Presentation on theme: "Updated Bond Tax Rate Projections February 11, 2014 J ON G ORES M ANAGING D IRECTOR (206) 389-4043 DADCO. COM SEQUIM SCHOOL DISTRICT."— Presentation transcript:
Updated Bond Tax Rate Projections February 11, 2014 J ON G ORES M ANAGING D IRECTOR (206) 389-4043 JGORES @ DADCO. COM SEQUIM SCHOOL DISTRICT
Assumptions for Bond Tax Rate Planning Interest Rates Bond Rating Assessed Value Bond Structure 1 Bond Issue Planning
A. Interest Rates - Lower interest rates result in lower tax rates for bonds. - Interest rates are determined when bonds are actually sold. - Assumption: Future Bond Sales Current rates plus 1.50 % (150 basis points). 2 Bond Issue Planning
B.Bond Rating - A higher bond rating results in lower interest rates. - Assumption: Aa1 (with State Guaranty) Aa2 (District Rating) pending A Guide to Bond Ratings Moody’s Investors Service – Founded 1918 Highest QualityAaa Aa1, Aa2, Aa3 A1, A2, A3 Baa1, Baa2, Baa3 Lowest QualityNR (Nonrated) 3 Bond Issue Planning
Bond raters consider the local economy, District finances, and other factors Assumption: Aa1 (State Guarantee) Aa2 (District Rating) 4 Bond Rating Factors The Rating Debt Factors Economy Governmental Factors Financial Performance
7 Bond Issue Planning Projected Assessed Value Growth – Final 2014: -0.55% growth – Projected 2015-2016: 1.0% annual growth – Projected 2017-2041: 2.0% annual growth Higher assessed values will lower the District’s tax rates (but not the overall payment) An individual’s taxes will be based on the assessed value for their property New construction vs. increase in value of existing property Assessed Value
8 Bond Issue Planning Bond Structure State law gives Districts great flexibility in determining bond structures Options: – Level Debt – Level Tax Rate – Stepped Level Tax Rate
Scenario #45#48#49#50 Total Amount $ 154,325,000 $ 150,575,000 Bond Sale Dates and Amounts June 2014 Dec 2015 Dec 2016 Dec 2017 $ 37,550,000 $ 63,040,000 $ 44,835,000 $ 8,900,000 $ 37,550,000 $ 63,040,000 $ 44,835,000 $ 8,900,000 $ 33,800,000 $ 63,040,000 $ 44,835,000 $ 8,900,000 $ 33,800,000 $ 63,040,000 $ 44,835,000 $ 8,900,000 Total Tax Rates Actual 2013 Projected 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 $ 2.30 2.11 3.85 $ 2.30 2.11 3.59 $ 2.30 2.11 3.81 $ 2.30 2.11 3.53 Total Interest Cost$ 107,819,000$ 154,475,000$ 102,539,000$ 150,338,000 Final Maturity2037204120362041 Term20 Yrs25 Yrs20 Yrs25 Yrs Projected 2015 Total Tax Rate increase over 2014 Total Tax Rate $ 1.74$ 1.48$ 1.70$ 1.42 9 Interest Rates: Future bond sales current plus 150 basis points (1.50%) Bond Rating: Aa1 State Guarantee District Rating: Aa2 (Pending) Assessed Value Growth: Final 2014: -0.55% growth; Projected 2015-2016: 1.0% growth; Projected 2017-2041: 2.0% annual growth Bond Structure: Level Tax Rate Bond Tax Rate Projection Summary
18 Clallam County School Districts 2013 Total Tax Rates District Assessed Value (1) ($)Bonds ($)M&O ($) Capital Projects ($)Trans. ($)Total ($) Crescent School District No. 313282,505,285--1.6893-- 1.6893 Sequim School District No. 323 3,651,014,5510.71921.5789-- 2.2981 Port Angeles School District No. 1212,689,472,4480.44413.0907-- 3.5348 Quillayute Valley School District No. 402348,714,9612.12191.4285-- 3.5504 Cape Flattery School District No. 40182,452,2561.50272.7956-- 4.2983 (1) Assessed Value does not include TAV. Source: County Assessors Offices. Total Tax Rate Comparison
19 Total Tax Rate Comparison Washington School Districts 2013 Total Tax Rates District Assessed Value ($) (1) Bonds ($)M&O ($) Capital Projects ($)Trans. ($)Total ($) Sequim School District No. 3233,684,210,5330.71921.5789-- 2.2981 Blaine School District No. 5033,601,518,5781.00211.6845--- 2.6866 Moses Lake School District No. 1613,606,659,2740.70974.2590-- 4.9687 Monroe School District No. 1033,614,847,5361.63023.9943-- 5.6245 Tumwater School District No. 333,897,877,1592.56543.3765-- 5.9419 Tahoma School District No. 4093,934,735,1101.60643.94990.6971--6.2534 Mount Vernon School District No. 3203,023,754,9511.93464.19810.4133--6.5460 (1) Assessed Value includes TAV. Source: Multiple County Assessors Offices. Similar sized school districts
20 Total Tax Rate Comparison Districts in the Olympic League 2013 Total Tax Rates District Assessed Value (1) ($)Bonds ($)M&O ($) Capital Projects ($)Trans. ($)Total ($) Sequim School District No. 323 3,651,014,5510.71921.5789-- 2.2981 North Mason School District No. 403 1,991,227,150-- 1.94770.4397 2.3875 Peninsula School District No. 401 8,774,015,9080.44792.3084-- 2.7564 Port Angeles School District No. 121 2,689,472,4480.44413.0907-- 3.5348 North Kitsap School District No. 4005,712,645,3391.49112.5056-- 3.9967 Bremerton School District No. 100-C2,993,597,4771.28603.60410.6346--5.5247 Central Kitsap School District No. 401 6,016,126,223 --3.70781.8686 --5.5765 (1) Assessed Value does not include TAV. Source: County Assessors Offices.
21 2014 Special Election and Resolution Filing Dates
Neither this material nor any of its contents may be disclosed, sold, or redistributed, electronically or otherwise, without prior written consent of Davidson Companies. The information presented herein is based on public information we believe to be reliable, prevailing market conditions, as well as our views at this point in time. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the accuracy or completeness of this material. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Davidson Companies does not assume any liability for any loss which may result from the reliance by any person upon such material. We make no representations regarding the legal, tax, regulatory, or accounting implications of entering into a Transaction. Required Disclosure Pursuant to MSRB Rule G-23: An underwriter’s primary role will be to purchase as principal, or arrange for the placement of the securities in a commercial arm’s length transaction with the issuer, and may have financial and other interests that differ from those of the issuer. In its capacity as underwriter and not as financial advisor, an underwriter may provide incidental financial advisory services at the issuer’s request, including advice regarding the structure, timing, terms and other similar matters concerning the issuance. However, an underwriter does not assume any financial advisory or fiduciary responsibilities with respect to the issuer.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.