You state: "I don't believe continuing to raise the tax rate is a viable or sustainable solution."

This requires more information. The key word here is "believe." Is this just a belief or is this notion of how continuing to raise taxes is bad for the local economy based on other examples and research that agrees with this position?

Garland is in interesting times. While the sales tax numbers are going up (for the moment) and the amount of taxable real property is going up and the value of that property (as determined by Dallas County Central Appraisal District) is going up, other indicators have shown that incomes are stagnate or slightly depressed. Taking these variables into account, it is difficult to justify tax increase after tax increase after tax increase because the vast majority of property owners are not seeing corresponding increases in their disposable income. If property owners can't pay their property taxes, then the various taxing authorities will find themselves owning a lot of property and that is not good for any of us.

If raising taxes is not a viable option, what is and how do we get there?

Doug,

I have already talked to Jackie about this but I would suggest that Council take a look at all bond program items that have not been started and re-priotize them acording to the utmost need. The consider wiping out tall the rest of the bond program for the time being. What is going to happen is when you get out 2-3 years from now the numbers presented to the voters are no longer workable, hence the GISD schoold situation. Thier item in the paper stated that the same footpfint of Couch Elementary that just opened this year, the bids came back over $2 million dollar higher than what it cost to build Couch last year. I earnestly believe the Council is going to find themselves in the same predictament if they do not do something to head this off. Matter of fact, Mr. Wunderlich made a presentation to the Council during a work session recently thatr he needed to borrow $800,000 from future bond sales in order to finish up jobs that were already started and the overruns were because the cost of materials had gone up so much. Carrollton or Plano, I don't remember just which one, passed a bond program this past May and they stated that they were going to not go to the voters for any projects that could not be completed in 3 years which means they will do bond programs that are for far less money and go to the voters more often. I see nothing wrong with this. I learned a lesson on this when I was at City Hall from prijects that were in the 1997 bond program that did not get started until 2001 and then the voter approved amount was not anywhere close to what staff had told us they could do the project for. The alternatives when this happens are. Put the project on hold and go back to the voters for more money, cancel the project entirely or as staff always recommends, issue CO"s for the difference. You can guess which alternative most Councilmembers would choose. The 2004 bond program was way, way too large and there was so little detail information out out on it, I doubt very seriously that many voters knew they were voting themselves a possible 10 cent property tax increase. Also keep in mind that the bonds for the Bass Pro project were sold in September 2005 and the proceeds were given to the developer. The debt service on those bonds amounts to 2.5 cents levied on every property tax payer in Garland and that debt service starts 3 years from the September 2005 date. Unless a bunch of new development along I-30 from where the Bass Point location is , back west to the Mesquite City limits starts soon and the TIF starts to produce some revenue, the Garland taxpayers are going to be stuck with that tax increase. Also remember that all the property and sales tax generate by the Bass Pro development on the point, including the restaurants, all goes back to the developer until the cap has been met, so all the TIF proceeds will be needed to service the debt. I don't know whether or not you are aware of this but there is a clause in the final agreement between the Bass Pro developer and the City that upon completion of the Bass Pro premises, the developer has at his option, the right to ask the city to buy back all the property on the point, including the Bass Pro shop, that the city doesn't already own, and then the city must lease it back to the developer. That way the City becomes the owner of all the development on the point and according to the City attorney with whom I went over the contract with and he verified it, would be non-taxable forever, because it would be owned by the City of Garland, which is a tax exempt entity. Look for this to happen because the developer would be crazy not to exercise this option. If you don't have a copy of the final agreement I would suggest you get one from the City Attorney and read it. There are some outstanding issues pointed out in the agreement. I drove out I-30 the other day and other than seeing the Bass Pro building going up, there is nothing being constructed along I-30 from the Bass Pro site back to the west to the Mesquite city limits. Some large new developments need to be started son so the TIF can generate some money or the taxpayers will receive another gift from the council in the form of a tax incvrease with which to service the debt on the Bass Pro site, so Bass Pro and the developer can make a lot of money.

Just my two cents worth!! What you do with the information is up to you.