Right.
Yeah.
Right. Well, I would like to tell everybody before we jump into college football, I would like to tell everybody that ⁓ because of summer, we haven't been doing podcasting. But the reality is, is I think we've just been so busy. ⁓ it's been a very, very rigorous budget season. It's been a very, ⁓ tough legislative session. And so I think we've just really been bogged down in the minutia of some details that are flowing out. So, let's talk, let's talk.
I want to, I want to take on SB 10 first, and then we'll jump into college football as kind of a separator between the two topics that I have today to talk about. so we're in special session right now and in special session, the governor basically can call what he wants to discuss and talk about. And one of the things that he put in his call on top of the redistricting, ⁓ is SB 10, and, or specifically that he wants to further lower, ⁓ property taxes and
revenue generation in the localities and the governmental entities that are in his call. It's everybody. But what is really transpired is it's basically cities and counties and it leaves out almost all your special districts. So your emergency services districts are left out of SB 10 right now ⁓ and ⁓ your like mud districts, municipals, freshwater supplies, those type of things are also left out. ⁓ So originally,
the bill passed the Senate. SB 10 kind of flew through the Senate. It was going to take the three and a half percent M and O cap. So maintenance and operations tax, still no cap on the I&S side, M and O cap and lower it to two and a half percent. So that's what passed out of the Senate.
The House took the bill and man, did they make some changes. ⁓ But basically, the House took the bill and amended the bill multiple times. And to kind of give you the gist of what has happened, they amended out the 75,000 and up or below provision, right? But they only amended it in one side of the bill.
And so, and then they also passed an amendment to exclude public safety cost. Now that is pretty well defined in the amendment. Now that I've seen the language, I think originally I looked at this and said, public safety could really be talked about. But the amendment basically looks at this and says, whatever your public safety cost is at the end of July of this year, verse what your public safety cost is at the end of July next year will be taken into account in your truth and taxation calculation.
as a credit before you start looking at what the increases in your ⁓ voter approval rate are, right? Which another amendment also took the voter approval rate from what SB10 originally was, which is two and a half percent down to one percent. ⁓
but it left a bracket in the bill of 75,000 and up, which was not the intent. So right now, the way the bill is written out of the House, if the Senate was just to pass the House version, which we do not believe is gonna happen. I've had some conversations with a couple senators. I just don't see that happening. But right now, the way the bill is written is that if you are a city or county of less than 75,000 in population, you will have a 1 % cap. If you are a...
city or county with a population of more than 75,000, you will have an exemption for your public safety cost before the 1 % cap. ⁓ So obviously extremely detrimental to cities of less than 75,000, which in most cases we all know cities of less than 25,000 are typically faced with ⁓ public safety costs that are higher than they actually generate in their M&O taxes, right? ⁓ And so, you know, I think this is
kind of interesting. The other side of this is it is a bazooka size loophole in the bill. And frankly, I think some of the staff members on the Senate side are going to do the math ⁓ and they're going to look at this and go in most cases, this would actually allow more of an increase ⁓ than the current three and a half percent cap that we have in place now on the and O side, right? The, we call the VAR the voter approval rate. ⁓ So
We are going to see this go to conference committee and I think we're going to see another floor vote in both the house and the Senate. But there are some discrepancies and there's kind of some weird things that are going on. One, I'm not sure SB 10 in it's clean form would have passed the house at two and a half percent. And I, I can't figure out if that's because two and a half percent is too low for them or not low enough. Like there are different factions and there's not a lot of compromise.
But the amendments that were put in place were put in place to make people happy because they needed a, for lack of a better term, they needed a populist message that they were going to cap local government spending at 1 % for everything except for public safety. Even though anybody in a city management or finance business of cities would realize that if you just think that through logically, it's probably more than 3.5 % increases that you're getting today. So.
but it's a better message than say, we're gonna cap it at two and a half percent. So.
That's the gist of what we know about SB 10 now. We're on a very tight deadline. Almost every legislator that I have talked to has said they want to be home by Labor Day, which is just a few days away. ⁓ they don't want this. There is more time on the special session than Labor Day, but they want to be done by Labor Day and they want to go home. So we fully expect there to be a compromise that goes through ⁓
goes through the committee process and or the reconciliation process between the two, the house and the Senate. And then we fully expect them to basically probably for the house to adjourn and just go home. It's gonna be a fun couple of days in the meat grinder. So we'll see what ends up coming out of this bill. But I think for cities, I would say you need to expect some difference than what you have right now in today's world. You need to expect that the cap is gonna move down.
from three and a half percent to two and a half percent or somewhere in that range. And there may be some type of flare that comes out of the house side to get them to agree to it because they're looking for a different message. So we may have like multiple calculation methods that we have to do.
Any questions, Chad?