Margolin: Too Early for Budget Prognostications

Note: Quotes attributed to city planner David Cossum should have been attributed to assistant city attorney John Rogers. Rogers was the one speaking. Cossum was clicking through on the Powerpoint.

Councilwoman Ann Margolin hosted District 13 VIPs (mostly neighborhood association and crime watch presidents, plus yours truly) at the Gatti Town at Marsh and Forest Lanes last night to give a rundown and answer questions on the dual petition circulating to allow alcohol sales citywide.

More on that below, but first, the budget. Margolin couldn’t help but address the city’s estimated $130 million shortfall looming over next year’s balance sheet. Falling property values (and a corresponding fall in the city’s property tax receipts) and a drop in sales tax revenue has left the city with a “grim” budget outlook for the second year in a row. That will mean more belt tightening from a budget which, excluding public safety and code enforcement, was cut to the bone to close last year’s $190 million gap, but Margolin declined to speculate on where cuts might be made.

“It’s too early in the game. I’m not going to say what we’re going to do,” Margolin said.

But she made clear that nothing–not police, not fire, not code enforcement–is off the table.

Now, back to the booze. Not much new to report, but a quick recap: If at least 68,500 registered voters sign each of two petitions being circulated (which seems like it will happen by the time they are submitted to the city next week, Margolin said), voters will choose Nov. 2 whether to 1) allow beer and wine to be sold at grocery and convenience stores for off-premise consumption and 2) to do away with the ‘private club’ restriction that requires drinkers to be “members” of a restaurant to order alcohol. Cities, counties, and justice of the peace precincts can vote to be completely wet, dry, or somewhere in between, per the Texas Constitution. In the past, this has been determined by JP precinct, which goes a long way toward explaining the odd patchwork of wet, dry, and quasi-wet areas in Dallas.

David Cossum, the city’s assistant director of Sustainable Development and Construction Assistant city attorney John Rogers did most of the talking, getting into some of the more arcane details of Texas liquor law, which I won’t go too far into. He said the city is “looking into” the potential impact on the city’s sales tax revenue if the measures are approved.

One interesting side note, though: The citywide elections will not override previous JP elections if the historic JP precinct is completely within city limits. So if, hypothetically, a JP precinct bounded by Northwest Highway, Hillcrest Road, Walnut Hill Lane, and Preston Road had voted to be completely dry in 1892, the coming election wouldn’t make it wet.

Should be pretty easy to determine, right? Wrong. Rogers said the city is digging through county records to determine the boundaries of various justice of the peace precincts during previous wet/dry elections.

“I’m really, really hoping they figure it out by Nov. 2,” Cossum Rogers said.

By Eric Nicholson May. 18, 2010 | 10:19 am | 4 Comments | Comments RSS
4 comments to "Margolin: Too Early for Budget Prognostications"
  1. Amy S @ May 18, 2010 at 12:55 pm
    They came up against the same problem two years ago, and a state judge threw the signed petitions out, because the lines of the JP districts could not be determined.

    Same thing is going to happen, wait and see. The county commissioners did not try to further the fight, some do not want certain parts of Dallas wet.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/DN-alcohol_30met.ART.State.Edition1.4d52d96.html

  2. Jersey girl @ May 19, 2010 at 8:56 am
    I was involved in a minor accident a few weeks ago in NJ. After seeing the TX plates on my car, the police officer asked where I was from. When I replied “Dallas” he immediately asked if the crazy wet/dry areas and club memberships still existed. Apparently he had spent some time in Dallas and had accumulated several membership cards (pre-unicard I guess). Kind of embarrassing that this was his memory of Dallas.

  3. Janet @ May 19, 2010 at 5:44 pm
    Just to be clear, the vote is not to ‘wet up’ Dallas nor ‘do away with private clubs’ entirely despite what Progress Dallas will have you believe. The vote would be for wine and beer only and restaurants only (not package stores or bars, they’re still dry). I imagine the vote is set up so that it doesn’t truly wet up Dallas with bars and package stores which, if it did, might cause some sort of biblical chaos.

    I expect the disenfranchised voter issue to come up too – this time as Old JP 7 since it voted dry in 1960.

  4. did too much research on this @ May 23, 2010 at 11:42 am
    in the new texas liquor laws the larger body – in this case the city of dallas always over rides the smaller. just like the federal over rides the state. this is how the city of garland, richardson and irving passed their alcohol option elections.

Leave a Reply