Why Glen Ellyn Park District tax bills will drop
Glen Ellyn Park District will pay off tax-backed loans as scheduled next year, instead of seeking voter approval to extend the life of the debt to fund upgrades to its facilities.
Commissioners decided to allow the loans to come off the books as originally planned, paving the way for decreases on property tax bills to the district.
The debt financed most of the construction costs for the Ackerman Sports & Fitness Center off St. Charles Road. In 2006, voters approved the district's plan to borrow $11.9 million to build Ackerman, acquire land and renovate the Main Street Recreation Center.
About $7.9 million of that was set aside for Ackerman. But the board at the time took out additional loans to pay for more amenities and expand the scope of the project. That pushed Ackerman's price tag to roughly $11.2 million.
The board recently agreed to make the final interest and principal payments - due in June and December 2017, respectively - on the voter-approved Ackerman debt.
As a result, the owner of a $400,000 house is slated to pay an estimated $546.61 in total property taxes to the district on 2016 bills that are due next year. Of that, the cost of the Ackerman debt payments for the homeowner would decrease by about $40 to $113.39.
That owner also should pay a total of $428 on bills due in 2018, when taxpayers will no longer cover the cost of Ackerman bonds.
"I'm very proud of that and very proud of our board for holding the line," board President Jay Kinzler said of the decreases.
Earlier this year, the district's financial planners prepared two models for extending the debt to give the board "an idea on the potential impact of a new referendum," said Nick Cinquegrani, superintendent of finance and personnel. The board ultimately would get the final say in how to structure and repay the bonds.
One concept would have generated about $5 million, while a more recent proposal would have raised roughly $6 million and extended repayments to 2023 (or the 2022 tax bills), Cinquegrani said.
Regardless, doing so would have required the district to put a question on the ballot.
If voters had approved, the borrowing plan would not have increased property taxes to the district, but taxpayers also would not have seen their bills drop as much with the retirement of the debt.
At the time, the district took an initial look at a list of projects that could be funded by the money. Those included renovations at Sunset Pool and acquiring land to address "park deserts."
Instead, the district is expected to develop a long-term blueprint to replace aging playgrounds in addition to making improvements to the pool on Fairview Avenue, Ackerman Park and athletic fields, among other sites. Without the voter-approved bonds, "it will just take a longer period of time to complete them," Cinquegrani said.
In recent years, the district has used operational surpluses for capital projects. The district's operations last year generated a roughly $1.2 million surplus, far above the board and finance's committee target of $800,000.
An expected surplus in the 2016 fiscal year, Cinquegrani said, also "will far exceed" that benchmark.