Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union County school board weighs limited-obligation bond after county declines November ballot
Summary
Board staff told members April 28 that county commissioners declined to place the district's proposed 2026 GO bond on the November ballot; staff presented a limited-obligation bond (LOB) as an alternative and will prepare a pros-and-cons cost comparison for the board.
Union County Board of Education members were told April 28 that county commissioners voted not to place the district's proposed 2026 general obligation (GO) bond on the November ballot, and staff outlined a limited-obligation bond (LOB) as an alternate financing option.
Ms. McSwain, speaking for district staff, said commissioners —— —they voted not to put our bond request on the ballot for November—— and described an LOB as a financing tool that —doesn't require the county to put it on a ballot for voter approval— but typically carries higher interest costs than a voter-approved GO bond.
The board heard that design work on planned projects is underway and that delaying a voter-approved GO bond to 2028 could raise overall project costs. District staff gave a rough estimate that deferring two years could increase project costs by roughly $10—million to $11—million, and offered a very approximate total range of about $160—million to $170—million under a 3% inflation assumption; staff emphasized these figures are preliminary estimates.
Staff explained how an LOB would be repaid: the county would need to provide the cash from its debt fund, adjust tax rates, or otherwise identify financing to make debt payments. "It can be issued at any time," staff said of an LOB, "but the interest rates are a little higher on a limited obligation bond."
Board members asked that staff prepare a side-by-side pros-and-cons comparison that outlines: projected costs if a GO bond were placed on the November ballot; estimated cost escalation if the board deferred to 2028; and high-level interest-rate and cost estimates for pursuing an LOB. Staff said they had not yet discussed the LOB option with the county and would need direction from the board to pursue further action or formal requests to commissioners.
Next steps: staff will prepare the requested comparison and additional details on timelines and likely financing implications; the board did not take any formal action on the bond at the April 28 meeting.
