Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cash Flow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elmbrook board approves short‑term borrowing strategy; chooses TowneBank option after close debate
Summary
Facing a seasonal cash shortfall, the board debated three borrowing options and voted 5–2 to proceed with a TowneBank line/taxable line approach for a $10.5 million cash‑flow bridge; members raised questions about cost methodology and whether to borrow only what’s needed.
Elmbrook School District trustees voted 5–2 to pursue a short‑term cash‑flow borrowing plan through TowneBank after hearing presentations from two municipal‑finance vendors and district staff.
Finance staff said the school year’s timing of state aid and property‑tax receipts leaves a liquidity gap in the fall and winter months and that a bridge borrowing of up to $10.5 million would cover payroll and other operating needs until tax receipts arrive. Administration presented three options: a taxable line of credit from TowneBank that allows repeated borrowing and repayment, a tax‑exempt borrowing (full amount drawn) from TowneBank, and a pooled tax‑exempt borrowing through PMA’s PLAN program.
Mary Lou Sherpke of TowneBank explained the taxable line option and estimated a total interest and fees scenario (presentation figures included an illustrative $71,597 in certain fee/interest calculations and a separate full‑draw taxable cost scenario of roughly $110,744 depending on assumptions). Brett Wheaton of PMA presented the PLAN alternative with an estimated interest cost in the $119,000 range (inclusive of issuance and program fees) and described the rating/pooled‑issuance process.
Board members extensively questioned the differing methodologies used to project investment earnings and net cost if the district borrowed and then invested unused proceeds; several members asked for apples‑to‑apples comparisons. Trustee Linda Boucher urged borrowing only what is needed and not taking a larger amount than required. Trustee Sam Hughes, who ultimately moved the TowneBank motion, said the board should be candid about the investment upside of the district’s earlier transfer into Fund 46 and that the move still represented sound long‑term fiscal policy.
After debate the board voted by roll call (Sam Hughes, Mary Wacker, Preetha Crudiarra, Jean Lambert and Scott Wheeler voted yes; Kathy Lim and Linda Boucher voted no) to proceed with the TowneBank option and to direct administration to prepare the statutory parameters resolution needed for execution. Administration said timing requires an expedited calendar (parameters/resolution to be prepared for the next available meeting so the district can meet the pooled‑program deadlines if it pursues PLAN, or finalize TowneBank paperwork if pursuing the local option).
Board members said they expect more precise fee and investment projections to be documented in the resolution and closing documents before funds are drawn. The vote authorizes the administrative path and parameters work; the exact product (taxable line vs full‑draw taxable note) and final pricing will be set in the subsequent contracting steps.
The board emphasized that the cash‑flow decision follows an earlier move to transfer $6.5 million into Fund 46 to maximize state aid and investment earnings; administration reported that the Fund 46 balance earned roughly $35,000 in additional interest in August under the revised approach. Vendors warned that market movement (Federal Reserve rate decisions) could change borrowing and investment rates between the presentation and closing.
