Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonds And Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lexington 1 board authorizes up to $37 million in general obligation bonds, approves 8% capital project list
Summary
The Lexington County School District One Board of Trustees authorized the sale of General Obligation Bond Series 2025B up to $37 million and approved a district capital project list funded from the 8% bond proceeds, after debate about tax impacts and project priorities.
Get email alerts on the Bonds And Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lexington County School District One Board of Trustees on Aug. 19 authorized the sale of General Obligation Bond Series 2025B in an amount not to exceed $37,000,000 and approved the related 8% capital project list, which includes $30 million for new capital projects and about $22.8 million of other identified upcoming needs.
Board members debated the size and timing of the sale at length, focusing on tax impacts, project urgency and project prioritization. Some trustees expressed concern about the scale of the bond relative to prior years and the effect on taxpayers; others said the district’s rising assessed values make more capital available without raising the millage rate.
Supporters, including Chief Financial Officer Miss Miller and district staff, said the authorization is routine for the district’s capital program and that the sale covers both new money for projects and debt service on prior installment-purchase obligations. Bond counsel and the district’s financial adviser were present for the discussion. Mike Gallagher of Compass Municipal Advisors explained that the $37 million package includes roughly $30 million in new capital, about $2.4 million and $3.1 million to service two series of prior installment purchase revenue bonds, and a small additional authorization for a later issuance.
Opponents questioned whether the board was moving too quickly to commit large sums without waiting for the facility study to be finalized. Trustee Floschnick said she could not support “a 44% tax increase” as she characterized the change from last year’s bonding level, and asked for more clarity on homeowner and business tax impacts. Bond counsel and staff explained that South Carolina rollback law limits operating millage but does not restrict debt millage; the county auditor uses the district’s debt service requirements to compute mills needed to pay bonds. Staff noted the county’s local-option sales tax credit and property-assessed growth caps affect the final homeowner impact.
The board also reviewed a proposed project budget for the 8% bond proceeds. The administration’s list of "must do" projects totaled $30,000,000 across several categories: approximately $9.8 million for information technology (including interactive classroom panels and other classroom-technology refreshes), $17.3 million for operational and facilities needs (including roofing and HVAC work), $1.5 million for safety projects, $300,000 for transportation equipment and $100,000 for athletics (field and turf work). Administration also presented an additional $22.8 million list of known deferred-maintenance needs not included in the $30 million "must do" list.
During debate, district staff said many projects are time-sensitive: roofing and rooftop HVAC units often require parallel work and ordering and design must begin promptly to meet construction lead times. The board approved the project list but was reminded that future adjustments to the list are possible and any new projects would return to the board for approval.
The motions passed by voice vote. The board directed staff to proceed with the bond sale process, bring regular updates on project planning and procurement, and return with progress reports later in the fiscal year.

