Jersey Village debate over certificates of obligation, pool and city campus grows as residents circulate petition

Jersey Village City Council members and residents spent the meeting debating whether large capital projects should be decided by council action or put to voters. The discussion centered on two potential certificates of obligation: about $20 million for water and wastewater work and up to $24 million for a proposed city campus, plus how a new community pool should be designed and funded.

Supporters of a voter decision said they were collecting signatures to force a referendum on at least some of the debt. Michael Torrigan, who identified himself as representing petition signers, told the council, “Our community expects to have a say, not to be sidelined by decisions made behind closed doors.” Council members and staff said petitioners should submit signatures quickly so the city can determine next steps.

Why it matters: Council members and staff said the COs were proposed because the city’s utility fund has little reserve and capital needs for water and sewer projects are rising; council members described the notice of intention for COs as a protective measure while the city assesses financing options. Residents opposed to the council issuing debt without a public vote said they lost trust after recent high-profile capital proposals, including a failed pool bond.

What council and staff said: Several council members, speaking individually from the dais, described why they supported issuing notices of intent or why they preferred a voter referendum. One councilmember said he had voted to publish a notice of intention as a “protective measure” because the Texas Legislature had considered proposals limiting local financing authority. Another councilmember pressed for placing the $20 million water and sewer question on the November ballot, saying, “If that $20,000,000 debt was put on the November ballot, the voters in Jersey Village would support it and would pass it.”

Finance and process context: Finance staff and the city manager explained the constraints. Finance Director Jennifer Brown told the council the utility fund “does not have funds to pay cash for projects” and that the fund’s operating cash equates to about a five‑day reserve. Staff said that without bonds or COs the city must use a pay‑as‑you‑go approach and that because water and sewer assets have long lives, financing spreads the cost over multiple years. Staff also explained that bond or CO authorization can include issuance costs and cost escalation allowances, which is why the authorization amount can exceed the project construction estimate.

Resident concerns and petitions: Several residents said they felt blindsided by project scale and design decisions and called for more digestible, earlier public outreach. Petition organizer Michael Torrigan said dozens or hundreds of signatures were collected and urged the council to accept the petition so the public process could proceed. Council members encouraged petitioners to submit validated signatures promptly; staff noted a near‑term schedule for sale negotiations and a July timing window referenced in the discussion for potential fiscal actions.

Pool and city campus tie‑ins: Much of the public conversation threaded the pool replacement debate into the CO discussion. Residents continued to press for a new community pool; some urged a smaller, lower‑cost design and local funding or a bond in the $3 million–$6 million range. Council discussion emphasized options: reuse of the existing pool site to save cost versus moving the facility out of the floodplain and adjacent to the city campus. Councilmembers agreed to pursue a request‑for‑qualifications (RFQ) to develop a pool design consistent with community input and to return with costs and funding options.

Outcome and next steps: The council did not take a final vote on issuing COs at the meeting. Members instructed staff to continue CIP work, to refine estimates and to prepare materials so the council can decide whether to call bonds or proceed with COs; staff also said they would present updated CIP and budget figures at the July workshops. Petition organizers were urged to file validated signatures as soon as possible so staff can determine statutory deadlines and election timing.

For readers: A July budget workshop material and the updated capital improvement plan (CIP) were identified as the next chances for public review; staff also said the CIP spreadsheet and supporting reports would be posted to the city’s finance/budget page.