Is now the time to pay the school district debt to the retirement system?

By FRANK SCHULTZ ( Contact )   Sunday, Dec. 27, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT
 

— Make the minimum payment on your credit card—what happens?

The Janesville School District has a similar situation, except that the balance is in the millions of dollars.

The district has made the minimum payment on its “accrued liability” to the Wisconsin Retirement System for about two decades. The result? The district will owe more next year than it does this year.

If nothing changes, the district’s $16.92 million liability this year will have ballooned to nearly $22 million by 2026.

Nearly every other local governmental unit—cities, counties, villages and towns—incurred this liability in the early 1990s when the state Legislature increased retirement benefits.

The city of Janesville and the Milton School District, among many others, paid the liability off early.

All the other school districts in Rock County have paid it off or are accelerating their payments, said Janesville schools Superintendent Karen Schulte.

Janesville has done nothing.

A consultant briefed the school board on the situation in January 2009 after board member Kevin Murray raised the issue, but nothing was done.

Former Superintendent Tom Evert retired in February, and former business manager Doug Bunton retired in June, which might account for some of the inaction.

But Murray has brought up the issue at numerous board meetings over the past year with no visible effect. He tells board members that without a change, his 2-year-old granddaughter will be paying off this liability when she’s 50.

Murray said three other board members favor some change, but that’s not a majority on the nine-member board.

New district CFO Keith Pennington said he had intended to get the issue on the board’s agenda this month, but a more urgent budget problem gobbled up his time and the board’s attention. Now, a board discussion is tentatively scheduled for January.

Meanwhile, another year is passing, and the district is making the minimum payment of $829,968. The state assesses the interest at the end of the year. This year, the interest is $1.25 million. So the district will owe more than $17 million in 2010, an increase of $425,000 from what it owed in 2009.

The city of Janesville paid its liability off a few years ago by increasing payments and then borrowing money, said Herb Stinski, the city’s former finance director.

The cost of borrowing money was lower than the state’s 7.8 percent interest rate on the WRS liability, so the city appears to have saved a lot of money.

The city structured the loan so as not to affect taxes, Stinski said.

The math looks simple, but the school district’s Pennington is not ready to agree that paying off the liability faster is the right thing to do.

One possible complication is the district’s bond rating. Pennington said he needs to find out if taking out a “hard debt” loan to pay off the “soft debt” liability would harm the district’s bond rating. A lower bond rating means the district would pay higher interest charges in future bond issues.

According to a December 2008 district memo from Bunton to Evert, a consultant reviewed the situation in 2000, “and it was determined there was no advantage to the school district borrowing funds to pay off the unfunded liability.”

Bunton wrote that if the school board was interested, he would recommend an independent consultant to come up with a borrowing plan. The board held an information session a month later but never acted.

Pennington said the issue is not as simple as it might seem.

“You also have to consider, do you have the cash flow to support (paying it off) and remaining cash flow to support other needs,” Pennington said.

Schulte said she’s frustrated that the district doesn’t have a plan, but it’s up to the board to tell the administration how it wants to proceed.

Stinski, now a member of the WRS Board, has been prompting Murray on the issue. He said it really is as simple as it seems. The district probably can borrow money for interest in the 5 percent range, Stinski said, raking in savings when compared to the state’s 7.8 percent rate.

Stinski said there’s a slight risk to paying off the liability: The Legislature could pass a law to make the liability go away, or the state could lower the interest rate. But the state studied the situation this year and made no change to the interest rate. Another interest-rate review is not due for three years.

With the losses the state Employee Trust Fund took in the stock and bond markets over the past two years, and given that many others have already paid off their liabilities, there is little incentive for politicians to make changes, Stinski said.

While accountants might say the liability is not a hard debt, Murray said those words don’t change one fact: “You have to pay it back.”

Murray notes that the board is expected to be desperate to find budget savings in the year ahead. “And if we can save a half a million dollars in interest, there’s some.”

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(14)
rossnmeg
Jan 5, 2010 at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal

First of all, the district DID NOT INCUR this debt in the first place! When benefits were increased by the WRS to grandfather people who had already worked for public institutions, the districts were handed a huge bill (aka - the unfunded liability).
--
This amount is due to the employees, and the district must fund these benefits each year, include the interest on the unpaid benefit value. This isn't about wasteful interest... its about repaying benefits cut from the state to retired employees. The present values of those payments are naturally higher.
--
There is a problem with borrowing to pay this off... and Schulte didn't even mention it. The repayment of this liability in a lump sum is a TEACHER BENEFIT... meaning its subject to negotiations. If the distrist pays it off and doesn't include the debt payments in the teacher costing in future years, the district will end up spending MORE money than they are now inside the teacher package.
--
And no folks, using fund balance is not an option. If we did that, the district would need to borrow more money each year for cash flow and the bond rating would go through the floor.

JustAskMe
Jan 2, 2010 at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal

I'm still for passing-on the costs to the next few generations.

tiredofhearingit
Dec 29, 2009 at 4:22 p.m.
Suggest removal

So let me understand this: The Gov't loans BANKS money at basically 0% to stimulate the economy yet the school district has to borrow money at either 5 or 7.8% Nice! and all the while, all the banks seem to be doing is loading their vaults & improving their balance sheets. Why not cut out the middle man & just loan to States & school districts directly. Oh wait, that would 1 make sense & 2 based on our state, never make its way to the school district level. Unbelievable!

spiderpig
Dec 29, 2009 at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal

gmretirednow- if your name says anything about who you are, I would guess you have been the target of a few "he makes too much money for what he does" comments, most of which I would disagree with by the way. I would also guess that you would be glad to give up your pension for the good of your company since legacy costs have contributed GM's demise. I am glad GM paid $28 an hour. I wish more jobs around here did for the sake of our local economy. I just didn't expect "gm retired now" to lump teachers into the same class as movie stars and pro athletes as I'm sure you have been on the receiving end a time or two. And btw, don't give me that "it's different because it's my tax dollars that pay the teachers." Who is paying for (some of) the unemployment and retraining for displaced workers? I guess it is some of those overpaid people who are paying taxes back into the system so your former coworkers can get training.

gmretirednow
Dec 29, 2009 at 2:53 p.m.
Suggest removal

To work for 9 months out of the year and average 40k is way out of line I say!! too much pay for too little work..

gmretirednow
Dec 29, 2009 at 2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal

Each person having a child in school pays $1,000.00 per child per year. You want to have lots of kids, pay up, stop putting the burden on others who have raised their kids or others who have no kids at all. Also when have teachers ever taken a pay cut? the 2 adults in this household sure have. Maybe we ALL should give a little!

JustAskMe
Dec 29, 2009 at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal

Passing it on to the grandkids sounds good.

DanMan
Dec 29, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal

No! Let them do as the rest of us have to do, set up your own retirement plan and contribute! Stop the bleeding of taxpayers by government/ public employees.

helge1939
Dec 29, 2009 at 6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal

I back SarahB1 statment. If they keep playing this game some one may not get to retire

janesvillean
Dec 28, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal

The bond rating rules are proprietary secrets of the bond rating companies, similar to personal credit scores. Some things about them are obvious, others are not. There's no harm in having an experienced consultant look at the district's situation and come up with some alternatives.
.
Seven point eight percent is a pretty high interest rate between governmental bodies, and the legislature probably wants it to be that high as an incentive.
.
If the board has some concrete plans, e.g. lump sum borrowing, five or ten or twenty year payoffs, and so forth, it could make a more informed decision.

luvujvl
Dec 27, 2009 at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal

Pennington doesn't know what affects the bond rating and how? First the 3/4 million dollar budget blunder, now he doesn't understand what affects the bond rating. Scary.

SarahB1
Dec 27, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal

Follow the No. 1 rule in life: If you owe money, pay it back. Until then, forget funding any "wants" and focus only on "needs". To do otherwise is irresponsible.

spiderpig
Dec 27, 2009 at 4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal

The administration is nickel and diming every departments' budget to death, there is heated discussion on giving back $150k so every property owner can buy a meal or two off of the value menu, yet the board just incurred another $1.25 million in interest! At least Commissioner Murray is looking into paying it off or getting a lower rate. What is the fund 10 balance at? $25M-$30M?

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT