WEBVTT 00:00:01.090 --> 00:00:09.958 - On that note, I'll call this meeting of the Special Fiscal Committee into order on Friday, July 24th 00:00:09.958 --> 00:00:18.738 - at 8.30 a.m. Survey will be stopped by Mr. Brady, Chair. We do introductions right now. Mr. Shaker, 00:00:18.738 --> 00:00:26.991 - we do introductions. Justin Chang, we do an introduction. Isabeth Yamaht-Smith, City Council, 00:00:26.991 --> 00:00:30.942 - District 1. Sophia McDowell, Clerk's Office. 00:00:31.490 --> 00:00:41.597 - So today our meeting, if you recall, is going to be a little bit longer because of the buffer of information 00:00:41.597 --> 00:00:50.870 - and the never-in-a-time problem that we get into these serious financial reports. So we're going to 00:00:50.870 --> 00:01:00.606 - start with the controller with semi-quarter reports and then have questions and comments about that from 00:01:00.962 --> 00:01:11.552 - the committee, go to public comments on the reports, and then we will take it away with our more long-term 00:01:11.552 --> 00:01:21.747 - financial information and challenges. Any questions or concerns about rates? Thank you very much. What 00:01:21.747 --> 00:01:29.566 - you have in your packet and also on screen here is the second quarter reports. 00:01:29.922 --> 00:01:35.669 - And just to kind of remind everybody how it's structured, we have two revenue reports, which are the 00:01:35.669 --> 00:01:41.815 - same. We're just at two different levels of detail, the same numbers. And then we have two expense reports, 00:01:41.815 --> 00:01:47.562 - which are the same. They're the same data, but at different levels of level detail. And then we have 00:01:47.562 --> 00:01:53.423 - a fund balance with it. And I'm happy to take questions about any of them. I'm just going to point out 00:01:53.423 --> 00:01:58.942 - a few things. This is to kind of tell you about things I looked at when I get reports like that. 00:01:59.490 --> 00:02:06.642 - First, let's talk about the expenditures. When we look at the expenditure report, one of the things 00:02:06.642 --> 00:02:13.865 - I always look at is just that what percentage of the fund department's lines have been spent by this 00:02:13.865 --> 00:02:21.017 - time of year. What we would expect is about 50 percent if the budget is being spent down completely 00:02:21.017 --> 00:02:28.670 - in a straight line. I tend to look at the big operating funds, primarily the general fund and the economic 00:02:28.866 --> 00:02:36.644 - Development Lit Fund. So if I look at the General Fund, and by the way, I added these percentages just 00:02:36.644 --> 00:02:44.271 - as I was looking at these. They're not in the version I gave to you. Obviously, percentages would be 00:02:44.271 --> 00:02:51.822 - useful, so we'll just add that to this addition of the report. But you can see that for the General 00:02:51.822 --> 00:02:58.014 - Fund, for example, we've got 48.81% of the appropriated expenditure spent so far. 00:02:58.242 --> 00:03:06.221 - And then for the economic development lit, we have 8.5%. So in general, that would tell us that we're 00:03:06.221 --> 00:03:14.199 - on track to spend near 100% of the budget with some small reversions at the end of the year. However, 00:03:14.199 --> 00:03:22.099 - there are a couple of large expenditures that aren't paid out evenly in these funds, but instead are 00:03:22.099 --> 00:03:25.150 - paid out at the beginning of the year. 00:03:25.506 --> 00:03:33.233 - So for example, the almost $4 million in ED lit that's paid out in the ESD budget for Bloomington Transit, 00:03:33.233 --> 00:03:40.815 - that was paid out at the beginning of the year. We also have all the, which we talked about at the last, 00:03:40.815 --> 00:03:48.541 - or one of these previous meetings, transfers to other funds like alternative transportation, Jack Hopkins, 00:03:48.541 --> 00:03:54.174 - sanitation, et cetera. Those were also paid out at the beginning of the year. 00:03:54.594 --> 00:04:02.608 - Actually, what that tells me is that although we're seeing nearly 50 percent of the budget appropriations 00:04:02.608 --> 00:04:10.168 - being spent down at the midpoint, then in reality, because some big expenses were frontloaded, that 00:04:10.168 --> 00:04:17.729 - actually we would expect to have some reversions at the end of the year. I don't know a good way to 00:04:17.729 --> 00:04:24.382 - try to indicate that without literally going through every line and doing a projection. 00:04:24.514 --> 00:04:31.176 - What was the other one you said, Bloomington Transit, Jack Hopkins, what was another example? There 00:04:31.176 --> 00:04:37.506 - were a couple of transfers that are done at the beginning of the year. Sanitation. Sanitation. 00:04:37.506 --> 00:04:44.301 - Also fleets, because the way we manage our fleet is that each of the operating budgets transfer money 00:04:44.301 --> 00:04:51.230 - into the fleet to manage other vehicles associated with that fund. So yeah, there were a whole bunch of 00:04:51.362 --> 00:05:01.860 - kind of large frontload of expenses, which indicates that we're in good shape to have some decent versions 00:05:01.860 --> 00:05:10.494 - by the end of the year in our major operating funds. A couple things when there is a... 00:05:10.626 --> 00:05:16.983 - Did you cross the number on if that might look like? Well, I mean, we've got so the economic development 00:05:16.983 --> 00:05:23.159 - lit is or the economic development lit payment to Wilmington transit is nearly $4 million. So I would 00:05:23.159 --> 00:05:29.274 - say, you know, because that's all front loaded, I'd say $2 million of that we would have expected in 00:05:29.274 --> 00:05:35.632 - the second half if it had been evenly paid out. So, you know, there's $2 million there and the transfers 00:05:35.632 --> 00:05:39.870 - I think were about $2 million. So you expect another million dollars. 00:05:40.290 --> 00:05:47.062 - just back of the mapping calculations. When you see a negative, so in other words, more has been spent 00:05:47.062 --> 00:05:53.834 - than was in the appropriation, usually what that would mean, well, that could mean a couple of things. 00:05:53.834 --> 00:06:01.001 - It could mean that we've done an additional appropriation, but we haven't done any additional appropriations 00:06:01.001 --> 00:06:07.773 - yet since you haven't seen any of those before you. But what that usually means then is that there was 00:06:07.773 --> 00:06:10.206 - an encumbrance from a previous year. 00:06:10.722 --> 00:06:17.299 - And I know a lot of, you know, encumbrances are kind of weird. Basically, they're appropriations that 00:06:17.299 --> 00:06:23.876 - are held over from a previous year. And encumbrances can only be held over if a P.O., purchase order, 00:06:23.876 --> 00:06:30.581 - and a contract are in place. And they're only valid for that contract. So you can't then repurpose that 00:06:30.581 --> 00:06:36.062 - appropriation, that encumbrance for something else. And you can't encumber salaries. 00:06:36.482 --> 00:06:42.813 - But they do constitute authorized and potential spending beyond that you actually appropriate it for 00:06:42.813 --> 00:06:49.082 - that budget year. We've been informed by the Department of Local Government Finance that it is best 00:06:49.082 --> 00:06:55.351 - practice for us to present the City Council with a list of the encumbrances at the end of the year, 00:06:55.351 --> 00:07:01.118 - so it becomes a part of the public right, just to get it on the record of a public meeting. 00:07:01.410 --> 00:07:09.843 - expect to see that probably at the last meeting of the year. A record number, which is just so you know 00:07:09.843 --> 00:07:18.195 - what they are and so that the public has a way to trace that and see what those impacts. Any questions 00:07:18.195 --> 00:07:26.465 - about that? I know that's always something people ask about why are they are the negatives. One other 00:07:26.465 --> 00:07:29.790 - comment on the housing development fund. 00:07:31.586 --> 00:07:38.585 - that you'll see that very little of that has actually been spent of the appropriations there have been 00:07:38.585 --> 00:07:45.584 - spent and you'll hear more about this in the director Killian Hanson's budget report when their budget 00:07:45.584 --> 00:07:52.446 - one on one she makes a presentation but there's a lot in progress and also this is a situation where 00:07:52.446 --> 00:07:58.494 - the city has received far more requests than available funding and support and sometimes 00:07:58.722 --> 00:08:05.932 - To make a project work, they need full funding. Partial funding doesn't help, because it doesn't advance 00:08:05.932 --> 00:08:12.937 - the project forward. So there's just a lot of work to be done, and that money doesn't necessarily get 00:08:12.937 --> 00:08:19.804 - spent down in an even pattern. But I know that that's often a question for that particular fund. So 00:08:19.804 --> 00:08:26.945 - moving on from any other questions about the expenditures. I just want to say you answered my question, 00:08:26.945 --> 00:08:27.838 - so good job. 00:08:27.970 --> 00:08:34.979 - Revenues, and the revenues, unlike expenditures, the budgeted revenues are not legally binding. They're 00:08:34.979 --> 00:08:41.988 - just estimates. Sometimes revenue comes in for which there was no estimate at all ahead of time. That's 00:08:41.988 --> 00:08:48.795 - why when you look at these reports, you'll sometimes see a zero or a blank in the amount of budgeted 00:08:48.795 --> 00:08:53.310 - amount, and that's just because there was no revenue that came in. 00:08:53.730 --> 00:09:01.617 - that hadn't necessarily been anticipated. In this case, there are intergovernmental agreements. Maybe 00:09:01.617 --> 00:09:09.813 - there was an agreement between, just as an example, the county and the city that hadn't been anticipated. 00:09:09.813 --> 00:09:17.622 - Yes. I have clarification before you go further about the revenue because usually rent means that we 00:09:17.622 --> 00:09:18.782 - owe something. 00:09:19.010 --> 00:09:24.182 - But in this situation, when the remaining amount is in the red, the negative, it's actually positive 00:09:24.182 --> 00:09:29.456 - thinking. That's the actual, like what we actually thought was more than we thought we were gonna get. 00:09:29.456 --> 00:09:34.679 - Unlike expenditure that was more than we thought we would get. In this case, the revenue is more than 00:09:34.679 --> 00:09:39.799 - we thought we would get. I just wanted to make sure, clarify that I was thinking about that, right? 00:09:39.799 --> 00:09:45.278 - Because that's kind of an awkward way to think about it and make sure the public realize what's happening. 00:09:45.278 --> 00:09:47.326 - Yeah, I might wanna not do it that way. 00:09:47.714 --> 00:10:01.308 - I just used a standard formula for an Excel that uses the counter formats. Yeah. I guess that's the 00:10:01.308 --> 00:10:15.175 - end of the question I have for clarification. Okay. Just a couple of things to mention. Let's see. We 00:10:15.175 --> 00:10:17.214 - have in taxes, 00:10:17.890 --> 00:10:27.824 - As an example, normally with taxes, you would expect by this time to have received 50 percent of the 00:10:27.824 --> 00:10:37.660 - taxes. Actually, a better example is with economic development lit, because that's the only funding 00:10:37.660 --> 00:10:47.102 - source for the economic development lit. We anticipated our certified lit was about $2 million, 00:10:47.586 --> 00:10:54.241 - But we, and local income tax is normally paid every month, it's paid monthly. So by this time, we would 00:10:54.241 --> 00:11:00.768 - expect to have received exactly 50% of our lit. But you'll see that we've actually received more than 00:11:00.768 --> 00:11:07.551 - 50% in our budgeting amount. And the reason for that is the supplemental, because we get the supplemental 00:11:07.551 --> 00:11:14.654 - that this year, 2026 was not budgeted for. So you're actually lining up with more lit than we had anticipated. 00:11:15.682 --> 00:11:23.802 - And then finally, the other thing I want to call attention to because this will matter in the future 00:11:23.802 --> 00:11:31.842 - and then during budget is actually a bit of a revenue detail, which again, it's the same as revenue 00:11:31.842 --> 00:11:40.525 - only more, only a lower level detail. So it's planning. We have a bunch of revenue sources like application 00:11:40.525 --> 00:11:43.902 - fees, inspection fees, intergovernmental. 00:11:44.322 --> 00:11:51.584 - House Enrolled Act 1001 puts some new requirements on planning revenue. And in particular, this planning 00:11:51.584 --> 00:11:58.846 - revenue, the planning revenue in particular for permits and building. The building and planning permits, 00:11:58.846 --> 00:12:05.901 - which include inspections, now have to be deposited in their own set of funds. So they will no longer 00:12:05.901 --> 00:12:12.956 - be as 2027. That revenue will no longer be in the general fund. It will instead be in a new fund that 00:12:12.956 --> 00:12:14.270 - we have to create. 00:12:14.434 --> 00:12:22.670 - Then we can only expend out of that fund for the actual costs of providing those building and funding 00:12:22.670 --> 00:12:30.825 - funds. The reason for that is the General Assembly was convinced that local units of government were 00:12:30.825 --> 00:12:40.030 - using planning building fees as a profit center. Bloomington is not by a long shot using that as a profit center. 00:12:40.322 --> 00:12:46.906 - As you know, our planning expenses are far lower than the fees are, but this is now kind of an additional 00:12:46.906 --> 00:12:53.242 - accounting step that we have to go through and segregate those fees. So from now on, in fact, when we 00:12:53.242 --> 00:12:59.640 - present the budget to you, there's gonna be a new fund that's created that for getting the name at the 00:12:59.640 --> 00:13:05.976 - moment, but it's like budget and plan or something like that. A building plan that will be segregated 00:13:05.976 --> 00:13:07.902 - for permits and building fees, 00:13:08.162 --> 00:13:14.552 - along with the expenditures associated. And so to clarify, like that will have to come before capital 00:13:14.552 --> 00:13:20.941 - degree on because we have to be there. Or is that the difference? Yeah, we will be creating it in the 00:13:20.941 --> 00:13:27.331 - system now, basically, because we have to include in our budget proposal. But yes, you'll essentially 00:13:27.331 --> 00:13:33.846 - be doing it closer to when you approve the budget for that. OK, so that will be far as the whole budget 00:13:33.846 --> 00:13:37.918 - package is posted. It's on separate legislation. Right, correct. 00:13:38.242 --> 00:13:45.413 - And it will not, you know, it really ultimately shouldn't result in any change in either expenses or 00:13:45.413 --> 00:13:52.726 - revenue. It's just, it's almost just a lot of our accounting work and not just in our office, but also 00:13:52.726 --> 00:14:00.109 - in the department. So it's just extra work because the department is required to reconcile their actual 00:14:00.109 --> 00:14:07.422 - expenses in granting these permits with the fees that are brought in. So it's just more work for them. 00:14:07.554 --> 00:14:17.060 - Jeff, I know that one of the felt for, because of, you know, is building public services, roads or detention 00:14:17.060 --> 00:14:25.869 - points or something like that, they pay a bond to ensure that they fulfill that obligation. Where is 00:14:25.869 --> 00:14:35.550 - that apart? Where does that money get from? I mean, I mean, so generally the bond, we don't actually cash the, 00:14:35.874 --> 00:14:43.937 - You know, it's usually down in the form of an insurance policy that just sits on a shelf unless it actually 00:14:43.937 --> 00:14:51.477 - gets called. We did actually have a fairly recent instance where we had a developer long call and it 00:14:51.477 --> 00:14:59.018 - went into the general fund where the engineering department was essentially used the money to do the 00:14:59.018 --> 00:15:05.214 - remediation of what they had to fix, but the developer wasn't able to do anything. 00:15:05.730 --> 00:15:11.951 - Okay. So, I mean, that's generally the idea. We're also not supposed to make a point that I'm wrong, 00:15:11.951 --> 00:15:18.296 - but we're supposed to use it to cover the costs of doing what the developer showed them. Just curious, 00:15:18.296 --> 00:15:24.825 - was it covered? There were actually two different instances, one of them more than enough, which actually 00:15:24.825 --> 00:15:31.108 - created a problem because we didn't have to figure out what to do with the rest of it, how to get the 00:15:31.108 --> 00:15:34.558 - rest back to the insurance company and the other metal. 00:15:35.458 --> 00:15:45.571 - Yeah, the bond doesn't always cover that cost of remediation. Was that the digital installation for 00:15:45.571 --> 00:15:55.786 - fiber? No, that's another thing. You will be seeing just a sneak preview in the budget presentation. 00:15:55.786 --> 00:16:04.382 - The budget proposal will include a $500,000 transfer out of that fund to the digital 00:16:05.026 --> 00:16:12.670 - the fiber connectivity fund, which is used to defray half the costs of connecting low-income houses 00:16:12.670 --> 00:16:20.619 - with the fiber network. No, I was just thinking the bond that there were so many company names, I can't 00:16:20.619 --> 00:16:28.722 - keep track, but that the company had that was supposed to install the fiber that actually- It was Orinium 00:16:28.722 --> 00:16:32.926 - Fiber, some contractor, AEG. Right, that made a lot of 00:16:33.154 --> 00:16:40.846 - mistakes and caused a lot of cleanup work. Yes. And that bond was tapped, right, to pay for that. They 00:16:40.846 --> 00:16:48.389 - paid for that, but the bond was also, they also had to deposit a million dollars into this fund that 00:16:48.389 --> 00:16:55.933 - I was that I was telling you about, we call the surety bond proceeds fund. You all created that last 00:16:55.933 --> 00:17:02.206 - year. But that was, that was insurance, that wasn't the low income access or was it 00:17:03.362 --> 00:17:12.441 - We are proposing to transfer $500,000. I'm kind of giving you a seat. The real question here is that 00:17:12.441 --> 00:17:21.429 - has the city had any un-recarb expenses related to having to clean it? That would be an engineering 00:17:21.429 --> 00:17:30.508 - question. My understanding is that some of the repair work will be done by the company that takes on 00:17:30.508 --> 00:17:32.126 - the new contract. 00:17:32.642 --> 00:17:39.037 - There were some repairs that we might have made, but then some that whoever assumed the next phase of 00:17:39.037 --> 00:17:45.431 - contract also assumes a portion, and I don't know any of the details on this, of the actual repair of 00:17:45.431 --> 00:17:52.014 - problems that might be possible. So it's sort of a package deal. You want the opportunity to go forward, 00:17:52.014 --> 00:17:55.838 - you also assume some of the problems that have to be solved. 00:17:56.066 --> 00:18:03.822 - And just FYI that I'm pretty much done with my report. But if you go to the fund balances report, you'll 00:18:03.822 --> 00:18:11.209 - see the fund name, the surety bond proceeds fund. That's the fund that you all created last year to 00:18:11.209 --> 00:18:18.965 - receive that million dollar bond. But that's, as you can see, none of that money has actually been spent 00:18:18.965 --> 00:18:23.102 - yet. Again, we will be making a proposal during budget. 00:18:25.122 --> 00:18:33.072 - So I think that's all I've got. Do you all have any other questions? Questions on the right-hand side? 00:18:33.072 --> 00:18:41.022 - I have a couple of questions. One is, I'm wondering if there's any consequences that we're considering 00:18:41.022 --> 00:18:49.358 - with regards to the fuel tax cost of many of them. I mean, I know we financially pay local units. Actually, 00:18:49.358 --> 00:18:53.758 - we've already received the first payment back from that. 00:18:53.890 --> 00:19:02.390 - Right now, our gas tax revenue is looking good. All right. Then I had another question while we're on 00:19:02.390 --> 00:19:11.057 - the front page about 2416-0 starts here, Safer Streets, which has a zero balance. I'm wondering if that 00:19:11.057 --> 00:19:19.558 - is a new or old fund because, of course, we have the Safe Streets for All on a Shed. I guess I'm just 00:19:19.558 --> 00:19:22.558 - wondering. I've never noticed that. 00:19:22.786 --> 00:19:30.244 - I actually don't know what that is. I've never had to touch it, so I'm going to guess it's an old fund. 00:19:30.244 --> 00:19:37.559 - It's definitely not long ago created. One of the frustrations with our system is that we can't create 00:19:37.559 --> 00:19:44.874 - a favorites list. We basically either select individually or we get them all. Some of these tools had 00:19:44.874 --> 00:19:51.902 - just not been used in years. I guess I'm curious about that because what it says might be useful. 00:19:52.322 --> 00:19:59.310 - I'm thinking about our safe streets for all action plan. I don't know if there's any way to utilize 00:19:59.310 --> 00:20:06.508 - that at all for anything. But I just saw that and I made that relationship and I thought, interesting. 00:20:06.508 --> 00:20:13.776 - Of course, there's no money. Right. There's no money. But that's why I'm like, sometimes we create more 00:20:13.776 --> 00:20:16.222 - funds with the idea of using some. 00:20:16.514 --> 00:20:26.230 - some fund that's already in existence or it is in the process. Like alternative transportation is the 00:20:26.230 --> 00:20:36.232 - fund that would logically. Yeah. Combine for me for funding. Yeah. And that's true in banking buildings. 00:20:36.232 --> 00:20:41.566 - Okay. Then I think I have more. There's a lot of cases. 00:20:48.034 --> 00:20:57.508 - I did think of a question. Yeah, I got that. You mentioned that the ED lit total was about half, but 00:20:57.508 --> 00:21:03.230 - I noticed that the public safety lit was far less than half. 00:21:03.458 --> 00:21:10.990 - What's going on with our public safety? The public safety lit fund has tended to be used more for capital 00:21:10.990 --> 00:21:18.166 - expenses, and capital expenses are always more lumpy. They're not paid out over time. I think that's 00:21:18.166 --> 00:21:25.271 - shifted over the years, and this year there are some more operational expenses being put out of it, 00:21:25.271 --> 00:21:30.174 - but they're still. I meant on the revenue side. On the revenue side, 00:21:31.394 --> 00:21:43.373 - But we budgeted 4.8 million and then we've only received 1.4. And then the summary, the revenue summary 00:21:43.373 --> 00:21:55.237 - on public safety. Yeah, that right there, that 4.8 versus Florida's next to it. Oh, yeah. I think that 00:21:55.237 --> 00:22:00.766 - was budgeted incorrectly, honestly, because the 00:22:01.090 --> 00:22:10.077 - the public safety answer point revenue comes out of that. And so if you copy the wrong number, if you 00:22:10.077 --> 00:22:18.889 - look at the wrong number for public safety, you might be including some of that revenue rather than 00:22:18.889 --> 00:22:27.788 - only the money that's supposed to come in from public safety. That's my guess just right off the bat 00:22:27.788 --> 00:22:29.374 - and look at that. 00:22:29.474 --> 00:22:38.282 - whether we could maybe look into that a little bit because that's significantly less than half. We do 00:22:38.282 --> 00:22:47.091 - receive all of the payments for LIT on a monthly basis. Those should be in terms of actually bringing 00:22:47.091 --> 00:22:55.813 - in revenue should be totally caught up. Jeff, you're saying that the budgeted revenue for LIT public 00:22:55.813 --> 00:22:57.022 - safety of 4.8 00:22:57.410 --> 00:23:06.697 - million is incorrect, including PSAP. Let me look into it before I say that firmly. That was my guess 00:23:06.697 --> 00:23:15.892 - when Council member Stasco brought this up. Let me look into it. Isabel, what was your question? The 00:23:15.892 --> 00:23:23.358 - ARPA COVID funds, they have to be spent by the end of this year, don't they? Yes. 00:23:24.162 --> 00:23:38.552 - There's a lot of effort spent and meetings with departments and our office and departments and the attorney 00:23:38.552 --> 00:23:52.542 - from Barnes and Thors that we've used as a consultant. Those discussions are very active. Let's go up to 00:23:52.770 --> 00:24:01.900 - public comment then around any of these reports. If there's a member of public who would like to comment 00:24:01.900 --> 00:24:10.769 - on our setting for reports, please raise your hands. There's nobody in the room still. I'm not seeing 00:24:10.769 --> 00:24:18.856 - any hands go up. Great. Thank you very much. Jeff, that means that you were so complete with 00:24:18.856 --> 00:24:22.334 - your presentation that nobody knows any 00:24:23.042 --> 00:24:31.754 - additional questions. So now we're on to Reedy. Perfect. So the next kind of heavy-hitting detail piece. 00:24:31.754 --> 00:24:40.300 - Take your way. Well, it's just, sorry, let me just make sure it's the... Tim, right? Okay, let me just 00:24:40.300 --> 00:24:48.596 - make that sure. Try to keep it sweet from the inside forward, because everything else is just gonna 00:24:48.596 --> 00:24:49.758 - have to work. 00:24:49.986 --> 00:24:56.595 - We're going to go through the presentation, but as we go, there's certain topics that we will need to 00:24:56.595 --> 00:25:03.269 - dive further. There's three other handouts that we've provided, and we'll let you guys know which ones 00:25:03.269 --> 00:25:10.138 - we've got. But just as we go through the presentation, most of the talking points are going to be focused 00:25:10.138 --> 00:25:16.747 - on work on the tax, property tax, the general fund, which Jeff really just talked about, and property 00:25:16.747 --> 00:25:18.302 - tax, debt-related debt. 00:25:18.434 --> 00:25:27.412 - Again, we'll record these as we go. Are there any questions? Please go to your office and we'll be happy 00:25:27.412 --> 00:25:35.962 - to answer any questions. For the sake of the public, this presentation did go out and it didn't end 00:25:35.962 --> 00:25:43.486 - on a packet. I believe that the additional keys we have here are also in amendment one. 00:25:43.746 --> 00:25:52.862 - The data should be now, as I mentioned, I don't know if that would help to the public, but the presentation 00:25:52.862 --> 00:26:01.724 - is clearly glitched. So it did not import cleanly into Google Sheets. It's a power plant. So we're going 00:26:01.724 --> 00:26:11.262 - to have to fix that. All right. So I was looking and I saw that some question was asked about the public safety. 00:26:11.938 --> 00:26:19.375 - uh for those in the public and everyone here you want to see what the department of public government 00:26:19.375 --> 00:26:26.958 - finance has certified for the city for 2026 you can actually go to the blgf website and type it up down 00:26:26.958 --> 00:26:34.323 - slash blgf um you're certified in public safety distribution for 26 is $4,875,557 yeah that's thanks 00:26:34.323 --> 00:26:36.510 - for having me the whole thing 00:26:36.962 --> 00:26:50.319 - That's just a number. Just a number. For public safety, it's 4,875,567. That's their estimate. Certified. 00:26:50.319 --> 00:27:03.550 - The income tax basically comes in exactly as it's certified. So that's plus a certain cap in the budget. 00:27:05.218 --> 00:27:17.071 - To me, that just seems like a piece of public safety access point was promoted out of the public safety 00:27:17.071 --> 00:27:28.810 - front. Back to the presentation. So first bullet point there, capital plan and bond timing. I will say 00:27:28.810 --> 00:27:34.622 - right now, I guess we're technically on draft two, 00:27:35.394 --> 00:27:43.080 - of the long-term capital improvement plan. That's going to be five years of capital outlays plan alongside 00:27:43.080 --> 00:27:50.551 - your operating expenses as well. So that's actually tied to individual bonds within the financial plan. 00:27:50.551 --> 00:27:57.878 - The financial plan should be part of the packet. Correct. Okay. Really with a big part of the capital 00:27:57.878 --> 00:28:04.702 - plan is just going to kind of depend on the council's appetite for bond sizing and the timing. 00:28:05.506 --> 00:28:13.629 - and I'll let Justin get to that when we get to that. There is, just so everyone's aware, there's a pretty 00:28:13.629 --> 00:28:21.368 - significant opportunity if you wanted to keep the property tax rate similar to the next closest city 00:28:21.368 --> 00:28:29.185 - because it'd be off debt. You're about 20 cents lower currently than long yet. So, and a 20 cent debt 00:28:29.185 --> 00:28:33.246 - rate, not that you have to or even need to be a full 00:28:33.410 --> 00:28:40.380 - Any questions on that? Yeah. And just something to keep in mind there, depending on the length of the 00:28:40.380 --> 00:28:46.735 - bond and the issuance costs and all that stuff, they did that, they did that, they did that, 00:28:46.735 --> 00:28:53.911 - they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, 00:28:53.911 --> 00:29:01.086 - they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that. 00:29:01.666 --> 00:29:11.247 - A lot of what you can flush in the middle of the net. So it would be helpful maybe. So this is the next 00:29:11.247 --> 00:29:21.566 - comparable city, Lafayette, but you know, it's nice to have a visual of where we lie within other cities. Yeah. 00:29:21.730 --> 00:29:51.070 - I don't know if you guys heard from the county, if there's any updates on that. 00:29:51.586 --> 00:29:58.247 - Just know that we, our firm, has prepared an analysis of impact projections based on the statute as 00:29:58.247 --> 00:30:05.041 - it currently reads. So, and I say that because it may change. They technically haven't until the 28th 00:30:05.041 --> 00:30:11.768 - General Assembly to change it because they think 29th is going to be the first year where the income 00:30:11.768 --> 00:30:18.495 - tax impacts. So, we may have changes next year and changes in 28th, so. Yeah, yeah. That's how we're 00:30:18.495 --> 00:30:20.094 - supposed to play. Okay. 00:30:20.834 --> 00:30:28.260 - just kind of on that same point, the entire plan really hinges upon how that income tax situation with 00:30:28.260 --> 00:30:35.831 - the SEA-1 slash mutual investment play out. So just keep that in mind as we go through the plan. I think 00:30:35.831 --> 00:30:43.185 - we covered this slide last time, but just, I don't know if anyone needs a recap, maybe for the people 00:30:43.185 --> 00:30:47.006 - that are on, for the public need a quick recap here. 00:30:47.266 --> 00:30:53.468 - Essentially, the city can either choose to do its own local income tax rate under the statute, the way 00:30:53.468 --> 00:30:59.609 - it currently reads, and that will start in 2029, or the city can opt into a countywide, what's called 00:30:59.609 --> 00:31:05.630 - a municipal services rate, which would go to primarily just cities and towns within the county. But 00:31:05.630 --> 00:31:10.206 - those are the last two calls, right? Those are the last two calls, correct. 00:31:10.530 --> 00:31:16.540 - The rest of those columns really don't matter to the city so much unless it gets to a point where that 00:31:16.540 --> 00:31:22.667 - actually affects the rate that the county will adopt for the city, for that instance. Because everything 00:31:22.667 --> 00:31:28.503 - in the city has no control over that. And really you don't have control over that first blue column 00:31:28.503 --> 00:31:34.455 - either. You only have control over that last cities and towns under 3,500 people. I will say the fire 00:31:34.455 --> 00:31:38.014 - in EMS does matter to us. The fire in EMS does matter to us. 00:31:38.338 --> 00:31:45.197 - or we don't have any control over it. Correct. So the first blue box, that's like the Musks committee 00:31:45.197 --> 00:31:51.921 - thing to have control over that, right? Correct. And the Musks committee really isn't leading by me 00:31:51.921 --> 00:31:58.443 - either. So, I mean, it really just comes down to the county council having that time of the day. 00:31:58.443 --> 00:32:05.235 - The way it's, the way the statute currently reads is county council will have that vote reported. So 00:32:05.235 --> 00:32:08.126 - any questions on the sort of how it works? 00:32:11.522 --> 00:32:18.212 - No, I do want to say, though, for the sake of maybe my committee members, you know, we get these emails, 00:32:18.212 --> 00:32:24.584 - I assume that you all get them too from me about different workshops and things related to- Various 00:32:24.584 --> 00:32:31.401 - things. There's one related to the must committee stuff on Monday, and I did sign up to go and IDN forward 00:32:31.401 --> 00:32:38.028 - that to anybody else who was interested in coming here for them. It's like in the morning. I don't know 00:32:38.028 --> 00:32:41.150 - if anybody works here. And assuming- Yeah, yeah. 00:32:41.282 --> 00:32:47.674 - And I think that they often record those students without a recording afterwards too. So I can find 00:32:47.674 --> 00:32:54.194 - that in my L4 class. If I don't do that, I didn't say it, but it reminds me. The only point I'm going 00:32:54.194 --> 00:33:00.969 - to make on that is I agree that the AEM presentations are great and they're really not ideal. It's really 00:33:00.969 --> 00:33:08.001 - interesting to see, kind of from the county side, their lobby group, AIC, has their own set of presentations. 00:33:08.001 --> 00:33:10.110 - And it's just interesting to see 00:33:10.210 --> 00:33:19.071 - the difference in the way that they spend these various rates. The AI aim is very much, do this must 00:33:19.071 --> 00:33:27.933 - process, do it early, participate widely, and AIC is basically telling the counties to hold back and 00:33:27.933 --> 00:33:36.794 - that there's really not a lot of benefits to them going forward with it. It'll be interesting to see 00:33:36.794 --> 00:33:38.110 - how that goes. 00:33:38.274 --> 00:33:45.492 - The AM workshop on Monday had somebody from the AIC that's going to participate in that group. I can't 00:33:45.492 --> 00:33:52.641 - actually remember. I was like on vacation. I think it's good for us to keep remembering and saying in 00:33:52.641 --> 00:33:59.649 - public also that in three of the four county districts, the majority of their constituents are also 00:33:59.649 --> 00:34:07.358 - city residents. Since out of seven county council members, the majority were constituents for city residents. 00:34:08.706 --> 00:34:14.899 - That's an even better, yeah. I'd say there's, there's merit to both sides, right? I think definitely 00:34:14.899 --> 00:34:21.092 - for the public and everyone involved in the community needs to kind of get together to know how this 00:34:21.092 --> 00:34:27.285 - thing's going to work at a high level, right? But to AIC's point, you're not going to have, we don't 00:34:27.285 --> 00:34:33.479 - have adjusted dressing count basis for any of the cities and towns. So there's really not like a, an 00:34:33.479 --> 00:34:35.870 - ideal way to project your impacts. So. 00:34:36.162 --> 00:34:43.038 - That's a huge point, actually, and that's is that for counties, we know exactly what their AGI is. We 00:34:43.038 --> 00:34:50.319 - know what counties, what income tax counties bring in, but for cities, it's a guess. It's just a projection 00:34:50.319 --> 00:34:57.263 - based on, you know, I don't know what data points we use to project, but it is just a guess. Yeah, the 00:34:57.263 --> 00:35:04.139 - method we use to do the city's impact is American Community Survey, which is census data. We get that 00:35:04.139 --> 00:35:05.150 - on census.gov. 00:35:05.378 --> 00:35:13.303 - and everything's noted in the SCA-1-size HGH work and analysis of the links. Essentially, you just take 00:35:13.303 --> 00:35:21.152 - the 24 data, which is really 23 data inflated to 24, and then you inflate that to the current 26 data, 00:35:21.152 --> 00:35:28.925 - and then inflate that further to 29. So I mean, there's, it's a logical mathematical method, but it's 00:35:28.925 --> 00:35:35.326 - a projection, honor projection. So it's about the best method you can come up with. 00:35:36.482 --> 00:35:45.268 - So any questions on that? All right, so where the river meets the road here, and this is why I said 00:35:45.268 --> 00:35:54.844 - that everything in the financial plan hinges upon how this burns out. So if the city were to do its own 1.2% 00:35:54.844 --> 00:36:03.454 - live, which would only be on the city, people living within the corporate boundaries of the city, 00:36:05.346 --> 00:36:10.781 - Based on the HDI method that I was just talking about, you would be about $18.4 million less net property 00:36:10.781 --> 00:36:16.267 - tax levy and global income tax total. Then you would be under current system in 2019. Can you just clarify 00:36:16.267 --> 00:36:21.497 - that first column is what would happen if there was no SBA one? Yeah, the first column was pretending 00:36:21.497 --> 00:36:26.830 - like none of this stuff ever happened and it would just be the current system. So that's in our current 00:36:26.830 --> 00:36:29.086 - system, that's what we would have expected. 00:36:29.666 --> 00:36:37.965 - Yeah. Okay, so this is no, that's the one. And first of all, this graph did not transfer into the packet, 00:36:37.965 --> 00:36:45.794 - but I feel like I remember seeing this graph somewhere else in some of the documents that got spent 00:36:45.794 --> 00:36:53.623 - in the original one. There was a lot of pages of stuff. Yeah. Yeah, so 29 pretty much in the words, 00:36:53.623 --> 00:36:57.694 - her statute pertains like we're under the system of 00:36:58.562 --> 00:37:06.469 - work. Anyway, um, that's what a 6% max levy growth quotient and a 1% local income tax growth per year. 00:37:06.469 --> 00:37:14.530 - Those are the big assumptions that are using that. Um, and those same assumptions. So 6% max levy growth 00:37:14.530 --> 00:37:22.744 - and 1% local income tax growth per year is in the other three examples as well. Just to keep it as similar 00:37:22.744 --> 00:37:23.742 - as we could. 00:37:27.874 --> 00:37:36.932 - So yeah, the next scenario is right now based on the information that we have, doing a parcel by parcel 00:37:36.932 --> 00:37:45.904 - analysis, getting every single unit's property tax impact, basically, but they're losing property tax. 00:37:45.904 --> 00:37:54.701 - That includes the county, township's library, all that stuff. That's the breakeven analysis. So that 00:37:54.701 --> 00:37:57.662 - right now is what is in the plan. 00:37:58.210 --> 00:38:05.448 - not the best case scenario, not the worst case scenario, just kind of the hopeful scenario is what I'm 00:38:05.448 --> 00:38:12.686 - going to call it. So that's the third column. That's the third column, yes. Okay, so you already found 00:38:12.686 --> 00:38:19.924 - out the second column. Second column, that's just the, yeah, that's just the city list. That's how you 00:38:19.924 --> 00:38:24.702 - do it. So just to put that into perspective. Yeah, that's terrible. 00:38:24.930 --> 00:38:33.099 - I'm just trying to line up the bullet points on the side with the fallen like the turn. So that's the 00:38:33.099 --> 00:38:41.187 - first bullet point. Yeah. So, and the one next to that is just the maximum useful services only. And 00:38:41.187 --> 00:38:49.356 - the reason why we want that in there is to see how dramatically different that is the city hopping in 00:38:49.356 --> 00:38:51.358 - to a county wide rating. 00:38:51.618 --> 00:38:56.976 - That's not even, that doesn't even include fire made mess. That's just, hold on. So that's not even 00:38:56.976 --> 00:39:02.388 - the rosiest. So that's not the second. That's the last column. Right. But, but that's not the second 00:39:02.388 --> 00:39:07.961 - bullet point. The second bullet point is a little, a little more confusing because it includes a little 00:39:07.961 --> 00:39:13.694 - bit of fire made mess and a little bit of misconservative. Okay. And is that the third, the fourth column? 00:39:13.694 --> 00:39:19.053 - The fourth column is just even misconservative, max out. Oh. Yeah. So the third column doesn't have 00:39:19.053 --> 00:39:20.446 - a bullet point over here? 00:39:21.378 --> 00:39:40.421 - The bullets don't line up with the columns. They're general. Yeah. I'm sure that you'll be heard. So 00:39:40.421 --> 00:39:47.774 - the yellow. So the best case scenario, 00:39:48.130 --> 00:39:54.058 - is actually more than that last column. Yes, it would be more than the 99. Because it would have some. 00:39:54.058 --> 00:39:59.871 - Yeah, it would have the entire AMS and the full maximum. Well, yeah, there's no actual yellow column 00:39:59.871 --> 00:40:05.857 - in the 99, but there's some, there should be yellow. Yeah, there's, well, there's kind of a dual reason 00:40:05.857 --> 00:40:11.785 - why the fireman has to live in there. It's because the county has complete control of that. And if the 00:40:11.785 --> 00:40:17.310 - county sees that they can make you to hold with just the maxing out the municipal services lid, 00:40:17.666 --> 00:40:23.744 - They may decide to lower fire now to, you know, give Monroe County fire protection to break even and 00:40:23.744 --> 00:40:29.942 - then not get the city in. Right. I mean, it's fully in the county's control to do with fire and that's 00:40:29.942 --> 00:40:36.141 - what they want to do. Right. So there's no, that's like maxing out the municipal services lit, but not 00:40:36.141 --> 00:40:41.918 - having any fire, any of that threat to the city. Now for maybe starting other units, but right. 00:40:43.586 --> 00:40:51.946 - Yeah, that is kind of odd that the city, the county is required to consider service area and population 00:40:51.946 --> 00:41:00.065 - served, but it doesn't give them an actual formula to use those. They can say, oh, we've considered, 00:41:00.065 --> 00:41:08.184 - we duly considered it and the city doesn't. I will say that the AIC presentation that I saw the city 00:41:08.184 --> 00:41:12.766 - or AIC give the county council on this, they seem to be, 00:41:14.050 --> 00:41:21.850 - supporting the fire DMS rate rather than the municipal services rate. They were still very much pinching 00:41:21.850 --> 00:41:29.352 - the municipal services rate as a small municipalities rate, which it was before HTA 1210. So I'm not 00:41:29.352 --> 00:41:37.226 - sure how that would go. And actually thinking about it may make more sense to look at the Senate rollback 00:41:37.226 --> 00:41:41.534 - going on House rollbacks 1210 handout right now before we 00:41:42.690 --> 00:41:48.906 - Does that make sense, Jeff? Why won't the yellow line go across it? Oh, and this is somewhere in one 00:41:48.906 --> 00:41:55.244 - of our cabinets. I was also going to have to take the front of the room. Is it on this? Yeah, it's the 00:41:55.244 --> 00:42:01.583 - one with the yellow line. It's the expected front. It's the next page, so I retract my line. And these 00:42:01.583 --> 00:42:08.106 - were provided as part of that. So we're going to keep that to the side? Yes. Unless people have questions 00:42:08.106 --> 00:42:09.214 - about this slide. 00:42:11.650 --> 00:42:18.556 - I think that these are out so far. I think everyone here in the room probably knows this, but those 00:42:18.556 --> 00:42:25.530 - in the public have been listening. The reason why it's so much more favorable for the city to hop in 00:42:25.530 --> 00:42:32.436 - is because cities and towns get one and a half multiplier on their population. Cities and towns are 00:42:32.436 --> 00:42:39.410 - always essentially going to get more global income tax, hopping into a pool of taxpayers, that's the 00:42:39.410 --> 00:42:40.446 - entire county, 00:42:40.674 --> 00:42:49.637 - than they would occupying their own home. So the county the county doesn't get much of that useful services 00:42:49.637 --> 00:42:57.936 - right they only get what's left over after the cities and towns get their allocation. So I think we 00:42:57.936 --> 00:43:06.484 - also get well I'm sorry I didn't realize they wanted me to project this one so it's taking me a second 00:43:06.484 --> 00:43:07.646 - to fund that. 00:43:08.386 --> 00:43:17.074 - I don't think we need it to jump. It's just the next table. Yes. Sorry. All right. The next two tables. 00:43:17.074 --> 00:43:25.428 - Yes. Even though Justin and I, so we're kind of staging together. I forgot that the very next slide 00:43:25.428 --> 00:43:33.865 - is what I was getting ready for. There's a lot of information. Like, this was pretty massive. Thanks 00:43:33.865 --> 00:43:37.374 - for trying to digest this too. All right. 00:43:37.794 --> 00:43:46.998 - There's a wall. There's a wall of numbers on this slide, which I don't know. This may have been one 00:43:46.998 --> 00:43:56.386 - of the things that wish knowing that actually did not. OK. This is. The breakdown to each unit. Based 00:43:56.386 --> 00:44:05.866 - on that break even. With so that would be the third graph, third column that graph. So you can see the 00:44:05.866 --> 00:44:06.878 - city here. 00:44:07.586 --> 00:44:14.154 - And the rates get a little bit weird because it's not a full amount of rate intention due, so it's kind 00:44:14.154 --> 00:44:20.533 - of buried in there. You can see the top example of the county, their break even amount, because they 00:44:20.533 --> 00:44:27.101 - get a little bit of municipal services lit, and you can see at the 1.03% rate that we're showing there, 00:44:27.101 --> 00:44:33.859 - the county get about 3.7 million of that. But the county to break even, and that factors in their property 00:44:33.859 --> 00:44:36.638 - tax loss based on the parcel data that ran. 00:44:36.930 --> 00:44:45.504 - Now that's probably going to change in 29-2. It's just the best guess. They're going to need about .8706 00:44:45.504 --> 00:44:53.832 - out of their maximum 1.2 to break even. And the reason why that's important is because that will keep 00:44:53.832 --> 00:45:01.998 - the overall local income tax rate, the taxpayers pay lower. And that's something I think we need to 00:45:01.998 --> 00:45:05.182 - keep talking about the public as well. 00:45:05.474 --> 00:45:13.291 - is what is the overall tax rate for the public versus the benefit that we all get is county and city 00:45:13.291 --> 00:45:21.263 - governments. Sounds like you're saying, Tim, that one rate will give a better result to everybody than 00:45:21.263 --> 00:45:29.313 - finding out multiple smaller pieces that ultimately residents would pay more and we would receive less. 00:45:29.313 --> 00:45:32.254 - Yes, yes, correct. Yeah, I think it's 00:45:32.386 --> 00:45:39.925 - roughly 52 to 55 percent of the total population of Monroe County lives within corporate boundaries 00:45:39.925 --> 00:45:47.616 - that are born with them. To your point, having different rates, if one has to max out their own rate, 00:45:47.616 --> 00:45:55.155 - and then the county still does the same, I mean, people are paying a much higher rate on average in 00:45:55.155 --> 00:46:01.790 - the county, just because most of the county lives in Brooklyn. Lots to take in on that. 00:46:02.914 --> 00:46:10.792 - you can see here the city. So you got an excellent down. How do we do it in yellow? It's about 42 million 00:46:10.792 --> 00:46:18.225 - that you received. That's using 26 certified numbers and then adding one percent per year on top of 00:46:18.225 --> 00:46:25.805 - that. And this is just Matt medical really the only thing that you're on here is the growth. What one 00:46:25.805 --> 00:46:29.150 - impacts growth assumption. And these are 20. 00:46:29.474 --> 00:46:38.422 - 29, this would be 29 assumption areas. And then you can see you lose operating property tax levity and 00:46:38.422 --> 00:46:47.631 - then you lose debt capacity as well just because your net assessed value is going to be lower, understand 00:46:47.631 --> 00:46:56.318 - what that one would have been without and send a real bad one. Because. Because this is why, right? 00:46:56.418 --> 00:47:02.148 - like statewide. Yeah, that's statewide. That's not anything the city controls. That's statutory. It's, 00:47:02.148 --> 00:47:07.711 - it's probably taxed stuff. So it's probably not going to change. We'll sort of throw that out there 00:47:07.711 --> 00:47:13.607 - too. So, and you can look at those, let that last column and see who the real losers are from this today. 00:47:13.607 --> 00:47:19.226 - And who, who don't have the power to make up the difference. And that's cool. Yeah. So when you have 00:47:19.226 --> 00:47:24.956 - the library, so when you say break even, there's, there are units in here that you, that really cannot 00:47:24.956 --> 00:47:25.790 - be made whole. 00:47:25.922 --> 00:47:33.674 - under a direct local impact structure. It would have to be a very difficult inter-local agreement process 00:47:33.674 --> 00:47:40.987 - and then that just gets way too in the weeds. It was way too complicated. So schools cannot get any 00:47:40.987 --> 00:47:48.373 - direct local impact under the system. And I just want to throw out there that one of the things that 00:47:48.373 --> 00:47:49.470 - that means for 00:47:50.338 --> 00:47:58.512 - our community is that our schools are probably not gonna be able to provide all the services that they 00:47:58.512 --> 00:48:06.528 - kind of provide, which means that either our community members just do without, or they need to like 00:48:06.528 --> 00:48:14.702 - backstop that in some other way, which may be other units of government, it could be nonprofits, those 00:48:14.702 --> 00:48:18.750 - services, and it's gonna be a loss and a struggle. 00:48:19.586 --> 00:48:29.207 - I'm going to get a little bit deeper than that. I'm going to go to operating costs. I think we're not 00:48:29.207 --> 00:48:39.204 - going to be able to be on special services. This will mean deep cuts. Can I go back to how did the county 00:48:39.204 --> 00:48:46.750 - with a county services only with a municipal services tax rate of 1.03 percent. 00:48:47.554 --> 00:48:54.964 - How did the county only get 3.7 million of that? And the city got clearly 2 million of that. 00:48:54.964 --> 00:49:02.932 - What is the math, I think? Yeah, so under House Bill 1210, the municipal services lid, that's taxed 00:49:02.932 --> 00:49:11.059 - on every single income taxpayer in the county. But the cities and towns within that column get a 1.5x 00:49:11.059 --> 00:49:16.318 - multiplier on their population. So really that means there's less 00:49:16.770 --> 00:49:22.853 - population based math on for the unincorporated area of the county, if that makes sense. So the cities 00:49:22.853 --> 00:49:28.937 - and towns, basically, they get more. They get a bigger share than they would normally. So if everybody 00:49:28.937 --> 00:49:34.843 - in the county gets taxed, then it gets distributed to different units based on the population size. 00:49:34.843 --> 00:49:40.985 - So we would get the most of that than any other piece in the county because Bloomington has the highest 00:49:40.985 --> 00:49:41.694 - population. 00:49:41.986 --> 00:49:47.855 - Well, I understand that, but it's the multiplier that makes such a difference. It's the multiplier that 00:49:47.855 --> 00:49:53.838 - makes the entire difference, yeah. Yes, I will say that I, when I first saw that number, I didn't believe 00:49:53.838 --> 00:49:59.481 - it either. And I went to the statute and literally followed all about like step one, divide this by 00:49:59.481 --> 00:50:05.181 - this, and it comes out exactly right. That's the way the statute is written. Yeah, so the only thing 00:50:05.181 --> 00:50:10.430 - goes from 52% to, what was that, 70, 75.8% or something like that of the total distribution. 00:50:21.890 --> 00:50:27.450 - stuff that, you know, if there's any key games out there looking at this, there's some weird routing 00:50:27.450 --> 00:50:33.229 - stuff with the rates because you can't, we don't want to go to like a million decimal place. It's really 00:50:33.229 --> 00:50:38.899 - just four decimal places. So when you do that, some of these units end up with weird round. It's like, 00:50:38.899 --> 00:50:44.513 - oh, it's still, it's a little more in the room. Sometimes it looks a little more. So yeah, that's the 00:50:44.513 --> 00:50:50.238 - reason for that. If there's any math nerds out there, so. There are. There are. Okay. I saw who was on. 00:50:52.386 --> 00:51:02.397 - Any questions on this giant fortress of numbers? Well. And so I have a question. So that really like 00:51:02.397 --> 00:51:12.309 - in terms of the 29 circle steps that you basically like tried to match from the page before what we 00:51:12.309 --> 00:51:20.734 - would have expected without SCA one in terms of matching those rates. Yes. So that's 00:51:21.602 --> 00:51:29.624 - I mean, it's just the theoretical what could happen in terms of those percentages. Yes. It's going to 00:51:29.624 --> 00:51:37.803 - the county and say, hey, we want to keep people at an even keel or we want to let people eat a property 00:51:37.803 --> 00:51:45.982 - tax loss, what's the, what are we going to do? This is like a middle growth scenario. It's not the best 00:51:45.982 --> 00:51:50.622 - case scenario. It's certainly not the worst case scenario. 00:51:50.818 --> 00:51:59.187 - The second to last column where you're adding a fire EMS lit braid. Yes, why are there numbers for the 00:51:59.187 --> 00:52:07.638 - school corporations in the townships? So there should only be surely be on townships. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 00:52:07.638 --> 00:52:15.845 - So that's again the fire EMS that is completely discretionary to the county, but the townships don't 00:52:15.845 --> 00:52:18.526 - have their own fire departments. 00:52:20.994 --> 00:52:28.355 - maybe one if they do, but. Yeah, contract and stuff like that they can. This is just. Again, this is. 00:52:28.355 --> 00:52:35.716 - The county if you read if you read the statute, it doesn't really. It doesn't really even. Yeah, most 00:52:35.716 --> 00:52:42.933 - of these are provided by protection or by Allen. So yeah, it doesn't really even limit it to firing 00:52:42.933 --> 00:52:50.366 - mess and that was actually one of the points that represented Thompson. I think probably wants to fix. 00:52:50.498 --> 00:53:17.278 - Yeah, you're not you're not predicting what 00:53:17.538 --> 00:53:25.357 - the county's going to do. You're saying what do we need? This is this is what each unit needs. Yes, 00:53:25.357 --> 00:53:33.177 - yeah, yeah, not just. Yeah, it's it's. Will the county go once again to the sling to get the exact? 00:53:33.177 --> 00:53:41.231 - Exact percentages of wood that everyone needs. Maybe you can. Maybe not. It's again, it's up to their. 00:53:41.231 --> 00:53:47.486 - Scratching and this would also allow the county government to break it in. Yes, 00:53:50.466 --> 00:53:57.321 - So we should probably. Yeah, there's probably nobody. Sorry. Yes. There's never enough time. We have 00:53:57.321 --> 00:54:04.176 - to attend, correct? Yeah. OK, yeah, there's still part of it. Yeah, there's a lot. But you've gotten 00:54:04.176 --> 00:54:11.031 - justice. So the next slide, please, which you can't really see unless you're swimming. This would be 00:54:11.031 --> 00:54:18.022 - the impact to homeowners. Now, this is not going to be the impact at all with the taxpayers. It's just 00:54:18.022 --> 00:54:20.126 - the homeowners beat that line. 00:54:20.546 --> 00:54:26.875 - under that scenario, the breakeven scenario, which follows the previous slide. So you can see for the 00:54:26.875 --> 00:54:33.389 - most part, because of the property tax savings to homeowners, in most of these tax and commission rates, 00:54:33.389 --> 00:54:39.594 - people are actually going to be saving money, even with an increase to the overall level of the tax 00:54:39.594 --> 00:54:45.054 - rate. And that is one thing I didn't mention. In the breakeven low income tax scenario, 00:54:45.666 --> 00:54:56.282 - We're going from a 2.14% current low-income tax rate to 2.4512, which is about 0.3112% increase. And 00:54:56.282 --> 00:55:07.319 - that's tackled into this slide. So you can see on average, taxpayers save roughly $657 in their property 00:55:07.319 --> 00:55:15.518 - tax bill. That would be the old system. So no SBA 1, no HTA 12, none of that. 00:55:16.834 --> 00:55:26.581 - And then with SCA-1, because of the deductions and the straight-up credits that homeowners are getting, 00:55:26.581 --> 00:55:36.047 - on average, we're saying about $660 on property tax bills. Where did 660 come from? So it's 1, 2, 3, 00:55:36.047 --> 00:55:45.982 - 4. The fifth column, SCA-1, mean property tax bill increase slash increase. And we have all the way down. 00:55:46.690 --> 00:55:53.465 - the bolded 657.6. The important thing to note on this. And so this is what taxpayers say? Yes, this 00:55:53.465 --> 00:56:00.578 - property taxes. Yes, and this is the average based on the average homeowner gross assessed value running 00:56:00.578 --> 00:56:07.624 - that through the property taxes. Every single parcel has been ranked on this. This is just the average. 00:56:07.624 --> 00:56:14.602 - Now this is going to vary wildly depending on the gross AP of your home, but this would be the average 00:56:14.602 --> 00:56:15.550 - of all homes. 00:56:15.938 --> 00:56:23.251 - And what we can see is that this is basically shifting some of the costs of local government on from 00:56:23.251 --> 00:56:30.710 - homeowners to work. Correct. We're shifting it from wealth to income, essentially is what we're doing. 00:56:30.710 --> 00:56:38.240 - So do not all of these columns talk about, you started saying that it was all talking about homeowners, 00:56:38.240 --> 00:56:40.702 - but is the list talking about all 00:56:42.530 --> 00:56:48.943 - people who are paying income tax? This would be anyone that's paying income tax. And this, we just use 00:56:48.943 --> 00:56:55.293 - up the average household income on this. Okay. So, so in the next column here, it says 2020 projected 00:56:55.293 --> 00:57:01.955 - median household income. That's not just for homeowners, that's for everybody, every household, regardless 00:57:01.955 --> 00:57:08.555 - of? It would be more just for these households, right? Because that's not going to cover the other things 00:57:08.555 --> 00:57:11.294 - that are paid. And this isn't even, I mean, 00:57:11.906 --> 00:57:20.706 - no actual household income is going to be in 2019. This is just using the census data, the best knowledge 00:57:20.706 --> 00:57:29.507 - that we have currently. Right. I'm just trying to understand the next columns after that average property 00:57:29.507 --> 00:57:37.809 - tax savings. If the average person is saving the $657 in terms of through the whole county on their 00:57:37.809 --> 00:57:40.798 - property taxes, is one or the other 00:57:41.058 --> 00:57:48.434 - columns like what they would be paying in lit and how much more they might be paying in lit? Yeah, so 00:57:48.434 --> 00:57:55.955 - going from the 2029 rejection in the household income, the next column immediately is what you, is what 00:57:55.955 --> 00:58:03.476 - that household income would pay under SCA 1. So the 2.4512% lit. Okay. So you can see there, let's just 00:58:03.476 --> 00:58:09.406 - take, you know, let me count you, for example, average household income, $77,728. 00:58:10.466 --> 00:58:19.133 - Under SEA-1, that household would pay roughly $1,905 of income tax under SEA-1. And next column is the 00:58:19.133 --> 00:58:27.800 - comparison to what they would pay without SEA-1. So that's the current local income tax rate of 2.14%. 00:58:27.800 --> 00:58:36.382 - Right, but that's also what they're paying in 2026, not 2029. Well, it's grown 1% per year. Using the 00:58:36.382 --> 00:58:38.654 - rate. Yes, using the rate. 00:58:38.818 --> 00:58:45.303 - Okay, yeah. So this is also, then, a 2029 estimate? Yeah, the 2029 mean household income, that is taking 00:58:45.303 --> 00:58:51.541 - the 24 census data and growing it to what we think it's going to be in 21. So it's the same base for 00:58:51.541 --> 00:58:57.779 - each scenario. The only thing that's changing is the rate, the local income tax rate. Does that make 00:58:57.779 --> 00:59:03.646 - sense? So the projected mean household income in Bloomington Township in 2029 is only $77,000. 00:59:04.130 --> 00:59:11.283 - Yes, and you can see it varies very significantly from tax industry to tax industry to tax industry. 00:59:11.283 --> 00:59:18.365 - And most of your income in Monroe County is outside of the city limits like look at richer average, 00:59:18.365 --> 00:59:25.517 - right? So. That's just another reason why the city makes less low income tax due to its own. Because 00:59:25.517 --> 00:59:32.670 - on average outside of the incorporated area of the city, the household average income is higher. So. 00:59:33.058 --> 00:59:44.210 - And so then continuing down this, the next, so it appears as though under SEA one, most units are paying 00:59:44.210 --> 00:59:53.982 - more lit. Yes. And so then that second to last column is how much more that they're paying. 00:59:54.114 --> 00:59:59.821 - how much more you're paying versus the property tax. It's netting. Well, no, the second to last column. 00:59:59.821 --> 01:00:05.364 - Second to last column is, yes, you're correct. That is the increase or decrease, which in this case, 01:00:05.364 --> 01:00:10.907 - it's an increase for the payment of the charity fund. Then the last one is the property tax savings. 01:00:10.907 --> 01:00:16.449 - Netting gets the increase in the lower unemployment tax. Right. Then on average, just to really make 01:00:16.449 --> 01:00:19.358 - sure the public hears is what the state just did is, 01:00:19.682 --> 01:00:27.298 - potentially save the average homeowner $350 at the expense of our school systems right now, and potentially 01:00:27.298 --> 01:00:34.421 - at the expense of our other local units of government, and at least at the expense of a whole lot of 01:00:34.421 --> 01:00:41.825 - time right now that's being spent by local units that are figuring this out. Yes. This is for an average 01:00:41.825 --> 01:00:47.326 - of $353 per year, projected savings per year. At the expense of our children. 01:00:48.770 --> 01:00:58.051 - except in Steinsville, they just end up paying more. Sarah. Oh, right. Sorry, Steinsville. Oh, yeah. 01:00:58.051 --> 01:01:07.241 - Steinsville doesn't have to pay more. Yeah. There's... Yeah. So, sitting in the left one, it's kind 01:01:07.241 --> 01:01:16.798 - of aggressive in the property tax savings, as in the higher your home value, the more savings you have. 01:01:17.026 --> 01:01:24.226 - Uh, the people that are, because there's a fixed portion now. Yeah, because there's a, there's a fixed 01:01:24.226 --> 01:01:31.425 - portion that you get now on your deduction. If you own a home and a sudden little portion, because the 01:01:31.425 --> 01:01:38.555 - fixed portion of that is for more of you if your home value is lower, that goes away. So actually the 01:01:38.555 --> 01:01:46.174 - people that have, and it's something like if your home is less than 150,000 or such value, I think on books, 01:01:46.690 --> 01:01:56.220 - you actually end up paying more property tax under SEAM than you would without SEAM. So it's definitely 01:01:56.220 --> 01:02:05.841 - regressive. The regressive thing. We're looking at the household income in Steinsville average of 76,000 01:02:05.841 --> 01:02:13.630 - and that they're paying more. I would say that's demonstrably regressive. Yeah. Yes. 01:02:14.210 --> 01:02:22.232 - To your point, the average home value in science schools is lower. It's under that roughly $150,000 01:02:22.232 --> 01:02:30.254 - threshold. So that's why they're paying more. Yeah, I mean, they're almost saving an average of $24 01:02:30.254 --> 01:02:38.276 - and 74 cents on their parking tax bill. Like, it's really... Anyway, I think we all understand this 01:02:38.276 --> 01:02:42.046 - chart. Thank you. It leads it out very nicely. 01:02:46.466 --> 01:02:55.159 - Um, I may try to put together some kind of group work about this. So, I got Robert to set up with me. 01:02:55.159 --> 01:03:03.852 - Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, you can go ahead and speak about that. Um, Voltaire 01:03:03.852 --> 01:03:12.374 - Path of Planning, Path of Planning, we sort of put this together because the way our practice works 01:03:12.374 --> 01:03:14.846 - really well, although we can 01:03:15.074 --> 01:03:21.781 - control is the debt tax rates, the maximum money funds are the same, the maximum rate funds are the 01:03:21.781 --> 01:03:28.488 - same. So what we can control with our tax rate binding really is the debt portions, the debt funds. 01:03:28.488 --> 01:03:35.195 - And in order to fund all of our long-term capital plan items, a lot of that has to, or most of that 01:03:35.195 --> 01:03:42.036 - has to come through debtors' issuances. So we actually worked with Jeff and all the department heads, 01:03:42.036 --> 01:03:43.646 - and we worked with Jeff 01:03:43.906 --> 01:03:51.705 - to come up with this long-term capital plan. This is actually, I want to say like a 10-page capital 01:03:51.705 --> 01:03:59.505 - plan that we just shortened into half a page. But to give you guys just a general idea, if you look 01:03:59.505 --> 01:04:07.382 - at that grand total, all departments has shown. Relatives, a green and a red. Green is how much that 01:04:07.382 --> 01:04:13.310 - we are currently funding even through for our property tax bonds that we've 01:04:13.474 --> 01:04:21.757 - previously issued and still have cash on hand or bonds that we are looking to issue and that we will 01:04:21.757 --> 01:04:30.204 - talk about those potential bonds builder as well. When we look at point 27, we have 77 million dollars 01:04:30.204 --> 01:04:38.488 - in total capital requests. Currently we are funding 65 million dollars of that and we are 12 million 01:04:38.488 --> 01:04:40.702 - dollars unfunded even with 01:04:41.186 --> 01:04:48.564 - the potential bond issuances that we're talking about. So when we go on to the next pages, I would just 01:04:48.564 --> 01:04:56.154 - keep those numbers in mind because what we're going to talk about doesn't solve all of the capital funding 01:04:56.154 --> 01:05:03.248 - issue right now. Now I will also say in 2031, that $26.4 million, those numbers will likely go down 01:05:03.248 --> 01:05:10.910 - as we look at further bond issuances. So this is a long-term capital plan that goes out five years from our 01:05:11.138 --> 01:05:18.089 - We don't well, we can't look out that far, but we haven't yet. So can I just mention that these numbers 01:05:18.089 --> 01:05:24.906 - that go into here as far as capital needs from the department heads who have gone in a fair amount of 01:05:24.906 --> 01:05:31.723 - detail and projected out the request. That does not mean that any of them have been approved. They're 01:05:31.723 --> 01:05:38.673 - not part of the mayor's budget at this point necessarily, and some might be, but just just to be clear, 01:05:38.673 --> 01:05:40.478 - these are based on expert. 01:05:40.610 --> 01:05:47.778 - estimation of what's needed. And for the benefit of the public, could you just say a few words, Jeff, 01:05:47.778 --> 01:05:54.875 - or somebody about what kinds of things those are? So if you're on the public and you're listening to 01:05:54.875 --> 01:06:02.043 - your capital projects, what is that? Some things that that would include would be vehicles, which can 01:06:02.043 --> 01:06:07.454 - be cars for hand inspectors all the way up to garbage trucks and snow plows. 01:06:07.874 --> 01:06:15.798 - In particular, the public works department, as I think you all know, is very interested in the new ops 01:06:15.798 --> 01:06:23.722 - center to replace some seriously aging and decrepit facilities. That's one reason why the 2027 numbers 01:06:23.722 --> 01:06:32.185 - look so big because it doesn't include that request. Vehicles, improvements to building, capital improvements 01:06:32.185 --> 01:06:35.262 - to buildings, engineering. For example, 01:06:35.458 --> 01:06:43.260 - You'll see some budget requests this year for safety related improvements to pedestrian infrastructure 01:06:43.260 --> 01:06:50.987 - and new signals and signal modernization in the streets. So those are the, and then just other public 01:06:50.987 --> 01:06:58.714 - works, other street expenses. Parking meters, new parking meters. The parks of Arkansas might include 01:06:58.714 --> 01:07:03.486 - some other things today. I have a master plan in this meeting. 01:07:03.842 --> 01:07:11.328 - Yeah. Yeah, I didn't include you right now. That's that didn't include parts of us. But for everyone, 01:07:11.328 --> 01:07:18.740 - I'll get everyone listening, but included in your packet within the financial plan in the packet. In 01:07:18.740 --> 01:07:26.446 - the capital plan section, you will see each individual thing that is right now funding at the discretion 01:07:26.446 --> 01:07:31.070 - of the administration wasn't so it has everything individuals. 01:07:32.066 --> 01:07:38.020 - Okay, somewhere in the packet. Yes. Yes. So we can go on to the next helpful pages. The next two to 01:07:38.020 --> 01:07:44.094 - three pages are actually on the general point, which I don't know how much we need to go into because 01:07:44.094 --> 01:07:50.167 - I know Jeff just sort of just discussed that at the very beginning of this meeting. Is there anything 01:07:50.167 --> 01:07:56.241 - that you want to point out here too? I think just the big thing on the general fund and then the next 01:07:56.241 --> 01:08:00.766 - page. Yeah, Jeff, if you don't mind going through the next page. Really the 01:08:00.866 --> 01:08:08.429 - The big thing to look out for here, just keep in mind that until we get a lift structure in place, there 01:08:08.429 --> 01:08:15.704 - actually is an operating deficit currently within the general fund. So now there's ample cash in the 01:08:15.704 --> 01:08:23.051 - general fund, I will say perhaps with that. But as you can see, so if you go down to the very bottom, 01:08:23.051 --> 01:08:29.534 - revenue over, under expenditures, purple, pink, yeah, pink down there at the very bottom, 01:08:30.402 --> 01:08:38.656 - So you can see we have about a $7.8 million deficit built into this year. That's just based on current 01:08:38.656 --> 01:08:46.750 - spending, current budgeting projections. That's probably no change by the time you do third quarter, 01:08:46.750 --> 01:08:54.924 - second quarter on what's up. And then you can see in 27 and 28, there's also deficits planned in most 01:08:54.924 --> 01:08:56.126 - years as well. 01:09:00.290 --> 01:09:09.671 - How do we get a $16 million? Yeah, overage in 2029 that is slightly complicated. Yeah, so because the 01:09:09.671 --> 01:09:19.237 - local income tax structure as you know, completely ceases to exist in 2029. This is assuming that we're 01:09:19.237 --> 01:09:28.434 - no longer funding any of your local economic development. Public safety with it or piece app within 01:09:28.434 --> 01:09:29.630 - those funds. 01:09:29.890 --> 01:09:36.910 - So because we're doing that, these are the cash balances, the end, the year in cash balances for 28 01:09:36.910 --> 01:09:44.562 - or beginning cash balance for 2029, whichever way you want to look at it, that we're, that we're essentially 01:09:44.562 --> 01:09:51.582 - giving to the general fund because we're no longer funding. Those funds won't exist. So in essence, 01:09:51.582 --> 01:09:55.934 - it's not new money. It's not new money. It's a new framework. 01:09:56.450 --> 01:10:03.505 - Yes. And that's why you see the revenue over under goes way down in 2030, 2031. Well, three transfer 01:10:03.505 --> 01:10:10.770 - items, transfer of PESA, transfer of one of the two transfers already, those add up to almost the exact 01:10:10.770 --> 01:10:17.895 - $16 million. So that was that perspective. Can you talk about the interest on investments? You've got 01:10:17.895 --> 01:10:23.134 - to highlight in yellow because we've talked about it and because it's big. 01:10:24.546 --> 01:10:31.339 - Yes, so important thing to keep in mind on interest that we want investments. If we're lowering our 01:10:31.339 --> 01:10:38.471 - cash balances overall, we're not going to generate as much interest revenue, right? And we're also going 01:10:38.471 --> 01:10:45.263 - to assume that that's probably going to lower the reserve rate in the future, which they may or not 01:10:45.263 --> 01:10:52.124 - do. So that's just another assumption to keep in mind in the brain. That's why we're going from $3.8 01:10:52.124 --> 01:10:53.822 - million projected in 26, 01:10:53.954 --> 01:11:02.052 - to roughly 1.9 million cash in 2017, because we're spending down roughly $8 million cash plus ARP, plus 01:11:02.052 --> 01:11:10.150 - ARP like this. And then you can see, because we spent out more cash in 2017, we're going to be in 2018. 01:11:10.150 --> 01:11:18.014 - We're about to get back up in 2019, because that's based on the break even with, assuming that we're 01:11:18.014 --> 01:11:22.686 - going to get the list scenario and have more cash to build. 01:11:23.906 --> 01:11:31.875 - I find it notable that we're assuming we're going to end the Bloomington Transit interlocal agreement. 01:11:31.875 --> 01:11:39.843 - I mean, that's something we may have to do fiscally, but it's a big policy choice that we should think 01:11:39.843 --> 01:11:48.044 - about. They are certainly aware that the money isn't there to continue doing that. They all have a change 01:11:48.044 --> 01:11:52.222 - in leadership or courses that they don't learn there. 01:11:53.346 --> 01:12:00.494 - And certainly until now, it's been very clear that that was one time money and that it's highly unlikely 01:12:00.494 --> 01:12:07.438 - that there would be a source to contribute that. And just to sort of ease maybe some of that anxiety, 01:12:07.438 --> 01:12:14.245 - in 2019, the county does, under House No. 12, then have the ability to give women in transportation 01:12:14.245 --> 01:12:21.189 - a significant amount of local tax revenue. And they've been working, and they're multiplying, they've 01:12:21.189 --> 01:12:22.142 - accounted for 01:12:24.354 --> 01:12:31.944 - their vision of expansion and where that funding would come from. And you can see the impact on that 01:12:31.944 --> 01:12:38.857 - same one, HH 1210 analysis, that's included in this packet. I will ask, why do you show the 01:12:38.857 --> 01:12:46.221 - end of Bloomington Transit kind of as a revenue? Yeah, that's a big question. Yeah, because it's, 01:12:46.221 --> 01:12:53.886 - I mean, we were paying for it out of LIT, so. Yeah, it's certainly LIT and that's an expense, so it's 01:12:54.242 --> 01:12:59.773 - It's either we show it as like a negative, essentially negative expense or we show it as 11, right? 01:12:59.773 --> 01:13:05.580 - It's kind of paper poison. It's just that we're getting that 3.81 back. We're not. But you're not double 01:13:05.580 --> 01:13:11.167 - counting. We're not double counting. Right. We did not, we did not lower the, yeah, we did not lower 01:13:11.167 --> 01:13:14.430 - the expense in the, in the lift funds. Got it. Right. Yes. 01:13:22.626 --> 01:13:31.277 - I just I do want to make note that we need to be sure about that. Okay, that based on who I saw there 01:13:31.277 --> 01:13:40.013 - earlier, maybe three minutes or so. Okay, um, actually, I think this was mentioned under the question. 01:13:40.013 --> 01:13:48.834 - I want to see sort of a chart. We have made projections out for the city's tax rates going out to 2030. 01:13:48.834 --> 01:13:51.294 - This is assuming the current 01:13:52.418 --> 01:13:59.346 - The current box still exists and levy still exists without adding anything new. In 2026, we're at 84 01:13:59.346 --> 01:14:06.274 - cents and that stays relatively in that area. It goes up a little bit because we're not expecting SS 01:14:06.274 --> 01:14:13.271 - values to grow as much. It all goes from 84 cents to 87 cents in 2030. As Tim referenced earlier, for 01:14:13.271 --> 01:14:20.336 - us to get to that next closest, next comparable city of La Jolla and Elvisville in that green box down 01:14:20.336 --> 01:14:21.502 - near the bottom, 01:14:23.106 --> 01:14:30.605 - For Novosibirsk, sorry, for Lafayette, if we want to get to that same tax rate in 2026, we can potentially 01:14:30.605 --> 01:14:37.614 - increase our rates by 20 cents. Or to get to Novosibirsk tax rates, we can increase it by 13 cents. 01:14:37.614 --> 01:14:44.762 - Now we're not saying we should or need to, that's really depending on the city council's appetite and 01:14:44.762 --> 01:14:52.542 - the mayor's administration. But just to give you guys an idea of what that could mean for this city's funding, 01:14:52.674 --> 01:15:01.508 - finances. In that blue box, I can put in the amount of debt levied that would mean every year if we 01:15:01.508 --> 01:15:10.607 - raised our rates from where we currently are to one dollar. And that gives us about eight to eight and 01:15:10.607 --> 01:15:19.530 - a half million dollars every year in debt levied that we can use to pay for the capital funding. Now 01:15:19.530 --> 01:15:22.622 - we go to the next page, we sort of 01:15:23.234 --> 01:15:31.835 - put together the. That's that we're looking to exposing within this year or potentially first half of 01:15:31.835 --> 01:15:40.689 - next year. The two big ones are the part of 2026 Geo and the city 2026 Geos. If you remember the capital 01:15:40.689 --> 01:15:49.374 - improvement plan that we showed earlier. Those already incorporates those these two fundings. So these 01:15:49.506 --> 01:15:56.283 - don't actually help with that 10 million, 10 to 12 million dollars in unfunded capital. That's something 01:15:56.283 --> 01:16:02.738 - to keep in mind. And the DPW building bond that Jeff mentioned earlier, that's also included in the 01:16:02.738 --> 01:16:09.257 - capital improvement plan as well. But very much not confirmed, that's what I'm saying. Very much not 01:16:09.257 --> 01:16:15.970 - confirmed. That's just, we need to show that otherwise that unfunded amount will increase by 33 million 01:16:15.970 --> 01:16:19.326 - dollars and that's a huge supply. But I do want to, 01:16:19.522 --> 01:16:27.126 - point that out. Um are we able to go to these handouts? Jeff, do you think it'd be possible for us to 01:16:27.126 --> 01:16:35.027 - go to them? They're just they're not on the presentation. They're not on the presentation. Unfortunately, 01:16:35.027 --> 01:16:42.631 - it's this one. We have 10 minutes left. Yes, I will make this really quick. Um I just and this one is 01:16:42.631 --> 01:16:47.998 - just to show what the impact of issuing those bonds are on the city. Um 01:16:50.722 --> 01:17:00.203 - Which? It's this one and we could just go to second base shuttle. I'll make it. Yeah, cuz it looks like 01:17:00.203 --> 01:17:09.319 - the first page or which didn't convert into Google also best. So which which favorite one? It's the 01:17:09.319 --> 01:17:18.436 - second one. It'll say city general obligation that passwords. This one right here. Yes, correct. So 01:17:18.436 --> 01:17:20.350 - the yellow the first 01:17:20.674 --> 01:17:27.151 - three rows are the current bonds and the tax rates on those bonds and what they're projected to be. 01:17:27.151 --> 01:17:33.628 - The green are the potential bonds that we're looking at issuing, and if we issue them, what will we 01:17:33.628 --> 01:17:40.105 - expect those tax rates to be? So we look at the 2026 GEO bond, that's about 2.4 cents. And that DPW 01:17:40.105 --> 01:17:46.712 - building, even those larger bonds, we're issuing that over a longer term. That's going to be at about 01:17:46.712 --> 01:17:49.950 - 2.9 cents. So that's almost five and a half cents 01:17:50.626 --> 01:17:58.029 - increase to the city's tax rates if we were to issue those bonds. Now, the 2026 bonds, those will last 01:17:58.029 --> 01:18:05.576 - us forever. The current conversation that we're having with Jeff is that we're looking at six-year bonds 01:18:05.576 --> 01:18:12.907 - by rotating every three years. So if we issue one in 2026, we'll have to issue another one in 2029 to 01:18:12.907 --> 01:18:15.998 - fund those capital items with another rate 01:18:16.610 --> 01:18:25.687 - going on in 2030. So you see the bottom right corner of that green, that's another nearly 2.4 cents. 01:18:25.687 --> 01:18:35.033 - So all in all, you'll see our total debt tax rates from issuing the City Geo Bond will be from the 4.39 01:18:35.033 --> 01:18:44.020 - cents all the way up to 8.9 cents. And that'll be about a 4.6 cent increase. Now we do have time to 01:18:44.020 --> 01:18:45.278 - go somewhere. 01:18:45.474 --> 01:18:51.887 - No, we don't have time. It's okay. So 4.6 cents apart. I'll just quickly, the park will increase by 01:18:51.887 --> 01:18:58.621 - about 2.7. So that's just, that's just over seven cents increase in the total tax rates. And we remember 01:18:58.621 --> 01:19:05.034 - that the tax rates tab that we looked at previously to get to one dollar, we'll need to increase it 01:19:05.034 --> 01:19:11.832 - by 14 cents. So we have another about seven cents, you know, even with the implementation of these bonds, 01:19:11.832 --> 01:19:14.846 - if they do decide to go through. And I'm done. 01:19:15.522 --> 01:19:23.498 - That is an awful lot in a short period of time. I should go first next time. I should do that. I should 01:19:23.498 --> 01:19:31.243 - maybe work with you a little bit on talking about those bonds and maybe including those in some kind 01:19:31.243 --> 01:19:39.066 - of report because it would be good to develop that sort of bond, some potential bonding requests that 01:19:39.066 --> 01:19:40.446 - may be coming up. 01:19:40.866 --> 01:19:46.577 - Let's go ahead and move on to public comments. So if there's anybody, there's still no public members 01:19:46.577 --> 01:19:52.400 - of the public in the room. But if you're online and interested in making a public comment, please raise 01:19:52.400 --> 01:19:58.056 - your hand. And please just be mindful of time, because Councilmember Rauhl has hard stop at 10. That 01:19:58.056 --> 01:20:03.767 - means we all do, because we'll lose more. So Mr. Keogh, go ahead. I'll have a timer on my watch going 01:20:03.767 --> 01:20:09.982 - for about three minutes, but I would appreciate it if you were as efficient as possible and there immediately. 01:20:10.594 --> 01:20:17.249 - You ready? Yep. All right. I'm Kevin Keough. Page 15 of the Reedy Financial Group's presentation today 01:20:17.249 --> 01:20:23.776 - highlights the fundamental requirements for sound municipal management, the minimum yearly review of 01:20:23.776 --> 01:20:30.237 - the formal financial policies, specifically regarding debt investments and cash reserve, along with 01:20:30.237 --> 01:20:37.022 - a formal public review of long-range operational planning and the annual comprehensive financial report. 01:20:37.250 --> 01:20:43.401 - explicitly notes the rating agencies like the S&P evaluates these practices during their credit reviews. 01:20:43.401 --> 01:20:49.434 - While the fiscal committee itself is not yet a year old and the city has not historically aligned with 01:20:49.434 --> 01:20:55.467 - the GFOA best practices, the focus represents a necessary step forward. The city seems to be currently 01:20:55.467 --> 01:21:00.798 - working with outside advisors to draft these policies, but policy adoption without regular 01:21:00.930 --> 01:21:07.087 - legislative reviews is incomplete governance. This ongoing review mechanism is something critical that 01:21:07.087 --> 01:21:13.482 - should be codified. For the past year, there have been public comments about the consistent—consistently 01:21:13.482 --> 01:21:19.519 - pointed out the glaring vulnerability in our financial governance. Our ACFR is routinely taking over 01:21:19.519 --> 01:21:24.062 - 16 months after the close of the year to be published. Let's be clear about 01:21:24.162 --> 01:21:29.952 - what a 16-month delay actually means. First, it severely diminishes the practical utility and value 01:21:29.952 --> 01:21:36.088 - of the audited figures. Trying to build a budget, a reviewing budget to actual performance without timely 01:21:36.088 --> 01:21:42.167 - audited numbers means you're flying blind during the most critical period of the fiscal decision-making. 01:21:42.167 --> 01:21:48.478 - Secondly, and most critically to Reedie's point regarding the credit evaluation, it undermines market trust. 01:21:48.578 --> 01:21:55.488 - Municipalities have continuing disclosure agreements that expect annual audited financials to be submitted 01:21:55.488 --> 01:22:02.139 - to bondholders on the EMMA within six months after the fiscal year-end. Taking 16 months and routinely 01:22:02.139 --> 01:22:08.984 - filing notices of late submission strains the principle of good-faith disclosure to the municipal market. 01:22:08.984 --> 01:22:15.764 - Bondholders and rating agencies expect timely, reliable data when a city repeatedly misses those windows 01:22:15.764 --> 01:22:16.862 - by nearly a year 01:22:16.962 --> 01:22:23.889 - it risk extending with the very entities that price our debt. I urge the fiscal committee and City Council 01:22:23.889 --> 01:22:30.752 - to take two concrete actions. Establish a formal annual calendar item dedicated to specifically reviewing 01:22:30.752 --> 01:22:36.190 - and reauthorizing the city's debt investment and reserve policies. Institute formal 01:22:36.514 --> 01:22:42.892 - oversight of multi-year operational and capital plans, the ACFR completion timeliness, and standing 01:22:42.892 --> 01:22:49.525 - annual review of the completed ACFR as a direct responsibility of the fiscal committee if it continues, 01:22:49.525 --> 01:22:56.286 - or by all means, the city council. Codifying this regular review mechanism will protect the city's credit 01:22:56.286 --> 01:23:02.920 - rating, build institutional memory, and ensure our financial management matches professional standards. 01:23:02.920 --> 01:23:05.726 - Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Pierre. 01:23:07.106 --> 01:23:15.963 - Are there any other members of the public online that would like to make public comments? I don't see 01:23:15.963 --> 01:23:24.645 - other hands going up, so that means we have three minutes to mention that our next fiscal committee 01:23:24.645 --> 01:23:33.502 - meeting is in fact two weeks from today on August 7th. We already probably said that we were going to 01:23:33.794 --> 01:23:41.291 - follow-up again or continued follow-up related to the official salary stuff at that meeting. So we'll 01:23:41.291 --> 01:23:48.788 - be in touch about that. I want to send a huge thank you to the folks that read for coming and for all 01:23:48.788 --> 01:23:56.359 - of this information that you shared. Any other last words from anybody? If we have follow-up questions 01:23:56.359 --> 01:24:02.974 - related to the reports from reading, should we send them to Jeff? Please send them to me. 01:24:03.810 --> 01:24:11.692 - Great. Any other last, last things? I always really appreciate it when you comment. I'm always extremely 01:24:11.692 --> 01:24:19.424 - sorry that it all, I mean, we had our turn off now. There's just so much information. And I think that 01:24:19.424 --> 01:24:27.080 - this committee acts in a really important way right now, which may be the council had before to delve 01:24:27.080 --> 01:24:31.134 - deeply into some of these matters, not certainly far. 01:24:31.650 --> 01:24:39.315 - Approach to this, but that also means that we have a lot of questions about brains. You get a lot of 01:24:39.315 --> 01:24:42.654 - problems. So anyway, thank you. And we are.