If cities were a business and councils were the board of directors, which local cities would be doing the best job returning value to their residents? Businesses usually point to their stock price, which should be, generally speaking, a combination of company assets, management capabilities, return on investment, and demand. How would we measure those same factors for a city? One indication might be the asset value of the entire city divided by the number of residents. (It wouldn't be exact and any conclusions drawn would need to be cautious but it would be indicative to a degree.)
 
I have made the argument over and over that we need to Grow the City. Obviously, if we were successful doing that, the total appraised value — the tax base — divided by the number of citizens would be rising. I don't currently have that data to know if that is happening but look where we are today.
 

Tax Base Per Capita – Metroplex Comparison (in thousands)
Garland’s tax base per capita is 28% below the average.

This data is from Garland's Office of Budget and Research. We don't look too hot in this comparison. We have a high debt rate and we have a high tax rate. We don't see here much return in asset value for what we have been paying.
 
We run a very tight ship and our employees are some of the best innovators of any governmental organization. We have over 30% less employees per capita compared to the average of cities around us. The value isn't being absorbed by local government. Historically, we've just not leveraged our assets well in the ways that create growth.
 
We are a very unique city with challenges. We have handled those challenges relatively well for decades. We are also a city with unique opportunities. How we address the former and capitalize on the latter is our real challenge and our measure.
 
We can remain in this pattern or we can Grow the City. To do so will mean different prioritizations, promoting ourselves, re-inventing some of the ways we do business and how we regulate, and it means short-term sacrifice for long-term gain.
 
Success would mean lower taxes, stronger neighborhoods, healthy businesses, and more opportunities that we call "quality of life."
 
We have made some strides in the last couple years. We've started to do the things that will make a difference. We're in the process of changing our development regulations to be more competitive and adaptive. We are in the process of identifying areas of the city most challenged economically and will be strategizing how to bring more value and services to those areas. We have started to market the city but that effort has been woefully ignored for many years. We will capitalize on the eastern extension of SH-190, not refuse exits as the city did when I-635 was being planned. We've focused more closely on helping neighborhoods than any city in the area and more than most in the country.
 
We've turned in the right direction but I would be much happier if the momentum was greater. The current economy is a challenge. Like most cities, our measures are seeing declines rather than growth. If we hadn't prepared as we have, we would definitely be seeing greater declines and a longer recovery would be ahead.
 
Looking at the data above, our "stock price" isn't too high. We need to keep in mind where we are and continue to push to create more value for our residents and businesses. Those are our investors.