--- billconnors <noreply-comment@blogger.com> wrote:
---------------------------------
Managing growth is essential. But it would not be
prudent to constrain growth too much. The school
district's debt service for 2005-06 is $1.98 million.
In 2014-15, the school district's debt service will
exceed $3 million, even if no additional debt is
issued between now and then. In 2020-21, the last
year of payment on the bonds for the new high school,
the school district's debt service will exceed $4
million. The school district heavily back-loaded the
repayment schedule on the bonds for the new high
school, which means they are counting on large
increases in the school district's property tax base
through new construction to be able to pay for the
escalating debt service costs.
This appears to be prudent financial planning on the
part of the school district, but I wonder how many
people are aware that continued growth is essential to
keeping the school district's mill rate in line.
Of course, we could get away with fewer new houses in
the school district if we had more commercial or
industrial development or a greater proportion of the
new houses were larger and more expansive, and fewer
new houses would save on operating costs for the
school district.
Bill Connors
Evansville City Administrator
--
Posted by billconnors to Evansville Observer at
9/19/2005 10:20:06 AM
This is an interesting point. I had never heard that the bonds are "back-loaded" before. I would like to attend the meeting this evening, but I am not sure If I will be able to attend. One question I have is if the school board has any idea how long it will be before additional facilities are needed if the current growth rate continues?
ReplyDeleteWhat I have heard brought up by people in various meetings (off the record remarks) is that the school is in danger of outgrowing its current facilities in 7 years if the current growth trends continue. It appears that there needs to be a balance. While there is obvious benefit to growth given the structuring of the bonds, there is still danger of outgrowing the current facilites before the bonds are paid off.
Can anyone from the School Board (or anyone that has knowledge of what the Board has indicated) confirm whether there is any truth to this or if it is just a rumor?
Thank you Cueball and Bill for posting on last nights meeting. It was good to have City and School in the same room for this meeting.
ReplyDeleteYes, the 4% assumption was good to hear about, but there was a follow up question I was not fast enough to ask. Heidi had said that current facilities at the intermediate school looked good till 2015 and then some improvising could be done. My question would have been whether if all the homes that the developers have penciled in and the city has given its blessing on for the 10 year plan were done in 5 years, how would that effect the enrollment projections she has done. It was not clear from the brief discussion of enrollment projections what the BASIS of those enrollment projections was.
I think it would be nice to get the financial consultant from the City, Mr. Wagner, and the financial consultant from the school district as well as staff from both and do a power lunch where they could share the assumptions on the projections and make sure they all are on the same page.
I wonder if Heidi realizes that the 10 year target is here, and that with the builders being allowed to use offsets they can build all the homes now. That impacts enrollment.
Again, thanks to all who came to the meeting.
The Observer
Bill, you nailed it. Very good for-sight.
ReplyDelete