Dallas, Texas
Track what's happening across all city boards, commissions, and committees
Stay informed about Dallas. Monthly digest of meetings, decisions, and reports.
City Reports
View all →June 2026
Dallas advanced a $5.8 billion FY2025-26 budget amendment and closed $105 million in affordable housing bonds in June, while rejecting an $868 million Convention Center expansion and pivoting City Hall's future from repair to relocation.
Dallas committed over $515M in May 2026, anchored by a $97.8M Love Field airport expansion program and a $29M mixed-income TIF deal near West Mockingbird Lane, while City Council overrode unanimous staff-and-CPC zoning recommendations on two cases and a pension obligation bond proposal advanced in committee without public disclosure of its size or funded status.
Dallas committed $431M across infrastructure, housing, and public safety in April 2026 while City Council overrode unanimous staff and planning commission recommendations on four zoning cases and managed three senior leadership vacancies almost entirely through closed sessions.
Dallas committed over $394M in March 2026 — anchored by a $211M DART transit agreement, a $56M Wings practice facility grant from the Convention Center Fund, and $88.9M in affordable housing bond authority — while City Council overrode staff and planning commission recommendations four times in a single session and a special audit of former members emerged alongside a redacted auditor appointment.
Active Matters
View all 100 matters →Deed Restriction Termination at Fouraker Street (Z-25-000202)
Showing all 3 actions. Filter by: , , .
Assess whether Fouraker deed termination is void, not just voidable
Context: Two separate record errors appear in Z-25-000202 before Council acted: the February 5 CPC minutes show Housewright voting while absent from the room, and the March 5 result line states 'Carried: 12 to 0' while vote data shows Forsyth and Kocks in opposition.
Recommended: Obtain the staff transmittal sent to Council before April 22 and compare it to certified CPC minutes — if Council was told the March 5 vote was 12-0 when Forsyth and Kocks actually dissented, the ordinance may be void for a corrupted record rather than merely voidable, which means the 30-day certiorari window does not cap your remedy. Fifty-seven days have elapsed since adoption; confirming the void/voidable distinction is now the threshold question before any challenge strategy.
File records request to verify Council saw true Fouraker vote count
Context: The March 5 minutes record 'Carried: 12 to 0' but vote data shows Forsyth and Kocks in opposition; separately, the February 5 record shows commissioner Housewright voting while out of the room — two documentation errors in a single case before a Council action that appeared unanimous.
Recommended: File a public records request today for the certified CPC minutes from both the February 5 and March 5 hearings and the staff transmittal to Council, then ask the city clerk directly whether the 12-2 March 5 vote — opposed by Forsyth and Kocks — was disclosed before Council approved this case alongside 15 other zoning approvals on April 22; if the transmittal said the commission was unanimous when it was not, that is the story.
Pull original Fouraker deed restriction before starting permit drawings
Context: The March 5 vote was recorded as 12-0 but was actually 12-2 with Forsyth and Kocks opposed, suggesting contested conditions in the final version that may differ from what the February 5 hearing approved — and those conditions govern your entitlements.
Recommended: Request the original deed restriction document from Dallas city records now and map exactly which use or density limits lift under the termination ordinance — this case ran two CPC hearings with the vote tightening from 14-0 to 12-2, which typically signals conditions were added or revised between sessions and could affect what you can legally permit on the site.
Townhouse District at Ferguson Road (Z-25-000164)
Showing all 5 actions. Filter by: , , , , .
Watch for the next Ferguson Road townhouse hearing date
Why now: Council remanded Z-25-000164 on 2026-06-24 despite three consecutive unanimous CPC approvals (13-0, 12-0, 14-0), meaning the case is not yet finally adopted.
What to do: Don't assume the deed-restricted townhouse plan for this stretch of Ferguson Road is final. City Council sent it back to the City Plan Commission on June 24 instead of approving it, so there will be another hearing where residents can weigh in on conditions before it's decided.
Act before: After City Plan Commission relists this case for hearing
Target the council member who remanded Ferguson Road townhouses
Why now: City Council remanded Z-25-000164 on 2026-06-24 after the City Plan Commission had already carried it unanimously 13-0, 12-0, and 14-0 across three hearings.
What to do: Identify which council member moved to remand this case on June 24 and reach out to them directly before it's relisted. Three unanimous CPC votes show the commission isn't the obstacle, so that one council member's objection is now the only thing standing between this case and adoption.
Act before: After the case is relisted for a City Council vote
Check protest rules behind Ferguson Road townhouse remand
Why now: Council remanded Z-25-000164 on 2026-06-24 despite three consecutive unanimous CPC votes (13-0, 12-0, 14-0), a pattern consistent with a protest surfacing only at the Council stage.
What to do: Pull the City Council's June 24 minutes and audio for this case to determine whether a valid written protest from adjacent property owners triggered the remand. If 20% or more of adjacent owners filed a written protest, Texas Local Government Code §211.006 requires a three-fourths supermajority for final Council approval instead of a simple majority — a much harder vote to win.
Act before: After next hearing on this item
Investigate why council remanded unanimous Ferguson Road case
Why now: Z-25-000164 carried CPC 13-0 on March 26, 12-0 on April 23, and 14-0 on May 7, then was remanded by City Council on 2026-06-24 with no stated reason in the timeline.
What to do: File a records request for the verbatim June 24 City Council transcript and audio, and ask which council member moved to remand this case and why. The commission approved it unanimously three separate times, yet Council sent it back instead of voting — that split isn't explained anywhere in the public record.
Act before: After records request response (typically 10 business days)
Hold Ferguson Road townhouse site plans after remand
Why now: City Council remanded Z-25-000164 on 2026-06-24 after the City Plan Commission carried it 13-0 (March 26), 12-0 (April 23), and 14-0 (May 7).
What to do: Hold off on advancing site engineering or construction financing for this project. City Council sent it back to the City Plan Commission on June 24 instead of approving it, even after three straight unanimous commission votes, so final entitlement isn't locked in yet.
Act before: After City Council issues a final vote on this case
Caleb Mann RTN District at McShann and Preston Road (Z-25-000121)
Showing all 5 actions. Filter by: , , , , .
Investigate unexplained commissioner conflict in McShann-Preston rezoning case
Why now: Minutes show Hampton recused 'due to conflict of interest' and left the room for both the April 23 vote (12-0) and the June 11 vote (10-0), with the underlying conflict still undisclosed.
What to do: File a public records request for Commissioner Hampton's conflict-of-interest disclosure form and any application materials explaining the private-individual case name — Hampton has now recused from this same case twice, at separate hearings months apart, with no disclosure on file either time.
Act before: After records request response (typically 10 business days)
Brief district council member on McShann-Preston rezoning
Why now: Votes of 10-0, 12-0, 14-0, and 14-0 across six appearances show a commission with no internal opposition left to leverage before the case reaches Council.
What to do: Identify the City Council member for the McShann-Preston corridor and request a meeting now — this was the case's sixth appearance before the commission and its fourth straight unanimous carry, meaning a formal recommendation may already be moving toward the next posted council docket.
Act before: After matter appears on City Council docket
Compare permitted uses for McShann-Preston rezoning district
Why now: The case has carried unanimously at every one of its six hearings (most recently 10-0 on June 11), but the ordinance hasn't taken effect yet.
What to do: Pull the June 11 staff report and compare the Residential Transition Neighborhood district's permitted uses, setbacks, height, and lot coverage against the corridor's current zoning to see which building types just became feasible. The ordinance effective date — not the commission vote — is what triggers vested rights for any project you want governed by the new rules.
Act before: After ordinance effective date
Check if your McShann-Preston block is in rezoning boundary
Why now: The case has carried unanimously six times running, most recently 10-0 on June 11, with no indication of a further public hearing before Council adoption.
What to do: Download the application packet from the June 11 City Plan Commission agenda and verify whether your parcel sits inside the Residential Transition Neighborhood boundary — that designation can allow neighborhood office and limited commercial uses on lots currently zoned single-family.
Act before: After City Council adopts the rezoning ordinance
Calculate protest threshold for McShann-Preston rezoning case
Why now: Six City Plan Commission appearances all carried unanimously (10-0, 12-0, 14-0, 14-0), signaling Council scheduling is likely imminent after the June 11 session.
What to do: Pull ownership records for parcels within 200 feet of the Residential Transition Neighborhood boundary and calculate whether the 20% acreage threshold for a written protest can be met — meeting it forces a three-quarters supermajority vote at City Council instead of a simple majority.
Act before: After City Council votes on the rezoning ordinance
Convent Planned Development at W. Davis and Cockrell Hill (Z-25-000156)
Showing all 3 actions. Filter by: , , .
Push to reschedule W. Davis rezoning Council vote now
Why now: The case carries back-to-back 13-0 City Plan Commission recommendations (Jan 15, March 26) but the April 22 Council result is still missing from the record more than 11 weeks later.
What to do: Contact the Council district office representing W. Davis and Cockrell Hill to confirm whether Z-25-000156 has a rescheduled hearing date — it's now been over 11 weeks since the April 22 hearing with no recorded outcome, an unusually long gap after two unanimous CPC recommendations, and continued delay risks triggering a staff re-review that would restart the public process.
Act before: After next hearing on this item
Investigate why W. Davis rezoning needed two commission votes
Why now: Two identical 13-0 City Plan Commission votes 10 weeks apart, followed by a Council hearing whose result is absent from the record, is unusual for a case with no documented opposition.
What to do: Pull the January 15 and March 26 City Plan Commission packets and compare staff conditions and applicant testimony — an uncontested case rarely needs two identical 13-0 votes 10 weeks apart, and the reason isn't in the summary record. Then check the April 22 Council roll call: of 19 zoning cases that day, 16 were approved in line with CPC recommendations, meaning three weren't, and this case's Council-level outcome is unrecorded.
Act before: After records request response (typically 10 business days)
Verify W. Davis planned development rezoning adopted or deferred
Why now: Two unanimous 13-0 City Plan Commission votes (Jan 15 and March 26) preceded an April 22 Council hearing whose outcome is not captured in the available record.
What to do: Pull the April 22 Dallas City Council minutes to confirm whether Z-25-000156 was formally adopted or deferred — if adopted, the 30-day statutory challenge window closed May 22 and any legal challenge is now time-barred; if deferred, the clock hasn't started and resets at the next hearing.
Act before: After statutory challenge period expires
Taylor Madison Application (Z-26-000032)
Showing all 3 actions. Filter by: , , .
File records request for June 11 Taylor Madison rezoning outcome
Context: This case appeared twice on the June 11 agenda after a 14-0 carry on May 21, yet shows no declared next step as of June 18 — a pattern across three appearances that suggests a procedural miss on a heavy agenda rather than substantive commission opposition.
Recommended: Request the June 11 City Plan Commission minutes and compare them against this case's dual agenda listing — if the commission took no action on June 11 despite the application appearing twice on an 84-item agenda after a 14-0 preliminary vote, ask staff whether the double-listing caused this case to be skipped, and whether the same thing happened to any of the other four under-advisement cases (#17–#21) on that same session.
Contact City Plan Commission staff about Taylor Madison rezoning stall
Context: The matter logged two separate entries for June 11 and still shows 'next step: Unknown' as of June 18, 2026, despite a 14-0 carry at the May 21 hearing (Item 12, Z-26-000032).
Recommended: Call City Plan Commission staff today to confirm what action was taken at the June 11 hearing and when this case is next calendared — after three appearances including a unanimous 14-0 carry on May 21, the absence of a declared next step as of June 18 suggests the case was passed over or deferred again without notice on an 84-item agenda. A fourth unscheduled appearance adds months to your entitlement timeline.
Request certified May 21 minutes to document Kocks voting conflict
Context: The May 21 vote record for Item 12 carries an explicit asterisk: '*Kocks out of room, shown voting in favor,' creating a direct conflict between the recorded 14-0 vote and the commissioner's documented absence from the room.
Recommended: Request the certified May 21 City Plan Commission minutes now and compare the official roll-call record against the asterisked note that Commissioner Kocks was out of the room but shown voting in favor — if the 14-0 count includes Kocks in error, the May 21 action is procedurally defective, and any future commission action that treats it as a valid prior record could be challenged on that basis.
Mixed-Use Planned Development at Main Street (Z-25-000132)
Showing all 4 actions. Filter by: , , , .
Confirm Whether Main Street Rezoning Was Adopted or Denied
Why now: Rubin declared a conflict and left the room for both 12-0 Plan Commission votes on this same case, and if the ordinance was adopted May 13, the effective-date challenge clock has already run over eight weeks.
What to do: Pull the May 13 Council record to see which of three outcomes applied to Z-25-000132 — that session closed 10 zoning cases with routine approval, deferred 4 with hearings left open, and denied 1 without prejudice — and check whether Commissioner Rubin's recusal was properly documented at both the February 19 and March 26 Plan Commission votes, since a gap in either disclosure is a standing procedural defect argument.
Act before: After statutory challenge period expires
Verify Main Street Rezoning Outcome Before Committing Design Costs
Why now: The same case cleared Plan Commission 12-0 twice — February 19 and March 26 — which typically only happens when the request or its conditions were amended between hearings.
What to do: Confirm with the district office which May 13 outcome applies to Z-25-000132 before advancing permit-ready drawings — if it's among the four deferred zoning cases, conditions could still shift from what was set at the March 26 hearing, and if it was adopted, compare the final ordinance conditions against both the February 19 and March 26 Plan Commission records, since a case returning for a second unanimous vote usually means something changed between sessions.
Act before: After ordinance effective date
Learn Which Council Outcome Hit Main Street Rezoning
Why now: The May 13 session processed 15 zoning cases with three distinct outcomes, and this case's specific disposition isn't documented anywhere in the public record yet.
What to do: Call the district council office now to learn whether Z-25-000132 landed among the 4 deferred zoning cases, the 1 denied without prejudice, or the 10 routine approvals from the May 13 agenda — a deferral keeps the conditions negotiated across two Plan Commission hearings open for further shaping, while a denial without prejudice opens an immediate refiling path.
Act before: After next hearing on this item
Ask Why Main Street Rezoning Needed Two Unanimous Votes
Why now: A case doesn't normally return to Plan Commission after a unanimous vote unless the request or conditions changed, and the same commissioner recusing twice on one case is unusual.
What to do: Request the staff memo or case file explaining why Z-25-000132 returned to the City Plan Commission for a second 12-0 vote on March 26 after already clearing 12-0 on February 19, and ask staff to name the nature of Commissioner Rubin's conflict, since Rubin recused from both votes but no disclosure has surfaced publicly across any of the case's three hearings.
Act before: After records request response (typically 10 business days)
Recent Events
View all events →Top Entities
View all entities →Department of Planning & Development is the City of Dallas municipal department responsible for planning, permitting, inspections, and land management services. It was formed in June 2024 through a merger of the Planning & Urban Design and Development Services divisions.
1475 mentions
The Dallas Department of Transportation and Public Works is responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of the City's mobility infrastructure in the City's right-of-way. The department focuses on providing a safe, reliable, efficient, equitable, sustainable, and resilient multimodal surface transportation system.
295 mentions
The Office of Procurement Services (OPS) is a city department responsible for managing the procurement of goods and services for the City of Dallas. It also operates the Business Enterprise Hub, Express Business Center, and City Store, and is headed by a director appointed by the city manager.
250 mentions
The City Manager's Office is the chief executive department of Dallas city government, responsible for implementing policy set by the Dallas City Council and overseeing daily municipal administration. The City Manager serves as the professional, non-elected chief administrator appointed by the City Council, preparing the annual budget, supervising city personnel, and recommending operational improvements across city departments.
231 mentions
ForwardDallas is Dallas's comprehensive land use plan that guides citywide development decisions. It addresses zoning, housing, and growth strategy, and was developed by the City Planning & Development department.
217 mentions
Dallas Water Utilities is a City of Dallas department providing water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood control services to Dallas and 31 nearby communities. It is a non-profit utility funded entirely through water and wastewater service rates, with operations dating back to 1881.
216 mentions
Based on city records: Individual referenced in Dallas city proceedings. Appears in topics: subdivision docket, residential replats, building line removal.
202 mentions
The Department of Facilities and Real Estate Management is an internal service department of the City of Dallas that manages municipal real estate assets, oversees facility maintenance and operations, handles custodial services, and supports capital improvements for city buildings. The department operates five divisions: Business Operations, Custodial and Customer Care, Facility Maintenance and Operations, Capital Improvement, and Real Estate.
185 mentions
The Office of Economic Development is a City of Dallas department responsible for promoting Dallas as a diverse, equitable, and globally competitive business destination. It administers economic development incentive programs, including business development grants, tax abatements, community development loans, and real estate development incentives.
184 mentions
City of Dallas department providing direction and oversight of social, human, and supportive services related to affordable housing, homelessness solutions, fair housing compliance, and community empowerment. Works to increase affordable housing production, reduce homelessness, and improve quality of life for residents including seniors and children.
172 mentions
The City Attorney's Office serves as general counsel for the City of Dallas, providing transactional and advisory services, litigation services, and legal counsel to the city manager, council, boards, and commissions.
152 mentions
The Dallas Park and Recreation Department is a municipal department responsible for managing one of the nation's largest municipal park systems. It provides diverse leisure services including recreation programs, sports, arts, community activities, and facility management across parks, trails, recreation centers, and public facilities throughout Dallas.
140 mentions
Search Dallas Records
Meetings, agenda items, press releases, entities, and insights
We're in beta! Free full access to all reports. We'd love your feedback — ideas, thoughts, or issues are all welcome!
Email us or right from this page.