Wednesday, August 15, 2018

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.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Your comment will be reviewed and posted if it is appropriate. Foul language and intemperate remarks may not be used. This blog does not permit anonymous comments. Louis Moore signs his name to all blogs and he expects those who comment to do the same.