Limited Time Offer. Become a Founder Member Now!

Ironton council advances water-meter financing work; bond counsel to report at next meeting

May 04, 2025 | Ironton City Council, Ironton, Lawrence County, Ohio


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 »

Ironton council advances water-meter financing work; bond counsel to report at next meeting
The Ironton City Council on April 24 discussed financing for a planned water-meter replacement project and directed staff to prepare legislation and bring bond counsel and the underwriter's work to the next council meeting for review.

Council members and staff reviewed two preliminary financing estimates: a proposal through RWDA showing a financing rate of 4.29 percent and a Baird “all‑in” rate reported at about 4.27 percent. Council members discussed whether issuing bonds for the project would affect the city's overall borrowing capacity; Mike Burns had indicated that, as presented, the bonding route would not reduce the city’s borrowing capacity and that the structure would rely on revenue from the utility.

Council asked staff to confirm that analysis with bond counsel. Staff said it would verify the figures with Brenda Weimer of Dinsmore & Shohl (the firm named in the meeting) and that bond counsel and the bond underwriter would complete work for presentation at the next council meeting.

Council also discussed bidding and procurement steps. Staff said it would put the meter contract out to bid promptly so the bid process can proceed while legislation is prepared. Engineering inspection must be completed before final acceptance of any bidder, council members said.

Council members raised concerns about sizing the bond. Using a simplified example in the meeting, staff noted an original quote amount of $2,000,000 for the project and said that if the lowest acceptable bid returned at $2.1 million the bond authorization would be insufficient, prompting discussion about whether to include contingency or “wiggle room” in the bond authorization. Council requested that bond counsel and the underwriter advise on an appropriate authorization structure.

No formal vote to issue bonds took place on April 24. The council directed staff to draft legislation, involve the finance committee in review, and return with bond‑counsel confirmation and the underwriter’s presentation at the next meeting.

Ending: The matter remains in preparation; the council expects a bond‑counsel presentation and a proposed ordinance or resolution to appear at an upcoming meeting before any bond sale is authorized.

View full meeting

This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.

View full meeting

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Ohio articles free in 2025

https://workplace-ai.com/
https://workplace-ai.com/