A City Council that can't see the forest for the trees

I paid a visit -- a longer one than I anticipated -- to Dallas City Hall today to see our intrepid, fearless elected leaders up close and personal discuss the current budget snapshot of the city-owned water utility and its Sanitation Services Department. And I found it absolutely astounding that every single member of the council, Da Mayor included, not only viewed both as a separate issue but could not look at either budget proposal as the sum of its parts, but only at its parts.

District 7's Carolyn Davis was the prime example of someone who failed to see the link between the two. On one hand, she argued against raising the water rate because, she said, those in her district on a fixed income couldn't afford the increase. And yet, when the Sanitation rate was discussed, a rate that is included as part of the water bill sent to all Dallas Water Utility Customers, she not only argued against measures that would lower that overall water bill (reducing the bulky trash pickup schedule), but she also advocated items that would increase it (raising the pay of sanitation workers and day laborers). Where was the concern for those on a fixed income then?

Da Mayor was a good example of someone who looked an individual parts instead of the entire budget picture. He kept nitpicking about the fact that a 3.4 percent additional revenue requirement required a 4.2 percent rate increase, which meant, obviously that someone had to be paying considerably less than 3.4 percent to average it. Which, of course, is true: the other cities Dallas Water Utilities serves just has to pay for the water; we in Dallas have to pay for both the water and the maintenance of our infrastructure. But this fact had absolutely nothing to do with the overall budget proposal.

It was exhausting, to me, to see Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway go on and on about a point that turned out to be pointless. And it was upsetting to see District 14's Angela Hunt moaning about the plight of the poor day laborers who are making more than an assistant manager at a video store.

There's really nothing to be said about the water rate increase. That's what we're going to have to pay to get the water to come out of tap when you turn it on. The Sanitation rate is another story, however. Leaving it in its natural state, the rate will actually come down 3 cents a month because One Day Dallas will be spread out over a whole year instead of the nine months of its implementation in this fiscal year. But, of course, it's doubtful that the rate will remain in its natural state.

There were two ideas discussed that would affect the rate that I thought had some merit, although not in their present form. One was raise the rate 40 cents a month to create, in two years, a $2 million fund that would be used to pay for outside help in case the city faced another massive debris collection caused by an unusual act of nature, such as the recent snow storm. Here's what I would propose: Cut that increase by 50 percent and place that 20 cents a month from each customer in some kind of an interest bearing account so that it makes money for you while awaiting the next natural catastrophe.

The second idea was to reduce the schedule of bulky trash and large brush pickup although, at first, I was confused about how much a reduction it would be. Page 16 of the briefing outlined the change as follows: "offer quarterly collection of large limbs and bulk on pre-scheduled basis." When Sanitation Services Director Mary Nix explained the option to the council, she said it would be "collecting large limbs and bulk quarterly and not monthly." Then on Page 22 of the briefing, the change was described as large brush and bulk waste "collected bi-annually on pre-scheduled week." Fortunately, following the briefing, I had the distinct pleasure of lunching with someone extremely knowledgeable about the budget outline and she confirmed that the collections would indeed be twice a year, but that they would be collected in different quarters of the year, thus providing a quarterly service of either large brush or bulk trash. This plan would reduce the rate 29 cents a month.

Thus, if you initiated my modified Emergency Storm Fund idea and the reduced brush collection program, the sanitation rate would go down another nine cents a month.

But here's another alternative I would like the council explore and that's to get out of the large brush and bulk trash pickup business completely. I have lived in Dallas for 42 years now. In that time, I have placed large limbs and/or bulk trash out to be picked up no more than four times. Total. That comes outr to not monthly, not quarterly, not even bi-annually, but slightly less than once every decade. Now I know a lot of people use that service for more than that but why should I have to subsidize their bad habits by paying for something I almost never use? I would like to see the Sanitation Services Department prepare and present a briefing to the Dallas City Council's Quality of Life Committee that objectively discusses the pros and cons of the city abandoning this service. At the same briefing, I would like to see presentations by three, at the very minimum, private haulers who would be prepared to discuss completely how they would approach taking over this service.

I'm betting those poor folks on fixed incomes in Davis's district don't have that much bulk trash either and would really like to explore this possibility as well, although I guarantee you Davis wouldn't like it.  And, for that matter, I'm not advocating it either. All I want is a presentation that would allow reasonable minds Dallas City Council members to make an informed, intelligent a politically expedient decision on the issue.