Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Go Bonds Annual Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission accepts annual report on current and contemplated general obligation debt
Summary
Staff presented the commission with the annual schedule of current and contemplated general obligation (GO) debt across jurisdictions; the commission accepted the report after a correction about the City of Las Vegas entries and discussion of entities that may seek issuance in fiscal 2027.
The Clark County Debt Management Commission accepted the annual submissions of current and contemplated general obligation debt for fiscal 2026 and received notes about possible issuances in fiscal 2027.
“For the record, Anna Dantrich, the comporteur of Clark County,” said the staff presenter, who told commissioners that all jurisdictions submitted schedules by the August 1 due date and explained the columns in the packet showing total contemplated debt, the portion that is general obligation debt and how much of that is pending DMC approval.
Dantrich noted a correction to the schedules: an item for the City of Las Vegas — a medium-term general obligation issue of $24,000,000 — should appear in the general obligation column. She also explained that some medium-term obligations do not require DMC approval and that by statute certain Clark County general obligation improvement bonds (reported at $115,000,000) do not need to return to the commission for approval.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about the Las Vegas project (Pacific Center/Civic Center Plaza) and whether the city expected to reimburse previously advanced cash from bond proceeds. Dantrich said some jurisdictions are contemplating debt in fiscal 2027, including the Clark County School District, Las Vegas Valley Water District and Southern Nevada Water Authority; those may come before the commission later depending on timing.
The commission moved to accept the report; the motion carried on a voice vote. A staff member said jurisdictions had included the most recent bond-rating information in their debt management policies; no commissioner reported a current change in ratings.
Discussion versus decision: commissioners received the informational report and formally accepted it. No issuance was approved; staff noted schedule corrections and said updated schedules would be provided to the commission’s office.
What was not decided: The commission did not approve any new debt issuance. The report records contemplated projects and identified items that may require future action by the commission.
