Last Wednesday, I, along with six of my colleagues, requested that Oncor brief the Dallas City Council on the utility company’s response to power outages during the recent snow storm.
I have heard from many residents who went without power for days and who were frustrated by Oncor’s failure to communicate with them. I also heard from residents who told me they often experience power outages and they would like an explanation was wel as a remediation plan from Oncor. I look forward to talking with Oncor about these issues.
Today the City Council was briefed on the upcoming 2010 U.S. Census and what it means for Dallas. Deputy Mayor Pauline Medrano is leading the city’s effort to ensure that all Dallasites are counted. A complete count is critical to our city and state — it will determine how federal funds are allocated, how many U.S. Congressional seats Texas has, and how the boundaries for our state legislature and city council are redrawn.
A few quick facts about the Census:
Counts every person living in the United States on April 1, 2010.
U.S. Constitution mandates Census be conducted every 10 years (since 1790).
Used to redraw city council districts, state legislative districts, and number of seats in U.S. House of Representatives
Used for various city projects (e.g., number of children reported in an area determines if city should install play structures or other youth oriented equipment).
Census data directly affects how $400 billion per year in federal funding is allocated:
Emergency food & shelter
Community Development
Public transportation
Road rehabilitation & construction
Programs for elderly
Head Start programs
Title 1 grants to educational agencies
Census questionnaires will mailed or delivered to Dallas households in February and March 2010.
Census takers will visit households that did not return a questionnaire by mail from April to July 2010.
Census questionnaire is easy! Shortest questionnaire in Census history, only ten questions, 10 minutes to complete.
Answers are protected by law and strictly confidential; information collected is used for statistical purposes only and IS NOT shared with any other local, state, or federal agency.
This morning, the council has gotten two very informative briefings.
FIRST BRIEFING: The results of the 2009 Citizen Survey that analyzes residents’ satisfaction (or lack thereof) with a broad range of city services. High points:
Overall satisfaction with city services has improved greately during the past 2 years.
* Among 109 areas that were assessed on the City’s survey in both 2007 & 2009
- Ratings IMPROVED in 91 areas
- Ratings STAYED THE SAME in 6 areas
- Ratings DECREASED in just 12 areas
* Overall satisfaction with city services in Dallas is significantly higher than the national average
Last week’s council briefing was terrific. We had a full-day session on “sustainable development and the value of urban design.” Our City Manager, Mary Suhm, did an outstanding job organizing this symposium, which included Larry Beasley, who led Vancouver’s development processes during a period of inner-city revitalization; Christopher Leinberger, a visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institute and metropolitan land strategist; Maurice Cox, Director of Design at the National Endowment for the Arts; and James Rojas, Transportation Manager for L.A. County Metropolitan Transit Authority and co-founder of the Latino Urban Forum. MORE….
Today the City Council discussed a contract with a company that provides the city with the workers who ride the trash trucks and pick up our garbage. (Agenda Item #6)
The question arose about whether it was fair to pay these workers minimum wage ($5.85/hr), rather than a living wage. In Dallas, it’s not possible to live on $5.85/hr. To be just out of poverty level, you have to make more than $10/hr. The discussion was whether to require the contractor to pay their employees $8.16/hr. That figure is not based on any analysis of what a livable wage is within our city, but simply represents the lowest hourly amount that the City pays its part-time employees.
We talk a lot about “economic development” in the Southern Sector. That usually takes the form of tax abatements or other incentives to COMPANIES, with the assumption that the company will improve the lives of people in South Dallas. This is a trickle-down theory of improving the Southern Sector.
A more direct way to help is to make sure that people who work for the city make a living wage. More than 63% of the men who collect our garbage live in South or West Dallas. Twenty-five percent of these men have been working as garbagemen from 1-3 years, and another 25% have worked more than 3 years. They fulfill one of the most fundamental services for our city, and are out there picking up trash during the heat of the summer, the rain of spring and fall, and the cold of winter. They deserve to make a living wage.
The council voted to approve the contract at the minimum wage, 15 to 5. I was among the five to vote against it (along with Medrano, Salazar, Atkins, and Davis). If we had required an increase to $8.16, it would have added $0.17 per month to our sanitation bills. That’s a very small cost to pay to ensure that our garbagmen are making a fair wage for their hard work.
In the coming months, we will have a council briefing on requiring contractors who provide temporary staff support to the city to pay those staffers more than minimum wage. If we decide to create our own minimum wage, then we can cancel the sanitation contract that was approved today, and have companies rebid at the new minimum wage for city workers.
The City Manager has recommended moving the next bond election from May 2007 to November 2006. The benefit is that the bond campaign is separated from the Mayoral and Council elections in May 2007. The downside is that the estimated cost to the City for an election in November 2006 is between $500 – $750k.
The Council supported moving the bond election to November 2006.
After talking with residents, my colleagues, and members of the gay and lesbian community over the past couple of weeks, I decided not to propose that we change our City Charter to protect city employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Our Charter currently only protects city employees from discrimination based on race, sex, political affiliation, and religion. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed to my colleagues that we consider adding sexual orientation to this list. By and large, the response I got from the other councilmembers was very positive.
However, like most things in life, timing is everything. Also on the November ballot will be the proposed State of Texas constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Members of the GLBT community were concerned that folks who would come out to vote against gay marriage would also vote against the non-discrimination Charter language. If the proposed non-discrimination Charter amendment failed here in Dallas, it would be a blow to the GLBT community and might have legal ramifications for the non-discrimination ordinance already in place. So I tabled the matter for an upcoming Charter amendment.
The City Council was briefed again on the location for the homeless assistance center. All the councilmembers left City Hall in three vans and visited the St. Louis site (which is the first choice of Mr. Dunning’s Homeless Task Force), and the Blue Bell site. At the request of the new councilmembers, we also visited the Industrial site.
I had seen the St. Louis site before, but going out and visiting all the sites, one after another, was very helpful. A number of business leaders are concerned that putting the center at the St. Louis site will hurt businesses and revitalization. The Blue Bell site is not easily accessible from Downtown (it’s across I-30 and hard to get to on foot). Same for the Industrial site, which is far from current homeless services (though the services could arguably move), and right in the middle of the Trinity Park.
When we got back to City Hall, one thing we all agreed on was the need to make single-room occupancy units (”SROs”) part of the bond package. We are NOT going to “fix” the homeless problem by building an intake center, and we would be wrong to try to sell it as such. It’s not a shelter, and it won’t house the 6000 homeless in Dallas. What it will do is direct the homeless to helpful resources (mental health, drug rehab, job training, etc.). In addition to the center, we need SROs to help some of the homeless back on their feet and back into society. Cities that have dealt successfully with the homeless problem also incorporate SROs.
Next week, we’ll discuss the size of the bond package to put before the voters in the November election.
Today we considered whether to remove Councilmember Don Hill’s appointee to the City Plan Commission, D’Angelo Lee.
There was a lengthy discussion and debate. Those supporting Mr. Lee’s removal (including myself) argued that Mr. Lee’s conduct on the Plan Commission violated Dallas’ Code of Ethics. Other councilmembers were concerned that Mr. Lee was being tried in the press, that he was innocent until proven guilty in the FBI investigation, and that this matter should have gone first to the Ethics Commission.
I supported Mr. Lee’s removal for several reasons.
First, l strongly believe that we at City Hall must keep our own house in order and hold ourselves to the highest ethical standard. My support for Mr. Lee’s removal is not based on the fact that he is being investigated by the FBI. That is a separate matter that will be dealt with on the federal level. The City Council’s responsibility is to enforce our Code of Ethics. Facts have come to light recently that Mr. Lee violated our Code of Ethics by accepting money from, and working for, a non-profit that was a direct beneficiary of a zoning case he then voted on. The facts are not in dispute. The only question is whether Mr. Lee’s actions violate our Code of Ethics. Our Code of Ethics prohibits a city official from taking any official action on a matter affecting the economic interest of his employer or client. In my opinion, Mr. Lee’s actions violate our Ethics Code and we have a responsibility to enforce it.
Second, as to the argument that this matter should have first gone before the Ethics Commission: Our Charter (Ch. XXIV, Sec. 17) states that the City Council may remove board and commission members “for any cause deemed by the city council sufficient for their removal in the interest of the public.” The Ethics Commission may investigate ethics violations, but the City Council also has the power, and responsibility, to remove board and commission members when it’s deemed in the public interest.
Third, our Charter provides due process to the removed commissioner. If requested within ten days, the commissioner may have a public hearing to respond to the City Council.
ACTION: The Mayor moved to remove Mr. Lee from the Plan Commission. FAILED 9-6 (AH voting to remove). Councilmember Oakley moved to delay the issue for three weeks. PASSED 9-6 (AH voting not to delay)
