Point of clarification on the referendum language:
We voted to authorize the sale of bonds for a certain amount and we voted that those proceeds only go to the 3rd high school (land, build and equip)
It did not set a MAX on the complete price of the school. It only set an amount of bonds to sell.
This is a very interesting point which i would like the school board & district to explain to the voters ... who most (i would guess) thought the school COST $124.66 M! (??) Silly me... I did.. and i thought $124.66 was a lot!
Are you saying that we need to discuss with our financial advisers school referenda before we can even begin to know how vote on them- awfully complicated.. and a dangerous pathway to go down for future construction and operating referenda!
I wonder if Dr. D would even understand the referendum:
from Eagle Dad's fantastic explanation on "Bond Premiums Being Used to Issue More Bonds":
ipsd204.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=newhighschool&action=display&thread=1200688939&page=1......"The information about the bond premiums definitely did not come from our chief executive officer of the district, the newly arrived Dr. Daeschner. When I asked Steve Daeschner about it,
he said the additional 8.2 Million was from “interest and stuff”. I later expressed to a few board members my discomfort that our newly recruited leader (who is being paid a quarter million dollars a year, and will receive a lifetime 2nd retirement for serving us for a total of 3 years)
could not sufficiently explain the sudden appearance of 8.2 Million dollars. I was told that different superintendents are better at different things.
Apparently Howie Crouse was very strong at Budget, Finance, and Building (which is why he was perceived to be driving a lot of it). According to that feedback, Dr Daeschner is not interested in these topics and
prefers to delegate them to others. Dr. Daeschner is said to be very strong at curriculum, learning strategy and, reporting data,
so he won’t be able to answer questions on finance. " ---------
If all this school bond issuance stuff is so complicated, how can we,
as ordinary voters, know what's going on. Very few of us can possibly know all this MINUTIAE regarding schools and financing.
The points that seemed to be stressed by the SD & SB about the referendum was that
boundaries and school location COULD BE CHANGED, and that
part of our tax bill would, actually, being
going down .
So, if we had hit the 'jackpot' in timing in bond refinancing and issuing.. the school could have actually cost $200M, $300M,...
For lack of a better way to say it.... i think we are
'subpriming' ourselves for the future!
PS i would like to see future referenda written in
8th grade language- maybe i will, totally, understand it! (& i have an MBA- took a couple finance & economics classes .. too bad they didn't have classes on Government Entity Financing!!)
