Dallas City Council Special Meeting: City Hall Repair and Relocation Discussion - June 10, 2026
Dallas City Council Special Meeting: City Hall Repair and Relocation Discussion - June 10, 2026
On June 10, 2026, the Dallas City Council held a special called meeting to discuss financial considerations for public safety facilities, potential relocation of the 911 and Emergency Operations Center (EOC), a phased repair plan for City Hall, and potential relocation of City Hall. The meeting included a detailed presentation from the city manager and chief financial officer, followed by public testimony and a vote on a resolution to authorize a phased City Hall repair strategy (Agenda Item 3). After extended debate and several failed amendments, the council voted 9-6 to deny the repair proposal and instead direct the city manager to continue exploring site disposition options.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Kevin Walker (CEO, Dallas Citizens Council): Urged council to vote no on Item 3, stating the decision is about the next 50 years, not the next budget, and encouraged moving from analysis to action.
- Melissa Lara (Co-founder, Bicole): Supported relocation, arguing that investing in City Hall repairs would be a missed opportunity for economic development and that Dallas needs bold vision.
- Robert Walters (former Police and Fire Pension Board member): Opposed repairs, stating the cost of rehabilitating the building is far too great and would reduce funding for parks, police, and potholes.
- Amanda Moreno Lake (business owner, District 1): Urged a no vote, citing multiple expert estimates that show repairing the aging facility is not a good long-term investment.
- Jim Lake (developer): Supported relocation, comparing the City Hall site to Victory Park, which grew from $16 million to $2.5 billion in tax value after redevelopment.
- Michael Tregoning (president, Hedington Companies): Warned against under-budgeting repairs based on his experience with historic renovations.
- Michael Ablon (developer, Bank of America Plaza area): Supported relocation as a transformative economic development opportunity, stating that $500–$650 million in deferred maintenance is not prudent.
- Luke Jokel (downtown resident): Supported relocation, speaking for his generation in favor of growth and creating interesting places.
- Adam Cross (downtown business owner): Opposed repairs, stating downtown is dying and that spending hundreds of millions on a "decaying mausoleum" would harm small businesses.
- Kishan Vashi (hotel owner near City Hall): Supported relocation, noting that guests feel unsafe walking near City Hall and that the area needs revitalization.
- Arthur Santa Maria: Urged a no vote, arguing that a declining downtown harms Southern Dallas and that the wrong move could pull investment away from the southern sector.
- Sana Saeed (president, Farmers Market Stakeholders Association): Urged a no vote, calling for reimagining downtown to attract investment and talent.
- Jose Avila: Supported relocation, thanking council members ready to vote for Dallas's future and criticizing the TRO that blocked the relocation vote but not Item 3.
- Jennifer Scripps (president/CEO, Downtown Dallas Inc.): Urged not to spend hundreds of millions on repairs, but instead to invest in community needs and plan a vibrant urban core.
- Frank Michalopoulos (Corinth Properties): Opposed repairs, calling it a "generational opportunity" to free up 50 acres for a campus next to the convention center.
- Amy Tharp (COO, Downtown Dallas Inc.): Urged rejecting a costly repair strategy to support residential growth and long-term success.
- Osmar Reyes: Supported relocation, stating Dallas has lost too much already and needs to reinvest in infrastructure.
- Kanti Sharesh (business owner, District 8): Supported relocation, asking council to have the vision to leave Dallas better than they found it.
- Mark Nunley (CPA): Opposed repairs, stating the fully loaded cost to stay is $1.49–$1.6 billion versus $482 million to relocate, yielding over $1 billion in savings.
- Kirk Presley (District 6 resident): Opposed repairs, citing Boston's City Hall renovation that ballooned from $225 million to over $1 billion.
- Jamie Jolly (president/CEO, Real Estate Council): Opposed repairs, supporting redevelopment of the City Hall site as a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
- Rudy Kareemy (District 14): Opposed repairs, analogizing that tenants bear all costs in commercial real estate and that the city should not treat taxpayers that way.
- Michael Weisberg (native Dallasite): Supported repairs, arguing that scraping an iconic I.M. Pei landmark is reckless and that the forced timetable is suspicious.
- Sarah Crane (executive director, Preservation Dallas): Supported repairs, saying the city can have both a vibrant downtown and a repaired City Hall, and that the process needs a thoughtful comprehensive strategy.
- Stephanie Drenka: Supported repairs, quoting I.M. Pei and arguing the building represents the will of the people and should be restored.
- Jessica Stewart Lindvey: Supported repairs, stating the numbers from consultants are rough order of magnitude and not meant for final decisions, and that the building is a model of democracy.
- Mike Davis: Supported relocation, urging use of City Hall as a down payment on the future for downtown hospitality, restaurant, and nightlife uses.
- Mark Grace: Supported repairs, encouraging council to move forward in leadership and vote yes.
- Joanna Hampton (Swiss Avenue resident): Supported repairs, asking for a compelling vision for the site and noting the building is meant to last 200–400 years.
- Abigail Clausen: Supported repairs, arguing the building is not the cause of downtown's problems and that taxpayers deserve better than to see it discarded.
- Belle Bettson (South Oak Cliff): Supported repairs, citing the successful renovation of South Oak Cliff High School as an example of responsible investment in public assets.
- Debbie Orozco Solis (neighborhood association leader): Supported repairs, asking for transparency and more community meetings before any decision on relocation.
- PJ Moton: Opposed repairs, stating city employees deserve a modern work environment and residents deserve a civic home worthy of a 21st-century city.
- Michaela Watkins (District 2): Supported repairs, asking for full transparency and comparative data, and noting the potential impact on unhoused individuals in the area.
- Kristen Atwell (marketing firm owner): Supported downtown vitality but questioned the rush and lack of detailed information.
- Kate Parish (District 2): Supported repairs, asking not to let City Hall become another disinvested public asset.
- Ruben Landa (president, Greater Dallas Planning Council): Opposed repairs, saying the council has a fiduciary duty to spend wisely and that the cost to renovate is too high.
- Ed Zara (District 14): Supported repairs, arguing that owning is better than renting and that lease options will have the same end-of-service-life costs.
- Benjamin Boyer: Opposed repairs, suggesting the city should consider decentralizing services and modernizing service delivery digitally.
- Marcel Quimby (District 14): Supported repairs, asking for a full comparison of all options before making a decision.
- Sydney Walker (District 7): Opposed the repair plan, questioning why Class A office standards were used for renovation estimates and asking where money for relocation would come from.
- Jedediah Ulrich (District 1): Supported repairs, arguing the building can be an anchor for downtown with housing built nearby rather than tearing it down.
- Ariana Smith (downtown homeowner): Opposed repairs, supporting redevelopment to bring investment, jobs, and energy to downtown.
- Betty Neal (46-year Dallas resident): Opposed repairs, stating $600 million would only cover deferred maintenance and that funds could be better spent on street maintenance, parks, and libraries.
- Sam Williams (District 9): Supported repairs, citing lack of relocation cost data and questioning why business interests are prioritized over community needs.
- Ronnie Mestis (West Dallas): Supported repairs, criticizing the process as non-transparent and arguing that historical buildings should be preserved.
- Joe Tave (District 3): Opposed repairs, calling for relocation to unlock redevelopment and generate revenue for neighborhoods, especially Southern Dallas.
- Yolanda Williams: Opposed repairs, criticizing council members who claim insufficient data and urging a vote against Item 3.
- David Voss (District 2): Supported repairs but argued the proposed plan is too expensive and includes excessive contingency allowances; voted for a better plan.
- Kevin Pfeiffer: Supported repairs, citing available ARPA funds and urging council to do the right thing and save City Hall.
- Erica Cole: Criticized the process, saying council works for the people and should provide complete information on relocation costs and plans.
- Jim DePetris (native Dallasite, downtown resident): Supported relocation, noting the high cost of renovating old buildings and that City Hall could move into an existing tower.
- Ann Harrington: Supported repairs, asking leaders to slow down, listen to residents, and keep the people's voice at the center.
- Diane Birdwell: Supported repairs, accusing developers of not caring about South Dallas and stating the public is not being heard.
- Jeanette Bridges: Called for an apples-to-apples comparison of 30-year costs for staying vs. leaving before any decision.
- Isaias Alvarez: Questioned why a detailed repair plan is being compared to a relocation concept, and asked for a full cost analysis including land acquisition and 30-year costs.
- Meredith Jones: Supported repairs, arguing leasing forever does not make financial sense and that the city must fix its pattern of asset neglect.
- Donna Denson: Supported repairs, asking for a complete accounting of costs before abandoning a structurally sound public asset.
- Catherine Garrison: Supported repairs, noting that council members themselves say they lack complete cost numbers, and calling for transparency.
- Gail Grace (District 1): Opposed relocation, stating the building and campus are not the cause of downtown's problems.
- Alex Scott (District 9): Suggested strategic contracting to find savings, and opposed the repair plan.
- Sean Pease (president, Dallas Police Association): Supported public safety facility investments but did not directly address City Hall.
- Harrison Blair: Opposed repairs, saying there are hundreds of other budget needs and that young families do not want a $600 million bill for one asset.
- Christopher Weiss (District 2 resident/business owner): Called for deferring the vote and holding a public bond referendum on all options.
- Peter Young (Holland Park resident): Supported repairs, urging council to stop listening to developers and oligarchs.
- Cynthia Michaels (president, Kessler Heights/Oak Cliff): Supported repairs, arguing that repair costs are inflated by unnecessary code upgrades, and that the process has been rushed.
- Michael Emanette: Opposed relocation, stating that government buildings are not economic engines and that giving up an I.M. Pei building for an abandoned office tower is not a good deal.
- Andrew Chabutaru: Supported repairs, arguing the $500–$600 million repair estimate is artificially inflated to justify an agenda.
- Sarob Gupta: Opposed repairs, citing the $532–$614 million cost to maintain the building and arguing that money should go to street repairs and public safety.
- Preeti Gupta: Opposed repairs, saying modernizing the aging infrastructure will cost hundreds of millions and that relocation is a forward-thinking path.
- Bruce Richardson: Supported repairs, referencing a professional report that disagrees with the process.
- Jim Anderson (additional speaker): Supported repairs, warning that leasing land for City Hall could cost $400–$500 million in rent over 20 years, comparable to repair costs.
- Naomi Green (community advocate): Opposed repairs, urging that taxpayer dollars be spent wisely on neighborhoods.
Discussion Items
-
Presentation by City Manager Kimberly Tolbert and CFO Jack Ireland:
- Reviewed the history of underinvestment in City Hall since 1978 and provided updated cost estimates for a 10-year phased repair plan: $532 million to $614 million from consultants, with a separate corrective repair and modernization scenario costing $769.8 million (capital) and $1.5 billion total including interest and 20-year operating costs.
- Presented public safety facility needs: $441 million for law enforcement training center shortfall ($82M), public safety training complex ($149M), 911/EOC relocation ($40M), property room/evidentiary vehicle storage ($150M), and fire station #4 replacement ($20M).
- Discussed pension obligation bonds as a tool to shift general fund costs to debt service, noting risks and that the city already has a 30-year funding plan in place.
- CBRE's Peter Jensen reported that market exploration shows material savings opportunities from relocation, with multiple financing options (lease-to-own, purchase, etc.) that could consolidate city operations and generate revenue.
- Slides showed that using debt for repairs would slow the 2024 bond program from three to six years and reduce the 2029 bond program capacity from $1.1 billion to $330 million.
- Cash funding would require a tax rate increase of about 7 cents (equivalent to $212/year on median home) or massive cuts to other departments (e.g., 20% cut to non-public-safety departments, elimination of 2,200 civilian employees).
-
Council Questions and Debate:
- Mayor Johnson asked about consequences of delaying bond projects, noting that costs escalate and residents' expectations may not be met.
- Chairman Ridley questioned the pension obligation bond proposal, stating it is not required and the city is already on track to fully fund pensions; he argued the current market conditions make POBs unattractive.
- Councilmember Stewart questioned the justification for co-locating the property room and evidentiary storage, asking for metrics on efficiency gains. He also asked about the need to replace Fire Station #4.
- Councilmember Roth asked about bond authorization timelines, flexibility in issuing bonds, and call provisions.
- Councilmember Blair asked about the impact on taxpayers and how her district (District 8) can get needed infrastructure if large amounts of debt capacity are used for City Hall.
- Councilmember West proposed a motion to deny the phased repair strategy (Item 3) and direct the city manager to continue exploring options for City Hall site disposition, with a report due by August 26, 2026.
- Several council members expressed support for the repair plan (Mendelsohn, Basilduea, Cadena, Roth, Blackman) and argued that the repair costs are exaggerated because they include upgrades beyond critical repairs. Ridley offered an amendment to create a repair plan focused only on critical needs, which failed 6-9.
- Basilduea offered an amendment to the West motion to include demolition cost, environmental impact, and disposal plan, which was further amended by Mendelsohn to include specifics on demolition timeline, landfill impact, and move-out costs. These amendments also failed after votes.
- The final vote on the underlying motion (West's motion to deny Item 3) passed 9-6.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to Deny Item 3 (Phased City Hall Repair Strategy): Passed 9-6. The motion directs the city manager to continue following the March 4, 2026 resolution, subparagraph 3, to explore options for the disposition of the City Hall site and bring those options back to the city council no later than August 26, 2026.
- Failed Amendments:
- Ridley amendment for a critical-needs-only repair plan: Failed 6-9.
- Basilduea amendment to include demolition, environmental, and disposal costs: Failed 7-8.
- Mendelsohn amendment to the Basilduea amendment (specifics on demolition timeline, landfill impact, road damage): Failed 5-9.
- Basilduea's second attempt at a similar amendment: Failed 7-8.
- Next Steps: The city council will not proceed with the proposed Phase 2 repair strategy at this time. The city manager is to continue researching site disposition options and report back by August 26, 2026. A potential bond election on November 3, 2026, for pension obligation bonds and public safety facilities remains under consideration, with the call date of August 12, 2026.
Meeting Transcript
An hour from now, and we'll call to order the special call meeting at 10 03. So we are now in the special call meeting, and I'll turn it over to our city manager to lead us through our briefing agenda for today. Madam City Manager. Thank you, Mr. Bearing. Good morning to the city council. The first item on the agenda for the special call meeting is a presentation on the financial analysis and funding considerations for priority of our public safety facilities, potential relocation of 911 and our emergency operations center, potential repair plans for city hall, and potential relocation. All of these items have previously been briefed and discussed with the city council, either in open session or executive session. And we were asked to return to discuss financial considerations in a much more deeper perspective and be able to bring that back to you. I do want to take an opportunity to make some additional comments. Since 1978, when Dallas City Hall opened, the city has historically underinvested and underfunded maintenance repairs and modern updates in this building. We understand why. The focus has always been on making sure that the priorities of our residents, whether public safety, parks, libraries, and streets, were important. And these priorities united councils to pass budgets and fund fund programs that supported those priorities. Now, 48 years later, in 2026, you face a huge decision because of those priorities. So I want to give you a quick reminder of the process. In May and June of 2025, six months after I was appointed as the interim city manager, I brought to this council a briefing documenting the urgent need to reinvest in our public facilities, including City Hall. In August of 2025, Mayor Johnson directed the Council Finance Committee to examine City Hall's conditions and began exploring financially responsible options. In October 2025, staff engaged outside experts who came and reported on deferred maintenance needs and structural repairs, roof, HVAC electrical and plumbing, and we provided to this city council an estimate between 152 million and 345 million in November of 2025. This council directed the city manager to evaluate the possibility of how we could look at key other city departments and where they operated and whether lease and revine or building office space was essential in December of 2025. They inspected systems and structures so that we could move from the evidence that we were told did not have facts and bring the data to this city council. In February of 2026, those findings were presented first to the finance committee and later to the full city council. The analysis concluded that restoration and repairs to the building, just to bring it up to code, was an estimated 329 million. And that did not include code or ADA repairs. The council asked for more information March 4th of 2026. I then engaged a set of new consultants to come and validate the work, refine the scope, and recommend as council requested a 10-year phased repair plan, even with charter plans and the addition of construction efficiencies. Those consultants have now reported that projected costs are between 532 million and 614 million over the next decade. So today's information is to help you have that deeper understanding of the financials and how you consider this important decision, but it is not because staff has not provided this city council with the information that you have requested. We understand that these decisions affect our residents, our taxpayers, public safety, economic development, and so much more. And we understand that these decisions are hard. And how we plan today for the city for the future. And at this time, I'll turn it over to our chief financial officer, Jack Ireland, to deliver today's briefing. Thank you. Good morning, Mayor and members of the City Council, and thank you, Ms. Tolbert. So beginning the presentation, as Ms. Tolbert mentioned, on slide two, we will talk through public safety facility needs, which has been a question, discuss potential relocation of 911, emergency operations center, potential relocation of City Hall, potential repair program for City Hall, and bringing this information to you at the request of the City Council to bring the financial information to you at one time. So on slide three, as we started working on this, we knew it was important to be mindful of many things, mindful of our taxpayers, mindful of any impact on public safety, on core city services, how we deliver and implement the 2024 bond program, what opportunities we have for economic development and growth of our tax base, impact on our debt and future debt capacity, as well as our impact on our current and future annual operating budgets. And so if we turn to slide four, thinking about our current and uh upcoming annual budgets, just wanted to pull a slide that we shared with you on May the sixth that talked about some of the challenges that we face from a financial perspective for our annual budget. As you know, uh we have limitations on our property tax revenue because of state cap, and the state is also considering expanding that cap. Uh we have sales tax that this year we've seen some contraction and some uh less revenue than we had anticipated. We anticipate that that will continue. As you know, we continue to work on meet and confer agreements to ensure uh with our police and fire uniform employees that we have competitive uh salaries. Uh, our pension contributions, which we've spoken about and which we'll speak about uh as part of this presentation, those costs uh will grow as we uh implement the funding plan that this council and the board approved. We have we know that we have a goal of hiring more police officers. We have to stay competitive with our non-uniform salaries. We've seen this year a rising cost in our employee health benefits. Uh we're here partly because of deferred uh facility maintenance, and even after this facility is addressed, there is deferred maintenance in all of our other hundreds of buildings that the city operates. Uh, we do anticipate elimination or reduction in federal funds, and then there's a lot of uncertainty about the economic condition, uh, whether it's inflation, tariffs, supply chain, and other types of factors. So we realize and know and shared with you on March May the sixth the challenges that we'll be facing.
openpublica.com