[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6197329,"mediaKeyId","3853441-ebb813414dfadb09d132dcf16354ddea","parentId",3853441,"title","Council to seek repeal of Farmers Branch code provision limiting endorsements after election disputes","audioSeconds",840,"startMs",2116000,"endMs",2956000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3853441-ebb813414dfadb09d132dcf16354ddea&start=2116&end=2956","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3853441-ebb813414dfadb09d132dcf16354ddea/thumbnail_2116000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6197329/Farmers-Branch/Dallas-County/Texas/Council-to-seek-repeal-of-Farmers-Branch-code-provision-limiting-endorsements-after-election-disputes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6197329-f4822432c14f0d28752bd19bfcee600e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167488&Signature=IqUuWOVSsAjaVn0XbcDMei80KDv18qI6JRz4t9lXhOP0kD2sOycnJ6n6FrSWBvQf6r~Gy-ZeV2aFWgXSPeTeY4vk7lbLuEP6dDXR7AHnzlMQCF8Fdbz3VsOAHq57KMWm0cHPEt-sSkgeJu4NDUztgeDbXyAFmRY7fhnXhpTKYkdWJ3ofWysq5ldG~l~4P0oZJMXVHbuXutW19~OFfDHDRhDmUGrWXl-K8Ce5yDU2VhmT3eojf94Mb4MbH1cpQ7A~HYJmsqUCJTP0hR7u0TT4d2CtDmLP2N3jkXOZGwZ0udUwZj8lpACZHNPmivOAqM8D2MnXb9MQ9-9dogfLfdYXQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Framers Branch TX","date","2025-06-17T18:53:59Z","article","Farmers Branch city councilmembers discussed Ordinance 38‑11, the council code of ethics provision on endorsement of political candidates, during a lengthy June 17 study session and directed staff to prepare a repeal for the next council meeting.

Councilman Neal introduced the item, saying he brought it forward because “there may have been some clear violations of this ordinance” in the most recent election and to seek council feedback on whether to keep or amend the rule. The discussion grew contentious as councilmembers debated enforceability and the ordinance’s interaction with free‑speech rights.

Councilman Roman echoed a common legal concern: “the issue with it being enforceable was that it was a violation of the First Amendment,” a point other members and the city attorney acknowledged as a practical constraint on enforcement. Several councilmembers, including Councilwoman Bennett and Councilman Reed, said the provision was effectively unenforceable and should be removed from the code.

Councilwoman Villafranca described discomfort with negative, targeted campaign communications, saying elected officials should “live by higher standards” but asked whether the ordinance can be enforced. Other councilmembers recounted partisan‑tinged mailers delivered during the campaign that signaled national partisan messaging in a local, nonpartisan contest; several members said that history informed their view that the code was not achieving its intended effect.

Councilman Neal summarized his position: “I’d be in favor of removing this ordinance if it'd be the will of the council.” Aaron Flores, city secretary, confirmed staff received council direction and said staff would place a repeal action on the next council meeting agenda: “We have direction. It sounds like council wants us to bring forward an action item, actually repealing this section of the code of ethics, which we will do at the next council meeting.”

No formal vote to repeal was taken at the study session; council provided direction to staff to prepare a repeal for the regular meeting agenda. Members repeatedly cautioned that personal free‑speech rights remain and that any city code must account for constitutional limits.

The council instructed staff to prepare the repeal language and return the item for formal consideration at the next council meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Study Session June 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After heated debate over recent election mailers and enforcement limits, councilmembers directed staff to prepare an action item to repeal ordinance 38‑11 (city council code of ethics, section 2‑280) that addresses endorsement of political candidates.","taxTitle","Farmers Branch, Dallas County, Texas","taxId",56808,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6197334,"Farmers Branch sets timeline to reconvene charter review committee, council to submit nominees by July 7",552,1505000,2057000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3853441-ebb813414dfadb09d132dcf16354ddea&start=1505&end=2057","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3853441-ebb813414dfadb09d132dcf16354ddea/thumbnail_1505000.jpg","/articles/6197334/Farmers-Branch/Dallas-County/Texas/Farmers-Branch-sets-timeline-to-reconvene-charter-review-committee-council-to-submit-nominees-by-July-7","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6197334-c0a909456984d87b6150be04372e735c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167488&Signature=aPHQwdp8HOqXNWJSsYNbK26tVau4nbDECw62-xkjGXoAUfsf5~M9-AGamjlSYuSQYidrnPPUAFidDLyRfWxD79~Om9M1M4jEp4D7OLp2eRKfjFHOGZEWwxX8f~PMbRq3AyOoVlQ6KZOLO7Ht7kFsbXcQ6FWnCCWu6cmYRC4fawYDm3NRw6uBSbjrDH1SdQzjTASn2-w5JKNZo~j70hxqXzzdhCa8FWCzlETlN9xxJL8t~7VhFU~7j-IVWmyGbqznoyzFUxvRY7yu9Me1qJ3OuMMTPnqOgWESAuTR-e5hMNg4S~yrmOxD0gSxrodBJAS41aGR9VjG-mpNAs8jAkF6Nw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff outlined a proposed schedule to reconvene Farmers Branch’s charter review committee, and council members signaled a preference for placing proposed charter amendments on the May 2027 ballot, during a June 17 study session.

Aaron Flores, city secretary and deputy director of administrative services, presented the timeline and logistics. Flores said councilmembers and the mayor would submit nominees to the city manager by July 7; staff would present candidate slates for council deliberation on Aug. 5 and return an appointment slate for formal approval on Aug. 19. Council members were asked to identify specific charter topics for committee study when they submit nominees.

“The earliest that we could reconvene is November of 2026, or if we would like to have it on May of 2027 or May of 2028,” Flores said.

Council members discussed tradeoffs among the calendar options. Councilwoman Bennett Burton recommended May 2027 to allow the committee time to convene and deliberate and to avoid the extra cost of a standalone November election; Flores estimated the November option could cost around $30,000 depending on other ballot items and participating entities. Several council members supported leaving the committee empowered to choose its own chair after meeting together, subject to city charter constraints and attorney review.

Flores described the committee cadence and logistics: if appointed in August, the committee could begin meeting in September or early October and would likely meet twice a month, generally starting meetings between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m., with meetings recorded. Flores advised the council to submit nominees and topic lists promptly so staff could process applications, background checks and prepare the packet for the Aug. 5 study session.

Council direction included setting May 2027 as the preferred election date and asking council members to send two candidate names each by July 7. Councilmembers also asked staff to check whether the committee could choose its chair and to confirm the attorney’s availability for meetings.

No formal ordinance or charter amendment was adopted at the study session; the council set a timeline and instructed staff on next steps.

The council also discussed making sure the committee’s work is accessible to residents by scheduling meetings at times that encourage participation and ensuring appointed members can attend regularly.","Council members agreed in principle to reconvene a charter review committee and favored holding charter amendments in May 2027; staff outlined application deadlines, meeting cadence and an approximate cost if placed on a November 2026 ballot.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":79,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6197338,"Farmers Branch council narrows preference for demo‑rebuild incentives; staff to return with builder input",710,795000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3853441-ebb813414dfadb09d132dcf16354ddea&start=795&end=1505","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3853441-ebb813414dfadb09d132dcf16354ddea/thumbnail_795000.jpg","/articles/6197338/Farmers-Branch/Dallas-County/Texas/Farmers-Branch-council-narrows-preference-for-demorebuild-incentives-staff-to-return-with-builder-input","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6197338-8dd8f86e3c99d2a75c38a0760d5106a3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771167488&Signature=a4uIYKfvNcp3UWMU9-9wB23ke5cjZEstpjXoXgMoZT4AI0efsscpxLmvPgfaXqvp-7bmXktfQ58OFV~SGYU6wjQX6lVjqBqyArwhRk8K2xt6cREbZFaGEAJlMbsWZLMiny5QqXLmoMK25K~TX7Q-Csi4-NCeIlzQvOeUJJZH7DHMoz6SW0-zp53FLV3JU6R2JpC5qDU5eGf5doV9KKdMeMw7EIkgP9M6uYiOuySY3rPOFlUjVRq5pwHe9ClEI9Jm~OCzCb6wnE0UKvURilTF54srglmoXlSuxfcdsjivFGbhCnoEmZrC9EAlcS9KnwFvMgdOGXE9X~s~-jUy~SwiAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Mayor and Farmers Branch City Council members discussed revisions to the city’s demolition‑rebuild incentive program at a June 17 study session, signaling general support for a simplified, capped incentive that combines a three‑year tax rebate with a $10,000 cash grant and asking staff to gather additional input from developers before a final vote.

The discussion, led by Megan Holloway, economic development manager, reviewed developer feedback and two principal options: a four‑year tax rebate with either a $10,000 or $20,000 cash grant, and a three‑year tax rebate with the same $10,000 or $20,000 grant choices. Holloway said developers asked for “program simplification” and “a clear and consistent standard,” and staff recommended a single tier to make budgeting and administration easier.

“The program is a little complex and difficult to explain, so process, simplicity would make it more clear,” Holloway said.

The council debated cost, uptake and budgetary exposure. Council members asked for metrics on historic participation; Holloway provided all‑time participation by district and recent activity. “District 1 is 4 homes, District 2 is 18, District 3 is 21, District 4 is 17 and District 5 is 99,” she said, and added the program has had 23 participating homes so far this year. On average, Holloway said, each house represents about $30,000 to $40,000 in total incentive cost, with outliers on both sides.

Several council members voiced support for the three‑year rebate with the smaller cash grant. “I like option 2 with the, 3 year, the $10,000 grant,” said Councilwoman Bennett. Councilman Roman likewise said he was “fine with the 3 year tax rebate and $10,000 cash grant.” Other council members expressed sympathy for a larger $20,000 grant but acknowledged staff and developer feedback favor a simpler, fixed dollar amount for budgeting predictability.

Members also pressed staff to clarify how the program impacts homeowners already enrolled under older program terms. Holloway said existing participants would “finish out their term” under the original agreement and would not be forced onto the new schedule midterm.

Council members asked staff to return with more input from the developers who use the program and with budget figures that show potential liability if participation rises. The mayor noted average demolition costs around $7,500 and observed that “$10,000… is almost negligible” on higher‑value rebuilds, asking whether variable grants tied to assessed value should be considered; staff and several council members said adding such complexity would reintroduce the very rules the simplification seeks to remove.

Council direction was procedural: staff should collect additional developer feedback (noting Todd Bonneau and Sunstone Development as stakeholders mentioned in the meeting), confirm the budgeting impact if participation increases, and present a final, single‑tier option for formal council action at a subsequent meeting.

The council did not adopt new rules or vote on the program at the study session; members agreed to set the simplified three‑year rebate with the $10,000 grant as the leading option to be refined and returned for an action item.

The discussion ran through public questions about historical participation and budget impact and closed with staff confirming they would bring the specific recommended option and fiscal details back to the council for a vote.","Council members signaled support for a simplified demolition‑rebuild incentive featuring a three‑year tax rebate and a $10,000 grant and asked staff to gather builder feedback and return the proposal for formal action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council to seek repeal of Farmers Branch code provision limiting endorsements after election disputes

Farmers Branch sets timeline to reconvene charter review committee, council to submit nominees by July 7

Farmers Branch council narrows preference for demo‑rebuild incentives; staff to return with builder input