Keith Self's Blog

Citizens,

The information generally available to you from the supporters of the transportation bond proposal looks only at the distribution of the funds - where they will be spent. I want to give you a picture of which Collin County taxpayers will pay the taxes that make up the bond funds, as well as a different perspective on where they are scheduled to be spent. A complete picture looks from the taxpayer perspective, as well as the expenditure perspective.

I believe that county government ought to accomplish projects that benefit the entire county. This means large projects that require taxes from across the county; projects that require a vision and a plan so that all taxpayers share the sacrifice for a worthy cause; projects that attack the transportation chokepoints that affect all our citizens. This will require a change in how we do business. You may read www.KeithSelf.com for greater details.

However, the current transportation bond proposal is constructed differently, so I will deal with the proposal as it reads. This bond proposal has 113 projects that, like peanut butter, are thinly spread across the county; "something for everybody," as bond supporters say. Only peanut butter never spreads evenly, and neither does this bond proposal. Remember, I do not agree with the peanut butter wealth redistribution model, I am just examining it.

There is NOT "something for everybody" in this bond proposal.

537,000 Collin County citizens will receive less from the bond funds than they contribute through their county taxes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for these citizens to vote for this proposal.

Five "large" cities are on the short end of the stick. By $76 million.

Ten "small" cities are on the short end of the stick. By $5.4 million.

One "small" city receives $1.3 million less than they contribute. That city pays 6 times more than they receive. That's right; a small city of just over 5,000 loses $1.3 million. To a city that size, that is a huge sum. 8 of these small cities receive NOTHING from the bond funds. When asked why the smallest cities receive nothing, the response is that, "They didn't ask." That is not an adequate answer when one of the stated objectives of the bond was to provide more funding to the small cities. This violates American sense of fair play.

Let me state it a different way. These 15 cities, totaling 537,000 citizens, will have more total dollars if they vote NO on this bond election, collect through city taxes the same number of dollars that they would have paid in county taxes to the bond fund, and build city projects themselves using only city taxes.

There is NOT "something for everybody" in this bond proposal.

A "Fact Sheet" that is being distributed refers to the facts above as, "a fair, balanced program county-wide." You decide.

However, if bringing home county pork is the objective, then 172,000 Collin County citizens should vote for this bond proposal. They will receive more than they contribute to the county bond funds.

The distribution of pork extends across different city sizes.

One "large" city gets more than they contribute.

Ten "small" cities get more than they contribute.

One "small" city receives almost 10 times what they contribute. Yet two of the roads in this city that are scheduled to receive funding under this bond program are forecasted to have less traffic even in 2030 than one of the least capable roads on the Thoroughfare Plan, a Regional Arterial 2 Lane road. Quoting a recent email by a bond supporter, "His (meaning me) proposal leaves the total funding of our critical 6 lane divided thoroughfares entirely up to the cities rather than the 50-50 county/city split under the current system." I'm not sure that a road can be described as "critical" when it is forecasted, 23 years from today, to carry half the traffic of a 2-lane road.

A second "small" city receives more than 9 times what they contribute. Together these two cities receive almost 1/2 of the $35 million "set aside" for small cities.

I'll be honest with you; there is no short term reason for those 172,000 citizens to vote against the proposal. They will bring home the pork. That's the way it's done in some places in the federal government, but that's no reason to import the pork business to Collin County.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason for 537,000 citizens to vote for the transportation bond proposal. That's a majority. If you stand with me against pork in Collin County, we can defeat this proposal and go on to build a vision and a plan for our future county level transportation needs.

This picking winners and losers happens when government simply redistributes wealth, however noble the stated purpose. Instead of attacking county level congestion chokepoints with your tax dollars, this transportation bond program selects winners and losers and distributes tax dollars.

While I admit that there are reasons for 172,000 citizens to take the short view because they will get the largest portions of the county bond funds, I am asking all of you, the voter and taxpayer throughout Collin County, to vote AGAINST the transportation bond proposal in the long term interest of Collin County.

We can do better. Let's change the way we do business. Let's stop dishing the pork and get a professional system in place that determines county responsibilities and attacks our congestion regardless of location.

Join me in stopping the import of the government pork system to Collin County. Vote NO on the transportation bond proposal.

Sincerely,
Keith

Citizens, the more analysis I do on the 2007 Transportation Bond program, the more surprises I find. In order to keep blog entries short and so that you will continue to read them, I will be discussing only one small issue in each blog entry.

Today we will examine the question that a citizen asked me recently, "Are the transportation bond funds distributed proportionally?"

No, the funds are not distributed proportionally, nor did the report ever recommend that, but the distribution details ARE enlightening. Did you know that there is a group of cities that get NOTHING from the county taxes that they will contribute to the county bond fund?

You know that I do not believe that the county ought to pit the cities against each other in competition for bond funding, so I am attempting to give you facts without making that competition worse. Where I can, I will try to not name cities; where I have to, I will.

I promise to discuss our small cities in later blogs, but today, let's examine one sentence in the 2007 Transportation Bond Program. You can find this sentence on electronic page 20 at http://www.collincountytx.gov/engineering/final_report_7_11_07.pdf or on page 15 of the written report.

The sentence reads, "However, funding percentages for the cities of Frisco, Plano, and Wylie were set higher than their population projections indicated because of the expected growth that is anticipated in these communities over the next 10 years."

This sentence reveals the fallacy of tying transportation spending to population growth in a complex county that includes mature, slow growth urban cities; fast growing suburban cities; and rural areas that have not yet established a viable tax base for growth. The committee used a 10-year time frame from some cities; a 23-year time frame for all other cities, rather than a common standard for all cities.

Collin County should be conducting a transportation needs assessment and setting priorities in order to reveal the county transportation chokepoints that require county spending to benefit the entire county. Instead, we are spreading your tax dollars across the county like peanut butter, with uneven peaks and valleys. 113 total projects is a pretty thin spread.

Appendix J, electronic page 51 at the link above, shows the population data used. This data is radically different than data at the North Central Texas Council of Government website at http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/population.asp

Remember, we are examining just a small slice of the report today. I will get to other cities in later analysis.

There are several issues with our one sentence.

1) We cannot say that Plano will receive a "higher funding percentage" by any measure, except projected growth rate, which is the lowest in the county.

a. Plano will actually receive $43 million LESS than Plano taxpayers contribute through county taxes to the county bond fund. If this is a "higher" percentage, I would hate to see how little Plano might receive at a "normal" percentage!

b. The Plano tax base is 35.7% of the county tax base for the coming year, far above the 20.9% they are scheduled to receive from the bond proposal.

c. In the 2003 bond election, Plano received 31.8% of the funds, while in the 2007 bond proposal they will receive only 20.9% of the funds. That is a significantly lower percentage than the last bond.

2) Plano has the LOWEST future growth rate of any city in the county, including Collin Dallas and Collin Richardson. Using North Central Texas Council of Government population estimates for January 1, 2007 and 2030, Plano expects to grow by just 1,361 people between 2007 and 2030. How much can Plano grow in 10 years if the city only expects to grow by 1,361 people in 23 years?

3) As I said earlier, we will examine our small cities in other blog entries. More surprises await you.

So, in response to the original question for the day, the bond funds will NOT be distributed proportionally, in spite of the fact that the report attempts to gain Plano voter approval by portraying the Plano distribution in a positive light. As Dick Armey used to say, it is hard to be this wrong by accident.

Remember, if you like our congestion now, then this program will give you more:
More taxes
More congestion
More of the same

However, if you want to help relieve congestion on our major highways, vote NO on the bond proposals so that we can move forward, institute a professional system to determine our transportation chokepoints, and set priorities to relieve congestion.

Next blog: small city issues.

Sincerely,
Keith

Citizens, I apologize for the length of this post, but ask that you read it carefully.

A. Transportation Bond Analysis

It has been a wild week on the speaking circuit, including a Commissioners Court workshop in the Plano City Council Chambers Thursday evening. I believe that the issues are starting to take shape as analysis continues on the specifics of the bond proposal. One very positive sign is that the county is now taking the Pass-Through-Financing program seriously and trying to identify the funds to make this program work and receive state reimbursement.

You have seen the many articles in the news, including the huge front page article in the Dallas Morning News on Wednesday, September 19, telling us what we already know; that we spend many hours daily, weekly, yearly in congestion. Make no mistake about it; these articles are addressing the major highways, not local streets. The entire region understands the problem, now let's attack the problem and not perpetuate policies that produced our extreme congestion.

You know my three reasons for asking you to vote NO on the three bond proposals:
1) The $328.9 million total for three bond proposals is too large. We should not accept excess debt.
2) The transportation bond proposal does not break the cycle of congestion and does not relieve congestion on our major highways.
3) The Pass-Through-Financing program will be in jeopardy.

More attention is now being paid to the Pass-Through-Financing program and I think that everyone is more hopeful that we will be able to negotiate this program with the state. There is still not enough funding available from the SH 121 concession fee to fully fund this program, but the county is moving to identify funding to fill the gaps. This is a very positive sign, and I wholeheartedly support efforts to fund this valuable program.

I want to start more in-depth analysis of the transportation bond proposal so that you can make an informed decision when you vote starting October 22 for early voting, or on election day, November 6.

Let's start by examining a few cities in the proposal. Several are being asked to sacrifice a significant amount of tax dollars. As do most former military members, I understand the concept of shared sacrifice for a common goal that benefits everyone. However, as you will see below, I cannot identify in this bond proposal the common goal that benefits everyone by the significant sacrifice by several of our cities. When I discuss "contribution" below, I am figuring the amount the city will contribute based on their percentage of the total county tax base for the coming tax year.

1) Three of our large cities, Plano, Collin County Dallas, and Collin County Richardson, will contribute over $66 million more than they will receive from the total $235.6 million. Plano is the most significant at some $43 million in additional contribution over and above what they receive. Plano citizens will contribute $84 million and receive $40 million, a return of 48 cents for every dollar they send to the county. Texas receives 86 cents for every dollar that we send to the federal government in federal gas tax, and we think that is a low return! Again, if there is a clear common goal that benefits everyone, then this sacrifice may be justified.

2) One of the stated reasons for the distribution in this transportation bond proposal is to spread dollars to the smaller cities, in fact the committee briefed that $35 million will be distributed to the smaller cities. However, one small city of 3,500 will receive almost 1/3 of that total, a full $9 million more than they contribute. This city will contribute $ 1 million and receive over $10 million for a return $9.76 for every dollar. Another small city will receive $ 7 million more than they contribute, so almost half of the small city funds will go to just two cities. I am not naming the small cities because, as I often state, one of the issues I have with this system is that we pit the cities against each other, and I do not want to encourage competition here. See my September 5 blog. However, I do need to give you the facts without exacerbating competition.

When we consider the concept of shared sacrifice for a common goal, you would expect the projects in the first small city to be very important from a county perspective. However, when you look at the projected traffic count on these projects for the year 2030, 23 years from now, the projects do not seem to be significant in terms of traffic. Why are we asking some of our citizens to sacrifice when the end result does not seem to be a major road that will serve a significant number of county citizens?

3) A different small city is in the opposite situation. This small city of about 5,000 will contribute over $1.5 million, but receive only $250,000, a sacrifice of approximately $1.3 million. $1.3 million dollars is a large sum to 5,000 citizens. Why should a small city be asked to sacrifice when one of the stated goals was to send dollars to the smaller cities?

Shared sacrifice for a common goal is a worthy concept, but when a common goal that benefits everyone is missing, the concept morphs into sheer socialism, the redistribution of hard earned income, not shared sacrifice for a well understood common goal and benefit.

One other issue is local control. Plano had to justify to the county their desire to rehabilitate their city streets with their own tax dollars, both those collected as city taxes and as county taxes. Why is it any business of the county where Plano spends their hard earned tax dollars? That is an issue between the Plano City Council and Plano citizens. The county ought to get out of Plano business.

Flozell Adams, the Dallas Cowboy lineman, weighs 340 pounds. His skeleton is not the same size as the skeleton of a 100 pound woman. The skeleton of a 100 pound woman would not carry Adams' 340-pound weight. Collin County is no longer a rural county and the transportation skeleton of the rural Collin County of yesteryear can not carry our modern traffic. We need to continue to develop a more robust transportation skeleton to handle the weight of traffic in modern day Collin County. This bond proposal does not address the congestion on our "100-pound" transportation skeleton in a county growing toward 340 pounds.

Nor do I believe that the current citizen committee system of determining our transportation requirements can survive the crush of modern traffic requirements. Just as we need a modern transportation skeleton, we need a modern, professionally-driven process to conduct a periodic needs assessment of our transportation system. The citizen committee has served this county well for decades. We should honor that system for past service, but now move to a modern, professional approach to our transportation requirements.

I recently listened to the saddest thing that I have heard during this debate over the transportation bond proposal. A citizen listened to my presentation, and then said that the congestion situation is so critical that the voters have no choice but to vote for this bond proposal, suggesting that something is better than nothing. I totally understand the cry for help in the present situation. But if we take the long view, we must first defeat the current bond proposal, define the county transportation skeleton for a "340-pound" county, and then aggressively pursue building up that transportation skeleton. We must not ask that citizen, or any citizen to accept the deep sacrifice being asked without a clear understanding of the common goal and benefits. And citizens do NOT have to accept this bond proposal - you can vote NO and make a change.

Every day, I become more convinced that the right path ahead for Collin County is to vote NO on the three bond proposals, then immediately begin the change to define our county transportation skeleton and engage a professionally-driven process to conduct a needs assessment, followed by steps to properly fund that transportation skeleton, leading to a long term positive vision for a "340-pound" skeleton for a large and capable county.

B. Tax rate increase watch

There may be a subtle campaign starting to try to raise your taxes.

1) In the McKinney Courier Gazette on June 8, the article concerning the transportation bond committee stated that the committee suggested that the Commissioners Court consider a 1 cent or a 1/2 cent tax rate increase.

2) When the committee briefed the court on July 23, the suggestion had grown to a consideration of 1 cent and 4 cents. You may see this on page 8 at http://www.collincountytx.gov/public_information/features/documents/transportation_bond.pdf

3) An official briefing by the county bond counsel was presented at the workshop in Plano on September 20 that openly stated that we have debt capacity available to raise the debt level. I did not request the briefing, but it was clearly intended to paint a very positive picture of our capacity to pay more debt.

I don't know if the groundwork is being laid for a campaign to raise your tax rate or not, but discussions and briefings that openly advocate additional tax and/or debt raise my eyebrow. And a pattern of discussions raises both eyebrows.

I will closely monitor these discussions and resist any attempts to raise your county tax rate.

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." Winston Churchill

Sincerely,
Keith

Citizens, all three bond proposals will be central topics of discussion at the Commissioners Court workshop in Plano on Thursday, September 20, at 7 PM in the City of Plano Municipal Center Council Chambers, 1520 Ave K, Plano.

You may view the agenda at http://public1.co.collin.tx.us/public_notices/Lists/Public%20Meetings/Attachments/372/Agenda.pdf

The bond proposals are generating a great deal of interest around the county, and I expect this workshop to be well attended with lively discussion. If you live in Plano, it will be shown on the city cable channel as well.

This will be a great opportunity to listen to the issues first hand, and I encourage you to attend if at all possible.

Sincerely,
Keith

Citizens,

To quote Yogi Berra, that great American philosopher, "This is like deja vu all over again." The bond election in November reminds me of the 2006 primary and runoff, with many of the same organizations and the same people involved on both sides of the issue. This is why, unlike baseball, protection of the taxpayer is not decided in one game or one election; it is a commitment that continues across the years. The tax and spend crowd will continue to try to grow government at your expense. Let's work together to keep government as small as possible, consistent with state mandates and required services, and focused on core functions.

I now believe that we have a contest in the bond election in November. As the popular phrase says, "Game on." Most bond elections pass simply because there is no public discussion of the issues involved. The opposition to my stance has become shrill and personal, and that is a good sign that a serious discussion is going to take place.

There are also some good questions being asked, questions that indicate that citizens are awakening to the fact that the transportation bond proposal does not address county issues. Another good sign.

Be prepared for outrageous claims against those of us who stand against excessive debt. One that has already appeared is that some don't want higher taxes for any reason. How would anyone know? When was the last time your taxes DID NOT go up? Do you even remember? And there seems to be no danger that we might see that situation anytime soon. As I wrote on Sep 3, "The Maintenance and Operations projected budget grows an average of approximately 13% for 6 years extending forward from 2006, the last year that we know actual audited expenditures! A 13% growth rate cannot be sustained. While significant increases are limited to just a few years, the overall average increases are too large."

Remember the talking points below for discussions with your neighbors. You may read the details of the Pass-Through-Financing program below in earlier blog entries.

1) The three bond proposals combined are too large and spend too many future tax dollars on excessive debt. The three bond proposals should not be larger than $271 million, rather than the $329 million on the ballot.

2) The 2007 transportation bond proposal does not relieve congestion on our major highways.

3) The Pass-Through-Financing reimbursement program DOES relieve our congestion, but is effectively abandoned if the transportation bond proposal passes.

The grassroots voter asked for change when you elected me on the issues of transportation infrastructure, property tax relief, and government accountability. This one bond proposal issue has all of these issues wrapped together.

This election is the next step of our continuing journey together to make sure that the county addresses our congested traffic with your tax dollars, that we ensure fiscal responsibility, and that you, the grassroots, continue to speak loudly when challenged with excessive government taxing and spending. I ask you to continue this journey with me. And I ask you to once again talk to your neighbors, and go together to the polling booth during early voting starting October 22 and on Election Day, November 6.

That's right; once again, I am asking you to start notifying your personal email lists, to speak to your neighbors, to prepare for another round of grassroots energy to move this county toward providing relief to the traffic congestion that frustrates all of us. We can do it if we work together. Bond elections normally pass because there is so little public discussion and analysis. I will not take any of you for granted. I commit myself to providing the analysis and public speaking, I ask you to discuss the issues with your neighbors, and then take them to the polls with you. Remember, your neighbors have to register no later than October 9 so they can vote.

Vote NO on the three county bond proposals.

Sincerely,
Keith

Citizens,

I am encouraged by the positive response that I am receiving from many citizens of Collin County for my stance on the bond proposal. Thank you to those who have written or spoken to me a word of encouragement. It is a privilege to serve this county. If we all work together, we can inform more of our citizens so that they can know the bond proposal details.

Texas law states that as long as the brochure is informational, public funds can be spent on the production of brochures for distribution to county citizens. I have received a copy of the brochure that the county is producing in support of the bond election. The brochure is informational and factual, except for one phrase. It describes the transportation projects in the bond proposal as "the most critical transportation needs in Collin County" with no comparative analysis with the other transportation funding programs on which the county has been working.

The county brochure does not address the fact that one transportation funding program that addresses congestion on our major highways, the Pass-Through-Financing program, is dead if the bond proposal passes. In the Pass-Through-Financing (PTF) program, we construct the highways with local funds, and then receive reimbursement of a portion of the construction costs from the state, at least $180 million and perhaps more. Now THAT is leveraging your taxpayer funds!

The April submittal document told the state that the Pass-Through-Financing projects would, "respond to critical needs in the County and are in position, based on their development status, to be accelerated...for construction as early as 2008." And that, "All the corridor cities support the accelerated development of the Tier One projects." These projects are not pipe dreams. "The County proposes to construct the twelve Tier One projects beginning in early-to-mid 2008 with construction completed by late 2011." A countywide committee identified these projects as critical to "improve mobility and safety, reduce congestion, and further economic growth in the county." We also said that, "The County is committed to funding its share of the program through a future bond election, revenue bonds, or a combination." The 2007 bond proposal that you are being asked to support shows no commitment whatsoever to this reimbursement program that we submitted to the state very recently in April. The Commissioners Court did not vote to withdraw the PTF program - it will simply be abandoned. The brochure does not give you the whole complex picture of the separate elements of transportation funding.

What about those projects for which we requested SH 121 concession fee funding; projects that have little chance of receiving funding? The total concession fee allotted to Collin County is only $529 million, but the county requested $734 million, so we also have some of these important projects that will not be funded.

The county brochure does not give you an analysis of how the bond proposal projects compare to either the Pass-Through-Financing projects that are virtually unfunded, or the projects that will not receive funding from the SH 121 concession fee. In fact, analysis is missing from the brochure altogether. How are you to cast an informed vote without analysis to make your decision?

I believe that we can do more. I believe that we MUST do more. We CAN influence congestion in Collin County. We have a plan ready to go that gets a good start on the job, and we cannot afford the 8-year moratorium on future transportation funding imposed by the bond proposal. As you inform yourself for the upcoming bond election:

Choose hope, rather than defeatism.

Choose a plan for the future, rather than status quo congestion.

Choose ideas, rather than personal attacks.

Choose to live within our means, rather than running up our debt.

Do your own analysis. Make your own decision.

I am confident that you will choose to spend your tax dollars differently and vote AGAINST the bond proposal.

Sincerely,
Keith

Citizens,

The dates and times of my upcoming presentations on the budget and bond proposal are below. I will update this list as events are added. I believe that these organizations do not mind you attending the presentations in the public interest.

September 12, 7 AM
Allen Sunrise Rotary
Chase Oaks Golf Club
7201 Chase Oaks Blvd
Plano

September 13, 7 PM
McKinney Area Republican Women's Club
Fire Station #5
6600 Virginia Parkway
McKinney

September 18, 11:30 AM
Plano Republican Women's Club
Texas Land and Cattle Company
3945 N Central Expressway
Plano

September 21, 7 AM
Plano Sunrise Rotary
Tino's Too
2205 Ave K
Plano

Hope to see you soon,
Keith

Concerned citizens,

When I first ran for County Judge, my original announcement on September 10, 2005, stated that I was, "committed to fiscally responsible county government that aggressively pursues an improved transportation infrastructure, property tax relief and accountability to the taxpayers of Collin County."

Two years later, I remain committed to these issues. Relieving the congestion on our major highways was the single most intense issue during the campaign and continues to be one of the most frustrating issues for our citizens. I am working to fulfill my campaign promises by actively advocating a change to the way we allocate county funding for transportation infrastructure in order to relieve our extreme traffic congestion.

Every issue in that original announcement plays a part in this recommendation concerning the bond election on the November ballot.

Early this year, soon after I took office, the county was working on three transportation funding sources:

1) The SH 121 concession fee. The county requested projects totaling $733 million, and our cities and TxDot also placed additional bids for projects. Beyond the SH 121 construction costs, only $529 million is scheduled to be allocated to projects in Collin County. There simply is not enough concession funding to construct the requested projects totaling $2.2 BILLION.

2) The Pass-Through-Financing program. In this program the county and the state agree on projects that the county builds using local funds. The state then reimburses a portion of the construction costs over time. This program was approved by the Commissioners Court. The submittal letter stated, "The Countywide Pass-Through-Financing Committee, comprised of the County's major towns and cities, has developed (this program.)" The letter went on to say that the "projects represent an equitable program of transportation solutions for the entire County" and "the County is committed to funding its share of the program through a future bond election, revenue bonds, or a combination thereof." Today, this $330 million program is virtually unfunded at county level and if the current transportation bond proposal is passed, this reimbursement program is dead. This could cost the county several hundred million dollars from the state; dollars that we could use on future transportation projects.

3) The transportation bond proposal. The committee did exactly what was asked of them, and I appreciate their service. However, as the three funding sources matured, it became obvious that the bond proposal as approved by the Commissioners Court by a 4-1 vote does not relieve the congestion on our major highways, and the other two funding sources above are inadequate to address our congestion. In addition, the entire $328.9 million bond proposal (transportation, facilities, and open space) represents excessive debt. It is almost $60 million above what the county can borrow and still maintain the traditional 22.5% debt service percentage of your county taxes.

The Commissioners Court knew early in the year that managing these three funding streams would be a challenge. As the fluid situation progressed, the challenge became much clearer. The best leveraged of the three major funding programs; and the one that also best addresses the congestion on our major highways in the shortest period of time, the Pass-Through-Financing program, is virtually unfunded.

The rapid growth of our population is overwhelming our major highways, creating the congestion that you experience every day. We must change the way we do business, or we condemn ourselves to continued congestion on our major highways that will eventually grow worse and choke our quality of life and our air quality, and we condemn ourselves to the cycle of congestion, which you can read in detail in the August 9 blog entry. You may read my entire blog below for a more in-depth review of my positions on the bond proposal.

This requires hard decisions to allocate scarce resources differently to relieve congestion on our major highways. Change is difficult for long tenured elected officials. I briefed the Commissioners Court twice during the summer regarding my concerns on the emerging bond proposals and during the August 28 Commissioners Court, I recommended changes to the November bond proposal. My recommendations were not adopted.

I ask you to vote AGAINST the bond proposals on the November ballot for three reasons:

1) The transportation bond proposal does not address the congestion on our major highways.

2) The Pass-Through-Financing Program is being abandoned. This program, already submitted to the state, is virtually unfunded with local construction funds, thereby forfeiting state reimbursement and losing that terrific leveraging of your taxpayer funds with state dollars. This program was developed by a countywide committee and if the bond proposal passes, it will now be abandoned.

3) The total bond proposal is too large. The $328.9 million proposal is almost $60 million above the $271 million that we can afford to borrow and yet maintain the traditional debt service payment of 22.5% of your county taxes. See the blog entries on August 20 and 28. The excessive debt payment required by this large bond proposal amounts to an 8-year moratorium on future bond initiatives. If this bond proposal passes, actual bonding projections tell us that we will not finish paying down the excessive debt until the year 2016. I do not believe that we can afford to wait until 2016 to start addressing the congestion on our major highways.

I am offering to speak to groups, and appreciate any invitations for me to personally present these recommendations.

Sincerely,

Keith

Concerned citizens,

In his September 4 column, Bill Murchison, senior columns writer for the Dallas Morning News, stated, "The tax system confuses and stultifies." Stultifies is a 25 cent word - I looked it up and it means,

Stultify: To cause something to be useless, futile. Also: prevent, frustrate, check, stop, repress, thwart, stifle, smother, negate, nullify, blunt, cloud, blur.
(Of an activity or task) mind-numbing; tedious in the extreme.

How right Murchison is about our tax system. And we have an example where our tax system stultifies right here in Collin County.

I have written before to you concerning the spending side of the transportation bond proposal. You can read on the blog both my concerns about the proposal, dated August 16, and my positive vision for a change in county transportation funding, dated August 20.

Today I want to look at the issue from your perspective. I want to take a look at your taxes that fund the proposed projects included in the transportation bond proposal.

First question for you: Who pays the two halves of the current 50/50 match to build local streets?

You do. In fact, you pay it all, both portions, both the city match and the county match. Every dollar comes from your tax dollars that are "matched" together by the city and the county. You pay it all.

The fact is that both the cities and the county get the vast majority of their transportation tax funds for local streets from the same source - from you, the taxpayer. Your tax dollars fund it all. The city collects taxes and the county collects taxes from the same person - you, the Collin County citizen who pays both city and county taxes.

Why do two separate taxing entities, city and county, collect taxes from the same taxpayer on the same property for the same purpose - building local streets?

Would it not make more sense for a single entity to collect taxes for that single purpose? This would make your taxes that fund transportation infrastructure less confusing, less stultifying to you, the taxpayer. Now THAT would be transparent government.

There are some who believe that the county is contributing transportation funds to the local projects match from some "other" money, but that is simply not true - they are all your tax dollars. Don't let some set up an artificial "us" versus "them" argument. "Us" and "them" are the same taxpayer.

I speak often about transparent government and focusing government on core functions. I believe that removing the county from this confusing transportation funding will do several things:

1) Give cities more local control. Why should city taxpayers send tax dollars to the county, only to have the city turn around and ask for those dollars back? We see the same situation at the federal level when we ask the feds to return a larger percentage of the gas tax that Texans sent to the feds in the first place.

2) Stop pitting the cities against each other. Let's reduce the heartache associated with the system of competing for the return of taxes collected from your city taxpayers.

3) Make transportation funding on local streets more transparent and less stultifying to you, the taxpayer. You will know better exactly where your tax funds are being spent.

4) Focus county spending on core county functions.

I am offering to share my perspectives on the bond proposal to various groups around the county between now and early November. If your group would like to have me speak or to have a dialogue on the issue, please let me know at Keith@KeithSelf.com

Sincerely,
Keith

Citizens,

The last public hearing on the 2008 county budget is Tuesday, September 4, at 7 PM in the Central Jury Room of the new courthouse at 2100 Bloomdale Rd, McKinney. Please join us to voice your opinion on the proposed county budget.

The Commissioners Court needs citizen inputs. You can find the official notice with all the pertinent information on the tax increase and the meeting agenda at http://public1.co.collin.tx.us/public_notices/Lists/Public%20Meetings/DispForm.aspx?ID=367&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fpublic1%2Eco%2Ecollin%2Etx%2Eus%2Fpublic%5Fnotices%2Fdefault%2Easpx

This is your chance to make your voice heard. You do not have to speak if you do not care to do so, but attending this public hearing will also make you a more informed citizen and voter.

We have the current 5-year projection figures. The projections show that a 1/4 cent tax rate cut does not lower our fund balance below the level to maintain our stellar AAA bond rating until the 2011/2012 budget year.

However, the projections also dramatically demonstrate that there is room to cut fat from the county budget before we begin development of that 2011/2012 budget. The Maintenance and Operations projected budget grows an average of approximately 13% for 6 years extending forward from 2006, the last year that we know actual audited expenditures! A 13% growth rate cannot be sustained. While significant increases are limited to just a few years, the overall average increases are too large.

These high level numbers show at the macro level that there is plenty of fat to be trimmed. A 13% growth rate in government means that government is growing too fast and sucking a growing percentage of your hard earned dollars, because you and I both know that your paychecks are NOT going to grow at an average of 13%.

Government should NOT be a growth business, designed to maximize cash flow. All the cash that flows into government flows FROM your pockets, and we need to fund our core functions while aggressively cutting non-core functions. If we carefully watch what we spend, we will leave as many as possible of your hard earned dollars in your pockets.

I look forward to seeing you Tuesday evening at the public hearing.

Sincerely,
Keith