* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:01]
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I WILL CALL THE JOINT, UM, COMMITTEE SESSION, JOINT AD HOC PENSION COMMITTEE AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER ON MAY THE 21ST, 2026 AT 1 0 6. 
          SO I HAVE, UM, THE FIRST ITEM, ITEM OF BUSINESS IS THE MINUTES. 
          UM, WE'RE SEEKING APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024, MEETING OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS, JOINT MEETING WITH GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. 
          CAN I GET A MOTION? IT'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          UH, I'LL JUST KEEP GOING. 
          THE, THE ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS, UH, THE OVERVIEW OF THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM AND DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDING POTENTIAL PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          JACK IRELAND. 
          TAKE IT AWAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, CHAIR WEST AND CHAIR STEWART. 
          UM, JACK ARLAND, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, UH, PRESENTING, AND I HAVE WITH ME JEANETTE WHEDON, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET MANAGEMENT SERVICES. 
          SO, AS, UH, CHAIR WEST INDICATED TODAY'S TOPIC IS, UH, A PRESENTATION OVERVIEW OF DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM AND DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES. 
          SO FROM A PURPOSE PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE WILL BE PROVIDING BACKGROUND ON THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM, UM, PRIMARILY BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S SOME NEW MEMBERS THAT DID NOT LIVE THROUGH THE LAST THREE YEARS WITH US. 
          AND SO WE WANTED TO JUST GO BACK AND, AND DO A LITTLE REFRESH. 
          AND THEN OUR PRIMARY, UH, PURPOSE OF CONVERSATION TODAY IS TO, TO DISCUSS, UH, PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE WITH A LITTLE REVIEW AND OR SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS. 
          ON SLIDE THREE. 
          JUST AS BACKGROUND, THE CITY OF DALLAS DOES HAVE TWO PRIMARY DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS THAT PROVIDE RETIREMENT, DISABILITY, AND DEATH BENEFITS FOR PERMANENT CITY EMPLOYEES. 
          AND THOSE ARE SPLIT BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND OR ERF AND THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM, OR DPFP. 
          AND SO IN TOTAL, UH, THE ERF UH, PLAN, WE HAVE 8,070 ACTIVE EMPLOYEES, AND WE HAVE 8,042 RETIREES IN THE ERF PLAN, WHEREAS THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM, WE HAVE 5,356 ACTIVE EMPLOYEES AND THERE'S 5,242, UH, RETIREES OR BENEFICIARIES IN THAT PLAN. 
          UH, BOTH OF THE PLANS ARE FUNDED THROUGH EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          SO IF YOU'RE A NON-UNIFORM EMPLOYEE, YOU DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE RF PLAN. 
          IF YOU'RE A DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE, UH, RESCUE, UH, OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, UNIFORM EMPLOYEE, YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THAT PLAN. 
          UH, ADDITIONALLY, THE CITY OBVIOUSLY MAKES CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTH PLANS, AND THEN, UH, THE RETURN ON INVESTMENTS IS A SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR THE PLAN AS WELL. 
          ON SLIDE FOUR, AGAIN, JUST AS BACKGROUND, THE STATE, UH, TEXAS HAS A PENSION REVIEW BOARD THAT IS MANDATED TO OVERSEE ALL TEXAS PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEMS. UH, THE PRB HAS ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES THAT REQUIRE THAT THE ACTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PENSION PLAN SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO AMORTIZE THE UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY, AND SECOND, TO COVER THE NORMAL COSTS OVER AS A BRIEF PERIOD AS POSSIBLE, ONE NOT TO EXCEED 30 YEARS. 
          THE 30 YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENT IS SOMETHING THAT THE STATE PENSION REVIEW BOARD REQUIRES. 
          SO, UH, BOTH OF OUR TWO PLANS, UH, DID NOT MEET THE 30 YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND IN AUGUST OF 2024, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PLAN TO BRING ERF INTO, UH, COMPLIANCE, UH, BECAUSE IT IS GOVERNED BY, UM, UH, CHAPTER 40 A, THE REQUIREMENTS DO INDICATE THAT IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY VOTERS. 
          IT WENT TO THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER OF 2024 AND WAS APPROVED. 
          SO THE ERF PLAN, UH, HAS A, UH, FUNDING PLAN THAT MEETS THE 30 YEAR REQUIREMENT, SIMILAR, UH, FOR DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM. 
          WE WERE OUTSIDE OF THE 30 YEAR REQUIREMENT. 
          UH, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED INITIAL PLAN IN SEPTEMBER OF 24. 
          UH, AND THEN WE CAME BACK AND HAD A JOINT PLAN WITH THE PENSION SYSTEM THAT WAS APPROVED IN DECEMBER OF 25 BY BOTH THE CITY AND THE BOARD OF THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM. 
          AND SO, UH, NOW THAT THAT FUNDING AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE, UH, THIS SYSTEM IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRB REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO I WANNA GO INTO, UH, POLICE AND FIRE HISTORY A LITTLE BIT MORE, AGAIN, JUST AS BACKGROUND, ESPECIALLY FOR NEW MEMBERS. 
          UH, ON SLIDE 
          [00:05:01]
SIX, YOU'LL SEE, UH, THIS BAR CHART THAT HAS A LINE ACROSS IT AT THE 30 YEAR MARK. 
          AND SO THAT SHOWS THE PRB REQUIREMENT WHERE THAT LINE CROSSES THE PAGE. 
          AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WERE YEARS THAT WE WERE BELOW THE 30 YEAR REQUIREMENT. 
          UH, THINGS GOT DIFFICULT IN 20 15, 20 16. 
          UH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW THE STATE STEPPED IN IN 2017. 
          THERE WAS SOME IMPROVEMENT THERE, BUT WE KNEW THAT IT WASN'T A PERMANENT FIX. 
          UH, AND THE PERMANENT FIX COMES INTO PLACE IN 2024 WHEN WE NOW HAVE A NEW FUNDING AGREEMENT, AND WE ARE NOW BACK UNDER THE 30 YEAR REQUIREMENT OF THE PRB ON SLIDE SEVEN, AGAIN, A HISTORICAL CHART SHOWING BACK TO 2001, THE ACTUARIAL VALUE OF ASSETS IS THE GREEN BAR COMPARED TO THE ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY, THE YELLOW BAR. 
          AND SO YOU'LL SEE WHERE THE, UM, THE ASSETS DO NOT MEET THE LIABILITY, THEREFORE, WE HAVE AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY. 
          AND SO WHAT IS THE PERCENT OF THAT UNFUNDED LIABILITY THAT SHOWS BY THE BLACK LINE THAT GROWS, GOES ACROSS THE PAGE. 
          UH, AND THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DIP IN 2014 AND 20 15, 20 16. 
          AND THEN, UH, AGAIN, THE STATE STEPPED IN AND TOOK SOME ACTIONS. 
          AND NOW WE HAVE A PLAN THAT IS IN PLACE THAT IS GOING TO TURN THAT BLACK BAR OR BLACK LINE GOING ACROSS THE PAGE UPWARDS, AND WE WILL SEE IMPROVEMENTS OVER TIME AS WE REACH A HUNDRED PERCENT FUNDED. 
          SO WHAT CAUSED THE FUNDING PROBLEM, UH, FROM A HISTORICAL, HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE? SO SLIDE EIGHT JUST TALKS ABOUT SOME CHALLENGES. 
          AND THIS WAS A SLIDE THAT WAS PREPARED FOR THIS COMMITTEE BY THE MAYOR STUDY GROUP. 
          UH, THEY IDENTIFIED, UH, SOME ISSUES THAT CAUSED THE FUNDING CHALLENGE, PRIMARILY SOME POOR REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE BOARD, AND THEN THE DROP STRUCTURE OR THE DEFERRED RETIREMENT PLANS AND A SUBSEQUENT RUN ON THE BANK. 
          THOSE THINGS REALLY CREATED A PROBLEM IN 20 15, 20 16, UH, THAT THE STATE THEN STEPPED IN AND TOOK SOME ACTION. 
          AND SO ON SLIDE NINE, YOU'LL SEE THAT HOUSE BILL 31 58 WAS THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. 
          UM, AND THEY REALLY STEPPED IN TO ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL SOLVENCY, UH, NEAR TERM ISSUES AND PROVIDE A BRIDGE UNTIL WE PUT IN PLACE A LONG-TERM SOLUTION. 
          SO SOME OF THE COMPONENTS OF HOUSE BILL 31 58 INCLUDE A CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT, CHANGE OF GOVERNANCE. 
          UH, IT WAS PRIMARILY THE BOARD WAS MADE UP OF POLICE AND FIRE REPRESENTATIVES AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          UH, AND THE NEW GOVERNANCE IS SIX MAYORAL APPOINTEES AND FIVE TRUSTEES THAT ARE ELECTED BY THE MEMBERSHIP. 
          UH, THERE WAS CHANGES MADE IN THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION. 
          THERE WERE SOME INCREASED REQUIREMENTS WHERE WE HAD TO PAY ABOVE THE 34.5%, UH, CONTRIBUTION RATE. 
          WE HAD TO MAKE $13 MILLION ANNUAL PAYMENTS IN ADDITION. 
          AND IF THE, UH, ACTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FELL BELOW A CERTAIN FLOOR, WE STILL HAD TO MAKE THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS ANYWAY. 
          UH, FUTURE BENEFITS WERE REDUCED. 
          SO THERE WAS SOME, UH, UH, GIVE ON THE EMPLOYEE AND RETIREE SIDE. 
          UH, SOME CHANGE IN BENEFITS, UH, BEGINNING IN 2017, UH, SPECIFICALLY ONE THAT WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT IS THE CHANGE RELATED TO THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR THE RETIREES THAT WAS SUSPENDED IN 2017 AND IS NOT RESTORED UNTIL THE FUND REACHES 70%. 
          UM, THE HOUSE BILL 31 58 DID REDUCE THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY THROUGH THE FACT THAT THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTIONS WENT UP, AS WELL AS THE, UH, CHANGES THE REDUCTIONS IN BENEFITS FOR THE RETIREES THAT TOGETHER BROUGHT THE, UH, FUNDING, UH, STATUS UP A LITTLE BIT. 
          BUT HOUSE BILL 31 58, AGAIN, WAS NOT A PERMANENT FIX. 
          IT REQUIRED THAT BY NOVEMBER OF 24 THAT WE PUT IN PLACE A NEW PLAN THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE SUSTAINABLE. 
          SO I WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE HISTORY ON SLIDE 10. 
          UH, AFTER HOUSE BILL 31, UH, 48, UH, THE MAYOR, MAYOR JOHNSON APPOINTED A STUDY GROUP, UH, THAT WORKED, UM, TO, UH, COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE, UH, LISTED ON THIS PAGE OR THREE THINGS, UH, THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE STUDY GROUP AS BEING NECESSARY. 
          THEY FELT THAT WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE CITY. 
          THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE MOVE FROM A FIXED RATE CONTRIBUTION TO AN ACTUARY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE, AND THEY PROPOSED, UH, SEEKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO BE, UH, UH, DEPOSITED INTO THE SYSTEM AS WELL. 
          SO 
          [00:10:01]
ON SLIDE 11, UM, THE MAYOR APPOINTED THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IN SEPTEMBER OF 23. 
          THE COMMITTEE HEARD FROM THE MAYOR STUDY GROUP, UH, HEARD FROM CHIRON, WHICH WAS AN INDEPENDENT ACTUARY THAT WAS HIRED BY THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM BOARD, UH, WORKED WITH STAFF, UH, TO DEVELOP A FUNDING SOUNDNESS RESTORATION PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE PRB IN NOVEMBER OF 24. 
          SO, THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS, UM, WE DID NOT INITIALLY ACHIEVE A JOINT PLAN. 
          UH, THE BOARD APPROVED A PLAN ON AUGUST THE EIGHTH OF 24. 
          THE CITY APPROVED A SEPARATE PLAN ON THE, UH, SEPTEMBER THE 11TH OF 24, AND BOTH PLANS WERE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY TO THE PRB BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 24TH, UH, REQUIREMENT. 
          WE DID NOT STOP. 
          WE CONTINUED TO WORK WITH THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM BOARD AND STAFF, AND THAT WORK CONTINUED THROUGH 2025 UNTIL WE REACHED A, UH, JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED, UH, IN DECEMBER OF 25. 
          AND THE NEXT DAY, THE BOARD APPROVED IT. 
          WE DID SUBMIT THAT PLAN JOINTLY TO THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD. 
          THEY ACCEPTED THAT PLAN AND, UH, HAVE INDICATED THAT IT DOES SATISFY THEIR 30 YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENT. 
          WE RECEIVED THAT CONFIRMATION IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR. 
          SO ON THE NEXT TWO SLIDES, I'VE LISTED OUT SOME OF THE COMPONENTS OF THAT FUNDING AGREEMENT. 
          UH, JUST, UH, FOR MEMORY'S PURPOSE HERE, I GUESS, UM, ON SLIDE 12, UH, THE BASIS OF THE JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT IS TRANSITIONING TO AN ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE AS OPPOSED TO THE HISTORICAL FIXED RATE MODEL THAT WE HAD BEFORE THE FIXED. 
          UH, AND THERE'S FIVE COMPONENTS BASICALLY TO THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION. 
          UH, FIRST WE DID PUT IN PLACE A FIXED DOLLAR 30 YEAR CLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE TO PAY THE UNFUNDED ACTUARILY ACCRUED LIABILITY. 
          SO THAT IS THE, THE OLD DEBT THAT IS THE OLD UNFUNDED LIABILITY THAT HAD BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR YEARS, AND WE WERE NOT PAYING SUFFICIENT TO MEET THAT. 
          SO WE NOW HAVE A 30 YEAR CLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE THAT PAYS THAT OFF. 
          SECOND IS THE EMPLOYER NORMAL COST, WHICH IS A, A PERCENTAGE OF COMPUTATION PAY. 
          AND SO I THINK OF NORMAL COSTS AS NEW COSTS THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO THE SYSTEM. 
          SO THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY IS FOR WHAT HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE, UH, EMPLOYEES IN THE PAST, BUT NORMAL COST IS REALLY WHAT THEY'RE EARNING ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS. 
          SO TODAY WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, 3000 POLICE OFFICERS AND 2000 FIREFIGHTERS ON THE STREET. 
          AND EVERY DAY THEY WORK, THEY ADD TO THE FUTURE LIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM. 
          AND SO WE NEED TO BE KEEPING UP WITH THAT FUTURE LIABILITY FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE WORKING. 
          SO THERE'S A CALCULATION THAT'S GONNA BE REDONE EVERY YEAR AS PART OF THE A DC TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING UP WITH IT. 
          SO WE HAVE A SCHEDULE TO PAY OFF THE 30 YEAR UNFUNDED LIABILITY, AND WE'RE GONNA BE ADJUSTING ANNUALLY AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP UP GOING FORWARD. 
          NOW, THERE IS A NUMBER THREE GAIN AND LOSS AMORTIZATION. 
          SO THERE'S A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS, A LOT OF ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT GO INTO HOW THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE IS CALCULATED. 
          UH, EVERYTHING FROM LIFE EXPECTANCY TO, UH, WHAT THE PAYROLL IS GOING TO BE, HOW MANY OFFICERS WE'RE GONNA HAVE, WHAT THE RATE OF RETURN IS. 
          SO THERE'S SO MANY, UH, PROJECTIONS OR ASSUMPTIONS THAT MAKE UP THAT ACTUARIAL, UH, CALCULATION. 
          THERE WILL BE GAINS AND LOSSES BECAUSE NO ONE'S GONNA HIT IT PERFECTLY. 
          AND SO ONE OF THE, UH, PRIMARY, UH, COMPONENTS IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT. 
          I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE PRIMARY SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR THE SYSTEM. 
          SO THERE, UH, FORECASTING 6.5% RETURN. 
          IF THEY EARN MORE THAN 6.5, THAT'S A BENEFIT TO THE FUND. 
          IF THEY LET EARN LESS THAN 6.5 ON AVERAGE, THAT IS A, A DRAIN ON THE FUND, AND IT COULD INCREASE THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO THERE IS A GAIN IN LOSS PROCESS FOR WHEN WE'RE MISSING THOSE TARGETS EACH YEAR. 
          THEN HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS? ALSO, UH, NUMBER FOUR, UH, WE KNOW THAT, THAT DURING THIS FIRST FIVE YEARS WHERE WE ARE DOING A STEP UP TO THE A DC, THAT THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR A NET LOSS OR NET GAIN THAT WILL NEED TO BE DEALT WITH AFTER THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. 
          AND THAT'S BUILT IN IN NUMBER FOUR. 
          AND THEN NUMBER FIVE, AS PART OF THE FINAL AGREEMENT IN DECEMBER, THERE WERE SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL PAY COMPONENTS THAT WERE ADDED INTO THE PLAN. 
          UH, SINCE THE PLAN IS NOT AT 70% FUNDED, THE RETIREES ARE 
          [00:15:01]
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE, UH, COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS. 
          BUT THE COUNCIL PUT IN A COUPLE, UH, PAY COMPONENTS THAT ARE REFLECTED ON AS NUMBER FIVE ON PAGE 12. 
          UH, OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT ARE LISTED ON PAGE 13. 
          THESE ARE NOT ABOUT OUR CONTRIBUTION, BUT MORE ABOUT GOVERNANCE. 
          WE REALLY WANTED TO PUT IN SOME THINGS THAT ALLOWED US AS THE CITY TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE PREDICTABILITY AND, AND WHAT'S GOING TO COME IN THE FUTURE, AND NOT JUST EACH YEAR GET A NUMBER AND BE SURPRISED BY IT, BUT REALLY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO, TO DO BETTER PLANNING. 
          AND SO ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO LOWER THEIR, UH, RATE OF RETURN PROJECTIONS, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE PROJECTING 6.5% RETURN, THEY MUST STAY WITHIN A QUARTER OF A PERCENT OF THE TOP 20 PUBLIC PENSION PLANS IN THE STATE. 
          SO WE PUT A A A A TRIGGER, IF YOU WILL, OR A THRESHOLD IN PLACE THAT THEY HAVE TO STAY WITHIN IF THEY LOWERED THEIR PROJECTION, UH, ON INTEREST RATES. 
          I'M JUST MAKING THIS UP, IF THEY LOWERED IT TO 3%, THAT WOULD BE A BIG COST TO THE CITY BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE. 
          RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE PROJECTING TO EARN 6.5. 
          IF THEY SAID GOING FORWARD, THEY WERE ONLY GONNA EARN 3%, THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS. 
          HOW DO YOU MAKE UP A LOSS? THE CITY HAS TO PICK UP THE DIFFERENCE. 
          AND SO WE PUT SOME CONTROLS IN PLACE RELATED TO THEIR RATE OF RETURN PROJECTIONS. 
          WE ALSO PUT IN PLACE, UH, AT THE TIME THERE WAS A LAWSUIT GOING ON, UH, BETWEEN RETIREES AND THE POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM. 
          UH, WE DID NOT WANT THE SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO UNILATERALLY, UM, UH, OR ON THEIR OWN TO BE ABLE TO SETTLE SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE A BIG COST TO THE CITY. 
          UH, SO WE PUT IN NUMBER TWO. 
          UH, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN THE AGREEMENT THAT ONCE THE SYSTEM IS BACK AT 70% FUNDED, THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS ACCORDING TO, UH, WHAT'S IN STATE LAW. 
          UH, THE A DC CALCULATION WE PUT IN PLACE SOME, UH, TRIGGERS, UH, SOME GUARDRAILS THAT I HAVE LISTED OUT IN THOSE LAST FOUR OR FIVE, OR I'M SORRY, THOSE NUMBER 4, 5, 6, AND SEVEN. 
          JUST DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE GO ABOUT LOOKING AT THE CALCULATION OF THE A DC AND PUTTING SOME CORRIDORS IN PLACE TO KIND OF CONTROL THAT. 
          UH, MOVING TO SLIDE 15. 
          UH, SO THAT'S KIND OF BRINGS US UP TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. 
          AND I'LL SAY AGAIN, THAT THE PLAN THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED ON IN DECEMBER AND THE BOARD APPROVED, ACCEPTED BY THE PRB, IT FULLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. 
          WE ARE ON A PATH THAT MEETS THE STATE PENSION REVIEW BOARD REQUIREMENT TO BE FULLY FUNDED. 
          WE, WE, AS LONG AS WE CONTRIBUTE ACCORDING TO THE PLAN, WE'VE SATISFIED THAT. 
          NOW, MOVING TO 15, PAGE 15 PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          SO PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS ARE TAXABLE BONDS THAT SOME STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ISSUE AS PART OF AN OVERALL STRATEGY TO FUND THE UNFUNDED PORTION OF THEIR PENSION LIABILITIES. 
          AND THAT'S BY CREATING DEBT ON THE, UH, SIDE OF THE CITY. 
          AND THE USE OF THE POB RESTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE BOND PROCEEDS WILL BE INVESTED AND THEY WILL HAVE A HIGHER YIELD THAN, UH, I'M SORRY, THAT THE RATE OF RETURN WILL BE GREATER THAN THE INTEREST OWED. 
          SO IF, AND AS AN EXAMPLE, IF THE CITY ISSUED $500 MILLION PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, YOU, WE GIVE TO THE PENSION SYSTEM $500 MILLION. 
          IT'S BASICALLY FREE PAYMENT. 
          THEY TAKE THAT, THEY INVEST THAT, AND TO MAKE THIS BENEFICIAL, THEY NEED TO EARN MORE MONEY ON THAT, UH, CASH THAT'S GIVEN TO THEM THAN IT'S COSTING US TO REPAY IT. 
          IF THEY ARE EARNING LESS THAN WE'RE PAYING, THEN IT WASN'T A, WE WILL BE UNDERWATER, NOT A WISE FINANCIAL THING TO DO. 
          SO, BACK IN, BEFORE THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM, WE STARTED HOLDING, UH, IN OUR DEBT SERVICE MODEL FOR THE CITY WHERE WE NORMALLY ISSUE OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, WE HELD ABOUT $500 MILLION OF CAPACITY ASIDE KNOWING THAT THIS WAS A TOPIC THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE AT SOME POINT TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER WE WANTED TO KIND OF PRE-FUND SOME OF OUR, UH, FUTURE PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH A POB. 
          AND SO WE'VE HELD THAT, UH, CAPACITY IN OUR DEBT SERVICE MODEL, AND I MENTIONED THAT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I BELIEVE. 
          UH, BUT WE GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2023 BEFORE WE DID THE 2024 BOND ELECTION. 
          AND, AND WE, UH, REFERENCE THAT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THEN. 
          SO IT'S BEEN IN OUR PLANNING, IT'S BEEN IN OUR THINKING, UH, ALL ALONG FOR COUNCIL TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, CONSIDER THAT. 
          SO IN SLIDE 16, 
          [00:20:01]
UH, LISTED JUST KIND OF, UH, ADVANTAGES AND CAUTIONS. 
          SO ADVANTAGES, THE PRIMARY ADVANTAGE IS BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE INVESTMENT RETURNS EXCEEDING THE BORROWING COST. 
          AND THAT WOULD CREATE A BUDGET SAVINGS. 
          IT WOULD, UH, WORK FOR DALLAS BY, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, AN ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE IS IN DALLAS, IT WOULD MOVE PART OF OUR CONTRIBUTION OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND INTO THE DEBT SERVICE FUND. 
          SO IN THE GENERAL FUND, UH, OUR CONTRIBUTIONS COULD GO DOWN AND, AND THE REASON IT GOES DOWN IS BECAUSE WE GAVE THEM, IN THIS EXAMPLE, $500 MILLION IN CASH, THEY'RE EARNING INTEREST ON IT. 
          SO OUR ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND WOULD GO DOWN WHILE AT THE SAME TIME WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE DEBT ON OUR DEBT SERVICE FUND. 
          SO IT'S A BENEFIT IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND BY ITSELF. 
          SO SOME CAUTIONS. 
          SO THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER ASSOCIATION, UH, THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY RECOMMEND ISSUING PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          AND THEY'VE LISTED SOME REASONS HERE. 
          UH, THE INVESTED POB PROCEEDS MIGHT FAIL TO EARN MORE THAN THE INTEREST RATE. 
          OF COURSE, THAT IS A CAUTION. 
          UM, BY ISSUING PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS YOU'RE ISSUING, YOU'RE INCREASING THE CITY'S DEBT. 
          UH, IF WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR DEBT AND HOW MUCH DEBT WE HAVE, THAT WOULD BE PUTTING MORE DEBT ON THE BOOKS. 
          IT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, UH, TAKES AWAY SOME OF THE CAPACITY TO DO OTHER TYPES OF DEBT FUNDED PROJECTS, INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, UH, THE GFOA OR GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER ASSOCIATION ALSO CAUTION THAT THE POB INSTRUMENTS ARE, ARE FAIRLY COMPLEX INSTRUMENTS. 
          DEPENDING UPON THE WAY YOU STRUCTURE THEM, UH, THEY COULD, UH, CARRY SOME ADDITIONAL RISK. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, THE RATING AGENCIES MAY NOT HAVE A POSITIVE, A CREDIT POSITIVE VIEW OF P POVS. 
          SO I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ON THE NEXT, UH, SLIDE. 
          SLIDE 17. 
          SO WE FOUND SOME STATEMENTS OF RATING AGENCIES. 
          MOODY'S SAID IN APRIL OF 2020 THAT, UH, P-O-B-P-O-B IS NEUTRAL AT BEST AND IS USUALLY NEGATIVE ON YOUR CREDIT RATING. 
          FITCH SIMILARLY SAID THAT IT'S FROM NEUTRAL TO NEGATIVE ON YOUR CREDIT RATING. 
          S AND P ON THE OTHER HAND, TOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT APPROACH, AND THEY SAID THEY'RE NOT GONNA OVERSIMPLIFY THIS 'CAUSE IT'S NOT A SIMPLE SITUATION. 
          AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW, UH, THEY'RE NOT GONNA MAKE A STATEMENT WHETHER IT'S POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY SO MANY OTHER FACTORS THAT GO INTO YOUR BOND RATING THAN JUST A POB. 
          SO, UH, THAT WAS ONE APPROACH TO IT. 
          NOW, I DID LOOK, UH, AND SEE WHO HAS ISSUED PABS, UH, OVER THE, THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. 
          AND SO I'LL KIND OF INTERJECT THAT RIGHT HERE. 
          I DID FIND, UH, GARLAND, UH, ISSUED POB, UH, LAST AUGUST GRAND PRAIRIE IN AUGUST OF 22. 
          IRVING IN, UH, APRIL OF 22, AND IRVING ALSO, AND NOVEMBER OF 21. 
          SO I HAVE ABOUT 60 THAT ARE IDENTIFIED SINCE 21. 
          MOST OF THEM WERE ISSUED IN 21 AND 22. 
          AND IT SEEMS LIKE AFTER 22, IT WAS REALLY A DROP OFF. 
          AND THAT'S BECAUSE, UH, INVESTMENT EARNINGS CHANGED. 
          THE, THE, UH, THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THEM BECAME A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX. 
          AND SO THERE'S NOT AS MANY POB ISSUANCES, UH, IN THE RECENT YEARS. 
          BUT AGAIN, GARLAND GRAND PRAIRIE IRVING ARE TEXAS CITIES THAT HAVE ISSUED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. 
          MOST OF THE CITIES ON THIS LIST OF 60, UH, MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS, CALIFORNIA, UM, ARE THE PRIMARY STATES WHERE IT SEEMS TO BE MASSACHUSETTS. 
          UH, AND THEN AGAIN, THOSE, UH, THREE OR FOUR WITHIN TEXAS WITHIN THE LAST FOUR YEARS. 
          AND, UM, WE ALSO GOT SOME, UH, DELOITTE PULLED THIS, UH, STATEMENT FOR ME FROM CENTER FOR RETIREMENT RESEARCH AT, UH, BOSTON COLLEGE. 
          THEY DID A STUDY OF POB BACK IN 2010. 
          AND IT REALLY IS ALL ABOUT THE TIMING. 
          UH, IF YOU'RE IN THE MARKET AT THE RIGHT TIME, YOU CAN MAKE MONEY. 
          YOU'RE IN THE MARKET AT THE WRONG TIME, YOU'RE NOT GONNA MAKE FUNDING. 
          AND SO, UH, THAT IS THE CAUTION. 
          THERE IS WHEN IS, WHAT IS THE TIMING OF THE ISSUANCE. 
          SO IN SLIDE 18, UH, JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS ON HISTORY, BECAUSE WHAT'S REAL IMPORTANT ON POB IS THE RATE OF RETURN. 
          AND SO ON. 
          THIS SLIDE JUST PULLED SOME INFORMATION FROM THE, UH, 2024 ACT FOR FOR, OR COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEM. 
          THEY IDENTIFIED A 10 YEAR RATE OF RETURN OF 3.1. 
          UH, THEY IDENTIFIED A BENCHMARK FOR A 10 YEAR PERIOD OF 7.5. 
          [00:25:01]
SO THEY WERE BELOW THAT AND THEN ALSO APPEAR, UH, OR A BENCHMARK APPEARS BEING 6.7, AND THEY WERE BELOW THAT. 
          THEIR AVERAGE RETURNS, UH, BASED ON, UH, THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31ST TO 24, THEIR ONE YEAR RATE OF RETURN IS 9.255 YEAR RATE OF RETURN, 5.07 10 YEAR 3.12 15 YEAR 3.48. 
          SO THAT'S JUST A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT THEIR RETURNS HAVE BEEN. 
          AND THEN, UH, THAT'S, UH, CHART IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, YOU'LL SEE THEIR RATE OF RETURN FROM OH SIX FORWARD, AND YOU'LL SEE YEARS THAT THEY HAD, UH, LOSSES AS WELL AS YEARS THAT THEY HAD GAINS SOME GAINS. 
          PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, SOME LOSSES, UM, WERE, UM, SIGNIFICANT AS WELL. 
          UM, THE CHART ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE SHOWS THEIR RETURNS COMPARED TO THEIR PROJECTION THAT THEY USE IN THEIR, UH, ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE. 
          THE LINE GOING ACROSS THE PAGE IS WHAT THEIR RATE OF RETURN ASSUMPTIONS ARE, AND YOU'LL SEE YEARS THAT THEY WERE ABOVE THAT, YEARS THAT THEY WERE BELOW THAT. 
          AND AGAIN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO AVERAGE AT, UH, A RATE OF RETURN. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HIT IT EVERY SINGLE YEAR. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABOVE IT EVERY SINGLE YEAR. 
          UH, BUT THEY COME UP WITH THAT PROJECTED 6.5 BASED UPON THE HISTORY OF BEING ABOVE AND BEING BELOW SOME YEARS. 
          NOW, I DID ASK WHAT THE CURRENT, UH, BORROWING COST WOULD BE AND A RECENT TRANSACTION OR RECENT ACTIVITY LOOKED AT. 
          UH, IT WOULD BE ABOUT 6.17% IF WE WERE GOING TO THE MARKET NOW, UH, OR THIS PAST WEEK THAT WE ISSUED, WE WOULD BE BORROWING AT 6.17%. 
          SO BORROWING AT 6.17%. 
          AND THEN COMPARING TO WHAT THEIR RATE OF RETURN HAS BEEN ON THEIR INVESTMENTS IN 25, THE CHART IN THE MIDDLE SHOWS THAT THEY EARN 15, UH, 15% THIS PAST YEAR AND 9% THE YEAR BEFORE AND 13 NINE THE YEAR BEFORE. 
          SO THEY'VE HAD SOME GOOD RECENT YEARS, BUT THEN THEIR 10 YEAR, 15 YEAR, UH, NUMBERS ARE NOT, NOT AS, UH, POSITIVE. 
          SO MOVING TO SLIDE 19, UH, I, I WORKED WITH DELOITTE, WHO IS THE CITY'S ACTUARY, AND ASKED THEM TO MODEL SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          AND SO THEY'VE ASSUMED THAT THE CITY BORROWING $500 MILLION, ISSUING $500 MILLION OF PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS REPAYING IT OVER 25 YEARS. 
          AND THEY LOOKED AT BORROWING COST OF 3%, 4%, AND 5%. 
          NOW, THAT, THAT, THAT ASK AND THAT WORK WAS DONE PRIOR TO US SEEING THE 6% JUST LAST WEEK. 
          UH, BUT THOSE ARE THE, UH, SCENARIOS THAT WE WILL BE SHOWING YOU ON THE NEXT COUPLE OF PAGES. 
          UM, I WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT COUPLE OF PAGES. 
          SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE SCENARIOS. 
          ON SLIDE 20, THE FIRST SCENARIO, WHAT THEY'VE ASSUMED IS THE 6.5% RATE OF RETURN IN EVERY YEAR IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND THEN THEY'VE ASSUMED BORROWING COST OF 3%, 4%, OR 5%. 
          THIS CHART SHOWS THE ORANGE BAR SHOW WHAT OUR CURRENT, UH, GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION IS EACH YEAR. 
          THE BLUE BAR SHOWS HOW WE WOULD REDUCE OUR GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION AFTER WE ISSUED PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          SO THE SPACE BETWEEN THE ORANGE BAR AND THE BLUE BAR IS YOUR SAVINGS TO THE GENERAL FUND. 
          THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE YOUR DEBT SERVICE COST. 
          THIS IS JUST A PAGE LOOKING AT THE GENERAL FUND COST. 
          THE GENERAL FUND COST WOULD BE GOING DOWN IN THOSE YEARS IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THEY WOULD BE OTHERWISE, NOT GOING DOWN FROM WHERE THEY ARE NOW, BUT GOING BEING LESS THAN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PROJECTED ON SLIDE 21. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT IT AND, AND I APOLOGIZE, THE CHART IS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED, BUT I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT IT. 
          UH, THIS WAY. 
          THIS CHART SHOWS THE PURPLE LINE THAT AT THE BOTTOM IS WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 
          THE LINES THAT GO UP THE GREEN LINE IS ASSUMING OUR DEBT SERVICE, IF WE BORROW AT 3%, THE ORANGE LINE IS OUR BORROWING COST AT 4%. 
          THE BLUE LINE IS OUR BORROWING COST OF 5%. 
          SO WHILE THE PURPLE LINE GOES DOWN, OUR GENERAL FUND GOES DOWN, OUR DEBT SERVICE, WE HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR IT. 
          AND THE BAR, UH, CHART IN THE MIDDLE IS THAT DIFFERENCE WHERE YOU'RE SAVING, UH, ON A NET SAVINGS BETWEEN THE PURPLE BAR GOING DOWN MORE THAN THE BORROWING 
          [00:30:01]
COSTS GOING UP IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO. 
          SO SLIDE 22 IS THIS EXACT SAME INFORMATION. 
          THIS IS THE WAY I PREFER TO LOOK AT IT. 
          NOT EVERYONE LIKES A BUNCH OF NUMBERS, BUT THIS IS MY EASIER WAY OF LOOKING AT IT. 
          UH, SO WHAT WE HAVE ON THIS CHART SHOWS OUR, UH, CONTRIBUTIONS, OUR TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS, UH, IN THE THIRD COLUMN BEING $11.9 BILLION OVER TIME. 
          SO THE FIRST COLUMN IS PAYING OFF THAT UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL LIABILITY, THAT 30 YEAR AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE. 
          IT WILL NOT CHANGE UN UNLESS WE ISSUE P BS. 
          IT WON'T CHANGE. 
          THE SECOND COLUMN IS, UH, THE OTHER COST, THE NORMAL COST THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. 
          THEN THE THIRD COLUMN IS THE TOTAL. 
          SO THE CHANGE TO OUR GENERAL FUND IS IN THE COLUMN THAT HAS THE RED BAR AROUND IT. 
          SO IF WE ADD SAVINGS, THOSE PREVIOUS CHARTS SHOWED WE WOULD HAVE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS. 
          THIS IS HOW MUCH SAVINGS WE COULD REALIZE IN EACH YEAR, $37 MILLION, UH, IN 20 30, 30 $8 MILLION SAVINGS THE NEXT YEAR, $40 MILLION SAVINGS. 
          SO WE WOULD HAVE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS, THAT'S GREAT, BUT THAT'S ONLY HALF THE STORY. 
          YOU HAVE TO PAY THE DEBT. 
          AND SO THE NEXT THREE SECTIONS ARE PAYING THE DEBT ON THE 500 MILLION, PAYING IT. 
          IF WE HAVE 5%, UH, COST OF BORROWING, 4% COST OF BORROWING, OR 3% COST OF BORROWING, DEPENDING UPON WHAT WE BORROW AT. 
          YOU HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NET SAVINGS. 
          SO IF WE'RE ABLE TO BORROW AT 5% AND THEY CONSISTENTLY HAVE 6.5% RETURN, THEN UH, THAT'S THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE. 
          AND IT SHOWS AT THE BOTTOM THAT WE WOULD HAVE A NET SAVINGS OF $280 MILLION. 
          WE WOULD HAVE A SAVINGS IN OUR GENERAL FUND. 
          WE WOULD HAVE EXPENSE IN OUR DEBT SERVICE FUND BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          WE HAVE A NET SAVINGS. 
          YOU SEE, AGAIN, IF WE BORROW AT 4%, THEY CONSISTENTLY EARN 6.5%, THEN WE COULD NET NEARLY $400 MILLION OF SAVINGS. 
          LASTLY, IF THEY CONSISTENTLY EARN AT 6.5, WE BORROW AT THREE, WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE $509 MILLION OF NET SAVINGS. 
          NOW MENTIONED A COUPLE OF SLIDES BEFORE THAT, JUST RECENTLY, THE BORROWING COST US 6%. 
          IT'S NOT 3%, 4% OR 5%. 
          IT'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THIS. 
          AND SO I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT UNTIL WE WERE TOO FAR ALONG FOR ME TO KIND OF SWITCH THAT. 
          BUT I'M ASKED DELOITTE TO MODEL THAT AS WELL. 
          I'D BE HAPPY TO SEND THAT TO Y'ALL. 
          BUT DIRECTIONALLY YOU UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION IS WHAT DO THEY EARN? WHAT DOES IT COST? THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. 
          SO THE SECOND SCENARIO'S ON SLIDE 23, 24 AND 25. 
          SO IN THIS SCENARIO, WHAT UH, THEY DID IS, AGAIN, BORROWING AT 3%, 4% OR 5%, BUT INSTEAD OF SIX AND A HALF PERCENT RETURNS, THEY WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT WHAT ACTUALLY WAS EXPERIENCED IN 2008 THROUGH 2011. 
          'CAUSE WE TOOK A HARD HIT IN 2008. 
          AND SO THAT INCLUDES A LOSS OF 25%, A POSITIVE 14%, A POSITIVE 11, AND A MINUS 2% ON THE RATES OF RETURNS FOR THOSE YEARS. 
          AND SO MODELING IT WITH THAT, UH, YOU GET A DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN WE JUST LOOKED AT. 
          AND SO ON SLIDE 23, YOU STILL SEE THAT THE SAVINGS TO THE GENERAL FUND, AGAIN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BLUE BAR AND THE ORANGE BAR, IF WE DON'T ISSUE P BS IS THE ORANGE BAR AND THE CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GENERAL FUND. 
          WE DO HAVE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS WITH THE BLUE BARS. 
          IF WE DO ISSUE POB, UH, SLIDE 24, SIMILAR TO ONE A COUPLE MINUTES AGO, SHOWS THE SAME THING. 
          PURPLE BAR ACROSS THE BOTTOM, THAT'S THE SAVINGS IN THE GENERAL FUND, THE GREEN, ORANGE, AND BLUE AT THE TOP. 
          THAT'S THE COST ON THE DEBT SIDE. 
          SO NOW FOR ME, PAGE 25, LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS, EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. 
          AGAIN, SAME SITUATION. 
          OUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE. 
          IF WE, UM, ISSUE POB AND THEY HAVE THE RETURNS OF MINUS 25, PLUS 14 PLUS 11 MINUS TWO, AND THEN 6.5 GOING FORWARD, WE WOULD HAVE A SAVINGS IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $914 MILLION OVER THE, UH, 25 YEARS. 
          BUT THEN THERE'S A COST. 
          UH, THE COST, IF WE BORROW AT 5% AND THEIR RETURNS ARE WHAT I JUST MENTIONED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT WOULD COST US MORE. 
          WE WOULD BE UNDERWATER ON THIS ONE, IT WOULD BE A LOSS, AN 
          [00:35:01]
ADDITIONAL COST OF $88 MILLION. 
          IF WE HAD, UH, BORROWED AT 4%, THEN WE'RE ABOUT BREAKEVEN A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN BREAKEVEN. 
          UM, THE THIRD SCENARIO, AGAIN, BORROWING AT 3%, WE WOULD HAVE ABOUT $141 MILLION OF SAVINGS. 
          AGAIN, I I HOPE IT DEMONSTRATES THE WHOLE ISSUE IS WHAT DO, WHAT IS THE COST OF BORROWING? WHAT IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENTS? THAT'S THE ANSWER. 
          IF YOU TIME ALL THAT CORRECTLY, IT CAN, IT CAN BE A, UH, NET POSITIVE FOR THE CITY. 
          SO IN SUMMARY, ON SLIDE 27, UM, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT WE HAVE A JOINT FUNDING AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PRB. 
          WE WORK THE PLAN. 
          WE HAVE, WE ARE, WE'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, ISSUING POB DOES PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE OUR ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION FROM GENERAL FUND, BUT IT ADDS COST ON THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE. 
          AND THE LAST BULLET, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE TIMING. 
          IT'S ALL ABOUT THE RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT, UH, VERSUS THE, UH, INTEREST OWED. 
          SO NEXT STEPS ON SLIDE 28. 
          SO, UH, DEPENDING UPON WHAT FEEDBACK WE RECEIVE, UH, REALLY WANT TO, UH, DEVELOP SOME CRITERIA OR TRIGGERS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, BECAUSE I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND GOING INTO THE MARKET UNLESS THINGS INTEREST RATE COSTS HAVE COME DOWN. 
          IT SEEMS TOO EXPENSIVE RIGHT NOW IF IT'S 6% AS THE RATE WE GET, AND I THINK STEVE EXPECTING TO BE ON. 
          BUT, UH, STEVE JOHNSON'S WITH HILLTOP SECURITIES AND, AND SO THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WORK WITH US ON, UH, WHEN WE BORROW, UH, ANY GENERAL OBLIGATION PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          AND SO WE WOULD WORK WITH STEVE AND TRY TO IDENTIFY AND GET HIM TO LOOK AT HIS CRYSTAL BALL AND TRY TO TELL ME WHEN IS A BETTER TIME THAN RIGHT NOW TO BE BORROWING. 
          AND WE WOULD WANNA SET SOME TRIGGERS IN PLACE. 
          WE WOULD ALSO WANT TO, UH, HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING FROM COUNCIL ON WHAT WOULD BE THE EXPECTATION ON THE RATE OF RETURN THAT WE WOULD WANT FROM THE SYSTEM. 
          'CAUSE YOU REALLY NEED TO CAPTURE THAT SPREAD BETWEEN THE COST AND THE, THE PROFIT OR THE EARNINGS. 
          UM, SO WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, IF, IF THE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMITTEE IS YES, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD IN THIS DIRECTION, YES, WE SHOULD AT LEAST GET THE AUTHORIZATION, THEN WE WOULD ALSO BE WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD REQUIRE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE BOARD, UH, ABOUT PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          I WOULD WANT TO DO THAT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GOT VOTER APPROVAL. 
          SO WE DON'T HAVE IS, IT'S ONLY REQUIRED TO DO IT BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY BORROW THE MONEY, BUT I'D WANT TO JUST BE PROACTIVE AND WORK WITH THEM ON THAT. 
          UH, MENTIONED JUNE 3RD. 
          UH, THERE'S A PUBLIC SAFETY, UH, IMPROVEMENT, UH, BRIEFING. 
          IT'S GONNA BE BACK ABOUT THE POLICE ACADEMY. 
          WE'LL TALK ABOUT ADDITIONAL BONDS THAT MAY BE NEEDED. 
          UH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT OTHER DEBT CONSIDERATIONS FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE. 
          BE AN OPPORTUNITY, IF Y'ALL WANT ANY MORE INFORMATION ON THAT DATE ABOUT THIS, OR IF Y'ALL WANTED TO GIVE DIRECTION FOR US TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD REGARDING PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          AUGUST 12TH WAS THE LAST COUNCIL DATE, UH, TO CALL AN ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER. 
          IF YOU WANT A GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, YOU HAVE TO CALL IT BY AUGUST THE 12TH. 
          UH, I, I DIDN'T SAY THIS ANYWHERE ALONG THE WAY, BUT I, I SHOULD MAKE THE POINT. 
          UH, GETTING AUTHORIZATION IS THE FIRST STEP, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE VOTER APPROVAL. 
          IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE GONNA GO OUT AND ISSUE THE BONDS, RIGHT? THEN YOU, SO YOU COULD GET THE AUTHORIZATION AND THEN HAVE DIRECTED US ON WHAT THOSE TRIGGERS ARE. 
          AND WE'RE READY IF THE MARKET TURNS AND WE CAN BORROW IT AT A, UH, A GOOD RATE. 
          UM, AND, AND IT JUST SETS US UP TO BE READY TO DO THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THE WHOLE ECONOMY TO GET BETTER AND THEN BE LIKE, LET'S DO IT. 
          AND WE, I HAVE TO SAY, WELL, WE GOTTA WAIT UNTIL NEXT NOVEMBER TO CALL AN ELECTION. 
          UH, 'CAUSE THAT BE, SO THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL THOUGH. 
          IF YOU, IF Y'ALL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD IN THIS WAY, THEN YOU DO HAVE THE OPTION OF CALLING THE ELECTION, HOLDING THE ELECTION AND THEN TIMING THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. 
          IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT WE ISSUE ALL $500 MILLION AT ONE TIME. 
          UH, IRVING AS AN EXAMPLE, ISSUED, ISSUED IT IN A COUPLE OF TRANCHES. 
          AND SO THAT'S A WAY MAYBE TO HEDGE THE, THE VOLATILITY OF THE MARKET IF YOU'RE DOING IT AT DIFFERENT TIMES. 
          SO THERE'S SOME THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WE COULD PUT IN PLACE AS OUR REQUIREMENTS, UH, IF WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS DIRECTION. 
          SO WITH THAT, I'LL STOP AND I WILL TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, DEPUTY MAYOR PROTE. 
          OKAY. 
          A STOP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, UH, JACK, I WANNA GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE TOUCHED ON IS THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT 
          [00:40:01]
ISSUING BONDS, THIS IS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF ISSUING BONDS AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO US AS A CITY. 
          SO FOR THAT REASON, IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE PENSION FUND, THE DALLAS POLICE AND BUYER PENSION. 
          IT'S ABOUT THE CITY AND TOOLS THAT WE CAN USE TO MANAGE OUR BIGGER PICTURE. 
          THAT'S A A DIFFERENT WAY OF SAYING IT. 
          YES. 
          I THINK THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT. 
          IT IS A TOOL THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO, UH, MANAGE OUR FINANCES. 
          UH, DEPENDING UPON WHERE YOU WANT THE COST TO BE, UH, IT'S NOT UP TO THE PENSION BOARD WHERE THE COST COMES FROM AND THE GENERAL FUND OR THE DEBT SERVICE FUND, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY OF INTEREST TO Y'ALL. 
          UH, US KIND OF PREPAYING IT WITH THE CASH FROM THE BOND PROCEEDS. 
          THAT'S UP TO US. 
          WE'RE ON A PATH TO FUND FULLY. 
          SURE. 
          AND SO IT'S JUST HOW DO WE WANNA MANAGE THAT, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE NUMBERS GET REALLY BIG EVEN AS SOON AS 2030, WHICH IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. 
          AND SO, BECAUSE PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS ARE NOT A GOOD IDEA, I MEAN NOT, BUT PEOPLE AREN'T OUT THERE RECOMMENDING IT, UH, TO BE SUCCESSFUL, IT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, RATES OF RETURNS THAT THIS FUND HAS NEVER ACHIEVED. 
          UM, IT GOT THE NUMBER YOU HAD HERE, AND I REALIZE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO UP THAT HIGH $500 MILLION PUTTING IT INTO PRACTICALLY THE SAME INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES MADE, BUT NOWHERE NEAR THE SCOPE OF I THINK WHAT WE WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROMISE AHEAD. 
          UM, SO REALLY IT IS ABOUT THE MESSAGE THIS MIGHT SEND TO THE BOND RATING, UH, COMMUNITY. 
          I MEAN, IT WOULD SHOW THAT INSTEAD OF THE SQUEEZE THAT'S COMING OUR WAY TO THE TUNE OF 350, 400, $500 MILLION BY 2050, THAT THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS, UM, OPTIONS. 
          SO REALLY IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, IT'S ABOUT COMMUNICATING TO THESE BOND RATING AGENCIES THAT, THAT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY AND WE HAVE OPTIONS. 
          AND FOR THAT REASON, YOU SHOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN US. 
          AND, AND WE DO, WHEN WE MEET WITH THE RATING AGENCIES, WE DO TRY TO EXPRESS, UM, UH, OUR ABILITY TO MANAGE WHAT WE HAVE. 
          AND THIS IS ANOTHER TOOL THAT WE COULD EXPRESS THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US IN THAT, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, UM, THE, THE RATE OF RETURN THAT THE PENSION SYSTEM IS EARNING, IF, IF THEY'RE HITTING THE 6.5 AND, AND THEY'VE EXCEEDED THAT, UH, FOUR OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS, UM, SO THEY'VE HAD SOME GOOD YEARS, AND IF WE HAD BORROWED AT 3%, WE WOULD BE IN A POSITIVE SITUATION. 
          UM, IT'S JUST ABOUT THE TIMING AT END AND WHAT WE BORROW AT VERSUS WHAT THEY EARN. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND OVER THE LONG TERM YOUR POINTS ABOUT, UH, THE HISTORY OF THE SYSTEMS' EARNINGS AND OBVIOUSLY CONCERN, I MEAN, NEGATIVE RETURNS AND SIX OF 19 YEARS. 
          BUT, BUT THE, THE IMPORTANT THING IS, I MEAN, GETTING BACK TO THE PROMISE OF THIS, NOT THE ACTUAL ISSUING OF IT, IT'S THAT WE COULD SET CRITERIA, RIGHT? 'CAUSE BELIEVE ME, I MEAN, IF IT WAS JUST SURFACE LEVEL, I WOULD SAY, NO, WE SHOULD NOT DO THIS. 
          BUT WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT IT MEANS TO OUR POTENTIAL IN THE MARKETPLACE AND OUR FLEXIBILITY, THEN IT TAKES ON A WHOLE NEW MEANING. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE MENTIONED CRITERIA THAT WE PUT AROUND IT. 
          I MEAN, TIME TO PERFORMANCE OR OTHER FACTORS. 
          I MEAN, COUNCIL CAN DETERMINE, UH, A LOT OF THAT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T BE A MATTER OF JUST WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IT PASSES WITH VOTERS, THEN WE JUST HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. 
          WE MAY HAVE, WE MAY AT SOME POINT DETERMINE WE WANT TO SELL REAL ESTATE ASSETS AND INFUSE THE FUND WITH THAT. 
          UH, ONE KEY THING THAT I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO LOOK AT, AND I KNOW THERE'S THE RFP OUT THERE ABOUT, UH, UNDERSTANDING PERFORMANCE. 
          AND IT'S NOT ABOUT THE LOOK BACK THAT AN ACTUARY DOES. 
          IT'S ABOUT THE LOOK FORWARD, ABOUT THE RIGHT MIX. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, UH, I THINK FOUR OF THE FIVE PEOPLE WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THAT OVERSIGHT ARE HERE. 
          SO THAT'S A LITTLE REFRESHING TODAY. 
          I HOPE WE BRING MORE TO THE RANKS. 
          UH, 'CAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY NECESSARY STEP BEFORE WE WOULD EVEN BEGIN TO EMBARK ON THIS TO KNOW THAT, UM, EVEN BEFORE WE PUT IT TO THE VOTERS, THAT WE HAD A PLAN FOR HOW WE CAN REALLY STRENGTHEN IT. 
          SO SHOULD A FUTURE COUNCIL GO ON AND ACT ON IT, THAT WE COULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE  KNOWING THE DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY, UH, ARE PUTTING THE FUNDS ON A TRAJECTORY THAT'S GOOD FOR THE CITY'S FINANCES, IT'S GOOD FOR THE MEMBERS, THE RETIREES, ET CETERA. 
          UM, SO THAT IT'S REALLY AS MUCH OF A WIN-WIN AS IT CAN BE. 
          SO, UM, I'M STILL JUST UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL VERSUS THE ACTUAL ISSUANCE. 
          UM, AND, AND JUST FOR THE TIMING OF WHY 
          [00:45:01]
WE WANTED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION TODAY, BECAUSE I, I THINK WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS PROBABLY A NOVEMBER ELECTION AND IF YOU WANTED TO BUNDLE SOME THINGS, IT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY. 
          IT'S NOT A HAVE TO, IT'S JUST WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE YOU OPTIONS. 
          WELL, THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER THINGS AROUND PUBLIC SAFETY THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, BRING OUT A SWELL OF ATTENTION IN THAT CATEGORY. 
          YES. 
          AND SO I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS ABOUT HOW WE'RE VIEWED AND HOW THAT AFFECTS OUR FINANCING ACROSS, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE OF THE CITY. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER ROTH. 
          UM, I HAVE A, I I REALLY DO HAVE A LETTER OF QUESTIONS I REALLY WANNA UNDERSTAND. 
          IT IS, UM, FIRST OF ALL, THE PRESUMPTION THAT YOU HAVE IS BASED ON A $500 MILLION BORROW. 
          IS THE RETURN THE COST OF THE DEBT SERVICE, DOES THAT INCLUDE PRINCIPAL  STATEMENTS? Y YES SIR. 
          SO THE CONSTANT MORE THAN SIX FOOT PERCENT OVER A 30 YEAR, OVER A 30 YEAR, UM, PAYMENT SCHEDULE. 
          SO THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO, UM, WE USE, UH, THE COST OF BORROWING AT EITHER 3%, 4% OR 5%, AND OVER A 25 YEAR PERIOD BECAUSE THAT KIND OF MATCHES UP WITH US BEING FULLY FUNDED BY 2054. 
          AND SO NORMALLY WE DO 30 YEARS, BUT WE SHRUNK IT TO 25 TO NOT EXTEND THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          FORGET ABOUT, FORGET ABOUT MY QUESTION. 
          Y YES SIR. 
          DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT. 
          WHEN YOU'RE MAKING A PAYMENT, PART OF THAT PAYMENT IS INTEREST AND PART OF IT IS, IS PRINCIPAL. 
          YES, SIR. 
          AND THAT IF YOU BORROW AT 5% OVER 25 YEARS, YOUR PAYMENT IS GOING TO BE 7% OR 8% NOT. 
          THAT'S THE NUMBER I'M LOOKING AT. 
          THAT'S CALLED THE CONSTANT. 
          THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE PAYING. 
          SO IF YOU'RE BORROWING AT AT SIX, AT A 5% INTEREST RATE, THEN YOU HAVE TO BE PAYING 8%. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          OR 7%. 
          AM I RIGHT? HILLTOP. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WE STEVE JOHNSON, HILLTOP SECURITIES, I'M NOT QUITE FOLLOWING THE LOGIC. 
          I WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT PAYMENT WHEN, BECAUSE IT'S CONFUSING WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE BORROWING AT FIVE AND WE'RE PAYING, WE'RE GETTING RETURN OF SIX, THE BORROWING PAYMENT IS NOT FIVE, THE BORROWING PAYMENT IS HIGHER THAN FIVE. 
          WHEN YOU ACTUALLY MAKE A PAYMENT, WHEN YOU'RE NOT PAYING 5%, YOU'RE NOT JUST PAYING YOUR INTEREST, YOU'RE PAYING YOUR DEBT, YOU'RE PAYING PRINCIPAL BACK AND INTEREST. 
          SO YOUR CASH FLOW IS MORE, AM I RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          IF YOU'RE BORROWING 500 MILLION, YOU WILL PAY MORE THAN 500 MILLION IN OVERALL. 
          SO EVERY PAYMENT IS, IS MORE THAN THE INTEREST. 
          SO YOU DON'T, IT'S NOT SIX AND A HALF VERSUS VERSUS FIVE, IT'S GOING TO BE SIX AND A HALF VERSUS EIGHT. 
          IT'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER OR IT'S A PAYMENT, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, WHATEVER THE CONS. 
          AND ANYWAY, UH, YOU'VE ANSWERED MY QUESTION. 
          IT'S A BIGGER, IT'S A BIGGER NUMBER. 
          IT'S NOT INTEREST VERSUS INTEREST. 
          I WANTED YOU'RE PAYING BACK PRINCIPLE. 
          OKAY. 
          NUMBER ONE, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PENSION OBLIGATION BOND AND A REGULAR BOND? IS IT THAT THE PENSION OBLIGATION BOND IS SECURED BY THE PENSION, UH, POT OR WHAT IS, WHAT IS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? SO, SO THEY'RE BOTH, UH, ARE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND A PENSION OBLIGATION BOND WOULD BE PAID FROM OUR PROPERTY TAX DEBT SERVICE FUND. 
          OKAY. 
          THEY'RE BOTH SECURED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE CITY. 
          UH, THE DIFFERENCE, THE, UH, PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS WOULD BE TAXABLE BONDS. 
          OKAY. 
          THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ARE TAX EXEMPT BONDS. 
          OKAY. 
          THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ARE USED TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE POB IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE PROCEEDS THAT HAVE BEEN INVESTED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF EARNING. 
          OKAY. 
          AND STEVE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I SHOULD HAVE SAID ABOUT THAT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN HOW LONG IS THE VOTER'S AUTHORIZATION GOOD FOR? UH, IF WE GET A, IF WE GET A, UH, GO THROUGH A REFERENDUM. 
          SO I HAVE SAID RECENTLY THAT IT'S 10 YEARS, BUT I WAS CORRECTED THIS WEEK. 
          I WAS TOLD THAT AS LONG AS WE CAN DEMONSTRATE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT WE STILL HAVE IT AS PART OF OUR FORECAST AND OUR PLAN, THAT THE AUTHORIZATION DOES NOT EXPIRE. 
          UH, AND OUR BOND COUNSEL TOLD ME THAT THIS WEEK. 
          SO THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN I PROBABLY TOLD COUNSEL IN THE PAST. 
          THAT, SO IT DOESN'T EXPIRE AS LONG AS WE CONTINUE TO EXPRESS 
          [00:50:01]
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AS PART OF OUR PLAN. 
          AND DOES IT, DOES IT STILL IMPOSE A CREDIT? UH, IT, UH, BY HAVING THAT AUTHORIZATION? NO, SIR. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO THERE'S, SO IT DOES, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE IN GETTING VOTER AUTH AUTHORIZATION FOR, UH, PRODUCING A BOND PROGRAM IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND THAT'S THE TIME TO DO IT WHEN THE INTEREST RATES ARE HIGH WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT DOWN THE ROAD WE'LL BE PRIMED TO DO IT IF WE WANT TO. 
          IS $500 MILLION A MAGIC NUMBER? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S NOT, HOW MUCH IS THE DEBT THAT, HOW MUCH IS THE OBLIGATION? IS IT STILL $3.2 BILLION ON THE, ON THE LEASE ROUGHLY? TO BE EXACT. 
          SO THE TOTAL UNFUNDED LIABILITY IS 3.7 BILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO 500 MILLION IN THIS, THE 500 MILLION, UH, PRIMING THE PUMP, WOULD THAT TAKE CARE OF THE WHOLE 3.7? NO, SIR. 
          NOT AT ALL. 
          SO WHAT, SO WHAT IS THE ULTI THE OTHER AMOUNTS THAT WE INCLUDED? SO THE REASON, UH, THE 500 MILLION WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD REASONABLY FIT WITHIN OUR DEBT BORROWING CAPACITY. 
          CAPACITY. 
          WE DO NOT HAVE THE DEBT CAPACITY TO BORROW $3 BILLION UNLESS YOU WANNA RAISE THE TAX RATE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S RELATED TO THE TAX RATE? YES. 
          YES, SIR. 
          AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE PUBLIC, DO YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT? YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, WHO MANAGES THE ASSETS? THE, UH, PENSION SYSTEM WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. 
          WE WOULD HAVE TO TURN THE PROCEEDS OVER TO THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION, WHY CAN'T, UH, THE CITY INVEST? UH, BUT THAT WAS NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THE PENSION INVESTMENT IS, IS OUR BOARD AS BEING THE PENSION BOARD, UH, DO WE HAVE, DO WE CONTROL, WHEN I SAY WE CONTROL THE, THE GROUP OF THE PENSION GROUP THAT'S MANAGING THIS, THE PENSION BOARD MANAGES THE PENSION, UH, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OR WHATEVER IT IS. 
          SO THE, THE PENSION BOARD, AGAIN, SIX OF WHICH ARE APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR, FIVE OR ELECTED BY THE MEMBERSHIP. 
          UH, THEY HAVE A COMMITTEE, AN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE INVESTMENT ADVISORS. 
          UM, BUT THEY WOULD BE THE ONES MAKING THE DECISIONS ON THE INVESTMENTS, NOT THE CITY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND, UH, WHAT, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO FROM, FOR THIS, FOR THE, UH, PENSION PLAN? IS THERE STILL ASSETS, REAL ESTATE ASSETS THAT ARE IN THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO? THERE, THERE ARE SOME LEGACY ASSETS, UM, AND I WOULD HAVE TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE PENSION BOARD TO GET, UH, CURRENT STATUS ON THAT. 
          I'VE NOT ASKED THAT RECENTLY, BUT I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT FOR YOU. 
          WELL, AND I POINT, MY POINT BE IS THAT I THINK IT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA TO SEE IF, IF THAT COULD ALSO BE AS, AS, UH, DAVE MENTIONED, PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER AVENUE TO FUND A PART OF THIS BUCKET OF, OF MONEY. 
          IF THERE'S SOMETHING, IF THAT SOME OF THOSE OLD ASSETS MAY MATURE, MAYBE THEY'RE MORE VALUABLE, MAYBE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY. 
          UM, THE WHAT DID, COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE DROP, UH, WHAT THAT WAS? HOW DID, HOW DID THE DROP LOOK? UM, SO THE DROP IS A DEFERRED RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. 
          AND IT DID WORK WHERE, UM, A OFFICER COULD RETIRE AND DEFER THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT AND IT WOULD BE PUT IN AN ACCOUNT FOR THEM AND THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK AND EARN SALARY. 
          SO THEY WERE IN, THEY WERE BENEFITING FROM BOTH A SALARY AND THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED DEPOSITING INTO, UH, A DEFERRED UH, SYSTEM AND IT, AND SO THAT IS THAT THAT PROGRAM IS GONE? NO, THERE IS STILL DROP, UH, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES TO IT. 
          UM, BUT UH, YEAH, THERE'S STILL THE ABILITY, UH, TO PARTICIPATE. 
          AND, AND I KEEP LOOKING BACK HERE 'CAUSE I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT MISSTATING, YOU'LL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IN DROP PLEASE. 
          AND AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, I'M NOT BEING CRITICAL. 
          I JUST, I UNDERSTAND. 
          SO, AND, AND IS THERE A, IS THERE, IS THERE RESTRICTIONS NOW ON THE DROP FOR, FOR THE FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO, TO WITHDRAW THAT 90 Y YES SIR. 
          I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. 
          THEY, THERE SOME CHANGES WERE MADE IN 2017 OR SO AND THEY REDUCED THE 8% DOWN TO SOME OF THESE . 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S, IT'S NO LONGER A, A MINIMUM 8%. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I'LL, I I, I'M SORRY TO . 
          UH, CHAIR JOHNSON YOU WANT, OKAY, WE'LL COME BACK. 
          UH, COUNCIL WILLIAM, THANK YOU. 
          AND THANKS FOR THE, UH, IN DEPTH EXPLANATION WITH NUMBERS BACKED UP TO IT. 
          UM, IT REALLY HELPS PUT, IT REALLY HELPS WITH THE PICTURE. 
          SO WE NOW UNDERSTAND THAT THERE 
          [00:55:01]
ARE TWO KEY THINGS, THE INTEREST RATE IN WHICH THE COST OF MONEY AND THE RATE OF RETURN. 
          UM, AND NEITHER REALLY ARE PREDICTABLE AT ANY POINT IN TIME. 
          SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WHAT WE DO HAVE PREDICTABILITY ON IS WHEN WE CAN TAKE THIS TO THE VOTERS, NOVEMBER, WE'VE HAD THAT THROWN OUT. 
          UM, WHAT DO WE HAVE PLANNING RIGHT NOW TO GO TO THE VOTERS? BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE TRAINING CENTER. 
          UM, POSSIBLY SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS BUILDING. 
          I MEAN, THE THING IS IS I THINK WE ARE SEEING THIS IN ALL OF OUR PROJECTS. 
          WE MAKE ONE DECISION AND THE RIPPLE EFFECT THROUGH EVERYTHING, AND THEN WE'RE TOO LATE AND THE DOMINOES HAVE FALLEN AND WHAT DO WE DO? SO, AND, AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A POLITICAL LENS BECAUSE NOVEMBER WILL BE A, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S GONNA BE CRAZY. 
          IT'S A MIDTERM STATEWIDE AND IT'S UNPREDICTABLE ELECTORATE RIGHT NOW. 
          AND I'M JUST SAYING IT'S, THAT'S, AND IT COULD BE MAY, MAYBE MAY OF 2027 'CAUSE THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WE CAN'T DO MAY, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY NOVEMBER? SO NOVEMBER WOULD BE THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY AND UH, WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATION WITH COUNCIL ABOUT THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN ORDER TO FINISH THE TWO FACILITIES FOR THE POLICE ACADEMY. 
          AND SO THAT IS PROBABLY A DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GONNA END UP RECOMMENDING AND WE'LL BE UP TO COUNCIL TO CALL THE ELECTION, ET CETERA. 
          UH, AND THEN THERE'S BEEN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION ABOUT, WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING IN NOVEMBER AND WE KNOW WE NEED, IF WE NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING RELATED TO 9 1 1 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, THAT'D BE A PRIME OPPORTUNITY. 
          UM, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEN POVS AND, AND THERE MAY BE SOME, SO THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT, WELL, WHAT OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES? AND I THINK THAT'S THE BRIEFING ON JUNE 3RD THAT DEB WILL BRING BACK AND TALK ABOUT THOSE. 
          AND I, I'M NOT SURE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S GONNA BE ON THERE, HOW WIDE OF A LIST OR NARROW. 
          SO, AND WE'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT ON THAT. 
          WELL, AND I WAS GONNA SAY IT, IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO WITH THIS BUILDING, I MEAN, IF WE'RE GONNA BUY A NEW BUILDING OR LAY IT HAS TO GO. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE STILL IN FLUX WITH THAT. 
          YEAH, I I'M JUST SAYING YOU'RE KIND OF LOADING UP THE BALLOT AND IT'S, IT'S ALREADY GONNA BE A CRAZY, I'M JUST POLITICALLY SO BACK TO THAT, HAVE WE EXPLORED EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO FIX THIS? I MEAN, HAVE WE GONE BACK, I MEAN, I KNOW WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, BUT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN EXPLORED THAT STILL COULD BE EXPLORED. 
          HAS, HAS THAT EVEN HAPPENED? AND IT'S REALLY NOT A GOTCHA, IT'S, IT'S JUST MORE OF A, THE THING IS IS THAT IF WE'RE LOOKING TO BRING DOWN THAT PAYMENT JUST A SMIDGEN IS WHAT I'M HEARING, GET THE BOOT BOOT OFF OF OUR THROAT. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD EXPLORE EVERYTHING. 
          SO I WOULD ANSWER WITH THE SYSTEM IS FIXED. 
          OKAY. 
          WE, WE'VE AGREED, UH, THAT WE WILL INCREASE CONTRIBUTIONS, UH, THE RETIREES, UH, GABE IF YOU WILL, UH, SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO BENEFITS, UH, THROUGH THE 2017 LEGISLATION THAT OCCURRED. 
          SO, UM, UH, I DON'T THINK A FIX IS NEEDED. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A FIX. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE PRBS ACCEPTED OUR FIX. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, AND AS LONG AS WE FUND IT, IT'S FIXED. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT DO YOU WANT TO THEN CONSIDER, ARE THERE THINGS AS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER OR DEPUTY MAYOR PROAM STEWART, I'M SORRY, WILLIS MENTIONED, UH, BEING ABLE TO MANAGE OUR FINANCES DIFFERENT, LOOKING AT THESE FUTURE LARGE COSTS TO OUR GENERAL FUND, DO, HOW, IS THERE, DO WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY? IS THIS A TOOL THAT WOULD HELP US WITH THAT, UH, ET CETERA? SO TO ME, I DON'T THINK IT'S A FIX FOR THE SYSTEM. 
          THE SYSTEM'S GOTTA FIX. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND SO BACK TO THE RIPPLE EFFECT, YOU SAID WE'VE GOT 500, WE, WE'VE RESERVED HALF A BILLION IN CAPACITY FOR THIS. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          AND THEN IF WE DO AN OEM AND A LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO OUR 24 BOND PACKAGE? AND NOT TO MENTION IF WE MOVE AND HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THAT I, I'M JUST THROWING EVERYTHING OUT HERE BECAUSE THERE IS A RIPPLE EFFECT. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT GOES YES, MA'AM. 
          SO, UM, AND THE MAIN, AND I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET, THAT'S A HARD QUESTION. 
          NO, IT'S NOT. 
          IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE QUESTION I ANSWERED THE, THE SAME QUESTION ON, UH, THE MAY DEBT BRIEFING THAT I GAVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          WHICH WAS, UH, WE WOULD IN ORDER, IN ORDER TO DO THE, THE POLICE ACADEMY ACCORDING TO THE SCHEDULE THAT THE BOND OFFICE HAS LAID OUT, AND IF WE DID THE PENSION OBLIGATION 
          [01:00:01]
BONDS, THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, SOME ADJUSTMENTS AND SLOWING DOWN OF THE 2024 BOND PROGRAM. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE SHOWED IN THE MAY BRIEF. 
          BUT THEN OEM WASN'T IN THAT ONE. 
          NO, MA'AM. 
          SO THAT'S EVEN MORE COMPOUNDED. 
          SO THE O AND M, SO PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS WOULD NOT INCREASE OUR ONM OBVIOUSLY IT'S JUST THAT FACILITIES THAT WOULD, AND SO NO, IT WASN'T PART OF THAT CONVERSATION THAT, SO I MEAN THAT, THAT, SO WHEN, I GUESS WHEN WE COME ON THE THIRD, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHAT THE, THE RIPPLE EFFECT IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE WHEN, WHEN WE DROP IT THERE IS GOING, 'CAUSE WE, WE HAVE A CEILING. 
          CORRECT. 
          I MEAN THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN TAKE ON AND WE, THINGS KEEP GETTING BUMPED AND THINGS MAY BE PLACED IN. 
          AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE, LIKE I HAD MENTIONED YESTERDAY, I MEAN LIKE, WHEN ARE WE GONNA HAVE BAKE CELLS? BECAUSE, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE EVERY TIME I TURN AROUND, OH, WE'RE GONNA DO THIS WHEN IT'S THERE. 
          THESE ARE NOT SMALL TICKET ITEMS. AND, AND I GET THAT WE HAVE TO LOOKING AT THE, THE SCHEDULE THAT IT GETS REALLY EXPENSIVE REALLY FAST. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX, BUT I CAN ALSO UNDERSTAND THIS WILL BE POLITICAL IN FUTURE YEARS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN PEOPLE ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, YOU KNOW, EXECUTE THE POVS. 
          AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT A GOOD PLAN IN PLACE BEFORE WE DO THIS BECAUSE, UM, PUTTING MONEY, YOU KNOW, CHASING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD IS NOT A GOOD STRATEGY AND IT'S EXPENSIVE AS WE SEEN IN THE, THE, THE BRIEFING. 
          SO, UM, AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL, WE'LL GET BETTER, YOU KNOW, INTEREST RATES, UH, GIVEN A NEW FED RESERVE CHAIR AND, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING. 
          BUT IF YOU HAVE A MAGIC BALL BACK THERE, I'D LOVE TO, TO GO HAVE A DRINK WITH YOU AND LOOK AT IT BECAUSE, UH, THIS, THIS NEXT YEAR'S GONNA BE VERY INTERESTING WITH, UH, ECONOMICALLY. 
          SO, UM, I'LL, I GUESS, WE'LL, I, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK I'VE GIVEN, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY CLOUDY AS SUCH, BUT I THINK JUNE 3RD, WHEN Y'ALL COME BACK WITH THAT, I MEAN, GIVE US THE FULL PICTURE OF WHAT YOU EXPECT TO GO OUT TO IN AUGUST, UH, TO ASK FOR PERMISSION, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, IT'S GONNA PUT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS ON A TENURE THAT'S IN OUR DISTRICTS, AND I'D RATHER HAVE THAT INFORMATION SOONER THAN LATER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELCOME MAYOR PROTI. 
          THANK YOU, CHAIR. 
          SO, JACK, SO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A FUNDING PLAN AGREEMENT THAT IS APPROVED AND WE ARE ON OUR WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          WE, AND SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND ADDITIONAL CREATIVE WAYS ON ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          UH, UH YES, SIR. 
          AND THE CREATIVE WAY IN THIS CASE IS THIS WOULD GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE OKAY. 
          AND MOVE SOME OF THAT COST TO THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE. 
          UH, BUT IT COMES WITH RISK. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND SO NO, NOVEMBER ISN'T A MUST. 
          THIS COULD POSSIBLY STILL HAPPEN IN MAY, IF THAT'S THE TIMING THAT WE IT SHOULD, NOVEMBER IS NOT A MUST. 
          NOVEMBER 26TH IS NOT A MUST. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO YOU HAD MENTIONED, UH, WE HAVE, UH, I BELIEVE, UH, OR WE COULD GO UP TO 500 MILLION. 
          UM, WHEN WE GO TO THE VOTERS, IS IT AN UP TO 500 MILLION? COULD WE DO LESS THAN THAT? DO WE HAVE A, IS IT A RANGE? HELP ME UNDERSTAND. 
          WHEN WE'RE GOING TO THE VOTERS, DO WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM AN AMOUNT? CERTAIN YOU, YOU GET AUTHORIZATION FOR AN AMOUNT UP TO, UP TO YOU. 
          YOU, YOU CANNOT GO OVER WHAT THE VOTERS HAVE AUTHORIZED, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ISSUE EVERYTHING. 
          YOU COULD CHOOSE NOT TO. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UH, WE KNOW THAT, UM, INTEREST RATES ARE PROFITABLE. 
          HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE BORROWING RATE TODAY. 
          IS, IS THERE A CERTAIN REASON WHY THAT INTEREST IS HIGHER TODAY THAN, SAY A YEAR AGO? UM, JUST MARKET CONDITIONS WOULD, WOULD AFFECT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          AND SO ON THE, I BELIEVE OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, WHICH WE GET A BETTER RATE ON, WE GOT 3.6% OR SOMETHING ON OUR NOVEMBER GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          BUT WHEN WE LOOKED AT WHAT A PENSION, OBLIGATE PENSION OBLIGATION BOND WOULD COST, IT WAS 6%. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S JUST A DIFFERENCE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND SO SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT TODAY, BUT, UH, DEPUTY MAYOR PROTON, UH, MENTIONED IT, UH, WAS THE REAL ESTATE THAT WE OFFLOAD. 
          UM, WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR LEGAL TO BRING US SOME DOCUMENTS ON WHEN WE SELL PROPERTIES, HAVING A PERCENTAGE OF THAT GO BACK INTO THE PENSION. 
          SO ARE YOU WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL DIRECTION FROM 
          [01:05:01]
COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? N NO, SIR. 
          WE CAN BRING THAT BACK. 
          IT, IT HAD BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT COMMITTEE BEFORE AND, AND WE CAN SCHEDULE AND, AND BRING IT BACK. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          WARREN MENDELSOHN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WELL, I GUESS I'M GONNA START ON SLIDE 18. 
          WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RATE OF RETURN OVER THE YEARS FROM 2006 TO 2025, IN THAT MIDDLE BOX THAT YOU HAVE, IT LOOKS LIKE NINE OF THOSE YEARS, WE DIDN'T MAKE THE 6.5% TARGET YOU'RE HITTING. 
          AND 11 WE DID. 
          SO PRETTY CLOSE TO 50 50. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BAR CHART ON THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY VISUAL, UM, TO SEE THAT WE'RE NOT CONSISTENT IN ANY DIRECTION. 
          I MEAN, THE LAST THREE YOU EDIT, BUT OKAY. 
          AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK ON THE LEFT AT THE BULLETS, THE FIVE YEAR RATE OF RETURN, 5.07, 10 YEAR, 3.12 15 YEAR 3.48. 
          AND SO I UNDERSTAND THIS IS ALL BASED ON THE SIX POINT A HALF PERCENT, BUT WHAT IF EARLY ON, LIKE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SLIDE 20 EARLY ON, YOU HAVE SOME OF THESE REALLY BAD YEARS, LIKE 2022. 
          IF 11.5% DECLINE OR 2008 WITH A 25%, DOES THAT MATERIALLY CHANGE THAT SCHEDULE? SO LOSSES EARLY HAVE A BIGGER IMPACT, KINDA LIKE THINKING ABOUT RETIREMENT, YOU DON'T WANNA LOSE RIGHT AFTER YOU RETIRE. 
          UM, SO YES, IT, IT MATTERS WHEN THE LOSS COMES VERSUS WHEN THE GAINS COME. 
          SO COULD THOSE NUMBERS BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT? YES. 
          IF THAT HAPPENED? YES. 
          SO WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF ISSUING THE BOND OTHER THAN THE ONE GENERAL FUND ITEM? IS THERE A BENEFIT TO THE FUND IF WE ISSUE A BOND? IS THERE A BENEFIT TO THE TAXPAYER? I MEAN, LIKE, LIKE WALK US THROUGH YOU, YOU'VE ALREADY SAID TO US, AND YOU KNOW, WE CARE A LOT ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND. 
          SO YOU SAID, OKAY, YOUR BENEFIT TO YOU IS WE'RE GONNA FREE UP DOLLARS IN THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE IT'S GONNA MOVE OVER TO DEBT. 
          BUT WHAT'S THE BENEFIT TO THE TAXPAYER AND WHAT'S THE BENEFIT TO THE FUND AND WHAT ARE THE DRAWBACKS FOR THE OTHERS AS WELL? YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          AND SO, UH, YES, HUGE BENEFIT TO THE FUND IS GETTING COST OUT OF THE, UH, GENERAL FUND AND INTO THE DEBT SERVICE FUND. 
          IT IS AN OVERALL NET SAVINGS IF YOU'RE, UH, RATE OF RETURN IS BETTER THAN YOUR BORROWING COST. 
          SO IT COULD HAVE A NET POSITIVE ON THE BOTTOM LINE OF, FOR THE TAXPAYER, UH, FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE CITY. 
          UH, SO IT'S NOT JUST GETTING IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, BUT IF IT'S, IF ALL THE TIMING IS CORRECT, IT COULD BE A, A NET SAVINGS, UM, TO THE FUND, IT WOULD POTENTIALLY, UH, ACCELERATE THE FUNDING STATUS AND ACHIEVE THE 70% FUNDING SOONER. 
          THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED SOONER. 
          NOW, IMPLEMENTING THOSE SOONER COMES WITH INCREASED LIABILITY TOO, BECAUSE THEN THAT GETS AMORTIZED AND IT IT GOES INTO THAT FACTOR. 
          BUT, UH, AGAIN, IT'S IT, IF YOU GIVE THEM A BIG CHUNK OF CASH AND THEY'RE FORECASTING THEY'RE GONNA EARN, UH, RETURNS ON THAT, THEN THEIR FUNDING STATUS GOES UP. 
          UH, AND I DON'T HAVE A CALCULATION OF HOW QUICKLY THAT IMPACT IS. 
          UH, IT'S SOMETHING I'VE TALKED TO DELOITTE ABOUT, BUT I DON'T HAVE A CALCULATION OF. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M GONNA INTERRUPT THAT LINE, BUT COME BACK TO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE REASON CITIES CAN'T DO INVESTING RIGHT? IS WHAT, ON THIS, ON ANYTHING? I MEAN, WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO DO THE MOST SAFE INVESTMENTS. 
          YEAH. 
          WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PLAY THE STOCK MARKET. 
          NO. 
          UM, WHY, WHY AREN'T WE ALLOWED TO DO THE INVESTING? THERE'S PUBLIC FINANCE LAWS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS THAT DON'T, THAT RESTRICT 'CAUSE THEY DON'T WANT US TO LOSE MONEY. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THEY DON'T WANT US TO SPECULATE. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE IT'S RISKY. 
          IT'S RISKY. 
          THERE'S, THAT'S THE WORD BECAUSE IT'S RISKY. 
          AND WE'D BE GAMBLING WITH PEOPLE'S TAX DOLLARS. 
          OUR INVESTMENTS ARE SAFE. 
          YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE, THE QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK YOU IS THAT ALL THIS IS PREDICATED ON YOUR STATEMENT OF THE RATE OF RETURN BEING HIGHER THAN THE COST OF BORROWING. 
          BUT EVEN IN ALL THE DOCUMENTS, AS YOU SAY, YOU'RE SHOWING THREE, FOUR AND 5% AND OUR COST OF BORROWING IS 6.17, 
          [01:10:02]
IS WHAT HILLTOP'S SAYING. 
          YES. 
          AND SO DELOITTE RAN THE THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE SCENARIOS BEFORE WE LOOKED AT THE MOST RECENT, UH, SALE. 
          SO I WOULD, I THINK I MENTIONED EARLIER, I I COULD GET THEM TO RUN IT AT 6%. 
          YOU DO SIX, BUT, BUT THEY'RE SAYING 6.17. 
          SO ARE YOU ALSO HAVING THEM DO SIX AND A HALF AND SEVEN? OH, I CAN, ABSOLUTELY. 
          I CAN'T. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT YET, WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR FIVE YEAR AVERAGE, WHICH I JUST SAID IS 5.07, 10 YEAR, 3.12, 15, YEAR, 3.4 AND EIGHT, WE'RE NOT EVEN ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT. 
          SO DOESN'T THAT SOUND RISKY? IT DOES, ABSOLUTELY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN OTHER CITIES ISSUED PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS AND YOU SAID YOU HAD A LONG LIST AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED, UM, GARLAND AND BRENT, PERRY AND IRVING. 
          THOSE WERE THE THREE IN TEXAS IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS. 
          OKAY, WELL, SO LET'S GO TO 2020. 
          ARLINGTON ISSUED 192 MILLION PENSION BOND AND THEY WENT FROM AAA STABLE ON FITCH TO, UM, AA. 
          RIGHT? I, I DON'T HAVE THAT DATA, BUT OKAY. 
          YEAH, THEY HAD A DOWNGRADE AND THEN MIDLAND ISSUED A LARGE BOND ALSO IN 2020. 
          AND THEY WENT FROM AA PLUS TO JUST AA. 
          AND I THINK MAYBE THEY ALSO ENDED UP WITH A NEGATIVE OUTLOOK. 
          SO I WOULD ACTUALLY BE, I'M SORRY, IT WAS GARLAND WHO ENDED UP WITH A CHANGE IN THE NEGATIVE OUTLOOK FOR THEIR 2025 BOND SO THAT THE, THEY STAYED THE SAME, BUT THE OUTLOOK CHANGED. 
          SO I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO SEE ALL THE BONDS, MAYBE NOT JUST FOUR YEARS, BUT OVER MULTIPLE YEARS. 
          'CAUSE I HAVE A FEELING THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT FOR THE WRITING AGENCIES. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF DEBT. 
          I MEAN, WE ALL ACKNOWLEDGE WE'RE ALREADY PUSHING UP AT OUR LIMITS. 
          YOU HAD TO RESERVE THIS. 
          SO THEY DON'T JUST SAY, OH, OKAY, THEY'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THEIR, THEIR PENSION. 
          THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT, RIGHT. 
          LIKE THE TOTAL DEBT BURDEN, HEARING COSTS, PENSION, VOLATILITY, FLEXIBILITY, LOSS. 
          AND THOSE ARE ALL REALLY SIGNIFICANT FOR US. 
          AND IF WE GET DOWNGRADED AGAIN, WHICH WE HAVE BEEN DOWNGRADED SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, THAT IMPACT OF COSTS FOR ANY OTHER DEBT, ANYTHING WE ISSUE FROM ANY BONDS IS VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT AND NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THIS PRESENTATION. 
          Y YOU'RE CORRECT, I DID NOT ASSUME THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE A DOWNGRADE AS A RESULT OF THIS. 
          WELL, HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE CREDIT AGENCIES ABOUT WHAT IF SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CALL WITH THEM, ONE OF THEM NEXT WEEK THAT I WANT TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT THAT. 
          BUT, UH, SO NO, NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT IT. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM, UM, THE RATING AGENCIES ABOUT OUR PENSION SYSTEM AND THEY HAVE NOT, UH, MADE ANY ADJUSTMENTS SINCE WE HAVE, UH, A PLAN IN PLACE THAT'S GONNA COLLECT THAT. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE THEY'VE ALREADY DONE SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS RELATED TO OUR PENSION SYSTEM. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ADDITIONAL IMPACT IT'S GONNA HAVE. 
          WELL, I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. 
          I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE LATER YEARS AND IT'S OVER $500 MILLION, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY ADDING AN ADDITIONAL FIRE DEPARTMENT TO OUR BUDGET. 
          I MEAN, FROM WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY TO WHERE IT'S GOING AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE FIGHTING OVER $20,000 SOMETIMES , I, I, I JUST, I'M, I'M, I'M WORRIED ABOUT JUST TRYING TO LOAD UP THE DEBT SIDE OF THINGS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE SPEND, SPEND, SPEND ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE. 
          THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THERE'S A BILL THAT HAS TO BE PAID. 
          IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DEFERRED ALL THESE YEARS. 
          'CAUSE WE WEREN'T, IN MY OPINION, MAKING THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION TO FUND THE PENSION. 
          SO JUST ADDING UP MORE DEBT IS ADDING INSTABILITY TO OUR CITY. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME. 
          BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT, I'M SUPER CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO EVEN MAKE THESE PAYMENTS IN LATER YEARS. 
          LIKE WHAT IF, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS. 
          I MEAN, CAN A CITY DEFAULT? WHAT HAPPENS? YOU GO BACK THE PENSION BOARD FOR MORE YEARS 
          [01:15:01]
OR? I MEAN, SO, UM, ONE PERSPECTIVE IS, AND I, AND I'LL CORRECT SOMETHING THAT I'VE SAID PREVIOUSLY. 
          UH, I DID LOOK AT THE GENERAL FUND, UH, GROWING AT 3% A YEAR. 
          AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS CURRENTLY ARE ABOUT 11% OF THE GENERAL FUND TOTAL. 
          AND OVER 30 YEARS, IF THE GENERAL FUND GROWS AT 3% PER YEAR, UH, IN 54, WE WOULD STILL BE AT ABOUT 11.3%. 
          IT DOES HAVE SOME VARIATIONS IN THE MIDDLE THAT ARE 12%. 
          NOW, ALL OF THAT DEPENDS UPON THE ACTUARILY DETERMINED CONTRIBUTION RATE. 
          AND SO IF OUR CONTRIBUTIONS GO UP AS A RESULT OF LOSSES BY THE SYSTEM, THEN WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE, UH, HIGHER PERCENTAGES OF OUR GENERAL FUND THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE CONTRIBUTION. 
          BUT AS LONG AS ALL OF THE CURRENT ASSUMPTIONS ARE MET, IT, IT STAYS KIND OF IN THE 11 TO 12% RANGE OF THE TOTAL. 
          NOW THAT'S ASSUMING THE GENERAL FUND GROWS AT THAT RATE, IT MAY NOT ALWAYS GROW UP THERE. 
          WELL, UM, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO SOME THINGS THAT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID. 
          UM, NUMBER ONE, COUNCILOR BLACKMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT, UM, ASSETS THAT WE MIGHT BE WILLING TO SELL. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA THAT AT SOME POINT YOU RUN OUT OF ASSETS TO SELL, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN OUTRAGEOUS PORTFOLIO OF PROPERTIES. 
          I MEAN OVER 800. 
          SO I'M NOT FOR SELLING THIS BUILDING , BUT THERE'S ABOUT 799 THAT I MIGHT WANNA THINK ABOUT. 
          AND SO I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVEN'T MADE MORE PROGRESS ON THAT ONE. 
          THE NEXT THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IS A MAY ELECTION. 
          I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR, UH, OPPOSED TO ANY MAY ELECTIONS AFTER WE WENT TO THE VOTERS AND ASKED THEM AND THEY TOLD US MOVE ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER. 
          AND WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION? TOO MANY ELECTIONS. 
          IT'S TOO CONFUSING. 
          LOW VOTER TURNOUT. 
          SO IF YOU GO TO A MAY ELECTION NOW, YOU'RE NUMBER ONE GOING AGAINST WHAT THE VOTERS TOLD US. 
          NUMBER TWO, YOU'RE PURPOSELY TRYING TO GET THAT LOW VOTER TURNOUT. 
          AND I JUST THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS WHEN WE ASKED FOR NOVEMBER ELECTIONS AND GOT IT. 
          SO NO, IT'S, IT'S, IF WHATEVER WE GO FOR IT NEEDS TO BE IN A NOVEMBER. 
          AND OTHERWISE, I MEAN I I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WE'LL SEE SOME LEGISLATION THAT SAYS IF YOU MOVED YOUR, YOUR ELECTIONS TO NOVEMBER, YOU CAN'T ADD ELECTIONS IN MAY. 
          UM, AND THE LAST THING IS THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INVESTMENT ADVISORS. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE MOST NOTABLE PEOPLE IN OUR CITY ARE ON A VOLUNTEER BASIS ON AN ADVISORY GROUP FOR THE POLICE HIGHER PENSION FUND. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE THEY HAVE HIRED FIRMS, BUT THE CITY IS ACTUALLY THE WORST INVESTOR, ESPECIALLY OF REAL ESTATE, OF ANY ENTITY I'VE EVER SEEN. 
          AND POSSIBLY EVEN WORSE THAN WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PENSION AND THEIR REAL ESTATE. 
          SO WE HAVE NO BUSINESS ADVISING THEM ABOUT HOW TO DO THINGS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, CHAIRWOMAN STEWART. 
          OH, ALL RIGHT. 
          YOU GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S SEE HERE. 
          I THINK A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED. 
          AND UM, I DO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL, I KNOW JACK HAS NOT NECESSARILY OFFERED THIS UP, BUT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO MEET WITH JACK ONE-ON-ONE AS WELL. 
          HE'S GOOD. 
          HE, HE'S GOOD AT, UM, EXPLAINING THIS WITH A LOT OF PATIENTS AND A LOT OF DETAIL. 
          SO, UM, I, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT I THINK THE QUESTION, OR, OR, OR WHAT WE'RE ASKING THIS COMMITTEE, COMMITTEE TO DO IS TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD ON PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS AT THIS POINT. 
          AND, UM, THERE IS PART OF ME THAT SEES SOME SYNERGY BETWEEN, UH, ASKING FOR, UM, BONDS TO FUND THE POLICE ACADEMY AS WELL AS THE PENSION. 
          I THINK YOU CAN, YOU CAN PACKAGE THAT AS AN INVESTMENT IN, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S AL THAT'S NEEDED AT THIS POINT IN BOTH AREAS AND THE PENSION AND IN THE ACADEMY. 
          UM, AND I THINK RESONATES WITH OUR RESIDENTS. 
          UM, SO I, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD GET BEHIND, UM, ASKING FOR THE AUTHORIZATION, BUT I'LL BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. 
          IT'S, IT'S ASKING FOR THE AUTHORIZATION. 
          'CAUSE IF WE'RE NOT WHERE THE INTEREST RATES NEED TO BE YET, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UM, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE A HIGHER INTEREST RATE THAT WE'RE PAYING IF WE CAN'T ON THE OTHER SIDE 
          [01:20:01]
EARN THAT, UM, ON OUR INVESTMENT. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND THAT BALANCE. 
          BALANCE. 
          HOW, SO IF WE IS, IF, IF WE'VE GOTTEN THE BONDS APPROVED, LET'S SAY IN A PERFECT WORLD THEY GET APPROVED, HOW LONG DO WE HAVE BEFORE WE ISSUE THEM? HOW, HOW, HOW LONG DOES THAT EXPIRE AT SOME POINT? NO MA'AM. 
          IT DOES NOT EXPIRE. 
          AS LONG AS WE CONTINUE TO INDICATE THAT OUR INTENTION, OUR FINANCIAL PLAN INCLUDES THAT, THEN IT DOESN'T. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE DO HAVE TIME, PLENTY OF TIME IN THAT SENSE BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY MOVING PARTS OF OUR FINANCIAL PICTURE RIGHT NOW. 
          WE'VE GOT SO MANY QUESTION MARKS OUT THERE ABOUT BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AND MOVING COSTS OR WHATEVER. 
          AND YET WE HAVE A LOT OF PRESSURES ON OUR BUDGET. 
          I TALK ABOUT THIS A LOT. 
          AND THE PENSION IS ONE OF THOSE BIG PRESSURES. 
          IT'S A NECESSITY. 
          WE'RE COMMITTED TO IT, BUT IT IS A PRESSURE. 
          AND UM, SO IF THERE WAS THE ABILITY TO, TO LIGHTEN THAT A BIT IN TERMS OF THE PRESSURE ON THE GENERAL FUND, I THINK THAT COULD BE A WISE COURSE OF ACTION. 
          BUT AGAIN, IT HAS TO HAPPEN IN THE RIGHT, UM, FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT AND IT HAS TO BE EYES WIDE OPEN AND WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT GOING FORWARD ON OUR BOND CAPACITY, ON OUR BOND RATING. 
          ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE WEIGH IN. 
          AND YOU CAN ALSO, I'M ASSUMING, ISSUE IT IN SMALLER TRACHES. 
          WE COULD DO 200 MILLION AT A TIME. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          OR 150 MILLION DEPENDING ON, AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE 500. 
          THAT WAS JUST A NUMBER THAT WE PLUGGED IN FOR JUST PLANNING PURPOSES. 
          SO 300 MILLION WOULD WORK THIS FAR. 
          IT COULD BE, BUT WHATEVER AMOUNT THAT, IF YOU END UP CHOOSING TO ASK THE VOTERS, THAT WILL BE THE MAX THAT'S ALLOWED UNLESS YOU VOTE AGAIN. 
          RIGHT. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE THAT THERE'S AN AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE TOO SMALL THAT JUST ISN'T GONNA MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE ULTIMATELY? LIKE I'M ASSUMING 50 MILLION IS A DROP IN THE BACKED AND ISN'T GONNA, I, I DO NOT, BUT WE CAN DO SOME, WE CAN TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE WISH TO DISCUSS. 
          THAT JUST TO ON THAT WOULD BE A SENSE ON WHAT MAKES THE IMPACT. 
          BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO BE CONSERVATIVE IN THIS DECISION. 
          I WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ONLY ISSUE EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE DETERMINED IS NECESSARY FOR WHERE WE ARE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          I THINK, DO WE HAVE, UM, I BELIEVE IT'S STEVE'S FROM, UM, , THE SECURITIES GROUP. 
          SORRY, CAN YOU LOOK IN YOUR CRYSTAL BALL? DO YOU SEE INTEREST RATES IMPROVING? SORRY, WE JUST ALWAYS HAVE TO ASK THE CRYSTAL BALL QUESTION, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. 
          'CAUSE YOU'RE THE CONSULTANT AND YOU HAVE A MUCH BETTER IDEA THAN WE DO AT, AT THIS POINT. 
          MY CRYSTAL BALL IS BROKE. 
          , I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE MARKET HAS BEEN REALLY VOLATILE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS AND, AND MOSTLY FOR OVER THE LAST YEAR, RATES HAVE BEEN CREEPING UP. 
          AND, UM, EVEN THAT 6.17 AND THE, THE, THE 10 YEAR, I THINK LAST WEEK HIT THE HIGHEST RATE SINCE 2007. 
          SO INTEREST RATES ARE REALLY HIGH RIGHT NOW, RELATIVELY OVER THE LAST 25 30. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF WE WERE TO ISSUE SOMETHING IN 2026, IT IT MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO ISSUE BONDS FOR THREE TO FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. 
          JUST, I I KNOW YOUR FIRST OF ALL SPREAD. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          IT'S, IT'S TOUGH TO SAY RIGHT NOW. 
          I THINK ONCE THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS GET ASKED THERE, THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY. 
          CLARITY IN THE MARKET. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND ONCE THE GOINGS ON IN THE MIDDLE EAST, SETTLE DOWN AND WE'LL HAVE SURE. 
          MORE IDEAS. 
          YEAH. 
          THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS IMPACT THAT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL THANK YOU FOR AT LEAST ENTERTAINING THE QUESTION, . 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. 
          I DO THINK, UM, WE'VE GOT SOME WORK. 
          I, AND I DO HOPE THAT THE COMMITTEE'S READY TO, TO MAKE SOME KIND OF RECOMMENDATION. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT JACK'S LOOKING FOR AT THIS POINT. 
          IF, IF WE SHOULD OR NOT, OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT FOR THE IT IT IS WHAT, HOWEVER Y'ALL WANNA PROCEED. 
          UH, IF, UM, YOU, YOU WILL HAVE MORE CONVERSATION I'M SURE AT THE JUNE 3RD, UH, MEETING, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO GO TO THAT COUNCIL MEETING WITH SOME KIND OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU AS A COMMITTEE WOULD RECOMMEND, MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THE, THE BODY. 
          I DON'T KNOW. 
          WELL, I'VE PROBABLY SPOKEN, I'VE GOTTEN OUT THERE A BIT 'CAUSE I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF I HAVEN'T PULLED ANYBODY HERE TO SEE IF WE'RE READY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          LET'S GET THROUGH, UM, CHAIR WEST'S QUESTIONS AND UH, PERHAPS CHAIR JOHNSON'S QUESTIONS AS WELL AND THEN SEE IF WE HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP AND MAYBE WE'LL HAVE SOME IDEA IF WE HAVE, UM, A GOOD DIRECTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, CHAIRWOMAN AND I, I THINK HE'S BEEN SOME GREAT QUESTIONS BY MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          SO I DON'T HAVE A LOT LEFT 
          [01:25:01]
EITHER. 
          UM, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING OUT, JUMPING FORWARD AND AGREEING TO TAKE OUT MORE DEBT, NOT KNOWING THE, THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THE POLICE ACADEMY THAT WE'RE GONNA BE TAKING OUT DEBT ON. 
          MY OTHER CONCERN, WHICH I THINK WAS BROUGHT UP BY TWO OF MY COLLEAGUES NOW IS ON THE REAL ESTATE. 
          AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US ACTIVATE SOME OF THESE PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE TO CHIP AWAY AT THE GAP IN THE, IN THE OBLIGATIONS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, JUST EYEBALLING IT, WE'VE GOT 2,800 PARCELS OF LAND, UH, 50,000 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE. 
          UM, OF COURSE SOME OF THAT'S PARKS AND EVERYTHING. 
          WE GET THAT. 
          UM, AND THEN I STILL DON'T HAVE AN ACCURATE COUNT OF THE BUILDINGS WE HAVE. 
          IT'S, IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 750 BUILDINGS AND 840 BUILDINGS. 
          SO HOW MANY IS IT? YOU KNOW? AND, UH, I THINK THAT IS AN OBVIOUS SOLUTION THAT WE HAVE NOT EXPLORED YET THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE TAKING OUT MORE DEBT, UM, THAT WE THEN HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY OFF LATER. 
          SO FOR ME, BEFORE I WOULD COMMIT TO DOING A BOND, I WOULD WANNA, I'D WANNA EXHAUST THAT OPTION ENTIRELY. 
          UM, I GUESS AT THIS POINT, IS THERE ANYBODY, UH, WE HAVE SEC SECOND ROUND. 
          WE'LL START HERE BECAUSE I, I'M TALKING FIRST AND WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU. 
          UM, JACK, WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS REALLY THE POLICE PENSION, BUT THE EMPLOYEE PENSION IS ALSO, HOW DOES THIS FACTOR IN TO THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND? UM, THAT IS, IS THE, IS THAT A DIFFERENT BUCKET OF, OF RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNDING AND, AND, AND DOES THAT AFFECT OUR PENSION OBLIGATION BOND, UH, REQUEST AND FINANCING LIMITATION? SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND SO, UH, THE, UH, EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE SYSTEM WITH A COMPLETELY SEPARATE BOARD AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE. 
          UH, IT TOO WAS EXCEEDING THE 30 YEAR FUNDING REQUIREMENT BY THE STATE. 
          AND UM, THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN 2024. 
          SO WE'RE BACK ON THE CORRECT PATH WITH THAT FUND AS WELL. 
          UH, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE IT, IT ALSO HAS AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY, BUT IT'S, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN, UH, THE DALLAS POLICE AND FIRE PENSION SYSTEMS AND THE ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. 
          SO, UH, IT IT'S LESS OF A CHALLENGE FROM A GENERAL FUND PERSPECTIVE. 
          SO, UM, SEPARATE AND ON A GOOD PATH AND INTO, I'M TRYING AND NOT TO, NOT TO SORT OF BEAT YOU UP ON IT, BUT THE AMOUNT OF THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND, WHAT IS THAT BALANCE? IS IT, I'VE HEARD TOO MM-HMM . 
          I'VE HEARD 1.8, I'VE HEARD 2.5 I'VE HEARD, SO THANK YOU. 
          SO YES, THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY FOR, UH, THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND IS ONE POINT, UH, 9 BILLION. 
          THE UNFUNDED FOR POLICE AND FIRE IS 3.7 BILLION. 
          AND, AND THE 1.9, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE, THE OLD 600 MILLION OR 500 MILLION OR THAT WE'RE PAYING OFF, UH, THAT FROM AN OLD LOAN OR, OR SOMETHING ELSE? NO, THAT IS THE, UM, THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ASSETS THAT ARE IN THE SYSTEM AND THE LIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM SYSTEM. 
          UH, SO IT IS, UM, WE PREPAID, IF YOU WILL, THAT 500 MILLION FOR THEM YEARS AGO. 
          AND, UH, SO THAT IS PART OF THE CALCULUS OF THEIR STEEL 1.85, UH, BILLION DOLLARS UNFUNDED LIABILITY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO IS THE ABILITY TO BORROW FOR A PENSION OBLIGATION BOND WITH THAT 500 MILLION SORT OF CAPACITY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE POLICE, WOULD, WOULD THAT BE THE MAXIMUM FOR THE WHOLE 5.6, UM, UM, BILLION OF PENSION OBLIGATIONS GENERALLY? OR WOULD WE HAVE ANOTHER ABILITY TO DIP INTO ANOTHER BOND OPPORTUNITY FOR THE EMPLOYEE, UH, RETIREMENT FUND ALSO? UH, YOU, YOU COULD, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY AND IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND. 
          BUT, UH, SO WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THIS 500 MILLION RELATED TO, UH, POLICING FIRE. 
          SO IS, I'M SORRY. 
          AND, AND THAT, I'M SORRY, MY WHAT ONE'S NOT CLEAR. 
          IS THERE A LIMIT? IS, IS THE LIMITATION ON OUR BOND CAPACITY ALSO RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF THE, IS IS THE 500 MILLION A GENERAL RESTRICTION ON, ON OUR ABILITY TO DO A PENSION OBLIGATION FUND FOR BOTH PENSIONS? OR IS IT, 
          [01:30:01]
OR IS EACH, DOES EACH PENSION PLAN AND EACH BOND OPPORTUNITY, UH, REFLECT THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA? I'M JU I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ARE WE MAXED OUT AT 500 MILLION OR NOT? NO, NO, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          UH, YOU, YOU'RE NOT MAXED OUT. 
          UH, THERE IS NOT A LIMIT. 
          UH, 500 MILLION WAS THE AMOUNT THAT WE PUT INTO OUR FORECAST. 
          IT COULD HAVE BEEN 600 MILLION, IT COULD HAVE BEEN 400 MILLION, BUT IT WAS 500 MILLION BASED UPON THE OTHER NEEDS THAT WE WERE AWARE OF AND JUST TRIED TO MODEL SOMETHING THAT SEEMED TO MAKE SENSE. 
          UH, IT DOES TAKE AWAY FROM YOUR CAPACITY FOR OTHER BONDS. 
          SO, UM, IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE A LARGER, UH, 2020, IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE A NOVEMBER OF 26 ELECTION FOR, YOU KNOW, A BILLION DOLLARS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND LIBRARIES OR WHATEVER, IT, IT WOULD LIMIT OUR CAPACITY. 
          'CAUSE WE ONLY HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR SO MUCH BORROWING. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT WHERE, WHERE I'M GOING WITH MY, AND, AND IT, AND THIS IS, UH, A DIFFERENT, BUT I'M NOT SO MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT THE DOLLARS 'CAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE, THE MAKING THE STREAM OF PAYMENTS MORE UNIFORM, MORE, MORE FLAT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THESE HUGE BIG INCREASES OVER A 25 MINUTE PERIOD MM-HMM . 
          AND IF YOU FIX YOUR BOND, YOUR OBLIGATION, UH, TO PAY BACK ON A FLAT BASIS, THEN IT MAY HELP OUR CASH FLOW, IT MAY HELP OUR ABILITY TO MANEUVER, UH, IN, IN PAYING STUFF, IT MAY COST US A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THESE HUGE BIG JUMPS IN OUR PAYMENTS OVER THE YEARS. 
          AND AT THE END OF THREE YEARS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR INCREASES IN PAYMENTS ON SOME OF THESE THINGS ONCE THESE THINGS, I MEAN, THIS IS A TACTICAL ISSUE. 
          AND SO WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE HAVE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE, JUST TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE THOSE AND THINK ABOUT THAT AS PART OF A OVERALL STRUCTURE TO HANDLE OUR FINANCIAL, SO MY, SO THE FACT IS, YEAH, MAYBE PUTTING, GETTING A, A BIG BOND DEAL DOWN THE ROAD FOR A BILLION DOLLAR REALLY MIGHT MAKE SENSE IF INTEREST RATES ARE 3%, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S LIKE FREE MONEY FOR, FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS BASICALLY. 
          AND SO IF THAT MONEY COULD BE DEPLOYED, COULD BE USED PROPERLY AND IT COULD SORT OF PREDICTABLY PRODUCE MORE INCOME, IT MAKES SENSE TO DO IT. 
          SO MY, BUT MY QUESTION IS IF WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR IT AND WE DON'T HAVE, IT DOESN'T EQUALIZE OUR CREDIT RATING, WE DON'T HAVE TO EXERCISE IT. 
          WE, WE CAN, WE AT LEAST GET THE PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLIC TO DO IT. 
          IT, TO ME IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE'S ANY DISADVANTAGE TO DO THAT. 
          AND SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. 
          IS THERE A DOWNSIDE FOR ASKING PERMISSION TO DO THIS IN THE FUTURE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION IN THAT, UM, I GUESS THE DOWNSIDE WOULD BE, UM, THE PUBLIC OPINION. 
          SO I I I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DO GET AUTHORIZATION AND WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY ISSUE THE BONDS UNTIL CERTAIN THINGS HAPPEN, UH, WITH INTEREST RATES AND MARKET, ET CETERA. 
          SURE. 
          THEN WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COMMUNICATING THAT. 
          SURE. 
          BECAUSE I WOULD NOT WANT OUR BENEFICIARIES OF THE PENSION SYSTEM TO COME OUT ON NOVEMBER THE FOURTH. 
          LIKE, WHEN ARE YOU GONNA ISSUE THE BONDS? WHEN ARE YOU GONNA ISSUE THE BONDS AND CONSTANTLY BE PRESSURING Y'ALL TO ISSUE THE BONDS WHEN WE HAVEN'T GOT THE MARKET CONDITION RIGHT YET. 
          SO IF IT MAY TAKE A WHILE FOR MARKET CONDITIONS TO GET TO WHERE WE WANT TO FOR SURE. 
          AND SO THERE MAY BE A PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT WHAT ARE YOU WAITING ON AND Y'ALL DIDN'T HOLD UP YOUR END OF YOUR BARGAIN. 
          AND SO WE JUST WANNA MESSAGE IT CORRECTLY, UH, SO THAT THE PUBLIC OPINION UNDERSTANDS, UH, WHAT OUR INTENT IS. 
          AND, AND LISTEN, THAT'S THE KIND, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE PART THAT I DON'T, THAT'S NOT THE MONEY PART. 
          THAT'S THE POLITICAL AND THAT'S THE STRATEGIC AND THAT'S THE COMMUNICATION PART. 
          AND I, I APPRECIATE YOUR MENTION THAT THAT'S, THAT'LL BE PART OF OUR CAPITAL OF FIGURING IT OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK, MS. MENDELSON SAID THE 500 MILLION DOES GO AGAINST OUR DEBT CAPACITY. 
          SO IT'S LIKE WE, EVEN IF WE DON'T ISSUE IT, IT STILL AFFECTS OUR BOND RATING. 
          DID I HEAR THAT? OR I MEAN, BECAUSE I STEPPED OUT FOR A MOMENT. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, WE, WE, WE GO OUT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION, IT'S GRANTED WE HAVE 500, 
          [01:35:01]
UH, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BORROW 500 MILLION AND SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT, I CAME IN WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DOWNGRADING OF CERTAIN CITIES. 
          COULD, DOES IT, DOES IT AFFECT US? LIKE SO DOES THAT IT'S TIED UP EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE AN ISSUED IT AND IT CANNOT BE TOUCHED? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          GO EXPLAIN THAT. 
          NO. 
          SO, UM, IT DOES NOT AFFECT OUR, UM, OUR DEBT COST UNTIL YOU ISSUE IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          YOU HAVE AUTHORIZATION, BUT YOU'RE NOT PAYING ON IT YET. 
          UH, I THINK, AND I'M SORRY MS. MENDELSON MIGHT HAVE TO CLEAN THIS UP IF I MISSPEAK, BUT, UH, I THINK THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT WHAT PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS MIGHT, WHAT EFFECT THEY MAY HAVE ON YOUR BOND RATING. 
          CORRECT. 
          OR BOND RATING. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND SO JUST TO EXPLORE THAT FURTHER, TO MAKE SURE KNOW THAT IRVING ISSUED THEIR PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS, THERE'S STILL AAA, UH, IT HAS HAD A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ISSUED PENSION OBLIGATION BONDS. 
          SO JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT, 'CAUSE I THINK THE CONCERN IS IF WE ISSUE WE WERE TO GET DOWNGRADED, THEN OUR COST OF BORROWING GOES UP ON EVERYTHING. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT WAS HER CAUTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, AND THAT WE JUST NEED TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THAT. 
          MS. MENDELSON, I'M SORRY IF I MESSED THAT UP PLEASE. 
          . 
          NO, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT THE RATING AGENCIES WOULD LOOK AT THE TOTAL DEBT BURDEN, THE HEARING COSTS, PENSION VOLATILITY AND THE FLEXIBILITY LOSS. 
          AND SO IF THE VOTERS APPROVED THAT WE WOULD BE AT OUR CEILING, MEANING WE COULDN'T GO OUT FOR OTHERS AND WE WOULD HAVE A LOSS OF FLEXIBILITY. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY GUARANTEE A DOWNGRADE OR, SO IT JUST MEANS, IT JUST MEANS THAT WE'RE AT OUR, IT'S LIKE WE'VE MAXED OUT OUR POTENTIAL TO BORROW. 
          YES. 
          AND, AND SO I I WILL DRAW THE COMPARISON AGAIN, UH, TO DISD. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEY JUST RECEIVED AUTHORIZATION FOR $6.2 BILLION. 
          RIGHT. 
          THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY IS MY UNDERSTANDING TO ISSUE THAT ALL AT ONCE. 
          THEY HAVE AUTHORIZATION, THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO THAT OVER 10 YEARS. 
          SO IT'S, UH, JUST A TIMING AT THAT POINT SO YOU CAN GET AUTHORIZATION AND NOT ISSUE IT FOR, FOR WHILE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, SO THAT DOES AUTHORIZATION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY D GIVE YOU A, A, A KIT AND EVEN EVEN ISSUING THE DEBT IS NOT NECESSARILY A DOWNGRADE. 
          WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE RADIO AGENCIES. 
          UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT JUST TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE FACTORS. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO I DON'T, I DON'T WANT, I I DON'T WANNA SAY THAT POVS WOULD RESULT IN A DOWNGRADE. 
          I DON'T KNOW YOU, THAT COULD BE THE CASE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SOME RATING AGENCIES HAVE SAID THEY THINK IT IS NEUTRAL TO NEGATIVE IN THE OUTLOOK. 
          UH, S AND P SAID, I'M NOT GONNA COME OUT AND SAY IT'S NEGATIVE. 
          OTHER FACTORS ARE INVOLVED. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ALL THOSE OTHER FACTORS MATTER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY, UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE FOLLOW UP. 
          UH, MAYOR PROTON. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO ECHO, UH, CHAIR STEWART'S, UM, APPROACH TO THE, UH, I, I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT GOING OUT AND, UM, NOT NECESSARILY ISSUING THE BONDS, BUT GETTING, UM, APPROVAL FROM THE VOTERS TO MOVE FORWARD AND BE ABLE TO EXECUTE THIS WHEN WE'RE READY, IF WE'RE READY AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          BUT I THINK TO GIVE IT GIVES US FLEXIBILITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, WELL, I'LL JUST SAY SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN SAID SO FAR, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, WOULD IMPACT THE POLICE. 
          AND I THINK OUR VOTERS HAVE SHOWN A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR THE POLICE, WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROP U OR JUST IN GENERAL ACROSS OUR CITY. 
          AND I KNOW THERE'S A FEELING THAT, WELL, WE CAN GET IT THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S POLICE. 
          AND I LOVE THAT THE CITY SUPPORTS OUR PUBLIC SAFETY AND I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT. 
          IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I LIVE HERE. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO SELL OR WE SHOULD SELL SOMETHING TO THEM THAT ISN'T GOOD FOR US AS WELL. 
          AND SO THE POLICE ACADEMY AND GOING OUT FOR A BOND FOR THAT IS NECESSARY. 
          AND WE HAVE EVERY REASON TO EXPLAIN WHY IT'S MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL 50 MILLION AND WHY THE PROJECT CHANGED. 
          AND THERE IS SOME EXPLANATION THAT'S GONNA BE NEEDED FOR THAT. 
          AND I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE GONNA SUPPORT IT. 
          THEY UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO PROFESSIONALLY TRAIN OUR POLICE OFFICERS. 
          BUT WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THIS PENSION BOND, AND ESPECIALLY IF THE MESSAGE IS, WELL, WE JUST WANT YOU TO GIVE US A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF AUTHORIZATION, BUT DON'T WORRY, WE WON'T SPEND IT YET WHEN THEY'VE SEEN VERY DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS BUILDING, OTHER VERY DIFFICULT DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE CAUSING A LOSS OF TRUST IN THE CITY, 
          [01:40:01]
I THINK IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO TRY TO SELL THAT. 
          AND I WOULD HATE FOR OUR POLICE TO HAVE A MESSAGE IF WE HAVE A SPLIT RESULT OR IF IT DRAGS BOTH OF THEM DOWN. 
          THAT'S A TERRIBLE THING FOR US TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE TRYING TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN OFFICERS. 
          SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS TO CONSIDER OUR CITY BUDGET. 
          UM, AND, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE FLEXIBILITY YOU ARE SEEKING AND MY COLLEAGUES ARE INTERESTED IN FOR THE GENERAL FUND, BUT I SURE HOPE THEY'RE ALSO CONSIDERING, WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANNA ADD DEBT. 
          SO WHEN WE KNOW WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS, LIKE SELLING OFF THE 808 BUILDINGS, 808, OUR, THE FULL THING INCLUDES WATER AND, UM, AIRPORT AND SANITATION. 
          UM, WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES MORE DEBT AND LET'S GET OUR REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO UNDER CONTROL AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT. 
          WE DO NEED THAT DEBT FOR THE POLICE ACADEMY. 
          WE DO, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED IT. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF THINKING TO REALIZE WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES DEBT FOR THIS. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO FUND THE POLICE FIRE PENSION FUND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          AND YOU STATED THE EXACT REASONS WHY THE SOONER THEY HAVE THAT POT OF MONEY, THE MORE THEY CAN, UH, GROW THEIR RETURNS. 
          IF YOU HAVE ONLY A DOLLAR TO INVEST, EVEN IF YOU GET HIGH RETURNS, YOU ONLY GOT A LITTLE BIT OF INTEREST. 
          BUT IF YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A MILLION DOLLARS TO INVEST, EVEN WITH A LOWER RATE, YOU'RE GETTING MORE MONEY AND THAT WILL SAVE OUR OWN TAXPAYERS DOLLARS. 
          SO MY INTEREST IS IN FUNDING IT, BUT NOT REALLY THROUGH DEBT. 
          AND SO I HOPE THAT, UM, CHAIR WEST, YOU WILL CONTINUE WITH YOUR QUEST TO, UM, RID THE CITY OF UNNECESSARY REAL ESTATE AND LET'S RIGHTSIZE THAT AND, AND GET THE DOLLARS WHERE THEY NEED TO GO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AS YOU WERE TALKING, I WAS ACTUALLY JUST WRITING OUT EMAIL TO JACK AND JOHN JOHNSON ABOUT BRINGING IT BACK TO FINANCING ALONG WITH THE LEASES. 
          UM, DID WE HAVE, UH, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING, UH, DEPUTY MAYOR PROTON? I AM DONE. 
          YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          SURE. 
          WELL, FIRST I JUST WANNA REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE BOARD'S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION IS TO THE PENSION FUND, NOT TO THE CITY OF DALLAS, SO, AND OUR TAXPAYERS. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE IN OVERSIGHT, INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT, JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT. 
          NOBODY SHOULD BE OFFENDED BY THAT. 
          WE SHOULD ALL BE ROWING OUR BOATS IN THE SAME DIRECTION. 
          BUT I THINK THIS HAS YIELDED SO MUCH GOOD DISCUSSION, BUT IT'S BIGGER THAN JUST THIS ROOM. 
          AND I WOULD I MOVE THAT WE, UH, ADVANCE THIS ITEM TO FULL COUNSEL, UH, FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY. 
          THAT'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          SO, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION, IT'S TO ADVANCE THE ITEM TO FULL COUNSEL FOR A DISCUSSION. 
          WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING ANYTHING FOR APPROVAL OR GO PUT THE BONDS TO A VOTE, RIGHT? IT'S SURE. 
          JUST, JUST TO DISCUSS IT, TO DISCUSS WITH ALL THE WHOLE BODY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE SECOND. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. 
          NO, NO. 
          SO IT'S A SECONDARY MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL GO AHEAD. 
          I'D LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ACTUALLY RECOMMEND THAT WE ADVANCE REAL ESTATE SALES AS A MEANS TO FUND THE PENSION IN THE SHORT TERM OR PEN IN, IN THE SHORT TERM. 
          OKAY. 
          LET ME ASK IF, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INCORPORATE THAT IN YOUR MOTION? NO, I THINK THAT COULD BE A GOOD DISCUSSION POINT AT FULL COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO SURE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          UM, WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT. 
          FIRST OF ALL, ANYBODY GONNA SECOND THAT MOTION? BUT YOU, YOU SECONDED IT. 
          SO THEN WE'LL NOW OPEN IT FOR, WE'LL OPEN IT FOR DISCUSSION. 
          I'M GONNA TAKE IT TO CAR OR CHAIRMAN MENDELSON FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GET YOU MAYOR APPROACH. 
          WELL, THE REASON WHY I'M MAKING SOME RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FULL COUNCIL IS THAT WE'RE GONNA LITERALLY GO AND HAVE THIS EXACT SAME CONVERSATION. 
          SURE. 
          AND THERE WON'T EVEN BE SOME GUIDANCE OF HERE'S THE PENSION COMMITTEE AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WHO'VE LOOKED AT IT, WHO'VE DISCUSSED IT, MANY OF US FOR MANY YEARS. 
          UM, SOME ARE NEWER, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOURS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON THIS. 
          AND SO AT LEAST PROVIDING THAT GUIDANCE OF HERE'S WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS, DOESN'T MEAN THE COUNCIL HAS TO GO WITH IT. 
          IT'S CERTAINLY THOUGH WOULD HOPEFULLY, UM, PROVIDE SOME STARTING POINTS FOR THAT DISCUSSION. 
          THAT IS MORE THAN LET'S JUST START ALL OVER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          WE'LL GO TO MAYOR PROTO. 
          THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE MOTIONS 
          [01:45:01]
IN ORDER. 
          IT'S LISTED UNDER AS A BRIEFING ITEM. 
          AND JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN LEGALLY DO THAT FROM THE ATTORNEY ON THE ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY SIDE. 
          LET'S GET CLEAR. 
          THERE'S THAT LITTLE LINE WE ADDED THERE AFTER, UH, THE MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA GO DOWN TO CHAIRMAN JOHNSON ON THE MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN MENDELSON. 
          OKAY. 
          SO CHAIRMAN MENDELSON, YOU'RE SAYING THAT JUST NOT TO HAVE A, A DISCUSSION ONLY, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION, SO IT WON'T BE JUST A, A DISCUSSION WITH NO ACTION. 
          IT LAUNCHES IT, IT'S ONLY A RECOMMENDATION. 
          IT'S NOT, UM, ANYTHING BINDING. 
          IT'S JUST THE COMMITTEE HAVING LOOKED AT IT, IT'S RECOMMENDING WE PURSUE THE SALE OF CITY ASSETS THAT WOULD THEN FUND THE POLICE FIRE PENSION FUND. 
          UM, AND OF COURSE THE WHOLE DIS I'M, I'M ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY , I'M ASSUMING YOU'D USE THE EXACT SAME BRIEFING AND GIVE THE EXACT SAME PRESENTATION TO THE FULL COUNCIL, WHICH IS FINE, BUT IT'S HARD WHEN, UM, YOU HAVE TO START FROM SQUARE ONE. 
          NOW WHAT, WHAT REAL ESTATE ARE WE, WHAT REAL ESTATE ARE WE SAYING? I'M, I'M CONFUSED. 
          SO THERE'S 808 BUILDINGS THAT THE CITY OWNS. 
          CAN, CAN WE, I KNOW WE'RE, CAN WE IDENTIFY THOSE BUILDINGS? SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? I THINK, CAN WE IDENTIFY THOSE BUILDINGS? QUESTION, BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE BILLY AND BEING VERY VAGUE THOUGH, LIKE WE SAYING BUILDINGS. 
          WHAT BUILDINGS IS THIS A QUESTION FOR STAFF? OH, WAIT, WILL, YES. 
          STAFF. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, ZACH, WHAT BUILDINGS ARE, WHERE ARE BEING MENTIONED? SO WHEN THERE'S REFERENCE TO, UM, THE NUMBER OF CITY BUILDINGS, UH, THAT USUALLY ENCOMPASSES OF COURSE CITY HALL, OAK CLIFF MUNICIPAL CENTER, UH, 40 ISH, UH, REC CENTERS, UH, FIRE STATIONS, 20 LIBRARIES, UM, WAREHOUSES, OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS, UM, WATER DEPARTMENT THAT YOU ASKED. 
          I I DO SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE, SUPPORT POLICE. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THIS, UH, THAT IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND OUR POLICE OFFICERS GET, UH, WHAT'S NEEDED. 
          AND, AND I'VE SAID THAT OPENLY, UH, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S TOO VAGUE. 
          UH, SO I WOULD NOT BE SUPPORTING HER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, IT'S JUST YOU GET MORE ORGANIZED. 
          I SAW YOUR HAND AND, AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO BILL. 
          SO, UM, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF IT, I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, THE TIMING IS RIGHT BECAUSE I THINK YOU WANNA TAKE IT BACK TO YOUR COMMITTEE TO KIND OF MASSAGE. 
          'CAUSE THERE'S WHAT, EIGHT OVER 800 PROPERTIES, BRINGING THAT TO 15 PEOPLE WITH 15 DIFFERENT OPINIONS. 
          THAT COULD BE A, YOU KNOW WHAT, AND SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE MECHANICS OF DISCUSSING PROPERTIES TO PUT ON THE MARKET TO SELL IN A NORMAL PROCESS? I'M NOT REALLY THE PERSON THAT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          BUT I DID JUST, UH, TEXT JOHN JOHNSON ASKING ABOUT NOW THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON SOMETHING TO BRING BACK TO FINANCE COMMITTEE REGARDING A REAL ESTATE STRATEGIC PLAN. 
          I WAS ASKING WHEN IT WOULD BE READY AND IT'S, IT'S NOT READY AT THIS POINT. 
          I DON'T HAVE A ETA ON THAT. 
          UM, SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE I'M WILLING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION. 
          UM, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKMAN IS TRYING TO SAY THAT YOUR, THE COMMITTEE'S STILL GOING THROUGH THE, UM, REAL ESTATE. 
          UM, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC REAL ESTATE I'M INTERESTED IN SELLING. 
          I DON'T HAVE A LIST, BUT YOU HAVE A LIST THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED AND MANY PROPERTIES, UM, THAT'S RIGHT OVER, OVER THE YEARS, UM, THAT ARE ON A REGULAR MEMO THAT ANYBODY CAN ACCESS. 
          UM, 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN PART OF YOUR BRIEFINGS AND THE STATUS OF THEM. 
          I'M NOT MARRIED TO ANY ONE OR MULTIPLES OF PROPERTIES. 
          UM, BUT IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS OF REAL ESTATE, THAT WAS ACTUALLY NOT THE INTENT. 
          UM, SO I'M HAPPY WITHDRAW IT AND JUST, WE'LL JUST HAVE ANOTHER FREE FOR ALL. 
          'CAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE REALLY FUN THESE DAYS. 
          WELL I MAYBE FOR THE RECORD, IT'S LIKE WITH THE INTENTION OF WORKING THROUGH PO WITH THE INTENTION OF WORKING THROUGH POTENTIAL SALES OF REAL ESTATE THROUGH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR A FULL RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL. 
          I'M NOT AS, NOT AS, I'M NOT AMENDING IT. 
          I'M JUST SAYING GUIDANCE. 
          THAT'S HOW I THINK IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS LET'S START REALLY FOCUSING ON THAT PORTFOLIO AND START SHEDDING SOME OF THOSE THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE. 
          AND I THINK THERE WAS LIKE 10 OF THEM THAT WE WERE FOLLOWING AND TWO OF THEM WE'VE ADDRESSED I THINK. 
          BUT THERE'S ENOUGH 'CAUSE I, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, AND SO IT MAY BE WORTH KEEP DOING THE WORK AT THE COMMITTEE, BUT MAYBE BY AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, UM, IDENTIFI IDENTIFY THAT. 
          THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. 
          [01:50:01]
I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GONNA COME BACK TO YOU AS I THAT BETTER. 
          MAYOR PRO TIMM, YOU WANNA SPEAK ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION? I, I WAS GOING TO JUST SAY I SUPPORT MIDDLETON'S MOTION THAT SHE JUST WITHDREW. 
          UM, 'CAUSE I DO THIS. 
          HERE'S THE THING IS WE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, REAL ESTATE FOR A WHILE AND I REALLY WANNA SEND A DIRECT SIGNAL TO MANAGEMENT THAT. 
          AND I THINK THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO ADVANCE IT BECAUSE WE'VE JUST BEEN RUNNING IN CIRCLES ON IDENTIFYING, UH, REAL ESTATE AND DECIDING HOW TO PROCEED WITH IT. 
          AND, AND I REALLY HAVE NOT SEEN ANY ACTION ABOVE SEEING AN ITEM REVIEWED, UH, FOR POSSIBLE, UM, OFFLOADING. 
          AND SO I, I SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT THAT WILL ADVANCE THAT, WHETHER IT'S DISCUSSION, WHETHER IT'S, UH, KEEPING IT AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WHICH I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH. 
          I I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE OUR CITY MANAGEMENT SEES THE URGENCY AND THE, UM, CON CONSENSUS AROUND THIS HORSESHOE THAT WE WANNA REALLY GET SERIOUS ABOUT OUR REAL ESTATE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK, THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          AND I'M GONNA CALL ON, UH, MR. ROTH IN A SECOND, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT, I, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID BY MY COLLEAGUES. 
          UM, WE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON THIS FOR TWO YEARS. 
          I DO KNOW THE STRATEGIC PLAN BEING DEVELOPED, SO I DON'T WANNA, LIKE, I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THERE IS A PLAN THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE WORKS, BUT WHILE THAT'S, WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE PLAN TO BE PERFECT TO START OFFLOADING SOME PROBLEM PROPERTIES THAT WE KNOW WE HAVE. 
          AND LIKE WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, BILL BAGG IS, YOU KNOW, 60, 80 ACRES AND KNOW RIGHT THERE AT A GREAT ACCESS THAT IS NOT, THERE'S NOTHING ON IT. 
          IT'S NEXT TO A TOW YARD, BUT THERE'S NOTHING ON IT. 
          BUT THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT COULD BE WORKED ON. 
          WELL, THERE IS SOMETHING ON IT. 
          THERE'S ABOUT 2000 EVIDENTIARY VEHICLES THAT WE CANNOT GET RID OF UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHERE TO MOVE THEM. 
          I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE, THE ACREAGE THAT'S ATTACHED TO THAT. 
          THAT'S NOT USED FOR CARS OVER HALF OF IT'S VACANT LAND. 
          BUT YES, THAT PART I UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, SO THE SENSE OF URGENCY IS WHAT I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON. 
          LIKE WE'VE GOTTA START SEEING SOME OF THIS MOVE WITH THESE BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS, UH, MR OFF, UM, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW, WHAT THE RIGHT PROCEDURES ARE, BUT WE, I DON'T, UH, I I WANNA HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO GIVEN I DON'T THINK THAT'S A . 
          I HAVE HAD A, A FOOT COUNT LEAVE, HAD THE FOOT COUNT SHEET AND I SAY ANYTIME TO GIVE THEM THE NEXT MONTH. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE AND I DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT TIMING AND I DON'T THINK IT, IT'S THE RIGHT, I THINK IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH FINANCE OR THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT ENCY OR THROUGH THE WORK IN A COMBINATION OF . 
          BUT, UH, I THINK IT STILL NEEDS TO BE WORKSHOP IN COMMITTEE RATHER THAN AS A COMMITTEE LEVEL. 
          THAT'S ONLY DONE. 
          NUMBER TWO, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE READY DO THAT. 
          , WE GAVE SUGGESTION THAT WE BRING THIS PENSION OBLIGATION ON OF PEOPLE, THE WHOLE GROUP. 
          I THINK THIS IS A  AND IT DOES REFLECT, UH, IN, UH, IT REQUIRES US TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON THE INVESTMENTS THAT WE HAVE, STRUCTURAL, HOW ALL THESE DIFFERENT PIECES COME TOGETHER, OUR INVESTING ADVISOR THAT WE CAN MAKE SORT OF A MORE WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          UH, CERTAINLY THE NOVEMBER DEADLINE COULD BE A, A BOND APPLICATION IS, IS IMPORTANT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL AT THIS POINT. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A BIG ENOUGH DEAL, UH, IMMEDIATELY WITHIN. 
          SO I, I WOULD, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT I'D LIKE, I, I APPRECIATE THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE REAL ESTATE. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GOES TO THE BODY THAT THAT WAS REALLY CRUCIAL. 
          DO LIKE , THE GOVERNMENT, WHATEVER. 
          BUT I WOULD, UH, ON THE UNDERLINE MOTION, I SUGGEST THAT WE DEFINE THAT WE DON'T FOR THAT , BUT THAT WE WORKSHOP THIS  INTERNALLY COMMITTEE LEVEL. 
          UH, BUT AT LEAST UNTIL WE GET ANYTHING. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, JUST TO REFRESH EVERYBODY, IS TO MOVE FORWARD THIS DISCUSSION OF FULL COUNSEL. 
          NO RECOMMENDATION BEYOND THAT. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY CLARIFICATION? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, I AGREE WITH STUDYING THIS OBVIOUSLY BEFORE WE ISSUED ANYTHING. 
          UM, SHOULD THIS PASS VOTERS MUSTER, WE WOULD BE DOING ALL THAT. 
          WE NEED TO BE DOING THAT ANYWAY. 
          SO I DUNNO THAT WE NEED TO TIE THE ACTIVITY 
          [01:55:01]
TO ACTUALLY ISSUING THE BONDS TO, UH, HOLDING BACK A DISCUSSION WITH OUR COLLEAGUES ON SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY A BIGGER FINANCIAL ISSUE THAT I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAVE AN OPINION ON. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S WHY I'M OKAY WITH MOVING THE DISCUSSION FORWARD. 
          ALSO, JACK, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW ISN'T OUR POLICY THAT IF WE SELL REAL ESTATE, IT HAS TO GO BACK INTO MAINTENANCE? Y YES MA'AM. 
          THAT'S THE CURRENT POLICY. 
          SO THAT'S, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A WHOLE POLICY DISCUSSION BEFORE US AS WELL ON, ON THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE. 
          SO, SO THERE'S A LOT MORE TO, TO DIG INTO THERE. 
          BUT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A BIGGER FINANCIAL PICTURE ITEM AND I DO THINK THAT IT'S OKAY TO DAYLIGHT THAT TO MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          THAT'S WHY I HAD THIS MOTION. 
          AND SO THE, THE SCHEDULE HAD BEEN, I, I DON'T KNOW THE DATE, BUT TO BRING THE STRATEGIC, UH, REAL ESTATE MASTER PLAN BACK TO FINANCE COMMITTEE AND RECONSIDER THAT RESOLUTION. 
          BUT HOWEVER Y'ALL CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, THE PLAN WAS TO TAKE THEM BOTH BACK TO FINANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE. 
          UM, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND A SECOND TO ADVANCE THE DISCUSSION OF FULL COUNSEL. 
          UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? WE HAVE, WE HAVE ONE NAY. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER BUSINESS ON THE AGENDA. 
          UM, SO WE BOTH HAVE TO HAVE OUR COMMITTEES, I BELIEVE MR. CHAIR IS THAT, THIS IS COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          GRACIE, I JUST WANTED TO GET PHONE ON THE RECORD AS IN SUPPORT. 
          I'VE BEEN TEXTING YOU. 
          UH, I HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS. 
          I'M GOOD. 
          IT'S MOVE FORWARD. 
          WE'RE GOOD. 
          I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR IT. 
          I, I, HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO GET YOUR VIDEO COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT NECESSARY. 
          I, I THINK FOR TOMA REASON. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S SEE A YOU MESSAGE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          WELL WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, THIS MEETING OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IS ADJOURNED AND THIS MEETING OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.