06/13/08

English (US)   It's Hell in Paradise  -  Categories: Opinions, Taxes & Budget  -  @ 11:35:56 pm

Source: Garrett Creek Ranch Website
Garrett Creek Ranch

 
The Council is on retreat in Paradise, Texas. I enjoy the isolation, quiet, and even have a fondness for the almost non-existent cell phone service. But the primary topic this year is the financial state of the city. We're challenged in the best of times and these aren't the best of times.
 
We arrived from several directions before noon and will work through to Saturday afternoon. We first looked at the goals and vision we set two years ago, when I and several others were first elected to the Council, and we've done well. There is an optimism that I think is well deserved, among the Council, the staff, and the citizens.
 
Only one person has been on the Council over two years: Barbara Chick at three years. I think there is a comfortable level of trust among the Council members and with the staff. My sincere impression is that everyone wants to work to make Garland as good as we can. We discussed what we liked about the city and identified many, many aspects of Garland that are unique. Many of them are business aspects where products used all over the country and the world are manufactured only in Garland.
 
The rest of the day has been spent learning more about the financial challenges we have right now: declining residential values, stagnant retail sales, skyrocketing fuel costs, and a challenging national economy.
 

Bryan Bradford, Sr Managing Director, Budget and Research, presented a sobering synopsis. I've selected some slides from his presentation and those are available at the link to the right. We discussed a lot of scenarios to address these challenges and we will continue to work on them until September when we must adapt a budget.
 
We will have a revenue shortfall. We won't know how much tax revenue will be received until the Dallas Central Appraisal District nails its numbers in July but we're confident it will be close to what was received last year. That doesn't allow salary increases, fuel cost increases, or anything new. The total property tax base is projected to only grow 0.1%, and that is only because we had $239 million in new construction this year.
 
With very little more in revenues (taxes, fees, electric sales, and other) juxtaposed against rising expenses, we are currently looking at something around $5 million as the shortfall. Doesn't necessarily sound like much when you're dealing with a few million here and a few million there, but to make up that difference would require a 5¢/$100 tax increase, definitely shooting us very near the top in the Metroplex.
 
There was zero discussion of a tax increase for Operations & Maintenance and we really didn't discuss the debt service side. It's not off the table but I believe there is an understanding that its not an option.
 
So what's going to give? I think we'll have to look at alternative scenarios for many of the services we provide: how to reduce costs, possible restructuring in some areas, reducing certain services, foregoing some improvements for another year or more. It's not going to be easy but it has to be done. That's what we were elected to do, to make the decisions that are in the best interest of the citizens.
 
Our challenges this year and probably next are virtually no different than other cities are facing. We are probably better off than a large number of them. We've never been highly dependent on sales tax, for example. When those cities are suffering the worst, we've been able to keep close to the same level of services. So don't give up hope and move — you'd probably be moving out of the frying pan into the fire.
 
We have a great community and we have a great future. We just have to tighten our belts right now so that we can realize that future sooner rather than mortgaging it now.
 
I encourage every resident to stay tuned during this budgeting process and to participate in the hearings and community discussions. If we have to cut services, we need to work together to decide which ones and how much. We need to understand the necessity of such cuts and the trade-offs.
 
I'm still totally committed that we Grow the City — our property values, our business sales, and our quality of life. My caution in this process will be to preserve the budget items and expenses that help us to continue to grow our value. I'll be looking for sound investments that have a positive return, like preserving the improving look of our city and maintaining our efforts to attract development, that "new construction" that keeps bringing up the base.


[Return to Website] [District 1 Development Updates: Interactive Map]
[District 1 Crime Stats]
[Contact Numbers—City Departments]
[Apply to Utility Advisory Board before July 1]
4 comments

Comments:

Comment from: Les Cook [Visitor]
Mr. Athas:

I appreciate the report from the Council Retreat. You brought up Garland's Financial matters. I noticed that you didn't mention anything regarding GP&L's Financial Affairs. I am sure nothing has changed with the Elected Officials on City Financial Matters. It will be like the "GP&L Cost of Service & Rate Study". When a financial problem is presented to Council, it usually disappears from the Citizens's view. Five million short in the General Fund budget won't be that hard to handle. Add five more million to the GP&L (now it is GP&L/Water/Sewer Utility Customer Bills) milking of $30 million a year ( of course I understand that City only discloses $19 million of that on CAFR) and borrow some more City money. You have probably already hocked that "Charter-GP&L Rate mitigation fund -70 million+-) to City Debt Holders. Why not ask some serious questions down at Ranch today and see what kind of B S dish can be dreamed up. This comment is not intended to throw the rocks directly at the messenger reporting from the Political Retreat.
Permalink 06/14/08 @ 07:15
Comment from: StevenzSanders [Visitor]
I understand the economic situation. However, although its a drop in the bucket, does it make sense or or look good (lead by example) for the council to spend money to go on a retreat when there are several venues within the City, several of which were paid for by tax dollars, in which to hold council discussions? Not to mention it makes it very difficult for citizen participation (however small) at remote locations.
Permalink 06/14/08 @ 11:05
Comment from: Douglas [Member] · http://www.douglasathas.net
Mr Cook: there was almost no mention of GP&L, which is why I had nothing to report. The independently-audited CAFR reports the Return of Investment (ROI) that GP&L contributes to the city. The only mention I remember of GP&L was that staff was not proposing any increase in the ROI. No one has touched the Rate Mitigation Fund and there is no proposal to touch it. It is available for an emergency if rates suddenly went wild, the reason it was created, but there is almost no scenario that will happen with the city's recent Power Purchase Agreement. There was plenty of serious discussion and questioning.
Permalink 06/14/08 @ 23:23
Comment from: Douglas [Member] · http://www.douglasathas.net
Mr Sanders: A valid question but there is no clear answer. It is very easy to save a dollar that will cost you five later. Getting away for a 24-hour, intense, uninterupted work session that produces more than a 48-hour, local session, with half the people gone talking to spouses and co-workers, is probably well worth it. Here was my comment to the Garland News when they asked a similar question:

"The consideration of "in town" vs "out of town" seems to be one of effectiveness.

"Corporations have learned that in town work sessions are interrupted by phone calls, staff members interrupting with questions, etc. They have learned that they get little accomplished if attendees attention is not on the tasks at hand or people keep stepping in and out to deal with other business. At night, everyone goes home and there is no interaction except what they have a work, so no chance for improved personal communication and understanding.

"To counter these challenges, corporations regularly hold their retreats out of town, away from the interruptions. Glen Rose used to be ideal for corporations: no cell phone coverage. (Those days are gone.)

"Retreats, like the one pending, are essentially long, long work sessions. This year much time will be spent understanding the budget implications of a slower economy, higher costs, the negative effect of high taxes, and a state retirement system that has been underperforming.

"The time spent, one day, two, or whatever, should be the time necessary to succeed."
Permalink 06/14/08 @ 23:46

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)

powered by
b2evolution