Dallas commission reviews City Manager—s proposed FY2025—26 HUD Consolidated Plan budget; discusses $300,000 neighborhood clearance pilot

The Dallas Community Development Commission on Thursday reviewed the City Manager—s proposed FY2025—26 HUD Consolidated Plan budget and discussed a new Neighborhood Clearance and Enhancement pilot that would use $300,000 in CDBG funds for targeted demolition and clearance work.

Shane Williams, Assistant Director of the Grants Division in the City—s Budget and Management Services, told commissioners, "Tonight, we will be presenting to you the City Manager's Proposed FY2025—26 HUD Consolidated Plan budget," and described the package of federal grants and planning timeline. Williams said the presentation used preliminary estimates because final HUD allocations remain pending and the City proceeded under an assumption of level funding to meet statutory deadlines.

The Consolidated Plan groups four HUD entitlement grants: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA). Williams said the combined estimate for the current planning exercise mirrors last year—s total of $29,179,823 and that the annual action plan for FY2025—26 will be due to HUD no later than Aug. 16, 2025. He outlined key federal limits and program assumptions used to build the draft: the CDBG public-services cap of 15% and a 20% cap on certain oversight/administration activities, the HOME requirement that CHDO development assistance be funded at no less than 15% and HOME operating assistance be capped at 5%, and ESG limits including a 60% cap on emergency shelter and outreach and 7.5% cap on ESG administration.

Why it matters: the Consolidated Plan and annual action plan determine how the City can use HUD entitlement funds for affordable housing, homeless services, public improvements and human services. Those allocations fund programs such as homebuyer assistance, home improvement/rehabilitation, shelter and outreach and nonprofit facility improvements.

Key budget assumptions and program details

- Level funding assumption: Williams said the City is developing its FY2025—26 budget under a continuing-resolution-style assumption of level funding because HUD will provide final allocations only after the federal appropriation is published and HUD completes its 60-day post-appropriation process.

- Program income and reprogrammed funds: staff projected $200,000 in program income for CDBG and $500,000 for HOME and noted $1,069,286 in reprogrammed prior-year CDBG funds were available and being expedited to award for one-time public-improvement projects rather than held until Oct. 1.

- Specific program estimates: the Dallas Homebuyer Assistance Program was projected to support about 20 loans in the coming year. The Home Improvement and Preservation (HIP) program—initially listed at 40 households in the draft slides—was corrected in discussion to reflect 125 households under the program—s revised description. The Residential Development Acquisition Loan program was projected to support roughly 40 housing units in the coming year.

Neighborhood Clearance and Enhancement pilot

Williams described a new pilot, the Neighborhood Clearance and Enhancement program, to be administered by the Code Department. "The funds will focus on clearance, demolition, removal of buildings and other structures in targeted neighborhoods to eliminate hazards and reduce crime," Williams said, adding the stated purpose is to "enhance neighborhood conditions to attract new development, such as affordable housing and other economic initiatives." Commissioners pressed staff for details about targeted areas and the scale of work $300,000 could fund. Williams and other staff said Code provided information for target neighborhoods and that the item is being proposed as a small pilot; staff will provide more detail to committees, including specific sites or priorities.

Questions from commissioners and staff follow-up

Commissioner Howard asked for clarification on reprogrammed funds, saying, "If I recall correctly, didn't we reprogram $1,335,555? ... why did those two numbers differ?" Staff explained the difference derives from how amounts are presented across the current-year and next-year columns in the budget detail and said the larger reprogramming amount had been identified in the previous cycle but would not appear in next year—s column as a carried source for FY2025—26. Howard also sought historical performance figures for housing programs; staff said line-by-line, program-level accomplishments and additional detail would be provided at the committee meetings. Commissioner Davis requested the Code Department identify the neighborhoods that would be targeted; staff said Code would be prepared to provide that information to the Public Improvements Committee.

Commissioners also asked about potential impacts to staff (FTEs) if final HUD funding is reduced. Staff said many program positions are grant-funded and that any reduction in final grant awards could affect funded positions, but specific impacts cannot be determined until HUD announces final allocations; staff said they would include position-level information for affected programs in committee materials.

Next steps and schedule

Williams summarized the schedule for budget review: committee-level meetings in March will review line-by-line budgets; committees will report recommendations to the full commission on April 3; the City Council will consider the City Manager—s proposed budget and committee feedback in April and May, with a 30-day public review period beginning in mid-May. Preliminary local action is scheduled for May 14, a City Council public hearing on May 28, and final adoption of the FY2025—26 Consolidated Plan action plan on June 11, after which required materials will be submitted to HUD and the plan would take effect Oct. 1.

Administrative actions

At the start of the meeting commissioners approved the Community Development Commission minutes for the Feb. 6, 2025 meeting (motion moved and seconded; no dissent noted). Later, the commission adjourned at 6:48 p.m. after a motion to adjourn that passed without recorded opposition.

The commission set committee meeting dates for March (Public Improvements: March 17; Economic Development: March 17; Public Services/ESG: March 18; Citizen Participation and Policy & Procedures: March 18; Financial Monitoring and Citizen Participation moved to March 20 with times adjusted) and directed staff to send calendar invites and to provide the detailed line-by-line materials and supplemental information requested by commissioners.

The commission did not receive any public testimony at the meeting.

The commission—s discussion was advisory; staff emphasized that final grant awards from HUD will determine the final budget and that the City Manager may propose increases or decreases to balance the plan when HUD publishes final allocations. The items discussed will return to committee review and then to the full commission before City Council consideration.