Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Oakland County panel recommends notice of intent for large LTGO bond package, forwards plan to finance
Loading...
Summary
Bond counsel and county staff recommended publishing a notice of intent and authorizing limited‑tax general obligation (LTGO) bonds to fund a new county building and other county improvement projects; the committee voted to forward the resolution to the Finance Committee after a 45‑day referendum notice is published.
Oakland County bond counsel and financial staff told the Economic Development & Infrastructure Committee on Dec. 11 that the county plans to publish a notice of intent and seek authorization to issue limited‑tax general obligation (LTGO) capital improvement bonds to finance multiple county projects, including a new county building and other county improvement projects tied to Pontiac’s rebuilding program.
Jared Smith of Dickinson Wright, acting as bond counsel, said the resolution being recommended would both repeat the public notice of intent and authorize bond issuance after the statutorily required 45‑calendar‑day referendum period. “Once that notice is published, then there’s going to be a 45 day period that there could be signatures to just have the issue go to referendum,” Smith said. He said the resolution asks for flexibility in timing and structure so the county can adapt to market conditions and not borrow more than necessary up front.
Smith outlined two primary components described in the presentation: about $174,525,000 tied to a new building at 31 East Judson and a larger component described as $661,500,000 for parking ramps, parks and roads. He said the bonds would be issued as LTGO debt — backed by the county’s full faith and credit — and that publication of the notice triggers the statutory period under Public Act 34 before issuance may proceed.
County staff emphasized that, after local board approvals, the process includes publication coordinated with the clerk’s office and a 45‑day clock during which a petition could force a referendum. If no petition is certified, staff would proceed toward issuance, with rating agencies and underwriter processes likewise required. Staff said the earliest realistic issuance date, assuming approvals and no referendum, could be in February.
Committee members pressed for clarity about timing and the contents of the resolution. The motion to forward the bond authorization and notice of intent to the Finance Committee passed in committee; the committee recorded four yeas and two nays on the motion and forwarded the item for Finance consideration.
Next steps: if Finance approves the recommendation, the Board of Commissioners would consider the resolution; staff will publish the notice of intent, coordinate with the clerk’s office, and await the 45‑day referendum period before proceeding to issue bonds.
Authorities referenced in the meeting include Public Act 34 (revised municipal finance act) and the county’s LTGO procedures; the committee’s action was limited to recommending the notice and authorization to Finance.

