Çitizens beware! It's your money they're after. A few dollars here, a few dollars there, and your pocketbook will begin feeling the pain

Fees may be going up on the three public golf courses the City of Garland operates at Firewheel.

It may sound like a real snooze, but this year's hearings on the proposed FY 2019 City of Garland budget demand that citizens listen up good.

Sprinkled liberally throughout these hearings is talk of fee increases or rate increases to citizens.

Separately, each of the proposed fee or rate increases doesn't seem like that much. Some apply to the average citizen, while others would be incurred only by builders or businesses, which most likely would pass them along to consumers. Collectively, however, it represents a common thread.

For example, the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Arts Department has proposed a $2 increase in its youth ID cards and a $5 hike for its ID cards for adults. Rentals for certain rooms and facilities may go up $10 in their hourly rates (for example, the Hollabaugh pavilion increases from $40 to $50 hourly that an individual or group may soon pay for its weekend rental rates).

To rent the Hollabaugh pavilion citizens may have to pay more per hour on weekends, according to a proposal for the city's FY 19 budget.

The cost for fees Garland landlords pay are projected to increase 18 percent, from $55 to $65 yearly, for a single-family dwelling used as rental. Application cost for an occupancy permit is proposed to go up $500; application for a new or revised concept plan for a planned development is proposed to go up $1,000 plus $50 an acre; alcohol distance variances up $200; zoning change applications a $200 increase to $1,000, and zoning verification letters to go up $150.

Fees for new construction on a single-family home are projected to go up from $3.75 to $4.00 per $1,000 construction value and from $5 to $7 per $1,000 construction value on remodels, canopy installation, etc.

The Health Department wants to charge $2.50 more per animal to pick up deceased animals from vets (expected to generate $6,000 in new revenue) and $5 more per day for quarantining an animal suspected of having rabies (expected to generate $2,450 in new revenue).

Then at the Firewheel golf courses, greens fees for golfers on all three public courses are proposed to be $2 more in FY 19.

Add this to the spectre of a tax hike that would occur if a proposed city bond issue is passed. One councilmember says our council already has a "consensus" to raise taxes immediately as soon as the proposed bond election is approved by voters (presuming that it is).

A proposed bond program is being considered by Garland city council and citizens.

The mayor, on the other hand, proposed a 1-cent tax reduction "on the debt side" but quickly acknowledged it may be short-lived, depending on the outcome of the proposed bond election.

If approved by voters and immediately funded by City Council, the increase in taxes would dramatically offset any short-term 1-cent reduction in taxes paid on the existing debt.

 

Not having spent some $100 million from its 2004 bonds approved by voters (nearly 50 percent of the original total), there's always the possibility our City Council will decide to finally spend those funds, too, again possibly raising your taxes to pay for it. Some council members say some of the proposals in the new proposed package will be additions to previous bonds approved—to pay for the increases in the original estimates, which would automatically put the original 2004 bond money into play. That could mean the public will be asked to vote on a $350 million bond package (or whatever they decide on), which in reality could be a $450 million package, if the full $100 million currently sitting on ice is put back into play.

This is not to say that some of the current proposed ideas for the possible bond election are not worthy.  Many are needed and some absolutely necessary. But taken as a whole, due to the long delays, the total bill may be eye-popping for the people having to pick up the tab through their taxes.

Then there's the DCAD property tax increases headed our way. Some properties in our own neighborhood are up nearly an eye-popping 80% to 100%.  How about yours? If you haven't received hefty property value increases yet, keep your eyes and ears open. They are coming, if not this year then the next. Because of state laws, the city, county, and school district may not be able to tax you at the full amounts of your new appraisal THIS YEAR or next year. They just have to phase them over time.

And just when you think all the bad news has been unpacked and on the table, officials from Garland Power & Light sent up a trial balloon warning that if current conditions continue, citizens could see a hike in their electric rates within five to 10 years to bolster its reserve fund needed to maintain its top marks by rating agencies. GP&L officials did tell Council not to count on the large "contributions" our utility company was presumed to be making to the city's operating budget this year and next. At least they promised to make some contributions and especially not to ask the city for money for the city-owned utility.

And the city's water department reported that price of our water will go up another 5% (down from 10% initially suggested) despite conservation measures most of us have implemented.  The North Texas Municipal Water District, of which Garland is a member, is the driver for the water increases, which is a very complicated financial/political situation. This is happening despite the fact that Garland was described as having been a "poster child" for water conservation, reducing overall usage from 11,000 gallons of water per month in 2006 to 6,400 gallons per month in 2017. Instead of rewarding citizens for cutting their usage almost in half, citizens get slapped with a rate hike (even though it's lower than originally predicted). 

Citizens, beware! It's your money they're after.

And City Council budget hearings and discussions can be as confusing as budget hearings in the U.S. Congress. What's most important is to see where council lands at the end, especially if concerned citizens step in raising questions about specifics or too many rate, fee, and tax increases. Texas laws and the city's charter require processes that must be followed.

Let me hasten to add that I've said for years that I would gladly temporarily pay higher property taxes to help improve our city's miserable streets because I like many others are already spending that much on damaged tires and front-end alignments due to the pot-holes and other street problems. For nearly a half-decade Council balked at allowing a voter-approved 2-cent temporary tax increase for our streets. Instead, Council "found" the money elsewhere—by not approving funds for other pressing needs such as more police and a bigger development office and thrust, which we sorely also need.

What complicates the situation is the failure for 14 years to use the roughly $100 million—nearly one-half—of the 2004 voter-approved bond package. Why? The publicly stated excuse is that we've been struggling to overcome the 2007 Great Recession. That's odd since most economists cite the Great Recession as having ended in June 2009. After that cities that also had put their bond sales and budgets on hold started turning loose of the money to restore infrastructure and meet other needs. For some reason, Garland didn't follow suit. Our political leaders love to point fingers of blame, but the bottom line is the whole gaggle of them in office over the past decade bear some responsibility for the delays.

Some cities have leap-frogged ahead of us—fixing their streets and other infrastructure needs. With the U.S. economy now roaring with so many restraints removed nationally, these places are prepared for a future filled with inflation and the eventual downturn that always follows a blazing boom.

Now, instead, our city's needs have stacked up higher than most realize. At the same time our city debt is fast approaching—in 2024—a payoff. We stand at an unusual crossroads, somewhat like the United States did for a brief few years at the end of the 1990s when our National Debt was actually shrinking.

Fees to reserve classrooms and multipurpose rooms at Garland parks facilities may be hiked if a current proposal is passed.

We truly are at a pivotal moment in the life of this 240,000 population, 87th largest city in the U.S., 12th largest city in Texas. Which way we go in the next year will impact generations of Garlandites to come.

Do we figure out a way to tighten the financial belt for six more years and then move forward using the cash now used for bond payments from the budget? Maybe sell some assets to get there quicker? Or do we plunge deeper into debt? Not an easy choice. I know people who are advocating every option.

As I said earlier, I know city budgets are boring stuff—also lengthy and at points confusing. 

The four public bond "hearings" were touted as tremendous successes because of the turnout of 134—many of them repeats and part of the reigning city insiders including city employees and elected officials—in a city of 240,000 people.

At the second "bond hearing", a Garland politico leaned over to me and commented about how many present were not "ordinary" citizens. He estimated "maybe a dozen" in the audience were just regular people. After he pointed out who he thought weren't insiders, I was able to point out the roles in city politics that about half of the 12 currently play, albeit in lower levels.

And few citizens have shown up for the first FY19 budget hearings.

None of the fee, rate, tax increases have been voted into law yet. The process is merely under way.

So, stay tuned and listen carefully during the next weeks and months.

But IF YOU DON'T pay attention to what is happening now, don't be surprised when city leaders turn a deaf ear to your complaints about higher rates, fees, and taxes after you are hit with them.

Citizen apathy is at an all-time high, while our city stands at this pivotal moment and crossroads. Whither Garland? Don't let only a few citizens decide for you!

Citizens, let your voices be heard one way or the other on these matters!

Does a "Hidden Hand" guide Garland bond-issue talk? Don't ignore blunt warnings about your property taxes increasing.

A "Why Now?" slide is shown at the community meeting at the North Garland Branch Library.

A few years back, a freshman Garland councilmember sat in our living room, querying my wife and me about whether we had perceived that a "Hidden Hand" might be responsible for some puzzling developments this newcomer had observed in our city government.

While Garland operates under a city-manager form of government with mayor and city council as somewhat titular heads, this new councilmember believed someone or something other than the city manager—and not easily identifiable—was behind certain patterns of making "these things happen" in our beloved city.

During his short tenure, this councilmember had already noticed that things just sort of seemed to "occur"—issues being presented as  "givens" without council action. For example, a choice of four possible outcomes regarding the downtown commercial area mysteriously and suddenly were narrowed down to just two. Who narrowed them down? Not council, he contended and we had observed. But who? That question was never answered.

Kay and I had seen enough in our nearly two decades living here to agree with him. What, or who, was this "Hidden Hand" guiding the city? we all three wondered.

Each of us had names and/or processes for what or who we suspected might be in control of these events in our city. Our names of the suspects, however, were not always the same.

To help affirm his perception, with this new city councilmember Kay and I reviewed Kay's verbatim transcripts of at least two earlier council work sessions where we could trace the exact "Hidden Hand" pattern he described. In sessions designed just for brainstorming, council would discuss some proposal. Suddenly, TA-DA! The "brainstorm" quickly and mysteriously got set in stone. How? No vote was ever taken (unless it was done so behind the scenes, which, of course, is not legal). No direct verbal order was agreed to on camera.

Fast-forward just a few years from that discussion, and the same pattern seems to be emerging again regarding discussions about a potential upcoming citywide bond issue.

The players that we all three perceived might be at work in this mysterious process two years ago are now no longer around, but the process continues. Hmm . . .. Did new faces take their places in the frames and adopt the old methods? Or where these odd decisions just the way Garland works?

If you listen to some of the rhetoric going on now, you hear a bond issue stated as a fact, a given. It's going to happen. One councilmember last week asked some citizens, "Are you aware we have a bond election coming up?"

Poll taken at a meeting to ascertain interest in having a bond election. Voting is on the "honor" system, presuming that non-Garland citizens will refrain from participating.

But who said so? And when exactly was that decision made? Council hasn't voted this in as gospel.  At its un-televised day-long retreat at a Garland hotel in mid-December City Council by consensus agreed to move forward to study the idea; they didn't vote to hold a bond election and can't until much later in the process.

A series of community meetings has begun for the purpose of taking citizens' pulse about what projects are desired and to recruit volunteers to serve on a study committee. Polls are being taken at those meetings, but one doesn't know if only residents, city employees, or city councilmembers are the ones actually voting in the polls. The public is only being told that the texting and computer based polls are based on "the honor system". Apparently nonresident city employees will abide by their consciences and not vote on whether taxpaying residents will pay for a tax increase. Just like 95% of the Garland firefighters don't live here, don't pay taxes here, and don't vote here, but through their firefighter association and its political PAC stick their noses and their money deeply into our city elections.

Isn't this the cart before the horse? Has the city really determined that such an election will occur . . . and whether this is the best (or the worst) time to initiate a bond election?

If so, when did that happen? The retreat "consensus" only set the stage for the possibility of one.  It hasn't occurred yet, but the process for it is aggressively under way.

A "Why Now?" slide is shown at the community meeting at the North Garland Branch Library.

In one of the recent community meetings on the bond issue, one astute citizen asked how much of the last 2004 city bond package money remains to be spent. About half, we were told. By Saturday's meeting, the response was modified to between $100 and $105 million out of an original bond program of $224 million was still unspent. Privately one city official said "a little money" remains unspent from the 1997 bond package that preceded the 2004 bond election. Interesting!

In Saturday's second public session on the bond discussion, one sitting city councilmember called the 2004 bond election "a failure". His public assessment was rather startling though probably closer to the truth than most other city leaders would like to admit.

Consultant Nathan Ante explains reasons for delays in spending money approved in the 2004 bond election.

Other citizens at the Thursday-evening meeting wanted to know where the huge hidden tax increases showing up in citizens' mailboxes these days (in the guise of gigantic increases in DCAD tax appraisals for their homes and properties) fits into the mix. The answers seemed to get minimized in the discussion.

The "Hidden Hand" seems to be at play again; some of those that previously were concerned about this pattern seem to be involved in it now.

For example, wheels were in motion for a possible bond election prior to the recent changing of the guard at city hall. Even before the municipal election on May 5, the city staff had already put out a request for bids for a consulting firm to begin putting together a framework for a potential bond issue. That ball was set in motion in March. By May 15, just before the new mayor and council were sworn in, the city already was recommending that the firm of Kimley Horn get the nod at a $200,000 consulting fee.

What curious timing! The Hidden Hand couldn't wait for the new mayor and new city councilmembers to be seated. The action occurred immediately before the election. It was like the Hidden Hand decided, Just in case someone might be elected mayor that didn't support a bond election hook, line, and sinker, let's get the wheels rolling so it would be very difficult to backtrack. Or was it to give a new mayor endorsed by several councilmembers the cover needed for raising taxes, when she had publicly argued against it and strongly suggested one of her opponents had a tax hike already fixed in his mind?

What was the hurry? Nevertheless, it worked perfectly. The timing and process remain suspicious, but nevertheless the Hidden Hand set the stage perfectly for either way the mayoral election turned out.

A consultant was already set to grease the wheels for a bond election by the time the new mayor was sworn in and the new council constituted. No one stopped to say, "Wait a minute. Do we really need this? Is this the best thing for us to do right now? And are there some alternate ways to explore to fund new projects?" The tide was already moving in the Hidden Hand's desired direction.

Thankfully, at the Thursday-night meeting, consultants Nathan Ante and Abra Nusser prefaced most of their remarks with some cautionary "if's". "Why are we considering a bond issue?" Ante posed to the group. Nusser queried, "If we move forward with this schedule . . . ", "If we do proceed with the bond package . . ."

They weren't quite so cautious at the Saturday session until the audience bore down heavily on the fact that almost half of the 2004 bond election projects and funds haven't seen the light of day yet.

I was very grateful for the consultants' cautionary words but puzzled how we as a city got to this stage so quickly without more discussion and official votes and why we are moving so fast with it. Is someone afraid our current Great Texas Economic Boom is going to end suddenly? If it does, we're going to be in more trouble than we ever imagined; our citizen taxpayers will be left "holding the bag" for decades for political blunders now.

A slide is presented showing the tax impact of a potential bond issue.

According to one councilmember during the meeting Thursday night, August 3, as a part of the bond-election-proposal discussions already under way now, council has an understanding to raise taxes immediately to pay for the new bonds as soon as they are approved. "This council will vote to raise taxes right off the bat," was the statement made. 

  

My, my, my . .  . how fast the Hidden Hand works. We technically haven't decided yet to have a bond election, but a majority of council by consensus has already decided on a tax increase in addition to the "hidden" tax increase arriving on their doorsteps from the DCAD appraisal increases? Wow!

This is not to say the projects being rumored and discussed to be paid for with the new bonds are not worthy.

Do we need a new animal shelter? That was part of my mayoral platform.

Do our dreadful streets need much more work? I made that point often during the campaign.

Should we build the new needed police-evidence facility? Of course. Without a doubt!

Do we need better and more creative and flexible economic-development plans for the whole city and not just certain parts of it? Absolutely!

Do we need to finally build the long-delayed new North Garland Library on land owned for years by the city on Garland Avenue near Sam's Club and Walmart? Yes, we do!

And do we need to continue to develop our embryonic walking-and-bike trails throughout the city? You betcha!

During the recent mayoral campaign, I talked about creative ways—finding more public and private grants, for instance, and seeking prosperous donors for certain named projects—as the way to start to tackle the myriad of problems in our city and to avoid overloading our not-so-wealthy citizens with more taxes and more debt. One city councilmember expressed concern that this might come with strings attached—as if a 20-year mortgage that new bonds generate don't!

"Tax and borrow" is not my first choice! I apparently have a lot more faith in the free-enterprise system than some of our current city councilmembers do!

Word on the street is also that our city's sales-tax base has suddenly gone flat, hopefully only because of the rising rate of retail on the Internet. (More about that in a later blog.) That is not a good sign regardless how one looks at it. Keep your eyes on the Congressional hearings in Washington, D.C., about returning to the days when Internet sales were immune to state and local sales taxes. Such a move could hasten our nation's reliance on the Internet for retail sales (thus shuttering more brick-and-mortar businesses) but stall local and state government projects and incomes across the country.

Citizens at meeting could text their answers to various polls.

None of this, of course, is to say that Kay and I personally have made up our minds about whether a bond election is necessary at this time. The eventual list of new projects to be built or fixed by the new bonds may or may not be something we support. Time will tell. Much depends on the honesty of the process, what additional facts are laid out before us, and the final outcome.

Our main concern at this point is process—something that used to be a major concern in some other circles as well. Previously "process" critiques were directed at the former mayor, when someone didn't approve of him. Are we suddenly no longer concerned about "process" since the former mayor is no longer around to blame? If "process" is important and not criticized just for the sake of politics, then it's important regardless who sits in the mayor's seat and who the city councilmembers are. "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" in my books.

Why is this Hidden Hand back at work so quickly and dragging us so rapidly toward a decision that may mean more debt and more taxes—on top of a huge property tax increases ready to heavily burden our citizens even more for the years ahead?

Does anyone remember how quickly property values go up AND DOWN in Texas? I've lived through at least two major boom-and-bust cycles in Texas property values (and a few minor ones, too), so I am not naive about our state's current economic boom. It will end. The only question is when? And where will Garland be in that cycle? And how prepared are we for the next downturn?

And has everyone forgotten that the last Garland ISD bond election de facto brought down the incumbent GISD superintendent at the time? The presence and price-tag for the new GISD natatorium in the bond election was the heart of that battle, though not by any means the only issues.  

These are crucial days in the life of our city. Our list of needs is great. Our problems are legion. And so are our tax burdens. The Dallas County Appraisal District (DCAD, for short) is handing our city leaders a gigantic ongoing Christmas gift—a bucketload of new money in the form of tax-appraisal increases. In bond-election discussions, it has not been precise about how large that bucket is going to be or even how we intend to spend it all.

Will the unofficial, appraisal-driven tax increase provide enough resources for the city to pay cash for the items that are top priority for the bond election? Nobody knows just yet. Privately, some city leaders admit the city will be completely out of debt by 2024—just six years from now . . . that is, if we don't borrow the remaining $105 million for the long-delayed 2004 bond project. Put another way, that means the $42 million a year (on $221 million of indebtedness) currently being spent on city debt will go away in 2024. We could do a whole lot with that $42 million extra every year! That's enough money to build both the new animal shelter and the police-evidence facility in one year! Think what we could do in the years after that! Especially with the windfall from the rising tax appraisals on our homes and businesses.

That's a truly a sobering thought. Getting from 2018 to 2024 would be a difficult trick, BUT having a city free of debt in a nation drowning in red ink could, if marketed correctly, be turned into an amazing "image asset" for our city.

Have we as a city explored all the options besides "tax and borrow"? No!  And some don't want to, either. When one citizen at Thursday night's meeting brought up the idea of big businesses in the city helping fund special projects, her words seemed to hit the ceiling and bounce off.

And when another citizen, a former city councilmember, presented the idea of forgoing debt and paying cash for big projects, the silence of the response was deafening.

Yet in my world view, leaders are obligated to explore all options—not just the ruts in the road they have been traveling on for decades. I personally detest the idea that we must continue to do things the way we've always done them and others before us have always done them. To many of us, that's the definition of insanity. Change can be liberating.

Garland citizens and taxpayers need to listen carefully—and cautiously—to these discussions about a bond election either next May or the following November. (You can bet your last penny that the decision on when to hold the election will be based on political careers, not what is best for our city! That's just the way politicians work here, there, and everywhere.) Those bond discussions are ongoing right now. Nothing is locked in stone yet. At least that's the official word. Tune in. Pay attention to what is being said. You as a Garland citizen, taxpayer, and voter have every right to information about this matter and to voice your opinion on it.

And you will also be paying the bill for this presumed bond election years after every current member of this city council moves off to other roles either here in our city or elsewhere around the world.

You, as a citizen, are the boss of how this money is spent. Treat it as if all of it were in your very own pocket.

Garland City Manager Bryan Bradford addresses the first community meeting on the discussed bond program.

Time to move beyond the current crisis at Garland's Animal Shelter and immediately start planning and funding a new facility

The 53-year-old antiquated, small Garland Animal Shelter needs to be replaced soon.

The situation with the Garland Animal Shelter's rare distemper outbreak and the days of crisis that followed begs for a quicker solution to our community's need for a new animal shelter.

The outbreak followed on the heels of a major uproar on City Council over the care of our animals at the shelter and the role of people outside Garland in the dispute.

Were the two major events connected? The manager of our animal shelter believes not. Others tend to agree with him—that the two issues occurring so close together was coincidental.

Regardless, the two matters have significantly raised the profile of our 53-year-old, outdated, undersized, and inadequately designed (for today's needs) facility.

Thanks to the drama involved and all the media coverage, the ball is now rolling to push Garland in the direction of finally "doing something" about our old animal shelter.

Back in the 1960s when the small shelter was "cutting-edge", it was designed as the hub for reuniting runaway dogs and cats captured by our "dogcatcher" with their pet owners. That description hardly begins to describe all the demands on our animal shelter today.

Garland in 1965 had a population of about 60,000 compared to a population today of around 240,000—a fourfold increase.

And our dog and cat populations have grown tremendously as well—some believe much more rapidly. A study by the City of Garland Animal Services Department in July 2015 showed an estimated dog population of 47,206 and an estimated cat population of 51,605. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that in 2016 Garland had 75,428 households. So, if every household in the city had either a cat or a dog, we would have 23,383 left over—enough for roughly 1 in 3 to have a second dog or cat. 

Pets today fill much-expanded roles in our lives than our pets did back then. A "service animal" was much less used back in 1965. Laws that require landlords to accept such pets—or face severe penalties—were not heard of then.

Besides being a place to reunite runaway pets with their owners, our shelter today has become a place where pet owners drop off their unwanted dogs and cats, where pet adoptions take place, and where citizens pick up traps for rats, squirrels, rabbits, and all sorts of other animals. It serves a myriad of other functions—including capturing, sterilizing, and releasing "feral cats" and other animals—that were far less visualized back in the mid-1960s.

As the "crisis du jour" roiled at Garland Animal Shelter this week, the city had to use this temporary facility to house dogs.

Where does the city go from here in the aftermath of the two back-to-back shelter issues?

Acknowledging a problem immediately is the first step in finding a cure. We've now doubled that acknowledgement in the past three months. Who among us doesn't believe we have a serious problem with our current animal shelter facility? 

The stage is now set for finding a solution to the nearly two-decades' old question, What are we going to do about our outdated and inadequate Garland animal shelter?

The answer already floating is to wait until the city finishes its bureaucratic processes and decides whether to hold a proposed bond election that includes a new animal shelter. Depending on the exact timetable, that could mean waiting until possibly 2020 or maybe later to get started with planning and construction, with probably a finish date of 2021 or later.

After all, as all know, nearly half of the monies approved in the 2004 bond issue are still sitting on ice. Surely that won't happen again, but there is a history here. Nothing is ever certain, despite best intentions.

Instead, many of us believe the city should start immediately to work on the issue. We've talked long enough. It's time now for action. We need a plan in place soon—before another crisis hits.

The process needs to be fully public and to involve our citizens as much and as often as possible.

The City Manager already made clear in his new budget priorities that the animal shelter is one of his top priorities; he made that announcement the very evening that the city publicly reported the canine-distemper outbreak.  

City Manager Bryan Bradford has the authority to move funds now to identify and get the planning processes going for the new shelter. As we learned during the controversy over the bulldozing of the old Armory in Central Park, he can approve up to $50,000 without Council approval. That should be adequate to get the ball rolling on at least site selection and preliminary architectural work.

Bond funds may be needed and available later, but we already know the city coffers will soon be filling with new monies from the dramatic increases in property values and the tax revenue that's going to generate for the city. Barring the unlikely event of a sudden and dramatic downturn in the Texas and U.S. housing markets, the new tax money will be available one way or the other, with or without a possible bond proposal that includes the shelter.

And for years citizens such as Lee Lutz and Terrie Kieper have maintained that in the past private monies were available for at least part of the new shelter but that the former mayor and several former members of City Council blocked their efforts to tap those funds. Citizens like these two dedicated, energetic, and talented community leaders—and any others involved with them in the quest in the past or want to be in the present—need to be empowered immediately to establish a citizens committee to bring forth public recommendations and proposals for what private funding is available now and how this can be obtained and used.  Others who have poured heart and soul into the animal-shelter issue need to be included, too. 

As I have said many times, I would like to see what citizens working together can do using a variety of resources and not just tax money—a true private-public participatory partnership!

Meanwhile, the issues of where should the shelter be situated, how large it should be, and what the design needs to be require attention as soon as possible. Uriel Villalpando, animal services manager at our city's present animal shelter, says he has all kinds of thoughts and ideas about how to answer those questions. Our crusading animal-loving citizens and their friends need to have a voice in these decisions, too.

The current location may have been a good idea 53 years ago, but it is definitely not the right place now for what is needed. Ditto for its size, purpose, and design. Let's move quickly beyond the past and into a brighter future!

I've seen and heard estimates ranging from $6 million to $40 million for the new animal shelter. We need to get the amount nailed down, without such wild variations being stated around the community. The exact amount needs to be determined now by knowledgeable citizens and experts—not waiting for a possible "bond committee" to be formed to study and prioritize all the needs of the city and decide what's leftover for the new shelter.

A price tag of $40 million is one thing; a sticker price of $6 million is an entirely different matter.  The larger may require some bond money. The smaller may be able to fly on its own. We need to know the difference now, not later.

Unlike streets and other major infrastructure needs, most of the issues surrounding building the new Garland animal shelter are easily resolvable now and may be within resources already readily available—if community leaders and citizens will simply pull together, use their ingenuity, open their hearts and minds to the idea, and just DO IT!

This photo of Garland's Animal Shelter gives an idea of how small it is.

Garland's Animal Services Manager: "Outbreaks of this magnitude are rare . . ., no animals have been euthanized"

Uriel Villalpando, animal services manager at our city's animal shelter. Photo from garlandtx.gov.

Garland citizens may be interested in this full online interview with Uriel Villalpando, animal services manager at our city's animal shelter, regarding the canine-distemper outbreak and crisis that Garland's Animal Shelter has faced in recent days.

Garland citizens first became aware of the outbreak last Tuesday evening, August 3, when Mayor Pro Tem Rich Aubin, (district 5 councilmember), substituting for absent Garland Mayor Lori Barnett Dodson at the regular bi-monthly session, announced on TV that the outbreak had started and called on animal rescue organizations inside and outside of Garland to join hands in rescuing the animals.

Here are Uriel's answers (in regular type) to my questions (in bold):

1. How often do outbreaks like this happen in shelters in DFW and Texas? I understand the Houston Animal Shelter experienced the same thing last April. Do you know of others where this has happened this year? Are there any similarities between these, such as summertime, excessive heat, lack of air conditioning, etc.? Do outbreaks occur in winter as well as summer?

All shelters constantly deal with diseases like distemper but outbreaks of this magnitude are rare. We’ve read reports of similar outbreaks at various shelters nationwide, but nothing more than media reports. We don’t know enough about other outbreaks to make any comparisons.

2. How many dogs at the Garland Animal Shelter during this outbreak were diagnosed with distemper? And how many of those had to be euthanized? What did you do to try to limit the number of animals impacted, including those euthanized?

Up until today (8/14/18), a total of 33 dogs were diagnosed with distemper out of the 124 that we have tested. Out of the 33 dogs that tested positive, only six were in our care and have been transported to a vet clinic for treatment.

As soon as the first case was identified we began to implement control measures such as isolating symptomatic dogs and testing all animals at the shelter. We’ve since established temporary kennels to further isolate animals that have tested negative but may have since been exposed. Our goal is to clear the shelter of all potentially exposed animals by the end of today (8/14/18) and resume normal operations at the shelter. Potentially exposed animals will be housed at the temporary kennels until placement. Since the first case was identified, no animals have been humanely euthanized.

3. Why did this outbreak occur when it did—on the heels of a major uproar on City Council over the care of our animals at the shelter and the intervention of people outside Garland in the dispute? Were the critics right? Or is this just a case of coincidence?

Everything points to coincidence. The shelter has been operated the same this summer as it has been for decades so there’s no reason to believe this is anything more than a coincidence. Modern shelters are designed with disease control measures engineered into the facilities so perhaps we can look forward to a reduced chance of similar outbreaks in a new facility.

4. What could have been done to prevent the outbreak? And was it preventable? 

Staff takes routine control measures to prevent outbreaks like vaccinating all animals and sanitizing the shelter daily. The simple fact is, despite our best efforts the risk of disease in the shelter is ever present because disease is ever present in our community environment. We’re not aware of additional preventative measures to implement in light of the outbreak. We were already doing everything the experts recommend including vaccinating all animals on intake.

5. Would having a new Animal Shelter building like many of us have talked about been a factor in whether this outbreak occurred at all? Or can it/does it occur in new shelters as well?

As I stated previously, modern shelters are designed with disease control measures engineered into the buildings. That’s one major factor in why a new shelter is so expensive. New shelters are designed with several “pods” which are basically several small units of kennels where the units are completely separated. This is very effective in disease control because if one pod is affected by disease it is isolated to that small group of animals and will not affect animals in other pods.

6. As you think about planning for a new Garland Animal Shelter, do you have any ideas about what you would like in terms of square footage, location, design, etc.?

Yes, yes, and yes. I don’t want to “spill the beans” before we’ve had an opportunity to present our needs to the bond committee, but we have done lots of homework in preparation for the bond proposal. Much more to come…

7. Where does the city go from here in the aftermath of this outbreak?

We continue to implement disease control measures and practice good hygiene at the shelter. Make no mistake, a modern shelter isn’t a silver bullet. Under poor management, disease can spread in the most modern facility. Our staff is doing a great job but we’re limited by the facility. No matter what happens, we will continue to do the best job we can with the resources we have.

Next Louis Moore of Garland blog: Garland must move forward on this long-delayed project