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