Groves workshop weighs dedicated transportation fee as streets funding shortfall grows

Groves City Council held a workshop March 26 to review the condition of city streets and explore options for paying to repair and maintain them, including a monthly transportation utility fee. No formal decision was taken; staff and a consultant described steps needed to study and implement such a fee, and several residents urged clear transparency, exemptions for seniors and accountability on how revenues would be spent.

The proposal matters because city staff said existing funding is insufficient. "The streets fund has a $1,470,000 budgeted for the fiscal year 2024–25," Public Works Director Troy Foxworth told the council, while also noting the city maintains roughly 74–75 miles of roadway across about 82 streets. Foxworth and consultant Matthew Garrett of NewGen Strategies and Solutions said the dollar gap is large: a 2017 pavement assessment that estimated $3.36 million to improve 10 percent of the network would now cost roughly $5.7 million, Garrett said, citing current price levels.

Council-level context: the workshop was presented as an informational session rather than a decision meeting. Foxworth reviewed the city’s recent street program, equipment limits and how past practice has combined in-house base work, county interlocal assistance and outside contractors for hot-mix asphalt. He said aging equipment and fewer staff with street-construction experience mean Groves will likely need to rely more on contractors for full rebuilds. "We—ve used grants and interlocal agreements," Foxworth said, but many grants are limited by low- and moderate-income targeting and cannot be spent citywide.

Citizens who spoke during the public-comment period pressed several practical concerns. Ronald Wallace, a 70-year resident, said he supports a dedicated revenue source so long as "that tax is designated and the money cannot be touched other than the road improvements." Marcus Salazar asked how the city would prioritize which streets are fixed first, how contractors and bids would be selected, and whether heavy-haul users outside city limits — which he named as an example — would contribute to road costs. Several residents asked whether seniors on fixed incomes would receive exemptions and whether the fee would be permanent; Catherine White asked, "Is it ongoing forever? Or once we get the roads fixed, will this stop?"

On how a fee would work, Garrett explained the basic methodology and legal structure used in other Texas cities: create a transportation utility (an ordinance-based fee) with revenues restricted to transportation purposes; determine billing units by converting trip-generation estimates into a single-family-equivalent (SFE) and bill residential and nonresidential users accordingly; and set the fee to fund a combination of annual maintenance and, if the council chooses, debt service for larger reconstruction projects. Garrett said other municipalities use a monthly household charge and gave examples: Austin's transportation fees were cited at about $17.87 per month and Bryan at $12 (examples cited by the consultant as illustration of scale in other cities). He described source material the study would use as the trip-generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to estimate vehicle trips by land use, then translate those trips into billing units.

On program costs and examples, Foxworth gave a breakdown of a past rebuild: material and base work costs, equipment rental and a contractor asphalt placement. He emphasized price escalation since the prior study and said a street the city completed about five years ago would cost significantly more to rebuild today. Garrett estimated a feasibility study and implementation planning could take about six months, depending on data readiness (parcel records, appraisal-roll data and zoning/shapefiles). He also listed nontechnical steps the city would face: parcel identification, unit assignment, billing-system setup, public education and adoption of ordinances establishing the utility and the fees.

Garrett and staff described some policy choices the council would face: whether to dedicate most revenues to debt service for an up-front construction program or reserve a portion for on-going maintenance; whether to exempt or discount certain users; and whether fees should rise periodically to preserve purchasing power. Garrett cautioned against using the fee solely for long-term debt without balancing some ongoing maintenance funding, saying that full debt allocation can erode perceived value once a project is completed.

What happened next: council members thanked staff and the consultant and indicated the workshop was an initial deep dive. City staff said there would be additional discussions and no votes were taken at the session. Council member Sharon (surname not specified in the record) reiterated: "This is Council's first deep dive into this topic. No decisions have been made. There will be additional discussions."

Why it matters locally: Groves faces a familiar municipal finance challenge — rising reconstruction costs, limited grant eligibility and a general fund already committed to public safety and other services. A dedicated transportation utility fee would create a restricted revenue stream that could include residential and nonresidential users, potentially spreading costs to heavy users of the streets, but it would require a council ordinance and new billing infrastructure.

Next steps noted at the workshop include a feasibility and billing-potential study, parcel and land-use classification, legal drafting of an ordinance and a public outreach plan. The consultant estimated an end-to-end feasibility effort could take about six months; staff said the city would return to the council for further discussion before any ordinance or final proposal.

Votes at the meeting: none. No motions, votes or formal actions on the transportation fee were recorded in the workshop.