Farmers Branch board says community garden stays in place for now while city identifies two potential relocation sites

The Farmers Branch Parks and Recreation Board was told the community garden currently operating on church-owned land will remain where it is for the near term, even as city officials identify two potential replacement sites and seek more information on their suitability.

Board and staff members said the garden, which produces a large volume of donated produce and is supported by staff with water and supplies, is located on property owned by a nearby church and therefore not guaranteed long-term. Parks and Recreation Director Robert Diaz told the board city council members have identified two possible alternative locations: a sloped parcel south of Manske Library and north of the fire station on Webb Chapel Road, and a second site described as south of Gussie Field Waterwork Park. Diaz said the city has not decided to move the garden and that identifying alternate properties is a preliminary step so the board can evaluate options if the church sells or redevelops its property.

The board heard that operational support for the garden will continue in the coming budget cycle. Robert Diaz said, "at this point, the funding is gonna continue as is," and that staff will continue to pay for water and supplies and provide regular onsite assistance. Garden volunteers told the board the church currently covers the cost of background checks for gardeners; that expense is not being borne by the city while the garden remains on church property.

Board members asked staff to identify precisely which parcel is described as "south of Gussie Field" so members can inspect both candidate sites and report back. The board did not vote on relocation, and members repeatedly stressed there is no plan to move the garden immediately.

Several board members raised cost and logistics questions about any future move: irrigation, grading for the Webb Chapel site (described as sloped), and costs to reconstruct beds, water lines and access at a different site. Barbara Leedy emphasized the likely expense, saying she feared a move would be "very expensive" and advocated remaining on the current site as long as possible.

The board asked staff to return with clarified site mapping and an opportunity for members to tour any nominated parcels before making recommendations to council. No formal action to relocate was taken; the discussion was recorded as direction to gather more detail and to continue current operational support.

The board also confirmed that the garden’s current volunteer and city staffing arrangements—including plot assignments, orientations and on-site city staff hours—will continue under the existing approach until any formal relocation decision.

The board asked staff to add the two candidate parcels to a future agenda once precise locations are verified so members can visit and provide input.

Ending: Staff will return with maps and clearer parcel identifications for the two potential sites; the board will visit the sites before discussing any recommendation to city council.