5-7-06 On the agenda for a special school board meeting for Tuesday night is an item to extend the COPs at a higher interest rate for another 11 years, at a minimum cost of $1.3 million.
What this does is increase the money in the general fund for a few years, but then requires the payments to continue for another 11 years after the original bonds would have been off but will cost us an additional $1.3 million.
Mark DIstaso, the leader of the Kathy Howald group, is pushing this idea. He claims this money will be used to benefit educational programs.
Magically the union is demanding a raise nearly equal to the additional funds that will be added to the general fund each year by this 11 year added debt.
Don't believe any of the crap that this money will be used to benefit the kids. It's strictly a raise for the union that is financed over the next 20 plus years.
You might ask what one of the COPs that we are currently paying was for, and the answer is that during the Duzick/Bandera’s era they gave the union a giant raise and back pay. They used the money the school had saved to finish Meadowlark. They then borrowed the money needed to finish the school with the COPs. We are still paying for that union raise.
This is all about Mark getting re-elected and the union getting a raise. It is nothing about the kids and the quality of education. We must serve notice on any school board members that add on a non-voter approved debt. The next step is to recall the bastards.
As a sidebar, there is some question as to whether or not Cindy is a valid school board member. It has been reported she has sold her home and the family has moved has moved to Texas, except for her and her son who is finishing high school. The election code is pretty clear that you are no longer a resident when you move your primary home and you have no intention to return to the community after an absence.
You are no longer a registered voter and you can't serve on the school board.
It is also unconscionable that she would vote to extend our debt by 11 years and than in a few months, leave like a thief in the night.
My response to this email and the issue of refunding the school district COPs. (s) is as follows:
1. Re-funding i.e. refinancing the COPs., meaning only one or both, each plan being separately considered should only be done if there is substantial benefit to the district AND there is no other plan in the foreseeable future that outweighs refinancing and allows the pay off of the COPs as they now stand AND if the out of pocket costs to refinance are minimal or even non-existent. All three above factors should be positive in my opinion.
2. It is always beneficial to refinance if the refinancing is at LOWER interest rates or for a longer length of time at the SAME interest rate thus lowering the annual obligation. However, I believe that is not the case here. I understand it will cost the district 1.3 million dollars more than the cost of the present funding. I REPEAT, IT WILL COST THE DISTRICT, FUTURE BOARDS, PARENTS, COMMUNITY 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS.
3. What do we get for the extra 1.3 million dollars? Some more cash flow dollars that could be spent efficiently or squandered leaving the district even worse financial shape than if not refinancing the COPs in the first place. Can such a scenario any way at all be controlled? Absolutely not because refunding binds the district for many years into the future when other people will have other programs and other ideas and other opinions..
4. If more or extra money from other sources does come to the district in the near future that money could be used to pay off present funding if that is the smart thing to do, but the refunding will have pay off penalties discouraging reducing and encouraging spending that may not be in the best interests because of it being "extra" or just "available". Also, that money from other sources that does or may come to the district in the near future may be able to be used in lieu of the money coming from refunding making the refunding not necessary. It is always better to get buy without borrowing, without debt if you can. It may not be the modern, American way, but it is Better.
5. Other than lower payments without higher interest or lower interest, why do people refinance or refund? Well some run up bills they can not pay and then refinance a car or home or other property to "consolidate", even at a cost, and that leaves them free to run up more bills and be in the same position they were before, only owing more. What then? Refinance again? and again? Is our school district in a position like that, requiring that? I think not.
6. Do substantial benefits to the school district Outweigh these negative thoughts on refunding? Of course that is the "big question". Some in favor of this refunding say yes and that is why it is smart and prudent. That is possible but I am not so sure that is true.
7. There is another "big question". Isn't there another way for those substantial benefits? In closing I will say that I will keep an open mind as to what is best, but I would not jump right in to this refunding without lots, and lots, and lots of thought and analysis. We need more community input
May 5th 2006 This is in regards to the agenda item 7.2 on the May 9th school board meeting. Certificates of Participation (COPs), I would like to state my opinion on the refinancing of the above mentioned item.
For the amount of money the district would save, I feel in the long run that another 11 or 12 years of debt for our schools would not be conducive to the amount of tax dollars (money ) with out the vote of the people.
I also feel that the master plan should help direct the course of action to help the school board. Again you are moving too fast and this is no help to the community.
Thank You
Eleanor Braun esanddollar@earthlink.net