic SERVICE Revenue covered bonding fee
FY 10/11 $ - $ - $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ - $ - $ 146,031 $ -
FY 11/12 $ 404,174 $ 892,304 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,866 $ 194,093 $ 1,770,468 $ 600,000 $ 1,170,468 $ 16.53
FY 12/13 $ 405,300 $ 892,928 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,454 $ 193,737 $ 1,771,450 $ 325,000 $ 1,446,450 $ 20.43
! FY 13/14 $ 405,300 $ 890,537 $ - $ 107,051 $ 138,041 $ 193,050 $ 1,733,979 $ 200,000 $ 1,533,979 $ 21.67
FY 14/15 $ 405,300 $ 892,365 $ $ 107,051 $ 137,423 $ 196,840 $ 1,738,979 $ 200,000 $ 1,538,979 $ 21.74
FY 15/16 $ 405,300 $ 892,969 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,793 $ - $ 1,542,113 $ 200,000 $ 1,342,113 $ 18.96
FY 16/17 $ 405,300 $ 892,137 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,163 $ $ 1,540,651 $ 200,000 $ 1,340,651 $ 18.94
FY 17/18 $ 405,300 $ 889,570 $ $ 107,051 $ 135,525 $ $ 1,537,446 $ 200,000 $ 1,337,446 $ 18.89
FY 18119 $ 405,300 $ 890,535 $ $ 107,051 $ 134,888 $ $ 1,537,774 $ 200,000 $ 1,337,774 $ 18.90
FY 19/20 $ 405,300 $ 889,852 $ $ 53,525 $ 799,250 $ $ 2,147,927 $ 200,000 $ 1,947,927 $ 27.51
FY 20/21 $ 405,300 $ 892,642 $ $ - $ 785,350 $ $ 2,083,292 $ 200,000 $ 1,883,292 $ 26.60
FY 21/22 $ 405,300 $ 889,355 $ $ $ 785,813 $ $ 2,080,468 $ 200,000 $ 1,880,468 $ 26.56
FY 22/23 $ 405,300 $ 892,418 $ $ $ 780,000 $ $ 2,077,718 $ 200,000 $ 1,877,718 $ 26.52
FY 23/24 $ 1,085,300 $ 888,506 $ $ $ - $ $ 1,973,806 $ 200,000 $ 1,773,806 $ 25.05
FY 24/25 $ 1,089,500 $ 888,307 $ $ $ $ $ 1,977,807 $ 200,000 $ 1,777,807 $ 25.11
FY 25/26 $ 1,086,000 $ 891,665 $ $ $ $ $ 1,977,665 $ 200,000 $ 1,777,665 $ 25.11
FY 26/27 $ 1,090,100 $ 888,618 $ $ $ $ $ 1,978,718 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,718 $ 25.12
FY 27/28 $ 1,086,200 $ 892,636 $ $ $ $ $ 1,978,836 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,836 $ 25.12
FY 28/29 $ 1,089,600 $ 889,355 $ $ $ $ $ 1,978,955 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,955 $ 25.13
FY 29/30 $ 1,089,700 $ 889,198 $ $ $ $ $ 1,978,898 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,898 $ 25.13
FY 30/31 $ 1,086,500 $ 891,877 $ $ $ $ $ 1,978,377 $ 200,000 $ 1,778,377 $ 25.12
FY 31/32 $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $
Refinanced Refinanced
Original Cost $6.5m Original Cost $13.6m Not advantageous Not advantageous
Refi'd Cost $13.5m Refi'd Cost $17.8m to refs to refs Can not raft
United City of Yorkville i
Proposed Bond Debt Restructuring
Existing Debt Service on These Issues
2005C
Alt Rev Water
and Sewer 2004B 2003AIRBB Omission 2004A
Period (Sewer only listed) Countryside Sewer Bruell Street Sanitary Siphon IEPA Waste Water ComEd TOTAL DEBT Connection Fee Gap to be Amount of
Ending Did 09/01/05 D 03/01/04 Did 09/01103 Loan - IEPA Loan Bond 2007A Hydraulic SERVICE Revenue covered bon fee
FY 10/11 $ - $ - $ 126,826 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ - $ - $ 272,857 $ -
FY 11/12 $ 83,863 $ 258,650 $ 165,143 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,866 $ 194,093 $ 981,646 $ 325,000 $ 656,646 $ 9.27
FY 12/13 $ 82,288 $ 263,850 $ 166,248 $ 38,980 $ 107,051 $ 133,454 $ 193,737 $ 985,608 $ 325,000 $ 660,608 $ 9.33
FY 13/14 $ 82,988 $ 368,750 $ 162,048 $ - $ 107,051 $ 138,041 $ 193,050 $ 1,051,928 $ 200,000 $ 851,928 $ 12.03
FY 14/15 $ 83,588 $ 453,950 $ 162,648 $ $ 107,051 $ 137,423 $ 196,840 $ 1,141,500 $ 200,000 $ 941,500 $ 13.30
FY 15/16 $ 84,088 $ 460,825 $ 162,870 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,793 $ - $ 951,627 $ 200,000 $ 751,627 $ 10.62
FY 16/17 $ 84,488 $ 462,000 $ 162,755 $ $ 107,051 $ 136,163 $ $ 952,457 $ 200,000 $ 752,457 $ 10.63
FY 17/18 $ 82,288 $ 470,600 $ 162,293 $ $ 107,051 $ 135,525 $ $ 957,757 $ 200,000 $ 757,757 $ 10.70
FY 18/19 $ 85,088 $ 473,200 $ 166,233 $ $ 107,051 $ 134,888 $ $ 966,460 $ 200,000 $ 766,460 $ 10.83
FY 19/20 $ 82,688 $ - $ 164,668 $ $ 53,525 $ 799,250 $ $ 1,100,131 $ 200,000 $ 900,131 $ 12.71
FY 20/21 $ 84,388 $ $ 162,850 $ $ - $ 785,350 $ $ 1,032,588 $ 200,000 $ 832,588 $ 11.76
FY 21/22 $ 83,313 $ $ 165,710 $ $ $ 785,813 $ $ 1,034,836 $ 200,000 $ 834,836 $ 11.79
FY 22/23 $ 82,100 $ $ 163,060 $ $ $ 780,000 $ $ 1,025,160 $ 200,000 $ 825,160 $ 11.65
FY 23/24 $ 83,250 $ $ - $ $ $ - $ $ 83,250 $ 200,000 $ - $
FY 24125 $ 79,125 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 79,125 $ 200,000 $ $
FY 25/26 $ - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - $ - $ $
FY 26/27 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
FY 27/28 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -
FY 28/29 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
FY 29/30 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
FY 30/31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
FY 31/32 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -
Not advantageous Not advantageous
Not refinanced Not refinanced Not refinanced to refs to refs Can not refs I
Period 2005D 2008 Rob Roy TOTAL DEBT Est. Properly Yearly Tax for Yearly tax for Yearly tax for Yearly tax for
Ending Rob Roy Restructuring SERVICE Tax Rate $ 100k house $250k house $500k house $2m business
FY 10/11 $ 537,541 $ - $ 537,541 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
FY 11/12 $ 1,578,925 $ 165,135 $ 1,744,060 $ 0.3071 $ 87 $ 241 $ 496 $ 2,032
FY 12/13 $ 1,944,450 $ 110,090 $ 2,054,540 $ 0.3617 $ 102 $ 283 $ 585 $ 2,393
FY 13/14 $ 1,978,050 $ 110,090 $ 2,088,140 $ 0.3676 $ 104 $ 288 $ 594 $ 2,432
FY 14/15 $ 2,207,500 $ 110,090 $ 2,317,590 $ 0.4080 $ 116 $ 320 $ 660 $ 2,700
FY 15/16 $ 3,124,500 $ 110,090 $ 3,234.590 $ 0.5695 $ 161 $ 446 $ 921 $ 3,768
FY 16/17 $ - $ 1,095,090 $ 1,095,090 $ 0.1928 $ 55 $ 151 $ 312 $ 1,276
FY 17118 $ $ 1,091,408 $ 1.091,408 $ 0.1921 $ 54 $ 151 $ 311 $ 1,271
FY 18119 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - \`1
Available for refi Available for fefi ' 1 I, J CG ICJ ( S , ; q� � u
ltc� 700q,,