Council declines support for TxDOT application for Inwood-area trail; budget and outreach concerns cited
Loading...
Summary
A proposed city resolution to support a Texas Department of Transportation Transportation Alternatives application for a planned trail near Inwood was denied after councilmembers raised budget-match and public-engagement concerns.
The Farmers Branch City Council on June 3 voted to deny Resolution No. 2025‑071, which would have supported the city's application to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 2025 Transportation Alternatives set‑aside for a trail/active-transportation project near Inwood.
Ray Silvarez, director of public works, introduced the item and turned it to Maria Minter, managing superintendent of public works, for details. Minter said the project aligns with the trail master plan and other city planning documents and that staff had conducted outreach including a draft active transportation plan, a public meeting with roughly 40 attendees and a resident survey with about 300 responses. "Based on this project, we've met a lot of this criteria, and it's gonna score highly based on some of the action that we've already taken," Minter told the council.
Councilmembers voiced objections about the speed and timing of the application and the possibility of a required city match. Councilmember Roman said he supported the general idea but objected to not having an opportunity to work collaboratively to prioritize projects with council and the public before pursuing grant applications. Councilmember Neal raised a specific budget concern: he warned the city could become responsible for an approximately $800,000 local obligation if the project moved forward and said the application deadline — the detailed application was due June 20 — made timing difficult amid an expected flat city budget.
Staff replied that the project had been partially designed in 2020 and that council-level plans had identified the corridor as a priority in earlier planning processes; staff also said the application stage advanced from a preliminary submission in February and that the detailed application was now due June 20. After discussion, Councilmember (motion) moved to deny Resolution No. 2025‑071; the motion carried.
Councilmembers and staff said long‑standing planning documents had identified active‑transportation priorities and that the council could revisit such projects in future budget cycles if it wishes to pursue them with a clearer local funding plan.
