San Patricio County Commissioners Court on Monday authorized staff to pursue a financing plan to refinance a portion of the county’s outstanding general-obligation debt and approved a refunding order that would let county officials finalize a sale if market conditions meet thresholds set by the court.

The court approved a plan to consider issuing a general obligation refunding bond, series 2025, in an approximate amount of $9,125,000 and adopted a refunding order that delegates authority to a county official to execute final sale documents only if the transaction meets the court’s parameters. Tony Hossa, the county’s financial adviser for the refinancing presentation, told commissioners the county could realize roughly $581,400 in gross debt-service savings from the refinancing and a present-value savings of about $458,112 if rates stayed near the levels run in the adviser’s analysis.

The refinancing would target maturities from 2027 through 2036 of the county’s Series 2015 bonds. Hossa said the package being considered would not extend the county’s final maturity dates and that the court would not be bound to a sale unless the deal achieved at least a 3% savings on refunded principal, one of the constraints listed in the draft refunding order. “Provided that rates stay in this relative range, we would anticipate that you would save $581,400,” Hossa said.

Why it matters: The court’s action clears the way for staff and advisers to enter the municipal market and seek bids while preserving the county’s ability to stop the transaction if market conditions deteriorate. Commissioners said they wanted a final report after pricing and before any money changes hands.

What the court approved and how it would work
Commissioners voted in favor of two separate motions: (1) to approve the county’s financing plan to pursue the refunding; and (2) to approve the refunding order that delegates authority to a specified county official (county judge, treasurer, clerk or auditor, per the order) to execute final documents within parameters approved by the court. The order is written to require at least a 3% minimum savings on the refunded bonds as a condition to proceed. Hossa explained the draft documents contain blanks for pricing terms that will be filled in once a firm market offer is available.

Hossa said interest-rate movement since the adviser’s initial review has reduced potential savings slightly compared with estimates from the prior quarter. He described the sensitivity: if potential savings fell below the 3% threshold specified in the order, the delegated officer would be prohibited from executing the sale. The county would also receive a final report of the transaction after pricing.

Discussion highlights and oversight
Commissioners questioned why the draft documents contain blanks. Hossa and county staff explained blanks are standard; the blanks are completed only after rates and underwriter pricing are firm at the time of sale. The court discussed and reaffirmed the delegation language; the order cites Texas Government Code Chapter 1371 as authority for delegated approvals. Commissioners asked that staff provide the finalized sale documents and a summary to the court once pricing is concluded.

Ending
Both motions passed on voice votes. The court’s approval allows county staff and the county’s financing team to monitor markets, solicit underwriter bids and, if the transaction meets the stated parameters, finalize the refunding sale without returning the matter for a separate meeting approval.