Copperas Cove council directs staff to develop street-maintenance utility, sets $10 residential baseline

The Copperas Cove City Council on Oct. 7 directed staff to proceed with development of a street-maintenance utility to raise dedicated funding for road repairs, setting a $10 monthly baseline for single-family-equivalent residential accounts and endorsing a revised, tiered nonresidential rate structure that staff will adjust to account for so-called "bypass" trips.

City staff framed the decision around public outreach and technical analysis. "We had seven town hall meetings ... a total of 298 citizens that actually attended," Scott Osborne, assistant city manager and director of public works, said as he summarized the public engagement and the draft program. Osborne told the council staff also distributed roughly 13,000 email notices and met individually with businesses to explain how the proposal would affect different account types.

The nut graf: council members agreed the city lacks sufficient recurring revenue to halt pavement decline and that a dedicated revenue source is necessary, but they also directed staff to reduce the burden on most nonresidential accounts after hearing repeated concerns that the draft rates could be unaffordable for small businesses.

Osborne and Ryan Havela, city manager, provided the technical context for the council's direction. Staff described the city's 2022 pavement condition index (PCI) baseline of roughly 60 out of 100 and said the network had fallen to about 58 by mid-2025. Osborne said the draft $10 single-family-equivalent (SFE) fee would generate about $3,000,000 annually under the original model; staff noted that reaching a 70 PCI on the timeframe the council previously discussed would require roughly $4.6 million a year (figures based on the city's 2022 assessment and the model presented). Osborne also explained that every $1 reduction in the SFE equates to about $278,500 less revenue per year.

Council discussion balanced the program's long-term goals against immediate affordability concerns. "Affordability for small business is the number one concern," Havela said while highlighting the public comments compiled after the outreach. Council members proposed and debated alternatives: a straight flat nonresidential fee, a banded/tiered structure, applying "bypass" trip reductions to lower assessed trip counts for certain uses (for example, some quick stops that do not represent a primary trip), and time-limited exemptions for specific entities.

On nonresidential rates the council gave majority direction for "Option 1" as presented by staff: carry the benefit of an artificially low cap for the largest trip generators across the other bands so that roughly 80% of nonresidential accounts would fall under a lower monthly amount (staff estimated most accounts would be below about $72.70 per month after that adjustment). Osborne said applying the proposed bypass-trip offsets would reduce revenue from the original draft by about $144,000 annually; implementing the Option 1 banding with the bypass adjustments would lower net nonresidential revenue and produce an estimated combined program revenue (with the residential $10 baseline and existing sales-tax allocations) in the range staff described at the workshop.

Council members also agreed to key exemptions and policy guardrails. The council directed staff to draft ordinance language that: (1) treats Copperas Cove municipal facilities as exempt (already in draft), (2) exempts the Coryell County Independent School District (CCISD) and county facilities from the charge, (3) creates an exemption pathway for qualifying nonprofit organizations (documentation required), and (4) permits a limited, time-bound exemption for new businesses (council indicated two years as the preferred period).

The council asked for an appeals process in the ordinance so businesses could seek adjustments based on actual operations (for example, demonstrating that a use produces fewer trips than the rate category implies). Osborne said staff intends to include an appeals provision that allows businesses to demonstrate that the land-use category or the quantity-of-use variables used in the calculation are incorrect.

As for oversight and evaluation, council members asked for regular reporting and a periodic ordinance review. Council gave staff direction to prepare an annual report—summarizing revenue collected, where funds were spent, and projects delivered—and to return for an ordinance review on a multi-year cycle (council direction favored a three-year statutory review cycle with annual status reports). Staff's proposed next steps are to revise the draft ordinance to reflect council direction, bring a finalized draft for council consideration on Oct. 21, begin assessments if the ordinance is adopted in October (with billing projected to start Jan. 2026), and to start design of an initial package of rehabilitation projects by June 2026.

No formal vote was taken at the workshop; council provided direction for staff to revise the draft ordinance and fee schedule and to return with a final ordinance and fee schedule. The record of the workshop shows broad council support for continuing the program design while adjusting nonresidential rates and including targeted exemptions and reporting requirements.

The council scheduled further consideration of the ordinance on Oct. 21 and asked staff to provide updated rate tables and revenue models (including with-and-without bypass calculations) in that packet. Staff will also include draft ordinance language outlining appeals and exemption documentation requirements.

Ending: If adopted on the Oct. 21 timeline discussed at the workshop, staff said assessments could begin in January 2026 and design on the first rehabilitation package could begin in June 2026.