Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Water Wastewater Impact Fees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Advisory committee recommends raising Fort Worth water/wastewater impact fee collection to 45%; council hears rationale

3573493 · April 16, 2025
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

Staff and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee recommended increasing the city's water and wastewater impact fee collection rate from 40% to 45% (phased 42.5% year 1) to better fund growth‑related capital while staff also plans recurring PayGo increases of about $10 million per year for rehab/renewal.

Chris Harder, presenting a water and wastewater impact fee update, told council that the civic advisory committee established under Chapter 395 recommended increasing the collection rate from 40% to 45%, with an initial collection rate of 42.5% in year one. Harder said the advisory committee (members named in the IR) reviewed land use, capital plans and recommended the rate change.

Why it matters: Council members asked whether the recommended rate would allow the city to accelerate replacement of cast‑iron mains. Staff said replacement at roughly 20 miles per year would take about 40 years to replace the city’s cast‑iron pipeline inventory (about 800 miles). Higher collections would allow more capital devoted to renewal; staff also said the FY26 pro forma will show annual utility rate increases and PayGo cash increases of about $10 million per year to boost rehab capacity.

Statutory and stakeholder context: Harder described the composition of the impact fee advisory committee required by state statute and noted the developer representation requirement (at least 40% of committee members). He read the committee’s membership and said the committee’s recommendation reflects the statutory charge to balance growth‑related capital with developer contributions.

Questions and next steps: Councilmembers asked why the committee recommended less than a 50% collection rate; staff replied that the committee deliberated and that the recommendation balanced development interests and capital needs. Staff said they will present the rate as part of the ordinance and follow up with the technical backup used to compute capital plans and fee calculations.

Ending: Staff will return with detailed ordinance language and supporting materials for council action; no vote occurred at the work session.