Evans County agrees to explore using bonding authority to help finance University of Mary projects

Representatives from the University of Mary described a multi-project capital campaign called Vision 2030—comprising a welcome center, a new 232‑bed residence hall, a research and performance center and an athletic complex—and said the university is seeking financing that pools municipal volume cap from several local jurisdictions.

Paul (University representative) told the commission the projects total roughly $60,000,000 and that the university and its bank partners are assembling a multi‑municipality financing vehicle to obtain lower, bank‑qualified rates. Rivera bank’s representative said the financing would use participating municipalities’ annual $10,000,000 volume authority; he emphasized to the commissioners that “there is no financial obligation to the county or city” and that issuing municipalities do not guarantee payment, language he said was written into the legislation governing this type of conduit financing.

Commissioners asked how the county would be notified and what the procedural next steps would be. Bank counsel and staff described a statutory public‑notice process (TEPRA/notice in the county paper for two successive weeks) and said participating municipalities typically must provide a municipal opinion and pass a local resolution at a later hearing. The bank representative also described a one‑time fee to the issuing jurisdiction (stated in the presentation as roughly $1,000 per $1,000,000 of authority; e.g., $10,000 on a $10,000,000 allocation).

After questions and discussion about timing and the county’s remaining bond capacity, Commissioner S6 moved that Evans County proceed with the process of working with the University of Mary and the bank on a bond agreement—an action commissioners described as a procedural “step” to allow bond attorneys to prepare required notices and to schedule the formal hearing. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. Commissioners clarified repeatedly that the vote to proceed does not commit the county to any repayment or guarantee of the bonds.

The county will next receive draft documents from bond counsel and, if the commission desires, will hold the published TEPRA notice and a public hearing before voting on any resolution to allocate bond authority.

The commission’s vote advances the informational process but does not create a financial obligation for Evans County; any later resolution to permit the bonds would require a separate, formal vote.