The council opened and closed a public hearing June 4 on a resolution authorizing not-to-exceed $30,000,000 in general obligation corporate bonds for the city’s fiscal year 2026 capital improvement program. Residents asked whether the bonds would increase property taxes; the city finance chief explained the state-required disclosure and why the actual levy impact is expected to be neutral.

Judith Lee (Second Ward) spoke during the hearing and asked whether the $30 million bond would be short-term (one-year) or a longer-term financing, when the last sale occurred and whether the proposed bonds would raise property taxes. Vashia Gerlach, the city’s chief financial officer, explained that the city issues bonds annually to fund its CIP program across maturities (1–15 years depending on assets). She said the city sold a bond issue on April 9 and closed that issue on May 13 for about $28.4 million.

Gerlach said the bill that changed disclosure requirements (House 50718, as she referenced it) now requires the city to estimate an annual increase in property taxes from the bond issue in the legal notice; the example disclosure estimated an $18.74 annual increase for each $100,000 of assessed value for a $30 million issuance. Gerlach explained that the statutory disclosure does not account for principal being paid off in the same fiscal year. The city is scheduled to pay off roughly $29 million in principal in fiscal year 2026, so issuing up to $30 million is expected to be essentially net neutral for the debt-service levy. She also said the city has no present intention to increase the debt-service levy beyond the current $2.05 and that the city works with bond counsel and financial advisers on required disclosures.

After council discussion, the finance co-chairs moved the finance agenda items. A motion was made to move the bond item and other finance items to the consent agenda (items 1, 3, 4 and 5 to consent, item 2 to remain on discussion). The motion passed. No bond sale occurred at the meeting; council authorized moving the item through the consent agenda process.

Council members and staff agreed to ask bond counsel and corporate counsel whether they can make background information clearer to match the legal notice language and reduce public confusion about the required disclosure.