Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Garden topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmers Branch board hears that community garden move is not imminent; staff to locate potential sites
Summary
Board members were briefed on outreach about relocating the community garden, were told two possible city-owned sites exist, and agreed to inspect those sites; staff said the garden currently sits on church-owned property and any move is expected in the future but not imminent.
Members of the Farmers Branch Parks and Recreation Board were updated on June outreach about a possible relocation of the community garden and agreed to gather more information on two potential replacement sites.
Board liaison Robert (staff) summarized contacts with elected officials and fellow board members, saying Councilmember Tina Bennett Burton initially told staff she believed a move was imminent but later corrected that assessment. “I was wrong,” the liaison reported the councilmember as saying after she confirmed the timing with Ben Williamson, according to the board discussion. Board members were also told the garden currently sits on property believed to be owned by a church.
The board’s discussion focused on two potential relocation areas identified in preliminary conversations: a parcel south of the Minsky (Mansky) Library and north of the fire station, and an area south of the larger rose garden near Valley Drive. Staff said both sites were reported to have parking and are on city property, which the board said would be preferable to the current church-owned site.
Board members said most elected officials they contacted support the community garden but differ on timing and cost concerns. Roger Veil and others expressed that the garden should stay in its current location unless relocation is absolutely necessary because of cost. David Reed (Position 3) and Omar Roman (Position 1) were reported as generally supportive of the garden but cautious about an unnecessary move.
Board members directed staff to confirm precise locations for the two potential sites and to arrange a site visit for board members to inspect them. Staff also said the city’s upcoming budget work in July may surface additional information about timing or funding, and the board will revisit the item at its August meeting if new budget details emerge.
Board members emphasized the difference between the initial report that a move was imminent and the corrected information that a sale or relocation is possible at some undefined future date. The board asked staff to bring back precise site locations and any budget implications so members can conduct an on-site review before making further recommendations.
The board did not take any formal action or vote on relocation; the discussion was informational and resulted in direction to staff to collect site details and schedule inspections.
