Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables decision on Bobby Morrow stadium projects after financing discussion
Summary
The San Benito CISD board discussed replacing the Bobby Morrow track, scoreboard and stadium lighting and reviewed third‑party financing options but took no action, moving the item to executive session for further review.
The San Benito Consolidated Independent School District Board of Trustees on July 28 discussed proposed replacement of the Bobby Morrow Stadium track, scoreboard and lighting and reviewed financing options supplied by third‑party lenders, but tabled action to allow further review and legal consultation.
Why it matters: The stadium projects involve substantial capital work and several vendor contracts and would be financed via third‑party funding if the board approves—decisions that affect district facilities, athletic scheduling and long‑term debt commitments.
During the action‑agenda discussion, the district’s representatives described three separate vendor awards under consideration: Musco for lighting, Ace for the scoreboard and Hellas for the track. Contractors representing the project presented financing scenarios they had negotiated with GovCap (Government Capital), which the presenters described as a lender that specializes in government and school financing. Presenters said GovCap offered a lower‑cost financing package than a previously discussed on‑bill administrative option; the presenters supplied example monthly payments and an interest rate they said was available.
Contract representatives gave sample figures for financing: they said the district could be approved for a total project amount of $2,250,000 and offered sample monthly payments of about $24,105.54 on a 10‑year schedule and about $17,009.90 on a 15‑year schedule, with an APR referenced at roughly 4.55 percent. Contractors said payments would not commence until one year after the project was complete. The contractors also said individual project estimates included approximately $542,000 for the scoreboard and other line items but did not present final signed financing documents during the meeting.
Board members raised procurement and technical concerns. Trustee Orlando Lopez said district staff had already obtained three bids for the projects and asked for a plain‑language summary of where the third‑party proposal differed from the district’s existing procurement work. Contractors and district staff said they had found discrepancies in earlier vendor information (including transformer capacity at the stadium) and had worked to reconcile the technical requirements with AEP and others; the contractors said the delays were the result of verifying transformer capacity and other site conditions.
Board attorney and administration advised caution. The board’s legal representative asked for financing documents and general‑conditions language to review; the superintendent and attorney indicated they needed to examine financing terms and contract language before final approval. The board voted to move into executive session to consult its attorney, then reconvened and took no final action on agenda item 8.1.
What the board and vendors said: Sean Davis of Jexa Energy Solutions and other contractor representatives described GovCap financing as tailored to government entities and said the rate presented was more competitive than alternatives they had contacted. District staff and the superintendent said they would perform due diligence and asked the vendors to provide finalized financing terms. Superintendent Mr. Perez said the district would review the loan terms and the vendors said they would forward the loan documents.
Timeline and implementation: Contractors said the physical work could begin within weeks of a signed contract, with a three‑week span in October discussed as an option to minimize conflict with home football games. Estimated construction durations cited in the meeting included about 60 days for the track and similar timeframes for lighting and scoreboard installation; vendors said scheduling would be adjusted around the district’s athletic calendar.
Board action: The board did not approve financing or award contracts at the July 28 meeting; the district will continue due diligence and present finalized financing and contract documents for later board consideration.
Ending: The board deferred action pending legal review of financing documents and a staff report; district and vendor representatives agreed to exchange financing terms for additional review by the superintendent and counsel.
