Transparency is suddenly way-cool in the lead up to the Garland Bond Study Committee meetings, and citizens are the beneficiaries

Citizens need to listen closely—and speak up—as the City of Garland decides whether to hold a bond election in 2019. Their money and future may be at stake here.

Garland city councilmembers are now falling all over themselves to make sure the public is fully informed and has access to all the proceedings going forward for the possible 2019 bond election next year.

During their marathon work session Tuesday, September 4, council went the extra mile to make sure the soon-to-be constituted 19-member Bond Study Committee's sessions are fully open to the public and recorded on audio and possibly video, with those recordings and meeting notices posted in a highly accessible place.

I commend council for taking this stand. Citizens certainly will be the beneficiaries.

An earlier blog questioned the roots of this bond issue, which had the appearance of materializing almost out of thin air, with the fact of a 2019 bond election suddenly becoming mentioned around as though it were gospel. One council member responded that talk about the possible bond proposal emanated at the council's retreat last December 15 at a local hotel. Further research by this blog showed that the retreat was one of only a few "special" meetings of council during that calendar year that was NOT televised. No recording of the event is delineated on the city's website listing CGTV videos. The posted agenda to that meeting says it was only a staff-based "future bond program discussion", with no dates given. The meeting's official minutes posted on the city's website indicate no vote was taken nor consensus reached on the bond "discussion" at the retreat—with a "hypothetical timetable of events" presented by staff. 

Few citizens attend the day-long marathon council retreats, especially when the meetings are held in a hotel on the northern end of town and, as with the case of this one, are scheduled 10 days before Christmas when ordinary citizens already have full schedules.

Was the un-televised retreat held deep into the chaotic Christmas season the right time and/or the right setting to suddenly introduce a proposal with possible serious tax consequences for Garland citizens? Do our citizens deserve better than this?

No City Council meetings held outside Garland City Hall are videotaped and/or broadcast on TV. The day-long council retreat last December 15 at the Hyatt Hotel was where the proposed 2019 bond proposal was said to have gotten its start—out of sight of most citizens. Wouldn't televising such council retreats be respectful of citizens? Should these gatherings be moved back to city hall if televising retreats is impossible?

As engaged citizens and professional journalists during the early days of the adoption of the Texas Open Records Act, Kay and I are always concerned when local and state politicians seem to wander to the edge of that law. The law was born in the early 1970s when Frank Sharp, president of Sharpstown Bank in Houston, was convicted of colluding with city officials behind closed doors. The tentacles of that scandal reached far and wide in Houston and South Texas, prompting Texas legislators for solid and good reasons to adopt the state's Open Meetings Law.

Out in the sunshine is the only way any form of government should operate, especially when taxes and money are concerned!

On Tuesday night, councilmembers even went so far as to consider whether citizens attending the public bond committee sessions would be able to address the committee meetings briefly. Kudos to Councilmember Jim Bookhout for strongly supporting citizen input at the committee meetings; I certainly hope some provision is made to let citizens have a brief say-so during the committee sessions.

Regardless, as I have said repeatedly, on the other side of the equation Garland citizens need to pay serious attention to ALL the proceedings regarding the possible 2019 city bond election. So far, proportionately, very few Garland citizens seem to be taking it seriously enough. That may be good for our politicians short-term but very bad for the community long-term.

The last such city bond election—in 2004, 14 years ago—has been dubbed a "failure" by one sitting Garland city councilmember. Yet another has inquired of the city manager whether that 2004 city bond election could be "undone". I concur with them. A little over 40% of the money approved by voters in 2004 has NOT been spent. Dozens of approved projects have never been implemented. The excuse used for the delay—the 2007 Great Recession—was over within three years; the Dallas area recovered quickly and has been in a boom for several years now. Meanwhile, nearly $100 million in approved bonds remain on the books to be issued at the whim of city leaders. (By the end of this year—four months from now—city figures indicate the $100 million should drop to $88 million.) Retreat minutes summarize that Councilmember Scott LeMay asked City Manager Bryan Bradford if election of the unfinished projects in the 2004 bond election could be de-authorized. In the minutes Bradford tells LeMay that doing so would require a vote of Garland citizens (an election or "un-election" of the 2004 bond issue).

 During the Tuesday-night city council meeting, a discussion occurred about whether a "small" new $100-million proposed bond program would increase taxes. Left out of that discussion was the 1 + 1 = 2 question about whether the $100 million remaining on the books PLUS a new $100 million approved in a 2019 election would, if both fully implemented alongside each other, cause a tax increase. Is there room in the budget for just one or both? I posed that question to city staff, who said indeed, the city could sustain the remaining $88 million plus a new $100 million in bond-fund projects without requiring a tax increase. 

For the extra $100 million, the city possibly could get the most needed (and publicly promoted) projects done—its new police evidence building, a new animal shelter, realignment and repair of the Naaman Forest Road where flooding occurs, and a couple more projects spread out over the city.

But don't get lulled to sleep thinking City Council and city staff are thinking small. Despite rumors emanating from some Garland politicos that council has already set in stone a bond proposal totaling $250 million, during the Tuesday-night session council members declined to set financial parameters for the new bond study committee, to be inaugurated about September 19. Council was told that suggested project proposals already total some $800 million and could go as high as $1 billion. Discussion, however, seems aimed at the $250 million to $450 million range. That would mean eliminating three-fourths to one-half of the already-suggested projects or whittling them down in size. One councilmember said his district would "burn me at the stake" if he supported a bond program as high as $450 million. Anything between those $100 million to $800 million numbers will definitely raise Garland property taxes. The higher the numbers, the higher the tax increase. Anything higher than $400 million could possibly spark a taxpayer revolt in some parts of town.

After bungling Garland's 2004 bond implementation so badly and for so many years, Garland's needs are great. Nobody should argue against that—it's evident in our parks, on our streets, along our creek beds (drainage), etc. But how fast and how much do we spend to get out of the hole the city is in?

And also, going forward does the city do these projects using borrowed money or cash that will be generated by increasing property values set to hit our residents over the next few years and expiring bond payments (after 2024) that will exit the city's budget? And with a water-rate hike and other city fees—and even a potential GP&L hike down the road—on the possible increase? Those are all important questions that deserve a hearing.

The City of Garland can learn much from the 2014 Garland ISD bond election. Many citizens are still bothered that the proposed new school district Natatorium wasn't listed on the ballot as a separate item instead of being lumped with other projects.

Though it was not actually a part of the proposed 2019 city bond-election discussion, one item on Council's regular agenda Tuesday night (the location of the school district's new Natatorium near the George Bush Freeway) spotlighted the problems associated with a local bond package not vetted properly. Garland ISD's new Natatorium was a hot potato when it was approved in 2014 and has remained so ever since. While city council this week worried over parking, buses, and fencing to protect neighbors at the proposed facility, GISD continues to struggle with dissident voices over the fact that the controversial Natatorium was not a separate yes-or-no item in that bond election.

If we actually do hold the proposed city bond election in 2019, the City of Garland needs to learn from the school district's misfortunes and separate as many as possible of the large, especially controversial items, into separate yes-or-no votes.

The city also can learn a lesson from germinating its discussion about the possible bond election at the non-televised, poorly attended, day-long retreat last December. December 17, 2018, is projected as the deadline for hearing the bond committee's final report and recommendations—learning whether the committee recommends putting the bond issue on the May 2019 ballot and what items are suggested to be on it. That date of December 17 is not best for our citizens, but if Council insists and goes forward with it, the meeting— wherever it takes place—needs to be televised, well publicized, and shared repeatedly over the next few months with the citizens of Garland. Making public such an important decision just 8 days before Christmas is not likely to gain much citizen attention.

Listen up, Garland citizens and taxpayers: These are serious matters right now. They WILL impact your pocketbook. Council has signaled rightly its willingness to listen to you. Get informed. Stay tuned. Let your voices be heard loud and strong!

As they say during wedding ceremonies, "Speak now or forever hold your peace."

Garland voters have the final say on whether the city can issue more bonds.

 

School district and city bonds are totally separate financial matters, though many of the same Garland citizens pay taxes to support both. Some lessons from the 2014 GISD bond issue can apply to the potential 2019 Garland issue, if it goes forward.