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

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.