Illinois Compiled Statutes
30 ILCS 350/11 (2026)
Refundings and redemption premiums
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(30 ILCS 350/11)
(from Ch. 17, par. 6911)
Sec. 11.
Refundings and redemption premiums.
Bonds may be refunded
or advance refunded upon such terms as the governing body may set in accordance
with this Act, for such term of years, not in excess of the maximum term of
years permitted by applicable law for the bonds to be refunded, and in such
principal amount, all as may be deemed necessary by the governing body.
Revenue bonds may be issued to refund general
obligation bonds or alternate
bonds issued under this Act. General obligation bonds shall not be issued to
refund revenue bonds or alternate bonds except as expressly permitted by
applicable law. Any redemption premium payable upon the redemption of
bonds may be payable from the proceeds of refunding bonds which may be
issued for the purpose of refunding such bonds, from any other lawfully
available source or from both proceeds and such other sources.
(Source: P.A. 90-306, eff. 8-1-97.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2002–2003 · leading case: City of Chicago Ex Rel. Scachitti v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 772 N.E.2d 906 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
City of Chicago Ex Rel. Scachitti v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 772 N.E.2d 906 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “6911; see 30 ILCS 350/11 (West 2000). This authorization was granted in light of findings by the General Assembly that inconsistent and outdated provisions of Illinois law resulted in additional costs for the citizens of the State of Illinois residing in local governmental units…”
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. People ex rel. Coffman, 788 N.E.2d 364 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Plaintiff argues that the use of general obligation bonds to refund the 1989 and 1998 alternate bonds violates section 11 of the Debt Reform Act (30 ILCS 350/11 (West 2000)). Section 11 states that “[gjeneral obligation bonds shall not be issued to refund revenue bonds or…”
City of Chicago ex rel. Scachitti v. Prudential Sec., Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “17, ¶ 6911; see 30 ILCS 350/11 (West 2000). This authorization was granted in light of findings by the General Assembly that inconsistent and outdated provisions of Illinois law resulted in additional costs for the citizens of the State of Illinois residing in local governmental…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|