Comprehensive financial analysis illustrates a funding approach and provides context for the school’s affordability
Sam Shoge, a candidate for Kent County commissioner and a strong advocate for a new middle school, has published a guide explaining how the county could fund its share of the project. Developed in response to residents’ questions, the guide draws on a comprehensive analysis of county budgets and five years of county financial reports.
The publication uses plain-language explanations, calculations, and illustrations to show how county savings, borrowing, revenue from the income-tax increase earmarked for the school, and payments freed up as existing loans end could work together.
The guide is not an official county funding plan. It presents an illustrative example based on Shoge’s independent research and analysis. The commissioners would still need to work with county staff to determine available resources, financing terms, and the final payment schedule.
“As someone who has strongly supported building a new middle school, I have fielded many questions about how we would pay for it,” Shoge said. “Residents deserve more than a statement that we can or cannot afford it. I wanted to examine the records and show what a possible funding approach would actually involve.”
County savings show more capacity to fund the new middle school
The analysis documents growth in the county’s general fund balance, the financial resources carried forward from prior years. That balance rose from $8.88 million at the beginning of fiscal year 2021 to $28.50 million at the end of fiscal year 2025, an average annual increase of approximately $3.92 million. Some of those resources are already committed or needed for reserves, so the total does not represent cash freely available for the school.
Shoge’s example uses a $12.5 million cash contribution toward the school—about 42% of the county’s approximately $29.9 million project share. Using a projected $31 million starting fund balance and allowing $6 million for other capital projects, the illustration leaves $12.5 million after the school contribution. The $31 million and $6 million figures are planning assumptions, not confirmed amounts of currently available cash.
“I was surprised by what the comprehensive analysis showed,” Shoge said. “The growth in the fund balance and the potential to redirect existing debt payments suggest that the county has more financial capacity than I initially understood. This is a substantial investment, but the records give us reason to consider it more manageable than the overall price tag might suggest.”
How county savings could be rebuilt after a school investment
The guide also puts replenishing savings into context. At the historical average annual increase of $3.92 million, replacing $12.5 million would take roughly 3.2 years mathematically. That is a comparison, not a forecast: future additions would have to remain after school payments, county services, and all other spending. New costs and reduced investment earnings could extend the timeline. The guide illustrates alternative savings goals rather than promising a recovery date.
Existing loan payoffs could make school payments more manageable by 2030
For annual school payments, the example combines projected revenue from the county’s income-tax increase with money that could become available as existing county loans are paid off. The commissioners raised the income-tax rate from 3.2% to 3.3%, effective Jan. 1, 2026, with all revenue generated by that increase earmarked for the new middle school.
By fiscal year 2030, scheduled annual payments on existing county loans decline by approximately $717,000 compared with fiscal year 2026. If that payment capacity remains available, it could cover the example’s approximately $663,000 annual school payment remaining after applying the projected revenue from the income-tax increase.
Under those assumptions, the county could accommodate that remaining payment within its existing debt-payment capacity by 2030. The early years would still require additional funding, and new borrowing or other uses of those savings could change the result.
“These figures give me a stronger basis for believing the county can fund this school responsibly,” Shoge said. “They do not eliminate the choices ahead, but they put the cost in context. Residents should have that context when considering what this investment would mean for our finances.”
Residents deserve clear answers about major county investments
Shoge said the guide reflects how he intends to communicate if elected: explain complex decisions, share the supporting analysis, and use illustrations to help residents understand costs and choices.
“People deserve enough information to ask informed questions and reach their own conclusions,” Shoge said. “That is the standard I intend to bring to communicating about county decisions.”
The full funding guide, including sources, calculations, and assumptions, is available here.
