If Council opts to send a bond for a new DPD training complex to voters, it will be the city’s fifth time asking permission to borrow with nothing to show for it.

DALLAS — The Dallas City Council appeared split on a proposal from staff to send a set of three bonds totaling $960 million to voters this November that, if approved at the ballot box, would go toward paying for public safety infrastructure and to shore up the police and fire pension fund. 



This story continues below.

City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert told Council members Wednesday that she could find no explanation for the $50 million figure the city told voters it needed for the police training academy in the 2024 bond. 

“When I came into the position as the interim city manager, the first question I asked was ‘How did we come up with the cost of the bond program?’ And the answers were we didn’t have any plans, that’s just all we could ask for,” Tolbert said. 

Before being named interim city manager in February 2024, Tolbert served in leadership roles in the city for years, as the Deputy City Manager and Chief of Staff. 

Replacing the current police training facility — which practically all agree stinks, literally — became a complicated affair after it became clear the city’s commitment to build on the campus of the University of North Texas at Dallas would not allow for the construction of a vehicle track nor gun range. 

“There are things that we know that we could’ve never built on that college campus,” Tolbert said. “I don’t know where that thinking was, but we know there were things that cannot happen on that college campus and that’s just the reality of where we are today.” 

Instead, the city now has a plan to build two separate facilities — one at UNT-D and another at the Dallas Executive Airport — but is over-budget and behind schedule. Asking voters for permission to borrow additional funds would help bridge the gap, Tolbert said. 

“We have looked at every way possible to not have to do this, to not have to ask for any additional funding to build this academy,” Tolbert said. 

In addition to the millions more for public safety, city staff also recommended Council members approve borrowing $500 million to invest in the city’s police and fire pension fund in the form of pension obligation bonds. This would save an estimated $341 million commitment from the general fund, the city said. 

“The majority of our general fund will be pretty much at capacity from just pension payments and salaries,” Tolbert said. “All of the other services that we know that our residents depend on — we’re not going to be in a good place.”   

But the pension bonds come with risk and are predicated on the assumption the returns for the historically mismanaged police and fire pension outpace interest expense, city CFO Jack Ireland said. 

“The worst-case scenario is that it does not save the city any money and it actually costs the city money,” Ireland said. 

With interest rates high — and potentially set to increase — he conceded: “Now is not the time to issue debt.” Instead, he said, the plan would be to ask voters for permission to issue pension obligation bonds but then hold off on issuance until more favorable market conditions arrive. 

Additionally, the city only has a certain capacity to take on debt. So, some projects that voters previously approved in the 2024 bond would be pushed further back and not be funded until as late as 2030. 

Playground upgrades, road repairs and renovations to historic theaters are among the projects earmarked to be pushed back, a city presentation showed. City Manager Tolbert said more than 95 percent of the 2024 bond projects would proceed as scheduled. 


Council members split

Council members were split regarding whether to vote next Wednesday to send the bond proposals to voters, with some decrying the cost of issuing more debt and others urging their colleagues to uphold their commitments to build a new police academy. 

“It’s way past time that we make good on this promise,” Council member Kathy Stewart said. 

Others advocated for borrowing even more. 

“This, to me, is like trying to establish a line of credit, it’s giving us the authority from the citizens to have money,” Council member Bill Roth said. “I think one of the problems we’ve had in the past is that we’ve underfunded our bond programs.” 

Others — including staunch supporters of funding for public safety — expressed doubt. “It’s looks like public safety, but it’s another financial nightmare,” Council member Cara Mendelsohn said. 

One Council member said he would actively campaign against the bond if his colleagues sent the measure to voters. 

“We are living outside of our means and we’re taking out credit to do it,” Council member Adam Bazaldua said. “I absolutely will not be voting for it as a voter and I hope that voters will follow suit.” 

The third bond proposition city staff asked Council to bring to voters is a $17 million bond to pay for an upgrade to the city’s fleet services building. 

The Council is set to vote on the bond measure during its August 12 meeting. If they approve it, voters will see it on their November ballot.