Board hears ECLC staffing plan and bond update as community raises cost and site questions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Trustees received HR and financing updates on a proposed new Early Childhood Learning Center (opening planned 2027), including principal hiring and operating subsidies; CFO reported a pending bond‑validation challenge in DeKalb County Superior Court while financial advisers outlined funding options and ratings.
Board members on Dec. 9 reviewed staffing, regulatory and financing details for a proposed new Early Childhood Learning Center (ECLC) and heard public comments both supporting expanded early‑learning access and urging deeper cost and feasibility analysis.
Human Resources staff described the principal recruitment timeline (vacancy posted in November; interviews scheduled; finalist to be announced in January) and detailed the multiple regulatory staffing ratios that drive operating costs. Human Resources noted the district already budgets a local subsidy to support early childhood operations at existing sites and said FY‑27/28 operational projections will be presented in future budget discussions.
Chief Financial Officer Dr. Broom reported that an objection to the Decatur Public Facilities Authority (PFA) bond validation has been filed in the Superior Court of DeKalb County; hearings were held in November and the judge requested proposed orders, with parties awaiting the ruling. "An objection was filed against the bond validation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County," he said, summarizing the legal posture and appeal window.
Davenport & Company financial adviser Doug Gephardt presented market context and alternatives for financing, explaining the tradeoffs between a PFA intergovernmental revenue bond (which carries validation and offers lower interest rates) and options such as certificates of participation (COPS) or a bank loan (which may be faster but often costlier over time). He noted recent credit‑rating affirmations (S&P AA+, Moody’s upgrade to AA1) and illustrated that a COPS or bank loan could add modest basis‑point costs over a public sale.
In public comment, residents praised the goal of expanding early learning access but criticized the project's current price and design and urged the board to publish comparative feasibility and cost analyses (including a renovation alternative for an existing Solsheim site), transparent operating‑cost trade‑offs and clear reporting on what budget items would be reduced to support an ongoing local subsidy. Board members directed staff to continue budget presentations in March 2026 and to include operational projections and financing scenarios in future budget discussions.
The board did not take a funding vote at this meeting; staff told trustees additional financial analyses and an updated operating‑cost projection will be returned in later budget work sessions.