Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City financial adviser outlines debt options, shows modest tax impact for example projects

City Council of the City of Parker, Texas · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Hilltop adviser Eric Maja told Parker council the city’s assessed value is about $2.1 billion, that $5.525 million in principal remains in existing debt, and that a hypothetical $2.6 million project could add about 1.5 pennies to the tax rate depending on term and funding source.

Eric Maja of Hilltop, Parker’s financial adviser, presented council with an overview of the city’s taxable‑value history, current debt and financing options on June 16. Maja said Parker’s current taxable assessed value is about $2.1 billion and identified roughly $5,525,000 in principal outstanding across two bond series.

Maja explained the four common financing tools for Texas cities — general obligation (GO) bonds, certificates of obligation (COs), tax notes and revenue bonds — and walked council through example repayment schedules and tax impacts. For a hypothetical $2.6 million project, Hilltop’s illustrative calculations showed annual payments of roughly $315,000 on a 10‑year schedule and an estimated tax‑rate impact of about 1.5 pennies on the maintenance & operations (M&O) rate to support that debt.

He also reviewed the city’s existing debt profile (noting call dates and payoff years), stressed the importance of matching amortization to project useful life, and described timing considerations for COs (roughly a 46‑day notice period plus 3–4 weeks to close, about 85–90 days from decision to funds in the bank) and GO bonds (tied to election calendars). Maja recommended including cushion in projections for interest‑rate movement and encouraged staff to provide project specifics for tailored analyses.

Council members asked about timing windows, petition rights for COs, and whether the city should issue one larger financing package or split projects by start date; Maja said both approaches are used and recommended scenario analysis to weigh interest‑rate risk against construction‑schedule needs.

Council did not take formal action; staff and adviser will continue to model potential projects and tax impacts as requested.