Planning & Community Development Committee Meeting – May 26, 2026

The Planning and Community Development Committee (PCDC) met on May 26, 2026, from 10:01 a.m. to 11:34 a.m. to discuss three major items: enhancements to the vacant and nuisance property program, updates to the process for naming city facilities, and an overview of the community’s homeless response system. The committee received staff presentations, heard council member input, and provided direction for future action.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously by voice vote (motion and second received, all in favor, none opposed).

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public testimony was delivered. One individual (Cynthia Cavasus) was signed up but not present.

Discussion Items

1. Vacant & Nuisance Property Program and Policy Enhancements (Council Consideration Request from Councilmember Terry Castillo)

• Presentation: Amin Tomas, Development Services Director, explained the current program covers about 30–35% of the city (specific areas only) and only vacant structures (not lots). The program has four employees managing over 1,000 active cases. The CCR sought changes in three areas: property registration and inspections, fines/penalties/enforcement, and acquisition/receivership.
• Council Discussion: Councilmember Castillo expressed support for expanding the program citywide, pursuing an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the county for foreclosure of tax-delinquent properties, and implementing a sliding-scale registration fee that distinguishes between owners of multiple vacant properties and those who inherited a single property. Councilmember McCord advocated for expanding the program citywide and improving public data transparency (e.g., a dashboard or using the Telemi tool at an estimated $200,000/year). She favored an escalating fine structure that starts at zero for voluntary registration and increases with repeat citations, but with flexibility for new owners. Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez asked for a breakdown of the 1,000 active cases by council district and noted the need for a strategy differentiating residential and commercial vacant properties. Councilmember Mungia supported prioritizing the ILA with the county and requested a cost‑benefit analysis of addressing vacant buildings. Councilmember Gavin echoed support for the ILA and asked about progress; staff reported initial conversations with the county (which is now more open than 4–5 years ago). Councilmember Castillo also suggested using housing bond dollars to acquire properties and partnering with community land trusts like Esperanza or Merced for rehabilitation.
• Receivership Details: City Attorney Savita and Deputy City Manager John provided additional explanation. Receivership requires an identified third party willing to front costs; the city cannot be a receiver. Dallas has the tool but struggles to find receivers.

2. Updating Procedures for Naming City Facilities (CCR from former Councilmember Adriana Rocha Garcia)

• Presentation: Jamie Nieto, Assistant City Clerk, presented proposed changes: expand notification from a 200‑foot radius to 500 feet, require two public hearings (instead of one) if mail‑in responses show 50% or more opposition, require hearings be held near the facility, form an odd‑numbered committee that includes a relevant city board (rather than always the Parks Foundation), and prohibit committee members from being related to the requesting council member. Staff did not recommend allowing the committee to suggest alternate names without a new process.
• Council Discussion: Councilmember McCord supported the proposals as “non‑controversial” and noted that the CCR aimed to increase community participation and prevent self‑dealing. Councilmember Castillo expressed concern that allowing other names during the same process could create competing coalitions; she suggested that if 50% of returned feedback opposed the proposed name, the process should stop, and the sponsoring council member could then decide whether to restart with a new name. Councilmember Mungia agreed with that approach. Councilmember Gavin supported the idea of the committee voting down a name if significant feedback opposes it, then restarting the process for a new name. Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez noted the usefulness of greater notification. The committee generally agreed that alternative names should require a new process, not be substituted in the same hearing.

3. Overview of the Homeless Response System

• Presentation: Mark Armun, Chief Housing Officer and Director of Homeless Services & Strategy, provided a system overview. Key statistics from FY25: prevention helped over 5,000 households; 85% of short‑term rental assistance applicants did not enter homelessness; 2,805 unsheltered individuals were sheltered or housed; 1,440 site abatements conducted; 54,000 hot meals served at Corazon Day Center; 2,312 of 5,200+ emergency shelter residents (44%) exited to a higher level of housing; 71% of interim housing residents exited to positive destinations; 94% of housing voucher recipients stayed housed; 96% of permanent supportive housing clients stayed housed. The system includes 13 agencies for prevention, 8 for street outreach, 13 for emergency shelter, and 12 for housing retention. Coordination occurs through biweekly “homeless huddles” with city‑funded CEOs, funder meetings, and the Close to Home governance system.
• Council Discussion: Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez requested including medical center partners (e.g., UT Health, Methodist) in the homeless huddle. Councilmember Mungia suggested monthly briefings for council staff. Councilmember McCord asked for a detailed breakdown of outcomes by agency and by council district, including dollar amounts invested. Councilmember Castillo asked for data on caseloads per COSA outreach worker (minimum 15, normal ~30) and requested staff to assess whether more outreach workers are needed. Councilmember Gavin inquired about coordination with the jail system and re‑entry; staff noted existing jail diversion programs (e.g., Haven for Hope) and ongoing work with the Integrated Community Safety Office and re‑entry office to better connect data. Councilmember Castillo also advocated for expediting zoning/UDC changes to support shelter providers and for council member field trips to showcase successful housing models.

Key Outcomes

• Vacant & Nuisance Property Program: Staff will refine recommendations based on committee feedback—specifically expanding the program citywide, exploring an escalating fine structure, continuing the ILA with the county, and providing a district‑level map of active cases. Staff will return to PCDC with proposed program adjustments and a capacity assessment.
• Naming of City Facilities: Staff will incorporate the committees direction: expand notification to 500 feet, require two hearings if >50% opposition, form an odd‑numbered committee with a relevant city board, and prohibit naming after a council member’s relative. Alternative names will require a new process. Staff will bring a revised proposal to a future PCDC meeting.
• Homeless Response System: Staff will provide a more detailed breakdown of outcomes by agency (including dollar amounts), by council district (in a confidential memo for safety), and by intervention type. Staff will also explore monthly briefings for council staff and coordinate with medical providers and the re‑entry system. No formal vote was taken; the presentation was for informational purposes and to guide future planning.