|
|
Post by rew on Mar 10, 2006 12:13:02 GMT -6
Arch, IIRC, the refi can only happen with a vote...that is why it is on the ballot??? That's why I frame it ITRP.... But I think it does matter what it costs ME, because the SD is saying the avg taxpayer will save $$ with the refi, but that includes addt'l homes coming and I'm asking what does it cost me worst case scenario - non new growth?? Because that's how I can make a cost/benefit analysis... ie. "ITRP and the area goes bust we have a refi that is going to cost the avg taxpayer...$180/yr additional taxes over 20 yrs." Then I can decide if that $$$ is worth the other risk...the growth comes and my kids go to SS/overcrowded etc. I think the number per household is important. It would be a good calculation to have, unfortunately I am without the last pieces to do the final math: 1) # of taxpayers (If you want the 'average taxpayer burden) or 2) EAV breakdown of homes in groupings w/ counts so we can actually see a better 'average cost to taxpayers' and also how much of a burden based on EAV of our homes, and apply our own math with our own home value to find out the real price. Arch , with IPSD can't we use their calculations and go backwards....notice I am desperately trying to get someone else to do the calculations???I really don't want to crunch this number...Topher??? Anyway lets say it does cost 60M more and there are 50,000 households in the SD and its over twenty years... Wouldn't that be 3M/50,000 = $60 per year per household??? I admit, my numbers may be crazy but..... |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 10, 2006 12:30:44 GMT -6
It would be a good calculation to have, unfortunately I am without the last pieces to do the final math: 1) # of taxpayers (If you want the 'average taxpayer burden) or 2) EAV breakdown of homes in groupings w/ counts so we can actually see a better 'average cost to taxpayers' and also how much of a burden based on EAV of our homes, and apply our own math with our own home value to find out the real price. Arch , with IPSD can't we use their calculations and go backwards....notice I am desperately trying to get someone else to do the calculations???I really don't want to crunch this number...Topher??? Anyway lets say it does cost 60M more and there are 50,000 households in the SD and its over twenty years... Wouldn't that be 3M/50,000 = $60 per year per household??? I admit, my numbers may be crazy but..... It's still $60 millionish more spending that COULD go towards teachers, curriculums, building upkeep, supplies, books, Special Ed programs, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 10, 2006 12:33:38 GMT -6
It was 'bursting of the bubble theory' not 'bursting of the bubble'. I think that is where the confusion may be. For it to not be a bubble, growth has to continue. If grows stops, I would predict the enrollment population will go down because of the implications that brings with it. Enrollment is sustained by turnover. There is no bubble. Only if the 1:1 ratio of kids is maintained each and every year of those leaving versus those entering. If the area values INCREASE such that only older 2 professional income couples can afford it, they statistically have FEWER kids per household. |
|
|
|
Post by forthekids on Mar 10, 2006 12:50:11 GMT -6
And quite frankly, I lived in a built out SD and they were "contracting" because of shrinking enrollment...and they leased out some buildings and consolidated and then six yrs later we're talking about bringing one of the ES buildings back on line because they were seeing regeneration in some area. What is the big tragedy in having some excess capacity? In that SD, a mature built out area...the developers were salivating over the buildings...private schools were in bidding wars for the schools. It was not a doomsday, it was no problem for the SD. Look at the Niles schools...they have an empty HS and the SD is thinking of selling, I believe it's Niles West??? and again the developers are tripping over themselves because it's near Old Orchard. What is the dilemma?  I went to Niles East and that was sold to Oakton Community College years ago and the theatre was used for professional shows. A great boon for the area in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 10, 2006 13:24:22 GMT -6
We will reach an equilibrium point, where we've built out and people moving in = people moving out. Look no further than next door in 203 for an example of that.
I also contend that due to our excellent schools, we are somewhat insulated from downturns in the economy. Excellent schools will continue to attract people with children.
Our schools are our competitive advantage over other suburbs. As long as we maintain that, we will continue to prosper.
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 11, 2006 11:04:57 GMT -6
Want a YES in a heartbeat? Have the SD refinance the existing debt for 12 years instead of 20 at the lower interest rate, THEN finance the new HS at the standard 20. That removes issue (1) above off the table and it makes (2) and (3) more livable in everyone else's mind. Then, those worried about building out too much at this time at put at ease on the district long term finances. For the last 8 years of paying for the new school, the current debt is at least gone and off the books. The zing (if enrollment goes down) won't hurt much. Also, if we're all wrong and NIU was right, the district will be in a MUCH BETTER SPOT later financially to do something YET AGAIN if it's ever needed. Put that in writing (12 yr refi, not 20) on the ballot, and I'll evangelize the YES vote like you've never seen.It's called planning and positioning for all 3 outcomes: 1) under, 2) over and 3) dead on. Arch, As usual, good questions on your part. I asked this AM at the coffee if they would consider this, and to my surprise they already had. They are not taking all current debt and refinancing to 20 years. Howie stated that not all debt was being re-structured, that it was only being done where it was "financially advantageous." Now I'm not clear on exactly what that means, but it sounds like they understand the folly of taking a bond that is 7 years from maturity and refinancing it to 20. They also reiterated that the bond issue may be staggered, and will only be for the actual costs incurred. If they don't need all of the $124.6 million, they simply will not issue those bonds. So does that help? If it does, we have a yard sign reserved for you  |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Mar 11, 2006 12:33:57 GMT -6
I'll throw in a couple of bumper stickers, some buttons, and a t-shirt. Anything for Arch! How was the attendance at today's coffee, I couldn't make it. |
|
|
|
Post by JB on Mar 11, 2006 13:53:37 GMT -6
I'll throw in a couple of bumper stickers, some buttons, and a t-shirt. Anything for Arch! How was the attendance at today's coffee, I couldn't make it. About 9 - 11 people, plus Howie, Kathy B, Bruce R, and Jeanette C. I'll start a new thread under meetings. When Arch comes over, he'll get a new thread too. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 11, 2006 14:13:55 GMT -6
JB, that is some great info. PLease give it it's own thread and I am going to pin it to the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 11, 2006 15:12:21 GMT -6
JB,
Awesome news.
Any indication on *HOW MUCH* is being refi'd? I have an old copy (somewhere) that listed out the different amounts, issues, etc from the state submitted 2004/2005 budget. I can back out the 7 year ones from the 272 million, but not sure what else gets left.
I can actually see the continental divide now.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 11, 2006 15:29:29 GMT -6
We need to hear from Oldprof on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Mar 11, 2006 15:43:27 GMT -6
JB, Awesome news. Any indication on *HOW MUCH* is being refi'd? I have an old copy (somewhere) that listed out the different amounts, issues, etc from the state submitted 2004/2005 budget. I can back out the 7 year ones from the 272 million, but not sure what else gets left. I can actually see the continental divide now. Arch, You should email Dave Holm with your question. Dave is pretty good about responding to emails. dave_holm@ipsd.org |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 11, 2006 15:44:58 GMT -6
Danke, sent.
|
|
