Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears bond structure, tax‑rate plan and schedule for two projects
Summary
Financial adviser and bond counsel told the trustees they plan to structure two separate projects (building improvements and athletic/site work) to keep the district's historical total tax rate near 0.5787 and outlined public‑hearing and resolution dates in March and April.
Brown County School Trustees received a detailed explanation of how the district might finance two proposed projects — a buildings/infrastructure package and a separate athletic‑site package — and how the financing could be structured to maintain the district’s historical total tax rate.
A financial adviser from Siegel (speaker 12) reviewed the school corporation’s current debt payments and said the advisers planned to structure borrowing to keep the total tax rate at or near 0.5787. He presented preliminary estimates for a site project with hard and soft construction costs at about $6,050,000 plus issuance costs of $165,000 (total about $6,215,000) and noted building‑project estimates around $6,000,000, with flexibility to reduce borrowing if design and bids come in lower.
Kristen McCallum of Ice Miller (speaker 15), the school’s bond counsel, walked the board through the legal timetable and required steps for lease‑financing and the public process: notices published Feb. 19, a public hearing on March 3 for project resolutions, adoption of lease/financing resolutions March 17, and final 30‑day notices and hearings in April (April 21) before any issuance. McCallum emphasized adopting project maxima in March does not force the district to issue bonds; the board keeps discretion up to the point of sale.
Advisers also discussed a potential refunding of outstanding 2014 bonds (roughly $3.7 million outstanding) that could yield modest cash‑flow savings if market rates fall by the advisers’ minimum savings threshold. Board members asked whether interest‑rate or legislative changes could alter tax‑rate outcomes; advisers said interest‑rate volatility and possible state law changes affecting assessed value or referendum timing present uncertainties but that the proposed structure aims to preserve capacity for future capital needs.
No resolutions were adopted at the meeting; the board will revisit the projects and consider resolutions at the scheduled hearings beginning March 3.
