City of Boise, Idaho CID #1 Harris Ranch, 21 Jun 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 - Board Meeting

Description

June 21, 2022 at 10:30 AM MDT

A

All right, hello, everybody, I'm assuming that there are some folks joining online, because the room here is completely empty. um This is the time and place for the harris ranch community infrastructure district number one board, meeting june: 21st 2022 clerk. Will you please call the roll agent play here? Weddings here present, one absent wonderful! Thank you, and the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes.

B

Madam chair, I move that we approve the minutes of the cid um harris ranch, cid regular meeting of may 17 2022. Second.

A

Clerk, could you please call the roll plague? Yes, weddings, yes, motion carries. Thank you and item three on the agenda. We're going to go through the fy 2023 budget workshop I'll turn it over to david hassagawa.

C

All right, thank you so much madam chair. First, I want to make sure. Can you hear me all right.

A

We can hear you great, thank you, david.

D

Okay, wonderful, then, let me share the screen here.

C

And I will go ahead and get started, so it's good to see. All of you again. Thank you for accommodating my uh being virtual today uh for those that are watching online.

C

My name is david hassagawa and I am the administrator for the harris ranch community infrastructure district number one today we'll be going over the budget presentation and uh the purpose of the meeting is to obtain feedback from the board and confirm the direction for the fiscal 2023 budget, and so I will introduce the budget discuss a few of the highlights and then review the strategic focus impact and some alternatives to a full levy for the budget.

C

So the 2023 budget follows much the same format as previous budgets for the district revenues and expenditures are divided into three different sections administration of the district, which is the first column that you see on your screen general obligation, bonds, which is the next two columns the existing bond and then a potential new bond.

C

And then the final category is the special assessment bond and since the purpose of the infrastructure district is to accelerate the development of community infrastructure within the bounds of the district, the vast majority of tax revenues are expended to pay for debt service for bonds that are used to purchase completed infrastructure projects within the district.

C

The revenues from the bond proceeds are substantially larger than in previous years and I'll go into more depth about that. As I walk through uh some of the the different sections so before I move to the next slide, are there any questions.

A

I'm not seeing anything right.

C

Okay, wonderful, so this slide shows how the fiscal 2023 budget compares to previous years. The increases in property taxes in line one here. You can see it moving from 848 thousand in 2020 up to a proposed 2 million, and that reflects the increases in property values of the district. The incremental increases.

C

So the differences from year to year are what are used to fund new general obligation bonds, and for this year the incremental proceeds will be used to fund up to eight million dollars in general obligation, bonds, which you can see in line three now, because the fiscal 2022 bonds of 5.5 million for 2022 or have not been issued so far, they may end up being issued in fiscal 2023 and so accommodations have been made. And so you can see the miscellaneous revenue or contingent revenue of line.

C

Four has been increased to include uh not 5.5, but 5 million, as well as a 1.8 million dollar contingency, which I'll discuss again in future slides and then you can see the corresponding use of those bond proceeds for infrastructure or as miscellaneous slash contingent expenditures in lines. Eight and nine.

D

C

So going through the first section, the which is the administrative uh revenue and expenditures for the district, those expenditures are based on service agreements between the district, the city and other third-party professional service providers. Compared to previous years. The 2023 budget shows higher revenues in line 3 and higher expenses in lines 6 and 8.

C

Due to the ongoing judicial review related to the october 5th district board resolutions, the revenues in line three come from a mix primarily from the city of boise, uh which agreed to an advance to cover the expenses which otherwise, the district would not be able to cover, as well as reimbursements from the developer again. These are all contained in service agreements between the district, the city, the developer and other third party service providers.

C

The exact extent of the expenses in lines, six and eight are unknown and subject to change. However, the revenues represent the maximum allowed by the service agreements that the board approved on may on. The may 17th meeting on the next slide. We'll address the portion of the administrative revenues that come from property taxes. That is on line one. So you can see that eight 17 and seven hundred and eighty nine.

C

So, by design the cid act, which is the state code that governs the creation and management of the district, it allows for administrative charges not covered by bond proceeds to be levied on real property within the district and this year we are asking the board to consider not today, but uh on july, 19th, to consider recovering a portion of the foregone administrative levy and that that foregone levy are taxes that were not levied in past years.

C

In the years before house, bill 389 was passed, taxing districts were restricted from raising their budgets by a cap of three percent, plus the growth that comes from new construction prior to 2020. The district only increased its administrative budget, so which is represented by by that 700 or 17 000 in line one that I mentioned on the previous slide, the district only increased that budget by about three percent and did not include the growth component uh at the time the administration needs of the district were relatively simple.

C

Now that has changed. The district has need for additional revenue due to higher expenses and those expenses. Come from that judicial review that I mentioned, the district's finances were designed for the limited operations required to issue municipal debt, manage that debt purchase, community infrastructure and other basic operations.

C

The district levies, a comparatively small administrative levy to cover those expenses, and so the district, because it did not uh increase to the full amount, has a foregone balance of 3209.

C

Of that 3209 the district can claim or recover 176 dollars of that amount, and while that amount is not a very large amount for this individual year, if the district claims a portion of that 3209 each year, it will go to the base uh levy, which is allowed to increase by eight percent and over the course of the repayment period of the advance from the city of boise.

C

That will have a meaningful impact to the district, to the tune of about 45 000 over the that uh 14-year period, and so considering that the advance is currently set at three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Forty five thousand dollars is a meaningful amount.

C

I will note that to uh to include or to recover that foregone amount will require a public hearing which we propose to do at the same time as the budget public hearing.

C

So this is something new that we have not done in past years, and so I wanted to to pause here and see if there are any questions.

A

David, um I you just answered my question, but I was so surprised when I came to this slide in my review of the materials because I was like oh is this in thousands? Is this in millions like what is going on.

D

A

Actually, 3209 dollars and.

D

Yes, that accumulated.

A

Cumulatively, gets us to 45 000 over a period of years. Is that correct.

C

That is correct. Yes,.

A

Okay, great any other questions. Madam chair.

B

Thank you um I I was also. I also had that question. So thanks for clearing that up, I just want to be clear. So if we do 176 this year and over the 14 year period, the course of that we claim what we can will we be able to claim the full 30 45 000, so that we could use that to pay off these administrative costs, or um will there just be some portion of it? I was a little unclear about that. As I read everything.

C

Yes, so board member clay, madam chair, the so what's happening, is we have a balance of 3 209, and so in this year we can claim 176 dollars next year. It will be about 190 dollars that we can recover, and so that also will get subtracted from the 3209.

C

But the 176 that we've claimed this year will be added to the base amount, and so the 45 000 just represents the difference, and so you can see in that top chart the with uh foregone, uh including a for recovery of foregone.

C

The administrative uh revenues grow each year a little bit faster than they grow without it, so at by 2038, the administrative revenue would be 62 000 without it would be 55.9 and that cumulative difference each year is that 45 000.

B

I see okay, that that makes sense now I appreciate that. Thank you.

C

Yes, absolutely.

C

All right, so at this time, all we are looking for from a staff perspective is confirmation that you would like to consider a resolution to include this foregone um in the uh public hearing on july 19th.

A

Yeah, I'm I mean, from my perspective I'm thinking that, because the administrative costs have changed so much over the past couple of years. This makes a lot of sense. I think, had the conditions not changed, then it wouldn't make sense, but since um we're just dealing with something very different than we were before, this seems sensible to me.

B

I agree and think bring bringing this to the budget workshop as a separate hearing is a good idea. Great.

D

All right, wonderful,.

B

Do we need we don't need to take a formal vote to do that we can just give direction to bring it rob said.

A

B

Is that what they said? Sorry, I was thank you.

D

C

Then this next slide um covers the general obligation bonds, and so, as we mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, the purpose of the community infrastructure district is to finance the purge or the construction and purchase of community infrastructure projects within the district and so general obligation. Bonds are the primary vehicle that are used to accomplish that task.

C

Based on ada county's estimate, there should be of the 2 million dollars. That's the the light. Gray that's available to revenue about, 1.4 million will be used for existing general obligation, bonds and just to clarify. I am considering that the 20 fiscal 22 bond is has already been issued just for illustrative purposes and that the new amount will be about 700 or that 692 000.. So for fiscal 2023 there will be 692 000 available to issue new general obligation debt, and that will be that 8 million about that.

C

I mentioned in the in previous slides and I'll have a future slide that will break that out further and so general obligation. Debt will be potentially up to 14.8 million eight million, and let me just jump to the next slide. Eight million of that would come from an issuance for fiscal 23 and the yellow there. Five million could be issued from the fiscal uh 22 and then 1.8 million is available as a contingency, because usually we issue bonds that have a 15-year term, meaning we repay the bonds completely over a 15-year period.

C

But in the event that we were to receive an offer for a 20-year term, that 1.8 million would allow for the additional the budget to cover the additional revenues and expenditures that would come from a 20-year bond.

C

Just see if there's anything else here.

C

Okay and then in terms of the expenditures, some of the bond proceeds would go towards administrative costs for issuing the bond.

C

That's line six line, seven contains the uh costs that would be go towards the debt service for the new bond and the existing bonds and then finally line eight has the infrastructure and contingency expenditures that would be that would be used uh funded from the proceeds of the bonds.

B

Madam chair, yes, david back to that previous slide, just to make sure I'm reading it correctly, um the amounts that you're showing us are um separated out, in other words, they're, not aggregated, except over. So what I'm? What I'm curious about when we get clear to the 2023 and maybe you'll you'll cover it there is that the aggregate of everything that will happen in both 22 and 23., in other words,.

D

B

You're you're showing existing geo bonds, new geo bonds, a separate debt service, but the aggregate over in the 23 line or the amount in the 23 line is just the aggregate. Is that correct.

C

And one second here.

D

C

Computers being a little bit slow, are you still able to hear me? I just want to check.

A

Yeah we can hear you okay,.

C

So yeah great question, so in the the 23 column, which is in gray, uh that is an aggregate so that you can. Hopefully you can see it on your screen, all right, it's 18.3 million and that's.

B

C

Of uh special assessment bond, which I'll cover in the next slides, the 8 million from a 23 bond issuance general obligation bond and issuance 5 million from the potential delay of the fiscal 22 bonds and the and then 1.8 million in contingency. I feel like I'm, not quite answering your questions. So let me just well.

B

I I guess I'm I'm asking it because I think, by the time we get to public hearing, this slide might be confusing to people because it doesn't have year. It doesn't have labels that show what year those things have been done and and then the 2023 proposed may look like a whole new. I just want to make sure that people understand.

B

23 is the aggregate of all of this, and and not not something separate as in addition to um just because of the labels and and I've just been through enough public hearings, I'm just sure now, so that when we get there, uh we can be sure that these are labeled in such a way that that people won't get confused about them.

C

Okay, I yes, uh madam chair board, member click. I think that's wonderful feedback, I'll break it out, so that on this you can see the the line items in a similar way that that I haven't set up here um so that you can see what will be proposed for 23 what is uh potential carryover from 22 and then what is contingency?

C

If, if I understood you correct you'd like to see that that break out on the on the chart.

B

On those slides as well, yes, thank you so much.

C

Okay, yep, that's that's great feedback. Thank you all right, and then this chart here on the right just shows the um rate with rates were fluctuating. It's it's hard to say exactly where the bonds will be in terms of their exact size, but they will not exceed eight million for the uh fiscal for and actually I realized. I have the tax year and not the fiscal year there. So for taxi for the fiscal year 2023 we will not exceed 8 million and will not exceed 5 million for the fiscal 2022 slash tax year 2021.

C

I apologize. I have the tax here. There.

C

All right, the last section before we move to the impacts of the taxes is the special assessment bond, and so this year the district intends to refinance that special assessment bond and line four shows the proceeds. The revenue that would come from that refinance.

C

In last year's budget here or budget workshop, I had discussed that there would be significant savings from a refinance because of the delays that have been necessary due to the judicial review. Some of those savings.

C

Those savings will be somewhat more limited because interest rates have risen significantly and I intend to at a later time, go into a greater depth around refinance and some possible different options for that refinance.

C

But for now all I've for this meeting, I'm just putting in the budgetary numbers that are necessary to accomplish that refinance, and so you can see in the revenues 3.5 million in proceeds and then the administrative costs in line six of about 76 000 and then a combined debt service and proceeds to refinance that bond. In line eight.

C

A

Nope everyone looks good.

D

C

Wonderful then, moving to the last section, which is the strategic focus and impact, and so here I'd like to go over the impact of that's been top of mind for all of the really idaho, the treasure valley, and even the nation, which is the the rising property values. And so this top row of charts.

C

You can see the impact to the district itself and then the bottom row of charts contain the impact to individual homeowners, and so the district has a estimated taxable value by ada county of 730 million dollars for the 2022 uh tax year and that's an increase of 50 from the previous year at 487 million dollars.

C

So there is a substantial increase. The majority of that comes from uh from rises in home values only about 42 million comes from new construction of that increase, and so what happens as as you're aware as property values increase eric villamoria in previous um sessions with city council has indicated as property values increase. The levy itself decreases for most taxing districts.

C

The harris ranch community infrastructure district is different in that the levy stays fixed, and so, as the levy stays fixed at that 2.85 mills, then the proportion of harris, ranch or cid taxes increases as the levies decrease with other taxing districts, and you can see that effect occurring over the the years in that chart in the upper right, and so the the final box in gray is, is just simply estimates of what the where levees will end up.

C

Moving on to the bottom row, you can see, and this data is based- uh it's not ada county data. This is bit from zillow's housing prices.

C

Their data shows that the average home in the uh district has risen up to 840 000 from 756 000, which is an 11 increase and the property taxes you can see in the lower right chart. You can see how the property taxes have increased year over year, and so for this year for tax year 2022, there is a modest increase of about nine percent.

C

um Part of the reason it's smaller is because of the increased homeowners exemption than in years previous.

C

So let me pause there and see if there's any questions about any of these charts.

A

I don't have any questions about the charts, but I just wanted to maybe um reiterate and clarify a little bit so when the city.

A

Produces their budget, then our levy rate is established to fund that budget for harris ranch, community infrastructure district, the levy rate determines what the budget is. Is that kind of correct.

C

Yes, madam chair, you hit the nail on the head, that's exactly how how it works and and it's a and it's a pretty big difference between the two.

A

Yeah, it looks like it um and so from 2018 to 2022 that property tax levy for the cid is about twice. um It's about doubled from 2018 to 2022, on the average home.

C

Yes, madam chair, that's correct.

A

Great thank you appreciate that madam chair.

B

Yes, quick question um on the cid: if there was a an additional homeowner's exemption, would it um believe I understand correctly that it would just limit the amount of taxable value which, based on the levy, would limit? The amount of of revenue for debt service is.

C

B

C

So, madam chair board, member clegg, so in the upper left chart you see that 729 million for the overall taxable value. So if we double the the homeowner's exemption, you would see that that 729 would be less and so you're correct. It would reduce the the overall amount that would be available to the district.

B

And then second question: if I could, as the uh commercial areas, especially in the village center grow out, how will that impact the cid assessments and paybacks.

C

Yeah, that's so that's a great question. It will so, ultimately, it will increase the overall um value assessed. Value of the district, but you'll have, in effect the opposite of what's been happening for the city of boise, which is you have a burden shift uh from commercial to residential within harris ranch? You really have very little. There is a little bit of commercial, but it's very small, and so you would start to see a little bit of the burden drop off of residents as that village town center is, is built up.

B

D

It's to everyone's.

B

Benefit to get that built uh as soon as we can to begin to shift that burden off of homeowners and more on to the commercial.

C

Yes, uh board, member clegg that, depending on on how large um I don't have figures for how much the uh proposed value would be, but it is if it were large enough, it would have a potential to um to provide at least a meaningful impact to your residents.

D

B

D

C

So the I did want to discuss the some of the different alternatives. The proposed budget that I've brought forth and in front of you today does is influenced by what you've already discussed rapidly rising property taxes and that burden shift from commercial to residential, and so should the board choose to do so. It could choose to assess less than the 2.85 mills, and so I wanted to to show you what the impact of that would be.

C

So the first scenario of the four scenarios here is the full levy, and so with current interest rates, that would mean a 7.5 million dollar bond and it would mean about a nine percent increase from 1.9 or from 1 900 in property taxes on the average home up to 2000. For for the average home.

C

uh The three alternate three alternatives that I wanted you to look at and to consider are.

C

The first is based off of an article from the in the idaho statesman last week, where they discussed that moody's had said there was a significant probability that the treasure valley would or idaho would see, property tax declines of between five to ten percent, and so the board, for example, if it chose to, could uh build into this year's budget that decline uh of 10 and choose to limit the the property value under consideration instead of 729, it could be 90 of that, and so the impact of that would be the bond issuance would drop down to about 5.3 million with a 2.59 uh mills levy rate and property.

C

Taxes would be slightly lower um in this scenario.

C

In this second scenario, the district could choose to use the old model of three percent plus growth that would drop the bond issuance significantly down to 1.7 million and would actually result in property taxes being lower this year at fifteen hundred dollars than last year at 1900 and then finally, the most restrictive model would be to follow house bill, 389 uh and limit the overall growth to eight percent, and that would drop the bond down to 1.2 million, not a significant difference in taxes, but um it still would be less than in previous years.

C

I do want to emphasize that the 3 plus growth and the house bill 389 are not requirements on the district, the voting and authority to levy um those taxes comes from the bond authorization. So it's different than uh is uh most the the rules that most taxing districts fall under, so any choice to restrict the levy would be at the board's discretion, and so what a couple of things to consider?

C

uh As as you look at these different models, one is that the architecture of community infrastructure districts was designed to see taxes increase so that new bonds could be issued primarily through modest growth in property values, as well as new construction and the challenge that the district faces is that property taxes have absolute or property values. I'm sorry have absolutely skyrocketed in a way that I believe exceeds what the original architecture was designed for.

C

On the flip side, one of the other considerate important considerations is that any projects that have not yet been purchased accrue interest that must be paid back to the developer and that interest rate is not a fixed rate. It is a floating rate, and so the recent interest rate hikes from the federal reserve are going to significantly increase the interest accruals that the.

D

District will have.

C

To pay back, and so that is going to have um a negative effect if the district does not pay back those those uh that those projects more quickly, it will not change the overall amount of bonds issued.

C

That's still limited to the old to the 50 million dollar bond authorization that was approved in 2010, but it does mean that more of that 50 million will go to pay for interest and less for community infrastructure, and then the final um factor to that we'll be considered that the board will consider is, is resident's, thoughts and feedback that will be provided on july 19th about the budget itself, and so the proposed budget, which is the full amount, allows for the most flexibility which is important, given the the economic factors that that are at play here, as well as um the judicial, the decisions from the the judicial confirmation that the board is going through at this time.

C

So let me pause here and and stand for for any questions. That actually does conclude my prepared remarks.

A

David, I had a question about the levy rate. How would reducing the levy rate for fy 2023 impact the future levy rate? Does it is it binding in any way, does it limit future growth? Can you kind of give me the mechanics of that.

C

Yeah, so that's that's a great question. My understanding is that it would not limit future growth.

C

It's there is unlike the administrative levy which is subject to limitations, and if you don't take the full amount, there is a foregone instead for the district, there is that test to determine whether additional bonds can be issued, whether there is an uh additional property value that can be used for that purpose, so that test is done each time and so next year, if the district chose to take less it could simply do that test again and then bring up the amount to to a higher amount.

C

So that's that's my understanding. I will uh confirm uh with with uh our legal team and and uh provide confirmation, but I'm reasonably confident to be able to say that.

A

Great. Thank you.

B

Thank you, madam chair um david, so I appreciate these scenarios as I'm reading them, um the two that decrease the average tax by say four hundred dollars um cost the district over millions in in debt service or ability to issue debt which, as you point out, costs a lot of money toward interest versus the infrastructure.

B

So to me the question here is: we want this money collected sooner so that it can go toward in infrastructure? Do we want to spread it out recognizing if we do that the district will get less infrastructure out of the money?

B

Money will still be paid somewhere down the line it will just be paid at a slower rate and more of it will go toward interest. Am I correct in that assessment.

C

So, madam chair board, member clay, that's exactly the the the balance that you have to strike.

B

And I guess I'd like to point out another thing: while you bring up the uh growth in taxes as um associated with the various legislation we've seen over the last few years, I guess I the to me. I look at this district in a bit different way.

B

When the district was formed, there was a vote taken to accept 50 million dollars in debt, much like if there was a vote taken to accept 172 million dollars in debt for the school district, which did happen about the same time and issuing the debt toward that isn't a uh exercise of looking at how state law applies to new growth or new construction or existing budgets.

B

It's really an exercise of figuring out how to issue the bonds to pay the debt. That's already been approved, and so, while I appreciate you building those two scenarios based on the legislation, I guess I I would in my mind- that's not an applicable way to look at it. There might be other ways to build those scenarios, but this is debt.

B

That's already been approved by a vote and our job is to figure out, what's the most efficient, effective way to pay it off without overburdening the residents, and it really doesn't in my mind, have much to do with the current discussion over growth and property taxes on an on a going forward basis. Does that make sense.

C

Yeah board member clegg that that does- and I think that point is- is well taken and I'm happy to uh for in next year to to provide some alternative models that are not through that. That particular lens, which, as you've pointed out, is not the paradigm through which the the budget of the of a community infrastructure district is designed.

B

Yeah, we might look at at school districts and- and I mean other taxing districts and existing approved bonds and see what other scenarios we could look at.

B

C

Yes, thank you.

C

C

At this point, um all I'm looking for is whether you would like for me to continue with the full levy, if that is uh what you would like to see proposed or if you'd like me to propose two different budgets, one with a that market decline built in um or some a third alternative when we go to that uh public hearing, uh any type of direction that that you would like again, the proposed budget is the full full one, and if that is the the direction that you'd like me to continue down, then uh that's what I will present at the uh at the public hearing.

B

B

The amount that we will levy on for the 23 budget will be set. Is it set by the assessments that just came out this year or is it set by next year's assessments?.

C

Yeah, so it will be based on the um the property valuations for this year. So, even though we call it our fiscal 23 budget, it is based off of the 22 tax year that ada county is in the process of of about the end of july.

B

So I guess to me it makes most sense to just stick with the one scenario. One budget based on the assessments that we know are real, that just came out recognizing that it.

B

Whatever, if, if we do issue bonds this year, we should be prepared for a revenue reduction in a following year, um based on the potential market decline.

A

B

D

B

A

Before I really make a decision on it and because that budget really allows a lot more room for bonding authority, I mean that's a big jump from last year's bonding authority.

A

I think that we have kind of an initial group of projects that have been submitted by the developer for fy fy23.

A

How are those looking I mean? Is it projected that they would be able to utilize that, and I mean it's just a it's a big jump, so would they be able to utilize that full amount? Would it make more sense to keep that bonding authority even more even from this year's bonding authority?

A

um What what's your assessment of that david.

C

Yeah so, madam chair, that's a great question. So last year we were expecting to issue about five million dollars in bonds. The board approved expense uh project purchases of seven million, so that already meant that we would have a two million dollars and carry over to the next bond issuance.

C

So far the developer has submitted another seven million dollars. So that's nine million dollars to to be funded. Now there needs to be a little bit of a asterisk on that last. Seven, which is staff still has to review it, and then, ultimately, the board will need to approve those projects, so it could end up being less than that. However, what has been submitted is is, uh is going to be, I expect to be at that there will be enough to uh to pay for.

A

And then, if we were to approve a smaller bonding authority- and so those reim say you know, six million of those are reimbursable projects. Only five million of them are within this year's budget. Those additional projects would still be accruing interest that has to be repaid to the developer um prior to bond issuance.

A

To reimburse them is that.

C

Ma'am sure that's exactly correct.

A

So basically, if we don't pay for them now we're still going to pay for them. You know one way or another. So, okay, that's really helpful to me, madam.

B

Chair, yes, one other thing that um your question makes me think about is um the budget as it's currently proposed. If I'm reading it correctly anticipates.

B

More bonding authority than what david has just outlined is likely to be um brought forward for approval.

B

It might be interesting to not have different budgets but to have scenarios within that budget. That would indicate if, if we approve 9 million instead of 14.8 million in new bonding.

B

With the same budget, what would the payback period be or what other things could be done with the additional debt service? Besides just paying for those new go bonds? And then, conversely, are there other expenses that have already been incurred by the developer? That could be added so that we don't.

A

B

Extra interest on them- and it seems to me like that- would give us ultimate flexibility to either say well. We really only need this much debt service for 9 million in bonds or we're going to go ahead and you know take the full assessment because we know we can do these things with that additional revenue that will ultimately save all of the taxpayers in this district money.

C

Yeah, so so, madam chair board, member clay um just to to clarify ultimately between what has been submitted by the developer and approved by the board uh last year, and what has is being submitted now is um about 14 million, and so what I have there is says 14.8, but it includes 1.8 million in the event that we were to get the unusual offer of a 20-year bond effectively.

C

What what's really we'd be looking at funding is probably closer bonding of her ability to bond for about 13 million and we'd have 14 million in projects to to repay presuming everything is approved.

B

Okay, I misunderstood- I, I thought that was um inclusive of the existing 5 million when you went through your options. So um thank you that that helps. But again I guess, given that, then we should.

B

We should know what it would cost us in interest not to fully fund that as much as we can this year, because, ultimately, that's to me recognizing that the increase in taxes is not something anyone wants ultimately over time.

B

Spending that money on interest versus actually getting something out of it in infrastructure um to me is the trade-off that we have to consider, and those are those are the things that I'd like to know about when we make that decision.

C

Perfect so madam chair board member clegg, it sounds like it will be helpful if I can show, in addition to the budget, what some of those interest costs might look like if we weren't for able to fully pay for.

D

It, yes, that would.

B

D

A

I can put that together, wonderful.

A

All right any other questions for david all right. Well, do you have what you need for our um budget hearing david.

C

Yeah, I believe believe so. Madam chair, I my understanding. I will proceed with with the full budget as presented.

C

uh I will, however, take some of the the direction in refining some of the charts, as well as um prepare a presentation that will discuss what some of the costs from an interest accrual perspective would look like if we were not to fully um to issue the full level of bonds.

A

Great. Thank you. Yes thank.

B

A

All right well with nothing else before us, um we're on to item for adjournment, I'm moving adrian. Second, all in favor, please say aye aye great! Thank you! Everyone see you next month.

D