Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Rebuild Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews demolition-rebuild incentive; staff to return with legal memo and revised levels
Summary
Council discussed the city’s demolition-rebuild incentive (Resolution 2009-0118) and asked staff for a legal memo and updated participation levels; several council members favored keeping the program citywide while considering simplification and a one-time cash grant alternative.
The City Council reviewed the demolition-rebuild program on Tuesday and asked staff to return with a legal memorandum and proposed changes aimed at simplifying incentives and clarifying eligibility.
Perla Tavera summarized the existing program (Resolution 2009-0118, amended in 2009) as offering a cash and tax-rebate incentive based on land value of up to $30,000 plus a city property-tax rebate spread over seven years. She cited other cities’ models: Carrollton’s program pays 100% of demolition costs and a single payment equal to a city-only abatement, and Tyler’s program reimburses 100% of demolition costs.
The nut graf: Council discussion focused on whether to keep the program citywide, simplify incentives (one-time cash grants instead of multi-year abatements), and protect existing residents from outside investor advantages. Council asked staff to provide current program participation data, revised participation levels and a legal memo addressing potential fair-housing implications.
Councilmember Jackson said he opposed target-area restrictions and recommended dialing back multi-year abatements in favor of simpler, perhaps one-time, incentives that prioritize current Farmers Branch residents. Councilmember Neal said District 5 has used the program frequently and urged caution about complicating eligibility; several members favored keeping the program citywide. Councilmember Bennett asked staff to clarify how the tax abatement works in practice; staff said residents must pay property taxes annually and submit proof to receive reimbursement.
Council requested staff provide the current participation spreadsheet (historical permit counts and value comparisons), costs and return-on-investment data, and asked the city attorney to prepare a legal memo explaining whether residency-based limitations could raise fair-housing concerns. Staff said the materials and legal memo would be available when the item returns to council.
Ending: Council did not adopt changes on Tuesday; staff was directed to return with program data, proposed revised levels of participation and a legal memo for council consideration.
