Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village reviews $14.5 million financing plan as debt levy would rise about $372K
Summary
At a special board workshop, municipal adviser Greg Johnson presented a preliminary financing plan that would finance roughly $14.5 million in 2024–25 capital projects mainly with general obligation debt, raising the debt service levy by about $372,000 next year and taking the village to roughly 46% of its GO debt limit.
Greg Johnson, Eller senior municipal adviser, told the Special Board of Trustees in a budget workshop presentation that the draft financing plan for 2024–25 would finance about $14.5 million in capital projects primarily with general obligation debt and estimated roughly $19.3 million in principal and interest over a 20-year term for the proposed notes. "All projects in this version of the plan are proposed to be financed with general obligation debt," Johnson said, and added the debt service levy would increase by about $372,000 from 2024 to 2025 and by approximately $376,000 from 2025 to 2026.
Johnson said the village would reach roughly 46% of its statutory general obligation debt limit with the proposed borrowing, leaving approximately $47.1 million of remaining GO capacity. He described utility-specific coverage metrics for water, sewer and stormwater and reported that revenue-debt covenants (for example, 1.25x for certain revenue debt) are being met in staff projections.
Trustees asked Johnson to clarify the village’s total outstanding debt and the timing of payments. Johnson said total outstanding indebtedness across instruments is about $87 million and that general obligation debt would be about $40.5 million under the proposal. He explained the 46% figure reflects two years of proposed projects and that, as current debt drops off in later years, the ratio would decline (to roughly 39% by 2026 in Johnson’s projection) if the board follows the projected borrowing cadence.
The board also discussed alternatives to GO debt for utility projects. Johnson described Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Fund loans administered jointly by the Department of Administration and the Department of Natural Resources; those loans are subsidized and can be structured either as GO debt or as revenue debt, and the latter can reduce the village’s GO debt calculation but typically requires meeting revenue-coverage covenants.
Trustees questioned timing for specific water projects tied to emerging contaminant (PFAS) treatment; staff said Well 3 has a pilot study under way and Wells 1 and 5 are likely candidates for treatment, and they may be taken offline until treatment is installed. The board also reviewed the capital improvement plan’s list of projects—streets, parks and business-park work—and the mix of funding (TIF, intergovernmental grants, levy and utility revenue pledges).
Next steps: staff will refine cost estimates and return with final budget materials for formal adoption during the budget process. No formal borrowing decision was taken at this meeting.
