In Dallas, a nonprofit organization known as Dallas Hero has put city leaders on notice after the City Council approved a $5.2 billion budget that raises starting police salaries by nearly 8%, but fails to elevate the city’s rank in police pay to meet the community’s expectations.
The budget, which goes into effect on October 1, includes provisions to hire 350 new police officers by the fall of 2026 and raises the starting salary for officers to $81,232.
Despite these increases, Dallas Hero and other critics assert that the measures do not comply with Proposition U, a charter amendment aimed at ensuring Dallas police salaries rank in the top five among departments in North Texas, where substantial population thresholds exist.
This amendment was narrowly approved in November 2024, securing just over 50% of the vote and includes requirements to maintain a police force of at least 4,000 officers, while the current count stands at approximately 3,200.
Damien LeVeck, the executive director of Dallas Hero, voiced his frustration, stating, “Dallas remains 12th in starting pay — a clear violation of the charter and the will of the voters,” in a statement released on September 18.
The crux of the issue lies in the differing interpretations regarding compliance with Proposition U.
City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert and Chief Financial Officer Jack Ireland assert that the budget meets and even exceeds the legal requirements set forth in Proposition U, including provisions for pension funding and police pay.
According to their analysis, which was corroborated by the city attorney’s office, Dallas should be evaluated not only based on starting salaries but also by accounting for stipends that can enhance overall compensation, thus placing the city third when all factors are considered.
However, critics point out that not all officers qualify for these additional benefits, leading to claims that many may not receive the intended rise in pay.
City Council member Cara Mendelsohn echoed this sentiment, urging that without additional pay increases, the city risks losing officers, thereby compromising public safety.
Mendelsohn proposed reallocating $4.5 million in budget cuts for higher police and fire pay, but the suggestion did not gain traction.
Proposition U mandates that when Dallas collects more revenue than in previous years, at least half of that surplus must be allocated to the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System.
Revenue sources include property, sales, and hotel taxes, as well as court fees and fines.
However, city officials have provided a narrow interpretation of this revenue, arguing that funds such as hotel occupancy taxes are restricted.
Despite a reported increase in unrestricted revenue of $61.6 million, city leaders determined that only $30.8 million needs to go to pensions in compliance with Proposition U.
Critics from Dallas Hero contend this interpretation excludes funds that should be considered unrestricted, suggesting the requirement may be closer to $111 million instead.
LeVeck has warned that the city may owe taxpayers a clearer explanation if it continues to exclude certain revenue streams from compliance considerations.
Ireland firmly defended the city’s approach, citing that a substantial pension contribution exceeding $225.7 million has already been planned for the upcoming fiscal year, which he believes satisfies both state mandates and Proposition U.
As the budget process unfolds, questions remain regarding the timeline for police pay studies, with critics arguing that March assessments create a deceptive view of Dallas’s competitiveness in attracting officers.
With the current meet and confer agreement, which governs negotiations with police and fire associations, set to expire at the end of September, timely resolution of these issues is critical.
There is a growing consensus that adjustments to starting pay and additional resources are necessary to keep officers from leaving for better-paying positions in neighboring cities.
Jaime Castro, president of the Dallas Police Association, highlighted the troubling trend of officer attrition, where 40% of Dallas officers leave within five years, costing the city substantial training investments.
“Officers are leaving for cities that ‘understand and respect their value and compensate them accordingly,’” Castro stated.
Tolbert acknowledged the ambitious goal of reaching 4,000 officers over several years rather than an immediate achievement, citing the need for supportive infrastructure and training facilities.
In the interim, the city’s plan to hire 350 new officers annually until 2029 is aimed at gradually rebuilding the police force to meet community needs.
No jurisdiction in the region is matching Dallas’s scale of hiring, which complicates direct salary comparisons with smaller cities, as indicated by Tolbert.
The topic of police compensation remains a heated debate among residents, with many advocating for meaningful changes to enhance officer salaries and boost public safety.
At a recent city council meeting, residents expressed their frustration over the perceived inadequacy of the budget’s response to Proposition U.
Diane Benjamin stated, “You can say ‘above and beyond’ all you want. You can cherry-pick stipends, but residents can see with their own eyes that this budget does not comply with Proposition U.”
Tolbert acknowledged the city’s responsibility to effectively communicate how it addresses the community’s concerns regarding public safety and police needs.
She emphasized the importance of visible improvements in performance, such as faster response times and heightened officer presence on the streets, to build trust with the community.
As the city navigates these vital issues, the implications of Proposition U will likely significantly impact Dallas’s policing landscape and the community’s trust in its leaders.
image source from：dallasnews
