Page 57

Bond Accountability Commission 2 Recommendations Page 54

initially, it would have saved the cost of issuing the Notes (plus the additional interest cost of the Notes). The cost savings strategy was very successful for CMSD’s 2005, 2007, 2007A, and 2008 Notes. The 2005, 2007A, 2008, and half of the 2007 Notes were repaid with property taxes, and so CMSD did not need to issue Bonds and therefore achieved significant savings. The other half of the 2007 Notes was refinanced by the 2007A Notes, but because the cost of the Notes is relatively minimal, even the combined costs of both Notes are a substantial savings over issuing Bonds. Therefore, with respect to the goal of reducing upfront costs, the strategy of issuing Notes appears to have been very successful overall. Cost of Notes Comparison The last analysis undertaken on upfront costs was a comparison against Note issuances of other school districts. Comparisons were chosen based on being a school district located in Ohio, having issued between 2001 and 2008, having issued between $15 million to $30 million, and having Official Statements available on the MSRB’s EMMA website. Neither CMSD nor any of the comparison districts obtained bond insurance for the Notes. As shown in the table below, “Upfront Cost Comparison for Notes,” several conclusions can be reached— •

CMSD did exceptionally well in obtaining low costs from underwriters, with the exception of the 2008 Notes, for which costs

BAC2 Recomendations Final 04062010