WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:13.080 Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Financial Task Force of the Special Bond Committee. It's 00:00:13.080 --> 00:00:21.320 4.05, and we're going to go through a presentation that basically addresses several things that 00:00:21.320 --> 00:00:25.760 we asked for two weeks ago. And, Dave, I'll turn it over to you. 00:00:25.760 --> 00:00:31.280 Good afternoon, committee. Thank you for being here. Excited to go through the financials 00:00:31.280 --> 00:00:36.720 with you. Before we get into the financial presentation, we just have had some updates 00:00:36.720 --> 00:00:40.880 to our project costs that we want to go over with you all. Since we're going to be talking 00:00:40.880 --> 00:00:44.840 through finances, we'll be going through the same presentation with the entire group 00:00:44.840 --> 00:00:48.360 at 6 o'clock. But because we'll be talking through finances, we thought it was important 00:00:48.360 --> 00:00:53.040 to bring this to this group first since this meeting only because this meeting was prior 00:00:53.040 --> 00:00:56.480 to the 6 o'clock meeting. But we'll be going over the same information with the rest of 00:00:56.480 --> 00:01:01.080 the committee at 6 o'clock. Dave, a real quick question. Ma'am, could 00:01:01.080 --> 00:01:04.080 you introduce yourself? I'm Laura Alexander with Hilltop Securities. 00:01:04.080 --> 00:01:07.880 Adam was here last time, but he's still coming. We're with Simper. 00:01:07.880 --> 00:01:10.080 Great. Thank you. And our bond counsel, Greg Shaker, will be 00:01:10.080 --> 00:01:16.840 here later as well. I imagine he's probably dealing with the same trap as coming up here. 00:01:16.840 --> 00:01:23.520 So we wanted to touch base with the committee. Our public safety facility is just up to today. 00:01:23.520 --> 00:01:29.080 We've gotten revised cost estimates for our police renovation project and police substation 00:01:29.080 --> 00:01:36.240 project. The reason these numbers came back to us is because we engaged in an estimating 00:01:36.240 --> 00:01:41.920 firm just to true up our numbers to make sure that we were accurate with all the projections 00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:46.960 we have thus far with our project cost. This estimating firm would be the fourth that have 00:01:46.960 --> 00:01:51.880 looked at those project costs, including obviously our initial estimates from city staff before 00:01:51.880 --> 00:01:57.640 we even got really started with architects on what the cost might be. Then we consulted 00:01:57.640 --> 00:02:02.040 with our project architects, obviously. They're in schematic design to get their estimates, 00:02:02.040 --> 00:02:07.320 the architects used in estimating firm for their numbers, and those numbers really are 00:02:07.320 --> 00:02:13.640 all driving that initial project cost. We engaged this firm for a peak program value. 00:02:13.640 --> 00:02:18.600 They've done a number of cities throughout the country. They've also worked with Louisville 00:02:18.600 --> 00:02:24.480 quite a bit, currently working with Richardson on their police facility. And their numbers 00:02:24.480 --> 00:02:31.680 have increased quite a bit on both the police renovation and the police substation projects. 00:02:31.680 --> 00:02:38.840 In total, $21.4 million increase over our initial project cost, and that amount would 00:02:38.840 --> 00:02:44.440 be included in any bond issue for those projects. So I want to touch on what that increase really 00:02:44.440 --> 00:02:51.880 entailed. The construction cost increase is only $5 million, so that's not really driving 00:02:51.880 --> 00:02:57.400 that full $21 million. There were some increases, obviously, just in straight construction costs. 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:03.200 The biggest increases from the new estimator were contingency and inflation. The previous 00:03:03.200 --> 00:03:11.440 estimates were fairly low on contingency and didn't have much inflation based on an expedited 00:03:11.440 --> 00:03:17.920 schedule. But the new estimators came in, and they've really added some weight to those 00:03:17.920 --> 00:03:24.960 numbers in the inflation, looking at a three-year timeline, knowing the market. Obviously, there 00:03:24.960 --> 00:03:28.960 are -- there's been a number of months since the last estimates, so that plays a factor 00:03:28.960 --> 00:03:35.120 in there. But also, there's just some methodology on what kind of contingencies you need in 00:03:35.120 --> 00:03:36.120 those budgets. 00:03:36.120 --> 00:03:38.160 So could I just interrupt for a moment? 00:03:38.160 --> 00:03:39.160 Sure. 00:03:39.160 --> 00:03:44.680 I guess I had understood -- and just for clarity purposes -- that we had, in the numbers we 00:03:44.680 --> 00:03:52.640 got originally, that we had about an 80% contingency and inflation factor in those numbers. But 00:03:52.640 --> 00:03:55.280 you're saying that was not what was the case here? 00:03:55.280 --> 00:04:00.200 I think you might be referring to on the streets projects, where we really got into the weeds 00:04:00.200 --> 00:04:04.560 of those numbers and we showed the contingency and inflation. For each of those streets projects, 00:04:04.560 --> 00:04:08.600 we did that. And those numbers have all been -- the street projects have all been estimated 00:04:08.600 --> 00:04:14.820 internally. So the original estimates did have a contingency amount, but in comparison 00:04:14.820 --> 00:04:20.000 to what the new estimator that came in, it's obviously significantly less than what the 00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:26.360 new estimators who come in say that it really -- you need to have in your budgets for these 00:04:26.360 --> 00:04:27.360 type of facilities. 00:04:27.360 --> 00:04:32.320 So we went through the same process that we've used with the roads. However, this firm that 00:04:32.320 --> 00:04:37.000 we brought in has recently completed a fire station in Lewisville, and they're completing 00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:41.040 a police station right now in Richardson. So I asked them to take another look and talk 00:04:41.040 --> 00:04:45.160 to both their managers and asked them to take a look at the -- and they were happy with 00:04:45.160 --> 00:04:48.640 the firm, so I asked them to take a look at our numbers, make sure that they were in agreement 00:04:48.640 --> 00:04:53.840 with the architect's numbers. I think the construction costs, they were. There's only 00:04:53.840 --> 00:04:59.920 about $5 million difference between the construction costs. They're not comfortable with the inflationary 00:04:59.920 --> 00:05:05.000 assumptions and the cost of labor over the next three years, and that's where you're 00:05:05.000 --> 00:05:12.120 seeing that delta. So just did not want to get into a situation where we have the previous 00:05:12.120 --> 00:05:16.080 road program where we get out there and fall short of money. So we asked them to double 00:05:16.080 --> 00:05:19.680 check all the other estimator's numbers based on what they're seeing. 00:05:19.680 --> 00:05:23.880 >> Do we feel the need to double check those numbers on the street projects? 00:05:23.880 --> 00:05:28.720 >> No. Todd has taken -- Todd has actually taken this approach on the street projects. 00:05:28.720 --> 00:05:35.520 He's built in not only inflationary present value estimates grossing up those numbers, 00:05:35.520 --> 00:05:40.200 he's also using actual bid amounts that we're seeing and grossing those up over the next 00:05:40.200 --> 00:05:45.640 few years in addition to building in pretty sizable contingencies. So we're in good shape 00:05:45.640 --> 00:05:50.360 with the road projects. I just wanted to be sure that we took that same approach with 00:05:50.360 --> 00:05:54.240 the buildings and not get caught flat footed, and it appears we may have done that had we 00:05:54.240 --> 00:05:58.560 not gone for this exercise. >> Yeah, we don't have a lot of recent cost 00:05:58.560 --> 00:06:04.680 data on PD renovation or substation. You do have recent cost data for roads because you're 00:06:04.680 --> 00:06:08.760 doing that all the time. >> Right. 00:06:08.760 --> 00:06:12.320 >> So just real quick, and obviously we can answer any additional questions, but wanted 00:06:12.320 --> 00:06:17.540 to touch on the second biggest piece of the increase of the 16 million after that 10 million 00:06:17.540 --> 00:06:24.040 that's really contingency and cost inflation was a 2 to 3 million increase in IT systems, 00:06:24.040 --> 00:06:29.720 security systems, and AP systems. These amounts were included in the original estimates, but 00:06:29.720 --> 00:06:34.040 the estimators come in and has had a lot of experience with similar projects recently, 00:06:34.040 --> 00:06:39.960 has said we need to bump those up significantly for what's needed. A lot of that is at the 00:06:39.960 --> 00:06:44.040 substation of brand new building where you have to install that infrastructure up front, 00:06:44.040 --> 00:06:49.240 but even with the renovation of the police station, really need an upgrade to that equipment, 00:06:49.240 --> 00:06:54.000 and during the renovation, you're going to have to get a lot of that new AV and IT equipment. 00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:59.320 And obviously, specifically the IT and the security are so important at a police station, 00:06:59.320 --> 00:07:05.240 so I think that different methodology at looking at those numbers has driven a lot of the increases. 00:07:05.240 --> 00:07:12.560 The other ones are obviously somewhat less significant in dollar amounts than the previous 00:07:12.560 --> 00:07:17.120 increases mentioned, but design and engineering costs were increased, some professional services 00:07:17.120 --> 00:07:22.280 such as material testing and commissioning hadn't been included in the original estimates, 00:07:22.280 --> 00:07:27.780 and then some increases on what you really need for those furnitures and fixtures. So, 00:07:27.780 --> 00:07:32.440 we just got these numbers in the past couple of days, wanted to get this to the committee 00:07:32.440 --> 00:07:37.600 as soon as possible, especially as we start heading into really the meat of the discussions 00:07:37.600 --> 00:07:41.840 on prioritizations and where that line is that we're going to move forward with to 00:07:41.840 --> 00:07:42.840 the voters. 00:07:42.840 --> 00:07:49.920 David, is the three-year timeline, is that the same timeline estimate as the original 00:07:49.920 --> 00:07:53.960 cost estimate or had that changed as well? 00:07:53.960 --> 00:07:57.880 It hasn't changed significantly. I mean, there's been some fluctuation in the months. I think 00:07:57.880 --> 00:08:01.760 the ultimate target's changed. I will say if you go back and look from February till 00:08:01.760 --> 00:08:07.480 now, there have been shifts in that, even shifts in when does the substation come on 00:08:07.480 --> 00:08:11.960 versus when does the station, so there has been variation. I don't think that alone hasn't 00:08:11.960 --> 00:08:16.000 been significant enough to drive the increase. I think it really is a methodology difference 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:18.640 in how they looked at it. 00:08:18.640 --> 00:08:22.760 And we have also been working on the financing plan, trying to make sure that these were 00:08:22.760 --> 00:08:27.360 the first projects we would get in the pipeline in order to cut that timeline down as well. 00:08:27.360 --> 00:08:35.400 You know, it's a risk. We had a conversation with Chief Dixon yesterday, and his position 00:08:35.400 --> 00:08:40.200 is look, that renovation project needs to get done. If there's something that needs 00:08:40.200 --> 00:08:44.560 to be put on the back, the substation is his choice. We can go back out in a few years 00:08:44.560 --> 00:08:49.200 if the committee is uncomfortable about the dollars right now. He thinks it's incredibly 00:08:49.200 --> 00:08:54.120 important that it get done in the next few years, but that's kind of where we are at 00:08:54.120 --> 00:08:57.960 at this point. They're both major priorities to him, the renovation project has to get 00:08:57.960 --> 00:09:02.680 done. I know the question could come up, well, why wouldn't we look at a new facility, the 00:09:02.680 --> 00:09:06.520 same exact methodology on the new facilities. You're tearing down, you're acquiring even 00:09:06.520 --> 00:09:11.240 more property, and those prices are somewhere in the $60 to $70 million range, so it's not 00:09:11.240 --> 00:09:15.160 even close to the same cost to build the new facility, plus you're left with City Hall 00:09:15.160 --> 00:09:17.960 East, which is half empty at that point. 00:09:17.960 --> 00:09:24.520 So how do you think the council feels about adding another $21 million to what was our 00:09:24.520 --> 00:09:28.120 charge at $2.10 is kind of a high end? 00:09:28.120 --> 00:09:33.800 I think the council, well, they don't have this information. David was actually putting 00:09:33.800 --> 00:09:40.040 the final touches on this about 45 minutes ago. I think from their perspective, if you 00:09:40.040 --> 00:09:44.520 came back and said, look, we are willing to move forward, we think all these things are 00:09:44.520 --> 00:09:49.400 so important, we're willing to move forward, we'd like you to consider adjusting the cap 00:09:49.400 --> 00:09:55.400 that we go out for, they would consider it. They hadn't seen the growth numbers that we're 00:09:55.400 --> 00:09:59.640 looking at or the interest rate numbers we're looking at as well, and I think they're going 00:09:59.640 --> 00:10:02.120 to be very curious to see what your opinion is. 00:10:02.120 --> 00:10:12.600 I can move on with the finance presentation, and we obviously answer any questions on this 00:10:12.600 --> 00:10:16.680 as we go through. This will obviously be brought back. This is the same exact presentation, 00:10:16.680 --> 00:10:20.760 this piece of the presentation at 6 o'clock as well. So can I answer questions on this 00:10:20.760 --> 00:10:24.920 throughout the process, or I could go ahead and shift now to the finance presentation, 00:10:24.920 --> 00:10:26.040 if that makes sense. 00:10:26.040 --> 00:10:27.000 Let's go ahead and do that. 00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:40.680 So a few of the objectives of this presentation. Obviously, this is a follow-up to the meeting 00:10:40.680 --> 00:10:44.680 a couple of weeks ago, the finance meeting a couple of weeks ago, with some takeaways 00:10:44.680 --> 00:10:49.000 from that meeting and some scenarios that the committee asked to see, and also talking 00:10:49.000 --> 00:10:54.200 through the language requirements and how we're affected or not affected by the new legislation. 00:10:54.200 --> 00:10:59.080 So this is the same slide that we saw last time at the set the stage. Here are some of 00:10:59.080 --> 00:11:05.720 those financial assumptions that we've made going into all of our scenarios and our analysis of the 00:11:05.720 --> 00:11:12.120 impact of the new debt issuances and the bond program, closing out the 2014 bond program 00:11:12.120 --> 00:11:17.480 next year, and then that $5 million in COs that we budgeted in each of the future years. 00:11:17.480 --> 00:11:24.120 Our interest rates at 3.75 next year and then assuming a 4.5 interest rate in the 00:11:24.120 --> 00:11:28.840 following years. We're also utilizing that fund balance over those first few years 00:11:28.840 --> 00:11:33.320 to work with what the tax rate impact will be in those first couple of years, 00:11:33.320 --> 00:11:40.600 $3.6 million use of fund balance. This is a similar chart to what we saw last time I did 00:11:40.600 --> 00:11:47.240 for the assessed value history. I've included a couple previous years based on this conversation, 00:11:47.240 --> 00:11:51.800 just to, there were some comments that say, "Hey, can we see what it will look like during the last 00:11:51.800 --> 00:11:57.160 recession?" So have included back to 2008, so you can see, you know, we had the dip there, 00:11:57.160 --> 00:12:03.480 but then since 2011, have seen those increases and obviously the past few years, the increases have 00:12:03.480 --> 00:12:09.320 been significant. We do have updated numbers. We get those preliminary values from the appraisal 00:12:09.320 --> 00:12:14.360 district each Friday. We just got our last preliminary value last Friday, so those numbers 00:12:14.360 --> 00:12:19.320 are now updated. All of our scenarios have the updated preliminary values. We'll get our two 00:12:19.320 --> 00:12:25.080 weeks from Friday, from last Friday, we'll get our final certified values. Where we are now is we're 00:12:25.080 --> 00:12:34.920 at 8.07%, right at 8% in total AV growth. We're at 7.3%, an increase of our non-frozen values, 00:12:34.920 --> 00:12:39.800 which as we move forward from a city perspective, that non-frozen value is really going to become 00:12:39.800 --> 00:12:44.680 the primary driver of our revenue, since those frozen values really are not something we can 00:12:44.680 --> 00:12:52.520 control or can really anticipate moving forward. So that 7.3% is really what's been driving a lot 00:12:52.520 --> 00:12:59.480 of the increases that you'll see in our, in our scenarios moving forward. Sure. Go ahead Randy. 00:12:59.480 --> 00:13:07.400 I'm just going to ask, do we know in the 8.07%, is that existing assessment ideas or is that 00:13:07.400 --> 00:13:13.800 new property? That includes both new and existing. You know what the breakdown is? Yeah, existing is 00:13:13.800 --> 00:13:24.040 around 430 to 440 million and then the remainder of the close to 11 billion is existing values. 00:13:24.040 --> 00:13:28.200 I want to say 10 point, I think it's close, when we look at the non-frozen it's you know closer to 00:13:28.200 --> 00:13:36.120 the 10 billion in the total. Say that again please. Sure. So it's around, I'll just use kind of big, 00:13:36.120 --> 00:13:47.320 big numbers and not, sure. So around 400 million, 400 million in new value and around 11 billion in 00:13:47.320 --> 00:13:59.560 total, total assessed value. So you know half a percent. The, was the, was the freeze passed in 17 00:13:59.560 --> 00:14:05.800 and did it then go into effect in 18? Correct. 18 was our first year of the freeze. 00:14:06.360 --> 00:14:14.520 That's reflected in that percentage drop. This, these percentages include, these are absent of 00:14:14.520 --> 00:14:19.160 the freeze. These are just our total values in the, in the actual bar charts for comparison sake. 00:14:19.160 --> 00:14:23.560 This does not include the freeze. This is just what our AV would be in total if we didn't have 00:14:23.560 --> 00:14:27.640 the freeze. So we're apples to apples. So it's apples to apples. If we did, if we didn't include 00:14:27.640 --> 00:14:32.040 that, that you know the increase wouldn't be as high and it wouldn't be a good comparison. 00:14:32.040 --> 00:14:36.760 That's why we just made that note here that though we're showing 8 percent in total, 00:14:36.760 --> 00:14:43.080 the actual increase in non-frozen values is 7.3 percent. And David is my understanding correct 00:14:43.080 --> 00:14:51.960 that as the timeline gets longer since someone's taxes was frozen, you would expect that impact to 00:14:51.960 --> 00:14:58.520 grow as far as city impact? Yeah. I mean as long as they, if AVs are growing and that, because that's 00:14:58.520 --> 00:15:05.000 actually the property tax they're paying to us is frozen, correct. As AVs grow, the impact to us 00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:09.960 will increase assuming that those, you know, that everyone stays in their home. Obviously there's 00:15:09.960 --> 00:15:14.920 going to be some change with people urban out and people applying for the over 65 in latter years. 00:15:14.920 --> 00:15:19.800 But as far as the population of people who have it now, that will happen as AVs grow. Until you get 00:15:19.800 --> 00:15:25.560 to sort of a stable state where people who have the exemption are an average or a median number 00:15:25.560 --> 00:15:31.720 of age, for instance, until the age stops rising. Yeah and I think, you know, especially since we're 00:15:31.720 --> 00:15:36.840 only in the second year, I think that's true. As we get to years five, six, seven, it'll all kind of 00:15:36.840 --> 00:15:41.720 be apples to apples and we'll be able to know what to expect. I think if you look at the budgets of 00:15:41.720 --> 00:15:46.360 cities who've had the freeze for quite a few years, they don't spend as much time kind of going through 00:15:46.360 --> 00:15:50.600 the nuances of it. But because, you know, it's important to look at the history, we have to make 00:15:50.600 --> 00:16:03.720 sure we call that out the differences. So our actual increase in taxable appraised value is 7.3%, 00:16:03.720 --> 00:16:10.040 is that right? In taxable appraised value, that's right. I think that's an important distinction. 00:16:10.040 --> 00:16:18.440 The way that it gets kind of confusing is it's 7.3% on the non-frozen values. 00:16:19.080 --> 00:16:25.080 So we look at that in separately from, we are also still getting property tax revenue from those 00:16:25.080 --> 00:16:30.360 frozen values, but it's just set. So the way that we've begun looking at it is that's just kind of a 00:16:30.360 --> 00:16:35.000 separate source of revenue that's coming in versus what we're actually getting from 00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:45.080 people who are paying taxes on the AV as it changes. But for our purposes of assumed growth, 00:16:46.200 --> 00:16:55.240 I would-- the 7-- this-- the 7.3% is the number that's most comparable to what our assumed growth 00:16:55.240 --> 00:17:10.200 should be in future years. So here's a high level of the forecasted scenarios that the committee 00:17:10.200 --> 00:17:17.080 asked us to bring back were assessed value assumptions at 4%, 5%, and 6%. And really the numbers 00:17:17.080 --> 00:17:26.040 tied out very right at these max debt service tax rate increases at $0.05 for 4%, $0.04 on the debt 00:17:26.040 --> 00:17:32.840 service side for 5% and $0.03 for 6%. As you'll see as we go through those, we kind of get up to 00:17:32.840 --> 00:17:38.280 that number in the latter years of the program as the debt starts to get to that point. We've 00:17:38.280 --> 00:17:43.320 included here on the right column the impact on $100,000 assessed value. This number wasn't just 00:17:43.320 --> 00:17:51.240 picked at random. This is the language that will be included in future bond elections based on the 00:17:51.240 --> 00:17:56.520 new legislation to have that comparison on $100,000 assessed value. And you can see it's fairly 00:17:56.520 --> 00:18:02.760 simple math to come up with, you know, at 5% increase would be $50, 4% increase would be $40. 00:18:03.480 --> 00:18:08.600 Now that increase would only occur in that year that we get up to that max as we're getting up. 00:18:08.600 --> 00:18:14.360 It wouldn't be $40 in that 5% every year. It would just be that year that we hit the max debt 00:18:14.360 --> 00:18:19.960 service tax rate. Again, this is a 6-year implementation that we have for all of our 00:18:19.960 --> 00:18:26.680 scenarios and for the debt program. Did you want to make note? An estimate about $14 million--as 00:18:26.680 --> 00:18:31.240 we increase about $14 million from this point forward would equal about another cent on the 00:18:31.240 --> 00:18:37.400 debt service tax rate side. So the other $21 million would be a penny and a half. Correct, yeah. 00:18:37.400 --> 00:18:50.600 As we go, we're talking about the legislation and the language here in a few slides, 00:18:50.600 --> 00:18:56.200 but do you want to just make note that this debt service tax rate increase is not something that's 00:18:56.200 --> 00:19:00.600 included in, you know, in the election ordinance or in the official language, but it is something 00:19:00.600 --> 00:19:06.600 that we included in our bond booklets and have always included to give that reference to voters 00:19:06.600 --> 00:19:14.600 as they head to the polls. Can I just ask one more question? Do we know what the average assessed 00:19:14.600 --> 00:19:22.520 home value is in debt? What's the average value of a home? So last year it was $233,000 and this 00:19:22.520 --> 00:19:29.560 is on homesteaded, kind of average taxable, so this would be after exemptions. $233,000 last year. 00:19:29.560 --> 00:19:34.280 This year it's looking closer to around $250,000. We don't have an exact number on that yet. 00:19:34.280 --> 00:19:41.640 Because the $100,000 gives us a round number, but it doesn't really tell you the 00:19:41.640 --> 00:19:45.160 impact on the average person. So I'll just skip over to this real quick. 00:19:45.160 --> 00:19:51.080 On all of these slides, and this is the same kind of format that we did last time, obviously a lot 00:19:51.080 --> 00:19:56.600 of numbers, but it helps to kind of pinpoint some of that information. So when you see the average 00:19:56.600 --> 00:20:06.040 tax bill here for FY19, that's based strictly on our approved tax rate and that $233,000 in average 00:20:06.040 --> 00:20:12.520 taxable value. And in the future years on this, with each scenario, I've assumed that the taxable 00:20:12.520 --> 00:20:18.360 value will grow at the same percentages assessed value. That doesn't tie out exactly in real terms, 00:20:18.360 --> 00:20:23.080 but for purpose of the scenarios have just tied those numbers together. So when you see the average 00:20:23.080 --> 00:20:29.160 tax bill here, that's after saying the taxable values have increased 4% over these couple of 00:20:29.160 --> 00:20:40.280 years times what this total tax rate is. The only purpose is shown at the $100,000 is because that's 00:20:40.280 --> 00:20:46.280 kind of the new language and showing that manner. So with the 4% growth, I can go through these 00:20:46.280 --> 00:20:51.880 fairly quickly because we've seen a lot of the same information as far as the 3.5% rollback and 00:20:51.880 --> 00:21:00.120 the effective rates, but this does show we're at that 5 cent increase here in 2025 as we go 00:21:00.120 --> 00:21:07.960 from our current tax rate of 21.5 cents getting up to that 26.5 cents on the 4% growth. 00:21:07.960 --> 00:21:13.080 And then we're going to see similar things as we go through these slides of getting up to 00:21:13.080 --> 00:21:19.160 25.5 cents on the 5 cent growth, which is a 4 cent increase on the debt service tax rate. 00:21:21.160 --> 00:21:28.920 And then at the 6%, we're getting up to that 24.5 cents where it's that 3 cent increase. 00:21:28.920 --> 00:21:35.800 I think as you go, and I'll just skip back to the 4%, you can see one of the, as we spoke, 00:21:35.800 --> 00:21:41.480 as we went into this process with city council, one of the goals was to stay below our total tax 00:21:41.480 --> 00:21:48.760 rate each year of the program. So while our debt service tax rate is increasing those 3 to 5 cents, 00:21:48.760 --> 00:21:55.720 our total tax rate is remaining below the current tax rate. And that's because as the AV increases 00:21:55.720 --> 00:21:58.440 that debt service first M&O trade off is going on. 00:21:58.440 --> 00:22:07.800 So are those M&O rates assuming at least from 2021 on, are those assuming effective M&O rate? 00:22:07.800 --> 00:22:14.360 They are effective M&O rates every year from 21 on. And this 20 number is just an estimate. 00:22:14.360 --> 00:22:19.960 We don't have any, we're not at a point where we have our proposed M&O rate, but put that in there 00:22:19.960 --> 00:22:38.600 for planning purposes. Any discussion on any of this? We kind of honed in on 5% as one assumption 00:22:38.600 --> 00:22:42.920 and 6% was kind of the high end of the sensitivity analysis. 00:22:44.440 --> 00:22:55.400 So another request from the committee was to come back and bring some of the language that would be 00:22:55.400 --> 00:23:00.680 in the new legislation. So this is obviously changing and trying to get the true interpretation 00:23:00.680 --> 00:23:05.560 of what the legislation is and when it goes into effect after consulting with our bond council. 00:23:05.560 --> 00:23:09.480 The September 1st is the date that the legislation goes into effect, 00:23:09.480 --> 00:23:15.240 but because we will be calling the election before August 19th, the new legislation will 00:23:15.240 --> 00:23:20.760 not apply to this bond election. Despite the election occurring in November, because we're 00:23:20.760 --> 00:23:27.080 calling it before September 1st, the new legislation will not be required. What we have brought forward 00:23:27.080 --> 00:23:31.320 to the committee for consideration and something that we'll talk through with city council as we 00:23:31.320 --> 00:23:36.600 move forward is how can we, despite not having the legislation be required, how can we do 00:23:36.600 --> 00:23:41.000 things in the spirit of the legislation, understanding what the intent of the legislation 00:23:41.000 --> 00:23:46.120 is and try to take those actions to show that while we're not required, we're going to do 00:23:46.120 --> 00:23:51.720 everything we can to present information in the manner of the city the legislation requires. 00:23:51.720 --> 00:23:55.080 Some of that gets a little bit difficult because there are different definitions in 00:23:55.080 --> 00:23:59.880 our current language that we're required to do as far as what the debt is, what our outstanding debt 00:23:59.880 --> 00:24:05.720 is versus what the new legislation requires, but I think we can work through a lot of that to go 00:24:05.720 --> 00:24:09.880 as far as we can to be in the spirit of the legislation. So some of these following slides 00:24:09.880 --> 00:24:15.640 you'll see that we've drafted some of the language that would be included in a new legislation. 00:24:15.640 --> 00:24:25.240 So the most significant change, and there's quite a few language changes, but one of the most 00:24:25.240 --> 00:24:29.880 significant changes in the new legislation is a new document called the voter information 00:24:29.880 --> 00:24:35.880 document which has a table of a lot of information pertaining to the bonds and some of the assumptions 00:24:35.880 --> 00:24:43.560 which we've drafted what that voter document would look like at our various four, five and six percent 00:24:43.560 --> 00:24:48.360 AB scenarios that we can go through with the committee in the following slides. I do want 00:24:48.360 --> 00:24:52.840 to just continue to point out the legislation is still pending. We're still waiting on some opinions 00:24:52.840 --> 00:24:58.440 on exactly, for instance, on our outstanding debt. Is that outstanding debt like it currently is at 00:24:58.440 --> 00:25:03.640 the beginning of the fiscal year, October 1st, or is it outstanding debt as of the day the election's 00:25:03.640 --> 00:25:08.040 called? So there's still some of those nuances that that we need to get opinions on, but we've 00:25:08.040 --> 00:25:13.960 moved forward with our assumptions for what that might look like. And we've also handed out to 00:25:13.960 --> 00:25:20.600 everyone a draft of what our election ordinance would look like based on our current requirements 00:25:20.600 --> 00:25:25.400 and some of the information that we've added to try to meet that spirit of the new legislation. 00:25:28.680 --> 00:25:36.200 So here's an example of that voter information table that we would suggest moving forward with 00:25:36.200 --> 00:25:42.760 to be in the spirit of the new legislation where we list our total debt and interest of the bond 00:25:42.760 --> 00:25:50.520 program. So total debt service to be paid for the life of the bond program, which we've got right 00:25:50.520 --> 00:25:55.560 now our estimate is about $316 million based on all the assumptions that we have so far on interest 00:25:55.560 --> 00:26:02.520 rates and when we would sell the bonds. And then we also list our outstanding debt paid specifically 00:26:02.520 --> 00:26:10.280 from property tax. So this is a property tax supported debt. If you, as you just when you, 00:26:10.280 --> 00:26:13.160 when you actually, when you look through the ordinance, this is one of those pieces where 00:26:13.160 --> 00:26:19.080 there's different numbers. If you go to section 16 of the ordinance, our current requirements are 00:26:19.080 --> 00:26:24.760 that we have to list all of our outstanding debt. So this number is quite a bit different in the, 00:26:24.760 --> 00:26:29.640 in section 16 of the ordinance versus what we're showing here, where the new requirement is you 00:26:29.640 --> 00:26:34.040 only have to show your debt, your tax supported debt. So this is one of those that it actually, 00:26:34.040 --> 00:26:39.720 it's a more accurate picture where it is more appropriate to look at what our property 00:26:39.720 --> 00:26:46.200 tax paying versus especially, especially since we're, since we're a full service city, we have 00:26:46.200 --> 00:26:50.360 electric, water, wastewater, solid waste. We have obviously quite a bit of debt as we talked about 00:26:50.360 --> 00:26:56.680 last time. That's, that's supported by other revenues. But you can see the way we list each 00:26:56.680 --> 00:27:01.960 of those assumptions in this, in this form, we show that estimated maximum annual increase 00:27:01.960 --> 00:27:07.080 that we saw earlier, which are going to be at $50, $40 and $30 in each of those scenarios. 00:27:07.080 --> 00:27:12.760 What percentage of the current debt drops off each year? 00:27:12.760 --> 00:27:19.000 I don't have a percentage. I do have this slide that we looked at last time. 00:27:20.360 --> 00:27:23.880 But we can get that. We can kind of get an average percentage, but you can see that's 00:27:23.880 --> 00:27:30.360 showing 25 million. That's debt service payment. So that's a little different than, 00:27:30.360 --> 00:27:34.360 than the actual debt. Right. Yeah. The other one was total, 00:27:34.360 --> 00:27:38.200 essentially our total debt service payments that we would make over 20 years are outstanding. 00:27:38.200 --> 00:27:40.920 This is just how much that debt service payment is made each year. 00:27:43.400 --> 00:27:51.000 And that's all that. That's not just this is just property tax. So back on the other page, 00:27:51.000 --> 00:27:57.880 would, would it be correct to say that basically by issuing this bond we're doubling, doubling our, 00:27:57.880 --> 00:28:05.880 we don't have to show them a total box. I think that's one of the limitations 00:28:05.880 --> 00:28:10.760 of the way that it's presented here is it gives that appearance and that can, that can, 00:28:10.760 --> 00:28:14.760 obviously that's a takeaway when you look at this, you see, but I think the important piece is 00:28:14.760 --> 00:28:20.280 this slide, like it's not doubling in the sense that as this debt, as our debt service is falling 00:28:20.280 --> 00:28:25.080 off in each of these years, we're just adding more debt service. So some of that increase is 00:28:25.080 --> 00:28:29.160 negated by debt service falling off. And that's not taken into impact. 00:28:29.160 --> 00:28:31.960 Right. It's not really shown there in that, in a clear manner. 00:28:31.960 --> 00:28:36.520 Well, this isn't, is this going to be on the ballot or in the information? 00:28:36.520 --> 00:28:40.760 The voter information document, is it an exhibit with the ballot? 00:28:40.760 --> 00:28:44.440 Not with the ballot, but in the election order? 00:28:44.440 --> 00:28:45.240 In the election order. 00:28:45.240 --> 00:28:49.480 Sorry, our bond counsel, Grace Shaker. 00:28:49.480 --> 00:28:51.320 But it's not, but if you're, but if you're, 00:28:51.320 --> 00:28:54.360 if you're standing there in the ballot box, you're not seeing all of this. 00:28:54.360 --> 00:28:57.160 No. It will be in the ballot. 00:28:57.160 --> 00:29:03.000 It will not be in the, in the ballot. The ballot will just be the, the three line, 00:29:03.000 --> 00:29:12.680 right? Summary of the proposition. So it'll be, or it can be attached to the election ordinance, 00:29:12.680 --> 00:29:21.080 or you can create it as a separate standalone document, but the voter information document, 00:29:21.080 --> 00:29:26.120 whether it's part of the election order or separate, is posted at each polling location 00:29:26.760 --> 00:29:34.040 by state law, it's posted on the website, and it's also posted in Republican locations in the city. 00:29:34.040 --> 00:29:43.640 So we've drafted this for informational purposes as we go through the process. I think 00:29:43.640 --> 00:29:47.560 we can decide how, you know, what we want to show, whatever we require to show and go through that 00:29:47.560 --> 00:29:52.600 process. Looks like a lot, like a truth and lending disclosure. 00:29:56.280 --> 00:30:00.280 So a lot of these numbers aren't really, aren't going to change too much other than that, 00:30:00.280 --> 00:30:06.280 that highlighted amount that we showed earlier on the $40 as that maximum increase on $100,000 00:30:06.280 --> 00:30:11.800 valuation at 5% and some of those different lengths, just the assessed value change. 00:30:11.800 --> 00:30:14.760 And the same with the 6%. 00:30:23.080 --> 00:30:30.520 Would that chart also be in the voter information, the graph on the next page? 00:30:30.520 --> 00:30:34.440 It's not required, although, and I don't know if you want to pull up to the table. 00:30:34.440 --> 00:30:40.120 It's not required, although, and I'll stand to be corrected, 00:30:40.120 --> 00:30:43.800 we can include additional information if we would like to. So I'll ask 00:30:43.800 --> 00:30:48.200 Greg to kind of tell us where we would include that additional information. 00:30:54.040 --> 00:31:01.960 That David is, is correct. I think he's showing what's the minimum that's required under the new 00:31:01.960 --> 00:31:08.520 statute, but the statute even specifically says you can add whatever information the city deems 00:31:08.520 --> 00:31:15.720 important or relevant with respect to this. So you can certainly add information like the chart. 00:31:19.880 --> 00:31:25.800 I think that's going to be pretty important. If somebody can tie it together. 00:31:25.800 --> 00:31:27.800 It's connecting the dots is going to be the challenge. 00:31:27.800 --> 00:31:29.800 Yeah, you got to figure out how to do that. 00:31:29.800 --> 00:31:38.200 Okay. What are you calling the dots? Let me just, let me. 00:31:38.200 --> 00:31:41.800 Yeah, so how do you- Who's connecting the dots here? 00:31:41.800 --> 00:31:44.600 So go to the next slide. The average citizen. 00:31:44.600 --> 00:31:47.800 Yeah, the average citizen. So how do you, how's the average citizen connect 00:31:48.360 --> 00:31:55.000 the numbers in that previous chart to the debt falling off and understanding that 00:31:55.000 --> 00:32:05.000 you're essentially going to try and keep the debt level fairly flat because of that drop off? 00:32:05.000 --> 00:32:12.280 I would say information that might be good to kind of, to just add some context to this would just be 00:32:12.280 --> 00:32:18.680 how much is that debt service that you're actually paying per year increase where a takeaway from 00:32:18.680 --> 00:32:24.280 this could be our debt that we're paying each year is doubling, where that's not true as our 00:32:24.280 --> 00:32:28.680 debt service is falling off. Obviously it is, ultimately it's going to be above this 25 million 00:32:28.680 --> 00:32:35.400 dollar number because we need that additional tax rate to pay for it, but it's not going to be 00:32:35.400 --> 00:32:40.280 double what our current debt service is. If I were doing the chart, I would say you 00:32:40.280 --> 00:32:46.280 need a third color that says, okay, this is what's dropping off. This is what we're adding on to that 00:32:46.280 --> 00:32:52.680 over time. I think that when we start 00:32:52.680 --> 00:33:01.800 facing sort of these realities, this is too much work for most voters. The connecting the dots is 00:33:01.800 --> 00:33:12.520 too much work. So that it's what are the benefits and these are the benefits of this tax increase 00:33:12.520 --> 00:33:21.160 and additional debt and the other side of that is that the argument will be 00:33:21.160 --> 00:33:28.040 we're going to double our debt load and what that's going to mean is that for every citizen in Denton 00:33:28.040 --> 00:33:35.000 and they'll lump in at that point also the non-property tax debt and they'll say every 00:33:35.000 --> 00:33:41.560 citizen of Denton, if this passes, owes this much money and that will be those will be the things 00:33:41.560 --> 00:33:47.320 that we have to overcome because those are the simple messages and it's a simple message that's 00:33:47.320 --> 00:33:54.040 going to be critical on this. Yeah and if somebody were not privy to the information that we're privy 00:33:54.040 --> 00:33:59.640 to and saw this they would say you're doubling more than doubling the amount of debt with this 00:33:59.640 --> 00:34:10.600 bond offering. So I think a third box might be information. You know this also goes back to 00:34:10.600 --> 00:34:14.840 where we might be one of the first cities to actually start to draft something like this. 00:34:14.840 --> 00:34:19.640 So it will be interesting as you know next year when those those bond elections go out to see how 00:34:19.640 --> 00:34:26.760 cities tackle this and what additional information they add to the voter information. So with the 00:34:26.760 --> 00:34:31.080 six-year implementation of this bond program I'm just like your point you're adding $210 million 00:34:31.080 --> 00:34:35.960 over six years though it's not all one day one and so how much will you have paid off over that six 00:34:35.960 --> 00:34:40.920 years and sort of a pro forma snapshot in your fiscal 2026 when you're done. That might be helpful. 00:34:45.960 --> 00:34:51.720 You're paying off significant principal every year you want to pay off 210 million obviously 00:34:51.720 --> 00:34:58.440 but it'll be meaningful I think to look at it more in that regard so there's a thought. Yeah 00:34:58.440 --> 00:35:05.800 that'll be an important piece because the average citizen I think would think we're issuing 209 all 00:35:05.800 --> 00:35:17.480 at once. Yeah everyone's coming to this this is a mortgage I get a signed mortgage I get all the 00:35:17.480 --> 00:35:24.760 money up front and I pay that down. Yeah it's not. It's not like that at all. That's not how any of this works. 00:35:24.760 --> 00:35:30.600 But that's how they're going to think about it. That's how they're going to think about it and that would be 00:35:30.600 --> 00:35:36.440 natural because that's what most people have done. We'll prove this up but roughly Adam's thinking 00:35:36.440 --> 00:35:42.120 we'll pay off 98 million by the time the full 210 million is issued but keep in mind too once you 00:35:42.120 --> 00:35:46.920 some of that is starting to get paid off too so you'll never really have the new 210 million all 00:35:46.920 --> 00:35:50.200 outstanding at one time because some of it will start to be paid in year one you know the first 00:35:50.200 --> 00:35:55.800 bond issue starts to amortize the very next year but we can run that exit pro forma to see what the 00:35:55.800 --> 00:36:02.120 debt would look like in 2026 but that would be what 35 40 percent of existing debt would be paid 00:36:02.120 --> 00:36:15.960 off by the end of the year. So one of the I think things we owe the full committee that was discussed 00:36:15.960 --> 00:36:23.160 at the last meeting is bringing a recommendation to the full committee of what we think 00:36:24.680 --> 00:36:35.320 should be the AB and subsequently the impact assuming I think we're all solid on the 210 is a 00:36:35.320 --> 00:36:44.600 starting point. Is that a fair statement? But now with the cost estimate changes does something drop 00:36:44.600 --> 00:36:51.400 off then or? Yeah I think that's a I think that's a conversation of the group is to say either you 00:36:51.400 --> 00:36:59.400 make the bag bigger or you what do you cut and I don't think that's our purview in this group. 00:36:59.400 --> 00:37:07.800 I think we've been operating 210 everybody has up to this point so I'd stick to that as far as 00:37:07.800 --> 00:37:14.680 looking at our growth and impact from tax breaks and all that. I mean we just as we come out of this 00:37:14.680 --> 00:37:21.800 we literally just added another variable to the equation today. Yes so that variable could significantly 00:37:21.800 --> 00:37:29.640 impact the 50 40 and 30 dollars. Or we state that we stick with 210 and we just cut on the bottom. 00:37:29.640 --> 00:37:34.600 You were gonna say something. Yeah I mean because I think we have to start talking about 230. 00:37:34.600 --> 00:37:41.080 Are we comfortable with 230 or not and if we're not then we go to 210 and how do we get to 210? 00:37:42.200 --> 00:37:49.160 I think those are the okay. So what are y'all's thoughts about say 230? 00:37:49.160 --> 00:37:57.880 No I don't either. I mean I think we can we can look at the impact 00:37:57.880 --> 00:38:03.880 and growth assumptions both 210 and 230 and let the committee decide. 00:38:03.880 --> 00:38:13.720 No I like that yeah. It's a penny and a half. It's a penny and a half so they can see. 6.5, 5.5, 4.5 cents. 00:38:13.720 --> 00:38:21.320 Yeah if the committee if you're not you are still where you were last time and we're in 5% AV is 00:38:21.320 --> 00:38:25.800 kind of where we want it up as far as assumptions then we would say we start with that four cents 00:38:25.800 --> 00:38:32.360 at 210 and then 230 we just kind of roughly say that would be five and a half cents. 00:38:34.120 --> 00:38:35.640 Okay. 00:38:35.640 --> 00:38:46.840 So is there a sense of where we are in terms of AV? I would just say this that a nickel scares 00:38:46.840 --> 00:38:54.040 the hell out of me. That asking the voters to approve a nickel is I mean we're gonna have to 00:38:54.040 --> 00:38:58.920 make a hell of a case because that that looks like a lot. 00:39:01.560 --> 00:39:09.960 But the danger of going higher is that it could be perceived that we didn't tell them the truth 00:39:09.960 --> 00:39:16.360 when growth doesn't hit that higher. Well I think our our our responsibility is to assess 00:39:16.360 --> 00:39:24.600 what we think is is a good number. I mean we can't we can't take a doomsday scenario unless we just 00:39:24.600 --> 00:39:30.920 simply want to operate in in this uh in a worst case scenario. In a worst case scenario then what 00:39:30.920 --> 00:39:34.840 I would say is we're gonna do that we're gonna go we're gonna have to ask for less than 210. 00:39:34.840 --> 00:39:39.880 We're gonna have to start cutting things because I don't think we ought to be going to the voters 00:39:39.880 --> 00:39:46.920 asking for six and a half cents and that's in essence if we went to 230. So we're now down to 00:39:46.920 --> 00:39:56.680 210 at a nickel and and a nickel is is a pretty is still a pretty steep hill to climb in terms of 00:39:56.680 --> 00:40:03.240 asking the voters to approve a nickel. If we if we decide we're going to take a worst case scenario. 00:40:03.240 --> 00:40:09.800 So when your mind is asking for a nickel like saying the car costs ten thousand dollars and 00:40:09.800 --> 00:40:12.760 you'd rather say it's nine hundred nine thousand nine hundred ninety nine. 00:40:12.760 --> 00:40:18.760 Because now that we've added those other three years our average is back down to six percent. 00:40:20.040 --> 00:40:28.680 The 7.3 caught my attention today. Yeah yeah so six is way too risky. 00:40:28.680 --> 00:40:35.880 Okay but but that but that brings us back to this question of 00:40:35.880 --> 00:40:47.800 and and it's it's one of those of at 210 at 210 if we did five percent we're talking about four cents 00:40:49.880 --> 00:40:52.360 is 210 still a good number. 00:40:52.360 --> 00:41:01.640 No I mean I just I think I think that's I think we have I think we have to be we have to be asking 00:41:01.640 --> 00:41:08.680 the question whether or not we feel like we can sell the voters 210 with a with a four cent tax 00:41:08.680 --> 00:41:14.360 increase or do we want to sell the voters 210 with a five cent tax increase or do we want to 00:41:14.360 --> 00:41:20.680 tell the voters we're going to do 180 million and it's going to be a three percent. I think I think 00:41:20.680 --> 00:41:26.520 those are the scenarios we've got to be painting for the whole committee is is that we can't simply 00:41:26.520 --> 00:41:35.800 say we're at 210 because what we know is our costs have gone up and and what are we prepared to ask 00:41:35.800 --> 00:41:42.120 what what do we think we can sell the voters on this and and and I think we're I think we're 00:41:42.120 --> 00:41:46.760 pushing the limits and we did say we were going to bring back scenarios not scenario 00:41:46.760 --> 00:41:52.680 which I think is important to the whole committee but we haven't had any conversations about 00:41:52.680 --> 00:41:59.640 scenarios below 210 we have we have worked off of a 210 assumption. Colby Eric any thoughts on this 00:41:59.640 --> 00:42:01.480 you guys have been quiet? 00:42:06.200 --> 00:42:17.560 Oh I don't I mean I think probably they do were to address that concern that 00:42:17.560 --> 00:42:27.800 that Tim has raised in there is to first deal with the committee as a whole and then with the 00:42:27.800 --> 00:42:32.280 citizens and I'm not saying not to worry about how you present this to the citizens because 00:42:32.280 --> 00:42:37.480 obviously ultimately that's the goal but first and foremost I think we should probably address 00:42:37.480 --> 00:42:42.200 you know how we're going to do that as a committee but that's just really more of a 00:42:42.200 --> 00:42:46.600 kind of a how to handle it ourselves that's really not my thought I have on I mean 00:42:46.600 --> 00:42:56.440 if we need more money if you know it needs to be more than you know costs go up we should bring in 00:42:56.440 --> 00:43:06.760 a scenario of 230 is a two weeks ago 230 was not a plausible reality today it is right yeah but I 00:43:06.760 --> 00:43:13.080 mean that's just the nature of these and that's no money for land or street lighting those other 00:43:13.080 --> 00:43:18.600 things that were about 210. Well you could possibly cut to 70 million for street repair. 00:43:20.920 --> 00:43:27.400 Yeah there is a lot of street repair but there are shock absorbers in the 210 program it's just how 00:43:27.400 --> 00:43:35.480 much do we want to shock use those shock absorbers. So I think I'm I want to make sure I'm interpreting 00:43:35.480 --> 00:43:40.840 this right when we're talking about an extra penny and a half to go approximately to go from 00:43:40.840 --> 00:43:46.920 the 210 to the 230 and that sort of thing on these various scenarios the the rollback three 00:43:46.920 --> 00:43:51.800 and a half percent rollback difference in the final rate looks to me like it's a little bit less than 00:43:51.800 --> 00:43:56.920 a penny and a half is that correct it is but the rollback would not be if this would be only on the 00:43:56.920 --> 00:44:06.360 debt service side yeah so I understand legally that you you could continue to I mean the current 00:44:06.360 --> 00:44:12.520 projections show the M&O rate staying at the effective rate anyway right the rollback legally 00:44:12.520 --> 00:44:18.280 in my understanding of the new law is that it's just prevent or setting an upper limit that's a 00:44:18.280 --> 00:44:23.480 little bit lower of how much the M&O rate could increase if you weren't going to take it to the 00:44:23.480 --> 00:44:33.000 effective rate right over the effect over yeah and so so I'm just trying to wrap my head around if 00:44:33.000 --> 00:44:40.600 if you add an extra penny and a half I don't know how the voters will interpret saying that 00:44:40.600 --> 00:44:48.040 it's going to be a you know $40 increase but then realizing that their taxes are are effectively 00:44:48.040 --> 00:44:52.760 going up more than that three and a half percent that they thought sure right I guess I would 00:44:52.760 --> 00:44:58.200 address that by saying the debt service tax rate is always will be driven by this election so by 00:44:58.200 --> 00:45:02.760 by the voters voting for the election in that case they would be voting for that increase 00:45:02.760 --> 00:45:08.680 whereas the rollback is specifically on the M&O side so to go above the one and a half you know 00:45:08.680 --> 00:45:13.320 the one and a half cents estimate now and over that three and a half percent rollback would 00:45:13.320 --> 00:45:18.360 require a separate election so I think they're just two different paths so to conflate them gets a 00:45:18.360 --> 00:45:26.760 little yeah so I guess then my question is are the 30 40 50 dollar per hundred thousand valuation is 00:45:26.760 --> 00:45:34.280 that just the amount for the debt service not including the M&O rate at all correct and I'll 00:45:34.280 --> 00:45:40.360 use that to to say also you know the 210 million dollar number came from the discussions with city 00:45:40.360 --> 00:45:46.520 council of looking at the total tax rate of okay 210 million dollars keeps us below our total tax 00:45:46.520 --> 00:45:52.200 rate throughout but whenever as we go through the bond process the shift the focus just shifts in 00:45:52.200 --> 00:45:56.200 language to the debt service side because that's what's really impacted so we say here's how much 00:45:56.200 --> 00:46:01.000 the debt service rate could increase but we really focus a lot on that total tax rate so that's where 00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:06.040 it gets a little yes I think that's where I'm coming from is just that from from the numbers 00:46:06.040 --> 00:46:13.720 it looks like if you were to take on the 230 million then in order to keep the total tax rate from 00:46:13.720 --> 00:46:24.520 sorry in order to keep the the total effective tax rate if you will right from rising more than 00:46:24.520 --> 00:46:31.000 three and a half percent per year including the M&O and the debt service the M&O rate would have 00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:38.040 to decline so that it was actually below the effective rate is that accurate yes in certain 00:46:38.040 --> 00:46:42.840 scenarios but I would you know that's not something that um that we look the effective rate isn't 00:46:42.840 --> 00:46:48.200 calculated that way I understand I guess I'm speaking more from the purview of what you were 00:46:48.200 --> 00:46:54.600 saying that the council was originally looking at what could the bond support that would that would 00:46:54.600 --> 00:47:01.480 keep the the total tax rate from rising right beyond a certain amount okay yeah and that else 00:47:01.480 --> 00:47:07.640 I'll tell you here we bet I think that was the 100 million dollar number initially that yeah that 00:47:07.640 --> 00:47:11.880 we were estimating so that's where I think was Councilmember Meltzer asked to look at use that as 00:47:11.880 --> 00:47:19.000 sort of the bottom of the floor you know we very early on recommended starting to plan for bond 00:47:19.000 --> 00:47:24.600 election because we had a feeling that the state was going to cap us and put us in this position 00:47:24.600 --> 00:47:30.120 anyway so it's like well why not play by the new rules but you're right it gets down to where's 00:47:30.120 --> 00:47:36.360 where is that M&O rate and that service rate going to be when that cap goes into place so had we not 00:47:36.360 --> 00:47:42.680 taken this approach that we further eroded the M&O rate and we've got probably another six or nine 00:47:42.680 --> 00:47:46.680 for instance firefighters were trying to get put on this this next year it would have completely 00:47:46.680 --> 00:47:51.400 taken our ability away to do that and delayed opening station aid so you're right and how you're 00:47:51.400 --> 00:47:54.840 interpreting it and I just wanted to share with you that's kind of how we found our way through 00:47:54.840 --> 00:47:59.160 getting out to the voters because we we just simply couldn't continue driving that rate down 00:47:59.160 --> 00:48:08.440 knowing that we're going to get tax cap this year okay so so I'd I'd like to just we were saying 00:48:08.440 --> 00:48:15.560 it's not our purview to talk about about cutting but I think we've got to we've got to paint some 00:48:15.560 --> 00:48:24.360 scenarios that that said that say here's a scenario that is at I'm just using this arbitrarily 180 00:48:24.360 --> 00:48:32.520 million and and to get to 180 million would involve this and and and this is what you need 00:48:32.520 --> 00:48:39.160 to understand is the committee as a whole at 210 this is what this looks like and this new 00:48:39.160 --> 00:48:46.680 number of 230 this is what this looks like and and but but I think we've got to I don't think 00:48:46.680 --> 00:48:54.360 we should just be walking in saying it's 210 or 230 no no but I but I but I think we I think we 00:48:54.360 --> 00:49:03.560 have to ask the question in here well how do you get to that lesser number and that's where 00:49:03.560 --> 00:49:09.080 I think the whole community should be yeah I don't believe we can say 00:49:09.080 --> 00:49:17.160 from Ryan well but here's but here's but here is here is one way to get there I think otherwise 00:49:17.160 --> 00:49:25.320 it'll be chaos if we're if we're trying to cut in a group of 25 if we're trying to figure out 00:49:25.320 --> 00:49:31.720 how to get there in a group of 25 I think it'll be chaotic I think if we were to say this is one 00:49:31.720 --> 00:49:38.200 scenario that is a start a thought starter and that from the thought starter then people would 00:49:38.200 --> 00:49:44.040 say well I'd like to see this instead of that if we're going into that range it may be the 00:49:44.040 --> 00:49:48.920 committee's going to say let's go for the two full full 230 and six and a half cents 00:49:48.920 --> 00:49:56.600 but I but I think we have to see I think we have to see that in terms of what are 00:49:56.600 --> 00:50:03.000 what are the options and the scenarios of of something that is lesser 00:50:07.160 --> 00:50:14.440 okay so that's a proposal to we could just grab a number out of the air 00:50:14.440 --> 00:50:19.800 so let me ask my question was is where did 180 come from in your mind is that 00:50:19.800 --> 00:50:29.880 it's why not 190 it's because it's less than 200,000 that's a terrible answer so that's true 00:50:29.880 --> 00:50:37.640 we I think it would be a good idea to give them a number less than 210 but I don't think that 00:50:37.640 --> 00:50:43.080 as a group here we should be picking and choosing which ones would go in there we would say okay 00:50:43.080 --> 00:50:50.600 here's 180 what can we do at that level as a whole group well but I but I think I think the 00:50:50.600 --> 00:50:55.960 question I guess the question I would want to ask is in order to get to that number 00:50:57.640 --> 00:51:06.520 what is it that that we would be pulling from we've got 70 million and in road reconstruction 00:51:06.520 --> 00:51:12.280 and is that the only place that happens or do we talk about some other project that we 00:51:12.280 --> 00:51:17.000 defer and what is the impact of deferring that project and that's something the whole committee 00:51:17.000 --> 00:51:24.840 well but I think I think we can get that ball rolling oh we can prime the pump 00:51:26.840 --> 00:51:33.880 and this was I'm just gonna throw out a couple ideas that I had bounced off of David is you know 00:51:33.880 --> 00:51:42.520 70 million was for road reconstruction was based on you know x oci factor I think 00:51:42.520 --> 00:51:46.680 everything 10 and below the pretty close 00:51:50.040 --> 00:51:58.680 what's that 25 okay so maybe we say well we're only going to tackle pick a number 15 and below 00:51:58.680 --> 00:52:08.440 so that was one when I say shock was over that there's not a hard requirement like a 00:52:08.440 --> 00:52:15.240 renovation of the police station you know it's a level of service number does that track with you 00:52:16.120 --> 00:52:20.200 we're going to have this x level of service the other area we could have 00:52:20.200 --> 00:52:26.440 where we there's some flexes do we is ryan road do you go with the you know the big ryan road or 00:52:26.440 --> 00:52:32.440 the little line ryan road or no ryan or no ryan road because there's some other things in the 00:52:32.440 --> 00:52:41.880 bond package higher up that address some of those concerns so I mean if if you're going going back 00:52:41.880 --> 00:52:48.360 to your point I think if you were to say hey we're going to a plausible scenario would be say we're 00:52:48.360 --> 00:52:55.960 going to go from funding everything that's 25 oci and below to 15 oci below I don't know what that 00:52:55.960 --> 00:53:02.200 number is but I guarantee you it's probably going to get you below 200 million dollars 00:53:02.200 --> 00:53:10.760 and to me that's a starting point to have a conversation which is what I think what you're 00:53:10.760 --> 00:53:17.640 trying to get right right and and so remind me a penny and a half is 14 14 million our penny is 00:53:17.640 --> 00:53:24.840 14 million right so if we so if we were at 196 we we're talking about reducing this by a penny 00:53:24.840 --> 00:53:33.480 at 196 uh it's it's I felt comfortable saying 14 million is a penny to increase um and that's 00:53:33.480 --> 00:53:37.320 that's still contingent on when you when you time the increase as we decrease it's a little more 00:53:37.320 --> 00:53:41.880 complicated because that's kind of impacted by debt service falling off um I would imagine that's 00:53:41.880 --> 00:53:47.720 a little tougher to estimate but for argument's sake you could kind of talk through those scenarios 00:53:47.720 --> 00:53:52.360 but we could get the detail on it on any of those so and and I and and I'd love to know what that 00:53:52.360 --> 00:53:59.560 number is because if you're at 182 is that two pennies and and then that's that's that impacts 00:53:59.560 --> 00:54:05.640 some of what we're talking about here and by the way let me just say I'm not necessarily saying 00:54:06.200 --> 00:54:15.320 that that we need to reduce but I am saying that I think we need to have some some options 00:54:15.320 --> 00:54:24.840 of understanding the impact of of a lesser amount on on what the tax rate might be 00:54:24.840 --> 00:54:30.520 what the debt load is going to be and how how our community is going to respond to that 00:54:35.640 --> 00:54:39.000 Dave I see guys lined up in the hallway are we starting at six or 00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:41.720 we're starting at six okay they're just they're just excited to be here 00:54:41.720 --> 00:54:46.600 okay works off 00:54:46.600 --> 00:54:55.480 so so we need to put a bow on this conversation I'll just say you know at the last meeting we 00:54:55.480 --> 00:55:00.520 did bring those kind of hundred million dollar 150 million dollar 200 million 210 dollar scenario 00:55:00.520 --> 00:55:05.160 so we could they haven't been updated uh based on the feedback from the last meeting we could bring 00:55:05.160 --> 00:55:09.080 you know 180 million dollar scenario to get the exact numbers or at least kind of send that out 00:55:09.080 --> 00:55:14.680 to the group um that would be no no problem it'd be easy to come up with the same analysis at 180 00:55:14.680 --> 00:55:24.120 million and send it out to everyone does that sound randy yeah so I'm assuming we we are we 00:55:24.120 --> 00:55:31.560 agreeing on five percent growth in the ad in this group I think there's I think there's pretty 00:55:31.560 --> 00:55:37.400 strong consensus on that unless someone would have y'all see otherwise yeah I mean I think that 00:55:37.400 --> 00:55:44.040 sorry but my understanding is that that's that purely drives the information in the 00:55:44.040 --> 00:55:50.920 informational content I forget the term used for the that piece of paper that would be posted 00:55:50.920 --> 00:55:57.080 it drives that but it also drives the bond booklet which is um a number that's referred 00:55:57.080 --> 00:56:01.400 to quite a bit and then as we get as we the bond oversight committee as it's formed they do take 00:56:01.400 --> 00:56:07.560 note of that that increase as we plan for future bond year choices so we we are tied to it to some 00:56:07.560 --> 00:56:13.000 I mean it's not a number that we wouldn't we go over in the future years but it is it is the case 00:56:13.000 --> 00:56:20.200 that the voters are authorizing up to x amount of an increase so that they that that percentage 00:56:20.200 --> 00:56:26.120 number of four cents that the ballot language would say that that the voters are authorizing 00:56:26.120 --> 00:56:32.280 up to four cent tax increase to do this right it's not they don't actually it's in the booklet but 00:56:32.280 --> 00:56:40.120 it's not in any official language but I'll defer to yeah right that the voters are simply approving 00:56:40.120 --> 00:56:47.000 up to a principal amount of bonds but um it's not they're not voting on a tax limitation in 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:55.720 fact we try to make that clear in the information that that they're not doing that um because the 00:56:56.120 --> 00:57:02.360 when bonds are issued there's a pledge of taxes and the city's committing itself to levy taxes 00:57:02.360 --> 00:57:09.160 sufficient to pay that debt service on the bonds okay yeah i mean i think in the uh the example 00:57:09.160 --> 00:57:19.000 uh resolution here it's the language it uses is and shall uh city council be authorized to levy 00:57:19.000 --> 00:57:25.160 and cause to be assessed and collected annual ad valorem taxes in the amount sufficient to pay 00:57:25.160 --> 00:57:31.240 the annual interest on said public securities but i but i would have in turn but from a from an 00:57:31.240 --> 00:57:37.000 actual staff perspective we would not go we would not increase more than that amount um without 00:57:37.000 --> 00:57:40.920 talking with bottom second without talking to city council it would be something you know that we 00:57:40.920 --> 00:57:44.600 would abide by obviously we haven't had to deal with that with the most recent with the packages 00:57:44.600 --> 00:57:50.200 recently because av has exceeded those expectations but um we would not just go over say we said we're 00:57:50.200 --> 00:57:54.840 going to go four cents we would not just go over four cents without having um you know those serious 00:57:54.840 --> 00:58:00.280 discussions so you're saying that if you if it looked like you were going to run into that 00:58:00.280 --> 00:58:06.760 situation you might slow down the issuance i think we would yes that was most likely no matter what 00:58:06.760 --> 00:58:09.800 we would have the conversation with the bond oversight committee and city council before 00:58:09.800 --> 00:58:16.760 we would do anything okay randy you were going to make a comment i thought no i just um well 00:58:16.760 --> 00:58:24.120 you know i think we we've just started or i don't know if we've gotten it all back yet though we've 00:58:24.120 --> 00:58:30.200 asked all the members to write projects right we're going to get that today we got it at 401 00:58:30.200 --> 00:58:36.040 okay and you move it out and we'll have those results today we had 15 members over the 19 00:58:36.040 --> 00:58:42.600 respond to that and i think you know the way we've done it in the past is we've had kind of here's the 00:58:42.600 --> 00:58:50.280 here is the assumed growth here's what the tax potential tax increase is tax rate increase is 00:58:51.320 --> 00:58:59.480 if the line comes across it's it's 180 it's 190 and whatever it is and you start ranking projects 00:58:59.480 --> 00:59:06.440 and when you get 190 that's it and so ultimately that's what we're going to get to right right but 00:59:06.440 --> 00:59:14.840 i think you know we can we can get there real easy if we assume a 10 percent growth perfect 00:59:14.840 --> 00:59:21.400 right but we don't want to do that we want to be something reasonable so and i'm getting less and 00:59:21.400 --> 00:59:29.240 less comfortable with the five because when we take that downturn period in we're at six that's pretty 00:59:29.240 --> 00:59:37.880 there is going to be another downturn there always is all your pessimists i think uh just 00:59:37.880 --> 00:59:40.680 the discussion you are having that was one of the reasons we wanted to make sure we 00:59:40.680 --> 00:59:45.080 touched on the police the public facility changes before you had this discussion 00:59:45.080 --> 00:59:49.480 so you weren't all just good with the 210 knowing that there is that significant variable out there 00:59:49.480 --> 01:00:00.360 now so is is that going to be into put into the a new uh spreadsheet of this is what these 01:00:00.360 --> 01:00:05.080 projects are going to cost that will be presented to the to the committee yeah well we presenting 01:00:05.080 --> 01:00:12.440 this um just here in an hour or so where we kind of um a lot of power points 01:00:12.440 --> 01:00:18.200 kind of show the differences obviously a lot of numbers but to just kind of show this is what 01:00:18.200 --> 01:00:24.200 we've been working on so far um and then here's just if you compare these two where we're looking 01:00:24.200 --> 01:00:30.120 at 217 to 252 in the options from up to that 238 but you can see the increase really is just that 01:00:30.120 --> 01:00:35.480 and then prop one going from 45.5 to the 66.9 01:00:35.480 --> 01:00:40.680 and showing you this banner to kind of just get to that point of 01:00:40.680 --> 01:00:46.280 we either i think the options are you go over that 210 like as you've been discussing or you 01:00:46.280 --> 01:00:50.760 just kind of look at the reprioritization of projects um to get to the level that the committee 01:00:50.760 --> 01:01:05.400 would like to be out and and and what about lighting in open space i mean it's now 01:01:05.400 --> 01:01:14.440 correct me if i'm wrong you did say dmne is looking at some of the street lighting or we 01:01:14.440 --> 01:01:19.560 could do some funding through yeah we're doing we're doing a number of small projects right now 01:01:19.560 --> 01:01:25.320 prioritizing those basically through the dme operating fund but there's other ways that you 01:01:25.320 --> 01:01:30.840 can you could certainly have dme you know do the projects and charge the city back there's lots of 01:01:30.840 --> 01:01:35.560 ways you can get there for some of these smaller projects if they if they want you know that would 01:01:35.560 --> 01:01:41.640 be our next round of utilizing any one-time dollars that would be fine in future budgets but 01:01:41.640 --> 01:01:47.080 that's basically how we'd have to tackle that and the right now in the dme forecast for future 01:01:47.080 --> 01:01:51.960 budgets there's going to be five million allocated just for going out and increasing street lights 01:01:51.960 --> 01:01:53.960 um a lot of the local and city streets 01:01:53.960 --> 01:02:02.760 well it's going to be an interesting meeting at six o'clock 01:02:02.760 --> 01:02:11.400 do you do you want to have another um finance meeting next week prior to that 01:02:12.120 --> 01:02:18.840 i do y'all might get some feedback from the total group from what they think about the total 01:02:18.840 --> 01:02:26.280 look at the look at the priorities just feedback on what the total package is all both props are 01:02:26.280 --> 01:02:36.120 and then we might be before the next meeting just to okay look again and say okay if they say figure 01:02:36.120 --> 01:02:42.520 out what is going to how much needs to be or there's a landing to draw on to get to this point yeah i 01:02:42.520 --> 01:02:46.280 i think that's prudent i think we need to give the committee some more input into what we're 01:02:46.280 --> 01:02:52.280 looking at because i feel like they're starting to say who's driving the trailer yeah yeah we 01:02:52.280 --> 01:02:56.520 had built in another another meeting or so we're not meeting with the council until the first of 01:02:56.520 --> 01:03:00.840 august so we'd built in another meeting or so just to give ourselves a little bit of flexibility and 01:03:00.840 --> 01:03:05.560 based on what we just learned with the two pd projects it's quite wise we take that the last 01:03:05.560 --> 01:03:11.000 time we want anybody feel like we're pushing them into a corner so we need to make sure they're as 01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:15.560 comfortable as possible with whatever they're recommending and and during the six o'clock 01:03:15.560 --> 01:03:20.760 presentation my plan would be to show this slide to the entire committee at the summary level 01:03:20.760 --> 01:03:23.880 obviously if more people in the community want to get in the more in the detail the other ones we 01:03:23.880 --> 01:03:28.520 can bring this whole presentation up but i think this might set the stage for some of that conversation 01:03:30.040 --> 01:03:37.080 tod i don't want you to take this the wrong way but are there any more surprises coming 01:03:37.080 --> 01:03:43.400 i'm not taking it the right way or wrong way i can remember being here a month and 01:03:43.400 --> 01:03:50.520 in getting my ears chewed off by you and randy and everybody out of the bond committee about how 01:03:50.520 --> 01:03:55.960 how can we be this short of money so i've got to never let that happen again i i don't think so 01:03:57.560 --> 01:04:01.960 i think tod and pretem i have i have grilled them and grilled them to go back two and three 01:04:01.960 --> 01:04:06.840 different times looking at the uh the road numbers the contingencies you know are we 01:04:06.840 --> 01:04:12.120 are we being way too conservative just in fear of not being wrong and i think they both feel very 01:04:12.120 --> 01:04:16.360 comfortable uh given the bids that they're receiving what they're how they're seeing the 01:04:16.360 --> 01:04:21.960 projects escalate and uh and really what what our existing bids are coming in at to base it off 01:04:21.960 --> 01:04:27.240 that's really all you've got in a hot economy is what are your bids coming in now um i think with 01:04:27.240 --> 01:04:33.000 the two i've been more nervous about the vertical construction because almost every project we've 01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:37.960 seen in this city the last since i've been here we have been way off on the numbers you know we'll 01:04:37.960 --> 01:04:43.240 get a planning number and these these little buildings are doubling in price on us so that's 01:04:43.240 --> 01:04:47.800 why we went out and hired this firm that has been working with lewisville and richardson and 01:04:47.800 --> 01:04:52.440 richardson's just finished checking up an 80 million dollar police facility and they basically 01:04:52.440 --> 01:04:57.640 came back and said your numbers are not taking proper inflationary numbers into account and you 01:04:57.640 --> 01:05:03.880 need to adjust them so i'm glad we did it i don't like getting this news this late but i think we're 01:05:03.880 --> 01:05:11.320 okay um in terms of the street lighting and open space honestly the open space is just a guess that 01:05:11.320 --> 01:05:17.080 target is moving constantly as we as we superheat in the economy here and the price we're looking at 01:05:17.080 --> 01:05:23.560 80 000 dollars an acre today which is probably double what it was five or ten years ago so i feel 01:05:23.560 --> 01:05:29.240 comfortable with the roads and i feel much more comfortable with the buildings now but you know 01:05:29.240 --> 01:05:33.320 the worst thing that we could have done to put you in a position of going out and selling a bond 01:05:33.320 --> 01:05:38.840 package and then coming up 60 percent of the money and said oh boy i mean we just had to go back to 01:05:38.840 --> 01:05:44.840 the council last year and asked for 35 million to make the local roads whole so and and i and i just 01:05:44.840 --> 01:05:51.720 want to say i appreciate that it's it's just it's a little shocking i know well i was on vacation 01:05:51.720 --> 01:05:57.080 last week and baby got a hold of me and uh you know i i if you've ever heard you could imagine 01:05:57.080 --> 01:06:00.600 somebody trembling while they're writing an email you know i can hear his voice cracking going we've 01:06:00.600 --> 01:06:05.800 got a problem here so but you know we just have to deal with it move on i mean it's just it's the 01:06:05.800 --> 01:06:13.400 economy we're in and it's the labor shortage we're in and i'm sorry to keep asking questions and or 01:06:13.400 --> 01:06:23.800 making comments but on the ryan road with that big gap the 210 is a fully funded 19 million on 01:06:23.800 --> 01:06:29.080 ryan road that's actually right just kind of cutting the and someone in the middle at 8.6 01:06:29.080 --> 01:06:35.080 million i hope right now so um and to be honest that that number i we've had the conversation 01:06:35.080 --> 01:06:40.440 with todd and pretam about um ryan road yesterday i think no matter where we end up as the four 01:06:40.440 --> 01:06:45.560 million is going to be kind of the basic basic road and as you incrementally go up it just you 01:06:45.560 --> 01:06:50.120 get more that goes with the road more capacity on the road all the way up to the 19 million so 01:06:50.120 --> 01:06:54.840 you can't pick a number in there there's going to be a varying level of service and uh that goes 01:06:54.840 --> 01:07:00.440 along with the road for now to be honest that 8.69 that was really put everything else in there and 01:07:00.440 --> 01:07:05.880 that's what we had left over so we put that into the ryan road for the again that's just the staff 01:07:05.880 --> 01:07:11.160 recommendation column is just there for um discussion purposes i think we have ranked 01:07:11.160 --> 01:07:17.880 these projects from a staff level and our priority um you can see the police renovation and fire 01:07:17.880 --> 01:07:21.880 station eight then substation and fire range being last and then the roadways are all ranked by 01:07:21.880 --> 01:07:28.360 priority um but as far as the 8.6 i think that's a conversation that committee should have and one 01:07:28.360 --> 01:07:35.400 thing on these road projects ryan robinson uh jim crystal that's that's all in design money but 01:07:35.400 --> 01:07:40.920 one of the exercises we recently went through and had all of our water and wastewater impact fees 01:07:40.920 --> 01:07:45.400 assessed and we found that we were collecting about half of what we needed to based upon our 01:07:45.400 --> 01:07:50.440 projections of when the next treatment plan expansion was the street this the street impact 01:07:50.440 --> 01:07:56.040 fees are even worse shape so they're probably collected somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of 01:07:56.040 --> 01:08:00.280 what it's actually costing us to build roads it's been so long since they've been properly updated 01:08:00.280 --> 01:08:06.520 and there's the formula is a little bit strange so we've hired um kimley horn to come in and help 01:08:06.520 --> 01:08:09.880 us update that so we're going to be going to council sometime in the next few months 01:08:09.880 --> 01:08:14.920 talking to them about the street impact fees and what what should the development community be 01:08:14.920 --> 01:08:21.720 pitching in so we can address roads like ryan and robinson in the future with with impact fees that 01:08:21.720 --> 01:08:26.920 are more reflective of today's costs so even if some of these end up getting cut we're still going 01:08:26.920 --> 01:08:31.000 to be building up those impact fee dollars trying to address these roads eventually putting them 01:08:31.000 --> 01:08:35.640 together probably with co funding down the road there's just not going to be much of a choice 01:08:35.640 --> 01:08:41.480 you know bonnie bray and hickory creek especially bonnie bray is just if there's one that's 01:08:41.480 --> 01:08:45.480 untouchable it's probably that one because of the high school opening up the need to get off that 01:08:45.480 --> 01:08:53.640 road eventually especially before they start that construction on i-35 north but beyond that i mean 01:08:53.640 --> 01:08:58.200 we will figure this out um based on wherever your comfort level is 01:08:58.200 --> 01:09:13.560 so one thing would be um a little helpful for us and you guys may or may not have an 01:09:13.560 --> 01:09:24.600 opinion on this but i'm actually going to get to be a teacher for a second so we're not getting to the full five cents 01:09:24.600 --> 01:09:28.920 right away right so there's some capacity to do things a little faster which means you can 01:09:28.920 --> 01:09:33.800 probably afford a little bit more within the same five cents right what you're telling people 01:09:33.800 --> 01:09:38.680 and where i'm seeing that and obviously we don't want the total tax rate to go up right we're 01:09:38.680 --> 01:09:44.280 sensitive to that but you know for example here the total tax is stopping one cent but we still 01:09:44.280 --> 01:09:49.720 haven't hit near the five cents so we can take that one cent and use it i guess which means we're 01:09:49.720 --> 01:09:58.840 paying out that faster and i'm not saying that's a solution but if there's a we can't live with more 01:09:58.840 --> 01:10:03.400 than five cents or whatever that is we can structure around that a little bit more right now we're using 01:10:03.400 --> 01:10:10.200 numbers and timing based on what's given us um so it's like roughly 90 of the 210 leg is sold within 01:10:10.200 --> 01:10:15.720 the first 10 years then it kind of tapered off so it's a little bit wondering why did we do it that 01:10:15.720 --> 01:10:22.680 way you could back into how much could you afford every year sort of maxing it out right i'm saying 01:10:22.680 --> 01:10:26.760 next thing i mean the total constraints that your total texture doesn't go up and that we're not 01:10:26.760 --> 01:10:31.160 going to bust the five cents and whatever makes sense you're just going to use a different forcing 01:10:31.160 --> 01:10:39.240 function to yeah i mean we can but that's one thought to maybe you got a little bit more within 01:10:39.240 --> 01:10:43.880 the same constraints that everybody's talking about i mean it a lot of people don't really think about 01:10:43.880 --> 01:10:49.240 how do i want that tax rate to look um or how palatable is it for it to you know doesn't really 01:10:49.240 --> 01:10:52.520 need that many like you said this school don't really differentiate between that sort of no no 01:10:52.520 --> 01:10:57.800 they're looking at the total tax rate so this is already a communication challenge with um voters 01:10:57.800 --> 01:11:03.400 no doubt but knowing that if we're mindful of the several tax rate and how this ultimately gets 01:11:03.400 --> 01:11:08.600 implemented you're probably still you know ease up the debt service tax rate a little bit faster 01:11:08.600 --> 01:11:14.760 within like so not reaching that estimated maximum tax rate that's being communicated that's important 01:11:14.760 --> 01:11:22.200 great thank you and i briefly showed the bond sale you know this this is kind of this is what 01:11:22.200 --> 01:11:27.480 was driving those numbers but that these are just estimates but i think to that point you know 01:11:27.480 --> 01:11:31.400 how we how we actually sell the bonds is going to have that impact that's that variable on the 01:11:31.400 --> 01:11:35.800 rate that will be each year you know and i think that goes back to the av growth as well 01:11:35.800 --> 01:11:42.280 you say five percent every year but maybe in 21 22 at seven percent and then it drops off that 01:11:42.280 --> 01:11:46.600 kind of how we looked at that variable rate last time um so there's going to be those considerations 01:11:46.600 --> 01:11:53.480 as we go through that's going to really change the target and also using the old numbers not the 01:11:53.480 --> 01:11:57.720 middle oh yeah this is this was this was the old one that's why i kind of have this slide hidden 01:11:57.720 --> 01:12:04.760 behind the question um this is going to that's going to be a consideration obviously we're going 01:12:04.760 --> 01:12:08.520 to need more dollars here in 21 is keep on the schedule and that's going to have an impact on 01:12:08.520 --> 01:12:19.960 what we sell the rest of the day okay so just uh for for clarification um have another meeting next 01:12:19.960 --> 01:12:26.520 week at four four again possibly and bring back some 180 million dollar scenarios or kind of see 01:12:26.520 --> 01:12:29.800 how the discussion goes at six p.m and then go from there i think that's what we need to do is 01:12:29.800 --> 01:12:37.720 just say what does the committee feel is a what are the you know bring three scenarios get feedback 01:12:37.720 --> 01:12:42.120 in those three scenarios and then based on that conversation say yeah we need to meet or no we 01:12:42.120 --> 01:12:54.920 don't that's great does that make sense yeah okay pull back in there all right thank you thank you 01:12:54.920 --> 01:13:04.840 break adjourn i think you can move to pardon me think i need a motion to adjourn i'll move to 01:13:04.840 --> 01:13:12.360 adjourn i'll second all right all in favor say aye aye opposed same sign we're