Fort Worth staff propose $12.9 million 'a la carte' street maintenance packages as backlog remains

Fort Worth City staff presented an "a la carte" menu of street‑maintenance funding packages to the Fort Worth City Council during a May 13 special budget work session, saying the city still faces a multi‑year funding gap even after a $10.4 million increase in FY25.

"This is a map of our pavement condition index or PCI for the city," said Lane Zarate, assistant director for streets and stormwater operations, outlining where pavement is in need of reconstruction versus preventative maintenance. City staff said an independent 2024 analysis estimated an average annual maintenance need of $98,000,000 and a funding gap of $66,100,000 after existing PAYGo revenue is counted; staff reported a remaining gap of about $55,700,000 after the FY25 increase.

The proposal would combine two PAYGo contract packages totaling $10,000,000 and a $2,900,000 general‑fund package. The PAYGo packages include $4,100,000 in the first year to begin addressing 27 lane miles the city maintains under Texas Department of Transportation municipal maintenance agreements (MMAs) and $5,900,000 to expand contract maintenance by about 18 lane miles. The general‑fund package focuses on concrete preservation — a gray crack‑sealing program using two five‑person teams to reach a five‑year treatment cycle — and has a $1,000,000 one‑time cost with $2,400,000 recurring annually if fully funded.

"For every $1,000,000 that we spend in maintenance right now ... every $1,000,000 would save us $7,500,000 in future reconstruction costs," Zarate said, explaining a city estimate that ties maintenance spending to avoided bond reconstruction costs. Staff said one lane‑mile of bond reconstruction is being estimated at roughly $2,750,000.

Christine Simmons of Fort Worth Lab reminded council that PAYGo (pay‑as‑you‑go capital) is funded by a dedicated portion of the tax rate. "In our current budget, that 7 and a quarter cents generates $84,000,000 in revenue," Simmons said, describing the FY25 allocation to PAYGo and noting historic links between property tax growth and PAYGo funding.

Council members pressed staff on priorities and equity of deliveries. Council Member Beck asked whether the maintenance‑first approach applies across the city, noting maps showing some of the worst PCI inside the loop. "A lot of the streets that are really bad inside the loop require bond reconstruction. They're kind of beyond maintenance," Zarate said, adding the preventative program aims to keep green and good‑condition streets from falling into the backlog.

Staff described options as flexible and scalable: packages can be sized up or down to fit the budget. Staff framed the approach as a multi‑year plan intended to close the gap over five years under a 4 percent inflation assumption if funding packages are selected consistently over time.

Council members requested follow‑up materials and next steps. Several members asked staff to return with a comparison of funding scenarios — funding the gap via the tax rate, via a user fee, or via a hybrid — and to show household impacts on a monthly basis. Jay (city staff) and staff agreed to include that analysis in upcoming budget discussions, with councilor Beck requesting options rather than a single proposal.

Discussion and context: staff traced the program’s history to in‑house condition forecasting in 2023, independent verification by consultant Freese and Nichols, and a 2010 Blue Ribbon Task Force that previously identified a street maintenance gap. Staff noted the city historically delivers many preventative services in‑house and contracts out localized heavy maintenance paid from PAYGo. They cautioned that funding only PAYGo work risks letting good streets deteriorate faster than the city can address more expensive projects.

Actions, direction and next steps: council did not take a formal vote during the work session. Council members asked staff to return with: (1) a fee vs. tax vs. hybrid funding comparison that includes monthly household impacts; (2) more detail on the TxDOT municipal maintenance agreements and whether TxDOT obligations can change the timing or cost; and (3) a June 17 work session presentation of those options. Staff also said projects under existing PAYGo appropriations are in construction and several are complete, and that the $10.4 million awarded in FY25 allowed the city to increase heavy maintenance from 56 to 89 lane miles.

Why it matters: staff said investment now reduces future reconstruction costs and preserves a large portion of the city’s street asset value. Council members emphasized the neighborhood equity implications for districts with concentrated poor pavement conditions and asked that staff present impacts and options before the council adopts budget targets.

The council moved on to the general‑fund revenue forecast after the street maintenance discussion; staff scheduled additional budget work sessions in June to refine options and return with the requested fee/tax impact analysis.