|
Page 3 of 12
<br />
<br />service would not start until 2027; however, the City will need to levy for the debt service starting
<br />in 2026. This would achieve a positive fund balance through 2033. This would result in a 2.70%
<br />or a $163,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario F assumes no shift in PMP project expenditures, the City issues a bond for the PMP
<br />project in 2026, and increases the levy by $100,000 annually starting in 2026 and in subsequent
<br />years thereafter. Debt service would not start until 2027; however, the City will need to levy for
<br />the debt service starting in 2026. This would achieve a positive fund balance through 2035. This
<br />would result in a 4.36% or a $263,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario F-1 assumes no shift in PMP project expenditures, the City issues a bond for the PMP
<br />project in 2028, and increases the levy by $75,000 in 2026 annually starting in 2026 and in
<br />subsequent years thereafter. Debt service would not start until 2029; however, the City will need
<br />to levy for the debt service starting in 2028. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2035. This would result in a 1.24% or $75,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario F-2 assumes no shift in PMP project expenditures, the City issues a bond for the PMP
<br />project in 2028, and increases the levy by $100,000 in 2026 annually starting in 2026 and in
<br />subsequent years thereafter. Debt service would not start until 2029; however, the City will need
<br />to levy for the debt service starting in 2028. This would achieve a positive fund balance through
<br />2035. This would result in a 1.66% or $100,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario G assumes PMP project expenditures are shifted, the City issues a bond for the PMP
<br />project in 2026, and increases the levy by $50,000 annually starting in 2026 and in subsequent
<br />years thereafter. Debt service would not start until 2027; however, the City will need to levy for
<br />the debt service starting in 2026. This would achieve a positive fund balance through 2035. This
<br />would result in a 3.53% or a $213,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Scenario J assumes PMP project expenditures are shifted, the City issues a bond for the PMP
<br />project in 2028, and increases the levy by $50,000 in 2026 and in subsequent years thereafter. Debt
<br />service would not start until 2029; however, the City will need to levy for the debt service starting
<br />in 2028. This would achieve a positive fund balance through 2035. This would result in a 0.83%
<br />or a $50,000 levy increase in 2026.
<br />
<br />Attachment C is a recap of the scenarios provided above, with the recommendations of staff,
<br />further Council discussion is needed on the below items:
<br />
<br />The PIR Fund has a proposed levy of $250,000 in 2026, which is unchanged from 2025. Staff
<br />is proposing Scenarios D-1, D-10, F-2, or J to ensure the City maintains its long-term financial
<br />solvency.
<br />o Scenario D-1 assumes no bonding, a shift in PMP project expenditures and would
<br />increase the levy by $100,000 starting in 2026 and annually thereafter.
<br />o Scenario D-10 assumes no bonding, no shift in PMP project expenditures, but would
<br />increase the levy by $300,000 starting in 2026 and annually thereafter.
<br />o Scenario F-2 assumes no shift in PMP project expenditures, but would increase the levy
<br />by $100,000 starting in 2026 and annually thereafter, & includes bonding for the 2028
<br />PMP project.
<br />o Scenario J would shift PMP projects, increase the levy by $50,000 starting in 2026 and
<br />annually thereafter, & includes bonding for the 2028 PMP project.
<br />o What changes, if any, should staff assume?
|