{"id":263843,"date":"2025-09-29T13:01:12","date_gmt":"2025-09-29T13:01:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/263843\/"},"modified":"2025-09-29T13:01:12","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T13:01:12","slug":"dallas-officials-say-theyre-following-proposition-u-many-say-theyre-sidestepping-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/263843\/","title":{"rendered":"Dallas officials say they\u2019re following Proposition U; many say they\u2019re sidestepping it"},"content":{"rendered":"

A nonprofit that backed a Dallas charter amendment meant to boost police hiring, benefits and starting pay<\/a> has vowed to \u201chold city leaders accountable\u201d after the City Council approved a budget that raises starting police pay by nearly 8%<\/a>, but leaves Dallas ranked 12th in the region.<\/p>\n

The $5.2 billion budget, which takes effect Oct. 1, includes funding to hire 350 new officers by fall 2026 and boosts starting salaries to $81,232<\/a>. But Dallas Hero and other critics argue the increase falls short of Proposition U\u2019s mandate that Dallas police rank in the top five among North Texas departments for starting pay. The November 2024 charter amendment, which passed with just 50.5% of the vote, also requires the city to maintain at least 4,000 officers. Dallas currently has about 3,200.<\/p>\n

\u201cDallas remains 12th in starting pay \u2014 a clear violation of the charter and the will of the voters,\u201d Damien LeVeck, Dallas Hero\u2019s executive director, said in a Sept. 18 statement.<\/p>\n

At the heart of the dispute is how to measure compliance. <\/p>\n

The charter amendment says Dallas police starting salaries \u2014 including base pay and non-pension benefits \u2014 must rank in the top five among departments in Dallas, Collin, Tarrant, Denton and Rockwall counties with populations over 50,000. Sign-on bonuses don\u2019t count, and the city must hire an independent firm annually to study regional pay.<\/p>\n

Political Points<\/p>\n

Get the latest politics news from North Texas and beyond.<\/p>\n

By signing up, you agree to our\u00a0Terms of Service<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Privacy Policy.<\/a><\/p>\n

Related<\/p>\n

\"Moody\u2019s<\/p>\n

City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert and Chief Financial Officer Jack Ireland insist the budget not only meets the legal requirements of Proposition U \u2014 including pension funding and police pay \u2014 but goes beyond them. Their interpretation, they say, is backed by a thorough review from the city attorney\u2019s office.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat it appears to me is that maybe somebody wrote some stuff that they don\u2019t know is in their own proposition,\u201d Tolbert told The Dallas Morning News in August. \u201cBut that\u2019s not our fault, and it wasn\u2019t our job to go back and tell them what was wrong with their language.\u201d<\/p>\n

City officials admit that Dallas ranks 12th in base pay alone, trailing smaller cities like Grand Prairie, Frisco and Plano. But they argue that when factoring in stipends \u2014 such as bilingual pay, education incentives and assignment bonuses \u2014 their March study placed Dallas third overall, meeting the top-five threshold.<\/p>\n

The catch? Not every officer qualifies for those extra benefits, meaning many won\u2019t actually reach that higher pay level. It\u2019s led to people like City Council member Cara Mendelsohn calling for an updated pay study and urging a steeper boost in starting pay to more definitively close the gap.<\/p>\n

Related<\/p>\n

\"Police<\/p>\n

Mendelsohn last Wednesday proposed $4.5 million in budget cuts to redirect funds toward higher police and fire pay \u2014 but the measure failed to gain traction.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we don\u2019t improve our salary, we are going to lose our officers,\u201d Mendelsohn warned. \u201cAnd if we lose our officers, our city is at risk.\u201d<\/p>\n

What Proposition U requires<\/p>\n

Proposition U requires that when Dallas collects more revenue than it did the previous year, at least half of that extra amount must first go to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System. The amount given to the pension system must meet or exceed what the State Pension Review Board or City Council requires, whichever is higher.<\/p>\n

\u201cRevenue,\u201d in the city charter, refers to all money the city collects that isn\u2019t restricted by state or federal law. The charter says this includes property, sales and hotel taxes; parking, franchise and court fees; and fines, donations and income from city services and investments. It does not include money borrowed by the city or grants and funding from other governments or nonprofits, unless that money originally came from Dallas.<\/p>\n

But the city and Dallas Hero officials differ on whether funds like the hotel occupancy tax, which the city treats as restricted, should count as unrestricted under Proposition U\u2019s language.<\/p>\n

Ireland told The News the city calculated its unrestricted revenue increased by $61.6 million, meaning $30.8 million must go to pensions. But the City Council already approved a $225.7 million pension contribution for the upcoming fiscal year, far exceeding the Proposition U requirement, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think I can shut the book because that\u2019s all there is,\u201d Ireland told The News. \u201cWe have got $30.8 million that is subject to the proposition, and we\u2019re spending $225.7 million on the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System. What else am I supposed to do?\u201d<\/p>\n

Related<\/p>\n

\"Dallas<\/p>\n

Ireland said the city\u2019s total budget increased by over $200 million, but most of that growth comes from restricted funds that cannot be used for Proposition U\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n

He cited as examples Dallas Water Utilities and aviation funds being restricted by state law and only allowed to be used for specific purposes. He said property tax revenue is divided between the general fund for city operations and the debt service fund for repaying bonds and debt. Money in the debt service fund can\u2019t be used for salaries or pensions, he said. Even within the general fund, Ireland said some revenue, like fees for food inspections or vendor licenses, is restricted to specific services.<\/p>\n

Under Dallas city code, hotel tax revenue is legally earmarked for tourism, convention centers and arts, which are uses authorized by state law. <\/p>\n

But Dallas Hero argues the city is using a narrow interpretation of what counts as \u201crevenue.\u201d Proposition U\u2019s definition includes all city revenue unless it is explicitly restricted by state or federal law.<\/p>\n

Dallas Hero estimates that if the city included all eligible revenue, the 50% requirement would be closer to $111 million, not $30.8 million. Funds like the hotel occupancy tax and sanitation services should count as unrestricted revenue under Proposition U, according to LeVeck. State law, for instance, doesn\u2019t require Dallas to restrict hotel occupancy tax funds.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the City Council is excluding certain enterprise funds like hotel occupancy tax, sanitation services, and planning and development, it owes taxpayers a clear explanation,\u201d LeVeck said.<\/p>\n

Related<\/p>\n

\"Dallas<\/p>\n

He added that on the pension front, he believes the city is conflating two separate obligations. The $225.7 million should be separate from Prop U\u2019s 50% rule and calculated independently, according to LeVeck, because the larger tally is part of the state\u2019s mandate requiring long-term pension solvency. He believes Prop U\u2019s 50% rule should be added on top of the city\u2019s pension payment requirements. <\/p>\n

\u201cCounting the state-mandated contribution as if it satisfied Prop U is misleading and undermines the amendment\u2019s purpose,\u201d LeVeck said.<\/p>\n

\u2018It\u2019s always a moving number\u2019<\/p>\n

The city\u2019s decision to conduct its police pay study in March \u2014 rather than later in the year \u2014 has become a flashpoint in the debate over Proposition U compliance.<\/p>\n

\u201cProposition U doesn\u2019t say when to do the analysis. Our meet and confer agreement says do it in March. So we did it in March,\u201d Ireland said. \u201cIt\u2019s always a moving number. Maybe somebody increased pay in April, maybe somebody increased pay in May.\u201d <\/p>\n

The city\u2019s current meet and confer agreement, which is a labor agreement between the city and its police and fire associations, expires at the end of September. Negotiations are underway for a new one. Pay and benefits are among the topics negotiated in the agreement.<\/p>\n

But critics argue the March timeline distorts reality. <\/p>\n

\u201cThis practice creates the false impression that Dallas is competitive when in reality, surrounding cities offer much stronger base salaries and are attracting our officers away,\u201d LeVeck said.<\/p>\n

Tolbert noted the meet and confer agreement initially called for raising starting pay to $78,924, but the city is increasing it further \u2014 to $81,232 \u2014 and maintaining pay parity with firefighters. She also argued that chasing the top pay ranking is unrealistic, given that smaller cities can adjust salaries more easily for their much smaller forces.<\/p>\n

At an Aug. 20 City Council meeting, Jaime Castro, president of the Dallas Police Association, said 40% of Dallas officers leave within five years, costing the city $275,000 per officer in training expenses. He argued that officers are leaving for cities that \u201cunderstand and respect their value and compensate them accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n

Castro used an analogy to drive home his point: If a bottle of water costs $1 at a general store, $5 at a movie theater and $10 on a plane, the price reflects how much the seller values it. Dallas officers, he said, are like that bottle of water and, right now, Dallas is the general store.<\/p>\n

\u201cI implore the city of Dallas, the City Council and the city manager: Don\u2019t be the general store,\u201d Castro said.<\/p>\n

Tolbert emphasized that getting to a police force of 4,000 is a multiyear process, not something that can happen overnight, adding that the city also needs new training facilities and infrastructure to support a larger force.<\/p>\n

The city plans to hire 350 new officers over 12 months starting Oct. 1 and 400 new officers each following year until 2029, when city leaders estimate hitting 4,000 officers. The department had 3,212 officers as of Tuesday.<\/p>\n

Related<\/p>\n

\"Interim<\/p>\n

Tolbert noted that no other city in the region hires at this scale, making direct comparisons to cities a fraction of the size of Dallas unfair.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019re asking us to compare ourselves to cities that might hire two? Three? Five? 10? But nobody\u2019s hiring 350 officers,\u201d Tolbert said. \u201cSo yeah, they can always be in first place, because the budgetary impact that they have on maybe a force of 20 or 30 is nothing like a city of our size.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2018Above and beyond\u2019<\/p>\n

Around a dozen residents, including LeVeck, told the City Council during a Sept. 3 meeting that they were frustrated the city isn\u2019t doing more to increase starting pay and hire more police officers.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou can say \u2018above and beyond\u2019 all you want. You can cherrypick stipends, but residents can see with their own eyes that this budget does not comply with Proposition U,\u201d said Diane Benjamin.<\/p>\n

Tolbert said ultimately it will be on the city to clearly communicate how it is responding to the concerns and the mandates of Proposition U. She believes public perception will ultimately depend on visible results, like faster response times and people seeing more officers on the street.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have a responsibility to make sure that the public does see that we\u2019re doing the things that matter to them the most,\u201d Tolbert said, \u201cand when it looks like we\u2019re not, we can\u2019t build trust like that.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A nonprofit that backed a Dallas charter amendment meant to boost police hiring, benefits and starting pay has…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":83508,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5135],"tags":[5229,1596,14840,14841,14842,80,358,3187,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-263843","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-dallas","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-dallas","10":"tag-dallas-city-council","11":"tag-dallas-city-hall","12":"tag-dallas-police","13":"tag-politics","14":"tag-texas","15":"tag-tx","16":"tag-united-states","17":"tag-united-states-of-america","18":"tag-unitedstates","19":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","20":"tag-us","21":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263843","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=263843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263843\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/83508"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}