Pickens County authority votes to review refinancing of airport bonds after Stifel presentation

At its March 6, 2026 meeting, the Pickens County Development Authority voted 5-0 to authorize the chair to request an engagement letter for a review of refunding options on two airport-related bonds after a presentation from Andrew Tripp of Stifel.

Tripp, introduced by county staff, told the authority that refunding the 2018 and 2021 bond issues could reduce the blended yield on those debts from roughly the current 7.5% range to approximately 5.05%, producing estimated aggregate nominal savings of $884,000 after issuance costs and a present-value savings estimate of about $750,000. "Your total savings are $884,000 based on these assumptions," Tripp said during his presentation.

The presentation summarized the offering document investors would use (including county demographics and audited financials), compared public offerings versus private placements, and explained key assumptions: current market yields, issuance costs (attorneys, underwriter fees and rating agency expenses), optional redemption provisions (typical 10-year call protection) and structuring choices that affect how savings are realized over time.

Board members pressed for clarifications about timing, repayment sources and whether federal funds could accelerate paydown. Tripp said FAA reimbursement for terminal construction could provide roughly $1.8 million over several years to reduce outstanding principal going forward but would not be expected to pay past debt already incurred. He also explained that the county's existing one-mill pledge already backs the outstanding debt and emphasized that the proposal would not itself create a new millage: county staff and the presenter confirmed the one-mill pledge is an existing security feature on the prior bonds.

The authority discussed procedural next steps and legal requirements. Tripp and members noted that a rating agency engagement (to secure the publicly marketed rating) typically takes a few weeks and that preparing documents and selling a refunding issue is often a 45–60 day process once the decision to move forward is taken. He said Stifel would perform nonbinding preparatory work at no up-front fee and that full engagement would allow more detailed, sale-specific pricing once regulatory paperwork and counsel work proceeded.

Members also reviewed legal mechanics: an interlocal agreement (IGA) between the county and the development authority and typical bond-counsel steps were discussed; local firms already used by the county (Jordan Davis and counsel identified as Murray Barnes/Finister in the presentation) were referenced as likely participants in closing. Several board members stressed that any request for engagement be transparent and above board, which prompted debate over whether to authorize a full engagement or to request a written engagement letter for review.

An initial motion described as an engagement motion (mover recorded as Hundley, seconded by Hatfield) failed in the transcript's recorded tally. The authority then approved a narrower motion to "engage the bond company to review the bond documents" (motion made by Rafael, seconded by Hurd), which passed 5-0. The board instructed staff to return with updated, audited numbers and options at a subsequent meeting; members penciled in May 22 at 9:00 a.m. as a likely date to review the updated materials.

The vote and the decision do not themselves authorize bond issuance or change county tax policy. Tripp and staff emphasized that further formal approvals — including any interlocal agreement and a bond purchase agreement as issuer — would be required before issuance. The authority adjourned after handling scheduling and routine administrative items.

Next steps: staff will supply audited 2025 financials and a formal engagement/regulatory letter for the authority's review; the authority will consider formal approvals in a later meeting if it wishes to proceed to sale.