School Bond Re-Fi Saves Taxpayers $1.1 Million
The sale, made during a period of record-low interest rates, officially closed December 13. It should save Collingswood taxpayers $60,000 annually from 2015 through 2030.
At its meeting Monday, the Collingswood Board of Education confirmed that a recent refunding sale of $15.6 million in bonds exceeded its financial expectations, and should net more than $1.1 million in savings to Collingswood taxpayers.
The rate reduction will take effect beginning in the 2015-16 school year, and will carry through the life of the bonds, which expire in 2030, said Beth Ann Coleman, business administrator for the district.
Better still: the move doesn’t extend the debt repayment schedule beyond its original date, and taxpayers will save about $60,000 annually from the move, Coleman said.
According to a press release issued by The Charleville Company of Robbinsville, NJ, the average net interest rate on the new bonds will be 2.6 percent, as compared with an original 4.2 percent average rate.
Charleville announced the total savings of the refinancing as $1,129,792.95. The sale was begun Nov. 30—a record-breaking day for low interest rates on the open market, it said in a press release—and was completed Dec. 13.
Charleville didn't miss an opportunity to take a jab at the borough credit rating in its announcement of the sale, either.
Its statement read that the sale was completed "after convincing Wall Street analysts and investors that what they had read about the Collingswood Borough did not apply to finances at the school district."
The board had been encouraged to secure its own credit rating when the proposal was first introduced publically at its October 2012 meeting.
“When you expect to have savings in excess of three percent, [the state] encourage[s] you to do it,” she said.
A move in the works for five years
Coleman said she'd been trying to refinance the debt since she first joined the district in 2007. At that time, she reached out to Phoenix Advisors, LLC, which eventually brokered the sale, and the bond attorney for the district “to see if the rates were good enough" to complete a refund.
("They weren’t,” she said.)
Coleman said that financial advisors to the district were “very conservative that we could save about $635,000 on the outstanding debt.” But then the district earned a credit rating that was two notches better than it had anticipated, effectively doubling its savings.
Coleman described the review process from Standard & Poor's as eminently thorough. It included an hour-long conversation with a liaison, during which, she said, “They turn over every rock.
“We sent them a lot of information,” Coleman said.
A week later, the district received a AA- bond rating, which Standard & Poor’s describes as the hallmark of a borrower with “very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.”
When that happened, “our advisors wanted to put the bonds to market as quickly as possible,” Coleman said.
“We got on the phone with the sellers and they were estimating $1.1 million in savings over the life of the bond, which was almost double what we anticipated,” she said.
That savings, by law, will be directly refunded to taxpayers in the district.
“It’s not like I can take that money and put it in my budget; it goes back to the taxpayers,” she said.
Good audits, shared services, spending freezes
The bonds were originally issued to cover the cost of construction undertaken from 2005-08, wherein the district built a corridor linking the high school and middle school, and added HVAC units to several school facilities.
They are the only debt the district carries, Coleman said.
“We’ve had very clean audits, very good audits for many years in a row,” she said.
Coleman credits planned savings and cost-control efforts—like shared service agreements, periodic spending freezes and the status of Collingswood as a receiving district—with helping the Board to avoid wild fluctuations in its finances from year to year.
“We’re not doing this spiking thing with taxes, one year we cut, one year we raise,” she said. “If there’s a cheaper way to do it, we’re trying to do it.”
Aeroflyte
7:09 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Nice job! Thank you all for your diligence.
redrum
8:19 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The fact of the matter is you are putting perfume on a manure pile - we still are paying interest because the school district borrowed millions instead of cutting back.
We aren't "saving" anything.
Joe
9:58 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The fact of the matter is that you are 100% wrong re: savings. If you refinance the mortgage on your home and your monthly payment drops from $2,000 to $1,700, did you not just save $300 per month? Or would you argue that you are not REALLY saving $300 per month because you should not have purchased the home in the first place?
The fact that the District issued bonds in 2005 for vital infrastructure (with taxpayer approval, by the way) is irrelevant; it is a sunk cost. The District has now moved to reduce the cost of that borrowing. All things being equal, the refunding will reduce your school tax bill. Now, a reduction in my school tax bill sure sounds like savings to me. Have a great day!
Future Old Angry Italian Guy
9:33 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
redrum, please explain because I don't read this. What I do read is our elected officials working hard to make our town a better place to live now and in the future.
Tracy
9:54 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BTW..."redrum" spelled backwards is "murder". Really?
What you clearly don't "get" is that (with taxpayer approval) the School Board borrowed money to fund a school expansion project to improve our schools. So what are you talking about "cutting back". Please be informed before spouting off. Also, considering that you think "Redrum" is an amusing screen name, please stay away from the schools.
Porterincollingswood
12:20 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
He just doesn't want to pay. Doubtful he complained about school spending when he / his kids were in school.
He just wants to whine. He's not "conservative" or "responsible", he's cheap.
Porterincollingswood
12:21 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
And no, he has no grasp of finance. So arguing with him is pointless.
redrum
4:14 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Yes Tracy, excellent "detective" work - I was really really being original in using that moniker; oh, wait, I'm sorry, I saw it in a Jack Nicholson movie some 30 plus years ago - get over it. This "bond issue" means the schools took out a loan; which means we have to pay interest on it; just because they got a lower rate still means we are paying down a debt. I was at that meeting, held in 1989 - and despite thunderous opposition from the public, the school board went ahead and took out the loan. Taxpayers did NOT give approval on that at all; the State government did not change those rules until 1995 - so YOU get your facts straight before spouting off, missy. OBTW- I AM a teacher
redrum
4:19 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
@Porterincollingswood - I am guessing that by "he" you mean me? Oh, I am very conservative - I do not believe in taking out loans of any kind. But if absolutely necessary, tightening the belt and paying it off way ahead of schedule. The US owes how many TRILLIONS now? Hmm, let's delve into the history of Collingswood, oh, look, there's another multi-million dollar bond issue - right there on Haddon Ave, I call it the BlunderYard Project, where our illustrious mayor is going to built section 8 apartments - even though when he first got into office he found a way to give low interest loans to convert multi-plex houses back into single residences - wonder what happened there???
Porterincollingswood
4:49 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
You could have gone the 'pay as you go' way...but instead we've had consistent tax cuts since JFK. So you borrow, because you could never give anything up. And now you whine that the resulting debt, which you will never be asked to pay, is on the books.
That's not being conservative. At all. I mean, it's so boring to even discuss.
Porterincollingswood
4:51 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
And, no offense, you don't know anything about finance. Not that you chose to defend that initial inane posting of yours.
Joe
5:27 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
While I applaud your service as an educator, I find it mind-boggling that you are getting worked up over the district moving to save taxpayer dollars. Bringing US debt levels, and even Borough debt levels, into a conversation about the school district is ridiculous.
Now, from your post, we are to understand that you attended a meeting in 1989 regarding debt that was issued in 2005? Wow, talk about forethought. Anyway, the issuance of the 2005 GO bonds was absolutely authorized by the voters of Collingswood and was related to the connection of the MS and HS buildings. The debt was not issued so that the district could buy pencils and erasers; it was issued for much-needed infrastructure.
If you want to argue that the 2005 bonds should not have been issued to begin with, that is certainly within your rights but it has absolutely nothing to do with the district moving to reduce its borrowing costs now. If the district reducing your tax bill is something that does not interest (no pun intended) you, I suggest you call the district office tomorrow and ask them to keep your share of the savings.
Sean Andrew
5:44 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
A teacher? God help the kids.
Matt Skoufalos
6:15 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I'm going to issue my standard general plea to keep it civil here, gang. I don't want to have to cut off comments. I love me some sarcasm, but please keep the personal attacks out of it.
Porterincollingswood
6:56 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
OK, you won me over. Debt is bad. Borderline immoral. And think of our grandkids who will be saddled with debt! I have 3 solutions based on the original post:
1) Invent time machine, go back and negate the spending.
2) Go back and assess a $1,114.29 assessment to every individual who lived here at the time the debt was incurred (full disclosure, does not include me)
3) Immediately assess every person in town $1,114.29.
Who has their checkbook ready? No one? No one at all?
Redrum, your post was about as effective as a Scatman Crothers rescue mission.
Rob Lewandowski
6:04 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
To add some historical context, when we (the voters) approved the bond referendum in 2005, the NJ School Development Authority (then called the School Construction Authority, I believe) funded 40% of our eligible costs. In other words, 40% of the project was funded by folks outside our school district. It was a good deal for Collingswood then, it is a good deal for Collingswood now. Sometimes roofs need to be replaced and mechanicals updated. Funds also went to construct new science labs, classrooms, and a library.
There is good borrowing and bad borrowing. This certainly seems like good borrowing to me.
Joanna Mills
9:05 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
@Matt. What, no presentation at the BOE meeting about the recently released HSPA results.