Tri-Creek School Corporation holds public hearing on proposed facility projects and potential $19 million bond authorization

Tri-Creek School Corporation leaders presented a list of proposed 2025 facility projects and discussed potential financing that could authorize up to $19 million in general-obligation bonds, officials said at a public hearing. No resolutions were adopted at the meeting; the board will consider formal parameter resolutions at a subsequent meeting.

The presentation outlined why the district is advancing the facility plan now and what would be included in the proposed issuance. "This is just the first step in the legal process and no resolutions are being passed tonight," said Luke Grama, a bond underwriter with Stifel. A district staff member who led the facilities overview said the hearing is intended to inform the public about the proposed projects and the financing options available under current law.

District officials said the facility plan groups short- and long-term needs scheduled over roughly 15–20 years and was initially based on a Skillman study. The list of proposed work includes roof replacements at multiple buildings (many original to 1995, staff said), pavement repairs including parent drop-off and secondary lots at three sites, bus replacements and transportation equipment, device and network replacements, security cameras and door access upgrades, maintenance and custodial equipment replacement, decommissioning and repurposing the district's old pool into a flexible PE/gymnastics space, and consolidating the maintenance warehouse with the transportation center to improve operational efficiency.

A district staff member said some roof work has occurred in recent years — for example, extensive valley repairs at Oak Hill in 2018 — but that multiple roofs are at or beyond a 20-year lifecycle and are candidates for replacement. Officials said the district plans to replace about four to five buses a year as part of the plan; bus deliveries have lagged and vehicles are taking about two years to arrive, with current unit costs around $150,000 to $175,000 each.

On financing, Grama presented high-level parameter figures the board was asked to review in advance of formal action. He said the board is being asked to authorize up to $19,000,000 in maximum par amount, with an estimated $500,000 for total professional fees (which will vary by issuance strategy). Grama said estimated interest-rate scenarios run roughly 3%–7% and that the presentation used a 5% assumption for planning purposes, which yielded an illustrative net-proceeds figure of about $16.7 million. He also said the maximum statutory term for each series is 20 years under Indiana law.

"You certainly would not have to do that. We're authorizing up to $19,000,000 just like we're doing with the 25 GO bonds," Grama said, explaining the district could split borrowing into multiple series to avoid paying interest on funds not immediately needed. He added that the district previously authorized $5 million in 2025 GO bonds and sold $2.5 million in the prior fall, with the remaining $2.5 million to be issued this year.

Board legal counsel Thomas Peterson said the board's authorization would preserve the district's planned path for funding long-term projects and would allow issuance when funds are needed. "Tomorrow is when you'll consider both the 10/28 resolution, which is the one that sets the parameters for what the project is, and then the preliminary determination resolution, which is the one that sets out these numbers for consideration," Peterson said.

Peterson and district staff explained why the board was asked to act now on authorization parameters: recent state legislation — identified in the presentation as Senate Enrolled Act 1 — and current provisions of Indiana code limit the district’s ability to pre-fund or accumulate levy cash for large capital projects. The staff member said if the board does not authorize projects before July 1, 2025, the district could face constraints on future bond issuances because it lacks capacity to accumulate levy cash; the staff member said the district typically uses about 87%–95% of its levy for operations.

The presentation included several project-specific details: the district plans to decommission an older pool and repurpose the space for physical education and gymnastics, with LED lighting and HVAC changes; a new natatorium is scheduled for commissioning in August 2026; the transportation center has surplus solar production that could offset energy costs at a consolidated maintenance/transportation site; the maintenance warehouse building dates to 1976 and has cracking concrete that staff said warrants consolidation. Staff said parking and parent-traffic flow around the 3 Creeks site would be evaluated as part of consolidation and site changes.

After the presentation, the board opened a public hearing and invited comment; no members of the public spoke. The board approved a motion earlier in the meeting to publish the hearing notice and closed the hearing after no public comments were offered. Several routine consent items and personnel matters were approved during the meeting.

Discussion vs. decision: the meeting recorded only informational presentations and procedural votes (for example, approval to publish the hearing notice and routine consent items). No bond resolutions, no final bond sale approvals and no contract awards related to the proposed projects were passed at this meeting. District officials and their consultants said they plan to bring formal parameter and preliminary-determination resolutions for board consideration at the next meeting.

Documents and figures presented at the hearing that the board will formalize at a later date included maximum annual payment scenarios, debt-service levy projections, and ratios of direct and overlapping debt to assessed value. Grama emphasized the presented $7,000,000 figure was a maximum annual-payment cap used for legal parameters and not a projection of a fixed annual payment over the life of bonds.

The board meeting record shows the public hearing opened and closed with no public comment; the board did not adopt financing resolutions at this session. The board is expected to consider formal resolutions setting maximum parameters for one or more series of bonds at the next meeting.