Comments: Simon Hughes
During the 05/14/25 Meeting, City Council voted on several matters. Set forth is detail on exactly what I voted for and what I voted against concerning the Architect Contract for the City Hall Project and the Bond issues.
There were several items which Council voted on during the meeting:
1. A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter a contract with the Architect to begin developing construction drawings for the City Hall Project.
a. I voted against this Resolution, because I believe the scope of the Project is far greater than what is warranted and what the City can realistically afford. The Project is for a $21mm City Hall, requiring an up to $24mm bond to finance it. Jersey Village needs a new City Hall, but $21mm is, in my opinion, unreasonable, and it would be fiscally irresponsible to borrow or spend that amount on the City Hall Project.
b. Notwithstanding my opposition, the Resolution passed 4-1.
2. A Resolution that preserves the City’s right to issue bonds (specifically Certificates of Obligation (“COO”) which do not require voter approval) by publishing a “Notice of Intent to Issue” in local papers.
a. I voted in favor of this Resolution because there is potential legislation that would make it far more difficult for the City to issue any bonds (including a COO). If the pending legislation becomes law, it could prohibit or limit the City’s ability to issue bonds which the City needs for required infrastructure improvements. The Resolution only means that the City has authority to publish a Notice of Intent. It does not mean that Council has actually approved issuing any bonds – that vote will come at a later date, on July 21, 2025.
b. The Notice of Intent to Issue Bonds includes:
i. A $20mm COO for water and sewer improvements needed over the next five years. (I agree with this as a proposed bond because I ran on a platform of replacing aged infrastructure for essential services. Also, this debt is paid directly from the Water Utility Fund, over a period of 25 years.) (Agenda Item H-10)
ii. A $24mm COO for the City Hall Project. (I agree the City needs to authorize an expenditure for City Hall, but I do not agree on the proposed amount or scope of the current City Hall Project.) (Agenda Item H-9)
3. To be clear – even if I had voted “No”, this Resolution would have passed because all other Council Members voted “Yes”.
4. I also voted in favor of Agenda Item H-8, in which the City authorized the issuance of the remaining $8.155mm available on the voter-approved General Obligation Bonds (the 2023 Water/Sewer and Street Improvement Bonds) for water and sewer improvements and street improvements which are slated to occur in the very near term.
5. The City needs to reevaluate the idea of borrowing up to $24mm to pursue the $21mm City Hall Project. I believe the City can accomplish what is needed, and provide a community appropriate City Hall (for the 25 employees who currently office in the old building) at considerably less cost.