Aggie1205 said:

---

Quote:

---

But also, there's the psychological cost too to the kids. Does anyone even think about them? And, I would be heartbroken if I went back to my junior high school to learn everything about it's identity was wiped away. Wow! It's almost unimaginable that this was the school board's decision.

---

How many adults even remember what their middle school colors were? Or even care? Heartbroken over middle school identity?

---

I would guess that a whole lot more remember what they were than those that don't.

I think it's incredibly short sighted to dismiss the idea of doing a bond now even if there is capacity at Consol. That is assuming that a bond is inevitable over the next few years. Interest rates could be drastically higher even two or three years from now. The amount of money the taxpayers will save on interest makes it an idea worthy of consideration. Those bonds are usually set up on terms up to 30 years.

And how traumatized would you be if they changed?

Are we actually going to use the trauma with regard to colors and nicknames being removed from a school?

I cannot recollect offhand if the District uses fixed rate or variable rate bonds. However, I believe your use of the word "drastically" is a bit extreme when referring to rates. A lot could change over two years , including school finance reform, oh wait....

Seriously, by 2020 two of the bonds on the books reach maturity. You have a great fellow in the administration looking over the finances. Postponing additional debt enables the District to have solid financial footing in preparation for the eventual bonds that will be needed for Phase II (CSHS), additional ongoing maintenance for (18?) school buildings, and depending upon how quickly the buildouts at Creek Meadows, Castlegate II, etc (and the new developments) occur- - another elementary. Charter school enrollment notwithstanding.

First of all, I said that rates could be drastically higher. I didn't say they for certain would be. Also, if rates on long municipal debt right now are at 3.5% and three years from now they are at 6% or even 5%, I would call that drastically higher. If you know you are going to borrow the money anyway, it's prudent to try to do so on the best possible terms.

Okay, let's get distracted then by certainty, then as opposed to what could or could not be. The District itself has shown in their own presentation that the tax rate could be reduced as this debt comes off the rolls. This is a school district that is talking about saving money and that has already worked on refinancing their debt and timing their sale of bonds to save money.

All we hear about in the news is about 'don't throw money at schools because they waste it' and here you have a District trying to be financially prudent and yet has terrific schools. Are you trying to make people afraid or something?

Thank you for being a voice of reason! We need more people like you speaking up.

gb2074 said:

---

First of all, I said that rates could be drastically higher. I didn't say they for certain would be. Also, if rates on long municipal debt right now are at 3.5% and three years from now they are at 6% or even 5%, I would call that drastically higher. If you know you are going to borrow the money anyway, it's prudent to try to do so on the best possible terms.

---

This is correct and my prior point. It's also what most financial analysts would say. Of course these are all opinions (both sides). I sense the board is again simply being short-term on their thinking - and that's the approach of the prior post (it's not bad/wrong, it's just not thinking about the long-term implications of these decisions). Maybe you're a board member. Ha!

Interesting points about the Charter school.... Lots of uncertainty there and it would be wise to see what happens (the board members seem to think it won't have much affect). I'm not sure... but this is a community that seems to have a market (& the focus on International Leadership should be appealing the charter seems to have done their market research). I tend to disagree with one post about it likely having more affect on AMCHS - I know many families currently zoned for CSHS that have applied, and isn't it located within CSHS boundaries (I may be wrong as I don't know all the boundaries well). But will definitely be interesting to see what happens. Yes, it's k-8 but will add HS as the kids progress through. My family would have been interested in it (my kids are too old).

One question - does anyone know how they will staff? That is, do they recruit teachers from the community?

I'm not sure how much they (IL Texas) recruit locally, but if they pay well, I am sure they might get local applicants? When I received the flyer (who hasn't?), I thought they had some good things and not so good things going for them. One drawback was that some of their other campuses (for which I could find data) seemed to have a high percentage of teachers with less than five years experience. This may or may not be related to their practice of employing J-1 Visa holding instructors as part of their teacher exchange program "to promote cultural exchanges," etc. It's a nice soundbite, but I would want proof that there would be enough teachers with more experience mentoring the novices before I sent my student there.

As far as how much of an impact the charter will eventually have on the District as a whole, your guess is as good as mine. I think that relates to the other parts about being fiscally prudent- I get where you are coming from on locking in a good rate, but at the same time, I think that waiting a year or two to do that is not going to be as unsound as it's paying down on debt on the books and giving residents some relief, especially with the property values continuing to rise. I mean, if your taxes are frozen, it is no big deal, but you always know on this forum when the property tax bill is sent out. Residents have funded bond proposals numerous times over the last decade due to this being a fast growth district, but to have more than three years between bond elections would probably help instead of hurt the District when it comes to approaching residents with a proposal.

As a volunteer, I have worked with some of the employees in Administration. I think the folks they have in their financial area endeavor to serve the community and the District with best practices in mind. I don't normally call out people by name, but I have nothing but good things and praise for Deputy Superintendent Martindale (I believe he is one of the finance gurus over there) and while I don't believe that they explicitly stated to the Board anything regarding their preferences (I don't even know if they are allowed to), nor do I know any of their personal opinions on the matter, I find it admirable that they are trying to find solutions that will both relieve the overcrowding at CSHS immediately (portable buildings, increased staffing) and yet not delay the eventual addition to the point that it becomes unbearable.

It sounds like most of us are parents, residents, volunteers and community members who want to keep this District an excellent example of what education can be. We may not agree on everything, but hopefully we can agree on that?!