Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Bonding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board authorizes pursuit of up to $100 million refunding bond and $25 million tech bond
Summary
Trustees approved resolutions to pursue refunding up to $100 million in Measure E general obligation bonds and to issue a $25 million short‑term technology bond (Measure N Series A). Staff projected roughly $3.8–5 million in savings and said refinancing fees will be paid from bond proceeds.
At its April 16 meeting, the East Side Union High School District board voted to authorize staff to pursue refinancing previously issued Measure E bonds and to issue a short‑term general obligation bond to finance technology projects.
Staff presented Resolution 2025/2026‑28 to authorize refunding general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $100 million to refinance three prior series issued under Measure E (2015 refunding bonds, 2016 refunding bonds Series B and the 2008 Measure E series). Joe Crump of Dale Scott and Company summarized potential structures and said expected market outcomes could produce between about $3.8 million and $5 million in gross savings depending on how the refunding is structured. Chick Adams, bond counsel from Jones Hall, explained that underwriting and counsel fees—estimated in the vicinity of $200,000—would be paid from bond proceeds and that staff would monitor market conditions and could suspend issuance if refinancing did not make fiscal sense.
Trustees also considered Resolution 2025/2026‑29 to authorize a Series A general obligation issue under Measure N to finance technology projects, projected as a three‑year borrowing structured to match useful life and to carry relatively low interest cost. Board members asked about timing; staff indicated bonds would go to market likely in late May with a June close if approved to proceed.
After discussion, trustees moved and adopted both resolutions directing staff to proceed with necessary documents (preliminary official statement, bond purchase agreement and related documents). The board’s actions were approvals to pursue issuance and related agreements, not final bond pricing authority; issuances would proceed only if pricing and market conditions met district requirements.
The district did not commit general fund dollars to pay the fees; presenters said those costs are paid from bond proceeds. The board directed staff to keep trustees informed of market developments prior to marketing and sale.
