Advisers outline $60M'$100M road-bond options; county told possible small homeowner impact

Financial advisers told the Caldwell County Commissioners Court on June 11 that the county could place a phased road bond before voters this fall and that, under conservative assumptions, the fiscal impact on an average homeowner would likely be small.

Jennifer Ritter of Specialized Public Finance, the county's adviser, outlined three illustrative bond packages ' $60 million, $80 million and $100 million ' structured as $20 million tranches issued annually. She described legal differences between maintenance & operations taxes (M&O) and interest & sinking (I&S) taxes and said the county can use M&O for pay-as-you-go capital but I&S is restricted to debt service. "The goal would be to not exceed what the voters were told in terms of tax rate increase," Ritter said, adding that phased issuance helps align project delivery with growth.

Ritter said the analysis assumes tax-base growth (she cited a conservative schedule of roughly 20% then 15% then settling to lower rates) and interest-rate assumptions in the mid-single digits. Using those assumptions, she presented estimated homeowner impacts for a $290,000 home: roughly $39 a year for a $60 million bond, about $68 a year for $80 million, and around $100 a year for $100 million, noting those figures reflect only the I&S portion and that changes in the M&O rate could offset net effect on total taxes.

Matt Lee of Norton Rose Fulbright, the county's bond counsel, walked the court through election mechanics and timing. "The call deadline is August 19th," Lee said, and added that even if voters approve the authorization on Nov. 5, bonds would typically not be sold until mid-January 2025 at the earliest. Lee also emphasized that voter approval authorizes issuance but does not compel immediate sale: "You may never issue those bonds," he said, explaining the court and staff would size and time actual issues later with the auditor and financing team.

Commissioners asked whether adopting budget assumptions before the election could create compliance issues if a bond failed; advisers said a bond authorization does not create an immediate tax levy and that tax effects would begin when bonds are actually issued. The presenters noted state law caps on certain tax-rate components and observed that, because the county's M&O rate has declined historically, a net total tax-rate increase is possible but not guaranteed.

Next steps: advisers said staff would continue refining assumptions and work with the county auditor to estimate the M&O offset before an Aug. 19 call deadline if the court chooses to place an item on the November ballot. No formal action was taken during the presentation; the court heard the presentation and fielded questions.