Citizen Portal
Sign In

Residents urge Farmers Branch Council to delay DART exit election if no agreement by Feb. 27

Farmers Branch City Council · February 4, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Three residents urged the council to pull the planned May ballot measure on leaving DART unless a new agreement is finalized by Feb. 27, arguing postponement until November would preserve leverage and allow the city to learn from peer cities.

Three Farmers Branch residents used the city council’s public-comment period to press elected officials to reconsider the timing of a planned May election on leaving DART if a new negotiated transit agreement is not in place by Feb. 27.

David Jones, who said he owns a home in Farmers Branch, told the council the original decision to hold a May election was not unanimous and urged the council to "pump the brakes, call off our election in May" if no agreement with DART is finalized by Feb. 27, proposing a November vote instead to retain leverage and learn from other member cities.

Chief Charles Cato, introduced as a transit police chief, presented station-level safety data and a long-term study he said shows transit systems do not increase neighborhood crime. "So at the Farmers Branch Station for 2025, we had 12 reported offenses," Cato said, and added that in January the station had no reported crimes. He said officers and DART employees together respond to calls and monitor stations.

Resident Rinkesh Desai echoed the timing concerns and asked the council to identify the potential costs to the city and the likely impact on residents who rely on DART. "February 27 is a really important date," Desai said, urging the council to consider delaying the May ballot so the city retains negotiating leverage.

The council did not take immediate formal action during public comment. The Feb. 27 deadline was raised repeatedly; speakers framed a later election as a strategic pause to preserve bargaining power and observe how exits by other cities affect service and costs. The council heard the comments and moved on to the consent agenda; no vote to change the May ballot date was recorded at this meeting.

Next procedural step: the Feb. 27 deadline remains in place; council members and staff will proceed according to existing calendar unless the council formally places a change on a future agenda.