* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. GOOD AFTERNOON. [00:00:01] UH, THIS IS [Intragovernmental Affairs Committee on February 21, 2023.] A MEETING OF THE CITY OF GARLAND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIR, INTERGOVERNMENTAL LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. IT'S A MOUTHFUL. UH, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, UH, NAMED IT THAT . OH, NO, NO, NO, NO. OKAY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE, UH, MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON, UH, THROWN OFF HERE NOVEMBER 28TH. NOVEMBER 28TH. OKAY. NOVEMBER. YEAH. NOVEMBER 28TH. I'LL GET THROUGH DOCUMENT SHIRLEY. NOVEMBER 28TH. SO LET ME GET A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THOSE MINUTES, PLEASE. I WILL. SO MOVE. I WILL NOTE THAT, UM, I DON'T, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO ROBERT JOHN SMITH IS NOTED AS PRESENT WITH THE TITLE COUNCIL MEMBER. NOT THAT THAT HAS ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THE MINUTES. OTHER THAN THAT, I'M GOOD. . OKAY. SECOND. OKAY. HOLD A FAVOR. THUMBS UP. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND NOW WE'LL MO WE WILL MOVE. UM, UH, I'M ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY HAS THE AGENDA AND, UM, APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE AGENDA? ANY AMENDMENTS? THANK YOU. OKAY. WITH THAT, WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, UH, TO CARRY US THROUGH THE AGENDA. THANKS SIR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. UM, COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU. UM, TODAY IT'S KIND OF GONNA BE THE MATT WATSON SHOW BECAUSE MOST OF THIS TIME, I'D SAY PROBABLY 90% OF THIS TIME TODAY WILL BE SPENT GOING OVER SOME OF THE FINANCIAL BILLS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. UM, UH, MORE SPECIFICALLY THE APPRAISAL CAP BILL. HE'S GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH SB TWO AND TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND THE IMPACTS OF THAT. AND ALSO HB 1489, WHICH IS THE LIMITATION ON THE ISSUANCE OF COS THAT'S BEEN FLOATING AROUND AGAIN THIS SESSION. UM, IT MAY HAVE SOME MOMENTUM THIS SESSION. IT'S HARD TO TELL, BUT, UM, IT'S CERTAINLY A ANOTHER ATTACK ON OUR ABILITY TO, UM, UM, FINANCE, UM, OUR GOVERNANCE AND, UM, UM, SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE, KEEP A CLOSE EYE ON AND ACTUALLY PROBABLY GO DOWN AND TESTIFY ON. AND THEN ALSO, THIRDLY, WE'LL TALK ABOUT, UM, UM, ONE OF THE BILLS THAT POPPED UP ON FRIDAY WAS BILL RELATED TO COLA'S. AND SO THE REASON WE'RE GONNA TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THAT AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT IT YET, UM, IS BECAUSE THE LAST TIME THAT THIS SERIOUSLY CAME UP, IT'S COME UP BEFORE TWO OR THREE TIMES IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. BUT IN THE PAST, UM, ESPECIALLY THAT FIRST YEAR IN 2008, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE AROUND AND MAY REMEMBER, IT WAS ONE OF THE FEW TIMES THAT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER WAS FULL, THE LOBBY WAS FULL, THE PARKING LOT WAS FULL. YES. AND SO WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM SOME OF OUR RETIREES ABOUT THE, UM, UH, THE BILL, UM, IT'S COMING OUT OF AMARILLO AND THE, UM, POLICE UNION AT OUT OF AMARILLO. SO THEY GOT ONE OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES TO SPONSOR IT. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT THE LOCAL BUSINESS, WHICH THERE'S NOT BEEN A LOT OF MOVEMENT ON 'EM. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN FILED. UM, BUT THERE'S NOT, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ASSIGNED TO A COMMITTEE YET, OR A GIVEN A COMMITTEE DATE. SO, UM, THEY ACTUALLY MAY HAVE BEEN SIGNED TO A COMMITTEE. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN A COMMITTEE DATE FOR, UM, UM, DISCUSSION. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MATT. APPRECIATE IT. THANK Y'ALL FOR LETTING ME COME OUT AND SPEAK TODAY. UM, THIS FIRST PRESENTATION, I'M GONNA FOCUS MAINLY ON APPRAISAL CAP IN THE LEGISLATION THAT'S COME FORWARD. UM, ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SEEMS LIKE EVERY LEGISLATIVE SESSION PROPERTY TAXES IS AT THE FOREFRONT OF LAWMAKERS MINDS. AND IT'S NO DIFFERENT AT THIS IN THIS JUNCTION WITH, UH, THE SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN REAL ESTATE VALUES COUPLED WITH HIGH INFLATION, IT HAS BECOME, ONCE AGAIN, A HOT TOPIC AND WILL BE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS DOWN THERE. UM, I, THERE IS HUNDREDS OF BILLS FILED. I KNOW, UH, LET'S, ALL LAST WEEK, UH, THE GOVERNOR HAD PUT OUT HIS PROPOSED BUDGET AND WAS LOOKING TO PUT ABOUT 15 BILLION OF THEIR SURPLUS RESERVES AND WANTS TO PUT THAT TOWARDS REDUCING PROPERTY TAXES ON THE, ON THE SCHOOL SIDE. AND I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYONE THAT IN, IN GARLAND, ABOUT 50% OF THE TAXES PAID GO TO SCHOOLS. AND SO THERE IS A LOT OF LEGISLATION THAT IS THERE TO HELP TRY TO EITHER REDUCE THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT ARE PAID FOR SCHOOL TAXES. THERE'S ALSO TALK OF, I BELIEVE MR. LIEUTENANT PATRICK WANTS TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. THAT'S FOR, UH, SCHOOLS RIGHT NOW FROM 40,000 TO 75,000. SO THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF BILLS THAT IMPACT SCHOOLS, AND THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING TO PUT SOME OF THEIR SURPLUS RESERVES [00:05:01] TOWARDS THAT. BUT, BUT AS FAR AS WHAT THE CITY'S INVOLVED IN THE MAIN APP, MAIN BILLS THAT ARE BEING FILED RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD IMPACT US FINANCIALLY ARE RELATED TO APPRAISAL CAPS. AND I'VE PUT IT ON HERE, THERE'S REALLY TWO WAYS. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE TO LOWER TAXES. YOU LOWER THE TAX RATE OR YOU LOWER, LOWER THE APPRAISAL. IN 2019, THEY PASSED SB TWO, EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THAT ONE. AND IT BASICALLY LOWERS THE TAX RATE, THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE, AND ALLOWS YOU TO ONLY INCREASE IT BY THREE POINT A 5%. SO OVER TIME, WE HAVE DROPPED OUR, OUR TAX RATE BY ABOUT 5 CENTS BECAUSE OF SB TWO. BUT THIS ONLY IMPACTS THE O AND M PORTION. SO OUR GENERAL FUND, WHAT THE APPRAISAL CAP DOES IS OPEN THAT UP TO REALLY ALL REVENUE. BUT BECAUSE OF SV TWO, THE APPRAISAL CAPS WON'T IMPACT THE O AND M THAT MUCH BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY CAPPED AT THREE AND A A HALF. BUT THIS WILL SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT OUR C I P AND OUR DEBT SERVICE REVENUE. SO, TO WALK THROUGH ON APPRAISAL CAPS, THERE'S REALLY THREE WAYS TO LOWER IT. ONE IS WE HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, AND RIGHT NOW GARLANDS IS AT 10. YOU HAVE A SENIOR EXEMPTION THAT PROVIDES A FLAT 56,000 OFF OF THE APPRAISED VALUE FOR SENIORS. AND THEN THE APPRAISAL CAP. RIGHT NOW THE APPRAISAL CAP IS STATEWIDE AND IT'S 10% OFF THE MARKET VALUE. IF YOU HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION TO GET THIS. SO FIRST I WANTED TO WALK THROUGH HOW TAXES ARE CALCULATED. NOW, JUST TO GIVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE AVERAGE RESIDENT IN GARLAND PAID IN TAXES IN 2022, WE HAD A HISTORIC HIGH INCREASE IN TAXES. WE HAD 16 POINT A 5% INCREASE IN OUR, IN OUR TAX REVENUE THIS YEAR. SO THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A VERY, HIS VERY HIGH AMOUNT THAT PROBABLY WON'T EVER HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT SHOWS THE IMPACTS OF THESE APPRAISAL CAPS. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS THE AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF A HOME IN GARLAND IN 2021 WAS ABOUT $216,000. THAT MARKET VALUE ACROSS THE BOARD WENT UP ON AVERAGE 25%, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIAL. BUT BECAUSE OF THE APPRAISAL CAP, IF YOU HAVE THE HOMESTEAD, YOU'RE CAPPED AT 10%. SO YOU SEE RIGHT OFF THE BAT, THAT'S GONNA LOWER YOUR APPRAISED VALUE TO 237 AND CAP YOU AT THAT 10%. FROM THERE, THE CITY OF GARLAND OFFERS ANOTHER 10%, REDUCING THAT DOWN 23 7 80 TO $214,000 VALUE. AND FROM THERE, SB TWO KICKS IN. AND YOU CAN SEE LAST YEAR OUR TAX RATE WENT DOWN 4%, FOUR, 4 CENTS, SORRY, OR 5% TO BASICALLY COME TO ABOUT A 4% INCREASE IN TAXES IF YOU HAD THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. AND THEN SENIORS, YOU THROW IN THE 56,000 EXEMPTION ON TOP OF THAT, LOWERS THEIR AVERAGE TAXABLE VALUE TO ABOUT 158,000. AND THEIR TAXES WENT UP ABOUT $84 OR 8%. AND I, I'VE HAD QUESTIONS IN THE PAST ABOUT WHY THE SENIORS PERCENTAGES WENT UP. AND THE REASON IS, IS THAT THE, THE SENIOR EXEMPTION IS A FLAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. AND SO AS YOU'RE LOWERING THAT APPRAISED VALUE, THAT PERCENTAGE, IT INCREASES UP. IT KIND OF GOES IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION. SO THAT'S WHY THEY STILL ARE SEEING, UM, A VERY SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS CUZ THEY'RE ABLE TO TAKE 56,000 OFF THE TOP NOW WITH A LOT OF THESE APPRAISAL CAP BILLS. AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN MORE DETAIL LATER. AGAIN, IT'S RIGHT NOW THE APPRAISAL CAPS ARE ONLY IF YOU HAVE A HOMESTEAD. SO I WANTED TO SHOW HOW CURRENT TAXES ARE PAID FOR. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A HOMESTEAD, SAY IT'S A RENTAL PROPERTY OR YOU'RE A BUSINESS. SO AGAIN, SAME, SAME HOUSE. IT'S A RENTAL PROPERTY IN 2021 WAS 216,000. IT WENT UP 25%. THERE IS NO APPRAISAL CAP. THERE IS NO HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS, NO SENIOR EXEMPTIONS. THE ONLY BENEFIT THEY WOULD'VE SAW WAS FROM SB TWO IN THE LOWERING OF THE TAX RATE. SO IN IN GENERAL, IN GARLAND, A RENTAL PROPERTY WOULD'VE SAW, SAW ABOUT $413 OR MORE TAXES THAN SOMEBODY THAT HAD A HOMESTEAD. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM TABLE, IT'S A, A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON AVERAGE, UH, A GARLAND BUSINESS'S VALUED AT ABOUT 1.3. AND THIS IS JUST AN AVERAGE OF ALL GARLAND BUSINESSES. THEY WOULD'VE SAW ABOUT A 17.7% INCREASE. THEY WOULD'VE BE GOT THE BENEFIT OF THE TAX RATE REDUCTION, BUT THEIR INCREASE WOULD'VE BEEN 11.5%. AND SO A LOT OF THE LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE SEEING IS LOOKING TO EXPAND THIS HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION TO ALL REAL PROPERTY. SO WHAT WAY, WAY I BROKE THIS OUT IS THERE IS ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE [00:10:01] BILLS, OR I GUESS I'VE GOT FOUR AS OF LAST WEEK THAT HAVE BEEN FILED THAT ARE LOOKING TO JUST LOWER THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. SO AGAIN, RIGHT NOW IT'S AT 10%. THERE'S BILLS FILED TO TRY TO PUT THAT TOWARDS SOME SORT OF INFLATIONARY FACTOR. WE WALKED THROUGH THIS WHEN WE WENT THROUGH SB TWO AS WELL. IT'S, AND I'LL GET INTO THIS IN MORE DETAIL LATER, IT'S HARD TO PINPOINT WHAT IS INFLATION. PEOPLE SAY CPI. WELL, OUR COSTS AREN'T ALWAYS SUBJECT TO JUST A CPI AND I'LL GET INTO THAT IN MORE DETAIL LATER. BUT THERE'S OTHER BILLS THAT ARE AS LOOKING TO REDUCE THAT 10% AS LOW AS TWO AND A HALF PERCENT. THREE, THREE AND A HALF PERCENT OR 5%. BUT THE ONE, UH, THE ONE HB 3 35 WITH BELL, I BELIEVE IS THE ONE THAT'S PROBABLY GOT THE MOST LEGS RIGHT NOW. AND IT IS LOOKING TO EXPAND THAT APPRAISAL CAP TO BE ALL REAL PROPERTY. SO EVERY RENTAL PROPERTY, EVERY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, AND EVERY HOMESTEAD AND MAKING THAT CAP 5%. AND WHAT I'LL SHOW YOU LATER IS THAT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO ONE, IT'LL BE MUCH LOWER TAXES FOR COMMERCIAL AND RENTAL, BUT IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR REVENUES. MR. CHAIR. MATT, IS THAT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT'S REQUIRED TO DO THAT? BECAUSE I THINK THE 10% CAP SET IN THE CONSTITUTION, SO WILL IT END UP BEING A, A JOINT RESOLUTION THAT GOES TO THE VOTERS? GOOD QUESTION. IT SHOULD, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMIT IS 10. YOU CAN FURTHER LIMIT IT. YOU CAN MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE BUT NOT LESS RESTRICTIVE. SO LEGISLATIVELY THEY CAN COME THROUGH AND JUST PASS THAT. SO WE'D BE LOOKING AT THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR WHERE THIS WOULD APPLY TO US. CORRECT. AND INSTEAD OF TWO FISCAL YEARS OUT. OKAY. GOT IT. THANK YOU SIR. THANKS, BRIAN. WE 14? I'M GOOD. OKAY. ON, ON, ON THAT ALSO, UH, I HAD A CHANCE TO RAN ACROSS, UH, STATE REP BUYERS OF, OF THE WEEKEND. AND, UH, THE 5% THAT, THAT, THAT BILL THAT'S, THAT'S ALSO IN, THAT'S IN THE TAX CODE, THE TAX CODE, AND HAD DISCUSSION WITH THEIR, UH, IF, IF, IF THAT GOES TO 5% AND THE IMPACT ON CITIES. BUT ARE YOU GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT LATER, MATT? MATT? IF, IF THAT, IF THAT LEGISLATION IS ADOPTED, 5%, ARE YOU GONNA TALK, TALK TODAY ABOUT LITTLE BIT THE IMPACT ON, ON CITY REVENUES? OUR REVENUES, YES. OKAY. OKAY. CUZ THAT, THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT I RAISED HER. AND SHE DID, SHE HAD NO IDEA AT THIS POINT. UH, SHE SAID THERE, THERE ARE A LOT OF FORMULAS AND STUFF THAT THEY'RE PUTTING TOGETHER DOWN THE CALCULATIONS, YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THE, UH, QUOTE APPRAISAL DISTRICTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN FAVOR OF, OF MAKING THIS CHANGE IN THE TAX CODE. I'M NOT SURE WHY. I THINK A LOT OF IT ONLY BECAUSE THEY'RE FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAXES. RIGHT. SO, OKAY. NOW THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT SHE DID TELL ME. SO, UH, APPARENTLY THEY'VE BEEN DOWN THERE AND, UH, IN THE CAPITAL, UH, THE APPRAISAL APPRAISAL FOLKS HAVE BEEN PUSHING AGAINST THIS BILL. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT OBSERVATION. THANKS SIR. GO AHEAD. SO WHAT THIS CHART SHOWING IS A, IT IS A MATRIX OF KIND OF ALL THESE DIFFERENT BILLS. AND, AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO SHOW HERE IS IF THIS, IF THIS BILL WAS IN PLACE IN 2022, SO AGAIN, THIS IS OUR HISTORIC 16.5% INCREASE. AND THIS IS JUST LOOKING AT A ONE YEAR SNAPSHOT. SO AGAIN, THE AVERAGE RESIDENT WITH A HOMESTEAD AT THE 10%, THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THAT. SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN ANY DROP. BUT IF THAT WAS LOWER TO 5%, THEY WOULD'VE SAW ABOUT $70 ON AVERAGE OFF OF THEIR TAX BILL ANNUALLY. AND THEN THREE AND A HALF AT $91. I'VE ALSO GOT THE SENIORS, IT WOULD'VE BEEN EXACTLY THE SAME CUZ IT'S JUST THE APPRAISAL CAP PART, LOWERING THAT TO 5%. THEY'RE THE LITTLE DROP, $70 AND 91 AT THREE AND A HALF. THE BIG CHANGES COME ON RENTAL PROPERTIES AND OUR AVERAGE BUSINESS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THIS CAP AT THIS TIME. SO THEY WOULD'VE SAW SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THEIR PROPERTY TAX BILLS, EVEN IF IT WAS JUST AT 10%. IF THEY WERE CAPPED AT 10%, BECAUSE AGAIN, REMEMBER ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, COMMERCIAL WAS SEEING 17% INCREASES. THEY WOULD'VE, SO A BUSINESS WOULD'VE SAW ABOUT $618 AND THEN SLIDING SCALE UP OF ALL THE WAY UP TO OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS IF IT WAS DROPPED ALL THE WAY TO THREE AND A HALF. AND THAT THIS IS THE CITY'S IMPACT. AND AGAIN, THIS IS ONLY LOOKING AT 2022. AND I'VE BROKEN THIS OUT TO THOSE TWO CATEGORIES. WHAT IF WE, WHAT IF LET THE LEGISLATURE ONLY REDUCED THE HOMESTEAD CAP. SO IT'S JUST OUR PEOPLE WITH HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS. AND THEN BELOW IT IS IF IT WAS RELATED TO ALL REAL PROPERTY. [00:15:01] SO WITH JUST THE HOMESTEAD, AGAIN, 10 PERCENT'S ALREADY IN PLACE, SO WE WOULD'VE SOLD NO LOST REVENUE. IF IT WENT DOWN TO 5%, WE WOULD'VE LOST ABOUT 1.5 MILLION IN DEBT SERVICE REVENUE, WHICH EQUATES TO ABOUT 20 MILLION IN A CIP P. SO 1.5 MILLION OF DEBT SERVICE WOULD FUND ABOUT 20 MILLION OF A CAPITAL PROJECT. IF YOU LOWER THAT TO THREE AND A HALF, WE'RE ABOUT 1.9 MILLION OF LOST REVENUE OR 26 MILLION OF PROJECTS. BUT AGAIN, THE BIG HIT IS IF THIS WAS OPENED UP TO ALL REAL PROPERTY. SO RIGHT NOW, I, I BELIEVE ABOUT 65% OF ALL HOMES IN GARLAND HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. BUT IF YOU OPEN THIS UP TO ALL REAL PROPERTY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 88% OF OUR TAX BASE IS SUBJECT TO THE CAP. SO AT 10%, WE WOULD'VE LOST ABOUT 3.9 MILLION OR 53 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE THREE AND A HALF AT ABOUT ALMOST 7 MILLION OF REVENUE, WHICH IS 94 MILLION OF PROJECTS, WHICH WOULD'VE MADE OUR C I P PROCESS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIFFICULT AS WE WERE TRYING TO MOVE THROUGH AND GET THESE BOND PROGRAM PROJECTS COMPLETED. AND THEN THIS CHART, I WANTED TO TOUCH ON SOME OF THESE THAT ARE TRYING TO TIE THIS TO INFLATION AND ALSO SOME OF THESE THAT ARE THE, THE, THEY'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO THESE CAPS BASED ON SOME SORT OF REASONABLE INFLATION INFLATIONARY AMOUNT. IN THE BAR CHART. YOU SEE CPI AND YOU CAN SEE IN 2022, YES, IT WAS, AND THIS IS AS OF JANUARY, 2022. YES, EXTREMELY HIGH CPI AT 8%, BUT ON THE RED BAR IS WHAT IS CALLED THE PRODUCER PRICE INDEX. AND THIS IS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, WHICH DOESN'T DIRECTLY EQUATE TO WHAT WE'RE PAYING IN PRICES, BUT THIS IS WHAT OUR CONTRACTORS ARE PAYING FOR THE MATERIAL TO GO INTO THE BIDS THAT WE WILL EVENTUALLY SEE. YOU CAN SEE IN 2022, IT WAS AT 19.93% AND IT HAS SIGNIF, IT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN CPI. I WILL SAY THE PPI HAS COME DOWN JUST LIKE CPIS COME DOWN OVER TIME. BUT IT'S HARD TO PUT A, A FLAT APPRAISAL CAP THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO BASE ON AN INFLATIONARY NUMBER, WHICH MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE U LOOKING AT CPI WHEN WHAT WE'RE USING THIS MONEY TO FUND IS CONSTRUCTION RELATED. AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 20% INCREASE. THAT'S, AND SO REALLY THE, UH, WHAT I SHOWED YOU EARLIER WAS JUST A ONE YEAR LOOK AT WHAT THIS WOULD'VE DONE IN 2022. AND I'M FULLY AWARE THAT THAT WAS A HISTORIC YEAR. SO THERE'S GONNA BE SIGNIFICANT DOLLARS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME LONG-TERM OUTLOOK ON THIS. AND THERE'S REALLY TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS. AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS BELL'S BILL HERE, WHERE YOU JUST PUT 5% APPRAISED VALUE ON ALL REAL PROPERTY. SO THAT'S WHAT THESE TWO ANALYSISES ARE SHOWING. AND IT, AND IT LOOKS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, UH, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE, JUST LIKE ANY, ANY, ANY MODEL, YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE KEY. SO I WANTED TO SHOW WHAT, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE HEADED INTO A RECESSION VERSUS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TRYING TO COME OUT OF A RECESSION. IT'S TRYING TO COME OUT OF A RECESSION, IS WHERE THIS REALLY HAMPERS US. SO THIS FIRST CHART IS ASSUMING THAT WE ARE HEADED TOWARDS A RECESSION. AND AGAIN, AND THESE NUMBERS ARE JUST BASED ON A, A PROJECTION AND A MODEL THAT WE PUT TOGETHER. NO, NO IDEA. OBVIOUSLY THESE WON'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN. BUT WHAT WE DID IS JUST LOOK AT A SLIDING SCALE DOWN OF OUR TAX BASE GROWTH. SO ASSUME WE HAD A 7% INCREASE AGAIN THIS YEAR IN 2324, AND BY 28 29, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TWO AND A HALF PERCENT INCREASE IN OUR PROPERTY TAX VALUES. SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE FIRST, THE THE, OR THE THIRD COLUMN IS SB TWO AND THE IMPACTS OF WHAT SB TWO, BASED ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ON THE TAX BASE WOULD DO TO OUR O AND M REVENUE. AND THEN THIS COLUMN THAT SAYS THE LOST REVENUE DUE TO DEBT SERVICE FUND DUE TO APPRAISAL CAPS AS IF THIS APPRAISAL CAP BILL AT 5% COMES INTO PLAY. SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS, IS YOU WOULD HAVE LOST REVENUE BECAUSE YOU'RE OVER THE, OVER THE 5% CAP AND YOU'RE OVER THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP AT SEVEN OF ABOUT 3.9 MILLION. BUT YOU CAN SEE AS YOU GET TO THAT 5%, THE LOSS REVENUE WOULD GO AWAY. AND BECAUSE ON THE APPRAISAL CAPS, IT ROLLS FORWARD. SO THE WAY THE APPRAISAL CAP WORKS IS IT'S THE LESSER OF YOUR MARKET VALUE OR 10% CAP OF YOUR LAST APPRAISAL. SO IF YOUR MARKET VALUE IS A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS MORE THAN YOUR APPRAISAL CAP VALUE, YOU'RE GONNA STILL SEE THAT [00:20:01] 5% CAP COME INTO PLAY IN LATER YEARS IF YOU'RE UNDER THE 5%, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO IT'LL ROLL FORWARD INTO THE NEXT YEAR. SO IF YOU HAVE A TAX, A TAX-BASED GROWTH OF THREE AND A HALF PERCENT, YOU'RE STILL GONNA GET CAPPED AT FIVE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT ROLLING FORWARD. SO REALLY WHAT IT DOES AS YOU'RE MOVING INTO A RECESSION IS DEFER ANY REVENUE INTO THE OUTER YEARS. BUT ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND HERE IS WE'RE LOSING REVENUE, WE'RE HEADED INTO A RECESSION. SO THIS, THIS IS A BAD SCENARIO STILL NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAVING MUCH LOWER TAX BASED GROWTH. THIS ANALYSIS IS KIND OF, THIS IS AN EXTREME ANALYSIS, BUT IT, IT, IT'S LOOKING AT OUR 2008 RECESSION. SO THIS IS THE GREATEST RECESSION THAT WE'VE EVER HAD, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO TAX BASE. UH, Y'ALL WILL RECALL THAT THAT STARTED IN 2008 AND IT TOOK US EIGHT YEARS TO GET BACK TO THE TAX BASE OF 11.2 BILLION, UH, EVALUATION EIGHT YEARS. AND THEN FROM THERE WE HAD GROWTH. SO WHAT THIS ASSUMES IS IN 2008, THE PROPERTY TAX CAP OF 5% WAS IN PLACE. AND SO THE RED LINE SHOWING WHAT OUR DEBT SERVICE REVENUE WOULD'VE BEEN IF WE HAD THAT 5% CAP IN PLACE, RATHER THAN HAVING THE REVENUE THAT WE ACTUALLY EARNED. AND IT EQUATES TO ABOUT 20.7 MILLION. AND IN TERMS OF C I P PROJECTS, THAT'S 280 MILLION OF CAPACITY FOR BOND PROJECTS. SO THAT'S 35% OF OUR FIVE YEAR PLAN FOR OUR TAX SUPPORTED RIGHT NOW AND OVER HALF OF OUR BOND PROJECTS. SO COMING OUT OF A RECESSION, THIS COULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT MOVING FORWARD HOW WE, HOW WE CAN FUND OUR C I P. OBVIOUSLY WE, WE HAD A SIX AND A HALF PERCENT TAX RATE INCREASE IN 2019 THAT WOULD'VE HAD TO BEEN AT LEAST DOUBLE IN ORDER TO FUND THE PROJECTS WHERE WE'RE AT NOW ON TOP OF ALL THE INFLATION THAT WE EXPERIENCED. SO WITH THAT, I'LL END THE BAD NEWS AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. I'M GONNA, I'M GOING TO GO GO TO THE MAYOR PRO TIM FIRST YOU, ANY QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS? I'M JUST DEPRESSED HAVING A MOMENT. OKAY. I'LL GIVE YOU MY COUNCIL SMITH. PART OF ME THINKS THIS IS GOING TO TRIGGER A RECESSION BECAUSE WE'RE GOING, UH, YOU LOOK AT THE PUBLIC SPENDING ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND IF THAT DROPS AND THE, THE FIRST PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA FEEL IT ARE THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN TEXAS, RIGHT? SO IT'D BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF IT'S, IF WE'RE ANTICIPATING A RECESSION THAT'S GONNA, YOU KNOW, IS THIS CHICKEN AND EGG KIND OF THING? IT IS. AND SO IF WE INDUCE A RECESSION, THIS MAY NOT BE AS BAD AS WE THINK IT FOR, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. I MEAN, IT IT HURTS OUR CITIZENS. BUT, UH, THAT'D BE INTERESTING. I MEAN, UH, I'M, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I'M NOT AS AS CONCERNED ABOUT IT AS AS MAYBE I SHOULD BE. UH, BECAUSE AS, AS THE PIE SHRINKS, I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE HIGHER COMPETITIVENESS ON OUR, ON OUR BIDDING AND OUR, OUR PROJECT COSTS. BUT THERE WILL BE SOME NEGATIVE IMPACTS, CERTAINLY. UM HMM. I'M WOR I'M SEARCHING FOR A QUESTION IN THERE, . OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ONE. OH, OH, I THINK WE, I MEAN IT'S, IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHERE WE'RE HEADED AND, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. IT, AND IF WE HAVE 200, 280 MILLION LESS FOR PROJECTS, THEN WE HAVE 280 MILLION LESS FOR PROJECTS AND WE LET OUR CITIZENS KNOW WE'LL DELIVER WHAT WE CAN DELIVER. AND IF YOU, YOU WANT US TO DELIVER MORE, UM, YOU HAVE TO TALK TO THE STATE. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN THAT'S, WE'LL, WE'LL END UP BEING ESSENTIALLY WARDS OF THE STATE THE WAY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED. THEY, THEY WANT THAT CONTROL AND THEY WANT THAT CENTRALIZED POWER. YEAH. SO THEY CAN DICTATE WHAT WE SPEND AND WHAT WE DON'T SPEND. AND THEY DON'T, THERE IS NO DESIRE FOR LOCAL CONTROL AT ALL FROM THE STATE, WHICH IS INTERESTING BECAUSE OF HOW THEY TREAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YEAH. UH, IT'S GOT A LOT OF DO AS WE SAY AND NOT AS WE DO. SO IT'S WHAT IT IS. UH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA SEE A BILL PASS, UH, USING MY CRYSTAL BALL OF SOME FORM AND WE'RE JUST GONNA, I, I DON'T MEAN TO BE DEBBIE DOWNER HERE, BUT, UH, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING WE SAY OR DO IS GONNA MAKE A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC. SO, UH, I WOULD JUST SAY LET'S GET READY, HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS AND, UM, LET'S GET READY TO, TO PAR DOWN OUR, OUR OFFERINGS FOR OUR CITIZENS. [00:25:01] STILL NO QUESTION IN THERE, JOAN. SORRY. WELL, WHILE HE'S MEDITATING OVER QUESTION HE'LL COME ONE. BUT I I I, I AGREE THERE. I THINK, UH, FOR SOME REASON MATT APPRECIATE THAT, BUT I, CINDERELLA CAME TO MIND. I THINK THIS, THIS PROPOSAL THAT WE GONNA GIVE, UH, ALL THAT EXTRA SUPPORT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, IT'S LIKE PUTTING THE, THE SHINNY GOWN ON CI RIDDLE CINDERELLA. AND, UH, BECAUSE, UH, SHE, SHE SMOKED GLITTERING MORE SPARKLING AND IT MAKES THE PUBLIC FEEL THAT WE'RE REALLY ENGAGING. BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S UH, IT'S SORT OF FLASHY, IT'S BAIT AND SWITCH TACTIC BECAUSE IT MAKE WHAT, WHAT IT, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS NOT WHAT IT IS. RIGHT. AND, UH, I'M NOT ACCOUNTABLE WHEN, WHEN, UH, FOLKS IN AUSTIN GOVERNOR TALKING ABOUT WE'RE GONNA GIVE THE, THE SURPLUS. I, I'VE, I'VE BEEN IN TEXAS LONG ENOUGH AND I'VE SEEN SURPLUSES AND I, AND I'VE SEEN PROMISES AND, AND WE ALL KNOW AS TEXANS KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED, WHAT OUR HISTORY IS ON SURPLUSES AND WHO HAS BENEFITED FROM SURPLUSES AND IT HAS NOT BEEN CITIES. AND SO, SO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT READY TO, UH, TO GET, BUT LET ME JUST, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT LET ME THROW OUT A THOUGHT. AND, UH, YEAH, SOMETHING'S GONNA BE PASSED. IT'LL PROBABLY BE A HYBRID OF A HYBRID OF, OF, OF THIS. AND THIS IS PROBABLY MORE, IT'S THE CITY'S ATTORNEY I'M THINKING, BUT AT LEAST THIS, THIS IS, UM, EXCELLENT THOUGHT INFORMATION, MATT. APPRECIATE THAT. AND MY CONVERSATION WITH, WITH TWO, TWO OUT OF THAT, TWO OUT OF OUR THREE LEGISLATIVE DEBT, UM, REPRESENTATIVES HARASSING FOR INFORMATION ANALYSIS. SO MR. CITY ATTORNEY, SHOULD WE, OR HOW COULD WE? AND, UM, IT GOES TO QUOTE THE, THE VISIT TO AUSTIN. AND HE, HE AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT UP. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN GOING TO AUSTIN, UH, FOR PHOTO ON THE, ON THE STAIRCASE. UH, I'M NOT, BUT I AM, IF THERE'S SUBSTANCE AND MY THINKING OUT FRONT, THIS KIND OF INFORMATION, THAT DISCUSSION, PRESENT THAT DISCUSSION TO ONE, I'M OVER OUR REPRESENTATIVES. I'M ASSISTANT CHAIRMAN. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON, I, I'D LIKE FOR THERE TO BE, EVEN IF IT'S AN HOUR OR TWO HOURS, THAT WE COULD HAVE THIS, BECAUSE WE KEEP GETTING, WANNA KNOW WHAT YOU THINK I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, AND SO WHAT IT, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT ITEM HERE ON, ON HOW WE MIGHT, MIGHT DO THAT? WANT, I DON'T WANNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME TODAY TALKING ABOUT THAT, BUT I WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT TO YOU. WE CAN TAKE THIS KIND OF INFORMATION AND, AND SHARE IT WITH, WITH THEM. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? UM, A COUPLE, UH, ONE THOUGHT IS WE'RE, WE'RE PROBABLY NOT GONNA GET ONE OR TWO HOURS DURING THE SESSION OF ANY OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES TIME. RIGHT. I MEAN, JUST BEING REALISTIC ABOUT IT. IF WE CAN GET 10 MINUTES OF THEIR TIME, WE'RE DOING PRETTY WELL. RIGHT. UM, ON ANY GIVEN DAY, USUALLY ANY TRIP DOWN THERE, IF I CAN GET 10 MINUTES OF EACH OF THEIR TIME, THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT. RIGHT. UM, THE DEMOCRATS THAT REPRESENT US, THEY AGREE WITH US. YEAH. THEY, THEY SEE THE ISSUE. YEAH. AND THEY, AND THEY, THEY, AND THAT, THAT'S THE FUNNY FLIP THAT'S OCCURRED HISTORICALLY IS YEAH. YOU KNOW, THE LOCAL CONTROL, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NO LONGER BELIEVES IN LOCAL CONTROL. AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOW IS A BIG BELIEVER IN THE LOCAL CONTROL AND TRUSTING YOU GUYS TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS AS BEING CLOSEST TO THE CITIZEN. RIGHT. AND SO, UM, THE ONE THAT, THE ONE REPRESENTATIVE WHERE YOU MIGHT GET THE MI MOST PAYOFF, BUT EVEN THEN IT'S, IT CAN BE QUESTIONABLE, IS, UM, UM, IS, UM, SENATOR CHAIR THE SENATOR? YES. WELL, NO, THE SENATOR. HE'S NOT GOING. THE SENATOR IS, HE'S NOT GOING TO BUDGE ON THAT. HE HAS HIS OPINIONS ON THIS AND IT, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. UM, ANGIE IS SOMEBODY THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME MOVEMENT OFF OF. BUT HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM HER WHEN IT COMES TO THIS IS ISSUE. IS THAT RIGHT? UM, SHE'S PROBABLY NOT GONNA MOVE OFF OF IT EITHER. UM, UM, SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET AN A AMEND AMENDMENT. AND SO THAT'S PROBABLY THE APPROACH WE TAKE WITH SOMEBODY LIKE, UM, REPRESENTATIVE BUTTON IS THAT WE TRY TO GET SOME AMENDMENTS IN THAT MAKE IT LESS BAD. AND SO THE IDEA WAS LET'S MEET WITH HER FOR 10, 15, 10 OR 15 MINUTES, COME UP WITH SOME OPTIONS FOR HER TO PRESENT. AND THAT WAY SHE HAS [00:30:01] SOMETHING SHE CAN TAKE AND SAY, RIGHT, RIGHT. THESE ARE THE PROBLEMS HERE. HOW, HERE'S HOW WE THINK WE CAN ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS, BUT COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT REALIZING THAT ULTIMATELY WE'RE GONNA LOSE THE WAR, BUT MAYBE WE CAN WIN A COUPLE OF BATTLES IN THAT WAR AND, AND THEN WE COULD IMPACT MITIGATE THE IMPACTS A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST APPROACH IS WHAT I WOULD OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK, UM, UM, COUNCILMAN SMITH'S CORRECT THAT, UM, SOMETHING'S GETTING PASSED. YEAH. IT'S GOING TO GET PASSAGE DEPENDS ON WHAT VERSION'S GONNA GET PASSED. AND SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS I'LL WORK WITH, WITH MATT AND COME UP WITH SOME PLANS ON WHAT WE CAN PRESENT TO, TO ALL OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES CERTAINLY, BUT PARTICULARLY TO SOME THAT MIGHT BE ON THE FENCE AND WILLING TO HELP US A LITTLE BIT. ALTHOUGH THEY MIGHT ULTIMATELY DISAGREE WITH US ON THE, THE, THE BILL ITSELF. THEY MIGHT BE WILLING TO CONCEDE SOME POINTS TO HELP US OUT A LITTLE BIT. AND I THINK, UM, IN MY MIND, REPRESENTATIVE BUTTONS THE ONE TO BE THE BEST POSITION TO HELP US WITH THAT. OH, YEAH. YEAH. BECAUSE SHE'S, SHE'S THE SENIOR MEMBER OF THE DELEGATION. RIGHT, RIGHT. SHE, SHE HAS, WE LIKE, NOT, SHE HAS THE MOST CLOUT IN THE DELEGATION. SO I I LIKE THAT IDEA. SO, YEAH. YES, GO AHEAD. UM, I JUST HAD A QUESTION. WE'RE MOSTLY TALKING ABOUT THE 3 35 BY BELL. IS THERE A REASON THAT WE'RE FEELING LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S THE HORSE THAT WE'RE BETTING ON COMING OUT FIRST FROM WATCHING? AND I'M NOT, I HAVE NOT BEEN WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT IS THERE THAT'S THAT'S HE'S OKAY. SAD. YEAH. OKAY. AND MIND IF I JUMP IN ON THAT? WHAT? GO AHEAD. THAT WAS THE QUESTION. THE, THE DISCUSSION THEY'VE HAD AROUND IT HAS BEEN, UM, VERY, VERY PREDICATED ON RECENT INTEREST IN GROWTH, UH, RATES. AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, 8%, 9% INFLATION AND GOING OH 5% SEEMS REASONABLE BECAUSE IN THEIR MINDS THEY'RE, THEY'RE CUTTING THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT WAY. UM, OF COURSE WE KNOW WHAT THE HISTORY OF INTEREST RATES LOOK LIKE AND, AND WE KNOW WHAT THE GROWTH HISTORY IS AND, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE ONLY PAYING ATTENTION THIS YEAR AND THE, AND LAST YEAR, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS ABOUT HALF OUR LEGISLATURE, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING ON. SO THERE YOU GO. OKAY. WELL IF WE, I LIKE THAT IDEA. SO IF WE COULD MO MOVE FORWARD ON, ON THAT IF YOU WILL. DO YOU ALL DO THAT AND PULL THAT TOGETHER? OKAY. APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE, UH, NEXT, UM, MS. WATSON TO HB 1489. THIS IS THE ONE RELATED TO, UM, THE ISSUANCE OF, UM, CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND, UM, I'LL LET MATT, MATT BRIEFLY INTRODUCE WHAT WE'VE SEEN CUZ THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE ONES WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, UM, WITH A LITTLE MINOR DIFFERENCES, BUT, UM, IT'S STILL GONNA HAVE SOME IMPACTS ON WHAT WE DO. SURE, YEAH. IN 2000, IN THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, UH, THERE WAS A BILL THAT WAS PASSED THAT GOT WATERED DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY OVER TIME THAT BASICALLY CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF DEBT TO BE WHAT THEY CALL DESIGNATED INFRASTRUCTURE. AND LUCKILY FOR US IT WAS WATERED DOWN ENOUGH THAT IT DIDN'T IMPACT OUR OPERATIONS A LOT. IT'S PROBABLY EASIER TO LIST OFF THINGS THAT WE CAN NO LONGER ISSUE, UH, COS FOR THAN TO ISSUE THE THINGS WE CAN, UH, THINGS THAT IT HAMPERED US ON AS IF WE WANTED TO GO OUT AND BUILD LIKE A CONVENTION CENTER, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS FOR THAT IF WE WANTED TO. B ONE THING THAT WAS KIND OF STRANGE THAT WAS LEFT OUT CAUSE PARKS WERE IN IT, LIBRARIES WERE NOT. SO IF WE WERE TO GO BUILD A BRAND NEW LIBRARY, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS, A PUBLIC HEALTH CLINIC, WHICH HAD BEEN TALKED ABOUT. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, MOST THINGS WE ISSUE COS FOR EQUIPMENT, EXISTING FACILITIES STAYED IN PLACE. SO WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO WITH THIS BILL IS TO FURTHER REDUCE THAT SCOPE ON CO ISSUANCE. AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS JUST LOOKING AT MAKING IT FOR PUBLIC WORKS. AND SO THE BIG THING THAT'S MISSING HERE IS FACILITIES, PUBLIC SAFETY. SO THE LIST OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO IT FOR. STREETS, ROADS, HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES, SIDEWALKS, PARKS, LANDFILLS, PARKING STRUCTURES AND AIRPORTS. BUT WHAT IS NOT IN HERE IS WE ISSUE COS FOR FIRE TRUCKS, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS FOR THAT. FOR ALL OF OUR VERTICAL STRUCTURES, ALL OF OUR REC CENTERS, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS FOR THAT. AND WHERE THIS MIGHT COME INTO PLAY AND REALLY IMPACT US IS RIGHT NOW OUR FINANCIAL STRATEGY IS US UTILIZING THIS INFLATION RESERVE YOU HEARD ABOUT AND THE CIP P TO HELP OFFSET AND MITIGATE ANY INCREASES TO BID [00:35:01] PRICES THAT COME IN OUR FACILITIES. WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS ON THOSE TO GET THOSE DONE. WE COULDN'T ISSUE A CO. SO THERE PROBABLY ARE SOME OTHER OPTIONS WE COULD LOOK AT CUZ TAX NOTES ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS. WE ISSUE TAX NOTES RIGHT NOW TO FUND OUR STREET PROGRAM. WE COULD FLIP FLOP AND DO FACILITIES OUT OF OUR TAX NOTES AND STREETS OUT OF, UH, LONG-TERM DEBT. SO THERE'S THINGS THAT WE COULD MAYBE TRY TO DO, BUT THE TAX NOTES ARE LIMITED AND THEY'RE REDUCING OVER TIME. IF Y'ALL RECALL, OUR STRATEGY IS WE DID, DID THE SIX AND A HALF CENT TAX RATE INCREASE IMMEDIATELY TO OPEN UP THIS CAPACITY FOR TAX NOTES TO FUND OUR 30 MILLION STREET PROGRAM. BUT OVER TIME, THAT'S GONNA GO DOWN AS THE BOND PROGRAM, LONG TERM DEBT GOES UP AND WE'LL EVENTUALLY GO AWAY. SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY IDEAL STRATEGY, BUT WANTED TO GET THIS BILL ON Y'ALL'S RADAR. I HAVE TALKED TO OUR BOND COUNCIL. THERE IS A KIND OF MIXED TALK ABOUT IT. THEY, THEY THINK THAT THIS ONE WILL PROBABLY GET CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT W THIS ONE THAT WE SHOULD WATCH BECAUSE IT COULD DRASTICALLY IMPACT HOW WE OPERATE IN OUR FINANCIAL STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. SO DO WE GO BACK TO THE VOTERS AND PUT A, UH, A BOND ITEM ON FOR STREETS, ESSENTIALLY? UH, LET THAT SOAK UP 20, 30 MILLION A YEAR, GET ALL THAT PRE-AUTHORIZED AND THEN USE THAT KIND OF AS OUR, OUR BUFFER? WELL, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS ON STREETS CUZ ROCKET ISSUE A CEO. WHAT, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE HAVE THIS $30 MILLION STREET PROGRAM THAT WE'RE FUNDED WITH TAX NOTES. WE WOULD ISSUE A CO FOR 30 MILLION YEAH. TURN AROUND AND UTILIZE OUR TAX NOTE CAPACITY TO FUND FACILITY INFLATION. BUT AGAIN, OUR TAX NOTE CAPACITY IS DWINDLING AWAY. SO THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A A A NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS ISSUE, BUT DOWN THE ROAD THIS COULD HAMPER US. WE WOULD BAS BASICALLY WHAT WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO FORCE US TO DO IS GO TO THE VOTERS ON EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING MM-HMM. . SO WE WOULD HAVE A BOND PROGRAM AND WE CAN DO THAT. YEAH. I MEAN WE CAN, WE COULD PROBABLY DO A FACILITIES BOND EVERY SINGLE MAY AND THEN MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE DO. SCHOOL DISTRICT MODEL. I MEAN THAT'S WHAT YEAH. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO IT BASIC ONLY THING IT REALLY DOES IS IT, IT IT HAMPERS THE ABILITY TO, UM, MAKE QUICK DECISIONS ON FACILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGING. OH, WE DAMAGE WOULD HAVE TO PRE YEAH, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BASICALLY GO BACK TO THE VOTERS WITH A PROPOSITION THAT'S FAIRLY VAGUE SAYING EXISTING FACILITIES FOR REALLY ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING AND JUST GET THAT AUTHORIZATION UP FRONT AND SPEND IT AS YOU NEED IT. BUT IT, IT CHANGES OUR WORLD. I, I DON'T KNOW ANY OTHER WAY TO SELL IT TO, TO, TO TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS. I MEAN, AND I, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE EVEN EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM TO THE VOTERS TO BEGIN WITH. UH, THAT THAT'S THE TRICK. I MEAN, I DON'T MIND GETTING VOTER AUTHORIZATION, BUT HOW THE HELL DO WE EXPLAIN THIS TO THE VOTERS AS TO WHY WE'RE COMING TO THEM? YEAH. IT'S LIKE, WELL WHY DON'T Y'ALL JUST TAKE CARE OF THAT? WELL, WE CAN'T. THE STATE LEGISLATURE SAID WE'VE GOTTA COME TO YOU FIRST TO DO BASIC MAINTENANCE OF OUR CITY . AND THERE'S, THERE MAY BE ANOTHER LAYER THERE. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YET, BUT THERE MAY BE THE LAYER OF, IF Y'ALL RECALL LAST OR TWO SESSIONS AGO, THERE WAS LEGISLATION RELATED TO PROPOSITION LANGUAGE IN BEING MORE PRECISE WHEN YOU'RE PASSING BOND LANGUAGE. AND SO I NEED TO LOOK AT THAT TO SEE. CAUSE I, WE HAVEN'T HAD TO, I HAVEN'T HAD TO GO BACK AND LOOK BACK SINCE OUR LAST BOND PROGRAM SINCE 2019. SO I NEED TO GO LOOK AT THAT CHANGE TO SEE HOW PRECISE WE HAVE TO BE IN OUR PROPOSITION LANGUAGE. AND I KNEW THAT ONE OF THE, THE SENTENCE, UH, ONE OF PATRICK'S ITEMS THAT HE HAD PUT ON WAS, WAS MORE SIMPLE, UH, UH, LANGUAGE ON BALLOT ITEMS. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU SQUARE THOSE. RIGHT. UH, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN. AND EVERY TIME WE GO TO SIMPLIFY THE LANGUAGE WILL MAKE IT WORSE. MOSTLY. SORRY, THANKS TO THE LAWYERS MM-HMM. . UH, BUT YEAH, I'M, I'M FINE MOVING TO A, AN ANNUAL BOND REQUEST IN MAY. IT MEANS WE'RE HAVING A CITYWIDE ELECTION EVERY MAY THOUGH, UH, WHICH IS, THAT'S ANOTHER UN UNFUNDED LIABILITY IN MAY. I THINK THERE'S EVEN BILLS TO, OH, WE GOTTA MOVE IT ALL TO NOVEMBER, RIGHT? NOVEMBER. YEAH. YEAH. SO MAYBE WE JUST ELECTIONS, MAYBE WE JUST TAKE EVERY, YOU KNOW, WE DO AN ANNUAL BOND PACKET, UH, EVERY NOVEMBER. WELL, AND I WILL SAY WE, WE KIND OF GOT IN BEF ON THE 2019 PROGRAM BEFORE, UH, THE, THE LEGISLATIVE BILL THE, TO MR. ENGLAND'S TALKING ABOUT. BUT I DO KNOW FROM MY DISCUSSIONS WITH BOND COUNSEL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS MUCH STRICTER NOW ON LOOKING AT PROPOSITION LANGUAGE. SO FOR INSTANCE, WE EVEN HAD A, AN ISSUE WITH ONE OF OURS AND TO BE SAFE, WE, WE, WE, WE WENT A DIFFERENT ROUTE ON OUR STREETS FACILITY. THE, THE, THE BUILDING THERE, [00:40:01] THE, THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY SAID TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING FACILITY. WELL, SINCE WE'RE REMOVING IT, OUR BOND COUNCIL SAID IT'D PROBABLY BE BETTER THAT YOU JUST ISSUE A CO BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERALS ARE LOOKING AT THIS LANGUAGE NOW AND REALLY CRACKING DOWN SO THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE MOVING FORWARD. SO WE, BACK TO YOUR POINT, IT'S GONNA BE HARD TO EXPLAIN TO THE VOTERS WHILE WE HAVE ALL THESE PROPOSITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC IN NATURE AND THEN EXPLAIN TO THEM, WE MAY NOT ISSUE ALL OF IT. IT'S JUST KIND OF A PLACEHOLDER CUZ WE DON'T KNOW. JUST ISSUE A CO FOR A FOUNDATION AND A SMALL TENT AND THEN USE THE BOND MONEY TO RENOVATE THE TENT INTO A FULL STRUCTURE. , IF THEY'RE GONNA PUSH US INTO THIS, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL DO WHAT WE GOTTA DO. BUT, UH, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH HISTORY OF OUR CO EXPENDITURES THAT WE COULD PROJECT WHAT WE MIGHT NEED EACH YEAR? OR IS IT SO VARIABLE? ABOUT 20 MILLION. OKAY. SO WE COULD GO TO THE VOTERS EACH, EACH NOVEMBER AND PUT A SUPPLEMENTAL SPENDING PACKAGE TOGETHER AND, AND LET THEM APPROVE IT EVERY, EVERY YEAR OR DON'T. AND SO MAYBE WITH THE ROOF CAVES IN SOMEWHERE, THEN IT STAYS CAVED IN AND WE HAVE TO SPEND SIX TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN A DIFFERENT BOND TO REPLACE THE FACILITY INSTEAD OF REPAIRING IT. IT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WANTS. IT'S WHAT WE GOTTA DO. SORRY, I'M NEGATIVE TODAY, BUT, UH, I'M JUST KIND A LITTLE MORE FATALISTIC. I THINK WE KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING AND IT'S, IT'S, UH, I'M, I'M, YEAH, I'M BEYOND DONE. I'M GOOD . OKAY. WELL WE'LL MOVE FROM THIS ONE. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE, WHAT THE GAME, WHAT THE GAME PLAN IS ON ON THIS ONE. UH, UH, THIS ONE'S GOING TO ONE OF THE UNDERLYING MOTORS HERE. SO ALSO YOU'RE GONNA CREATE VOTER FATIGUE. MM-HMM. . AND THAT'S ONE OF THE INTENTS OF THE LEGISLATURE. MM-HMM. ALL, THAT'S ANOTHER, ANOTHER HOOK FOR LOCAL CONTROL. AND UH, THEY CERTAINLY NOT GONNA EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR WE HAVE, WE HAD TO GO BACK EVERY YEAR CUZ YOU GOT SOME FOLKS DOWN THERE DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE DOING IT. YEAH, OKAY. BUT, BUT THAT'S, AND YOU TALK ABOUT REFERENDUM LANGUAGE, UM, YOU KNOW, SCHOOL, SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR THE LAST ONE THAT WE HAD IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION CAUSED MASS CONFUSION. UH, UH, SO, BUT THE TARGET IS STILL THE, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER STRATEGY, UH, ANNUAL ELECTION VOTER FATIGUE CONTROLLED KIND OF THING. SO, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES. I MEAN, WHEN YOU TAKE OUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND PARTICULARLY PUBLIC SAFETY IN LIBRARIES, I MEAN, ANYWAY, I DON'T, I I WON'T COME IN FURTHER ON THAT, BUT, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S INTERESTING TO APPRECIATE THAT. UM, MR. ATTORNEY, ANY, ANY, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING OUT OF, OUT OF TML ON ANY IN THE CASE. HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING? I HAVE NOT. I'VE BEEN LOOKING BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING. OH, I HAVE NOT, NOT AS OF YET, BUT I MEAN OTHER THAN HIGH LEVEL STUFF, BUT NO, NOT NOTHING SPECIFIC. THAT'S WE'LL, UM, DEFINITELY BE IN CONTACT WITH TML AND WORKING WITH OTHER CITIES ON THIS, BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT AS FATALISTIC AS UM, UM, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIMM SMITH, BUT I AM FAIRLY FATALISTIC ABOUT THE WHOLE THING. YEAH, YEAH. WELL, I, I DO SO, YEAH. OKAY. WELL WE, WE LOOK, LOOK FORWARD TO THIS BECAUSE EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT THE PLAYBOOK IS. EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT THE ENDGAME IS, UH, ON, ON, ON ALL OF THIS. LIKE I SAID, IT'S, IT'S CINDERELLA MASQUERADING, YOU KNOW, THE WICKED WITCH MAX RATING AT CINDERELLA. RIGHT. UM, CUL UH, UH, WHEN I SAW, WHEN YOU SENT ME THE AGENDA AND I SAW THAT I HAD FLASHBACKS, , NOT MIRROR . OKAY. SO GO AHEAD. OH, I WAS GONNA SAY, SO IF YOU AS, UM, MITCH BATES GOT AN EMAIL, UM, GOT COPIED ON AN EMAIL STRING FROM SOME OF OUR RETIREES ON THE POLICE SIDE. AND, UM, UM, OUR CURRENT, ONE OF OUR CURRENT POLICE OFFICERS WHO'S IN THE, UM, POLICE ASSOCIATION IS WORKING WITH AMARILLO PD ON A BILL TO REIN, REINTRODUCE COAL LEGISLATION, WHICH WOULD ENABLE, UM, UM, CITIES THAT OPTED OUT, UH, BACK IN 2008, 2009, UM, TO OPT BACKEND ON ONE TIME BASIS, UM, WITH NO PENALTY. UM, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IS MATT'S GONNA EXPLAIN TO YOU HE'S GONNA EXPLAIN THE IMPACT EVEN WITHOUT THAT, THAT'S REALLY NOT THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WE'RE FACING WHEN IT COMES TO COIS, BUT I'LL LET MATT EXPLAIN IT. SURE. SO REALLY WHAT IT, WHAT THIS ENTAILS, WHY HE, WHEN HE SAYS NO PENALTY IS IF YOU WERE TO OPT BACK IN TO COLA, WHICH WE HAVE THE OPTION TO DO, YOU RIGHT NOW HAVE TO DO, THERE'S A RETROACTIVE PROVISION OR THEY CALL IT THE CATCH UP PROVISION, MEANING [00:45:01] YOU HAVE TO GO BACK IN TIME AND FUND ALL THE YEARS SINCE 2008 THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE THE COLA. AND IT DEPENDS ON THE CITY ON IT, HOW MUCH THAT IMPACTS YOUR, UH, THE COST OF PAYING FOR RETIREE INSURANCE. WE, WE DID THE STUDY IN 2017, WE, THAT'S THE MOST RECENT TIME WE'VE DONE THAT. AND IT SHOWED THAT LOOKING BACK RETROACTIVE COLA AT 30% OF C P I WOULD COST THE GENERAL FUND ABOUT $3 MILLION A YEAR IF THEY REMOVED THIS KETCHUP PER PROVISION. IT WAS 2.9 MILLION A YEAR TO THE GENERAL FUND. AND THE REASON IS, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE ACTUARIAL VALUATIONS OF YOUR EMPLOYEES AND YOUR CURRENT RETIREE BASE. MOST CITIES, THE HUGE COST IS ALL OF US EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HERE AND PAYING FOR THEM FOR THE NEXT 50, 70 YEARS. IT'S NOT THE RETIREES THAT WE HAVE IN THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW. SO WE, WE, WE WILL GO BACK TO TMS AND TRY TO, AND TALK TO THE ACTUARIES TO GET A MORE UP TO DATE ON THIS. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD LOOK A LOT WORSE BECAUSE I, AS I, CPI IS AT 8% IN 2017 WHEN WE LAST DID THIS, IT WAS MUCH LOWER. BUT WE'LL RUN THOSE NUMBERS TO HAVE THOSE AVAILABLE. BUT COMING UP WITH $3 MILLION ANNUALLY TO THE GENERAL FUND IS A TALL ORDER AND COULD SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR OPERATIONS. DO WE HAVE THE OPTION TO TAKE THIS TO THE POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS AND SAY, HEY, DO YOU WANT THE 4 57 B OR DO YOU WANT THE COLA? AND IF WE STOP DOING THE 4 57 DOES THAT TAKE A NICE BIG CHUNK OUT OF THAT 3 MILLION OR WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S OUR CURRENT OUTLAY ON THAT? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S AROUND 400,000 A YEAR LOOKING AT ALISON SOMEWHERE AROUND 400,000 A YEAR THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR THIS, THE RSB. AND IS THAT GONNA BE THAT AMOUNT WHEN WE'RE FULLY, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT FULLY THERE. WE'RE ONLY ABOUT HALFWAY THERE. RIGHT. SO MAYBE 800,000 IF WE WERE REALLY, IF WE WERE AT THE END OF THAT TRACK. YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD BALLPARK. ABOUT 800,000. OKAY. SO REAL IN REALITY, WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO AND A HALF, TWO AND A QUARTER MILLION PER YEAR IF, IF WE GAVE THEM AN OPTION, IF, IF WE HAD THE POLITICAL WILL TO GIVE THEM AN OPTION AND ALSO BASED ON $2,017. GOT IT. SO, UH, I WILL GO BACK CAUSE THIS BILL JUST CAME FORWARD TO US YESTERDAY. I WILL GO TO THE ACTUARIES AT TMS AND ASK FOR THIS DATA. BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN 8% CPI COMPARED TO PROBABLY TWO AND A HALF BACK IN 17. YEAH. SO THESE NUMBERS COULD, UH, SKYROCKET. YEAH. AND ALSO THE RSB AS Y'ALL THAT THE COMPONENT OF THAT WAS TO, TO OFFSET SOCIAL SECURITY BECAUSE OUR, OUR CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES DO NOT OPT INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. AND SO THE THOUGHT PROCESSES AND THROUGH OUR ANALYSIS IS GETTING TO 7%, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO WOULD EQUATE TO A SOCIAL SECURITY RIGHT. MATCH THE COLA ISSUE IS JUST A SIMPLE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT. RETIREES ARE ON FIXED INCOME TO TRY TO OFFSET SOME OF THAT. AND ON TOP OF THAT, I'LL JUST, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT OUR RETIREE INSURANCE AND WE HAVE BEEN PUTTING MONEY TOWARDS WHAT WE CALL OUR OPEB OR OTHER POST EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TO TRY TO AT SOME POINT OFFSET THAT COST. SO THERE'S KIND OF MULTIPLE LAYERS HERE ON RETIREES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE BEST APPROACH, MOST OPTIMAL FOR BOTH THE CITY FINANCIALLY AND OUR RETIREES TO FUND THIS STUFF. BUT I, I CAN SAY RIGHT NOW A COLA WOULD BE A TALL ORDER AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'LL GET THE NUMBERS AND COME BACK IF THEY, IF I KNOW THIS IS CRAZY TALK, BUT IF THEY MADE THE COLA EXEMPT FROM SB TWO IN THE FIRST YEAR, IS IT ACHIEVABLE? I DON'T KNOW HOW, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK BECAUSE E E E, EVEN IF YOU'RE GOING INTO A RECESSION YEAH. SB TWO DOESN'T HELP YOU. YEAH. AND, AND YOU'RE GONNA BE STUCK WITH HAVING TO FUND THAT ANNUALLY. YEAH. UM, THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS ON COLAS. SO, UM, WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A REPEATING COLA EVERY YEAR WE'RE GIVING THIS TO YOU. THERE ARE AD HOC COLAS WHERE IT'S JUST ONE YEAR. YEAH. YOU GIVE THEM A COLA. THE DISADVANTAGE OF THOSE, AND, AND I DON'T HAVE CHARTS, BUT ON A REPEATING COLA, WHAT IT TYPICALLY LOOKS LIKE, IT COSTS A LOT HERE. AS YOU FUND IT, IT GOES DOWN AND IT DOESN'T COST AS MUCH. AN AD HOC IS A COMPLETE OPPOSITE. YOU FUND IT ONE YEAR, IT'S NOT GONNA COST A LOT. BUT IF YOU START TRYING TO FUND THAT [00:50:01] MULTIPLE TIMES, IT'S GONNA BE VERY EXPENSIVE. OKAY. SO IT GOES THE OTHER WAY. I I REALLY, I THINK THE BEST THING TO DO IS, LET ME GET MORE INFORMATION ON THIS BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT I HAD FROM 2017. WE'VE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS. THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF WAYS TO LOOK AT THIS, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS TM RS IS EXPENSIVE. AND THEN TO THROW ON TOP OF THAT, AND UH, SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IS THE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE COLAS NOW AREN'T GONNA BE PARTICULARLY EXCITED THAT WE'RE GOING FORWARD WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS. CUZ AND THE REASON WHY IS IT COULD, COULD HURT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE IF YOU'RE OPENING UP THINGS FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT MADE DECISIONS YEARS AGO THAT IN FACT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM TOO, IT SAYS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. WOO, ISN'T IT? MM-HMM. . YES. YEAH. AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER HISTORICALLY WHEN WE'VE TRIED TO DO THIS BEFORE, WE HAVE NOT HAD SUPPORT OF THE STATE FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OR THE STATE LEVEL POLICE ASSOCIATIONS BECAUSE THERE WERE 13 OR 14 CITIES THAT OPTED OUT BACK IN 2008 WHEN THAT TIME PERIOD AND HUNDREDS OF CITIES THAT STAYED IN. AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT DON'T WANT THE 13 OR 14 CITIES THAT OPTED OUT TO GET BACK IN BECAUSE OF THE VERY REASON HE STATED. AND SO THE CHANCES OF THIS PASSING AREN'T VERY GREAT. MY, I SUSPECT THAT IT WON'T, BUT THE ISSUE IN MY MIND, THE ISSUE THAT I WAS WANTING TO BRING TO Y'ALL'S ATTENTION IS WHAT HAPPENS IF WE GO AND LOBBY ON BEHALF OF THIS AND THEN IT ACTUALLY PASSES. THEN Y'ALL ARE PUT IN A POSITION AS THE CITY COUNCIL IS, LET ME GET THIS RIGHT. Y'ALL LOBBIED AT THE STATE LEVEL TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT NOW Y'ALL AREN'T BECAUSE Y'ALL AREN'T GOING TO ACTUALLY PASS IT FOR, FOR US. SO IT PUTS THE COUNCIL IN A TERRIBLE POSITION DOWN THE ROAD IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN TO PASS. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT REALLY OUR, I HATE TO SAY IT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS, IT IS OUR BUSINESS, BUT IT'S, UH, I I PREFER TO SET THIS ONE OUT, SIT ON THE SIDELINES, LET THE, UH, LABOR ASSOCIATIONS ADVOCATE FOR WHAT THEY THINK THEY WANT AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER HAPPENS, HAPPENS. RIGHT. WELL, I'LL TELL YOU ON THIS ONE, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING CLOSE TO CONSENSUS ON THIS ONE I HAVING. RIGHT. MR. CITY ATTORNEY. I'M HAVING FLASHLIGHT EVEN LOCALLY. I, AND I AND I, THERE WILL NOT BE, UH, CONSENSUS ON THIS. AND I AGREE WITH IT WITH YOU ON THIS, THIS ONE, HOPEFULLY IT DOES IN THE PAST, CUZ I REMEMBER, UM, YOU KNOW, HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS ON IT. AND I AGREE WITH YOU, UH, COUNCILOR SMITH. UM, WE CAN SEE, SEE HOW THIS ONE GOES, MATT. LIKE I SAID, YOU CAN COME BACK TO US ON THIS ONE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER THE, THE, THE BATTLES FOR THE, FOR 4 57, IT WAS, IT WAS, YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T SEE FOLKS WANTING TO GIVE UP, GIVE UP THEIR, THEIR LEFT HAND, CUT OFF THEIR LEFT HAND TO SAY THEIR RIGHT HAND AND, AND, UH, SOME I I'M JUST RUNNING THROUGH MY MIND SOME OF THAT LEADERSHIP COOL PUSH AND SOME OF THAT LEADERSHIP IS STILL AROUND, PARTICULARLY ON THE STATE LEVEL NOW MM-HMM. . UH, SO YEAH, IF YOU CAN BRING SOME NUMBERS BACK AND WE'LL, WE'LL LOOK AT IT. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS THE REASON I WANTED TO BRING YOU UP. I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS FOR DIRECTION. Y'ALL WANT US TO JUST LAY LOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT? GET THE NUMBERS AND COME BACK AND RIGHT. AND HAVE IT FINAL. OKAY. YES. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. MAYOR PORTMAN, THAT'S GOOD WITH YOU. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE DO ON THIS ONE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WE ARE, AND THIS, THIS NEXT ONE, UM, MR. CHAIR IS LOCAL. GO AHEAD. YEAH, THE LOCAL BILLS, THEY, UM, THERE, THERE HAD, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN A LOT OF MOVEMENT ON THOSE YET. THEY HAVE BEEN FILED, THEY'VE BEEN ALLEGED COUNSEL. SO WE HAVE THE BILLS OUT THERE, SO THAT'S GOOD. MM-HMM. , UM, HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OBJECTIONS AT ALL. I TALKED TO TY ABOUT IT. TY HASN'T HEARD ANY OBJECTIONS. SO WE ANTICIPATE, ESPECIALLY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ZONE ONE, THEY JUST ADDED US AS A BRACKET ALONG THE SIDE OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND. MM-HMM. , UM, WHO, WHO WAS THE ONE THAT CREATED THIS WHOLE CREATURE THE LAST SESSION. UM, AND SO THAT LOOKS POSITIVE. THE ONE CATCH THERE IS THAT, IS THAT WE ADDED A PROVISION TO THE BOTTOM OF IT RELATED TO THE ABILITY TO ZONE, UM, UM, BUSINESSES THAT HAVE A T B C PERMIT. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS, THIS COUNCIL HAD HAD, UM, ONE OF THE DIRECTIONS Y'ALL GAVE ME WAS THAT Y'ALL WANTED THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COULD LIMIT THE SIZE, UM, OF THE, UM, OF A LIQUOR STORE THAT COMES IN TO SELL SPIRITS, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A MOM AND POP LIQUOR STORE POPPING UP ON EVERY CORNER IN ONE OF THESE ZONES. AND SO, UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY A DALLAS CASE OUT THERE THAT DEALS WITH THIS ISSUE AND BECAUSE, UM, [00:55:01] UM, THEIR T ABC PERMITTED, UM, THE, THE DALLAS, THE CITY OF DALLAS, UM, I'VE GOT SUED WHEN THEY TRIED TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF A LIQUOR STORE YEARS AND YEARS AGO. AND THE COURT SAID, YEAH, YOU CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE PREEMPTED BECAUSE OF THE, UM, TEXAS ALCOHOLIC AND BEVERAGE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER RETAIL STORES. AND ANYTIME YOU START LIMITING SIZE, WE DO IT FOR CONVENIENCE STORES, BUT IT'S REALLY THE ONLY, ONLY THING WE DO IT WITH. AND SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT UNLESS THIS GOT THROUGH. SO I DROPPED THE PROVISION IN THE BOTTOM OF IT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S GONNA CATCH IT. UM, THE IDEA IS THAT THEY WON'T CATCH IT AND IT'LL GET THROUGH AND THEN WE'LL BE ABLE TO LIMIT IT BY SIZE. IF NOT, THEN WE'LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. UM, AS WE START ESTABLISHING ZONES, AS THE COUNCIL STARTS ESTABLISHING ZONES, IF THEY DESIRE TO, UM, UM, WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. BUT, UM, I, I SUSPECT THAT NOBODY'S GOING TO SEE WHAT I DID THERE AND WE'LL, BUT WE'LL FIND OUT. OKAY. UM, THERE WAS ONE OTHER, AND I'VE WRITTEN IT DOWN, BUT I BROUGHT MY, MY WRONG NOTE ABOUT I WAS GONNA BRING IT TO Y'ALL'S ATTENTION THAT CAME BACK UP AGAIN. UM, BUT I'LL EMAIL IT TO YOU. IT'S ON MY DESK. IT MUST BE ON MY DESK. I'LL EMAIL Y'ALL THE ONE OTHER BILL I WANTED TO BRING TO Y'ALL'S ATTENTION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? MATT, YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? I DO NOT. I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH. OKAY. YEAH. CHEER TO SPREAD FOR ONE DAY. YES, YES, YES. RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AROUND, UH, UH, MEMORABLE. YOU HAVE ANYTHING CLOSING? NOPE. OKAY. SORRY. OKAY. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU FOR, UH, THANK YOU FOR THE WEALTH OF INFORMATION AND CHALLENGES AHEAD. GONNA BE EXCITING TIME AGAIN THIS YEAR. EVERY TWO YEARS IT'S GETTING MORE AND MORE EXCITING IN MAY. IT IS. YEAH. YEAH. BUT, BUT, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL SURVIVE AT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO, UH, I THINK THAT'S ALL IT IS. 1 27. WE ARE ON, WE ARE ON, WE'RE ON TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, WE GO ON ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 1:27 PM THANKS EVERYBODY FOR THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.