- On that note, I'll call this meeting of the Special Fiscal Committee into order on Friday, July 24th
- at 8.30 a.m. Survey will be stopped by Mr. Brady, Chair. We do introductions right now. Mr. Shaker,
- we do introductions. Justin Chang, we do an introduction. Isabeth Yamaht-Smith, City Council,
- District 1. Sophia McDowell, Clerk's Office.
- So today our meeting, if you recall, is going to be a little bit longer because of the buffer of information
- and the never-in-a-time problem that we get into these serious financial reports. So we're going to
- start with the controller with semi-quarter reports and then have questions and comments about that from
- the committee, go to public comments on the reports, and then we will take it away with our more long-term
- financial information and challenges. Any questions or concerns about rates? Thank you very much. What
- you have in your packet and also on screen here is the second quarter reports.
- And just to kind of remind everybody how it's structured, we have two revenue reports, which are the
- same. We're just at two different levels of detail, the same numbers. And then we have two expense reports,
- which are the same. They're the same data, but at different levels of level detail. And then we have
- a fund balance with it. And I'm happy to take questions about any of them. I'm just going to point out
- a few things. This is to kind of tell you about things I looked at when I get reports like that.
- First, let's talk about the expenditures. When we look at the expenditure report, one of the things
- I always look at is just that what percentage of the fund department's lines have been spent by this
- time of year. What we would expect is about 50 percent if the budget is being spent down completely
- in a straight line. I tend to look at the big operating funds, primarily the general fund and the economic
- Development Lit Fund. So if I look at the General Fund, and by the way, I added these percentages just
- as I was looking at these. They're not in the version I gave to you. Obviously, percentages would be
- useful, so we'll just add that to this addition of the report. But you can see that for the General
- Fund, for example, we've got 48.81% of the appropriated expenditure spent so far.
- And then for the economic development lit, we have 8.5%. So in general, that would tell us that we're
- on track to spend near 100% of the budget with some small reversions at the end of the year. However,
- there are a couple of large expenditures that aren't paid out evenly in these funds, but instead are
- paid out at the beginning of the year.
- So for example, the almost $4 million in ED lit that's paid out in the ESD budget for Bloomington Transit,
- that was paid out at the beginning of the year. We also have all the, which we talked about at the last,
- or one of these previous meetings, transfers to other funds like alternative transportation, Jack Hopkins,
- sanitation, et cetera. Those were also paid out at the beginning of the year.
- Actually, what that tells me is that although we're seeing nearly 50 percent of the budget appropriations
- being spent down at the midpoint, then in reality, because some big expenses were frontloaded, that
- actually we would expect to have some reversions at the end of the year. I don't know a good way to
- try to indicate that without literally going through every line and doing a projection.
- What was the other one you said, Bloomington Transit, Jack Hopkins, what was another example? There
- were a couple of transfers that are done at the beginning of the year. Sanitation. Sanitation.
- Also fleets, because the way we manage our fleet is that each of the operating budgets transfer money
- into the fleet to manage other vehicles associated with that fund. So yeah, there were a whole bunch of
- kind of large frontload of expenses, which indicates that we're in good shape to have some decent versions
- by the end of the year in our major operating funds. A couple things when there is a...
- Did you cross the number on if that might look like? Well, I mean, we've got so the economic development
- lit is or the economic development lit payment to Wilmington transit is nearly $4 million. So I would
- say, you know, because that's all front loaded, I'd say $2 million of that we would have expected in
- the second half if it had been evenly paid out. So, you know, there's $2 million there and the transfers
- I think were about $2 million. So you expect another million dollars.
- just back of the mapping calculations. When you see a negative, so in other words, more has been spent
- than was in the appropriation, usually what that would mean, well, that could mean a couple of things.
- It could mean that we've done an additional appropriation, but we haven't done any additional appropriations
- yet since you haven't seen any of those before you. But what that usually means then is that there was
- an encumbrance from a previous year.
- And I know a lot of, you know, encumbrances are kind of weird. Basically, they're appropriations that
- are held over from a previous year. And encumbrances can only be held over if a P.O., purchase order,
- and a contract are in place. And they're only valid for that contract. So you can't then repurpose that
- appropriation, that encumbrance for something else. And you can't encumber salaries.
- But they do constitute authorized and potential spending beyond that you actually appropriate it for
- that budget year. We've been informed by the Department of Local Government Finance that it is best
- practice for us to present the City Council with a list of the encumbrances at the end of the year,
- so it becomes a part of the public right, just to get it on the record of a public meeting.
- expect to see that probably at the last meeting of the year. A record number, which is just so you know
- what they are and so that the public has a way to trace that and see what those impacts. Any questions
- about that? I know that's always something people ask about why are they are the negatives. One other
- comment on the housing development fund.
- that you'll see that very little of that has actually been spent of the appropriations there have been
- spent and you'll hear more about this in the director Killian Hanson's budget report when their budget
- one on one she makes a presentation but there's a lot in progress and also this is a situation where
- the city has received far more requests than available funding and support and sometimes
- To make a project work, they need full funding. Partial funding doesn't help, because it doesn't advance
- the project forward. So there's just a lot of work to be done, and that money doesn't necessarily get
- spent down in an even pattern. But I know that that's often a question for that particular fund. So
- moving on from any other questions about the expenditures. I just want to say you answered my question,
- so good job.
- Revenues, and the revenues, unlike expenditures, the budgeted revenues are not legally binding. They're
- just estimates. Sometimes revenue comes in for which there was no estimate at all ahead of time. That's
- why when you look at these reports, you'll sometimes see a zero or a blank in the amount of budgeted
- amount, and that's just because there was no revenue that came in.
- that hadn't necessarily been anticipated. In this case, there are intergovernmental agreements. Maybe
- there was an agreement between, just as an example, the county and the city that hadn't been anticipated.
- Yes. I have clarification before you go further about the revenue because usually rent means that we
- owe something.
- But in this situation, when the remaining amount is in the red, the negative, it's actually positive
- thinking. That's the actual, like what we actually thought was more than we thought we were gonna get.
- Unlike expenditure that was more than we thought we would get. In this case, the revenue is more than
- we thought we would get. I just wanted to make sure, clarify that I was thinking about that, right?
- Because that's kind of an awkward way to think about it and make sure the public realize what's happening.
- Yeah, I might wanna not do it that way.
- I just used a standard formula for an Excel that uses the counter formats. Yeah. I guess that's the
- end of the question I have for clarification. Okay. Just a couple of things to mention. Let's see. We
- have in taxes,
- As an example, normally with taxes, you would expect by this time to have received 50 percent of the
- taxes. Actually, a better example is with economic development lit, because that's the only funding
- source for the economic development lit. We anticipated our certified lit was about $2 million,
- But we, and local income tax is normally paid every month, it's paid monthly. So by this time, we would
- expect to have received exactly 50% of our lit. But you'll see that we've actually received more than
- 50% in our budgeting amount. And the reason for that is the supplemental, because we get the supplemental
- that this year, 2026 was not budgeted for. So you're actually lining up with more lit than we had anticipated.
- And then finally, the other thing I want to call attention to because this will matter in the future
- and then during budget is actually a bit of a revenue detail, which again, it's the same as revenue
- only more, only a lower level detail. So it's planning. We have a bunch of revenue sources like application
- fees, inspection fees, intergovernmental.
- House Enrolled Act 1001 puts some new requirements on planning revenue. And in particular, this planning
- revenue, the planning revenue in particular for permits and building. The building and planning permits,
- which include inspections, now have to be deposited in their own set of funds. So they will no longer
- be as 2027. That revenue will no longer be in the general fund. It will instead be in a new fund that
- we have to create.
- Then we can only expend out of that fund for the actual costs of providing those building and funding
- funds. The reason for that is the General Assembly was convinced that local units of government were
- using planning building fees as a profit center. Bloomington is not by a long shot using that as a profit center.
- As you know, our planning expenses are far lower than the fees are, but this is now kind of an additional
- accounting step that we have to go through and segregate those fees. So from now on, in fact, when we
- present the budget to you, there's gonna be a new fund that's created that for getting the name at the
- moment, but it's like budget and plan or something like that. A building plan that will be segregated
- for permits and building fees,
- along with the expenditures associated. And so to clarify, like that will have to come before capital
- degree on because we have to be there. Or is that the difference? Yeah, we will be creating it in the
- system now, basically, because we have to include in our budget proposal. But yes, you'll essentially
- be doing it closer to when you approve the budget for that. OK, so that will be far as the whole budget
- package is posted. It's on separate legislation. Right, correct.
- And it will not, you know, it really ultimately shouldn't result in any change in either expenses or
- revenue. It's just, it's almost just a lot of our accounting work and not just in our office, but also
- in the department. So it's just extra work because the department is required to reconcile their actual
- expenses in granting these permits with the fees that are brought in. So it's just more work for them.
- Jeff, I know that one of the felt for, because of, you know, is building public services, roads or detention
- points or something like that, they pay a bond to ensure that they fulfill that obligation. Where is
- that apart? Where does that money get from? I mean, I mean, so generally the bond, we don't actually cash the,
- You know, it's usually down in the form of an insurance policy that just sits on a shelf unless it actually
- gets called. We did actually have a fairly recent instance where we had a developer long call and it
- went into the general fund where the engineering department was essentially used the money to do the
- remediation of what they had to fix, but the developer wasn't able to do anything.
- Okay. So, I mean, that's generally the idea. We're also not supposed to make a point that I'm wrong,
- but we're supposed to use it to cover the costs of doing what the developer showed them. Just curious,
- was it covered? There were actually two different instances, one of them more than enough, which actually
- created a problem because we didn't have to figure out what to do with the rest of it, how to get the
- rest back to the insurance company and the other metal.
- Yeah, the bond doesn't always cover that cost of remediation. Was that the digital installation for
- fiber? No, that's another thing. You will be seeing just a sneak preview in the budget presentation.
- The budget proposal will include a $500,000 transfer out of that fund to the digital
- the fiber connectivity fund, which is used to defray half the costs of connecting low-income houses
- with the fiber network. No, I was just thinking the bond that there were so many company names, I can't
- keep track, but that the company had that was supposed to install the fiber that actually- It was Orinium
- Fiber, some contractor, AEG. Right, that made a lot of
- mistakes and caused a lot of cleanup work. Yes. And that bond was tapped, right, to pay for that. They
- paid for that, but the bond was also, they also had to deposit a million dollars into this fund that
- I was that I was telling you about, we call the surety bond proceeds fund. You all created that last
- year. But that was, that was insurance, that wasn't the low income access or was it
- We are proposing to transfer $500,000. I'm kind of giving you a seat. The real question here is that
- has the city had any un-recarb expenses related to having to clean it? That would be an engineering
- question. My understanding is that some of the repair work will be done by the company that takes on
- the new contract.
- There were some repairs that we might have made, but then some that whoever assumed the next phase of
- contract also assumes a portion, and I don't know any of the details on this, of the actual repair of
- problems that might be possible. So it's sort of a package deal. You want the opportunity to go forward,
- you also assume some of the problems that have to be solved.
- And just FYI that I'm pretty much done with my report. But if you go to the fund balances report, you'll
- see the fund name, the surety bond proceeds fund. That's the fund that you all created last year to
- receive that million dollar bond. But that's, as you can see, none of that money has actually been spent
- yet. Again, we will be making a proposal during budget.
- So I think that's all I've got. Do you all have any other questions? Questions on the right-hand side?
- I have a couple of questions. One is, I'm wondering if there's any consequences that we're considering
- with regards to the fuel tax cost of many of them. I mean, I know we financially pay local units. Actually,
- we've already received the first payment back from that.
- Right now, our gas tax revenue is looking good. All right. Then I had another question while we're on
- the front page about 2416-0 starts here, Safer Streets, which has a zero balance. I'm wondering if that
- is a new or old fund because, of course, we have the Safe Streets for All on a Shed. I guess I'm just
- wondering. I've never noticed that.
- 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.
- It's definitely not long ago created. One of the frustrations with our system is that we can't create
- a favorites list. We basically either select individually or we get them all. Some of these tools had
- just not been used in years. I guess I'm curious about that because what it says might be useful.
- I'm thinking about our safe streets for all action plan. I don't know if there's any way to utilize
- that at all for anything. But I just saw that and I made that relationship and I thought, interesting.
- Of course, there's no money. Right. There's no money. But that's why I'm like, sometimes we create more
- funds with the idea of using some.
- some fund that's already in existence or it is in the process. Like alternative transportation is the
- fund that would logically. Yeah. Combine for me for funding. Yeah. And that's true in banking buildings.
- Okay. Then I think I have more. There's a lot of cases.
- I did think of a question. Yeah, I got that. You mentioned that the ED lit total was about half, but
- I noticed that the public safety lit was far less than half.
- What's going on with our public safety? The public safety lit fund has tended to be used more for capital
- expenses, and capital expenses are always more lumpy. They're not paid out over time. I think that's
- shifted over the years, and this year there are some more operational expenses being put out of it,
- but they're still. I meant on the revenue side. On the revenue side,
- But we budgeted 4.8 million and then we've only received 1.4. And then the summary, the revenue summary
- on public safety. Yeah, that right there, that 4.8 versus Florida's next to it. Oh, yeah. I think that
- was budgeted incorrectly, honestly, because the
- the public safety answer point revenue comes out of that. And so if you copy the wrong number, if you
- look at the wrong number for public safety, you might be including some of that revenue rather than
- only the money that's supposed to come in from public safety. That's my guess just right off the bat
- and look at that.
- whether we could maybe look into that a little bit because that's significantly less than half. We do
- receive all of the payments for LIT on a monthly basis. Those should be in terms of actually bringing
- in revenue should be totally caught up. Jeff, you're saying that the budgeted revenue for LIT public
- safety of 4.8
- million is incorrect, including PSAP. Let me look into it before I say that firmly. That was my guess
- when Council member Stasco brought this up. Let me look into it. Isabel, what was your question? The
- ARPA COVID funds, they have to be spent by the end of this year, don't they? Yes.
- There's a lot of effort spent and meetings with departments and our office and departments and the attorney
- from Barnes and Thors that we've used as a consultant. Those discussions are very active. Let's go up to
- public comment then around any of these reports. If there's a member of public who would like to comment
- on our setting for reports, please raise your hands. There's nobody in the room still. I'm not seeing
- any hands go up. Great. Thank you very much. Jeff, that means that you were so complete with
- your presentation that nobody knows any
- additional questions. So now we're on to Reedy. Perfect. So the next kind of heavy-hitting detail piece.
- Take your way. Well, it's just, sorry, let me just make sure it's the... Tim, right? Okay, let me just
- make that sure. Try to keep it sweet from the inside forward, because everything else is just gonna
- have to work.
- We're going to go through the presentation, but as we go, there's certain topics that we will need to
- dive further. There's three other handouts that we've provided, and we'll let you guys know which ones
- we've got. But just as we go through the presentation, most of the talking points are going to be focused
- on work on the tax, property tax, the general fund, which Jeff really just talked about, and property
- tax, debt-related debt.
- Again, we'll record these as we go. Are there any questions? Please go to your office and we'll be happy
- to answer any questions. For the sake of the public, this presentation did go out and it didn't end
- on a packet. I believe that the additional keys we have here are also in amendment one.
- The data should be now, as I mentioned, I don't know if that would help to the public, but the presentation
- is clearly glitched. So it did not import cleanly into Google Sheets. It's a power plant. So we're going
- to have to fix that. All right. So I was looking and I saw that some question was asked about the public safety.
- uh for those in the public and everyone here you want to see what the department of public government
- finance has certified for the city for 2026 you can actually go to the blgf website and type it up down
- slash blgf um you're certified in public safety distribution for 26 is $4,875,557 yeah that's thanks
- for having me the whole thing
- That's just a number. Just a number. For public safety, it's 4,875,567. That's their estimate. Certified.
- The income tax basically comes in exactly as it's certified. So that's plus a certain cap in the budget.
- To me, that just seems like a piece of public safety access point was promoted out of the public safety
- front. Back to the presentation. So first bullet point there, capital plan and bond timing. I will say
- right now, I guess we're technically on draft two,
- of the long-term capital improvement plan. That's going to be five years of capital outlays plan alongside
- your operating expenses as well. So that's actually tied to individual bonds within the financial plan.
- The financial plan should be part of the packet. Correct. Okay. Really with a big part of the capital
- plan is just going to kind of depend on the council's appetite for bond sizing and the timing.
- and I'll let Justin get to that when we get to that. There is, just so everyone's aware, there's a pretty
- significant opportunity if you wanted to keep the property tax rate similar to the next closest city
- because it'd be off debt. You're about 20 cents lower currently than long yet. So, and a 20 cent debt
- rate, not that you have to or even need to be a full
- Any questions on that? Yeah. And just something to keep in mind there, depending on the length of the
- bond and the issuance costs and all that stuff, they did that, they did that, they did that,
- they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that,
- they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that, they did that.
- A lot of what you can flush in the middle of the net. So it would be helpful maybe. So this is the next
- comparable city, Lafayette, but you know, it's nice to have a visual of where we lie within other cities. Yeah.
- I don't know if you guys heard from the county, if there's any updates on that.
- Just know that we, our firm, has prepared an analysis of impact projections based on the statute as
- it currently reads. So, and I say that because it may change. They technically haven't until the 28th
- General Assembly to change it because they think 29th is going to be the first year where the income
- tax impacts. So, we may have changes next year and changes in 28th, so. Yeah, yeah. That's how we're
- supposed to play. Okay.
- just kind of on that same point, the entire plan really hinges upon how that income tax situation with
- the SEA-1 slash mutual investment play out. So just keep that in mind as we go through the plan. I think
- we covered this slide last time, but just, I don't know if anyone needs a recap, maybe for the people
- that are on, for the public need a quick recap here.
- Essentially, the city can either choose to do its own local income tax rate under the statute, the way
- it currently reads, and that will start in 2029, or the city can opt into a countywide, what's called
- a municipal services rate, which would go to primarily just cities and towns within the county. But
- those are the last two calls, right? Those are the last two calls, correct.
- The rest of those columns really don't matter to the city so much unless it gets to a point where that
- actually affects the rate that the county will adopt for the city, for that instance. Because everything
- in the city has no control over that. And really you don't have control over that first blue column
- either. You only have control over that last cities and towns under 3,500 people. I will say the fire
- in EMS does matter to us. The fire in EMS does matter to us.
- or we don't have any control over it. Correct. So the first blue box, that's like the Musks committee
- thing to have control over that, right? Correct. And the Musks committee really isn't leading by me
- either. So, I mean, it really just comes down to the county council having that time of the day.
- The way it's, the way the statute currently reads is county council will have that vote reported. So
- any questions on the sort of how it works?
- No, I do want to say, though, for the sake of maybe my committee members, you know, we get these emails,
- I assume that you all get them too from me about different workshops and things related to- Various
- things. There's one related to the must committee stuff on Monday, and I did sign up to go and IDN forward
- that to anybody else who was interested in coming here for them. It's like in the morning. I don't know
- if anybody works here. And assuming- Yeah, yeah.
- And I think that they often record those students without a recording afterwards too. So I can find
- 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
- to make on that is I agree that the AEM presentations are great and they're really not ideal. It's really
- interesting to see, kind of from the county side, their lobby group, AIC, has their own set of presentations.
- And it's just interesting to see
- the difference in the way that they spend these various rates. The AI aim is very much, do this must
- process, do it early, participate widely, and AIC is basically telling the counties to hold back and
- that there's really not a lot of benefits to them going forward with it. It'll be interesting to see
- how that goes.
- The AM workshop on Monday had somebody from the AIC that's going to participate in that group. I can't
- actually remember. I was like on vacation. I think it's good for us to keep remembering and saying in
- public also that in three of the four county districts, the majority of their constituents are also
- city residents. Since out of seven county council members, the majority were constituents for city residents.
- That's an even better, yeah. I'd say there's, there's merit to both sides, right? I think definitely
- for the public and everyone involved in the community needs to kind of get together to know how this
- thing's going to work at a high level, right? But to AIC's point, you're not going to have, we don't
- have adjusted dressing count basis for any of the cities and towns. So there's really not like a, an
- ideal way to project your impacts. So.
- That's a huge point, actually, and that's is that for counties, we know exactly what their AGI is. We
- know what counties, what income tax counties bring in, but for cities, it's a guess. It's just a projection
- based on, you know, I don't know what data points we use to project, but it is just a guess. Yeah, the
- method we use to do the city's impact is American Community Survey, which is census data. We get that
- on census.gov.
- and everything's noted in the SCA-1-size HGH work and analysis of the links. Essentially, you just take
- the 24 data, which is really 23 data inflated to 24, and then you inflate that to the current 26 data,
- and then inflate that further to 29. So I mean, there's, it's a logical mathematical method, but it's
- a projection, honor projection. So it's about the best method you can come up with.
- So any questions on that? All right, so where the river meets the road here, and this is why I said
- that everything in the financial plan hinges upon how this burns out. So if the city were to do its own 1.2%
- live, which would only be on the city, people living within the corporate boundaries of the city,
- Based on the HDI method that I was just talking about, you would be about $18.4 million less net property
- tax levy and global income tax total. Then you would be under current system in 2019. Can you just clarify
- that first column is what would happen if there was no SBA one? Yeah, the first column was pretending
- like none of this stuff ever happened and it would just be the current system. So that's in our current
- system, that's what we would have expected.
- Yeah. Okay, so this is no, that's the one. And first of all, this graph did not transfer into the packet,
- but I feel like I remember seeing this graph somewhere else in some of the documents that got spent
- in the original one. There was a lot of pages of stuff. Yeah. Yeah, so 29 pretty much in the words,
- her statute pertains like we're under the system of
- work. Anyway, um, that's what a 6% max levy growth quotient and a 1% local income tax growth per year.
- Those are the big assumptions that are using that. Um, and those same assumptions. So 6% max levy growth
- and 1% local income tax growth per year is in the other three examples as well. Just to keep it as similar
- as we could.
- So yeah, the next scenario is right now based on the information that we have, doing a parcel by parcel
- analysis, getting every single unit's property tax impact, basically, but they're losing property tax.
- That includes the county, township's library, all that stuff. That's the breakeven analysis. So that
- right now is what is in the plan.
- not the best case scenario, not the worst case scenario, just kind of the hopeful scenario is what I'm
- going to call it. So that's the third column. That's the third column, yes. Okay, so you already found
- out the second column. Second column, that's just the, yeah, that's just the city list. That's how you
- do it. So just to put that into perspective. Yeah, that's terrible.
- I'm just trying to line up the bullet points on the side with the fallen like the turn. So that's the
- first bullet point. Yeah. So, and the one next to that is just the maximum useful services only. And
- the reason why we want that in there is to see how dramatically different that is the city hopping in
- to a county wide rating.
- That's not even, that doesn't even include fire made mess. That's just, hold on. So that's not even
- the rosiest. So that's not the second. That's the last column. Right. But, but that's not the second
- bullet point. The second bullet point is a little, a little more confusing because it includes a little
- bit of fire made mess and a little bit of misconservative. Okay. And is that the third, the fourth column?
- The fourth column is just even misconservative, max out. Oh. Yeah. So the third column doesn't have
- a bullet point over here?
- The bullets don't line up with the columns. They're general. Yeah. I'm sure that you'll be heard. So
- the yellow. So the best case scenario,
- is actually more than that last column. Yes, it would be more than the 99. Because it would have some.
- Yeah, it would have the entire AMS and the full maximum. Well, yeah, there's no actual yellow column
- in the 99, but there's some, there should be yellow. Yeah, there's, well, there's kind of a dual reason
- why the fireman has to live in there. It's because the county has complete control of that. And if the
- county sees that they can make you to hold with just the maxing out the municipal services lid,
- They may decide to lower fire now to, you know, give Monroe County fire protection to break even and
- then not get the city in. Right. I mean, it's fully in the county's control to do with fire and that's
- what they want to do. Right. So there's no, that's like maxing out the municipal services lit, but not
- having any fire, any of that threat to the city. Now for maybe starting other units, but right.
- Yeah, that is kind of odd that the city, the county is required to consider service area and population
- served, but it doesn't give them an actual formula to use those. They can say, oh, we've considered,
- we duly considered it and the city doesn't. I will say that the AIC presentation that I saw the city
- or AIC give the county council on this, they seem to be,
- supporting the fire DMS rate rather than the municipal services rate. They were still very much pinching
- the municipal services rate as a small municipalities rate, which it was before HTA 1210. So I'm not
- sure how that would go. And actually thinking about it may make more sense to look at the Senate rollback
- going on House rollbacks 1210 handout right now before we
- Does that make sense, Jeff? Why won't the yellow line go across it? Oh, and this is somewhere in one
- of our cabinets. I was also going to have to take the front of the room. Is it on this? Yeah, it's the
- one with the yellow line. It's the expected front. It's the next page, so I retract my line. And these
- were provided as part of that. So we're going to keep that to the side? Yes. Unless people have questions
- about this slide.
- I think that these are out so far. I think everyone here in the room probably knows this, but those
- in the public have been listening. The reason why it's so much more favorable for the city to hop in
- is because cities and towns get one and a half multiplier on their population. Cities and towns are
- always essentially going to get more global income tax, hopping into a pool of taxpayers, that's the
- entire county,
- than they would occupying their own home. So the county the county doesn't get much of that useful services
- right they only get what's left over after the cities and towns get their allocation. So I think we
- also get well I'm sorry I didn't realize they wanted me to project this one so it's taking me a second
- to fund that.
- I don't think we need it to jump. It's just the next table. Yes. Sorry. All right. The next two tables.
- Yes. Even though Justin and I, so we're kind of staging together. I forgot that the very next slide
- is what I was getting ready for. There's a lot of information. Like, this was pretty massive. Thanks
- for trying to digest this too. All right.
- There's a wall. There's a wall of numbers on this slide, which I don't know. This may have been one
- of the things that wish knowing that actually did not. OK. This is. The breakdown to each unit. Based
- on that break even. With so that would be the third graph, third column that graph. So you can see the
- city here.
- And the rates get a little bit weird because it's not a full amount of rate intention due, so it's kind
- of buried in there. You can see the top example of the county, their break even amount, because they
- get a little bit of municipal services lit, and you can see at the 1.03% rate that we're showing there,
- the county get about 3.7 million of that. But the county to break even, and that factors in their property
- tax loss based on the parcel data that ran.
- Now that's probably going to change in 29-2. It's just the best guess. They're going to need about .8706
- out of their maximum 1.2 to break even. And the reason why that's important is because that will keep
- the overall local income tax rate, the taxpayers pay lower. And that's something I think we need to
- keep talking about the public as well.
- is what is the overall tax rate for the public versus the benefit that we all get is county and city
- governments. Sounds like you're saying, Tim, that one rate will give a better result to everybody than
- finding out multiple smaller pieces that ultimately residents would pay more and we would receive less.
- Yes, yes, correct. Yeah, I think it's
- roughly 52 to 55 percent of the total population of Monroe County lives within corporate boundaries
- that are born with them. To your point, having different rates, if one has to max out their own rate,
- and then the county still does the same, I mean, people are paying a much higher rate on average in
- the county, just because most of the county lives in Brooklyn. Lots to take in on that.
- you can see here the city. So you got an excellent down. How do we do it in yellow? It's about 42 million
- that you received. That's using 26 certified numbers and then adding one percent per year on top of
- that. And this is just Matt medical really the only thing that you're on here is the growth. What one
- impacts growth assumption. And these are 20.
- 29, this would be 29 assumption areas. And then you can see you lose operating property tax levity and
- then you lose debt capacity as well just because your net assessed value is going to be lower, understand
- what that one would have been without and send a real bad one. Because. Because this is why, right?
- like statewide. Yeah, that's statewide. That's not anything the city controls. That's statutory. It's,
- it's probably taxed stuff. So it's probably not going to change. We'll sort of throw that out there
- too. So, and you can look at those, let that last column and see who the real losers are from this today.
- And who, who don't have the power to make up the difference. And that's cool. Yeah. So when you have
- the library, so when you say break even, there's, there are units in here that you, that really cannot
- be made whole.
- under a direct local impact structure. It would have to be a very difficult inter-local agreement process
- and then that just gets way too in the weeds. It was way too complicated. So schools cannot get any
- direct local impact under the system. And I just want to throw out there that one of the things that
- that means for
- our community is that our schools are probably not gonna be able to provide all the services that they
- kind of provide, which means that either our community members just do without, or they need to like
- backstop that in some other way, which may be other units of government, it could be nonprofits, those
- services, and it's gonna be a loss and a struggle.
- I'm going to get a little bit deeper than that. I'm going to go to operating costs. I think we're not
- going to be able to be on special services. This will mean deep cuts. Can I go back to how did the county
- with a county services only with a municipal services tax rate of 1.03 percent.
- How did the county only get 3.7 million of that? And the city got clearly 2 million of that.
- What is the math, I think? Yeah, so under House Bill 1210, the municipal services lid, that's taxed
- on every single income taxpayer in the county. But the cities and towns within that column get a 1.5x
- multiplier on their population. So really that means there's less
- population based math on for the unincorporated area of the county, if that makes sense. So the cities
- and towns, basically, they get more. They get a bigger share than they would normally. So if everybody
- in the county gets taxed, then it gets distributed to different units based on the population size.
- So we would get the most of that than any other piece in the county because Bloomington has the highest
- population.
- Well, I understand that, but it's the multiplier that makes such a difference. It's the multiplier that
- makes the entire difference, yeah. Yes, I will say that I, when I first saw that number, I didn't believe
- it either. And I went to the statute and literally followed all about like step one, divide this by
- this, and it comes out exactly right. That's the way the statute is written. Yeah, so the only thing
- goes from 52% to, what was that, 70, 75.8% or something like that of the total distribution.
- stuff that, you know, if there's any key games out there looking at this, there's some weird routing
- stuff with the rates because you can't, we don't want to go to like a million decimal place. It's really
- just four decimal places. So when you do that, some of these units end up with weird round. It's like,
- oh, it's still, it's a little more in the room. Sometimes it looks a little more. So yeah, that's the
- reason for that. If there's any math nerds out there, so. There are. There are. Okay. I saw who was on.
- Any questions on this giant fortress of numbers? Well. And so I have a question. So that really like
- in terms of the 29 circle steps that you basically like tried to match from the page before what we
- would have expected without SCA one in terms of matching those rates. Yes. So that's
- I mean, it's just the theoretical what could happen in terms of those percentages. Yes. It's going to
- the county and say, hey, we want to keep people at an even keel or we want to let people eat a property
- tax loss, what's the, what are we going to do? This is like a middle growth scenario. It's not the best
- case scenario. It's certainly not the worst case scenario.
- The second to last column where you're adding a fire EMS lit braid. Yes, why are there numbers for the
- school corporations in the townships? So there should only be surely be on townships. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- So that's again the fire EMS that is completely discretionary to the county, but the townships don't
- have their own fire departments.
- maybe one if they do, but. Yeah, contract and stuff like that they can. This is just. Again, this is.
- The county if you read if you read the statute, it doesn't really. It doesn't really even. Yeah, most
- of these are provided by protection or by Allen. So yeah, it doesn't really even limit it to firing
- mess and that was actually one of the points that represented Thompson. I think probably wants to fix.
- Yeah, you're not you're not predicting what
- the county's going to do. You're saying what do we need? This is this is what each unit needs. Yes,
- yeah, yeah, not just. Yeah, it's it's. Will the county go once again to the sling to get the exact?
- Exact percentages of wood that everyone needs. Maybe you can. Maybe not. It's again, it's up to their.
- Scratching and this would also allow the county government to break it in. Yes,
- So we should probably. Yeah, there's probably nobody. Sorry. Yes. There's never enough time. We have
- to attend, correct? Yeah. OK, yeah, there's still part of it. Yeah, there's a lot. But you've gotten
- justice. So the next slide, please, which you can't really see unless you're swimming. This would be
- the impact to homeowners. Now, this is not going to be the impact at all with the taxpayers. It's just
- the homeowners beat that line.
- under that scenario, the breakeven scenario, which follows the previous slide. So you can see for the
- most part, because of the property tax savings to homeowners, in most of these tax and commission rates,
- people are actually going to be saving money, even with an increase to the overall level of the tax
- rate. And that is one thing I didn't mention. In the breakeven low income tax scenario,
- We're going from a 2.14% current low-income tax rate to 2.4512, which is about 0.3112% increase. And
- that's tackled into this slide. So you can see on average, taxpayers save roughly $657 in their property
- tax bill. That would be the old system. So no SBA 1, no HTA 12, none of that.
- And then with SCA-1, because of the deductions and the straight-up credits that homeowners are getting,
- on average, we're saying about $660 on property tax bills. Where did 660 come from? So it's 1, 2, 3,
- 4. The fifth column, SCA-1, mean property tax bill increase slash increase. And we have all the way down.
- the bolded 657.6. The important thing to note on this. And so this is what taxpayers say? Yes, this
- property taxes. Yes, and this is the average based on the average homeowner gross assessed value running
- that through the property taxes. Every single parcel has been ranked on this. This is just the average.
- Now this is going to vary wildly depending on the gross AP of your home, but this would be the average
- of all homes.
- And what we can see is that this is basically shifting some of the costs of local government on from
- homeowners to work. Correct. We're shifting it from wealth to income, essentially is what we're doing.
- So do not all of these columns talk about, you started saying that it was all talking about homeowners,
- but is the list talking about all
- people who are paying income tax? This would be anyone that's paying income tax. And this, we just use
- up the average household income on this. Okay. So, so in the next column here, it says 2020 projected
- median household income. That's not just for homeowners, that's for everybody, every household, regardless
- of? It would be more just for these households, right? Because that's not going to cover the other things
- that are paid. And this isn't even, I mean,
- no actual household income is going to be in 2019. This is just using the census data, the best knowledge
- that we have currently. Right. I'm just trying to understand the next columns after that average property
- tax savings. If the average person is saving the $657 in terms of through the whole county on their
- property taxes, is one or the other
- columns like what they would be paying in lit and how much more they might be paying in lit? Yeah, so
- going from the 2029 rejection in the household income, the next column immediately is what you, is what
- that household income would pay under SCA 1. So the 2.4512% lit. Okay. So you can see there, let's just
- take, you know, let me count you, for example, average household income, $77,728.
- Under SEA-1, that household would pay roughly $1,905 of income tax under SEA-1. And next column is the
- comparison to what they would pay without SEA-1. So that's the current local income tax rate of 2.14%.
- Right, but that's also what they're paying in 2026, not 2029. Well, it's grown 1% per year. Using the
- rate. Yes, using the rate.
- Okay, yeah. So this is also, then, a 2029 estimate? Yeah, the 2029 mean household income, that is taking
- 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
- each scenario. The only thing that's changing is the rate, the local income tax rate. Does that make
- sense? So the projected mean household income in Bloomington Township in 2029 is only $77,000.
- Yes, and you can see it varies very significantly from tax industry to tax industry to tax industry.
- And most of your income in Monroe County is outside of the city limits like look at richer average,
- right? So. That's just another reason why the city makes less low income tax due to its own. Because
- on average outside of the incorporated area of the city, the household average income is higher. So.
- And so then continuing down this, the next, so it appears as though under SEA one, most units are paying
- more lit. Yes. And so then that second to last column is how much more that they're paying.
- how much more you're paying versus the property tax. It's netting. Well, no, the second to last column.
- Second to last column is, yes, you're correct. That is the increase or decrease, which in this case,
- it's an increase for the payment of the charity fund. Then the last one is the property tax savings.
- Netting gets the increase in the lower unemployment tax. Right. Then on average, just to really make
- sure the public hears is what the state just did is,
- potentially save the average homeowner $350 at the expense of our school systems right now, and potentially
- at the expense of our other local units of government, and at least at the expense of a whole lot of
- time right now that's being spent by local units that are figuring this out. Yes. This is for an average
- of $353 per year, projected savings per year. At the expense of our children.
- except in Steinsville, they just end up paying more. Sarah. Oh, right. Sorry, Steinsville. Oh, yeah.
- Steinsville doesn't have to pay more. Yeah. There's... Yeah. So, sitting in the left one, it's kind
- of aggressive in the property tax savings, as in the higher your home value, the more savings you have.
- Uh, the people that are, because there's a fixed portion now. Yeah, because there's a, there's a fixed
- portion that you get now on your deduction. If you own a home and a sudden little portion, because the
- fixed portion of that is for more of you if your home value is lower, that goes away. So actually the
- people that have, and it's something like if your home is less than 150,000 or such value, I think on books,
- you actually end up paying more property tax under SEAM than you would without SEAM. So it's definitely
- regressive. The regressive thing. We're looking at the household income in Steinsville average of 76,000
- and that they're paying more. I would say that's demonstrably regressive. Yeah. Yes.
- To your point, the average home value in science schools is lower. It's under that roughly $150,000
- threshold. So that's why they're paying more. Yeah, I mean, they're almost saving an average of $24
- and 74 cents on their parking tax bill. Like, it's really... Anyway, I think we all understand this
- chart. Thank you. It leads it out very nicely.
- Um, I may try to put together some kind of group work about this. So, I got Robert to set up with me.
- Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, you can go ahead and speak about that. Um, Voltaire
- Path of Planning, Path of Planning, we sort of put this together because the way our practice works
- really well, although we can
- control is the debt tax rates, the maximum money funds are the same, the maximum rate funds are the
- same. So what we can control with our tax rate binding really is the debt portions, the debt funds.
- And in order to fund all of our long-term capital plan items, a lot of that has to, or most of that
- has to come through debtors' issuances. So we actually worked with Jeff and all the department heads,
- and we worked with Jeff
- to come up with this long-term capital plan. This is actually, I want to say like a 10-page capital
- plan that we just shortened into half a page. But to give you guys just a general idea, if you look
- at that grand total, all departments has shown. Relatives, a green and a red. Green is how much that
- we are currently funding even through for our property tax bonds that we've
- previously issued and still have cash on hand or bonds that we are looking to issue and that we will
- talk about those potential bonds builder as well. When we look at point 27, we have 77 million dollars
- in total capital requests. Currently we are funding 65 million dollars of that and we are 12 million
- dollars unfunded even with
- the potential bond issuances that we're talking about. So when we go on to the next pages, I would just
- keep those numbers in mind because what we're going to talk about doesn't solve all of the capital funding
- issue right now. Now I will also say in 2031, that $26.4 million, those numbers will likely go down
- as we look at further bond issuances. So this is a long-term capital plan that goes out five years from our
- We don't well, we can't look out that far, but we haven't yet. So can I just mention that these numbers
- that go into here as far as capital needs from the department heads who have gone in a fair amount of
- detail and projected out the request. That does not mean that any of them have been approved. They're
- not part of the mayor's budget at this point necessarily, and some might be, but just just to be clear,
- these are based on expert.
- estimation of what's needed. And for the benefit of the public, could you just say a few words, Jeff,
- or somebody about what kinds of things those are? So if you're on the public and you're listening to
- your capital projects, what is that? Some things that that would include would be vehicles, which can
- be cars for hand inspectors all the way up to garbage trucks and snow plows.
- In particular, the public works department, as I think you all know, is very interested in the new ops
- center to replace some seriously aging and decrepit facilities. That's one reason why the 2027 numbers
- look so big because it doesn't include that request. Vehicles, improvements to building, capital improvements
- to buildings, engineering. For example,
- You'll see some budget requests this year for safety related improvements to pedestrian infrastructure
- and new signals and signal modernization in the streets. So those are the, and then just other public
- works, other street expenses. Parking meters, new parking meters. The parks of Arkansas might include
- some other things today. I have a master plan in this meeting.
- Yeah. Yeah, I didn't include you right now. That's that didn't include parts of us. But for everyone,
- I'll get everyone listening, but included in your packet within the financial plan in the packet. In
- the capital plan section, you will see each individual thing that is right now funding at the discretion
- of the administration wasn't so it has everything individuals.
- Okay, somewhere in the packet. Yes. Yes. So we can go on to the next helpful pages. The next two to
- three pages are actually on the general point, which I don't know how much we need to go into because
- I know Jeff just sort of just discussed that at the very beginning of this meeting. Is there anything
- that you want to point out here too? I think just the big thing on the general fund and then the next
- page. Yeah, Jeff, if you don't mind going through the next page. Really the
- The big thing to look out for here, just keep in mind that until we get a lift structure in place, there
- actually is an operating deficit currently within the general fund. So now there's ample cash in the
- general fund, I will say perhaps with that. But as you can see, so if you go down to the very bottom,
- revenue over, under expenditures, purple, pink, yeah, pink down there at the very bottom,
- So you can see we have about a $7.8 million deficit built into this year. That's just based on current
- spending, current budgeting projections. That's probably no change by the time you do third quarter,
- second quarter on what's up. And then you can see in 27 and 28, there's also deficits planned in most
- years as well.
- How do we get a $16 million? Yeah, overage in 2029 that is slightly complicated. Yeah, so because the
- local income tax structure as you know, completely ceases to exist in 2029. This is assuming that we're
- no longer funding any of your local economic development. Public safety with it or piece app within
- those funds.
- So because we're doing that, these are the cash balances, the end, the year in cash balances for 28
- or beginning cash balance for 2029, whichever way you want to look at it, that we're, that we're essentially
- giving to the general fund because we're no longer funding. Those funds won't exist. So in essence,
- it's not new money. It's not new money. It's a new framework.
- Yes. And that's why you see the revenue over under goes way down in 2030, 2031. Well, three transfer
- items, transfer of PESA, transfer of one of the two transfers already, those add up to almost the exact
- $16 million. So that was that perspective. Can you talk about the interest on investments? You've got
- to highlight in yellow because we've talked about it and because it's big.
- Yes, so important thing to keep in mind on interest that we want investments. If we're lowering our
- cash balances overall, we're not going to generate as much interest revenue, right? And we're also going
- to assume that that's probably going to lower the reserve rate in the future, which they may or not
- do. So that's just another assumption to keep in mind in the brain. That's why we're going from $3.8
- million projected in 26,
- to roughly 1.9 million cash in 2017, because we're spending down roughly $8 million cash plus ARP, plus
- ARP like this. And then you can see, because we spent out more cash in 2017, we're going to be in 2018.
- We're about to get back up in 2019, because that's based on the break even with, assuming that we're
- going to get the list scenario and have more cash to build.
- I find it notable that we're assuming we're going to end the Bloomington Transit interlocal agreement.
- I mean, that's something we may have to do fiscally, but it's a big policy choice that we should think
- about. They are certainly aware that the money isn't there to continue doing that. They all have a change
- in leadership or courses that they don't learn there.
- And certainly until now, it's been very clear that that was one time money and that it's highly unlikely
- that there would be a source to contribute that. And just to sort of ease maybe some of that anxiety,
- in 2019, the county does, under House No. 12, then have the ability to give women in transportation
- a significant amount of local tax revenue. And they've been working, and they're multiplying, they've
- accounted for
- their vision of expansion and where that funding would come from. And you can see the impact on that
- same one, HH 1210 analysis, that's included in this packet. I will ask, why do you show the
- end of Bloomington Transit kind of as a revenue? Yeah, that's a big question. Yeah, because it's,
- I mean, we were paying for it out of LIT, so. Yeah, it's certainly LIT and that's an expense, so it's
- It's either we show it as like a negative, essentially negative expense or we show it as 11, right?
- 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
- counting. We're not double counting. Right. We did not, we did not lower the, yeah, we did not lower
- the expense in the, in the lift funds. Got it. Right. Yes.
- I just I do want to make note that we need to be sure about that. Okay, that based on who I saw there
- earlier, maybe three minutes or so. Okay, um, actually, I think this was mentioned under the question.
- I want to see sort of a chart. We have made projections out for the city's tax rates going out to 2030.
- This is assuming the current
- The current box still exists and levy still exists without adding anything new. In 2026, we're at 84
- cents and that stays relatively in that area. It goes up a little bit because we're not expecting SS
- values to grow as much. It all goes from 84 cents to 87 cents in 2030. As Tim referenced earlier, for
- us to get to that next closest, next comparable city of La Jolla and Elvisville in that green box down
- near the bottom,
- For Novosibirsk, sorry, for Lafayette, if we want to get to that same tax rate in 2026, we can potentially
- increase our rates by 20 cents. Or to get to Novosibirsk tax rates, we can increase it by 13 cents.
- Now we're not saying we should or need to, that's really depending on the city council's appetite and
- the mayor's administration. But just to give you guys an idea of what that could mean for this city's funding,
- finances. In that blue box, I can put in the amount of debt levied that would mean every year if we
- raised our rates from where we currently are to one dollar. And that gives us about eight to eight and
- a half million dollars every year in debt levied that we can use to pay for the capital funding. Now
- we go to the next page, we sort of
- put together the. That's that we're looking to exposing within this year or potentially first half of
- next year. The two big ones are the part of 2026 Geo and the city 2026 Geos. If you remember the capital
- improvement plan that we showed earlier. Those already incorporates those these two fundings. So these
- don't actually help with that 10 million, 10 to 12 million dollars in unfunded capital. That's something
- to keep in mind. And the DPW building bond that Jeff mentioned earlier, that's also included in the
- capital improvement plan as well. But very much not confirmed, that's what I'm saying. Very much not
- confirmed. That's just, we need to show that otherwise that unfunded amount will increase by 33 million
- dollars and that's a huge supply. But I do want to,
- point that out. Um are we able to go to these handouts? Jeff, do you think it'd be possible for us to
- go to them? They're just they're not on the presentation. They're not on the presentation. Unfortunately,
- it's this one. We have 10 minutes left. Yes, I will make this really quick. Um I just and this one is
- just to show what the impact of issuing those bonds are on the city. Um
- Which? It's this one and we could just go to second base shuttle. I'll make it. Yeah, cuz it looks like
- the first page or which didn't convert into Google also best. So which which favorite one? It's the
- second one. It'll say city general obligation that passwords. This one right here. Yes, correct. So
- the yellow the first
- three rows are the current bonds and the tax rates on those bonds and what they're projected to be.
- The green are the potential bonds that we're looking at issuing, and if we issue them, what will we
- expect those tax rates to be? So we look at the 2026 GEO bond, that's about 2.4 cents. And that DPW
- building, even those larger bonds, we're issuing that over a longer term. That's going to be at about
- 2.9 cents. So that's almost five and a half cents
- increase to the city's tax rates if we were to issue those bonds. Now, the 2026 bonds, those will last
- us forever. The current conversation that we're having with Jeff is that we're looking at six-year bonds
- by rotating every three years. So if we issue one in 2026, we'll have to issue another one in 2029 to
- fund those capital items with another rate
- going on in 2030. So you see the bottom right corner of that green, that's another nearly 2.4 cents.
- So all in all, you'll see our total debt tax rates from issuing the City Geo Bond will be from the 4.39
- 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
- go somewhere.
- No, we don't have time. It's okay. So 4.6 cents apart. I'll just quickly, the park will increase by
- about 2.7. So that's just, that's just over seven cents increase in the total tax rates. And we remember
- that the tax rates tab that we looked at previously to get to one dollar, we'll need to increase it
- by 14 cents. So we have another about seven cents, you know, even with the implementation of these bonds,
- if they do decide to go through. And I'm done.
- That is an awful lot in a short period of time. I should go first next time. I should do that. I should
- maybe work with you a little bit on talking about those bonds and maybe including those in some kind
- of report because it would be good to develop that sort of bond, some potential bonding requests that
- may be coming up.
- Let's go ahead and move on to public comments. So if there's anybody, there's still no public members
- of the public in the room. But if you're online and interested in making a public comment, please raise
- your hand. And please just be mindful of time, because Councilmember Rauhl has hard stop at 10. That
- means we all do, because we'll lose more. So Mr. Keogh, go ahead. I'll have a timer on my watch going
- for about three minutes, but I would appreciate it if you were as efficient as possible and there immediately.
- You ready? Yep. All right. I'm Kevin Keough. Page 15 of the Reedy Financial Group's presentation today
- highlights the fundamental requirements for sound municipal management, the minimum yearly review of
- the formal financial policies, specifically regarding debt investments and cash reserve, along with
- a formal public review of long-range operational planning and the annual comprehensive financial report.
- explicitly notes the rating agencies like the S&P evaluates these practices during their credit reviews.
- While the fiscal committee itself is not yet a year old and the city has not historically aligned with
- the GFOA best practices, the focus represents a necessary step forward. The city seems to be currently
- working with outside advisors to draft these policies, but policy adoption without regular
- legislative reviews is incomplete governance. This ongoing review mechanism is something critical that
- should be codified. For the past year, there have been public comments about the consistent—consistently
- pointed out the glaring vulnerability in our financial governance. Our ACFR is routinely taking over
- 16 months after the close of the year to be published. Let's be clear about
- what a 16-month delay actually means. First, it severely diminishes the practical utility and value
- of the audited figures. Trying to build a budget, a reviewing budget to actual performance without timely
- audited numbers means you're flying blind during the most critical period of the fiscal decision-making.
- Secondly, and most critically to Reedie's point regarding the credit evaluation, it undermines market trust.
- Municipalities have continuing disclosure agreements that expect annual audited financials to be submitted
- to bondholders on the EMMA within six months after the fiscal year-end. Taking 16 months and routinely
- filing notices of late submission strains the principle of good-faith disclosure to the municipal market.
- Bondholders and rating agencies expect timely, reliable data when a city repeatedly misses those windows
- by nearly a year
- it risk extending with the very entities that price our debt. I urge the fiscal committee and City Council
- to take two concrete actions. Establish a formal annual calendar item dedicated to specifically reviewing
- and reauthorizing the city's debt investment and reserve policies. Institute formal
- oversight of multi-year operational and capital plans, the ACFR completion timeliness, and standing
- annual review of the completed ACFR as a direct responsibility of the fiscal committee if it continues,
- or by all means, the city council. Codifying this regular review mechanism will protect the city's credit
- rating, build institutional memory, and ensure our financial management matches professional standards.
- Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Pierre.
- Are there any other members of the public online that would like to make public comments? I don't see
- other hands going up, so that means we have three minutes to mention that our next fiscal committee
- meeting is in fact two weeks from today on August 7th. We already probably said that we were going to
- follow-up again or continued follow-up related to the official salary stuff at that meeting. So we'll
- be in touch about that. I want to send a huge thank you to the folks that read for coming and for all
- of this information that you shared. Any other last words from anybody? If we have follow-up questions
- related to the reports from reading, should we send them to Jeff? Please send them to me.
- Great. Any other last, last things? I always really appreciate it when you comment. I'm always extremely
- sorry that it all, I mean, we had our turn off now. There's just so much information. And I think that
- this committee acts in a really important way right now, which may be the council had before to delve
- deeply into some of these matters, not certainly far.
- Approach to this, but that also means that we have a lot of questions about brains. You get a lot of
- problems. So anyway, thank you. And we are.