A bond package of $425 million appears heading to Garland voters; it's only the beginning of what's needed to truly move our city forward and out of the muck!

Fixing numerous drainage and streets issues is part of the $425 million bond proposal.

After ups and downs, circling and landing, and all sorts of political posturing by the nine members of our city council, Garland is now heading full-speed ahead toward a bond election of about $425 million on the May 4 municipal election.

The city attorney's office is now working on the exact wording of eight or so propositions that will appear on the ballot. Apparently the long-debated new Garland animal shelter may show up standing alone at $12 million as one of the 8 or so propositions. Those propositions will be voted on at council's Tuesday, February 5, meeting, then will move on to the public ballot.

Only a handful of citizens actually seemed to be following the drama that began to unfold in December 2017 when the idea first appeared on a council agenda for an un-televised council retreat held in a local hotel. At that time Garland had a different mayor and several different council members who no longer are on that body.

Eventually a bond committee composed of "citizens"—a significant number of whom had previous roles in the city as council members, city employees, boards and commissions members, and a former mayor—was formed to study the issue. With the help of city staff, the group put together a scary but forthright and honest list of more than $1.2 billion needs that MUST be addressed soon in our community. Out of that came proposals of three graduated interlocking tiers of $489 million, $325 million, and $250 million from which council was to choose or revise one into its final version.

The issue all along has been how much will citizens be willing to pay in increased property taxes. That amount will depend on the appraised value of property in Garland. The burden will not be spread out evenly over the city, because Garland's home values vary widely. The benchmark of around $224 per year—usually stated by our politicians in smaller monthly and daily amounts—was often cited, though the exact amount will range widely.

From the beginning the proposal to issue bonds focused around how much citizens are willing to pay in increased real estate taxes.

In the end after all sorts of maneuvering, so-called fiscal conservatives capitulated in the face of the overwhelming needs and moved up to the higher bond number of $425 million: the final proposal is not that far below the top $489 million recommended by the bond committee. The evidence for the higher number was crystal clear, as staff described park by park, road by road, area by area, how our needs are so great.

The voters will now get to decide exactly how many—if any—of the individual bond proposals will actually receive the green light.

This will be the first bond election in 15 years. About $80 million remains unspent from the last 2004 bond election—a number that complicated both the committee's and council's debate.

Once council votes to put it on the ballot, it's anybody's guess what the public debate over the next three months will be like. Will a group form to oppose the bond issue? Or will another group form to support it? Or will the issue remain one discussed by only a small group within our city? We will need to wait and see.

As I discussed with our former city council member, Laura Perkins "Perky" Cox, who stopped by for a visit recently, even though Kay and I are significant property owners in District 2—which means we will be paying a hefty tax increase far more than the average citizens will pay for the bonds—we will support the total $425 million bond package, because we believe every item on the final list—as well as most items on the original $1.2 billion review—is necessary to move this city forward to where it might have a fighting chance to compete with our neighbors to the east, north, and west.  (Perky was one of the Bond Study Committee members; she was appointed to the committee by District 5 Councilmember Rich Aubin. In that role Perky articulated the needs in our District 2 and in our city.)

Garland voters apparently will be able to vote on the proposed $12 million new animal shelter as a separate item in the bond election.

Because our city as a whole is so far behind in so many areas, there's no guarantee Garland can compete with our rampantly prospering neighbors, even with the new bonds. Yes, our needs are that great!

Our city needs to move beyond the defensive political rhetoric of the past that sometimes tried to paint a false image of a prosperous city that we are not. Statistics revealed by the bond study committee —especially the library committee's eye-popping numbers—show we are what I have long suspected, that overall Garland is a community growing less educated and less affluent with each passing year.

Those trends MUST be reversed. Truly reversed. Not by words but by actions.

The new bonds will give us an opportunity to do just that.

The bonds, however, are no panacea.

Much, much more than just borrowed money and tax increases is necessary to put this city back on the right tracks going forward.

To borrow a phrase that one often hears on the national front, "We need to MAKE GARLAND GREAT AGAIN!"

We need to work together—ALL Garland citizens of all races, creeds, colors, gender, language spoken, and financial ability—utilizing every creative, financial, and other resources available to make this a better city for ALL our people. 

Increasing taxes and borrowing more money won't be enough to truly "Make Garland Great Again". The most beautiful entrance into Garland, at Shiloh at LBJ Freeway was actually paid for by a local business wanting to improve its neighborhood.

 

A new Garland mayoral race is off and running already, but the same old undemocratic bullying political games haven't changed much

I look forward to the day when Garland municipal elections are free from a system that bullies and ALL citizens are encouraged to run for public office, including those not anointed by the small insider crowd here.

They say that the world's biggest flush occurs annually during the Super Bowl halftime, when fans, of necessity, pull themselves away from ceaseless TV-watching to visit the john.

But another gi-nor-mous flush occurs in Garland during the lead-up time to the Garland municipal elections. It's the flushing out of the city's political machinery as it is laid bare and demonstrates, with the veil pulled back, just how the election process operates in our town.

What's flushed out is the regular, unmasked effort that occurs to keep as many opponents as possible out of any mayoral and city council races that might be on the horizon.

On January 16, Scott LeMay, who will term out on the Garland City Council in May, announced that he will seek the Garland mayor's position. The seat for a two-year term will be open on the city election May 4.

Then, only three days later, in the wake of that announcement, the current mayor, Lori Barnett Dodson, elected just last May 5—261 days ago—in a race that cost more than $65,000 for the campaign and her portion (about $52,000) mostly paid for by three powerful PAC's, announced that a longtime goal of hers was that Scott would succeed her in the mayor's spot. Lori had been elected to fill a one-year unexpired term of Mayor Doug Athas, who resigned. Now she, too, will step aside in May.

(For specific details about the finances of last spring's mayoral election, please read my Louis Moore of Garland blog on September 26, 2018.)

During the 2018 campaign Lori did not state to the public that she intended to be a 1-year (not even a one-term) mayor nor that she would not seek re-election when her time in office was up this year.

However, privately all along it was believed that Lori indeed would turn over her role in 2019 and would maneuver so Scott, her colleague first on the Garland Plan Commission and then later on City Council, hopefully could fulfill his longtime ambition to be in the mayor's seat.

Those two announcements paired so closely together set up the first plank in the strategy: with an insider power duo such as this positioning themselves to look so formidable, what Garlandite in his/her right mind would want to challenge?

If the pairing of those announcements didn't flush out enough of the system, the deep-pocketed Garland Firefighters Association, which spent $22,408.48 to get Lori elected less than a year ago, jumped in a few hours after her announcement with a full, glowing endorsement of Scott for mayor. The group didn't even wait to see who else would file for the office. (The deadline for filing is February 15—almost a month from the time of their announcement.) They had their candidate figured out, even before seeing whether there were any other worthy mayoral candidates from which to choose.

Now we have an even stronger triad presented. Surely anyone contemplating tossing his/her hat in the ring—knowing they almost certainly would be outspent from the get-go—now would for sure turn tail and run, right?

During the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. government sent election teams to different world hot spots to monitor elections to be sure they were fair and free of interference and bullying by dictatorial governments. Wonder what those teams would say today if invited to observe Garland's elections, which are controlled by a tiny handful of mostly Anglo voters?

You can expect to see numerous other endorsements for Scott being trotted out in coming days. With a Goliath gathering a force like this, what poor David of another Garland citizen might even have a chance?

I recognize this strategy clearly, because I've seen it before in another great Garland "flush", when the city's political machine was flushed out in a campaign strategy for the District 1 council seat. At that time former Mayor Douglas Athas and his campaign treasurer, Stan Luckie, decided to push sitting council member Tim Campbell out and fill his seat on council with current Councilmember David Gibbons.

The plan at that time—nearly a year before the next District 1 election—was to scare Campbell (who sided against Athas many times on council) out of running for re-election by convincing him that he faced a well-financed, politically powerful, and savvy opponent who stood a great chance of ousting him.

I know this because Luckie invited me to a private breakfast at the IHOP in Firewheel with Gibbons present to introduce me to Gibbons and to secure my and Kay's endorsement and support for Gibbons. At the time he explained the strategy.

I told Stan we would endorse Gibbons and contribute to Gibbon’s campaign ONLY IF Councilmember Campbell voluntarily on his own accord decided to step aside and state publicly that he would not seek a third two-year term. I didn't like one bit the idea of scaring Tim out of office.

Eventually after Campbell was confronted with the reality of overwhelming opposition, Campbell suddenly and unexpectedly announced that he would not seek reelection to a third two-year term due to family responsibilities.

Somehow Luckie and Athas seemed to manage also to discourage any other opponents to Gibbons in that District 1 council election, and it spilled over into the next election cycle as well, so Gibbons sits on council today three years later without ever having received the vote of one single voter in District 1.

Absolutely nothing about this is illegal. Some cynically might even say (complete with eye-roll), "Just politics". But I repeat an earlier theme of many of my blogs. Actions such as this thwart the democratic process and deprive Garlandites their rights as American citizens.

With this type of strategy, the decision about who will hold public office here is cut-and-dried. The average Garlandite, who might feel inspired to serve his/her community and contemplate filing in an upcoming election, can clearly see he/she wouldn't get to first base. The decision is already made. This is why so few Garland elections are actually contested and so few citizens here actually vote in our municipal elections.

This was exemplified by a question posed to me this week by a citizen who was responding in the wake of the week's announcements: "YOU'RE not planning to run for mayor again, ARE YOU?" (In other words, "You wouldn't THINK of that kind of political suicidal move, WOULD YOU?") The individual clearly was flowing right along with the Goliath vs. David image already.

The Garland Firefighters Association is the only group of City of Garland employees which actually funds a PAC from their city paychecks and in turn distributes those funds to candidates it favors in city elections. Ironically, 95% of Garland firefighters do NOT live in Garland.

As strange as this statement may seem, I affirm the union-like firefighters organization's actions as positive progress. By stating forthwith and early-on what candidate they'll support in the upcoming mayor's race, they are eliminating their heretofore misleading charade which took candidates' time and falsely raised their hopes that they were vying in a fair and equal competition for the firefighters' endorsement—which was neither.  I much prefer that the firefighters association move in the direction of openness in this matter rather than subterfuge.

The organization is clearly looking for a politician who will "carry their water" for them and their agenda—whatever it happens to be at the moment. Recently the association's greatest concern has been the city's RSB contribution (retirement stabilization benefit) to civil service employees. This got a beyond-recommended financial boost this year after some council members made a last-minute push.

Early last year the group's leader, David Riggs of Sulphur Springs, made a day-long visit to our home, concluding his extended stay by telling us he expected the group probably would not endorse for mayor since two equally qualified candidates seemed to be lining up for the race.

Then weeks later, after the firefighters endorsed Lori Dodson for mayor, Riggs indicated he didn't think the union-like organization would be spending much money, if any, on her mayoral campaign.
Government records in Garland and Austin, however, showed the association ultimately spent  $22,408.48 on Dodson's short-lived mayoral stint—the largest amount this group of city employees has ever spent on any Garland election.

The Garland Firefighters Association did a much better job in last fall's statewide elections after it was pointed out that its signs in last spring's municipal elections were misleading because the word "Association" was missing, thus inferring that Garland firefighters personally were endorsing candidates even though 95% of them don't live in Garland..

Some 95% of all members of the Garland Fire Department do NOT live in Garland but instead, live, vote, and pay real-estate taxes in cities encircling the entire Dallas Metroplex—including west of Fort Worth, East Texas, and southern Oklahoma. Most of them are members of the Association. That information required a State of Texas Freedom of Information request to the City of Garland to obtain. Many of us were surprised the percentage of Garland non-residents was so extremely high.

The firefighters association is the only group of city employees that exerts a powerful force over Garland municipal elections. Many other groups of city employees such as the parks department, library department, streets department, engineering department, etc., also could benefit from such influence but instead choose to let Garland citizens who live here, pay taxes here, and vote here to exercise their rightful dominant role in our city's elections.

The citizens of Garland are already restless about the size and scope of the proposed upcoming bond election. For the tiny group who have run this city for decades to play out their routine "politics as usual" game is risky and isn't a wise decision, especially at this time.

This election needs to be about openness and honesty—transparency that convinces the voting public to trust our elected officials with managing a loan (using long-term bonds) larger than anything Garland has ever attempted. 

My concerns have nothing to do with the qualifications or integrity of any of the current candidates for public office. This by no means is a commentary on whether any of these individuals would be a good mayor or councilmember. It also is not a commentary on the qualifications or integrity of current officeholders who might owe their current seats to such a machine.

My concern is with a corrupt political system that is not built on trust, democratic principles, openness, and transparency. These are all hallmarks of our American society. They need to be descriptions of Garland's political system as well.

"Tell the truth and trust the people" is a wise old cliche that gets to the heart of my concerns for Garland. While our citizens are as a whole less educated and less wealthy than citizens in surrounding cities to the east, north, and west, they are no less worthy of the voting responsibilities and privileges vested in them by the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the State of Texas. All of our citizens of voting age regardless of race, creed, color, religion, gender, national origin, or political affiliation should be encouraged to vote in our municipal elections and given equal opportunity and access to the processes in this city. 

And if they express an interest, these same citizens deserve the right—and encouragement and respect—to file for public office in our city without artificial qualifications or barriers imposed on them by one special-interest group or another. A private citizen wishing to run for office should not feel outspent, outgunned, and out-strategized before he or she even files.

Lori says that for Scott to succeed her was aspired to when she first ran for mayor a year ago. I don't recall when and where that was publicly stated before now.

When she contacted me twice about a year ago to try to persuade me to endorse her—which, if I had, would have meant I would not run myself in last year's mayoral election—she said nothing about a plan to move out of the way for Scott. Most people in the general public appear to have thought she was in it for the duration.

The political strategist who was behind the situation with Tim Campbell in District 1 is Stan Luckie—former president of the Garland Chamber, former president of the board of the now-defunct Baylor Garland Hospital, former Garland Plan Commissioner, former Mr. Everything-behind-the-scenes in Garland. For years Stan Luckie maintained with me privately that I should stay behind the scenes, never run for public office, and exert influence just like he and some other political strategists have done for decades here. Obviously I disagreed with him and others like him.

I served for many years alongside Stan, Lori, and Scott on the city's Plan Commission. 

I sense Stan's hand—either directly or indirectly—in all that is occurring now. Or some of his disciples have learned their lessons well.

A system that bullies has no place whatsoever in Garland municipal politics! It has no place in our county, state, or national politics either.

We need to rid our city completely of this political masquerade.

Interestingly the plan to oust one of the former mayor's foes and put in a supporter in Gibbons backfired. Gibbons eventually switched sides and helped lead the public and behind-the-scenes battle to run off Mayor Athas before Athas' third and final two-year term ended, thus opening the 1-year position as mayor which Lori, Athas' political opponent, then filled.

Shortly after being sworn in he immediately allied with Councilmember Rich Aubin of District 5 and others in the battle against Athas.

Gibbons was also the only city councilmember who made a contribution to Lori's campaign that was large enough ($100.00) to warrant separate listing in her required election campaign filings. Luckie usually advises his disciples who are on city boards and commissions to contribute $50 or less in cash which can't be traced in the records to an individual. Gibbons apparently missed that lesson.

So that brings us back to the upcoming May 4, 2019, Garland mayoral election and the political dynamics being flushed to the surface right now.

The people who ran off the former mayor are acting like the pigs in George Orwell's classic Animal Farm. In that story, a thinly veiled satire about the communists in the former Soviet Union, the pigs lead the insurrection to oust the corrupt humans running the farm, only to fall back themselves into the same old ways that the humans behaved which precipitated the revolution in the first place.

I'm glad to see that the Garland Firefighters Association has made strides toward honesty and transparency. I hope that group will continue on that path and ultimately decide to refrain from exerting influence in city political races. (And, as I've said before, my concerns have nothing to do with my esteem for the outstanding work that the Garland firefighters do in our city. It pertains to the way the local firefighters' union-like association and its PAC conduct themselves in city elections.)

Running for public office in this city is not—and never should be—a crime, just because the tiny in-crowd holding the reigns of power so tightly in their hands hasn't blessed it. This is, after all, the United States of America—not the old, defunct Soviet Union nor Communist China under Chairman Mao.

Garland and ALL its citizens deserve much, much better!

My hope for Garland is that some day, some how, we will become "that shining light on the hill" for democracy and all that is good about our American system.

Do Garland citizens feel as though they are being told who their leaders will be before the elections are even held?

Out from under the purview of live TV cameras, Garland City Council tries to map out what is shaping up as a large bond package for voters to act on

From the beginning, it was clear the 2019 bond election would involve tough choices including tax-rate hikes

Garland's City Council, key city staff, and some of the 2019 Bond Study Committee members—plus two ordinary citizens who showed up but were not invited to speak—met all-day Saturday, January 12, at a county facility in far southeastern Garland to try to map a way forward for the proposed bond election this May.

This—one of the most important meetings to be conducted pertaining to the bond issue—was held away from City Hall and thus not televised live for citizens to watch it unfold over more than 10 hours.

By the end of the day, council had:

1. Set a cap for the new Garland Animal Shelter at $12 million, down from $18.9 million in the bond study committee's proposal. They achieved the cut primarily by declaring the shelter a top priority that would be built as quickly as possible, thus eliminating the inflation-factor funds and contingency funds set aside in the original proposal. They agreed to build the new shelter on city-owned land lying between Highway 66 and Commerce Street and between the firefighter training facility Street and Centerville Road in eastern Garland.

2. Reviewed at least minimally most of the other proposals in the bond committee's report— cutting some, adding to others, and combining still others. According to bond-study consultant Nathan Ante's running tally, their tentative total for approved projects was $416 million, with a number of remaining projects not tallied and added in yet because council members were asking for more details. The bond committee's largest proposed "tier" is $489 million. Depending on what happens in future meetings, council's bond recommendation to voters may exceed the committee's upper limit—or by more cutting it could drop closer to the committee's Tier 2 recommendation of $345 million.

The council's fiscal conservatives, who have long talked opposition to tax increases, appeared to be backing off in the face of overwhelming needs in our community.

With help from city staff, the bond committee quickly identified more than $1.2 billion in needs in our community that require attention immediately or very soon. The city absolutely cannot afford a bond campaign of that magnitude, even though most projects are necessary and not the "nice-to-have" variety.

Drainage issues are an important part of the bond proposal decision.

Neither the city's lack of a general hospital nor the lack of a real, functioning junior college—like Garland citizens once thought the Richland College campus at Walnut and Glenbrook was going to be—are even addressed in any of the three tiers ($250 million, $345 million, $489 million) proposed by the bond committee.

If the bond election occurs in May, this will be the first bond election in Garland in 15 years. Garland missed its traditional 7-year-cycle bond election in 2011. Some $80 million remains unspent from the city's 2004 bond election, a matter that concerned at least one council member at Saturday's meeting.

By acting over-cautiously, the city's leadership during the past 15 years has allowed the city's infrastructure to deteriorate into its current deplorable condition.

Little was said during the meeting about the impact of the bond proposal on real-estate taxes in Garland. Any bond package above $100 million will require an increase in the Garland property tax rate, which hasn't been raised in 10 years and then by only 1/2-cent. The higher the bonds, the more taxes will need to be raised to pay for them.

Several times during the meeting council was reminded that nothing is certain about the bond proposal and its approval by voters. Once council finalizes its list of projects to be paid out of the bonds, then the matter will go to voters apparently in May on the same ballot on which the majority of council (4 members and the mayor) will be elected or re-elected. Council was told a severe negative reaction by voters against the taxes required to pay for the bonds could force a change in council directions. It is too early to tell if that is even a possibility here right now.

Because of its location, the Saturday meeting was not televised live. Instead, one video camera and four microphones—the same as at the bond committee-meeting also not held at City Hall—were set up to capture footage of the event. City staff could not say for sure when that posting would occur; when it appeared on the city's website Monday late it was under the heading" "Other Public Meetings" and as a "bond committee meeting" on January 12 rather than as a special meeting of City Council. It is not the same type of quality as if it had been produced at City Hall in regular city council work session or regular meeting spaces.

Although Councilmember Scott LeMay during Monday night's work session questioned the county facility location for the meeting, the idea was not publicly pursued by other council members or staff. Afterward I directly asked City Manager Bryan Bradford and another city councilmember last week to try to change the meeting back to City Hall where the city's outstanding media staff would have immediate access to the tools necessary to broadcast the meeting live. At first the two council members reported that the meeting was being moved to city hall. Then later Bradford responded that the city did not have enough time to meet legal requirements to post a change in locations.

City Manager Bryan Bradford, pictured here addressing a group of citizens at the Garland Women's Activities Building recently, said last week it was too late to change locations for last Saturday's city council discussion on the bond committee proposals. Only two citizens showed  up for the un-televised meeting.

Council regular and work-session meetings twice a month are routinely broadcast live. Council "retreats" and other meetings away from city hall are seldom broadcast live and often not even video recorded.

Staff had stated that the Saturday meeting needed to be held at the county facility on Rowlett Road because council members would need to spread out papers and because a large number of staff members were expected to attend. However, I observed absolutely nothing about Saturday's meeting that could not have been conducted in regular council chambers at city hall. No more staff members attended than could be normally accommodated in council chambers or in the work-session room.

Due to Kay's and my involvement with and strong, unwavering support for the Texas Open Meetings law adopted by the Texas Legislature amid the Sharpstown Bank scandal in Houston in 1972, we strongly advocate that all Garland City Council meetings—except those determined by law to need to be confidential due to a select set of legal criteria—be open to the public and televised live and given as much public exposure as possible. As a matter of principle, we oppose anything that gives even the slightest hint or appearance of a meeting outside public purview. 

Here is the link to the city's video of that meeting on Saturday:
http://garlandtx.swagit.com/play/01142019-807

The video is posted as lasting 8 hours and 2 minutes.

Some facts and statistics posted or shared during the Saturday meeting were eye-popping, relevant, and need to be shared with the whole Garland community:

Because home values vary so widely within Garland, the impact of the new taxes to pay for the bonds also will vary widely among our citizens. This chart, displayed at the meeting, shows the eight council districts in Garland alongside the average home value in each district:

District 1 -- $220,000
District 2 -- $102,000
District 3 -- $169,758
District 4 -- $128,444
District 5 -- $126,977
District 6 -- $130,341
District 7 -- $163,658
District 8 -- $150,742

Based on those numbers, Council Districts 1, 3, 7, and 8 will carry the heaviest burden for the tax increase.

Another verbal report pointed out that Garland's tax base is much lower than such nearby cities as Richardson and Plano. A lower tax base means a higher tax rate is needed to raise an equal amount of money. Thus for instance next-door Richardson has a lower tax rate than Garland because its tax base is nearly double our city's tax base.

The library's representatives, to substantiate their requests, reported that new research for the library's long-term plan showed that Garland is poorer and less educated than previously believed (or is growing more so):

23.8% of the adult residents here have no high-school diplomas;

77.5% of the adult residents here have no college degrees;

48% of the households in Garland do not speak English as their primary language;

The per capita income in Garland is $21,931, or 77% of the per capita income in Dallas County.

During the library report, Councilmember Rich Aubin of District 5 said his district in Garland's southern sector fronting LBJ Freeway also has the lowest percentage of library cards in Garland and the lowest Internet penetration in the city. City council closed that district's only library during cutbacks brought on by the Great Recession, which began in 2008 and ended in 2011. Meanwhile, public education is becoming more and more dependent on the Internet, which many poorer families in our city can't afford. Their children depend on city library branches for access to the Internet for their homework and assigned projects.

All in all, the picture painted during the Saturday bond meeting is one which we've known for years but often as a city have declined to face head-on: The southern and central portions of the city are much, much less affluent than the northern tier of the city along the George Bush Expressway. And as a total city, ours is mostly poor and under-educated compared to other surrounding cities especially Richardson and Plano.

We are, as I have said in earlier blogs, truly "A Tale of Two Cities" under the same Garland label.

Some council members flinched at Aubin's strong insistence that his district not be left out of bond fund projects, as occurred in previous bond decisions. I strongly support his call for more attention to be paid to the city's poorer and under-recognized parts of town, including District 5 and its much-neglected Rick Oden Park. 

Like the day John Kennedy was shot, Garlandites of the 1950s can still recall the day Ricky Oden died. Today the park that bears his name is in desperate need of repairs and upgrades, which the bond issue may be able to help address.

The bond committee identified more than $1.2 billion in needs here, but the city's accounting office has said the city can't handle a new bond package any higher than $500 million—and then only if carefully rolled out and managed. A misstep at that level could negatively impact the city's excellent bond rating and other matters.

Stay tuned, folks. Even if  you don't like blogs and news stories about taxes, bonds, government finances, etc., what is happening in our city right now is of the utmost importance to our citizens for years to come.

Garland's future hinges on the direction the city takes in 2019 and the next few years. 

As city government was rolling out its proposal to have a bond election, these reasons for it were cited.

GARLAND AT THE CROSSROADS: In the days of Donald Trump, tax cuts are in and tax hikes are out! Will our city buck the trend and go the opposite direction with the proposed bond packages and tax increases?

(See update on Saturday's marathon not-televised-live city council meeting on the bond committee's proposals in new Louis Moore of Garland blog today, 01/14/2019)

Now that the 2019 Bond Study Committee has made its recommendations to Garland City Council, as citizens and taxpayers in this community you need to don your best antennae and pay careful attention to what happens next.

If passed in its current state, any one of the three "tiers" recommended by the Bond Committee will set the stage to raise our future property-tax rates while attempting to fix unaddressed infrastructure needs in various parts of our town. The larger the tier the higher the tax increase, but also the more infrastructure that gets repaired, replaced, or built.

After listening carefully to (and taking copious notes of) every video recording of the bond-committee meetings—the meetings because of their location unfortunately were not televised live and video recordings of them had to be plowed through later—Kay and I are convinced the 2019 Bond Study Committee did an excellent job of laying out the choices that lie ahead for city council and the city's registered voters and taxpayers.

The committee put dollar amounts on projects, such as a new animal shelter ($18.9 million), that have long been the subject of conjecture, speculation, and debate.

On each of the three proposed "tiers" presented by the 2019 Bond Study Committee to Garland City Council is $18.9 million for a new Garland Animal Shelter to replace this existing one, which has been the focus of much controversy recently.

It also told us plainly how much of a real-estate tax increase each of the three tiers will cost us taxpayers. (See chart at top. This chart was provided by the 2019 Bond Study Committee to Garland City Council to show the impact that each of the proposed three "tiers" will have on the "average homeowner". The chart uses the 2017 average home value of $182,605. Complicating the situation, the Dallas County Tax Appraisal District in 2018—and again will for 2019—significantly increased tax appraisal values in Garland.) 

The committee also did an amazing job of identifying in concrete terms how far behind our city is in terms of infrastructure and building for the future. The group, with city staff help, quickly pulled together a remarkable list of more than $1.2 billion in needed and desired projects—a number our city absolutely cannot afford at this time—then trimmed the number to below $500 million and broke that number down into three "tiers" ($489 million, $345 million and $250 million) from which council will choose or rewrite one—and citizens will eventually get to vote on it.

Symbolizing why the three bond proposal "tiers" must be scrutinized carefully is where special much-needed improvements are positioned in the lists. The $6.1 million proposed improvement plan for Rick Oden Park shows up only in the $489 million package. Many downtown Garland projects are also only in that third tier.

 Choosing the best way forward is not going to be easy or simple:

1. Do we reject the bond-committee's recommendations and continue with so many unmet needs and instead continue operating with our city's huge deficiencies?

2. Does rejecting the bond committee's recommendations then become a launching pad for Garland to move within five or so years to becoming the "poster child" for a debt-free city without the burden of long-term bond debt—but paying for our desperate infrastructure needs too slowly as we go forward?

3. Do we embrace one of the bond committee's three tiers (and depending on how fast the bonds are sold, the money spent, and taxes raised) risk becoming a city with one of the highest tax rates in the entire DFW Metroplex?

4. Do we play it safe to keep our excellent credit-rating in place and go for the smallest amount possible? (Though not one of the three tiers recommended, a 4th tier of $100 million—see chart at top—apparently would require no tax hike. It, however, would also hardly make a dent in the needs here.)

5. Or do we take a risk and push forward with a debt that is enormous and scary ($489 million, the largest tier), but promises to kick-start updating our city rapidly so it can truly compete with our sister cities to the north, west, and east of us?

6. Or is there a happy middle ground somewhere, somehow?

It also boils down to how one looks at investment in infrastructure (streets, drainage, parks, libraries, public buildings, redevelopment funding, and so forth). Do we opt for the quickest solutions that will reduce citizen complaints or push fast and furiously for projects that could help build the tax base here, thus reducing the impact on our taxes long term?

Given the controversial and awkward way our city council has dealt in recent weeks with the apartment versus single-family residence water-rate hike, it's even more important now than ever that citizens understand clearly and fully the bond-proposal issues, their implications on property taxes, the tensions that inevitably will emerge on council regarding this bond package and proposed tax increases, and the pros and cons with this bond program in general.

And what role will a bond election this spring play in the May 2019 Municipal elections, in which political jockeying is already under way? The mayor's seat and four council positions—a majority of council positions—will be on that ballot.  

The 2019 Bond Study Committee and its deputy chairperson, Dylan Hedrick, and staff headed by assistant city manager John Baker and finance director Matt Watson have been extremely clear about the choices. I commend them for their forthrightness, transparency, and honesty. No one in any city political leadership position can claim to be naive or misled about the bond proposals and their implications on our taxes. 

The current city council could go down in history as the one that sets the stage to push the city deeper in debt than ever before and to raise taxes majorly—setting in motion the first tax-rate increase in 10 years.(The last increase in 2009 was for one-half cent—a mere pittance compared to what's on the drawing board now.)

Or it could go down in history as the one that ran from debt and tax-rate hikes but also failed to make plans to fix needed infrastructure repairs and improvements.

Or it could end up being repudiated at the ballot box by the voters, who have been conditioned by all the noise on the national and state level to eschew additional government debt and higher taxes.

In the days of Donald Trump, tax cuts are in and tax hikes are out! Will Garland buck the trend and go the opposite direction?

The choices are not easy, especially for politicians who present themselves as fiscal conservatives, which the majority of our city council claims to be. During the next weeks our "fiscal conservatives" on council will either have to reject any proposal that forces a tax hike and leaves a myriad of desperately needed projects lying on the cutting-room floor—or vote against the mood in Washington and Austin to recommend to voters a tax increase to address those sorely needed solutions.

And given the inconsistent and inconclusive ways previous city councils dealt with the most recent 2004 bond election—and of course the 2011 non-existent bond election that should have occurred but didn't seven years ago, based on decades of 7-year historic cycles in our city—all of us best keep our eyes on the players throughout this process.

This deal is fraught with possibilities for deception, distortion, finger-pointing, and the blame game.

The deal is also packed with great opportunities for our struggling city to make it a better place to live for ALL our citizens.

Our city's future depends on it. So do our pocketbooks. The choices are clear, but which way will we go?

At this point, my mind is NOT made up about which direction is best. I can see the pros and cons of each argument. I like the idea of a debt-free and cash-only city going forward, but I also fear what will happen if we delay too long addressing major projects needing attention now. Do we have assets that can be sold to pay for these identified improvements without long-term debt? No one has addressed that issue. Is private fund-raising an option? Not since the mid-1980s has the city successfully tried that route. Some councilmembers today much prefer raising your taxes than asking that question—and have argued with me when I have suggested that approach. What about privatizing any of our services? Again, a non-conversation starter with some of our current council members. "Conservative" on our council often seems to be equated with "status-quo" rather than bold movement either left or right.

Instead of just tax and borrow, in the 1980s the City of Garland opted for a variety of ways to fund special citywide projects. This plaque bears the names of major donors to The Pace House Event Center fundraiser in 1985. The Women's Building in downtown Garland contains a similar plaque of names of special donors to that citywide project in the same era. Today, some Garland city councilmembers argue against using such financial tools to fund needed projects, instead preferring tax and borrow only. 

If we as a city truly are going to go deeply into debt and raise taxes substantially, then why not push to the maximum and quickly address all the issues we face? After all, a tax increase is a tax increase is a tax increase—no matter what our city's politicians try to tell you. But then again I don't like the idea of Garland being the city in the DFW Metroplex with among the highest tax rates.

These are tough options. Complicated? Yes. But don't let that scare you. The bond questions will directly impact our city's streets, drainage, parks, libraries, economic development, animal shelter, and police and fire departments as well as our real estate taxes for the years ahead.

I have little doubt that when the dust settles, our taxes will go up even more in addition to the massive property valuations foisted on us recently—or to be handed to us in the upcoming year—by the Dallas County Tax Appraisal District. But by how much and how soon will be the decisive questions! And which needed infrastructure projects will get the nod from council and voters?

Stay tuned! Antennae up! The fun has just begun.

Meanwhile, let's tell our city council that the final decision MUST be thoroughly discussed, examined, debated, and laid out in transparent details—even if that means the final vote at the ballot box gets delayed until November 2019 when more citizens generally take the opportunity to vote and our taxpaying citizens will have a much better understanding of what the bond issue is all about.

Keep in mind that all council regular and work sessions held at city hall are televised, but council "retreats" and special meetings away from city hall are NOT televised, often not even videotaped.

Because so many citizens now depend on live TV for their information about our city  government, council needs to avoid discussing this bond-issue any further anywhere except in live televised regular or work sessions—or it needs to authorize and fund live TV coverage of its "retreats" or any other meetings where the bond issue will be brought up between now and when it goes on the ballot.   

After one stumble (the 2004 bond election, whose implementation was badly fumbled and is not even finished yet) and one punt (the 2011 non-existent bond election that never occurred), our city can't afford to get this 2019 bond election wrong! Too much is at stake here. We MUST get this one right!