Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Bond Issuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Financial advisers outline timeline, options for up to $15 million bond for field‑house project
Summary
Raymond James and PFM updated the Schuylkill Valley board on interest‑rate outlook, a possible $15 million borrowing and a sample timeline if the district seeks bond proceeds this fall; advisers recommended waiting for bids but passing a parameters resolution in September to speed later issuance if needed.
Financial advisers for Schuylkill Valley School District told the Committee of the Whole on June 24 they expect the district could be ready to issue bonds for the field‑house project within six to nine months and that current market rates would likely place borrowing in the low‑ to mid‑4 percent range if executed immediately.
Lauren Stadel, managing director at Raymond James and Associates, said the district’s project has moved “a little bit further down the path” and that advisers updated an analysis for a scenario of up to $15,000,000 in borrowing. Stadel said interest rates during the meeting were “hanging in this trading range” and that, while global events sometimes push rates, she did not see an immediate market reason to accelerate or delay issuance.
Zachary Williard of PFM Financial Advisors said the district’s prior 2020 borrowing left a drop in debt service in later years that creates an opportunity to add new debt without a large budget spike. Williard and Stadel both recommended the district wait until construction bids are received so the borrowing amount is calibrated to actual project costs, but to consider passing a parameters (debt) resolution at the board’s September meeting so the district can accelerate issuance quickly if market conditions become favorable.
Advisers explained capitalized interest (borrowing to cover debt service during an initial period) as an option the district could use to avoid out‑of‑pocket debt service for the first two fiscal years of a new issue. Stadel estimated a bond sale executed at the meeting’s pricing would likely result in rates in the high‑3 to low‑4 percent range, and she recommended building an interest‑rate contingency into the financing plan.
A sample timeline presented by the advisers starts with a September parameters resolution, a credit‑rating and document preparation phase in October, marketing/pricing in early November and settlement about 30 days later, putting funds in the district’s account in December under the sample schedule.
Advisers said the district should plan the borrowing around bid results and the district’s final project budget; if bids come in under budget, the district can adjust borrowing downward. They also said they have priced multiple recent transactions and remain able to access the municipal market if the board chooses to proceed.
