Whew! Thank Goodness That's Over!

Years ago, I was told by a former Council member that he really enjoyed his time on Council, it was running for office he hated. I can relate.

That said, I am very pleased with the election results. It was a strong vote of confidence in the entire City Council and for the City Manager. It also provided closure for recent events - the voters have spoken. While I'm always disappointed in the low voter turnout we typically have in Rowlett, it does suggest a general level of satisfaction.

I believe this Council is about as good as it gets. It is diverse, with varied points of view, which is absolutely necessary if we're going to make any real progress. It is also amazingly collaborative, which means that it should be very effective in problem solving - in extracting the best of the varied views to formulate excellent solutions for Rowlett. I also know that this Council is mindful of the importance of the next ten years or so and is committed to getting it right, to achieving sustainability - a long term result.

We have an excellent and professional City Manager, and an excellent, functional Council - which is a good thing, because we still have significant challenges ahead. I'm very pleased to be a part of this Council and am looking forward to the next three years.

Thank you! Chris

THE TEA PARTY HAS QUESTIONS

This post is pretty self-explanatory, and long, but a revealing read nonetheless. (I did edit some grammatical errors in the original responses. The original response was done in a bit of a hurry.)

TEA PARTY QUESTIONNAIRE AND MY RESPONSES:

1. According to the most recent financial report the City is projected to have a $2+ million increase in pension expenses by 2016, how do you propose to meet that obligation without reducing city services?

Based on the most current projections, and assuming a continuing decrease in property values, the projected shortfall for the entire city budget in FY2015 (2016) will only be about $800,000. (See the Feb 28 Council Packet, Page 14.) That is due, in part, to the actions we took on Feb 28 to reduce some of the pension benefits. Between now and FY2013, TMRS (pension) costs will increase about $150,000, with most of that occurring in FY 2012. For FY2014 and beyond, TMRS costs should remain pretty level. If proposed changes to the TRMS system are made, either by the current legislature or the next, our TMRS expenses could actually decline. Of course, projections are just that, and in this budget environment, every year is a new experience.

Taking your question in the abstract, the approach is the same no matter the increase in cost and no matter what for. We must balance and prioritize the expenses against the available revenue. City personnel are part and parcel of city services, so those costs are considered alongside all other costs. Regardless of how we balance revenue and costs, the Charter requires a balanced budget.

In anticipation that things might continue to get worse, and the possibility that we might reach a point where we must consider cutting services, we instituted the My Community, My Money, My Choice survey in order to determine where citizens placed the most value and to get their input on priorities. If we get to that point, the results of that survey will be very persuasive in determining what we need to do. After all, the very basis of the survey, and of city government, is that the city belongs to its citizens and it is their money. This has been one of the most effective and persistent efforts by the City (any City for that matter) to reach out to its citizens. The choice will be theirs.

2. The City Manager recently laid off 5 people, was that the right move? Why or why not?

To begin with, that decision is solely within the discretion of the City Manager and is not subject to review by City Council. That said, I have no reason to believe it wasn’t the right move. I would also note that she eliminated five positions, one of which was already vacant. One of the four employees retired, resulting in three layoffs. I would also note that contrary to some irresponsible rumors, the reductions were carefully reviewed by the City Attorney beforehand to insure that they complied with the law and that there was no disparate effect.

The City Manager is expected, on an ongoing basis, to review city staffing to insure that it is appropriate for the services we provide, with the caveat that city services must not be adversely affected. I hate the term “right size,” but that’s what it is. Obviously, there is increasing emphasis on this in response to the current economic climate. Last July, the City Manager announced that through consolidation and reorganization, she felt that some positions could be eliminated. Over the next nine months, she kept us updated on that process, with a goal to reach a decision by March in order to give affected employees the maximum amount of time to find other work. The process was deliberative, methodical and not rushed. With the caveat that I am no fan of layoffs, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt that it was an appropriate action, taken in the best interests of the citizens and the city.

4. Are you open to review the city charter to allow for council representation by district rather than at-large seats?

I am open to a review of this. It never hurts to review it, to discuss it, and it comes up every two or three years anyway.

At one time, I was personally in favor of it. However, I’ve since come to the conclusion that the cost far exceeds the few benefits we would receive; and, as a practical matter, it might actually be detrimental to the welfare of the city.

When it comes to all matters relating to voting, we have restrictions on what we can do and not do. It is an area governed by a virtual minefield of federal law. My idea of “districts” in Rowlett was fairly simplistic - after all, the city easily divides into quadrants. (I’m assuming your question speaks to geographic districts.) However, some folks have looked into this issue before, and it’s far from that simple. Not only do the districts have to be drawn to insure that everyone’s vote is equal, they have to be adjusted regularly. I don’t think they would be nearly as controversial in a non-partisan system as what we see going on statewide now, but managing them would still be a pain, and costly.

Another factor is that once you go down that road, admitting that you are willing and able to bear the burden of managing districts, you have no defense to districting on some basis other than geography.

There are practical issues as well. In many years, folks are not exactly knocking down the doors here to run for office. Given the size of the city and the limited number of people both qualified and interested enough to run for office, having the city broken into districts might have a chilling effect on qualified candidates.

Finally, Rowlett is not so large and diversified that issues in different parts of town can’t be addressed adequately by council members elected at large. I think districting might also tend to divide the Council on some issues as well. Then there is the situation where one district has a particularly effective representative, and another a particularly ineffective representative. Right now, every neighborhood has the chance to reach out to the council member of their choice knowing that every council member has to get votes from over the entire city. Although not entirely analogous, one look at Dallas’ system should be enough to discourage districts, which in turn creates agendas and competition within the council.

All of that is merely argument, of course. But, I’m willing to look at it and be persuaded otherwise.

5. The money to fund capital improvements has been significantly drained over the past year. How do you anticipate paying for ongoing capital improvement projects without a dedicated fund to address road, alley, and utility repairs?

You are actually talking about two different things here I think. Road, alley and utility repairs are something apart from the Capital Improvements Plan, although we use the term “Cash CIP” for some road and alley rehabilitation, which confuses the issue. I’ll address each.

Capital improvement expenditures (new, ground up projects, and complete rebuild) have actually slowed down a bit. One of the issues with the prior administration is that they borrowed a whole lot of money for projects that would not be built for years. For the most part, this is not an efficient or cost effective way to manage those funds, as current rock-bottom interest rates have demonstrated.

Regardless, several years ago the Council began dialing back on how those funds are spent. Probably the most dramatic example was the decision to rehabilitate Rowlett Road Phase III, rather than rebuild it, saving millions. We’ve stretched out and restricted the use of CIP funds, which has allowed us to respond to immediate needs as they arise.

Eventually, however, those funds will run out. As it does, we will be able to obtain a limited amount of new money, without new taxes, as debt expires on some of the old bonds. However, we’re quite a ways from being able to have the funds we’re used to having. It is also likely that in the coming few years, there will be far fewer federal and state dollars available, which will have an effect too. At the most basic level, we will have to manage new capital programs to live within a much smaller budget until that debt capacity is restored.

In the interim, if there is something for which the need is obvious, or the desire of the citizens is high, we can allow them to make that decision via a bond election.

Street and ally rehabilitation and maintenance will continue via the “Cash CIP” program, which is funded each year and is not dependent on bond money. We’ve been putting about $4 mil. annually into Cash CIP. There is some sentiment to having a dedicated fund for Cash CIP, which I have supported, but the consensus is that at the end of the day, there is no practical benefit. The goal of the Cash CIP and the benefits are well known. It will continue to be funded at a level we can afford, and at which we can execute. If it got to the point that we couldn’t afford it at a particular level, it would make no difference whether it was its own dedicated fund or not because at the next budget cycle, it would simply be funded at the reduced level. A mandatory level of funding has also been discussed, but bogged down in the details and the inability to fashion a provision that would be flexible enough to allow for any number of contingencies.

Utilities are funded from the Utility Fund, which is a dedicated fund. It is also distinguished by the fact that it is self-sufficient, funded from utility fees.

6. If a topic arises on which the mayor and city council members are divided, how would you handle it so it doesn’t become a public issue?

There’s actually not much you can do in that regard. The preferred, and usual, way of handling issues is that the issue is discussed, debated or argued, at varying levels of intensity and for varying lengths of time depending on the issue – then voted on. Once the vote is taken, the issue is over and we move on. An issue remains a public issue only if the one or more council members (the Mayor is just another council member in that regard) choose to continue to make it an issue, almost always one on the losing side. Although this is usually not productive, the fact remains that council members have First Amendment rights too and can speak freely about whatever they want to speak about.

It seems apparent that in the interest of good order and effective government that once the debate is “officially” over, the loser, as a member of a team, would move on. However, as we’ve seen, some folks just don’t know when to quit. But be that as it may, there simply isn’t much the remainder of Council can do about it unless and until the dissident crosses some line or another that allows the Council to take official action.

THE TEA PARTY RESPONSE:

Mr. Kilgore provided us with some thoughtful and comprehensive answers to our questions, and corrected a couple facts for us. Mr. McEntee also responded to our questions in a thoughtful manner. We thank both of them for their responses. From a fiscal perspective we believe both candidates are well intentioned and will strive to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. However, we believe that Mr. Kilgore has a governing philosophy diametrically opposed to the principle of Limited Government. Mr. Kilgore believes that Rowlett’s future relies on a carefully managed development process, managed by elected officials and City Staff presumably. The Rowlett Tea Party has as one of its guiding principles, Limited Government. A City Council involved in the business of private property owners violates this principle so dramatically, that the Rowlett Tea Party must oppose Mr. Kilgore and recommend Chad McEntee for Place #5.

AND, MY REBUTTAL:

They are certainly right about one thing, I do intend that we exert some governmental control over the development of Rowlett. Unless you believe that the world really is going to end on May 21^st, this is really important. If we just let the market take care of it, Rowlett will all eventually be developed, just like most other ring cities; and in 30 – 40, maybe 50 years we’ll be just another run-down, tired town of empty boxes, apartments and rental homes looking to reinvent ourselves. This isn’t rocket science. We live in a giant laboratory, surrounded by older ring cities that have undergone the same boom – bust cycle. If we want to avoid that same fate, we have to do it right the first time, and by definition that means not letting it take care of itself.

I am a fan of limited government, but one size does not fit all. Just because the federal government needs to be seriously trimmed, it doesn’t necessarily follow that local government must be as drastically trimmed. You have to judge your local government on its own merits. I really believe that the majority of citizens of Rowlett want us to preserve the long term sustainability of Rowlett – if for no other reason than the desire to protect their largest investment, their home. I think this is exactly the sort of thing we’ve been elected to do.

PRIORITIES

If you’ve followed me on Council, you are probably familiar with the back of my notebook. I’ve referred to it several times, often holding it up when I do. On the back there is a list of my priorities, rank-ordered. These guidelines are an important part of my decision making.

When the Council is considering whether to spend money on something, or initiate a new program, my decision is usually guided by this checklist. A fundamental question, before I get to that list, is whether it is something we “need” as opposed to something we “want.” In our current austerity mode, with a zero growth budget as the goal, this is an important analysis. This is where otherwise worthy projects may not make the grade, in my opinion anyway.

To qualify as a “need,” and to get my vote, the item must also fall within one of my priorities, particularly when it is competing with other projects for funding – which brings us to the back of the notebook.

The list is preceded with the note: Citizen Survey: Small town atmosphere. Citizen surveys in Rowlett over the past ten years or so clearly show, by an overwhelming majority, an emphasis and high priority on small town atmosphere. This is a guiding principle for me, representing an objective report on the vision expressed by the majority of citizens. This is, after all, their City.

1. In reaching for the goal of a sustainable community representing that vision, my list leads off with PUBLIC SAFETY. The subheadings are: Safety, both real and perceived; Doesn’t require the latest and greatest equipment; Does require motivated, well trained, professional public safety officers; and Not a profit center. Very simply, if citizens don’t feel safe in their community, nothing else matters. It doesn’t make any difference how pleasing the city is to the eye or how many conveniences we have or what our tax rate is.

2. INFRASTRUCTURE. This is, very simply, a basic government function. The subheading is Budget for continuous maintenance.

3. CITY STAFF. Every service delivered by the City to the citizens is created by, procured by, administered by, and monitored by an employee of the City. The quality of our service to the citizens is directly related to the quality of our staff. Subheadings are: Take care of your people and they’ll take care of you; Service oriented – must like their job to do it well; Asking fewer to do more in hard times; and Retention: need continuity for the future. These are basic leadership principles.

4. PARKS, GREENSPACE & STREETSCAPES. While some folks would not rank these quite so highly in tough times, they are actually very important. They contribute to the sense of place that makes a community sustainable. And, as I’ve noted in other posts, quality of place is right at the top of the checklist for economic developers. Businesses want to locate where they and their employees will enjoy working and living – thus the single sub-heading: Important for economic development.

The balance of my little guide, not rank ordered:

- Quality of Place – livable community (Citizen Survey).

- Patience – must wait until it becomes a seller’s market.

- “Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality.” G. Santayana. (You didn’t think I had all of those quotes memorized did you?)

- Importance of downtown – form based codes?

- Regularly update Comprehensive Plan, Zoning.

This is the priority list that I’ve followed for the last three years. It has helped me immensely, allowed me to stay focused on what is important and necessary to achieve our vision.

Application of this is subjective, of course, because the proponent of an expense is probably convinced that it is very needed. There can also be some difference of opinion on council about that as well. As noted by a local poster who reviewed the votes on Council for the past three years, I haven’t always agreed about what constituted a “need”:

“If you look at my post of split decisions, you will notice that [Chad McEntee] happens to be running against the MOST CONSERVATIVE council member on council. If you look back past the split decisions Chris Kilgore has MORE No votes for spending than any other sitting member of council. MAYOR INCLUDED. Seems like he should have done some research first … .”

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Feel free to check out my checklist the next time you’re at a Council meeting. I’m always pleased to show it off. I also entertain suggestions for additions, revisions, but it has changed very little in three years. But try me anyway.

The Last Three Years

I’m very pleased with the three years that I’ve been on council. During that time, we’ve streamlined and improved city services, even added some services; we’ve instituted the very popular, family-friendly Main Street Event series; we’ve managed reasonably well the issues created by two huge construction projects in the city; we’ve continued and expanded our cash CIP program addressing street and alley repair; and we’ve begun to address a long standing issue with water pressure in certain parts of town.

During that same three years, like everyone else, we’ve had to contend with a national recession, declining revenues and increasing costs. Despite those obstacles, we’ve done very well - all without raising taxes and without borrowing. We have fully funded our reserves and have even increased those reserves somewhat. We had a small budget surplus for FY 2010 and project another for FY 2011. The projected budgets for 2012 through 2014 look pretty solid, so far. We don’t have a crystal ball, and anything’s possible, but we’ve managed very well – and I’m confident that whatever fate throws at us, we’ll continue to do well. I say “we” because all of the above is the result of the collective efforts of seven Council members, the City Manager, her staff and a lot of hard working employees.

I might add that your entire Council is fiscally conservative, and contrary to some assertions to the contrary, dedicated to continuing on that path. The plan is to continue to live within our means.

I am particularly excited about two new projects: My Community, My Money, My Choice and RealizeRowlett 2020. These are two extraordinary and unique attempts to engage our citizens, all citizens, in both the budget process and the updating of our vision for the City in conjunction with the economic development and build-out to follow the completion of the PGBT and DART light rail. I am not aware of comparable programs or efforts anywhere else in the region, perhaps not in the state.

Rowlett belongs to its citizens and never before have they had such an opportunity to participate in shaping its future. This is important because the vision for Rowlett, as embodied in the new Comprehensive Plan, will determine how we go about that development in order to create a sustainable community for the long term. It won’t be, and shouldn’t be, the Council’s vision, the vision of developers or other special interest groups, or the vision of the usual suspects, the few folks who participate regularly in city political affairs – but rather the vision of all 56,000 residents, or as close to that as we can get.

Likewise, citizen input into the budget process will provide us the information we need as we formulate future budgets. Unfortunately, barring a dramatic turn-around in the economy, I think hard choices are still ahead. It's your money we're spending, so its important that you be part of the process of deciding how that money is to be spent.

Three years ago I posted here a summary of my campaign platform and asked you to judge my performance over the next three years against that platform. The only thing I promised then, and am promising you now, is that I will be a part of an effort to construct a solid foundation upon which to build a sustainable community. The payoff is still many years away, well beyond my time on Council, so the plans and processes we put into place now to guide our efforts and those of future councils are important, very important.

I am pleased to have served on this Council and would appreciate your support in continuing the good news for Rowlett.

Wow

Wow! Three years already! Doesn’t seem like it. Time has indeed gone quickly, in some ways anyway. In the world of city government however, not much happens quickly. In fact, many things remain unchanged three years later. However, my platform of 2008, based on SMART GROWTH, remains as viable now as it did then. I didn’t promise quick fixes or solutions then and I’m not promising that now. The truth is, this is a long process, and three years doesn’t mean much in regard to visible progress. However, the foundation we are laying now means everything, because without a good plan, the right plan, this council and subsequent councils will be left to make decisions on an ad hoc basis. Without a good plan, we would likely repeat the predictable boom and bust cycles of a typical ring city – just what we don’t want to do.

I stated then that the process of obtaining the kind of quality development we needed to become a sustainable community for the long term would be a slow process. I predicted 10-12 years before we would begin to realize the economic benefits of the turnpike and DART light rail. And that prediction was before the economic downturn in late 2008. Three years later, I believe those benefits are still 10-12 years away, maybe a bit more.

The important thing though, is that it’s what we do now that will dictate how successful we are for the long term. We only have one chance to get it right and to do that we need a vision, a plan. The vision for the City is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It’s that plan that drives the zoning regulations. To be effective, those have to be kept up to date.

I’m pleased to say that we’re finally on our way to doing just that. We have begun the process, called RealizeRowlett 2020, of preparing a plan for the future so that we can maximize economic development and the likely build-out in the years after the turnpike and light rail are in place. This plan will be a blueprint for future councils to follow. Importantly, it provides the basis and the ability for future councils to say “no” when “no” is the right answer. Getting to where we need to go will necessarily take a few years – and to get there, there must be a plan, a good plan, the right plan, and it must be followed. This is the singularly most important thing we are doing in the City right now, laying the foundation for what’s to come.

I’m excited about RealizeRowlett 2020 for another reason. It is one of the most unique approaches to preparing a comprehensive plan ever undertaken in the area because it is so citizen-centric. The vision for Rowlett will be determined by the citizens of Rowlett, not by the Council, not by developers, landowners and other special interest groups, nor by the usual suspects who are actively involved in the City. And it is only right that it should be this way, after all, the citizens are the community.

It’s a slow process. It will be a hard process. Expectations, driven in part by campaign promises, are probably unrealistic. Regardless, with the right foundation in place, we will get there. We are doing it right and it will all be worth it in the end. This is the SMART GROWTH I was talking about in 2008.

In the Beginning - What I Promised

Following is the gist of my campaign platform. It's here as a reference, for you and for me. Feel free to measure what I'm doing now by this, let me know how I'm doing.

With the arrival of the President George Bush Turnpike and DART light rail within the next four years, Rowlett is presented with a unique opportunity to shape and determine its future; to transform a tax-burdened bedroom community into a self-sufficient, viable and sustainable community - a quality place to live and work for the long term. However, we will only get one chance to do it right, so how we proceed from here is important. Thus my "SMART GROWTH" campaign slogan.

One issue is exactly what steps we should be taking to secure quality economic development. The mere presence of the turnpike and light rail will attract economic development, to be sure. However, achieving quality development for the long term, will take work and more time.

It is important to keep in mind that SMART GROWTH is much more than just courting developers. The keys to quality economic development are financial health and "quality of place." These factors are equally important. Together, they can produce a community that is livable, viable and sustainable for the long term.

The foundation of being able to fulfill our potential is economic stability. Through the zoning process, we have the authority to shape our city in conformance with our long range Comprehensive Plan. However, if we are not careful about our economic health, we may be tempted (if not politically forced) to compromise that plan. Inherent in the ability to control development, to get the kind of development we want, is the ability to be patient and to be able to say "no" when appropriate. For quality development, you can bet some incentives will be required. We are, after all, in competition for that development. When construction schedules, incentives and city-provided infrastructure improvements are considered, the return on our investment is, realistically, probably 10-12 years down the road. In the meantime, we have to continue to improve and maintain our neighborhoods and infrastructure. Managing our finances carefully is a predicate to controlling our destiny.

Suburban communities surrounding major metropolitan areas, so-called "ring cities," go through predictable cycles. The development cycle (growth, decay, and sometimes renewal) of these ring cities has been studied and documented. It is neither desirable nor necessary for us to "reinvent the wheel." I have particularly considered William Hudnut's Halfway to Everywhere, a study of ring cities around America (Urban Land Institute 2003). There are numerous lessons for us from the experience of hundreds of other cities. By picking and choosing from these experiences, we should be able to fashion a strategy that is right for Rowlett. That's "SMART GROWTH."

There is a consistent theme in Hudnut's studies: underlying every successful community is livability – quality of place. Some of the actions that that have been found to be effective in achieving are:

• Keeping zoning regulations current.

• Aggressive code enforcement.

• Low or no interest home improvement loans for citizens.

• Green space, streetscaping and landscaping.

Specific to Rowlett, another priority is formalizing a plan to pursue a suitable, comprehensive mixed-use development around the light rail station.

Integral to gaining acceptance for funding some of these items is educating everyone to understand that these are all important components of SMART GROWTH and that they are interdependent. Long term success requires that we excel on all fronts, financial management, neighborhoods, services and development.

There are a number of other things on my personal "wish list," such as a community entertainment venue, a senior's center and a library expansion. Each of these will come with time. Perhaps with some creative partnerships or funding initiatives, sooner rather than later.

We can do this, but if it is to be done right, for the long term, it will be a slow process. In the interim, services will be modest, below the expectations of many. It will not be easy, but the payoff makes it worthwhile. It will be tempting to compromise our long term, best interest goals in favor of short term gain, but we must resist. The philosopher George Santayana once said that "Those who speak most of progress measure it by quantity and not by quality." As with most things in life, the reward of doing it right is worth it. That's SMART GROWTH.