Bryan Bradford, Sr Managing Director of Budget and Research (and District 1 resident), gave an overview of the proposed 2008 Capital Improvement Program Budget (CIP) to the Council at Monday's work session. The presentation was delayed from its usual January unveiling because staff had identified new trends that pointed to lower tax revenues, mostly from the decline of residential property values and slow sales tax growth.
 
Staff is recommending slowing the voter-approved 2004 Bond Program items even further to lower the impact to tax rates. Originally promoted as a seven-year program, we would see some projects stretched to as much as sixteen years. As proposed, a 1½¢-per-$100-valuation tax increase would be necessary this year to fund the debt even for the reduced program. If there is no tax increase on the other side of the budget, Operations & Maintenance (O&M), as staff has set for their goal, the Garland ad valorem tax rate would rise to 70.36¢. Already one of the highest in the Metroplex, we go even higher. Look here for a comparison to other Metroplex cities, even though these figures are now several months out of date, including Garland's rate that subsequently rose to 68.86¢.
 
I have no doubt that our high tax rate hurts us competing with other cities for new businesses and residents. However, if we don't improve our infrastructure and do more to improve the quality of life for Garland residents and those looking at Garland, the little Sims will leave (allusions to SimCity, the video game where you design towns and, if you do it well, Sims will move in; do a bad job and they leave; raise taxes, they leave).
 
Which door, the hold-taxes door or the better-life door, attracts investment and leads to success right now? Hold taxes to attract investment (businesses and residents) but risk losing both because of poor infrastructure? Or, build necessary infrastructure to attract investment but risk losing both because taxes are too high?
 
Businesses and governments have to invest in themselves. If a business raises prices too high, it will price itself out of the market, losing sales and will eventually fail. If government raises taxes too high, it too will lose those willing to invest in the community. Unfortunately, we're behind when competing for businesses and residents and sales tax dollars. If we do nothing to catch-up, we risk falling farther behind.
 
My preference is to keep taxes down to attract investment, which leads to increased property values and sales taxes, and then use the increased revenue to improve infrastructure and the quality of life, which attracts more investment. It's a little like buying a new refrigerator and trying to get it through that open door, a little this way and then a little that way leads to a pleasing new applicance for the kitchen.
 
Therein lies the delimma presented in this scaled-back CIP budget. To cut more of the voter-approved programs means delaying or losing:

• Naaman Forest extension to Brand Rd
• completing the Naaman School Rd project
• badly needed radio system replacement for police and fire
• land for new north Garland library; books, materials, and facility upgrades for all branches
• Downtown revitalization
• Neighborhood Vitality grant program

... just to name a few off a short list of projects.
 
These comments come from having only seen the overview. Council will receive the bound tomes tonight that contain the actual proposed budget. Council will spend considerable time over the next several weeks reviewing the proposal. The schedule is on one of the last slides in the presentation mentioned below.
 
Familiarize yourself with the budget by following the video and slide presentation links. In fact, you should be able to watch the presentation in one window and follow the slides in another. If you don't have thirty minutes to listen to the presentation, you can flip through the slides in just a few moments. (Disclaimer: comprehension may take longer.)
 

Video Presentation of Proposed 2008 CIP Budget

Slide Presentation