A letter from Mayor Pro Tem Tina Bennett-Burton

Editor’s Note: This is a letter sent from Mayor Pro Tem Tina Bennett-Burton to her newsletter list. The Branch Herald has lightly edited it, as it does most press releases. DART is an advertiser with Branch Herald. Our editorial independence policy does not allow advertisers to affect our editorial content.

Sent Sunday, Feb. 22, 7:15 p.m.

Dear Neighbors,

Many residents have asked why DART is on the ballot and what recent proposals actually mean. This email is meant to share clear, factual information so everyone can make an informed decision. There is also a meeting this Tuesday at 4 p.m. where DART will be discussed. Legally, we can NOT move the election to November. We can only call this specific election one time every six years. May was called. It is May or wait another six years. I’ve also heard a rumor that the county will withhold funding if we don’t rescind. FALSE. I was in the room for the conversation, as were 7 other people. That was not what was stated. To be exact, the statement was, “I have $1 million for your roads and bridges if you rescind, but if you don’t, you won’t get it.”

Why is there a vote?

Several DART member cities, including ours, have a called a May 2026 election to decide whether to remain in or withdraw from DART. This follows long-standing concerns raised by residents and city leaders about safety, service quality, accountability and long-term costs.

For those that don't care about the details click here for short version.

What has DART proposed in response?

DART has offered a 6-year Interlocal Agreement (ILA) called the General Mobility Program (GMP). Their date is 2031, however, the transportation code supersedes and that date is 2032.

Part 1: What the agreement promises

1. Funding offer
   • Starts at 5% of DART sales tax collections in FY 2026
   • Increases by 1% per year
   • Caps at 7.5% from DART, plus up to 2.5% from the Regional Transportation Council
   • Maximum total = 10% of DART sales tax by FY 2031

Over six years: About $11.6 million for Farmers Branch (likely closer to $15 million including grants and county funds)

City allocations are proportional to sales tax contribution, not service usage.

2. Eligible uses

Cities may use funds for:

• • Paratransit, medical transport
  • Shuttles/circulators
  • Street, sidewalk and station-area improvements
  • Parking, pedestrian access

Operating costs for DART services (under separate agreements)

All projects require DART approval or automatic approval after deadlines.

3. Timing and conditions
   • Cities must execute the ILA by April 30, 2026
   • Funds paid annually starting Oct. 1
   • Funds can be delayed if DART sales tax underperforms
   • Unused funds must be returned by 2033
   • Withdrawal before 2031 = funds stop and unspent money is repaid.

Part 2: What cities give up

This is the part that matters most – and is easiest to miss.

1. Withdrawal leverage is neutralized
   • If a city rescinds its election, it is locked in until 2032
   • If it proceeds with an election:
     1. GMP funds are suspended
     2. If withdrawal succeeds, all remaining funds are forfeited.

This makes the GMP a pressure-release valve, not a structural reform.

2. Legislative handcuffs

Cities agree to:

• • Not pursue any legislation to reduce or impair DART’s 1% sales tax
  • Even indirect lobbying can trigger forfeiture of funds

This is unusually restrictive for an interlocal agreement.

3. No bond protection

The ILA:

• • Does not cap a city’s exposure to future DART debt
  • Does not exempt cities from the proposed $2 billion bond (Nov. 2026)
  • Does not link funding to service guarantees

Cities receive GMP funds and still absorb long-term bond debt.

Part 3: Financial reality check

Key financial red flags

1. GMP funding is not in DART’s long-term plan

• • FY 2028-2031 payments are not included in the 20-year financial plan

2. Sales tax growth is assumed
   • Estimates rely on 3.8% annual growth
   • If growth slows, payments can be delayed or pressured.
3. RTC money is fixed, not guaranteed beyond approval
   • $75 million is approved, but requires a separate agreement later through the state legislature

Part 4: Governance & accountability improvements

• “Most Favored Nation” clause (no city gets a better deal)
• Automatic approval if DART misses deadlines
• Dispute resolution elevated to City Manager/DART CEO

Missing:

• No service-level metrics
• No safety benchmarks
• No enforcement if service deteriorates
• No audit of past cost allocation or debt attribution

Bottom-line assessment:

What this ILA is:

• A temporary financial concession
• Designed to stop May 2026 withdrawal elections
• Buys DART time and political stability
• Shifts the debate from “should we stay?” to “how do we spend the rebate?”

What it is not:

• Not a restructuring of DART
• Not a service guarantee
• Not a debt protection mechanism
• Not a long-term reform
• Not a safety reform

Decision-framing insight

This agreement reduces short-term political risk for DART but does not reduce long-term financial or service risk for cities.

It trades leverage (withdrawal + legislation) for cash flow, while leaving the biggest exposure – future debt and service quality – untouched.

Final thought

No matter how you feel about DART, the most important things are that residents have accurate information and a voice. Please take time to review the facts and ask questions. I have added a PDF of what I’m calling People Pillars so you can compare/contrast the data. I simply used all the documentation that has been shared publicly.

We [Farmers Branch City Council] start strategic planning this Tuesday as well.

Thank you for staying engaged in our community.

Sincerely,