Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County begins bond-issuance planning; financial advisers outline hearings, caps and timeline
Summary
Financial advisers and bond counsel briefed the Black Hawk County Board on the general-obligation bond process, state statutory caps, likely number of public hearings and a timeline to include pre-levy actions before mid-April.
Black Hawk County officials and outside advisers told the Board of Supervisors on March 4 they will begin a multi-step bond issuance process this spring, including several public hearings required by Iowa law, competitive bidding and a potential Moody’s rating review.
Kristen Billingsley Cooper of Allers and Cooney (bond counsel) and Maggie Byrd of Spear Financial (financial adviser) walked supervisors through the process for issuing general obligation bonds. Cooper said the county team has reviewed the capital-improvement list to identify projects eligible for general-obligation financing and explained that Iowa law requires separate public hearings for certain project categories and dollar amounts. Byrd added that the market window and economies of scale favor grouping projects so the county does not incur repeated issuance costs.
The advisers explained statutory distinctions in Iowa: some “essential county purposes” can be financed without the same caps, public-building projects have a population-based threshold (the board’s threshold was described as about $1,560,000 for the county’s population) and a revised general-county-purpose cap (adjusted under recent legislation, House File 718) applies to smaller projects (the advisers cited a population-based limit in the roughly $400,000 range for this county). Cooper said the county must ensure that the total project cost and the amount presented in each hearing comply with those caps.
County staff and advisers discussed scheduling: to include an initial set of hearings and allow the county to place a pre-levy figure in the fiscal-year 2025–26 budget, staff said hearings and a resolution authorizing a preliminary levy should occur before mid-April (advisers suggested completing required hearings so the county can include a first-year payment in the FY26 levy). The board agreed to schedule a small work session with advisers and county engineers to review a larger public-building project and to set hearing dates; staff proposed several dates and later established a budget hearing for April 21 at 10 a.m.
Advisers also flagged the modest risk that a petition (requiring signatures equaling 10% of votes cast in the last major election) could force a referendum on certain general-county purpose borrowings; they said petitions are rare but possible. Byrd said the timing and competitive market were favorable and that a grouped sale could attract multiple underwriter bids.
