A lot of rumors and fears have been spread in just a couple weeks about Public Improvement Districts. As I've written each time I've reported on them, first here and then here, there are pros and cons. In talking to people, I learn quickly that they've been led to believe that PIDs can be created by the city for any number of reasons and some have believed that every neighborhood would have a PID and annual assessments (read: taxes).
 
The city cannot start a PID under any circumstance. PIDs are created by property owners that have banded together and wish to create a district, as the state gives them full right to do. In fact, state law protects the owner from the city (or county). The city does have to approve any PID so there are checks and balances.
 
PIDs can be useful tools for commercial areas and neighborhoods, as the Dallas Morning News article below relates (printed in the Saturday Metro section). Overall, the record is positive for PIDs but I have several concerns. For that reason, I have advocated that Garland develop a policy that would guide the approval of PIDs. We can't forbid them but we don't have to approve them either. Rationally, the benefits vs cost of an proposed PID should be weighed as any development or zoning case is weighed. However, to the latter two, staff and the Council have a great deal of familiarity. To the former, we don't.
 
A policy is just that. The Council can use it to provide consistency in its decisions and the staff can follow it as a guideline. In truth, the Council, nor any future Council, is bound by a policy. They can follow or not. The rule in Garland during my time on the Council has been to follow our policies. When they get outdated, they have been revised. I have dealt with other cities when they chose to not follow their policies. I've seen it first hand both ways.
 
I've seen the debate become very politicized, which perhaps shouldn't be too surprising considering a local election season is just starting to get into full swing. We've seen a few I-was-for-it-before-I-was-against-it type of "adjustments" recently. No matter. Citizens deserve full and unbiased information so they can give competent advice on what a policy should contain. Toward that end, Mayor Ron Jones announced last week that he would be hosting an information session on PIDs Feb 4. I'll post more information on that session later.
 
Some have suggested that even having a policy is tantamount to giving tacit approval. I agree that a policy could serve to alert citizens not otherwise aware that PIDs may be an option for certain neighborhood challenges. But do we pretend that such tools are not available and do we ignore the law? When should a Council decide what to hide and when not? The primary purpose of this blog has been to share information with citizens, not hide it. I have advocated planning for years and my platform for serving has always been that we need to plan for our future, not keep our heads buried in the sand. Having a policy on PIDs allows us as a community and as a Council to think ahead and be proactive, not wait until owners arrive at the City Secretary's office before we contemplate what will best serve them and our community as a whole.
 
Frankly, we don't have the luxury or the time.
 

From the Dallas Morning News:

Texas' public improvement districts can boost neighborhoods, at cost of extra taxes

10:20 PM CST on Friday, January 22, 2010
By IAN McCANN / The Dallas Morning News
imccann@dallasnews.com
 
As Rosemary Reed looked for a place to build her house eight years ago, she was struck by the differences between neighborhoods in Grand Prairie and Mansfield.
 
"I was astounded at how the newer neighborhoods [in Mansfield] had already started going downhill," the Grand Prairie resident said. "This was a 20-year-old neighborhood, and it looked better than those other ones did."
 
She credits the public improvement district in the Westchester neighborhood she chose in south Grand Prairie. The district, one of 15 in the city, charges property owners an assessment on top of other taxes to pay for upkeep of amenities such as screening walls and landscaping.
 
"I'd rather pay an extra tax and have my house worth something," said Reed, now president of the Westchester homeowners association.

DISTRICTS' USES   Texas authorized public improvement districts in 1987. A few examples of how neighborhoods and business districts have used them:   Grand Prairie   Westchester: Neighborhood entry point landscaping Oak Hollow/ Sheffield Village: Replace wood screening fences with new walls High Hawk: Maintain a neighborhood baseball field   Dallas   Downtown: Security cameras and police bicycle patrols Prestonwood: Round-the-clock security patrols Uptown: Landscaping, brick crosswalks and street lighting

 
The ability to maintain public improvements – and, by extension, property values – is the prime reason Garland City Council member Doug Athas would like to see public improvement districts in his city.
 
"We're going to have to look at a number of ways to stimulate investment in our neighborhoods," he said. "It is empowering neighborhoods to do something for themselves."
 
But not all in Garland agree with Athas. Most of the dozens who spoke at a council meeting this week opposed such districts, concerned about the additional taxation they would bring.
 
Some said there are already tools available, such as bond-funded neighborhood vitality grants or simply raising money from those who support a given project. Others objected to being forced to pay a tax they might oppose.
 
"We need to look very carefully at something that allows a 51 percent majority to tax another group of people," said Tom Cote, a Garland neighborhood association president. "In my neighborhood, if we had a wall that was collapsing, we'd have a garage sale. We'd collect the money among ourselves."
 
Accountability is the top reason council member Larry Jeffus opposes the districts. People can easily find their council representatives to express their opinions about spending and other issues. But a public improvement district board might not have similar transparency, Jeffus said.
 
An informational meeting on the issue is planned for 5:30 p.m. Feb. 4 at Garland City Hall.
 
State law has allowed public improvement districts for more than 20 years. They are often used in business districts, such as Dallas' Uptown area, to add entry signs, enhance landscaping and promote special events. Grand Prairie is a leader in using them in residential areas.
 
To form a public improvement district, more than 50 percent of property owners must sign a petition, though some cities, including Dallas, require a higher threshold. Once a district is approved, the city council approves a work plan and sets an assessment rate each year. Property owners pay an annual assessment, usually based on property value, similar to taxes.
 
In Grand Prairie, rates range from 8.5 cents per $100 of property value to 21.5 cents per $100. Most districts are clustered south of or near Interstate 20, and about half were established in existing neighborhoods. The city requires each new development to have a public improvement district, a homeowners association or both.
 
Dianne Woodard said collecting more than 1,100 signatures to form the Oak Hollow/Sheffield Village district took nearly two years.
 
She said she and a group of homeowners wanted the district so they could replace aging fences along Great Southwest Parkway and other major thoroughfares.
 
"It was horrible – it made you cringe just to turn in here," Woodard said. "Our area is the first housing area on Great Southwest south of I-20. It's one of the main ways people get to the lake, and all the areas south of us have PIDs. We looked bad compared to them."
 
Since the district was established in 2006, its results have won over some of those who objected to it, Woodard said. And the district has had the effect she wanted.
 
"By putting up that [new] fence, we've noticed that people are improving their property," she said. "It makes it a place where people want to live."