Eagle Pass ISD board approves parameters to issue up to $150 million in bonds, authorizes officials to finalize sale
June 25, 2026 | EAGLE PASS ISD, School Districts, Texas
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Eagle Pass Independent School District board on Thursday approved an order authorizing district officials to issue up to $150 million in unlimited-tax school building bonds and to pursue refunding of prior bonds, delegating authority to finalize interest rates, sale prices and other terms when market conditions and investor demand align.
Bond counsel Juan Aguilta introduced David Gonzalez of PFM Financial Advisers, who told trustees the district could refinance roughly $25 million of 2016 refunding bonds and capture about $1.88 million in net present-value savings to taxpayers if the district locks in current municipal-market rates. Gonzalez said the district pre-marketed the new-money portion earlier and saw coupon levels in the mid-4% range, with some pre-market indications near 4.3%–4.4%. He recommended using a parameters (delegated) order so staff and advisors can move quickly when both rates and investor appetite are favorable.
Gonzalez and counsel described the financing package as two parts: the voter-approved new-money authorization (par amount up to $150 million) and a refunding component (a ceiling counsel said was $27,845,000). They explained that bond premiums generated at sale can cover cost-of-issuance and fees; Gonzalez estimated roughly $11 million of premium and preliminary issuance costs around $600,000 for the $150 million new-money transaction and about $220,000 for the refunding. He said those fees are expected to be paid from premium, not the voter-approved par amount.
The presentation covered credit and market context. Gonzalez said rating agencies — Standard & Poor's and Fitch — reported strong district reserves and conservative budgeting, and noted that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides a PSF guarantee that allows many districts to market bonds at higher ratings. He also described how qualifying some debt for state assistance could produce an estimated $68 million in state reimbursement across the debt schedule and outlined a near-term tax-rate effect: a projected bump of roughly 33 cents in the first year followed by declines in later years as assistance and growth are realized.
Trustees asked for additional detail on socioeconomic metrics; Gonzalez referenced appendix figures in the rating reports (he cited a per-capita personal income figure from Fitch of about $41,075). Trustee Samuel Mikarez asked whether the district had a reimbursement resolution in place; counsel and advisers said no reimbursement resolution was on the agenda and reminded trustees that federal tax rules limit reimbursement of previously paid project costs (a typical 60-day lookback applies), so the district generally must wait until proceeds are delivered (the presenters said a July 30 close was targeted) unless it adopts an appropriate declaration or resolution.
Counsel described the parameters the board approved: ceilings on maximum par amounts (no more than $150 million new money; refunding not to exceed the stated ceiling), a legal minimum net-present-value savings test of 3% for any refunding to proceed (net of issuance costs), and a maximum interest-rate placeholder (counsel said a 6.5% ceiling had been proposed as a legal upper bound though trustees discussed using a narrower ceiling). Counsel also explained the approval-certificate process: once final pricing meets the approved parameters, the board president, the superintendent, or the deputy superintendent for finance and business may sign the approval certificate to finalize the sale.
After the presentation and brief Q&A, a motion to approve the order as presented was made and seconded. The presiding officer declared the motion passed and the board adjourned the special meeting at 6:26 p.m.
Next steps: advisers said they would monitor the market and, if conditions and investor appetite are favorable, return with final pricing and an approval certificate for execution ahead of a target July 30 closing. The district did not adopt a reimbursement resolution during the meeting; trustees were told that if they wish to reimburse prior expenditures from bond proceeds, the board should consider a separate reimbursement action consistent with federal rules.
Bond counsel Juan Aguilta introduced David Gonzalez of PFM Financial Advisers, who told trustees the district could refinance roughly $25 million of 2016 refunding bonds and capture about $1.88 million in net present-value savings to taxpayers if the district locks in current municipal-market rates. Gonzalez said the district pre-marketed the new-money portion earlier and saw coupon levels in the mid-4% range, with some pre-market indications near 4.3%–4.4%. He recommended using a parameters (delegated) order so staff and advisors can move quickly when both rates and investor appetite are favorable.
Gonzalez and counsel described the financing package as two parts: the voter-approved new-money authorization (par amount up to $150 million) and a refunding component (a ceiling counsel said was $27,845,000). They explained that bond premiums generated at sale can cover cost-of-issuance and fees; Gonzalez estimated roughly $11 million of premium and preliminary issuance costs around $600,000 for the $150 million new-money transaction and about $220,000 for the refunding. He said those fees are expected to be paid from premium, not the voter-approved par amount.
The presentation covered credit and market context. Gonzalez said rating agencies — Standard & Poor's and Fitch — reported strong district reserves and conservative budgeting, and noted that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) provides a PSF guarantee that allows many districts to market bonds at higher ratings. He also described how qualifying some debt for state assistance could produce an estimated $68 million in state reimbursement across the debt schedule and outlined a near-term tax-rate effect: a projected bump of roughly 33 cents in the first year followed by declines in later years as assistance and growth are realized.
Trustees asked for additional detail on socioeconomic metrics; Gonzalez referenced appendix figures in the rating reports (he cited a per-capita personal income figure from Fitch of about $41,075). Trustee Samuel Mikarez asked whether the district had a reimbursement resolution in place; counsel and advisers said no reimbursement resolution was on the agenda and reminded trustees that federal tax rules limit reimbursement of previously paid project costs (a typical 60-day lookback applies), so the district generally must wait until proceeds are delivered (the presenters said a July 30 close was targeted) unless it adopts an appropriate declaration or resolution.
Counsel described the parameters the board approved: ceilings on maximum par amounts (no more than $150 million new money; refunding not to exceed the stated ceiling), a legal minimum net-present-value savings test of 3% for any refunding to proceed (net of issuance costs), and a maximum interest-rate placeholder (counsel said a 6.5% ceiling had been proposed as a legal upper bound though trustees discussed using a narrower ceiling). Counsel also explained the approval-certificate process: once final pricing meets the approved parameters, the board president, the superintendent, or the deputy superintendent for finance and business may sign the approval certificate to finalize the sale.
After the presentation and brief Q&A, a motion to approve the order as presented was made and seconded. The presiding officer declared the motion passed and the board adjourned the special meeting at 6:26 p.m.
Next steps: advisers said they would monitor the market and, if conditions and investor appetite are favorable, return with final pricing and an approval certificate for execution ahead of a target July 30 closing. The district did not adopt a reimbursement resolution during the meeting; trustees were told that if they wish to reimburse prior expenditures from bond proceeds, the board should consider a separate reimbursement action consistent with federal rules.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
