|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2006 12:59:56 GMT -6
gumby, I have no problem so far.... It is an open forum...if one wished a response from a specific individual, one should have used the PM.... now I actually thought dpc brought up a good question/concern; one I was also considering asking. Some of the responses were a bit testy. Granted that may be due to past postings by dpc. I agree we sould let the process move forward. Normally I would agree on the second guessing, but, the current track record of the SD/SB, while improving, is IMHO less than stellar. So in that climate the SB/SD does and will have a few extra hoops to go thru. Accountability is good. I agree that they should be on a short leash. I just think that at some level we need to let them do their job and not automatically assume/imply some type of underhanded behavior. I agree with you, but right now it seems your level of trust is higher than mine. Don't down too hard on dpc for the SOX thing...that was really the first time I even heard about it, and I am sure I am not alone. |
|
|
|
Post by oldprof on Jun 19, 2006 13:09:11 GMT -6
Yes, it is worth a good laugh! The CFAC had checked this out quite carefully. I posted on this site that the impact of the borrowing on rates would be very small. The estimates by us and by the administration were always conservative -- intended to be honest and not lowballing the borrowing costs. Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that they are issuing bonds when they haven't secured the land? What will the $61M be used for? How much interest expense will accrue on the bonds until the money is put to use? oldprof - do you know what the scoop is on this? dpc -- The process of issuing the bonds will take place throughout this year. There is also the need to restructure some of the existing bonds. The bond advisors believe that it is best to do this over a period of time, rather than in a single proposal. They like the idea of getting an average rate over time, not hitting the market all at once, and having the last bonds carry a 2027 maturity. It is a carefully thought-out plan. The SD has an advisory firm as well as bond legal counsel to help with technical topics like this. The law on timing is that there must be a reasonable expectation that the funds will be used within three years. Everyone involved in the process shares that reasonable expectation. This is designed to give some flexibility to the borrowers. As to the cost -- everyone who commented is right, in a way. The District invests any funds using an outside firm and strictly safe, short-term instruments. Periodic review of this process was one of the CFAC recommendations. Because the yield curve is so flat, and because we are issuing bonds that are free of federal taxes, we will actually make more on the invested funds than we spend in interest on the bonds. The Federal government wants to limit what might become an abuse of the federal tax exemption. (A decision to tax state and local bonds would raise constitutional questions). As a result, there is a special "tax exempt" office that checks to make sure that local governmental units are not trying to raise revenue through arbitrage activity. We may need to do some reporting in three years, or when all of the funds have been used. As long as everything is spent appropriately, it should not be an issue. The worst case scenario is that we would lose some of the 'extra' interest. In short, and it is sometimes hard to give a good answer briefly, there should be no additional cost linked to doing some of the borrowing right now. It makes sense for flexibility. It is legal. |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Jun 19, 2006 13:19:31 GMT -6
We stick them in the windowless office with bad AC.  Ha, just like our company! |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 19, 2006 13:47:14 GMT -6
Thanks for that explanation oldprof.
It helps us non-financially savvy types.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Jun 19, 2006 14:23:52 GMT -6
Does anyone find it odd that auditors are not involved? I woud hate to see the SB members spending money on ice sculptures peeing champagne.
|
|
|
|
Post by dpc on Jun 19, 2006 16:20:57 GMT -6
Oldprof - thanks for the update. Nice to hear it from someone directly involved in the process. Moderators - I implore you...please DO NOT ban gumby from this board. His/her postings are very enlightening to many of us on this board  |
|
|
|
Post by anteater on Jun 20, 2006 9:50:05 GMT -6
Does anyone find it odd that auditors are not involved? I woud hate to see the SB members spending money on ice sculptures peeing champagne. I believe the auditors WILL be involved when they conduct their annual audit of district finances. If they are involved and providing advice during the process, then they are more in the role of consultant rather than auditor. (See the previous posts regarding the Enron mess and the resulting Sarbanes-Oxley requirements.) |
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Jun 20, 2006 10:47:09 GMT -6
Does anyone find it odd that auditors are not involved? I woud hate to see the SB members spending money on ice sculptures peeing champagne. I believe the auditors WILL be involved when they conduct their annual audit of district finances. If they are involved and providing advice during the process, then they are more in the role of consultant rather than auditor. (See the previous posts regarding the Enron mess and the resulting Sarbanes-Oxley requirements.) I was being at least somewhat facetious with my comment, since our auditor friend here seems to hold himself in such high regard. I, personally, am not too concerned about wrongdoing along the likes of Enron. Although, seriously, we could all use a birthday party at times like Ken Lay's wife. I don't know about the peeing ice sculpture thing, but some of the other things sounded very nice. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 20, 2006 10:58:37 GMT -6
The birthday party champagne peeing sculpture was the Tyco exec, I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Jun 20, 2006 12:52:43 GMT -6
Oops. Sorry. That was a Kozlowski thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 11:02:22 GMT -6
Email just sent out by the district: The Board of Education approved the sale of $60.75 million in bonds that will be used to construct the district's new high school. Dave Holm, Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance, said the district received a lower interest rate than projected, which translates to a savings for the taxpayers. "The district is borrowing money at a lower interest rate on its loan. We projected 5 percent, but we were able to get a 4.55 percent interest rate." Holm said the lower rate translates to a significant savings over the loan's term. The district was able to secure a lower rate due to the strong financial rating the district received from Moody's Investors Service and Standard and Poor's. This is the first of several bond sales that will be used to fund construction approved through the $124.6 million referendum passed in March. If the district continues to be able to secure lower interest rates it may not be necessary to sell the entire $124.6 million in bonds. OK here is what I was asking about yesterday. How many bonds have been sold and is the $8M bond premium just on this first issuance or the ENTIRE 124.6M? Here's the thing - they many be able to legally sell more bond premiums if/when MV comes in over the "new" higher budget. |
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 11:06:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by d204mom on Apr 24, 2008 11:18:15 GMT -6
Why are the premiums not mentioned in the minutes? And why are we 6M short? Will we issue those with more premiums this summer? (55,750,000+62,300,000= $118,050,000; $6,610,000 short of $124,660,000) 06/11/07 - $55,750,000 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/Board_agenda_061107jb.pdfB. Resolution for Issue of $55,850,000 School Building Bonds – Dave Holm Administrative Recommendation: That the Board of Education adopt the Resolution providing for the issue of $55,850,000 General Obligation School Building Bonds, Series 2007A, of Community Unit School District Number 204, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, and for the levy of a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the principal and interest on said bonds, as presented. 06/12/06 www.ipsd.org/Uploads/Board_agenda_061206jb.pdfJ. Resolution for Issue of $62,330,000 School Building Bonds – Dave Holm Administrative Recommendation: That the Board of Education adopt the Resolution providing for the issue of $62,330,000 General Obligation School Building Bonds, Series 2006A, of Community Unit School District Number 204, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, and for the levy of direct annual tax sufficient to pay the principal and interest on said bonds, as presented. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 24, 2008 12:30:18 GMT -6
Email just sent out by the district: The Board of Education approved the sale of $60.75 million in bonds that will be used to construct the district's new high school. Dave Holm, Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance, said the district received a lower interest rate than projected, which translates to a savings for the taxpayers. "The district is borrowing money at a lower interest rate on its loan. We projected 5 percent, but we were able to get a 4.55 percent interest rate." Holm said the lower rate translates to a significant savings over the loan's term. The district was able to secure a lower rate due to the strong financial rating the district received from Moody's Investors Service and Standard and Poor's. This is the first of several bond sales that will be used to fund construction approved through the $124.6 million referendum passed in March. If the district continues to be able to secure lower interest rates it may not be necessary to sell the entire $124.6 million in bonds. OK here is what I was asking about yesterday. How many bonds have been sold and is the $8M bond premium just on this first issuance or the ENTIRE 124.6M? Here's the thing - they many be able to legally sell more bond premiums if/when MV comes in over the "new" higher budget. NO CAP on the bond amount |
|
