NOW:53209:USA01012
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01012
19°
H 30° L 19°
Light Snow | 21MPH

2009 Referendum Cost Far Lower Than Estimated.

Schools, Referendum

Remember the hotly debated school referendum that passed 9 months ago?

Back in November 2009, Whitefish Bay voted (in large numbers) to approve borrowing $22.9 million in bonds to finance school maintenance and improvements.

Further 2009 calculations estimated a 5.5% bond interest cost, and the loss of $5m in Wisconsin State Aid.   Using this estimate, the Schools suggested passing the referendum questions would cost a $350k homeowner, about $248 per year.

Referendum opponents claimed the "true" cost of the referendum was a whopping $40 million. 

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to the bank.  While the District conservatively used a 5.5% interest cost in their calculations for the public .. it turns out the total rate is now estimated at an incredible 1.91%.  --- And remember the possibility the School District could get some 0% interest loans?   To be announced next week, the District should be receiving about a third of the total cost in 0% Qualified School Construction Bonds.

Oh, and total amount borrowed is less, too.  Instead of $22.9m, the schools are projecting a cost of $20m due to lower construction costs.    Net, net, instead of the $248/year 2009 estimate on your taxes, it should fall to about $175.  Still a chunk of change, but about 30% less than originally estimated.

The 1.91% interest rate is really amazing, in light of April's credit rating downgrade.

So, good morning:  The construction costs are lower than expected.  The borrowing costs are far less than expected.   That's outstanding. 

 Doug Armstrong at the YesYesProgress blog has done a tremendous job covering this story.  Make sure you read his account, and check his wonderful blog for WFB school board updates.

Welcome to our new commenting system.
  • You can register through your Facebook account, sign on with your Facebook password and use the same photo and screen name. If you don’t want your account tied to Facebook, you can keep your registration through our site.
  • You can now personalize your Journal Sentinel account with a photo even if the account is not tied to Facebook.
  • You can now reply to comments. Replies will be threaded to make conversations easier to follow.
  • You can continue to sort comments according to oldest first, newest first, and most thumbs up.
  • Your comments are archived on your own page.
  • Please notify us if you see personal insults or other irresponsible comments. We reserve the right to eliminate any comments and block any commenter who is not civil and respectful of others.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
  1. Maybe with some of the money they're saving they can pay back some of the funds to the bank that they owe money to for the cdo. Good work Mr. Yde!!!
  2. I like the opening (Costs far lower ) to me would be 75% or more.
  3. let's not forget the debt that was SUPPOSE to be retired, that is still on and then referrendum was extra...

    Why wasn't money put aside all these years for repairs and "necessary" needs. Isn't that what most home owners do?

    Love how the Administrator pushes this through and then runs off to retirement (or at least not crossing over his "consulting job" with this one anymore)
  4. let's not forget the debt that was SUPPOSE to be retired, that is still on and then referrendum was extra...

    Why wasn't money put aside all these years for repairs and "necessary" needs. Isn't that what most home owners do?

    Love how the Administrator pushes this through and then runs off to retirement (or at least not crossing over his "consulting job" with this one anymore)
  5. let's not forget the debt that was SUPPOSE to be retired, that is still on and then referrendum was extra...

    Why wasn't money put aside all these years for repairs and "necessary" needs. Isn't that what most home owners do?

    Love how the Administrator pushes this through and then runs off to retirement (or at least not crossing over his "consulting job" with this one anymore)
  6. That is great that it is lower ,( I will wait for the out come before celebrating)yet if we save so much money please lower my taxes there is no need for an increase. Last year you proposed a lowering and two trustees snickered and said not this year and then you paid off partial loan with 500,000 dollars. If we are doing so well why increase ? lets pay it off and then improve and add buildings ! I also propose that you only increase the taxes to people who want them increased ! Please take note of people who disagree and double theirs ! Did you read the last part of his (his account) ,It does not look good please inform your readers how much we lost already in this risky venture and then tell us how much more we are suppose to pay the Irish Bank !!! Yippppeeeeeeee
Back to top

Page Tools

  • Share

advertisement

Latest Posts