Committee reviews planned ~$99 million bond issuance and warns of higher debt‑service line on tax notices

Putnam County finance staff and committee members discussed the timing, fees and tax effects of a planned bond issuance that would fund the next phase of school construction, and committee members asked that the district and school board communicate the tax impact to residents.

Jonathan (finance staff) told the oversight committee the district plans to seek another bond issuance of about $99,000,000 and work to have board-level documents in place ahead of an April 15 presentation to the school board. “With this next round of $99,000,000 for the bond,” Jonathan said during the meeting. He described a closing target in mid‑June and said the committee’s next meeting is scheduled for June 18 to align with the financing timeline.

Why it matters: A new bond issuance will finance additional construction phases and will appear on future property‑tax notices as increased debt service. Committee members said residents should be alerted well in advance so taxpayers can plan for higher proposed tax bills.

Finance and fees: Committee discussion covered past fees paid to the district’s financing advisor and bond‑related vendors. Jonathan reported accumulated interest earned on bond proceeds and related accounts of “just over $8,000,000” (quote as spoken during the meeting) and said the district shows roughly $60,000,001.94 remaining in bond funds on internal reports. He and other staff discussed anticipated underwriting and rating fees and said those costs will be lower than the initial issuance but remain a material line item.

Timeline and tax notice schedule: Staff discussed the operational schedule for issuing bonds and noted the practical deadlines for including debt service on the August proposed tax notices. Committee members warned that the debt‑service line item on the proposed tax notices could roughly double compared with the prior year’s notices once the new bonds are included, and they urged coordinated public communication. The group agreed to ask the school board to provide community notice ahead of the August mailing so residents see the change before tax bills are finalized.

Market and ratings: Staff said the district will work with rating agencies and expects the issuance to be marketable; rating costs were identified as a key variable. The committee agreed to invite representatives from the district’s financial advisors (PFM and the bond counsel team) to the June meeting for an update on expected interest rates and market conditions.

Votes at a glance: The meeting recorded two routine procedural motions. The minutes for the meeting were approved as presented (motion moved by an unnamed board member; second recorded by a committee member; vote recorded as 'Aye'). At the end of the session the committee approved adjournment by motion and second.

Ending: Committee members scheduled a follow‑up meeting for June 18 and asked staff to coordinate advisor attendance and to consider a public information email to the school board about the tax‑bill impact.