Commissioners debate sending $105.5 million Coliseum bond to May ballot; motion to place it fails for lack of second

Commissioners Court debated whether to place a $105,485,000 general-obligation bond for upgrades to the El Paso County Coliseum and adjacent campus on the May 3, 2025, ballot, but a motion to adopt the order died for lack of a second.

The discussion on item 8C ranged from technical ballot language to the project’s cost and tax impact. County staff and the county’s financial adviser, Stifel Public Finance, estimated the $105.485 million principal would result in roughly $169.7 million in total principal-and-interest repayment over 25 years and would raise the county’s interest-and-sinking (I&S) levy by about 1 cent per $100 of assessed value — an average tax effect Stifel calculated as about $1.67 per month for an average homeowner (roughly $20 per year).

Why it mattered: Commissioners and the public disagreed on whether the failed November 2024 measure — the same principal amount — should be resubmitted so soon. Supporters said the community needs a modernized, revenue-generating campus and that some voters were confused in November about whether the federal government would take the property; opponents said re-running the identical measure three months after a rejection disrespects voters and risks heavier debt burdens.

County staff presented three drafting options: (1) the original November ballot language; (2) an expanded version enumerating campus elements such as the Sherman Barn, pavilion, roller- and ice-rink improvements, food-truck plaza, parking and loading areas; and (3) split propositions by building so voters could approve the Coliseum separately from secondary facilities. Bond counsel asked the court to discuss legal drafting in executive session; the court recessed to consult with counsel under Texas Government Code §551.071.

Public commenters were split. Proponents included Tony Rodriguez, El Paso County Coliseum director, and Corey Herman of the El Paso Hockey Association, who said a second sheet of ice and arena upgrades would allow more sports and tournaments and generate revenue. Opponents included Jenny Solo and other residents who said the November vote had spoken and questioned the project’s scope and the additional $390,000 estimated cost for the county to participate in a May election.

Formal actions and next steps: The court voted to recess into executive session to consult bond counsel and returned to open session. Commissioner David Stout moved to adopt the order using the original ballot language; the motion received no second and therefore failed. The court took no final action to place the bond on the May 3 ballot during the meeting.

Budget and election logistics: Elections administration estimated the county’s share of costs to join the May uniform election at about $390,000, subject to change if other local entities cancel contests after the February 14 filing deadline. Staff noted that school-district cancellations after filing could reduce the county’s proportionate share.

What was not decided: The court did not adopt an order, choose specific ballot language, or set a final date for a bond proposition for the Coliseum. Commissioners discussed pursuing more specific ballot propositions and additional public outreach before any future filing.

Ending: Commissioners left open the option to revisit the issue; no schedule or unanimous direction was recorded. The court moved on to other items on its agenda.