On Wednesday, the Dallas City Council will begin discussing in earnest next year's budget. But in many ways, the key issue of this budget debate has already been decided: The city will hike the pay for cops and firefighters and forget even a meager proposal to lessen the tax burden that rising property values put on homeowners.

Our elected officials don't like to talk about increasing tax bills, and they note frequently that in fact the tax rates have gone down slightly this year. But as Dallas homeowners already know, property tax bills — what owners actually pay — have been climbing steadily for years.

In 2013, the owner of a house of average taxable value in Dallas paid $1,100 in city property taxes. In 2017, thanks to rising property values, the owner of the same house — that is, one with the average assessed value — paid $1,444.

Dallas has a tall stack of expensive challenges, from homelessness to potholed streets. It's also been struggling, despite staffers' efforts and steady raises, to recruit and retain a sufficiently staffed police force. Modest increases in a tax bill are to be expected from time to time in a growing city like ours.

But last week's 11-3 vote to reject a slight rate cut, which was proposed by the city manager and would still have resulted in the city pulling in more revenue next year, strikes us as a mix of fiscal recklessness and brazen political calculation that Dallas is likely to regret.

Understanding what was behind that vote, and the risk it carries, is a good way to begin the budget discussion this week.

Boom times can't last forever

Dallas has been booming for years, but not so long ago, it wasn't. The lesson from those down years is that, while we can't predict when the current good times will end, we can be certain they won't last forever.

Dallas is funded primarily by sales taxes and property taxes. Together they make up about 75 percent of total revenue. The city has little control over sales taxes, since the state sets the rate.

But property taxes are different. The city can set the rate it wants, within limits set by the state. That's how the council decided to give the city government a raise last week, by telling property owners they'll pay $88 million more than they would under the city manager's plan.

But what happens when the economy slows, and property values and sale tax revenue begin to fall?

The expenses won't go away. Suddenly, the extra $16 million in police and fire salaries that the council is adding to the city manager's budget will look awfully expensive.

How happy will residents be if the city chooses to keep itself afloat by raising property tax rates? Not very. Residents who've been asked to pay ever-higher property taxes as their property values went up during the boom times will be hard-pressed to accept higher taxes during a slowdown.

Mayor Mike Rawlings and two other council members, Lee Kleinman and Jennifer Staubach Gates, warned about those consequences last Wednesday to no avail.

Texas Legislature eyes restrictions

There is a second reason to be concerned. When the Legislature meets next year, it will debate whether to rein in local government's discretion over property taxes. Gov. Greg Abbott has already promised to make doing so a top priority.

We'd prefer allowing local governments to set their own rates. But how much harder is that argument to make in face of what has become a steady rise in taxes year after year? The City Council should anticipate that fight next year, and strengthen its hand with evidence of more prudence than last week's vote showed.

No way to govern

Let us finally turn to another question of politics. Around the horseshoe Wednesday were 14 members and who knows how many would-be mayors, each eager to succeed Rawlings when his second term expires next year.

From that discussion, one could gather that support for higher police pay has become the table stakes to participate in that future campaign. From Tennell Atkins in the south to Sandy Greyson in the north, member after member said they were convinced the public believes the city manager's already aggressive pay proposals for police and fire were simply not enough.

Council member Philip Kingston put it most plainly: "If you are for cutting the tax rate, you are for cutting the police. And anyone who thinks they will escape the blame for that is deluded."

That's no way to govern. Of course the police deserve support. That's why the city has been steadily increasing their pay. But in insisting that even more of the budget should be dedicated to this project, even as taxpayers keep paying more, the council is betting on a continued economic boom that can't last forever.

What's your view?

Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor, and you just might get published.