Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Method Debate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners weigh certificates of obligation versus bond election as costs rise
Summary
Commissioners debated whether to lock financing now with certificates of obligation or send the projects to a bond election, noting consultant estimates of $4 million in added interest and a potential $10 million construction-cost escalation if delayed and re-advertised.
The court's central argument revolved around timing and financing mechanics: certificates of obligation (COs) would let the county lock in interest rates sooner, while a bond election would let voters decide but shift the county's rate lock later and risk higher costs.
Commissioners referenced a consultant estimate that delaying could add about $4,000,000 in interest costs and that construction-cost inflation could add another roughly $10,000,000. One commissioner said those numbers made it difficult in good conscience to send the judicial center to a ballot because the county would then face the higher projected price. Another argued that voter approval is a core democratic step for large nonessential projects and that the arena — viewed primarily as economic development — should be decided by voters.
Discussion also covered technical distinctions: if a CO is petitioned, it can block CO financing for up to three years for the affected projects but would not prevent the county from later seeking a bond. Staff and commissioners discussed reserve balances and how to phase or separate projects to reduce taxpayer impact.
Quote: "If you were just going out for the justice center, I'd be fine... I can't in good faith recommend to my constituents that we should vote on the Justice Center," said a commissioner urging CO authorization for the judicial center.
