Council debates bond explanatory statement wording and tax-rate messaging

Councilors reviewed the draft informational statement for a proposed bond package (the packet described a $98.5 million authority for capital projects) and debated how to present the bond's tax impact to voters.

The finance director and city attorney described the legal and practical constraints on voter-facing language. Finance Director Katie Henry said the city's goal is to offer taxpayers a stable bonded-debt rate and explained how the city plans to phase issuances so the near-term levy increase is estimated at 95' per $1,000 in assessed value while the total bonded-debt levy across all city obligations could be about $1.79 per $1,000 in the long term. "If you look at your 2025 tax bill, you add 95' per thousand to your bonded-debt rate. That is what we estimate the bonded debt rate to be over the life of these bonds," Henry said.

Councilor Chenoweth and others voiced concern that the 95' figure could be misread by taxpayers as the full cost of the package instead of the near-term levy impact; Chenoweth asked for clearer wording so voters understand the difference between the initial levy increase and the total bonded-debt rate when other bonds fall off or are replaced. Councilor Geary, who said she had insisted the full $1.79 figure be included, stated she pushed to include that number in the explanatory statement to avoid confusing voters.

City Attorney David Lightenberg and staff advised the council on legal limits for ballot explanatory language. Lightenberg said bonded-debt taxes are levied against total city bond obligations, not on an individual-issuance basis, and that the explanatory statement must reflect that legal structure; for that reason, the statement combines the 95' estimate for the immediate impact with the $1.79 per $1,000 figure for total city bonded debt. "I cannot stress that enough. I know that several of you ... have tried to say this is the price for this issuance. That's not how it works," he said. Staff said the bond consultant recommended the phrasing used in the explanatory statement.

Councilors requested clearer language to emphasize that some existing bonds will be replaced rather than taxes dropping when older bonds retire, and councilors asked staff to ensure public communications do not understate long-term obligations. Staff said they will refine wording where possible while complying with legal limits and will circulate updates to councilors.

Ending: The explanatory statement was presented for council information; staff retained delegated authority to finalize the informational statement subject to the legal requirements already authorized by council earlier. Staff will incorporate council feedback on clarity and circulate updated materials before public distribution.