Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance Debt topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Paso County postpones vote on $54 million certificates of obligation after public pushback over cost, water projects
Summary
On March 17 the El Paso County Commissioner's Court postponed consideration of a notice of intent to issue up to $54 million in combination tax-and-surplus-revenue certificates of obligation after extended public comment raised concerns about taxpayer burden, distribution of benefits and the absence of the county judge.
The El Paso County Commissioner's Court on March 17 postponed consideration of a notice of intent to issue up to $54 million in combination tax-and-surplus-revenue certificates of obligation that county staff proposed to finance a package of street, utility, stormwater and HVAC projects.
County staff described the proposal as using retiring debt capacity to fund essential public‑purpose capital needs without increasing the county’s I&S tax rate; the financing plan estimated a roughly 4.74% interest assumption, about $3.3 million of annual debt service and approximately $96.3 million total debt service over a 30‑year maturity if the full $54 million were issued. Projects identified in staff materials included an estimated $33.5 million “first‑time” water and wastewater extension package, a stormwater/road reconstruction project tied to recurring flooding in the Canal/Tio Avenue area and an approximately $2.0 million HVAC modernization for the Family & Youth Services Center.
The court’s decision to pause followed a public comment period in which multiple residents and advocates expressed objections to using certificates of obligation (COs) without a public referendum. Max Grossman told the court, “Certificates of obligation for non‑emergency purposes are un‑American and anti‑democratic,” and urged voter approval for large debt packages. Several speakers from unincorporated neighborhoods asked the court to prioritize water and sewer service; other speakers emphasized the number of homes proposed to be served and the cost per connection. One caller said the water/wastewater components would directly benefit about 520 properties and estimated a cost “about $470,571 per home.”
County staff told the court they expected to receive an updated preliminary taxable assessed valuation in April, which would clarify tax‑rate capacity and repayment scenarios. Staff said the notice-of-intent process would trigger a mandatory waiting period and allow residents to petition for a referendum if statutory thresholds were met.
After hearing public comment and staff explanations, the court voted to postpone the item for one week. The motion to postpone 10b was made by Commissioner Coronado and seconded by Commissioner O'Gheen; the clerk announced that the motion carried. The court did not authorize sale of bonds or certificates at the March 17 meeting.
What happens next: if the court restarts the process it can adopt a formal notice of intent, observe the statutorily required waiting period and later consider authorizing sale. Residents may submit petitions during the waiting period that could force a public vote if they meet Texas statutory thresholds. The court indicated staff will return with clarified valuation figures and additional details before any authorization action.
