[00:00:01]
WHAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT MOSTLY IS FROM THE A RETIREE BENEFIT STANDPOINT, WE KIND OF HAVE TWO BIG LEVERS.WE HAVE OUR TMRS BENEFIT, WHICH IS OUR PENSION, AND WE HAVE RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND WE'RE GONNA DO OUR BEST TO GO OVER BOTH OF THOSE TOPICS, HOW MUCH THEY COST, WHERE WE STAND COMPARED TO THE METROPLEX, JUST TO HOPEFULLY GIVE Y'ALL Y'ALL SOME MORE, UH, DATA TO MAKE A DECISION WHEN IT COMES TO THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH TMRS. BEFORE GETTING STARTED AT, AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION, THERE ARE SOME PROJECTIONS AND SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING.
UH, I WANT YOU, YOU ALL KNOW THIS, BUT I, I ALWAYS HAVE TO SAY IT, I DO NOT HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL AND, UH, PROJECT.
THESE ARE JUST PROJECTIONS, AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THEY WILL BE WRONG, BUT I HOPE THAT THEY'RE USEFUL IN MAKING DECISIONS.
UH, SO JUST KNOW THAT EVERYTHING WE DO, WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF ASSUMPTION, BUT WE CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE.
SO, STARTING WITH TMRS, SO THE CITY PROVIDES RETIREMENT BENEFITS FOR ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES THROUGH THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WHICH IS A STATEWIDE RETIREMENT SYSTEM WITH MORE THAN 390 PARTICIPATING CITIES, AND THEY PROVIDE RETIREMENT, DISABILITY AND SURVIVAL BENEFITS TO OVER 2,100 ACTIVE MEMBERS, RETIREES AND THEIR BENEFICIARIES.
FOR THE CITY OF GARLAND, WE MAKE UP ABOUT 1,799 OF THOSE ACTIVE MEMBERS.
AND, UH, I BELIEVE WE ARE ONE OF THE LARGEST CITIES IN IT.
UH, SAN ANTONIO, I BELIEVE, IS THE BIGGEST CITY THAT IS IN TMRS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT TMRS, HOW ARE YOU ELIGIBLE FOR THIS BENEFIT? IT REALLY FLOWS INTO THESE THREE BIG CATEGORIES.
FIRST, IF YOU HIT AGE 60 AND YOU HAVE FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A-T-M-R-S RETIREE BENEFIT.
OR IF YOU WORK 20 YEARS WITH NO AGE LIMIT.
SO IF YOU HAVE 20 YEARS OF SERVICE, THERE IS NO AGE LIMIT.
AND THEN THIRD, IF YOU'RE DISABLED, THERE ARE NO SERVICE, NO SERVICE OR AGE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT TMRS, THEY OFFER KIND OF A MENU OF OPTIONS THAT A CITY CAN CHOOSE.
SO LEVERS, THERE'S CERTAIN LEVERS YOU CAN PULL TO, TO, UH, EITHER MAKE THE BENEFIT MORE LUCRATIVE FOR RETIREES OR LESS, AND VICE VERSA FOR THE CITY, UH, AS YOU PULL THE LEVERS UP AND MAKE A, THE BENEFIT, UH, A BETTER BENEFIT, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A HIGHER COST TO BOTH THE CITY AND, UM, CAN BE TO THE EMPLOYEE AS WELL.
THE FIRST LEVER IS THE MANDATORY PARTICIPATION.
SO CURRENTLY ALL EMPLOYEES AT THE CITY OF GARLAND HAVE TO PUT IN 7% OF THEIR COMPENSATION.
THE OTHER LEVERS YOU COULD PULL HERE THROUGH TMRS IS YOU COULD USE FIVE OR 6%.
THE CITY OF GARLAND IS DOING SEVEN, AND THEN FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, WE ARE A TWO TO ONE MATCH TO THAT.
SO IT'S ROUGHLY 14% COMING FROM THE CITY.
AND LATER IN THE SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT OUR CONTRIBUTION RATE IS LOWER THAN 14.
AND WHY THAT IS, IS BECAUSE IT, WE HAVE AN ACTUARIAL DETERMINED AMOUNT THAT WE NEED TO SET ASIDE TO FUND OUR, OUR, OUR TMRS UNFUNDED LIABILITIES, AND THERE'S INTEREST EARNINGS THAT COME IN.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF, OF THE EQUATION THAT GOES INTO PLAY, BUT THE, THE GIST OF IT IS, IS THAT WE ARE THERE TO PROVIDE A TWO TO ONE MATCH.
WE ALSO HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DEATH BENEFIT THAT WE HAVE TURNED ON WITH OUR TRS BENEFIT, WHICH WILL GIVE A RETIREE A LUMP SUM OF 7,500 IF THEY PASS AWAY.
AND IF THEY ARE STILL WORKING, THEY WILL GET THEIR ANNUAL COMPENSATION IF THEY PASS AWAY.
AND THE FINAL PIECE IS THE UPDATED SERVICE CREDIT, WHICH WE HAVE AT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND WHAT THIS IS, IS A CREDIT THAT A EMPLOYEE WILL RECEIVE EACH YEAR IF THEY HAVE ADJUSTMENTS TO THEIR SALARY.
SO THE EASIEST WAY TO THINK OF THIS IS IF YOU STARTED AT THE CITY OF GARLAND MAKING ROUGHLY $35,000 A YEAR, AND THEN YOU'VE MOVED ON THROUGH AND YOU RETIRE AS A MANAGER, YOU WOULD WOULD HAVE A HIGHER SALARY.
THESE CREDITS ARE EARNED EACH YEAR, WHICH WILL INCREASE YOUR ANNUITY.
SO THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BENEFIT, AND ONE THAT WE HAVE AT A HUNDRED PERCENT.
AND THE FINAL PIECE IS THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, WHICH WE, WE WILL BE SPENDING THE BULK OF OUR DISCUSSION ON.
UH, IF ELECTED AN INCREASE TO CITY'S MONTHLY RETIREMENT BASED ON INFLATION, OR CPI, WHICH IS THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, TMRS PROVIDES THE OPTION OF A 30 50 OR 70% COLA, UH, CITY OF GARLAND ELECTED TO REMOVE THE COLA BENEFIT IN 2009.
AND PRIOR TO THIS DATE, THE CITY PROVIDED THE HIGHEST OPTION OF 70%.
[00:05:02]
HERE'S A LOOK AT THE CALCULATION FOR JANUARY, 2025.SO WHAT TMRS WILL DO IS LOOK AT INFLATION FROM 2023.
A 30% COLA WILL GIVE YOU A 1% INCREASE OR COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.
A 50% WILL GIVE YOU ABOUT A 1.7% COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, AND A 70% WILL GIVE YOU ROUGHLY 2.4%.
AND, AND THE NOTES I WANNA MAKE SURE TO, TO BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA GET INTO SOME ASSUMPTIONS OVER LONG TERM IMPACTS FOR RETIREES.
SO WHAT WE WILL BE USING IN OUR, SOME OF OUR, UH, SCENARIOS THAT WE'LL GET INTO LATER IS 0.75% FOR A 30% COLA.
NEXT, I WANTED TO GET INTO SOME OF THE BACKGROUND OR KIND OF THE TIMELINE OF THE HISTORY OF GARLAND WITH A COLA.
SO PRIOR TO 1999, THE CITY OF GARLAND WAS PROVIDING 70% COLAS EACH YEAR BASED ON THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CITY.
SO IT WASN'T EVERY YEAR OR WHAT, WHAT TMRS CALLS A REPEATING COLA.
WE PROVIDED A, IN 19 81, 19 86, 19 88 THROUGH 1992, AND THEN AGAIN IN 1995 THROUGH 1998, MOVING ON TO 1999, THE CITY TURNED ON WHAT'S CALLED A REPEATING COLA AT 70%, WHICH MEANS EVERY YEAR, THE, THE, THE, THE RETIREES WILL RECEIVE A 70% OF CPI COLA.
BY 2004, THE CITY OF GARLAND, AND WE WEREN'T ALONE IN THIS MANY CITIES, UH, AND TMRS THEMSELVES WERE STARTING TO QUESTION THEIR FUNDING MECHANISMS AND THEIR FUNDING STRUCTURE WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR ACTUARIAL METHODOLOGY.
WE ACTUALLY HIRED A ACTUARY IN THIS YEAR, AND THEY ALSO FOUND THAT THERE WAS SOME STRUCTURAL FLAWS WITH HOW TMRS WAS SETTING ASIDE OR THE CONTRIBUTIONS COMING FROM CITI TO SET ASIDE TO COVER THIS BENEFIT.
MOVING ON TO 2008, TWO THINGS HAPPEN HERE.
ONE, THE GREAT RECESSION HITS PROPERTY VALUES AT THE CITY OF GARLAND BEGIN TO GO DOWN, AND THIS WAS A HUGE IMPACT ON OUR BUDGETS MOVING FORWARD AFTER THIS DATE.
THE SECOND PIECE IS TMRS BOARD APPROVED A SYSTEM ACTUARIAL FUNDING METHOD THAT ADDED THE COST OF THAT UPDATED SERVICE CREDIT AND COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT INTO THE CITY CONTRIBUTION RATES.
PREVIOUSLY, THEY WERE NOT TO HAVING CITY SET ASIDE THE RIGHT AMOUNT TO FULLY FUND THE LONG-TERM LIABILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE TWO PIECES.
MOVING ON TO 2009, BECAUSE OF THAT CHANGE WITH TMRS, OUR RATE, OUR CONTRIBUTION RATE THAT WAS GOING TO BE PAID BY THE CITY, WENT UP DRASTICALLY.
IT WENT UP, WAS GOING TO COST THE CITY AS A WHOLE $11.7 MILLION A YEAR TO FUND A 70% COLA BASED OFF OF THIS NEW METHODOLOGY.
AND THE TAX SUPPORT AT GENERAL FUND, IT WOULD'VE BEEN ABOUT $7.2 MILLION.
I MENTIONED THE GREAT RECESSION HITTING IN 2008 WITHOUT EVEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION FINDING THE MONEY FOR THAT 7.2 MILLION FOR THE GENERAL FUND, THE CITY HAD A $5 MILLION DEFICIT TO THE BUDGET.
WE HAD TO ELIMINATE ROUGHLY 42 POSITIONS.
WE HAD TO ELIMINATE THE STAR SPAN FOURTH, UH, EVENT, AND WE HAD TO CLOSE THE RIDGEWOOD LIBRARY AMONG OTHER SERVICE LEVELS.
IN 2011, UH, SENATE BILL THREE 50 WAS SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR, BY GOVERNOR PERRY, WHICH CREATED A MUCH MORE FUN, EFFICIENT FUNDING STRUCTURE AT TMRS, AND IT ALSO PROTECTED, UH, THE CITIES FROM THE DOWNSIDE RISK OF LEVERAGED ADVERSE INVESTMENT IN RETURNS AND ENHANCED CONTRIBUTION RATES STABILIZATION IN, IN SHORT TERM.
WHAT THIS DID WAS LOWER OUR RATE FROM ROUGHLY 17.4 DOWN TO 12.1, WHICH WAS A HUGE SAVINGS.
BUT REMEMBER, DURING THIS TIME, WE WERE STILL IN THE THROES OF THE RECESSION.
SO THOSE SAVINGS THAT CAME FROM TMRS WERE UTILIZED TO DO SEVERAL THINGS.
ONE, PREVENT FURTHER FURLOUGHS, FURTHER SERVICE LEVEL REDUCTION, FURTHER, UH, ELIMINATION OF POSITIONS.
ACTUALLY, IN 2010, WE HAD TO ACTUALLY INSTITUTE A SALARY REDUCTION FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
AND IN 2011, THE CITY MANAGER'S GOAL AT THE TIME WAS TO REINSTATE THOSE AND TO TRY TO MAINTAIN CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS.
[00:10:01]
ACTUALLY ENDORSED HOUSE BILL SEVEN 18, WHICH WAS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT HAPPENED IN 2023, WHICH LOOKED TO ELIMINATE WHAT THEY CALL THE CATCHUP PROVISION.SO IF WE WERE TO TURN, YOU KNOW, WE TURNED OFF OUR COLA IN 2009, IF WE WERE TO REINSTATE THE COLA WITH THIS CATCHUP PROVISION, YOU WOULD HAVE TO CATCH UP ALL RETIREES BACK TO THAT DATE OF THEIR RETIREMENT, WHICH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL COST, WHICH WE WILL TALK ABOUT LATER ON, HOW MUCH THAT IS.
UH, THIS ULTIMATELY FAILED, AND IT FAILED MOSTLY BECAUSE WE, THE, THE, THE, THE HOUSE BILL WAS LOOKING TO ALLOW CITIES TO BASICALLY CHOOSE THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE THAT THEY WANTED TO DO.
SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THE 30, 50, 70% OPTIONS, LOOKING AT WHAT IS MY FINANCIAL SITUATION AND WHAT PERCENTAGE CAN I AFFORD? AND THAT ULTIMATELY FELL DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT, THERE WAS A FEAR THAT CITIES WOULD JUST START UP, YOU KNOW, INCREASING AND LOWERING.
AND, YOU KNOW, RIGHT OR WRONG, I TEND TO THINK THAT THERE IS A VALID POINT THERE.
2015, OUR TAX BASE FINALLY REACHES THE SAME LEVEL.
IT WAS PRE-RECESSION, SO IT TOOK US SEVEN YEARS TO GET TO THE EXACT SAME TAX BASE WE HAD IN 2008.
SO BY THAT TIME, WHAT, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY THERE IS WE HAD MAJOR COST REDUCTIONS, AND WE WERE ONLY GETTING BACK TO WHERE WE WERE IN 2008 AT THIS TIME.
AND SO THE CHANGE THAT OCCURS HERE IS HOW DO WE START BUILDING OUR SERVICES AND REINSTATING ALL THE CUTS WE HAVE ON TOP OF THAT, STREETS BECAME A HUGE TOPIC.
WE HAD VASTLY UNDERFUNDED OUR STREETS, AND WE WERE LOOKING DESPERATELY TO FIND A WAY TO PUMP MORE MONEY INTO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.
MOVING ON TO 2018, WE START SEEING SOME STEADY GROWTH IN TAX BASE AND OUR OTHER REVENUE SOURCES.
AND AT THIS TIME, UH, CITY MANAGEMENT WENT TO COUNCIL WITH REALLY TWO THINGS.
ONE WAS TO, UH, TRY TO SUSTAIN OUR RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.
SO MUCH LIKE WITH, UH, TMRS AND COLA, THERE IS AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDICAL INSURANCE THAT WE PROVIDE TO OUR RETIREES.
SO WHAT WE DID IS, EARLIER IN 2000 AND ROUGHLY 2008, WE ESTABLISHED AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST TO START PRE-FUNDING OUR MEDICAL RETIREE IN INSURANCE.
UM, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT AS WE NEEDED TO AT THAT TIME, BUT IN 2018, WE DEVISED A PLAN TO TRY TO GET TO A POINT OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS TO FULLY FUND THAT LIABILITY AND TO ALSO AT THAT POINT START UTILIZING THOSE FUNDS TO OFFSET RETIREE PREMIUMS. THE SECOND PIECE WAS, UM, THERE WAS A PROPOSAL BROUGHT FORWARD TO, TO CREATE WHAT IS CALLED THE RETIREMENT STABILITY BENEFIT FOR CIVIL SERVICE.
CIVIL SERVICE AT THE CITY OF GARLAND.
DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN SOCIAL SECURITY.
WHAT THIS BENEFIT WAS DESIGNED TO DO WAS TO STAIR STEP OVER TIME TO GET TO A TOTAL CONTRIBUTION OF 7% WITH PORTION COMING FROM THE EMPLOYEE AND A PORTION COMING FROM THE CITY TO BASICALLY IT BE THE EQUIVALENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
SO THAT WAS STARTED IN 2018 AS WELL.
AND THEN MOVING FORWARD TO 2023, HOUSE BILL 2, 4 6 4 WAS SIGNED INTO LAW.
AND WHAT THIS DID WAS GIVE CITIES A THREE YEAR WINDOW TO REINSTATE COLAS OR TO CHANGE YOUR COLA WITHOUT DOING THE NO CATCH UP PROVISION.
SO BACK TO THE 2009, WHEN WE CUT IT OFF IN TYPICAL FASHION, BEFORE THIS BILL WAS PASSED, IF WE WERE TO TURN IT ON, WE WOULD HAVE TO CATCH UP ALL THOSE RETIREES BACK IN TIME TO GIVE THEM THE PROPER COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.
REMOVAL OF THIS CATCH UP PROVISION ALLOWS CITIES TO TURN IT ON WITHOUT THAT LOOK BACK.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT YES, THERE IS A, A SUBSTANTIAL COST SAVINGS TO THAT, BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FORWARD AND THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE COST FORWARD, YOU'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT THE RETIREES ON THE BOOK, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ALL 2,800 ACTIVE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE HERE AT THE CITY OF GARLAND.
AND SO THE COST IS STILL SUBSTANTIAL.
WHAT YOU WILL SEE, SO THIS SLIDE'S A LITTLE BUSY, AND I'M GONNA DO MY BEST TO WALK Y'ALL THROUGH IT.
WHEN YOU SEE THE WORD UAAL, WHAT THAT STANDS FOR IS UNFUNDED ACTUARY ACCRUED LIABILITY.
IN LAYMAN'S TERM, THIS BASICALLY MEANS
[00:15:01]
HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE YOU SET ASIDE FOR YOUR UNFUNDED LIABILITY VERSUS WHAT IS YOUR LUMP UNFUNDED LIABILITY AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.SO WHAT IS NOT FUNDED OF THIS ACCRUED LIABILITY THAT WE HAVE ON OUR BOOKS? AND I HAVE THE COMPARISON TO, UH, THESE METROPLEX CITIES AND ALL THESE METROPLEX CITIES.
YOU'LL SEE THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS PRESENTATION, THESE ARE KIND OF THE 10 CITIES WE TYPICALLY COMPARE TO.
I HAVE REMOVED DALLAS AND FORT WORTH, UH, MAINLY BECAUSE WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PENSIONS, UH, IT IT, IT WOULD DEFINITELY SKEW THE NUMBERS HERE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING MOSTLY AT ENTERING CITIES AND CITIES OF TY, UH, OF SIMILAR SIZE TO GARLAND.
IN RED, YOU SEE ARLINGTON IRVING AND GRAND PRAIRIE, AND YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE THAT THEIR UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITIES ARE RE RELATIVELY LOW.
AND THE REASON THAT THAT THEY ARE IS ALL THREE OF THESE CITIES HAVE ISSUED PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS TO OFFSET THEIR UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY FOR THE MOST PARTY PART.
WHAT THESE CITIES DID IS SENATE BILL TWO WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2009.
THEY KNEW THEY WERE CAPPED, BUT THEY HAD THIS COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT OF 50% AT ARLINGTON, 30% IN IRVING, IN 70 IN GRAND PRAIRIE THAT THEY NEED TO CONTINUE TO FUND AT THIS TIME.
YOU KNOW, INTEREST RATES WERE ROUGHLY 2.5% LOW INTEREST RATES.
SO WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS BASICALLY MOVE THIS UNFUNDED LIABILITY OVER TO THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE OF THE COIN.
IT'S NOT CAPPED, THEREFORE YOU'RE GOING TO ANTICIPATE LARGER REVENUE.
AND SECOND, IT'S JUST MOVING A LINE ON THE BALANCE SHEET.
SO I HAD AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ARLINGTON, THEY ISSUED $192 MILLION OF PENSION BONDS.
THEY MOVED 192 MILLION FROM AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY TO OUTSTANDING DEBT SERVICE.
UM, YOU, OH, MOVING TO THE RIGHT, YOU SEE ALSO ONE WAY WE WE LOOK TO TRY TO MAKE 'EM APPLES TO APPLE IS LOOK AT THEIR UNFUNDED ACTUARY ACCRUED LIABILITY, AND WHAT IS THAT AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE PAYROLL? AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE THREE CITIES IN RED.
IT'S LOW BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE THE PENSION BOND ROUTE.
THEY'VE TAKEN IT OFF THE TABLE FROM THE OPERATIONAL SIDE OF THE COIN, BUT THE AVERAGE IS ABOUT 15.15 FOR THE FULL RATE, BUT I'M SORRY, 43% FOR THE UAL AS A PERCENTAGE OF PAYROLL.
AND WITH THE CITY OF GARLAND, IT'S ABOUT 16.4.
AS FAR AS A RULE OF THUMB OR WHERE YOU WANNA BE THERE, THERE'S REALLY NOT A RULE OF THUMB, BUT JUST KNOW THE HIGHER THAT AMOUNT IS, THE MORE, THE MORE LIABILITY YOU HAVE TO COVER IN THE FUTURE.
SO LOOKING AT, SAY, PLANO AT 61 OR MESQUITE AT 77.8, THAT IS A LOT OF FUTURE FUNDS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH AS A PERCENTAGE OF PAYROLL AS IF YOU LOOK AT THE FULL RATE.
SO FULL RATE IS THE CONTRIBUTION RATE THAT THE CITY IS PROVIDING BASED OFF PAYROLL.
SO WE LOOK AT OUR TOTAL PAYROLL TIMES THAT RATE, THAT'S HOW MUCH WE ARE GIVING TO TMRS. GARLAND RIGHT NOW IS AT 11.20 AND THE AVERAGE IS ABOUT 15.15.
AS FAR AS NUMBER OF RETIREES YOU CAN SEE WE'RE ABOVE THE AVERAGE.
WE HAVE 1,799 RETIREES SECOND ONLY TO ARLINGTON ON THE TMRS PLAN.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT COLA'S ON AVERAGE IT'S A 50% COLA, TECHNICALLY IT'S A 58 I, I KNOW I ROUNDED DOWN, BUT I WENT TO THE CLOSEST OPTION THAT IS AVAILABLE.
AS FAR AS USCS, MOST CITIES ARE DOING THE A HUNDRED PERCENT USC AND ON, UH, THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEATH, IT'S REALLY A 50 50 IF THEY'RE PROVIDING THAT SUPPLEMENTAL DEATH BENEFIT OR NOT.
AND BACK TO THE USC, YOU'LL NOTICE CARROLLTON RICHARDSON IN LOUISVILLE DO NOT HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT USC.
UH, ONE TACTIC THAT YOU COULD DO IS, UH, BACK TO THE PULLING OF LEVERS, IS REDUCE YOUR UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS TO PROVIDE A COLA 'CAUSE IF YOU REDUCE THE UPDATED SERVICE CREDIT, IT WILL PROVIDE SAVINGS TO THE CITY AND THEN PROVIDE A COLA ON TOP OF THAT TO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, TO GIVE THAT COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.
AND BACK TO WHAT I KEEP SAYING OF ROBIN PETER TO PAY PAUL, THAT IMPACTS PEOPLE IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY.
UH, WE HAVE KIND OF TAKEN OFF THE TABLE RIGHT NOW OF LOOKING AT LOWERING OUR UPDATED SERVICE CREDIT AND ARE REALLY JUST LOOKING FOR METHODS ON, ON IF WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE A COLA ON TOP OF OUR A HUNDRED PERCENT USC.
SO THIS IS THE FRESH INFORMATION WE'VE
[00:20:01]
RECEIVED FROM TMRS ON WHAT IT WILL COST THE CITY TO REINSTATE A COLA UNDER THESE SIX OPTIONS.SO WE HAVE A 30% COLA, 50% COLA, AND A 70% COLA PROVIDING BOTH A NO CATCHUP, WHICH WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO FOR THIS THREE YEAR WINDOW.
SO BY DECEMBER, 2025 IS WHEN THIS WILL SHUT OFF THE CATCH UP PROVISION, WHICH WOULD CATCH UP ALL RETIREES TO THE 2009 LEVELS AND TO PROPERLY PROVIDE THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED.
LOOKING AT THE 30% NO CATCH UP, I'VE PROVIDED REALLY TWO FUNDING OPTIONS.
UM, ONE IS WE PUT IT ON THE OPERATIONAL BUDGET, WHICH IS KIND OF THE TRADITIONAL METHOD OF HOW YOU WANNA FUND THIS AS IT IS A A, A COST THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH RUNNING YOUR OPERATIONS.
AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS GOING THIS PENSION BOND ROUTE.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT A 30% NO COLA, A 30% NO COLA WOULD COST THE CITY ABOUT $7.6 MILLION ANNUALLY IN OPERATIONS.
THE GENERAL FUND, THAT'S ABOUT $4.7 MILLION ANNUALLY.
I'VE ALSO PRO PROVIDED A TAX RATE EQUIVALENT, AND THAT WAS TO JUST TO SHOW WHAT THAT WOULD COST ON THE TAX RATE OF ABOUT 1.80 CENTS PER $100 OF VALUATION.
THE SECOND FUNDING OPTION IS THE PENSION BONDS FOR A 30% COLA NO CATCH UP, THAT'S ROUGHLY $75 MILLION OR $6.5 MILLION A YEAR IN ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE.
ASSUMING A 20 YEAR AMORTIZATION PERIOD TO PUT THE COLA BACK IN PLACE WHERE IT WAS IN 2009, THE 70% COLA CATCH UP OPTION WOULD COST THE CITY $29 MILLION A YEAR, OR THE GENERAL FUND $18 MILLION A YEAR.
TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE, $18 MILLION A YEAR IS ROUGHLY THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE CULTURAL ARTS DEPARTMENT IN THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT COMBINED.
AND ON THE PENSION BOND SIDE, WE MENTIONED THE 315 MILLION THAT WOULD BASICALLY TAKE THE FULL CAPACITY TO REINSTATE THE 70% COLA.
WHAT DOES THIS DO FOR THEIR RETIREES? THIS INFORMATION IS FROM TMRS. SO WE HAVE 1,799 RETIREES RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS JUST THE AVERAGE ANNUITY.
SO ALL THE RETIREES THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY RECEIVING A-T-M-R-S BENEFIT, THE AVERAGE ANNUITY IS $2,747.
SO WHAT IF WE TURN ON A REPEATING COLA WITHOUT THAT CATCHUP PROVISION? SO THIS IS THE OPTION OF SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR ON THE OPERATING SIDE, OR A $75 MILLION PENSION IN 2025.
BASED ON THAT, ROUGHLY THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CPI EACH MONTH THEY WERE, UH, 30% COLA ON AVERAGE, A RETIREE WILL WILL RECEIVE $28 A MONTH.
OF COURSE THAT WILL COMPOUND OVER TIME, WHICH IS WHAT 2030 THROUGH 2045 IS SHOWING.
'CAUSE REMEMBER, IT'S A REPEATING COLA EVERY YEAR YOU WILL GET IT.
SO BY 2045, YOU'LL RECEIVE ROUGHLY $470 MORE THAN WHAT YOU WOULD'VE RECEIVED WITHOUT THE COLA.
HERE'S A LOOK AT IT WITH THE KETCHUP.
SO AGAIN, REMEMBER, IF 30% NO KETCHUP WAS $28 WITH A 30% REPEATING COLA WITH THE KETCHUP, IT'D BE ABOUT $127 INCREASE MONTHLY TO THEIR, UH, RETIREE ANNUITY PER MONTH.
SO KIND OF SHIFTING GEARS TO RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE, I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE IN 2018 STARTED REALLY WORKING TO TRY TO PRE-FUND OUR UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
SO WHAT WE OFFER AS FAR AS RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE IS A PRE 65, UH, OPTION, WHICH BASICALLY COVERS ALL RETIREES UNDER THE AGE OF 65 AND THEIR DEPENDENTS.
THERE'S A BLENDED OPTION, SAY IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE 65 OR YOUR SPOUSE IS OVER 65 BUT YOU'RE NOT, OR VICE VERSA, THAT BLENDED OPTION WILL COME INTO PLAY.
AND THEN ONCE YOU HIT 65, UH, YOU WILL GO ON MEDICARE AND WE PURDUE PROVIDE A SUPPLEMENT PLAN FOR THAT MEDICARE FOR WHO THOSE THAT ARE MEDICAL ELIGIBLE AS FAR AS ELIGIBILITY TAR RETIRE HEALTH INSURANCE, UH, WE, WE BASICALLY FOLLOW TMRS RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY.
SO BACK TO NEED TO BE AGE 60 OR FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE.
AND THEN THE ONE CHANGE WE MADE SEVERAL YEARS AGO IS THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE 10 CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF SERVICE TO RETIREMENT IF HIRED JANUARY, 2020.
SO, UH, PEOPLE BEFORE THAT ARE GRANDFATHERED IN AND JUST FOLLOWED THE FIVE YEARS.
[00:25:01]
AFTER 2020, YOU NEED TO HAVE 10 YEARS OF CONSECUTIVE SERVICE.AND ONE BIG PROVISION IS YOU HAVE TO OPT IN AT RETIREMENT ONLY.
THERE CAN'T BE ANY LAPSE IN PARTICIPATION ONCE YOU'RE ELIGIBLE.
AND THE FINAL PIECE IS PRE 65 RETIREES HAD THE BENEFIT OF ENJOYING OUR CITY CARE CLINIC JUST LIKE ALL OF OUR ACTIVE EMPLOYEES.
SO THIS SLIDE, THIS SLIDE I DEBATED ON PUTTING IN, BUT WHAT IT, WHAT IT'S TRYING TO DO IS SHOW THOSE SAME METROPLEX CITIES IN GARLAND IF YOU TAKE THEIR PENSION LIABILITIES AND WHAT'S CALLED OEP LIABILITY, WHICH STANDS FOR OTHER POST EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, BUT REALLY JUST MEANS MEDICAL INSURANCE AND THE TOTAL, WHAT IS THE LONG-TERM LIABILITY PER CAPITA AND THE METROPLEX VERSUS GARLAND FOR THOSE TWO RETIREE BENEFITS.
AND YOU CAN SEE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT ON TMRS RIGHT NOW, WE ARE AT ABOUT $368.72 PER CAPITA ON LIABILITY TO FUND THAT.
AND THE METROPLEX AVERAGES AT ROUGHLY 505.29 ON THAT METROPLEX AVERAGE.
WHAT I'VE DONE IS TAKEN NOT JUST THEIR UNFUNDED LIABILITY, BUT THE CITIES THAT HAVE ISSUED PENSION BONDS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE TECHNICALLY FOR THIS BENEFIT AND ADDED THOSE BACK IN THE OP LIABILITY.
YOU CAN SEE THE CITY OF GARLAND IS WELL OVER THE METROPLEX AVERAGE.
AND THE GIST OF THIS SLIDE IS, IS TO SAY THAT WHAT MOST CITIES HAVE DONE IS THE OPPOSITE OF GARLAND.
THEY HAVE LOOKED TO SUSTAIN COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS FOR RETIREES AND HAD TO REDUCE THIS MEDICAL BENEFIT BECAUSE OF THE COST IS GONNA CONTINUE TO GO UP.
I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT ABOUT 6.8% A YEAR, THAT IS WHERE THEY HAVE LOOKED TO CUT THE COST.
SO LET'S LOOK AT PRE 65 RETIREE HEALTH MONTHLY PREMIUMS FOR THE CITY OF GARLAND COMPARED TO THAT METROPLEX AVERAGE OF THOSE CITIES LISTED TO THE, TO THE SIDE THERE, GARLAND PROVIDES A PRE 65 RETIREE ONLY PREMIUM.
THIS IS HOW MUCH THE RETIREE WILL PAY IN PREMIUMS, $287 A MONTH.
SO THAT'S WHAT A RETIREE WILL PAY AS OF THIS YEAR.
THE METROPLEX AVERAGE FOR RETIREE ONLY IS $875 A MONTH.
DID YOU SEE THE PRE 65 WE'RE AT 632 FOR RETIREE PLUS SPOUSE, AND THE METROPLEX AVERAGE IS 1000 486 86 AND THE CITY OF GARLAND, HOW WE FUND THE CITY SIZE.
SO THIS IS HOW MUCH THE RETIREE'S PAYING THE CITY CONTRIBUTES $532 PER MONTH PER RETIREE FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.
HERE'S A LOOK AT THE POST 65 RETIREE PLAN GARLAND.
IT'S A 2 87 AGAIN FOR EMPLOYEE ONLY FOR THAT SUPPLEMENTAL MEDICARE PLAN.
THE, UH, METROPLEX AVERAGE IS 6 0 1 IF YOU RETIREE PLUS SPOUSE FOR THIS MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT.
WE'RE AT 500 AND THE METROPLEX AVERAGE IS AT NINE 40.
AND AGAIN, WE CONTRIBUTE FROM THE CITY SIDE $532 PER MONTH FOR RETIREES.
NO MATTER WHAT PLAN YOU'RE ON, THAT TOTALS ABOUT $5.4 MILLION A YEAR.
SO MOVING ON, WE'RE GONNA GET INTO SOME HYPOTHETICAL EMPLOYEES AND, AND WHAT I WANTED TO DO HERE IS SHOW ONE, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE, THE TMRS BENEFIT OF AN ANNUITY OF THE CITY OF GARLAND COMPARED TO THE METROPLEX, BUT THEN ALSO LOOK AT, IF YOU TAKE THE HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS OF THE METROPLEX AND THE CITY, WHAT IS THAT NET BENEFIT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PREMIUMS? SO THIS HYPOTHETICAL EMPLOYEE IS DAN.
SO HE'S HIS, HE'S GOING TO RETIRE AT AGE 55.
HE WORKED HERE 30 YEARS AND HIS ENDING SALARY IS ROUGHLY 83,800, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE AVERAGE OF THE CITY OF GARLAND, NOT BASICALLY IS THE AVERAGE OF CITY OF GARLAND.
SO HIS RETIREMENT SPAN IS GONNA BE 31 YEARS.
HIS ANNUAL HEALTH PREMIUMS ARE GONNA GO UP AT THAT 6.8%.
HIS BENEFIT HERE, HE'S RETIREE ONLY, HE HAS NO SPOUSE.
ANNUAL CPI ON THE TMRS SIDE IS 2.5%, WHICH IS WHAT THEIR ACTUARIES USE.
AND BASED OFF OF THAT INFORMATION, HIS WHAT'S CALLED A REPLACEMENT RATIO, WHICH JUST MEANS MY ANNUAL SALARY AT THE END OF WHEN I RETIRE WAS 83 800.
MY, UH, ANNUITY IS GONNA REPLACE 64% OF THAT METROPLEX AVERAGE.
AND THEN NOW WE CAN GET INTO THE NUMBERS
[00:30:01]
FOR DAN IN THE, I GUESS IS THAT ORANGE OR TAN? SO WE FIRST, OH, FIRST IN THE BLUE.THIS INDIVIDUAL FROM GARLAND WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN TODAY'S DOLLARS, HIS BENEFIT UNTIL HE DIES IS ROUGHLY $1.1 MILLION.
IF HE WAS ON THAT METROPLEX AVERAGE 50% COLA, HE WOULD'VE RECEIVED ROUGHLY 209 OR $210,000 MORE OVER HIS LIFE.
AND THAT IS IN TODAY'S DOLLARS.
ONE THING TO POINT OUT, I'M GONNA JUST POINT OUT NOW IN THE NOTES, THERE ARE 1,799 GARLAND RETIREES RECEIVING THE, UH, TMRS BENEFIT.
WE HAVE 831 ON THE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
SO I WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT AND WHY I'VE BROKEN IT OUT THIS WAY IS THERE'S OVER HALF OF THE RETIREES WHO ARE NOT ON OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
SO WHAT THEY ARE RECEIVING FROM THE CITY OF GARLAND KIND OF STOPS IN THIS ORANGE.
AND THERE COULD BE A MULTITUDE OF REASONS WHY THEY'RE NOT ON OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
IT COULD BE THAT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT JOB WHEN THEY RETIRE AND THEY'RE ON THAT HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
THEY COULD BE ON THEIR SPOUSE'S PLAN, MILLIONS OF DIFFERENT REASONS OF WHY THEY'RE NOT ON THE PLAN.
BUT NOW IN THE GREEN YOU START COMPARING, OKAY, DAN HAS DECIDED TO TAKE HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION EITHER FROM THE METROPLEX OR FROM THE CITY OF GARLAND, WHAT IS HIS NET ANNUITY? AND YOU CAN SEE WITH THE 0%, HE'S STILL BETTER OFF RECEIVING A COLA.
AND YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE 30% GARLAND COLA OPTION.
HE, HE, HE'S BACK IN A BETTER BENEFIT THAN THE METROPLEX WITH A 30% NO RETRO COLA.
SO SHE IS THE SAME AGE AS DAN AT 55, ALSO WORKED 30 YEARS, SAME SALARY AND RETIREMENT SPAN IS THE SAME AT 31.
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE HERE IS SHE WANTS TO BE RETIREE PLUS SPOUSE.
SHE WANTS TO MAKE SURE HER HUSBAND ALSO HAS HEALTH INSURANCE.
THE TMRS OPTIONS DO NOT CHANGE FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME SALARY.
BUT YOU CAN SEE NOW BECAUSE OUR SPOUSE PLAN IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE METROPLEX AVERAGE, THE TOTAL PACKAGE OF THESE TWO RETIREMENT PLANS TOGETHER WITH A 0% COLA WOULD BENEFIT THIS, THIS INDIVIDUAL.
BUT AGAIN, I HAVE IN THE NOTES ON ALL THESE, REMEMBER OUR MEDICAL INSURANCE PLAN ONLY HAS 831 RETIREES AND, AND UH, WE HAVE 1,799 ON T-T-M-R-S.
SO JOHN IS GOING TO RETIRE NOT AT 55, BUT HE'S GOING TO RETIRE AT AGE 61.
SO HE'S GONNA SPEND LESS TIME ON OUR PRE 65 MEDICAL INSURANCE PLAN.
HIS TENURE IS 20 YEARS AND ENDING SALARY IS THE SAME.
I'VE USED THE SAME SALARY IN ALL FOUR SCENARIOS AND I WILL SAY THAT IT'S THE ONE THING THAT CAN SKEW ALL THIS DATA.
BUT WHAT, WHEN EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT, SO I HAVE TO GO WITH JUST THE AVERAGE SALARY AT THIS POINT.
SO YEAH, AND HE'S RETIREE ONLY ON HIS HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT JOHN'S ANNUITY LOOKS LIKE.
SO WITH A 0% COLA, HE'S RECEIVING ROUGHLY A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS THAN THE METROPLEX.
BUT THEN WHEN YOU THROW IN THE RETIREE BENEFIT OF THE MEDICAL INSURANCE, HE IS BASICALLY ON PAR WITH THE, WITH THE METROPLEX.
AND YOU PUT IN THAT 30% COLA YOU CAN SEE THAT TECHNICALLY IT IS A, HYPOTHETICALLY IT WOULD BE A BETTER BENEFIT IN THAT 50% AND EVEN STRONGER BENEFIT.
SO HE IS THE SAME SITUATION AS THE PREVIOUS, BUT HE WANTS TO ADD THE SPOUSE PLAN AS WELL.
SO HE'S RETIRING WHEN HE IS 61, HAS 20 YEARS OF SERVICE, BUT HE'S GOING, THE ONLY THING CHANGING HERE IS HE'S RETIRED PLUS SPOUSE.
SO AGAIN, TMRS OPTION ALONE, UH, OBVIOUSLY MUCH BETTER OFF WITH THE METROPLEX WHEN IT COMES TO ANNUITIES.
BUT IF HE DECIDES TO TAKE OUR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN, IT IS A BETTER BENEFIT FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL.
SO WHEN IT COMES TO FUNDING OPTIONS, THERE'S REALLY A MILLION WAYS TO SKIN THIS CAT.
SO, BUT WE'VE TRIED TO BOIL IT DOWN INTO FOUR MAIN OPTIONS.
ONE IS A PENSION OBLIGATION BOND, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 75 MILLION FOR THE NO CATCH UP, 30% FUND THROUGH OPERATIONAL CUTS OR A TAX RATE
[00:35:01]
INCREASE.AT, AT THIS MOMENT YOU SAW ALLISON'S SLIDE FITTING THIS IN ON THE OPERATIONAL SIDE IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT REDUCING SERVICES OR INCREASING THE TAX RATE.
OTHER OPTIONS IS NO COLA AND WE TRY TO BOOST OUR RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDING, BUT REMEMBER ONLY ABOUT HALF OF OUR RETIREES ARE ON MEDICAL INSURANCE.
AND THE FINAL OPTION IS STATUS QUO ON ALL RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
WE CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO PRE-FUND OUR RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE AND WE LEAVE THE COAL AT ZERO NEXT STEPS.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
WE, WE'VE SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR FROM ALL OF OUR RETIREES, ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES, ON TUESDAY, JULY 16TH.
SO THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON THAT DATE TO GET INPUT FROM NOT JUST OUR RETIREES, BUT OUR EMPLOYEES AND ANYONE ELSE, CITIZENS, ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC.
WE PROVIDED A PROPOSED DECISION TIMELINE.
SO WE WOULD LIKE TO DELIBERATE ON THIS AGAIN ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 17TH AT THE BUDGET SPECIAL WORK SESSION.
AND THEN AGAIN IF NEEDED ON TUESDAY AUG AUGUST 27TH AT THAT SPECIAL WORK SESSION.
ONE THING TO TAKE INTO NOTE IS IF WE ISSUE PENSION BONDS, WE WILL, UH, NEED TO GET TMRS BOARD APPROVAL AS WELL.
UM, JUST AS A A NOTE OF CAUTION ON THE PENSION BOND BOND ROUTE, WHAT WE ARE DOING AND PROPOSING FOR PENSION BONDS HAS NOT BEEN DONE.
BUT I DO NOT THINK IT WILL BE AN ISSUE WITH ONE THE, THE TMRS BOARD OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO ISSUE THE BONDS.
AND, AND WHY I'M SAYING THIS IS MOST CITIES WHAT THEY DO IS THEY FUND THROUGH A PENSION BOND, A CURRENT UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL CR LIABILITY.
WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS ADD A BENEFIT AND THEN FUND IT THROUGH PENSION BONDS.
SO WE HAVE A LITTLE KINK IN HOW WE'RE PROPOSING THAT IF WE GO PENSION BOND ROUTE.
UH, BUT WE WOULD STILL NEED TO GET TMRS BOARD APPROVAL.
I'M NOT ANTICIPATING ANY ISSUES THERE.
THEY'VE NEVER NOT APPROVED ONE, BUT THEY DO MEET ON SEPTEMBER 19TH.
IF WE MISS THAT DATE, WE'LL NEED TO DO DECEMBER 12TH.
UH, IF WE GO THE OTHER OPTION OF LOOKING TO DO A TAX RATE INCREASE, NOVEMBER ELECTION WILL BE REQUIRED.
AND ONE THING TO TAKE NOTE, IF WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT THIS YEAR, UH, WITH SENATE BILL TWO, THEY HAVE MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT ON US TO PASS A BUDGET AND GO TO THE VOTERS FOR TAX RATE INCREASE.
AND WHAT WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS BASICALLY COMPRESSED THE TIMELINE.
SO IF YOU WANT TO LOOK, THINK ABOUT THE TAX RATE INCREASE THIS YEAR, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PUSH OUR BUDGET DELIBERATIONS UP INTO JULY, WHICH MEANS THAT WE'RE BASICALLY GONNA BE DOING ALL OF OUR BUDGET BASED OFF OF ESTIMATES FROM DC AD.
'CAUSE WE DO NOT GET OUR FINAL DECA NUMBERS TO JULY 25TH.
BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO PUSH THAT UP SO THAT WE COULD CALL A VOTE AND HAVE THAT PUT ON THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, OR YOU CAN WAIT TILL THE NEXT YEAR AND WE CAN PRO PLAN FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, IN A YEAR IN ADVANCE AND THEN TAKE IT AS A TAX RATE INCREASE.
AND WITH THAT, I'M SURE Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS,
UM, AND I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING TOGETHER, UH, FROM WHEN, FROM WHEN I MET WITH YOU AND WITH THE CITY MANAGER OF PUTTING TOGETHER THE TIMELINE OF HOW WE GOT HERE AND, AND, AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO KNOW WHERE IT STARTED, WHERE IT, YOU KNOW, AND, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN THAT THAT CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY NOT BE AWARE OF AND, AND WHAT THAT PROCESS WAS.
AND I WANT TO ECHO THAT SAME SENTIMENT.
THAT STORY WAS, UH, VERY ENLIGHTENING TO HEAR WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS.
I I NEED TO ASK A QUESTION BEFORE I MAKE MY STATEMENTS THE SUPPLEMENTAL AS FAR AS THE INSURANCE IS CONCERNED, WHO PAYS? DOES THE, UH, RETIREE PAY THAT PREMIUM OR DOES THE CITY PAY THAT PREMIUM? UH, THE RETIREE PAYS THAT PREMIUM, BUT WE'RE GIVING A A A SUBSIDY TO THAT EX EXACTLY.
BECAUSE IT WOULD NORMALLY BE, UH, WHATEVER THE REGIONAL AVERAGE IS, THEY'D BE PAYING THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT.
BUT WE ARE ACTUALLY PAYING A, A PIECE OF THAT.
UH, I HAD OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH, UH, A
[00:40:01]
COUPLE OF GROUPS PRIOR TO COMING HERE TODAY AND JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, ALL I'M ASKING NOW IS JUST AFFIRM CONFIRM WHAT I'M SAYING AND THEN THAT'LL HELP ME IN, IN THE MANNER BY WHICH I GO FORWARD.UH, THE FIRST THING IS, UH, IT APPEARS THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AN OPTION IN THE WAY OF IF WE ARE OR ARE NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT A COWELL.
AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS 90% IT SEEMS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND US HAVE A COLA.
UM, AS FAR AS THE METROPLEX, THE ONLY CITIES I'M AWARE OF THAT DO NOT HAVE A COLA IS FARMER'S BRANCH IN DUNCANVILLE.
UH, I KNOW THAT THE CITY OF AMARILLO AND THE CITY OF WACO HAVE BOTH TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THIS NO CATCHUP AND REINSTATED A 30% NO CATCH UP.
AND BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE COLA, THAT MEANS THAT, UH, OUR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT GETTING THE SAME A ADVANCES AS RAISES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE AS OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE GETTING, WHICH THEN MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US THEN TO NOT ONLY, UH, RETAIN EMPLOYEES, BUT TO ALSO HIRE THEM.
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? KRISTEN, COME ON.
I'M PROBABLY NOT THE BEST PERSON TO ANSWER THAT ONE BECAUSE I'M, I'M JUST STRICTLY NUMBERS.
I DON'T KNOW IF JUDD, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THAT OR KRISTEN'S HERE
YEAH, AND I'LL, I'LL PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT IN MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.
I, IT, IT'S REALLY HARD TO POINT TO ANY DATA POINT THAT WOULD BACK EITHER POSITION ON, ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION, UH, OF EMPLOYEES.
I, I WILL, I'LL, THE CLOSEST DATA POINT WE'VE GOT IS ON THE CIVIL SERVICE SIDE.
AND, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH RECRUITING.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE UPWARDS OF 400, UH, INDIVIDUALS THAT SIGN UP TO TEST FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND SO IF, IF THAT'S, THAT IS A HARD NUMBER.
WE KNOW WHAT THAT INDICATOR, THAT'S A BIG NUMBER.
THERE'S SOME INDICATION, UH, WE JUST GRADUATED OUR LARGEST, UH, POLICE ACADEMY CLASS, UH, IN HISTORY.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S, THERE, THERE'S COLA IS ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE WHEN IT COMES TO RECRUITING EMPLOYEES AND, AND RETAINING THEM HERE.
UH, SO AGAIN, I, IT'S HARD TO DEFINITIVELY SAY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT, UM, AT, AT LEAST FROM THE DATA WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE DO HAVE VACANCIES HERE AT THE CITY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, WE ARE ABLE TO RECRUIT, UH, FOR POSITIONS, PARTICULARLY ON THE CIVIL SERVICE SIDE.
AND YOU KNOW, THE OTHER FACTOR IN THAT IS THAT WE DO HAVE THE RSB BENEFIT THAT NOT ALL COMMUNITIES HAVE AS WELL.
SO, UM, IT'S ONE FACTOR OF, OF MANY THE RSB, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT? THAT'S THE RETIREMENT STABILITY BENEFIT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE IN LIEU OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR POLICE AND FIRE.
SO THEY DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIAL SECURITY CITY SETUP, I THINK IN 2018, UH, THE RSB TO TRY TO REPLACE THAT SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT THAT, UH, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES DON'T HAVE.
UH, FROM THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD, IT, IT DOES APPEAR THAT OUR EMPLOYEES CERTAINLY WANT, UH, US TO, UH, IMPLEMENT THE CALL.
AND IF WE WERE GOING TO GO GO ABOUT DOING THAT, BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR IN THE WAY OF WHERE OUR BUDGETS ARE AND UH, INFLATION AND HOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR FUNDS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, AT THIS POINT, IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT, UH, IF WE WERE GOING TO DO IT, IT WOULD BE THE BOND INITIATIVE.
AND SHORT OF A TAX RATE INCREASE TO SUPPLEMENT THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SIDE OF OUR, OF OUR OPERATIONS, UM, THE, THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS IS THROUGH A, A PENSION OBLIGATION BOND.
UM, NOW I, I WILL CAVEAT THAT WITH, UH, WHEN WE SAY WE WERE TO ISSUE THAT $75 MILLION, ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DO IS HAND THAT MONEY OVER TO TMRS, UH, THEY INVEST IT IN WAYS THAT WE CAN'T, UM, IN THE MARKET ON AVERAGE THEIR GAINS, I THINK THEIR ACTUARIES, UH, PROJECT, IS IT SIX AND THREE QUARTERS? 6, 7, 5.
SO AS LONG AS THE MARKET IS PERFORMING WELL AND, AND THEY MEET THAT 6.75 ALL IS WELL.
BUT IF, IF THERE'S A DOWNTURN SIMILAR TO WHAT HAPPENED AROUND COVID I, WHERE THE MARKET CRASHES AND TMRS DOES NOT MEET THAT 6.75 WITH THE MONEY WE GAVE THEM, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA HIT OUR OPERATIONS SIDE OF THE TMRS RATE.
UH, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE THAT UP IN SOME WAY.
UH, AGAIN, MATT DIDN'T BRING HIS CRYSTAL BALL TO
IT'S JUST HOW MUCH OF THAT IS GOING TO TRICKLE OVER TO WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS COLUMN IS OUR, IS OUR FULL RATE.
NOW, IF THE MARKET, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW DOESN'T PERFORM WHERE IT NEEDS TO, EVENTUALLY TMRS IS GONNA COME LOOKING FOR THAT MONEY FROM US FROM SOMEWHERE.
SO EVEN THOUGH WE ISSUE A PENSION BOND, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT GONNA HIT THE OPERATION SIDE OF THE BUDGET, WHICH IS
[00:45:01]
REALLY, REALLY TIGHT.MY DISCUSSIONS REVEALED THAT, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO MAYBE HAVING TO LOOK AT BENEFITS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE COLA, MOST OF THE PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO DON'T EVEN WANT TO, THAT'S NOT A BEGINNING FOR THEM.
AND I GUESS, UH, FOR ME AT THIS POINT, I, I REALLY DO FEEL THAT EVEN IF WE, AND IT WAS KIND OF A SURPRISE WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS 30% AND IN THE FIRST YEAR WE'RE TALKING $28
AND SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT THE PRESENT EMPLOYEES GONNA BENEFIT SO MUCH, IT SEEMS THAT FUTURE EMPLOYEES ARE GONNA BE THE ONES WHO BENEFIT THE MOST.
WOULD YOU SAY? WELL, PRESENT EMPLOYEES WILL ALSO BENEFIT.
I MEAN, ANY EMPLOYEE WOULD BE CRAZY NOT TO WANT A COLA.
EVERYONE WANTS A COLA 'CAUSE IT'S MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKET.
UM, ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD ON, ON JUDD'S COMMENT EARLIER, THE THREE CITIES IN RED THAT ISSUED PENSION BONDS, AND THIS IS JUST A WORD OF CAUTION TO EXPAND ON WHAT JUDD WAS TALKING ABOUT.
THEY ALL THREE ISSUE PENSION BONDS TO REMOVE THEIR UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
BUT YOU CAN SEE ALL THREE OF THESE CITIES HAVE AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY NOW.
AND THE REASON IS, IS BECAUSE NO ONE HAS A CRYSTAL BALL, NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE MARKET.
AND WHAT HAPPENED TO SEVERAL YEARS AGO IS TMRS EXPERIENCED ROUGHLY A 7% LOSS IN INVESTMENT.
WELL, THAT HAS TO FLOW THROUGH RATES.
LONG TERM THEY'RE GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE MONEY AND LONG TERM IT'S GONNA LOOK GOOD.
BUT LITTLE HICCUP IS ALONG THE WAY, THEY WILL ADJUST THEIR EXPERIENCE BASED OFF EXPERIENCE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE IMPACTS THERE.
AND IT'S, IT'S NO DIFFERENT ON THE OPERATING SIDE.
SO THE RISK IS ON THE OPERATING SIDE TOO.
YOU GO THE OPERATING ROUTE, REMEMBER OUR, OUR REVENUES ARE HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAXES, WHICH ARE DRIVEN BY THE ECONOMY.
AND SENATE BILL TWO IS GOING TO CAP US.
SO WHEN I SAY 1.80 CENT TAX RATE EQUIVALENT FOR ECOLA, THAT COULD BE ERODED DOWN OVER TIME BASED OFF OF THOSE CAPS.
SO ON EITHER SIDE IT'S A DIFFICULT DECISION BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING A LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE A BIT MUCH, YOU KNOW, A WONDERFUL BENEFIT.
BUT NOBODY KNOWS, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT'S, I MEAN, NEXT YEAR WE CAN PREDICT, BUT WE'RE TALKING 20 YEARS OUT.
AND ONE THING TO REMEMBER ON THE PENSION BOND ROUTE IS ONCE WE DO IT, WE'VE DONE IT.
SO WE ISSUE A 20 YEAR NOTE FOR PENSIONS, INVESTORS ARE GOING TO WANT TO GET PAID AND I'M GONNA PAY 'EM.
SO WE WILL BE PAYING THAT AMOUNT FOR 20 YEARS.
SO I'M SAYING THAT THAT THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE GONNA THAT BACK TO THE LONG TERM ASPECT OF THIS DECISION.
AND THEN FINALLY, UH, AS OUR FINANCIAL EXPERT, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION? ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHICH ROUTE?
YOU CAN TELL ME AGAIN WHAT DO YOU
DO YOU HAVE ANY AS AN EMPLOYEE, I WOULD LOVE A, ANY SORT OF COLA WHEN I RETIRE.
UH, BUT MY JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THE CITY OF GARLAND IS SUSTAINABLE, LONG-TERM FINANCIALLY.
AND ULTIMATELY WHAT I TRY TO DO IS PROVIDE Y'ALL OPTIONS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE PROVIDED A CAPACITY, WE'VE SET IT ASIDE, WE'VE GIVEN THAT OPTION.
BUT AS FAR AS WHAT IS THE BEST FOR THE CITY, THAT'S WHY Y'ALL GET PAID THE BIG BUCKS, GUYS.
MATT
SO, UM, MATT SAID ONCE WE DO IT, WE'VE DONE IT.
SO IF WE CAN READ BETWEEN THE LINES, THAT MEANS IF WE DO A PENSION BOND, WE ARE STUCK IF WE HIT ANOTHER 2008 RECESSION.
SO THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BREAK THE CITY JUST DONE.
HOWEVER, I AGREE THAT WE NEED SOME SORT OF COMPENSATION FOR, FOR OUR RETIREES AND FUTURE RETIREES.
UM, WE TALK ABOUT CIVIL SERVICE SIDE AND OUR POLICE CAN HIRE ON AND WORK FOR 20 YEARS AND DO A LATERAL, A LATERAL OF WHAT'S
[00:50:01]
IT CALLED? YEAH, THAT ONE.AND, UM, BUT OUR FIRE, OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT CANNOT, IF THEY MOVE AFTER A CERTAIN TENURE, THEN THEY ARE STUCK GOING BACK TO SQUARE ONE.
SO WHILE POLICE AND YOU KNOW, OTHER STAFF CAN GO AND GET ANOTHER JOB IN ANOTHER CITY AND START OFF THE SAME, WE HAVE OTHERS THAT CAN'T DO THAT.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF ALL OF THE SITUATIONS AND WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY OBVIOUSLY, AND IT'S NOT FUN TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE, BUT WE DO NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THOSE, THOSE THINGS GOING FORWARD.
SO JUST THAT I WOULD THROW THAT OUT THERE.
UM, SO OF COURSE ONE THING WE ALWAYS HAVE TO LOOK AT, AND AS, AS MATT WAS SAYING, UH, THIS IS WHY WE GET THE BIG BUCKS, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO MAKE THE DECISION.
SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT FIRST OF ALL, UM, INDIVIDUALLY, WHAT, WHAT ARE OUR OBJECTIVES? YOU KNOW? UM, IS THE OBJECTIVE QUALITY OF LIFE RELATED TO HEALTH? IS THE OBJECTIVE QUALITY OF LIFE RELATED TO, UH, RETIREES ECONOMIC STABILITY? IS THE OBJECTIVE TO ATTRACT NEW EMPLOYEES? IS THE OBJECTIVE OF EMPLOYEE RETENTION? ALL OF THOSE THINGS WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN, UM, WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER TO DO A COLA OR WHETHER TO DO ANYTHING WITH ANY RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
I THINK PERSONALLY I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER INTO THE, UH, HEALTH BENEFIT SIDE OF IT TOO.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, HOLISTIC, TAKING A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO IT.
SO, UM, THAT'S JUST MY TWO THOUGHTS TO START OFF WITH.
DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIM, LOOK, UM, ON SLIDE 79, UM, TALKS ABOUT RETIREE BENEFITS TMRS, UM, THE AGE 60 WITH FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE, 20 YEARS WITH NO AGE REQUIREMENT.
ARE THOSE CONDITIONS SET BY THE CITY OR TMRS OR THE STATE OF TEXAS OR HOW, WHERE, HOW ARE THOSE CONDITIONS DEFINED? UM, I BELIEVE YOU CAN DO, UM, ON, THEY'RE SET BY TMRS. OKAY.
SO THE CITY CAN CHOOSE AND, BUT I BELIEVE YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO UP TO 25 YEARS.
WHAT ABOUT THE AGE? UH, WHAT ABOUT THE I BELIEVE THAT OF SERVICE BELIEVE, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT BEING ABLE TO BE CHANGED.
AND THEN SECONDLY, UM, HOW MANY OF THE 2,800 CURRENT EMPLOYEES ARE, HAVE WORKED OVER 20 YEARS OR ARE AT AGE 60 AND ABOVE? I'D HAVE TO FOLLOW BACK UP WITH THAT.
I CAN GET A RESPONSE BACK TO FULL COUNSEL ON THAT.
AND ON THE NEXT SLIDE WHERE IT SHOWS RETIREMENT RETIREE BENEFITS, UM, THAT 7% MANDATORY PARTICIPATION IS MATCHED TWO TO ONE BY THE CITY.
WHAT ARE THOSE COSTS? WHAT WAS THAT NUMBER IN FY 24? 2324
WHAT WAS THAT? 22? 22.2 MILLION.
SO EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION WAS 11.1.
THAT'S THE EMPLOYER? YEAH, THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION.
AND THEN, UM, ON SLIDE 86, UH, WHICH DO ANY OF THESE FUNDING OPTIONS AFFECT OUR BOND RATING? I MEAN, IT WOULD SEEM THAT IF YOU GO INTO THE OPERATIONAL FUND, THAT WOULD AFFECT THE BOND RATING IN SOME WAY.
I DON'T KNOW THE FITCH, THE, ALL OF THOSE, DO ANY OF THOSE AFFECT THAT? UH, WELL IT'S, IT'S WITH THE BOND RATINGS, I, I WOULD REALLY PROBABLY GO WITH, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IT IN TOTALITY.
SO WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS NOT, YES, THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH WHY YOU ISSUED A PENSION BOND.
AND THE ARGUMENT WILL BE IS WE ARE PROVIDING A BENEFIT AND YES, IT INCREASED OUR OUTSTANDING DEBT, BUT WE ARE SIMPLY JUST LOOKING TO MOVE IT, YOU KNOW, MOVE IT OFF OF THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY SIDE TO THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE.
SO NOW IT FLOWS INTO THE DEBT SERVICE CALCULATIONS FOR RETIREES OR RATING AGENCIES.
SO WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS THAT IN TOTALITY.
AND SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT 315 MILLION, THE BIG THING WITH COLA IS IT'S AN ISSUANCE OF 75 MILLION IMMEDIATELY.
TYPICALLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS TRY TO SPAN OUT DEBT ISSUANCES OVER TIME.
SO THAT'S ONE THING THAT THEY MAY LOOK AT.
BUT WE, WE HAVE WORKED WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS AND WE DON'T ANTICIPATE
[00:55:01]
WITH THE 315 MILLION, EVEN IF WE WERE TO DO 75 MILLION A REDUCTION IN OUR RATINGS ON THE PENSION ROUTE, IF WE WENT THE OPERATING ROUTE, UM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT SERVICES OR RAISE THE TAX RATE IN ORDER TO GET THAT FIT INTO THE EQUATION.AND AS LONG AS THAT OCCURS, THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT IN TOTALITY.
AS LONG AS YOU ARE STILL SHOWING THAT YOU'RE BRINGING IN REVENUE AND SHOWING THAT YOU'RE COVERING YOUR EXPENDITURES, THEY WOULD BE FINE.
BUT ON THE PENSION BOND ROUTE, THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS, BUT WE'VE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS REGARDING THIS, BUT I CAN'T PROMISE YOU IT WON'T BE A BOND RATING REDUCTION, BUT FROM OUR LOOK AT IT, WE THINK THAT IT'LL BE FINE.
UM, I'M EXTREMELY LEERY OF ISSUING PENSION BONDS FOR THIS.
I'M ALSO NOT IN FAVOR OF ATTACHING IT TO THE GENERAL FUND.
I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THIS GO TO THE VOTERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A 50% COLA WITH A CATCH UP IF POSSIBLE, OR THE 70% WITHOUT THE CATCH.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO IT NEXT NOVEMBER.
OKAY, COUNCILOR THIS NOVEMBER NEXT.
GOMER WILLIAMS. I THANK YOU MAYOR.
ONE, I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBERS, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER OF SLIDES LIKE MY, MY COUNTER FAR OVER THERE.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THOSE NUMBERS.
BUT ONE APPRECIATE THE SLIDE THAT GIVES A HISTORY BACKGROUND, UH, ON THIS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT NUMBER SLIDES YOU HAD YOU HAD THERE.
UM, WASN'T NO COUNCIL, BUT I WAS STILL AROUND THE CITY PARTICULARLY, UH, THE 2009.
AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THAT, THE PIECE OF THAT CHAPTER IN 2009, IT WAS NOT A VERY PLEASANT ONE.
AND UH, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED IF WE HAD A REPETITION IN 2009.
UH, IT TOOK A WHILE TO RECOVER FROM 2009.
WE, I'M NOT SURE WE WE'RE ALWAYS THERE.
SECONDLY, MAN, WOULD YOU, AGAIN, IN THE YOU WOULD SLIDE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE SISTER CITIES THAT ARE AROUND THAT ARE ACT, THAT ACT THAT HAVE ACTIVATED KOHLERS AND WITH, AND YOU MENTIONED THE, THE, UM, HOUSE BILL THAT, THAT, THAT PROVIDED THE OPTION OF KETCHUP.
WHICH OF THESE CITIES WOULD YOU SAY AGAIN, ARE ANY OF THESE CITIES DOING CATCHUP WITH THEIR ACTIVE COLDISH NOW? ANY OF THE CITIES THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY, BUT I HAVEN'T ASKED, WE CAN FOLLOW UP TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CITIES THAT ARE LOOKING TO ADD A COLA THIS YEAR WITH THE CATCH UP, THE, THE TWO CITIES THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, CITY OF AMARILLO AND CITY OF WACO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THIS HOUSE BILL AND DID A 30% NO CATCH UP.
SO I'D BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHICH OF THE, THE, I GUESS METRO LIKE AREA CITIES THAT HAVE, THAT HAVE, UH, ACTIVE COLAS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE USING THE CATCHUP PROVISIONS OR NOT.
OH, AS FAR AS THIS LIST RIGHT HERE? YES.
ALL, I MEAN ALL OF THESE ARE ALREADY, WERE PROVIDING THESE COLAS.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE LOOKING TO HAVE ANY, SO THEY'RE NOT, YEAH.
AND THEY WOULD'VE BEEN CATCH UP 'CAUSE THEY WOULD'VE BEEN UNDER THE PREVIOUS HOUSE BILL.
THE PREVIOUS HOUSE BILL, CORRECT.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WASN'T SURE ABOUT.
AND LAST QUESTION PROBABLY TO MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER ON THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
SO THAT THE, UM, AUGUST, WAIT, AM I LOOKING RIGHT SHEET, THE PUBLIC HEARING SESSION, THAT'S A SINGLE ITEM.
IT'S GONNA BE A SINGLE ITEM AGENDA, RIGHT? AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? IS THAT A SINGLE ITEM? UH, THAT'S A REGULAR MEETING NIGHT.
IS IT? SO WE WOULD ADD IT TO WHATEVER ELSE IS ON THE AGENDA.
AND, AND AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PITCHING OUT THERE.
COUNCIL COULD ALSO SAY, HEY, WE WANNA HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING AND DO A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ENGAGEMENT.
UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, MATT DIDN'T BRING HIS CRYSTAL BALL, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD SHOW UP FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT, UM, IN TALKING WITH THE MAYOR, WE, WE DECIDED AT LEAST TO PITCH THIS AS LET'S PIGGYBACK ON AN EXISTING MEETING AND, AND UH, AND SEE, SEE WHAT KIND OF TURNOUT WE GET.
BUT WE'RE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE SOME INPUT HERE.
AND, UH, WANTED TO JUST PITCH THIS AS AN OPTION.
WELL I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO CONSIDER GOING
[01:00:01]
WITH THAT, THAT, UH, THAT MEETING, BUT ALSO DEPENDING ON, I'D LIKE TO HEAR MAXIMUM FEEDBACK.AND IF, IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, UM, THAT AS A PART OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA, THEN I'D LIKE TO SEE AN ADDITIONAL MEETING, A SINGLE ITEM AGENDA, UH, TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE, HAVE, UH, GIVEN THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO UH, PROVIDE THEIR INPUT ON THIS.
IF COMING OUT OF THE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM, I'M NOT SURE WHEN, BUT IF WE COULD WORK THAT, IF WE COULD CONSIDER THAT.
YOU, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THAT LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IS GOING TO BE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST KEEP THAT OPTION OPEN SO THAT, SO THAT UH, UH, IF, IF, IF NEED BE, PUT IT ON THERE AS A PLACEHOLDER OR SOMETHING ONCE, ONCE YOU COME UP WITH THAT DATE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE OPTION OPEN.
I WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THAT ONE MEETING AS THE ONLY PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS.
'CAUSE THIS IS, THIS IS A, A VERY, VERY CRITICAL ITEM.
SO I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, MR. CITY MANAGER.
IN, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, WE'RE OUT FRONT ON THIS OF, OF TAGGING IT ON A REGULAR MEETING.
UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL GONNA BE HERE SCHEDULING WISE, IT WORKED.
UH, AND TRYING TO, TO GET EVERYBODY, OBVIOUSLY WE, WE'VE GOT TIME TO GET THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OUT THAT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT ON THAT AGENDA.
UM, AND NOW WHAT THE REMAINDER OF THAT AGENDA LOOKS LIKE, I CAN'T TELL YOU.
UM, AND I WOULD ASSUME, UH, I WOULD ASSUME THAT THERE WILL BE A LARGE TURNOUT, UH, FOR THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM THAT NIGHT.
UM, AND IF THAT, IF THAT DRAMATICALLY INCREASES THE LENGTH OF THAT MEETING, SO BE IT.
UH, I MEAN THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE HERE, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE SIGN UP TO TALK.
UM, AND AFTER, YOU KNOW, AFTER THAT, UH, AFTER THAT, THAT MEETING, THAT, THAT HEARING, UM, IF WE FEEL THAT THERE IS, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO HEAR FROM, CERTAINLY WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT, AT SCHEDULING A, A SINGLE ITEM MEETING.
UM, BUT I, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I I THINK THAT EVERYONE AT THIS POINT, UM, CAN AIM FOR THAT 16TH, UH, JULY 16TH MEETING AND, AND GET IN THE PROCESS AND, AND WE CAN CONTINUE FORWARD.
SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE WE, WHERE WE ARE AT THIS MOMENT.
WELL, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOU, MAYOR.
I WANNA KEEP IT OPEN, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CLOSE THE OPTION IF WE NEED IT FOR A SINGLE, SINGLE ITEM SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS TOPIC.
SIR, I WANT, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT OPTION OPEN.
UH, I KNOW WE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE AGENDA IS GONNA BE FOR THAT, THAT MEETING, AND WE'VE HAD SOME MARATHONS.
IF WE NEED A MARATHON THAT NIGHT, WE CAN HAVE ONE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE OPTION OPEN IF, IF WE FEEL AFTER THAT MEETING AND HEARING FROM THAT PUBLIC THAT IF, IF, IF, IF THERE'S A NEED BE, THEN WE KEEP THE OPTION TO MAKE IT A SINGLE ITEM FOR A, AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
SO MATT, QUESTION, UM, CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UH, THE AFTERMATH OF WACO AND THEIR 30%, UM, NO CATCH UP? SURE.
SO, UH, WHAT WACO EXPERIENCED THERE IS, I MEAN, WE SHOWED THE SLIDE OF $28, AND SO THEY, THEY DID EXPERIENCE AFTER PASSING THAT SOME RETIREES COMING TO COUNCIL MEETINGS.
AND I KNOW TMRS HAS ALSO RECEIVED SOME QUESTIONS FROM RETIREES ASSOCIATED WITH WACO, UH, REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, A SMALL AMOUNT THAT THEY DIDN'T CATCH THEM UP.
UM, SO THAT, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT WAS.
SO THE, THE POINT OF ME ASKING THAT QUESTION WAS SIMPLY, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS SUCH A HUGE HOT TOPIC AND IT IS DETRIMENTAL ON ONE ASPECT OR THE OTHER.
UM, AND SO TENSIONS ARE GONNA BE HIGH, EMOTIONS ARE GONNA BE HIGH, RIGHTFULLY SO.
SO I, I DEFINITELY FEEL LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT DESERVES TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING OF ITS OWN, THAT WE CAN DEDICATE THE TIME AND ENERGY THAT IT NEEDS, UM, INSTEAD
[01:05:01]
OF A END OF A MEETING, UM, WHERE WE CAN'T HAVE THAT OPEN DIALOGUE WITH PEOPLE.UM, I JUST THINK THAT IT, THEY DESERVE, UM, TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON.
WELL, I MEAN, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE END OF MEETING.
I MEAN IT, UH, AND AGAIN, WHAT THE, WHAT THE REMAINING AGENDA FOR THAT ITEM WOULD LOOK OR THAT MEETING WOULD LOOK LIKE.
I MEAN, SOME OF THAT WE CAN CONTROL A LITTLE BIT, UM, AS FAR AS, AS FAR AS MAKING THE TIME FOR IT.
UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, I, AGAIN, I THINK HOLDING IT IN OUR, IN OUR NORMAL PROCESSES, UM, I IS, IS THE FIRST START.
UM, AND THEN WE JUDGE, YOU KNOW, THEN WE JUDGE BY WHAT THE RESPONSE IS, UH, FROM THAT MEETING OR TO THAT MEETING AND FROM THAT MEETING.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, WE, WE COULD CERTAINLY HAVE, IF AS A CONCLUSION OF, OF WHATEVER DISCUSSION, UM, ON THE 16TH, WHICH WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS CAN COME SPEAK AND WE CAN INTERACT WITH THEM AT THAT TIME.
IT'S NOT, IT'S, THIS IS NOT JUST PUBLIC COMMENTS, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE CAN BE A DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH.
SO, UM, I, BUT AGAIN, WE'LL, WE'LL HOLD, WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF SCHEDULING A SEPARATE MEETING IF THERE'S ANY FOLLOW UP THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FROM THE, FROM THE 16TH.
YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH THE, THE MAYOR'S COMMENTS.
UM, AND ALSO, UM, BJ'S COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LEAVING IT OPEN TO SCHEDULE AN ADDITIONAL MEETING.
BUT AS FAR AS THE, YOU KNOW, TUESDAY, JULY 16TH, THE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE REQUISITE STAFF, UH, CITY COUNCIL, UH, EVEN THE PUBLIC IS ALREADY AWARE AND SCHEDULED THAT THAT IS A REGULAR SESSION MEETING.
SO IF WE WERE TO TAKE THIS OFF OF THAT AGENDA AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, ONE OF THOSE THREE GROUPS IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE AVAILABLE.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I, I DEFINITELY AM FOR LEAVING IT ON THE JULY 16TH AGENDA.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE LEAVING THE WINDOW OPEN FOR A, UH, FOR AN ADDITIONAL MEETING IF NECESSARY.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE TO, UH, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF SPEAKERS WHO I CAN SEE ARE STILL HERE.
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE, CAN I MAKE JUST ONE, ONE COMMENT, UH, SINCE IT WAS BROUGHT UP OF A, OF AT LEAST COUNCILWOMAN LUCK MAY BE LOOKING AT A TAX RATE INCREASE FOR NOVEMBER.
UH, I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THAT WOULD PUSH THE, THE TIMEFRAME UP ON WHEN WE HAVE TO SHOW THE, THE BUDGET.
UM, WERE YOU MEANING THE NEXT YEAR, I'M SORRY, IF THERE'S A TAX RATE IMPLICATION THIS YEAR? WE'LL HAVE TO GET THE BUDGET TO YOU BY JUNE 22ND.
I THINK WE'VE CLEARED THE QUEUE.