Draper detailed the procedural steps for issuing the bond, emphasizing the role of an electorate-approved millage as a dedicated revenue stream, which distinguishes general obligation bonds from revenue bonds. He noted that while revenue bonds could pressure the city’s millage rate, the voted millage for general obligation bonds would be separate from normal operating expenses and not subject to the 10-mill cap. This financial structure allows for long-term fixed interest rates, making it suitable for projects with extended useful lives, like public safety facilities.

The council discussed the referendum process, including the requirement for the council to adopt a resolution calling for the vote, and the need to publish this resolution twice before the election. Draper emphasized that while the city can provide factual information and host public forums, it must avoid using public funds for advocacy due to a 2022 Florida law. He explained that the first tranche of bonds could potentially be issued by early 2027 if the referendum passes.

The conversation also touched on the mechanics of the voted millage amid property value fluctuations and the possibility of issuing bonds in multiple series to accommodate phased projects. A participant highlighted concerns about the potential impact of state-level discussions on property taxes, which could affect the bond process. However, no concrete answers were available on future legislative changes, leaving some uncertainty about property tax stability.

Attention was given to comparing different financial mechanisms, such as private placement bonds versus public offerings. While private placements can reduce issuance costs, they often require shorter payback periods, whereas longer-term bonds can leverage the asset’s useful life. The council considered the possibility of splitting the bond issue to incorporate different funding sources, including private banks and capital markets, each with its implications for financial strategy.

The dialogue also explored the idea of selling bonds directly to residents, which could be more customizable in a negotiated sale. Additionally, the feasibility of a land-to-debt swap was raised. However, it was acknowledged that such arrangements are complex and could complicate the financial landscape.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the PAS project, noting that its anticipated investment would involve different funding obligations related to the water fund, distinct from the voted millage considerations. The council recognized the importance of balancing costs between ratepayers and taxpayers, particularly given the potential financial burden on both parties. A council member speculated on the financial implications, estimating that a $20 million bond could result in approximately $15 million in interest over 30 years, translating to an average monthly burden of about $3 per ratepayer.