HomeMy WebLinkAbout0726_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
NOVEMBER 25, 198+
I. ROIL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 porn. Present .at the meeting were: Mayor
Carolyn H. Krause; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, .Leo Floros, Norma
Murauskis and Theodore Wattenberg. Also present at the meeting were: Acting
Village Manager Michael Janonis, Finance Director David Jepson and Research
Assistant Michael Steklac. Also present were two persons from the print media.
II. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee sof the Whole meeting of ,November 11, 1986 were
accepted and filed.
III. CITIZENS To BE HEARD
There being no citizens present who wished to make a presentation before the
Committee of the whole, the Committee moved on to the next item of business.
IV. SIX MONTH FINANCIAL REVIEW
Acting Village, ManagerMichael anonis and Finance Director David Jepson
presented
the Six Month inancial Review for the Village. The report demonstrates
that the Village will, b 'in,, goodfinancial condition this year and next year.
Total revenues are $3.5 million more than what was budgeted mainly due to a
one-time special sales tax payment, flood reimbursement ,and a higher than
projected revenue from the State income tax. Total expenditures are $1.2 m i ll io n
below budget. Large expenditure decreases were in the Mater Fund due to lower
energy costs and in the Downtown Redevelopment District as a result of projects
that will be delayed until next year.
The Trustees praised Mr. Jepson for the Report's thoroughness. Mayor Krause and
Trustee Murauskis expressed concern over the $300 reserve left in the Road Repairs
next year.
Mr. Jepson stated that an Ordinance amending the Budget will be prepared for the
December 2, 1986 meeting of the Village Board.
At this point, Trustee Van Geem arrived.
Vo LIABILITY INSURANCE
The Committee discussed the problem of obtaining excess liability 'insurance for the
'Village. The Village's current policy will expire on December 31, 1986 and at this
point will not be renewed. The Village has three options to explore.
First, the Village will continue to work with Gallagher Bassett to obtain a new
excess liability insurance policy. This type of coverage may not be available at
any price*
Second, the Village may consider to go without excess coverage. The Village will
be liable for all claims no matter how large the award. The Village's experience
has been that it has never had a claim large enough to activate the excess liability
insurance policy. In previous meetings regarding this issue, the Committee has
rejected this option.
The third option is to join with other municipalities in a liability insurance "super
pool." The High-level Excess Liability Pool (HELP) was formed in respo'nse t, ' o
municipalities' frustration over the unavailability of coverage for the hligh premiums
relative to the coverage obtained. The member munici'pa,11"Ities are asked to parflc"'
pa,te 'by invitation only following a revi'ew of their risk Ma,n,agement policies',
#1 ,e
programs and claims experience. In the early years of the HELP fund, the, Villag
would be liable for the first $1 million ofd. ch claim. Aggregate coverag,e ��would be
$1 million and will increase to $5 million after the first year. If the Village joined
the HELP fund, then it would be obligated to participate for a minimum of I I
years.
Trustee Wattenberg encouraged the Committee to continue to lobby the Illinois
General Assembly for more favorable 'insurance laws. He stated that if we take
the easy way out (HELP fund) that Congress and the General Assembly will not be
sensitive to our problem*
Trustee Flo ros supported the second option of going without excess coverage. He
stated that the HELP fund would only encourage large jury awards. Some Trustees
were concerned with the I I year commitment. It was explained that the 11 year
commitment was developed as a minimum period to make the fund viable,.
The Committee was polled on whether the Village should join the HELP fund. The
vote was 5-2 to support joining the fund.
VI* REVENUE SOURCES
With the anticipated loss of Federal Revenue Sharing and Community Development
Block Grant f unds, Trustee Gerald Farley requested that the Village consider
alternate revenue sources to make up for these losses* Finance Director David
Jepson presented a report outlining common revenue, sources used ins, other
communities. Among these were a Food and Beverage Tax, local, Sales, 'Taxes, a
Hotel/ Motel Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Ut,itity Taxes, Refuse Disposal Fees and
an Ambulance User Fee*
Several Trustees, while indicating support for possible new revenues, also indicated
that the Village should review where expenditures could be cut. Trustee Arthur
stated his opinion that services are offered to all residents and, therefore, a
Property Tax should be used to raise revenue not a User Tax and he would not
support an Ambulance User Tax. Trustee Van Geem also stated he would not
support a User Tax, that it defeats the economic development objectives of the
Village and that he would support a Property Tax increase. Trustee Murauskis
stated that we should look at expenditures then, if needed, raise the Property Tax.
Mayor Krause stated that she generally does not support Property Tax increase
since she thinks that the Property Tax is regressive. Trustee Floros also stated
that he would not support a User Tax although he stated that he believed that the
Real Estate Transfer Tax had some merit.
It was the consensus of the Committee that the issue merits further investigation
during the Budget Hearings but that generally the User Taxes would not be a
favorable way of "increasing revenue,
There being " no business I to be discussed under the Manager's Report, the Committee
moved on to the next item of business,
VIII*ANY OTHER BUSINESS
N
At 9:16 p.m., the Committee adjourned to go into Executive Session to discuss
0-
property acquisition in connection with the downtown TIF Project.
WILADJOURNMENT
The meeting was reconvened at 9:44 p.m. and there being no further business to be
discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL I STT KLAC
Research Assistant
MJS/rcw
Village of M'ount Prospect, ko'', 41141
Mount Prospect, llll*noi*s
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael E. Janonis, Acting Village Manager
FROM David C. Jepson, Finance Director
DATE: December 5, 1986
SUBJECT: Financing Alternatives for a Public Works Facility
The purpose of this report is threefold: 1) to identify various alternatives that
could be used for financing the construction of a Public Works Facility; 2) to examine
the effects of a bond issue on the Village's financial position; and 3) to illustrate
the possible costs related to a proposed bond issue for property owners within the
Village. Supporting information and conclusions are contained in ten schedules which
are attached. Each schedule will be referenced and explained in the narrative which
follows*
In preparing the information which is included in the attached schedules, a number of
assumptions were used. First, it is assumed. that the total cost of a new facility
will be $6.2 million with $1.0 million initially coming from the Water Fund and $1.2
million from the Capital Improvement Fund and other sources. The result is an
expected bond issue of $4 million. It is assumed that the bond issue will be sold on
July 1, 1987 and mature on January 1, 2008. The interest rate is assumed to be 70.
Additionally, it is assumed that 40.10 of the debt service requirements may be paid from
the Water Fund. Finally, I did not assume that monies from the sale of properties or
the Build Illinois Program would be available for construction costs or to finance the
bond 'issue.
Following is an explanation of the three issues that are being addressed:
Financing Alternatives
Consideration was given to four distinct bond issue structures. The four options are
explained below:
Option 1 - Level Debt Service. The principal and interest payments are
structured to provide approximately the same annual payment for 20
years. A $4 million issue for 20 years @ 7'/0' requires annual debt
service of approximately $377,600.
Option 2 - Deferred Principal Payments. The payments are structured to reflect
interest only in the early years and higher principal payments in
latter years. The specific plan that is being considered calls for
interest only for eight years and then principal and interest for the
last 12 years. The annual payment for the first 8 years is $280,000
and for the last 12 years is approximately $504,100,
Financing Alternatives for a Public Works Facility
Page 2
Option 3 - Combination of Level Debt Service and Zero -Coupon Bonds. This plan
attempts to shift a greater portion of the debt service to the latter
years. A zero-coupon bond does not pay interest during the life of
the bond and only makes a payment at maturity. As a result the bonds
are sold at a discount. (For example, a 20 year zero-coupon bond,
yielding 71/0', with a par value of $1 000 would cost approximately $250
when issued.)
The .combination considered included $3 million of 7'/0', 15 year, level
debt service bonds and $1 million of zero-coupon bonds maturing in
years 16 to 20. The annual debt service requirement for this plan is
$329,400 for the first 15 years and $696,200 for the last 5 years,
Option 4 - Level Debt Service With a Bond Reserve Fund. This plan calls for a $5
million bond 'issue with $4 million for construction and $1 million for
debt service. This approach allows a variable tax levy in the early
years to level out total debt service requirements for all Village
debt requirements. The annual tax levy requirements in the first
eight years varies from $227,450 to $405,600 and then a level debt
service requirement of $472,000 for the last 12 years.
A comparison of the annual debt service requirements for Options 1 - 4 are contained
in Schedule 1. It can be seen that the lowest total principal and interest costs are
for Option 1 at $7,692,000 and the highest for Option 3 at $8,527,000. Options 2 and
4 are almost identical at $8,429,200 and $8,429,225, respectively. This schedule
reflects the various annual debt service requirements of a $4 million bond issue and
does not reflect any other costs or credits. It should be pointed out that the
amounts for 1987 are higher than subsequent years because 18 months interest is
included in the 1987 figures,
Schedule 2 converts the annual debt service requirements from Schedule 1 to estimated
tax rates. The rates are based upon the amounts in Schedule 1 and estimated equalized
assessed valuation amounts. Option 1 (Level Debt Service) requires a tax rate of
6.70 in 1988 and a 3.90 rate in 2006. Option 4 requires a 4.0� rate in 1988 and
a 4.90 rate in 2006.
The first two schedules reflect debt service and tax rate information for a $4 million
bond issue standing on its own. Schedules 3 - 6 provide the net debt service require-
ments for all existing Village G. 0. debt, the proposed Public Works debt as identi-
fied in Options 1 - 4, scheduled abatements and a contribution from the Water Fund.
Each of the schedules are the same general format with the difference being the
amounts obtained in Options 1 - 4. Schedule 3 uses Option 1, and Schedules 4, 5, and
6 use Options 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The actual debt service for 1986 is also
included as a frame of reference.
Financing Alternatives for a Public Works Facility
Page 3
In Schedules 3 - 6, the first column contains our existing G. 0. debt service require-
ments for 1987 - 1994; the second column contains the P. W. debt service options;
column three includes scheduled abatements; column four the annual contribution from
the Water Fund; and the last column contains the net annual debt service requirements.
In Schedule 3, the net annual debt service for 1987 - 1994 varies from $856,500 to
$446,000 and for 1995 through 2006 it is $236,000 per year. In Schedule 6, the annual
requirement for 1987 - 1993 is $640,000, for 1994 it is $540,000 and $330,400 for 1995
through 2006.
A comparison of the net debt service requirements in Schedules 3 - 6 are listed on
Schedule 7. The relative success of "leveling out" the total debt service require-
ments can be seen by reviewing the various alternatives. For Alternatives 1 -2 the
total requirement diminishes each year during the first eight years and then levels
out over the last 12 years. Alternative 3 follows the same pattern except for the
last five years when it increases to cover the zero coupon bonds. Alternative 4 has a
level debt for the first seven years, declines in year 8 and then levels out again for
the last 12 years. The requirement for Alternative 4 for 1987 - 1993 is $640,000 per
year compared to $623,890 for 1986.
Schedule 8 converts the annual debt service requirements in Schedule 7 to an annual
tax rate. In each of the alternatives, the estimated tax rate in 1990 is less than
the rate for 1986.
Village Debt Capacity
A Village is much like an individual or a family when the question of borrowing money
is raised. Two questions which come to mind are: is the purpose for the borrowed
funds worth a long-term commitment and will the debt be manageable. The answer to the
first question is usually a "judgement -decision," and for the second, there are
indicators to help a consumer decide whether the debt can be afforded. There are also
criteria for a municipality to gauge its debt capacity. Some of the criteria are
subjective, such as the health of the local economy and prospects for the future. But
there are also some practical criteria available such as debt per capita, ratio of
debt to EAV and the ratio of debt to general expenditures.
Schedule 9 includes information regarding the Village's general obligation (G. 0.)
debt. The existing G. 0. debt as of April 30, 1987, less available cash balances, is
expected to be $4,324,513. If a new issue of $4,000,000 is added on July 1, 1987 this
would bring the total to $8,324,513. This total should result in the following
ratios:
Net G. 0. Debt per Capita $158,16
Debt to EAV 1 .56 a
Debt Service to General Expenditures 6*240
The criteria that have been generally accepted for. municipalities indicate debt danger
signals when debt per capita approaches $1 000; debt to EAV reaches 10/00", and debt
service to general expenditures reaches 20%.
Financing Alternatives for a Public Works Facility
Page 4
Clearly, the proposed debt issue will not have a deleterious effect on the Village's
financial position*
P. W. Bond Issue Costs for Village Property Owners
There are two measures that have been used to determine the costs of the P. W. Bond
Issue to Village property owners: 1) the specific cost of the debt service; and 2)
the incremental amount of debt service costs for all Village G. 0. debt. Schedule 10
includes both of these considerations.
Under the section titled "Public Works Bond Issue," the estimated tax to pay the
entire cost of the proposed P. W. Bond Issue is included for 1987 - 1991. The
schedule includes each of the four options explained above. Under Option 1 (level
debt service) the tax amount for 1987 is $18.80 and $12.20 in 1991. The five year
average is $14.00 per year. Under Option 4, the cost for 1987 is $11 .00 and the five
year average is $10.280
The second section titled "Total G. 0. Debt Service" contains the estimated property
tax and water rate amount as identif ied in Financing Alternatives 1 - 4. If
Alternative 1 is used, a property owner with an EAV of $20,000 and who uses 90,000
gallons of water per year would pay a combined total of $39.70 in 1987 and $29.50 in
1991 for all Village debt service requirements. These amounts compare with $23.40
paid in 1986. Under Alternative 4, the same property owner would pay $31.90 in 1987
and $28.80 in 1991 . For a property owner who did not use Village water, only the tax
amount would apply. In the latter situation, the 1987 tax amount would be $31.20 for
Alternative 1 and $23.40 for Alternative 4 compared to $23.40 for 1986.
91
From the foregoing discussion and the attached schedules, it can be seen that the
financing possibilities for a Public Works Facility are varied and complex. The
information presented is based upon assumptions as previously stated, and changes in
actual circumstances would of necessity change the data. However, I believe any
changes could be incorporated into one of the basic models that have been used. There
is no question that the Village has the capacity for additional debt, and the future
costs for property owners appear to be in a reasonable range.
The next step in the financing process would be to determine the desired structure of
a bond issue, i.e. least possible overall cost or a structured payment method to
minimize tax levy considerations. Then as more precise construction information
becomes available and when the decision is made to proceed, a financial consultant
should be engaged to help put the bond issue together.
DCJ/sm
Enclosures M,
Schedule 1
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Comparison of Estimated Debt Service
Public Works Facility Bond Issue, Options 1 - 4
1987 - 2006
(1) Adjusted for scheduled abatements
�1)
T ax
Levy
Pa ment
Datesion
, �t 1
Option 2
0,Ltion 3
0 '
Oe tion on 4
I'll, I'll 0,
1987
7/1/87
1/1/B9
$ 517,600
$ 4209000
4349400
$ 3019100
1988
7/1/89
111190
3779600
280,000
329,400
227,450
1989
7/1/90
1/1/91
3779600
280,000
329,400
241,625
1990
7/1/91
1/1/92
3779600
2810,000
3299400
3619300
1991
7/1/92
1/1/93
377,600
280,000
329t400
370,650
1992
7/1/93
1/1/94
3779600
2809000
3299400
3859500
1993
7/1/94
1/1/95
377,600
280,000
329t400
405t600
1994
7/1/95
1/1/96
377,600
280p000
329,400
472,000
1995
7/1/96 -
1/1/97
3779600
504,100
3299400
4729000
1996
7/1/97 -
1/1/98
377t600
504,100
329,400
472,000
1997
7/1/98
1/1/99
3779600
504,100
3299400
472,000
1998
7/1/99
1/1/00
377t600
504,100
329,400
472,000
1999
7/1/00
1/1/01
377,600
504,100
329,400
472t000
2000
7/1/01
1/1/02
377,600
504t100
329,400
472,000
2001
7/1/02
1/1/03
377t600
5049100
3299400
4729000
2002
7/1/03
1/1/04
377, 600504,100
696,200
4729000
2003
7/1/04 -
1/1/05
3779600
5049100
6969200
472,000
2004
7/1/05 -
1/1/06
3779600
5049100
6969200
4729000
2005
7/1/06 -
1/1/07
3779600
504,100
6969200
4729000
2006
7/1/07 -
1/1/08
-w" 377t600k
5040,11000
696t200
472,000
7�O�O4�9,2
1$3
84 2�= �00
27- 2 00"Ot
(1) Adjusted for scheduled abatements
Schedule 2
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Comparison of Estimated Tax Rate Requirements
Public works Facility Bond Issue, Options 1 - 4
1987 - 2006
Tax
Equalized Assessed
Lev
Valuation 1
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
'Option 4
1987
54897639000
9.40
7.70
7.9,E
5.5�
1988
56592269000
6.7
5.0
5.8
4.0
1989
58291839000
6.5
4 . B
5.6
4.2
1990
599,649,000
6.3
4.7
5.5
6.0
1991
6179638,000
6.1
4.5
5.3
6.0
1992
63691679000
5.9
4.4
5.1
6.1
1993
65592529000
5.8
4.3
5.0
6.2
1994
674,910,000
5.6
4.1
4.9
7.0
1995
69591579000
5.4
7.3
4.7
6.8
1996
71690129000
5.3
7.0
4.6
6.6
1997
73794929001
5.1
6.8
4.5
6.4
1998
75996179000
5.0
6.6
4.3
6.2
1999
78294059000
4.8
6.4
4.2
6.O
2000
80598789000
4.7
6.3
4.1
5.8
2001
83090549000
4.5
6.1
4.0
5.7
2002
854,955,000
4.4
5.9
8.1
5.5
2003
88096049000
4.3
5.7
7.9
5.4
2004
9079022,000
4.2
5.6
7.7
5.2
2005
93492339000
4.0
5.4
7.5
5.1
200E
9621250,000
3.9
5.2
7.2
4.9
(1) Assumes 30 Annual Growth
Schedule 3
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Total Estimated Debt Service Requirements
Financing Alternative 1
1987 - 2006
p 0 W 0
Water
Net
Tax
Existing
Debt Service
Scheduled
Fund
Debt Service
'Levy
Debt Service
Option 1
Abatements
Contribution
'Requirement
1986
157.10 50
*00
$ =1111, 116,2 3
1987
$ 612,750
$ 517,600
$< 799750>
$<
1949100>
$ 856,500
1988
554y150
377,600
<
141p600>
790,150
1989
539,975
377,600
<
1419600>
775,975
1990
420,300
377,600
<
1419600>
656,300
1991
410,950
3779600
ado
<
1419600>
6469950
1992
396,100
3779600
<
1419600>
632,100
1993
376v000
377,600
<
141t600>
6129000
1994
2109000
3779600
<
141p600>
446tOOO
1995
3772600
<
1411600>
2369000
1996
377,600
<
1419600>
236,000
1997
377,600
<
1419600>
236t000
1998
377,600
<
1419600>
236,000
1999
377,600
<
141,600>
236,000
2000
3779600
<
141,600>
236,000
2001
low
3779600
<
1419600>
236vOOO
2002
3779600
<
1419600>
2369000
2003
377,600
<
1419600>
236t000
2004
377,600
<
14196007
236,000
2005
377,600
<
1419600>
236,000
2006
377 600
U,
<
1419600>
2369000
��5,2 0 22 5
7 000
1JA92j.
$<2 8B84 50D
$0 f 2,47
Schedule 4
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Total Estimated Debt Service Requirements
Financing Alternative 2
1987 - 2006
POWs
Water
Net
Tax
Existing
Debt Service
Scheduled
Fund
Debt Service
Cev t Service
Option 2
Abatements
Contribution
Requirement
1986
7
!L! 57 50
,2 0 ,
623 890
1987
6129750
4209000
$< 79,750>
$<
194t100>
7589900
1988
5549150
280p000
-Use
<
1411600>
6929550
1989
539,975
2809000
<
141 ,600>
678,375
1990
420t300
2809000
<
141p600>
558 p700
1991
4109950
2809000
<
141,600>
5499350
1992
3969100
280,000
<
1419600>
5349500
1993
376tO00
2809000
AM,
<
1419600>
5149400
1994
210,000
280,000
ww*
<
1411600>
348,400
1995
-as
504,100
"ow
<
141t600>
3629500
1996
-.00
504,100
OWE
<
141p600>
3629500
1997
0-0
5049100
<
141p600>
3629500
1998
504,100
<
141p600>
3629500
1999
504t100
<
141t600>
362t500
2000
504v100
<
141t600>
3629500
2001
504,100
<
141t600>
362t500
2002
5049100
<
1419600>
362,500
2003
504,100
<
1411600>
3629500
2004
504t100
<
1419600>
362p500
2005
504t100
<
141,600>
362t5OO
2006
504 ,100
<
141 600>
3629500
3 ,520' 2 5
$8, 429 LOR
_7 75 0 >
E 884".5,00
$<21 >
8, 11, 918 51117 5
Schedule 5
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Total Estimated Debt Service Requirements
Financing Alternative 3
1987 - 2006
P.W.
Water
Net
Tax
Existing
Debt Service
Scheduled
Fund
Debt Service
Levy,
Debt Service
---Option 3
Abatements
Contribution
Beguirement.
1986
11,21 1 72,0 1940
$
-
157 x050
eee = 111;
$-,.211 11N 1161123,118-9 0
1987
$ 6129750
$ 434, 400$<
799750>
$<
194,100>
$ 773t300
1988
5549150
3299400
<
141p600>
741t950
1989
539,975
3299400
<
1419600>
7279775
1990
4209300
3299400
<
141t600>
6089100
1991
410,950
329t400
<
141p600>
598,750
1992
3969100
3299400
<
141t600>
5839900
1993
3769000
3299400
<
1419600>
563t800
1994
2109000
3299400
<
141, 600>
3979800
1995
3299400
<
141t600>
187t800
1996
3299400
<
1419600>
187t800
1997
329t400
<
1419600>
187,800
1998
3299400
<
141p600>
187t800
1999
3299400
<
141t600>
1879800
7000
3299400
<
1419600>
1879800
7001
3299400
<
141t600>
187t800
2002
6969200
<
1419600>
5549600
7003
6969200
<
141,600>
554,600
7004
6969200
<
141t600>
554,600
7005
6969200
<
1419600>
5549600
?006
6 916 12 0 0
. .....
<
141t600>
5549600
JLI�5 2 �710 0 0
1
750>
<2 I�'7"�5'79
884 0>15 0
V*0 az
Schedule 6
if
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Total Estimated Debt Service Requirements
Financing Alternative 4
1987 - 2006
p o w e Water Net
Tax Existing Debt Service Scheduled Fund Debt Service
Lever Debt Service Option 4 Abatements Contribution Requirement
1986 7� 15 050 623 90
$ 612,750
554,150
539',975
420,300
410,950
396y100
376,000
210,000
647,000
472 , O0O
472,000
472,000
472,000
472,000
472,000
4729000
472,000
472,000
472,000
4729000
472,000
472,000
472,000
4729000
472,000
472,000
472,000
472 , 000
L9z,=61
00
$< 425,650>
< 244,550>
< 230,375>
< 110,70O>
< 101,350>
< 86,500>
< 66,400>
S
$< 1949100>
< 141 ,600>
< 141,600>
< 141,600>
< 141 ,600>
< 1419600>
< 141 9600>
< 141 ,600>
< 141 ,600>
< 141 ?600>
< 141 ,600>
< 141 9600>
< 141 ,600>
141 ,600>
< 141 ,600>
< 141 ,600>
< 1411600>
< 141 9600>
141 t600>
141 2 600>
$,<2,,500>
$ 640,000
640,000
6409000
6409000
640,000
640,000
6409000
540,400
330,400
330,400
330,400
330,400
3309400
330 , 400
330,400
330,400
3309400
330,400
330,400
3,3Q,!,400
$118,1110"W51,12,010
Schedule 7
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Comparison of Total Estimated Debt Service Requirements
Financing Alternatives 1 - 4
1987 - 2006
Tax
Financing
Financing
Financing
Financing
Lev
Payment
Dates
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
1986
7Zj1 87' 11
118,90
23$
3'I 90
,ta
1
1 1�23,21,890
623,89
Ig 0
1987
7/1/87
1/1/89
$ 856,500
$ 758,900
$ 773,300
$ 640,000
1988
7/1/89
1/1/90
7909150
692,550
7419950
6409000
1989
7/1/90
1/1/91
7759975
6789375
727,775
640,000
1990
7/1/91
1/1/92
6569300
5589700
6089100
640,000
1991
7/1/92
1/1/93
646,950
549,350
598,750
640,000
1992
7/1/93
1/1/94
632,100
534,500
583,900
6409000
1993
7/1/94
1/1/95
6129000
514, 4005639800
640,000
1994
7/1/95
1/1/96
446,000
348,400
3979800
5409400
1995
7/1/96
1/1/97
236,000
362t500
187,800
330,400
1996
7/1/97
1/1/98
2369000
362,500
187,800
330,400
1997
7/1/98
1/1/99
236,000
362,500
187,800
330,400
1998
7/1/99
1/1/00
2369000
362,500
187,800
3309400
1999
7/1/00
1/1/01
236,000
362,500
187,800
330,400
2000
7/1/01
1/1/02
2369000
3629500
187,800
3309400
2001
7/1/02
1/1/03
236,000
362,500
187,800
330,400
2002
7/1/03
1/1/04
236,000
362,500
554,600
330,400
2003
7/1/04
1/1/05
236,000
362,500
554,600
330,400
2004
7/1/05
1/1/06
236t000
362,500
554p600
330,400
2005
7/1/06
1/1/07
236,000
362t500
544,600
330,400
2006
7/1/07
1/1/08
236,000
3621,500
554,600
330,400
$ 8 0 247 97 5
$8.2$,5,1175
,1111191082 e 975
$8 4,985 1,, 200
Schedule 8
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Comparison of Estimated Tax Rate Requirements
Financing Alternatives 1 - 4
1987 - 2006
Tax
Equalized Assessed
Financing
Financing
Financing
Financing
Lev ,X
Valuation (1
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
1986532.780000
j=
11
=161gigi
111,11,111a 7
11.7
11.7
1987
54897639000
15e6
13e80
14.1�
11*7�
1988
565,2269000
14.0
12*3
13o1
11.3
1989
58291839000
13*5
11*7
12.5
1100
1990
599,6499000
1009
993
1001
10.7
1991
61796389000
10e5
8*9
9.7
10e4
1992
63691679000
909
894
9*2
1001
1993
655,252,000
9.3
7*9
8e6
9,08
1994
67499109000
6e6
5.2
5,o9
8.0
1995
695,157,000
3e4
5*2
2e7
4*8
1996
716,0121000
3e3
5,a1
2e6
4,6
1997
737,492,000
3e2
4.9
295
495
1998
759,617,000
3*1
4*8
2e5
4*3
1999
782,405,000
3.0
4*6
2.4
4e2
2000
805,8784000
2.9
4*5
2e3
4*1
2001
8309054,000
298
4.4
293
4e0
2002
854,955,000
2e7
492
6.5
3.9
2003
880,604,000
2.7
4.1
693
3*8
2004
9079022,000
2.6
4,0
6*1
3.6
2005
934,233,000
2*6
3e9
5e9
3*5
2006
962,250,00n
2,5
3o8
5,8
3,4
t 1 ) Assumes 30/0 Annual Growth
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Debt Capacity
Existing Debt and Proposed Public Works Issue
July 1, 1987
General Obligation Debt 4/30/87:
Corporate Purpose 1973
Corporate Purpose 1974
Insurance Reserve
Downtown Redevelopment
Communications Equipment
Total G. 0. Debt 4/30/87
Cash in Debt Service Funds 4/30/87
Net G. 0. Debt 4/30/87
Public Works Debt Issue 7/1/87
Net G. 0. Debt 7/1/87
Net G. 0. Debt Per Capita
Ratio of Debt to E `
Ratio of Debt Service Expenditures
to General Operating Expenditures
(Fiscal Year 88/89 Estimated)
k
$158.16
1 a 5E o
6e24°0"
Public Works Bond Issue:
1987 Tax Levy
1988 Tax Levy
1989 Tax Levy
1990 Tax Levy
1991 Tax Levy
Schedule 10
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Debt Service Costs
Residential Property - $209000 EAV
1987 - 1991
Opt 'ion 1
qption 2
so
.92tion 3
Oetion 4
$18080
$15.40
$15,980
$11-900
13.40
10000
11 v,60
8600
13.00
9*60
11.20
8e40
12e60
9*40
11,000
12,00
12e20
9000
10.60
12*00
Total G. 0. Debt Service:
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
1986
Tax Levy
'23.4
Z 3. 40
$23*40
j23*40
1987
Tax Levy
$31 *20
$27.60
$28,20
$ 23. 401
Water Rate
8, .5
M, B 50"
0
8*50
Bit 5 a
$39*70'
$ 3 6, 10
$36*70
U31 *, 9w. 0
1988
Tax Levy
$28.00
$24.60
2 6. 2, 0
$22o6O,
Water Rate
o%
8, .50
8.50
B.,50:
T36 05 0
T,3,30 * 10
T34,o70
$ 31 * 1 o
1989
Tax Levy
$26.60,
$23.40
$,25*00
$22*00,
Water Rate
8*50
8,* 50
Bo -50
B. 5,0
35.10
$31.90
T313. 5 0
$30 * 50
1990
Tax Levy
$21. 80
$18 * 60
$20.20
$211*40
Water Rate
8*50
Bo50
8.50
8. 5,0
7.10
$2,8,,,,7o
1991
Tax Levy
$21.00
$17.8 0
$19*40
$"20,*, 30
Water Rate
, * 50,
8,* 5,0
8.505
0
2`.5 0
J $26*3
x'.90
$28 80