Two recent reports show that Olentangy is a district flush with cash.
As always, I have provided either the document or its link. Take some time to read these financial statements in order to understand the district's financial condition. I encourage you to research, ask questions, and learn.
By the way: You won't find this analysis at the Olentangy for Kids website. They just stick to the district spin. And, when I was involved with the committee (even chaired it), my numbers and analysis were consider the end; the final answer. Now that I don't like their levy, they don't like my numbers and analysis. Oh, well. Such is life.
First -- The monthly Comparative Statement of Receipts and Expenditures
(note: Click on the document to enlarge. Also, the second analysis follows this document.)The statement below -- reported to the board last night -- shows that revenue is up and expenses are down. Likely, though it's too early to be certain, the ending negative balance for next fiscal year -- the reason for the levy -- will be gone when the district updates its Five-Year Financial Forecast in May.
The deficit is gone! No need for a levy.
Second -- Investment IncomeThe district's latest Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is now available on the state auditor's website. This CAFR reports financial activities within the district for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007 (FY07).
Once again, the district is reporting bond investment income -- $4.7 million worth. Over the past three fiscal years, the district has reported $9.6 million in investment income. And, more is being generated this fiscal year.
This money is available to be used for operating expenses. There is no need for the levy.
While it is true that money generated through bond sales cannot be used for operating expenses -- in fact such money must be used in the manner specified on the ballot, the investment earnings can be used for operating expenses. And, most likely, they will be used for expenses that are typically funded through the general fund.
There is no need for this new levy. There is more than enough available through the investment income alone to offset any negative year ending balance for FY09.
Oh, sure, the administration and levy committee will state that the investment income was approved by voters for future capital expenses. But, that contradicts the claim that the district only sells bonds when needed. In order to earn investment income, the district must have excess bond funds to invest. Therefore, bonds were sold before they were needed; if they are even needed at all.
The district typically puts more debt on the ballot than will be needed to fund the capital projects listed. There is a reason for that: to protect against rising and hidden costs. It is a contingency plan. Makes sense, but this pot of money is not supposed to continually grow.The voters never approved a large bond fund to be used as a means to generate investment income. That money -- your tax dollars -- should be in your account generating investment income for you.
So, the district sells more bonds than needed, before they are needed, builds up a pot on bond funds as an investment tool, all the while claiming it is out of cash. Hmmm. Doesn't sound too honest to me.
See if the levy committee addresses either of these documents. Likely, they won't as these truths don't match their story. But, ask them anyway.
