Fort Worth officials outline $1.3 million alleyway expansion, department cuts and fee changes in budget follow-up

City of Fort Worth staff returned to the City Council for a budget work session follow-up on Aug. 6, presenting written responses to earlier questions about tax-rate comparisons, fee changes and the cost of expanding alleyway maintenance — and outlining how departments met 1% and voluntary 3% reduction targets as the recommended fiscal 2026 budget moves toward public hearings in September.

The most immediate item discussed was alleyway maintenance. Councilmember Beck urged the city to take responsibility for all alleyways, saying, “Given that the cost, while not insignificant in comparison to our overall budget, is a rounding error. I'd like to see the city go ahead and take on that additional maintenance of all of the alleyways.” Finance staff and Parks officials said taking on the remaining half of unmaintained alleys would cost about $1,300,000 in fiscal 2026, after an existing allocation of a little over $800,000 in the parks budget that covers current work.

City staff proposed covering much of the fiscal 2026 cost by shifting existing, already-allocated resources rather than adding a new recurring tax commitment. Options discussed included moving about $250,000 of preloaded staff funding tied to the Northwest library opening and reducing a non-departmental pay-plan implementation reserve; staff said they would likely reduce that reserve by approximately $1,000,000 and send it to parks for alley maintenance.

Why it matters: Alley maintenance has recurred on council agendas for decades, staff said, and a one-time reallocation would cover start-up investments such as a vehicle purchase and baseline clean-up in neighborhoods that have not been maintained. Councilmembers framed the change as a reallocation of existing budgeted resources rather than a new tax or fee.

Other written follow-ups and fee materials

Staff provided three written “budget response” packages. One compared Fort Worth’s proposed tax rate to peer Texas cities and noted a range of approaches — some cities proposing rate increases, others expanding senior and disabled exemptions — to give council context on local tax-relief options. A second, about fee adjustments, included a roughly 20-page review of proposed fee changes across eight departments; environmental services also supplied single-page summaries on solid waste and environmental service fee drivers. Staff noted that stormwater and water rates were not in that fee packet because those are not fees the city counts as part of this ordinance and had been covered in prior presentations.

A third response package answered Councilmember Beck’s question about alleyways and presented the detailed $1.3 million estimate for taking on the remaining alleyway maintenance in FY2026.

Department reduction packages: 1% target, plus voluntary 3%

City management described the budget-development process as two-tiered: an initial 1% target for general-fund departments (about $7.3 million in reductions) and later 3% reduction packages departments prepared as a contingency while property values were not finalized. Staff reported the 3% packages yielded nearly $5,000,000 in additional reductions. City Manager Jay Chapa said some 3% reductions were restored once revenue estimates clarified; he described the 1% exercise as useful budget “housekeeping” that surfaced overlooked line items.

Department leaders presented how they met targets without cutting core services. Dave Lewis, park director, said Parks used division-by-division “menus” of low-impact reductions and shifted salaries to special-revenue funds where appropriate; examples included moving staff time to the golf fund and charging grants for administrative time. Lewis noted some savings surfaced simply because the department no longer carries leases ("our lease at Le Grama Plaza"), and those dollars were repurposed.

Chief Aldridge of the Police Department described using the CCPD (city’s public-safety special revenue/funding vehicle) and internal reclassifications to avoid service reductions. He listed specific savings captured in the police budget: about $73,000 from a CCPD account previously tied to hostage-negotiator support that is now covered by the Crisis Intervention Team; roughly $125,000 in lab testing costs avoided by using in-house crime-lab capacity; a reclassification saving of about $50,000; contract consolidations reducing about $77,000 for license-plate-reader systems; and roughly $360,000 saved by not buying ammunition this year because of existing inventory. Aldridge also said attrition and realistic academy-class planning freed about $2.3 million previously budgeted for recruit classes.

Marilyn Marvin, director of Property Management, said moving staff into the new building reduced some operating costs the department was still carrying for vacated downtown properties (electricity, water), and tighter time-charging practices for project staff reduced general-fund burden.

Christy Lemon of the Fort Worth Lab summarized the 3% packages as largely administrative trims — cutting over-budgeted contractuals and supplies, reducing redundant memberships or printers after moving work to the new building, and eliminating a very small number of positions that had been vacant since 2022. Lemon said transportation/public-works PAYGO reductions were later offset when property values returned better than expected; the department received an additional $2.7 million in PAYGO as the budget was finalized.

Questions and next steps

Councilmembers asked follow-ups on specific items: Councilmember Flores asked about using recycled asphalt millings for alley surfacing; Dave Lewis said staff are studying peer-city models and that engineering questions (drainage/runoff, transport costs) remain before a program can be scoped and funded. Chief Aldridge and city staff said police vehicle replacement schedules remain at current funding levels and that wreck replacements can take as long as a year.

Fire-recruit pay and lift-service fees

Councilmembers raised two other budget-related questions for future information requests. Councilmember Martinez asked whether recruit pay for firefighters could be revisited; staff replied that recruit pay is part of a negotiated labor agreement and bargaining talks are scheduled for the fall. Councilmember (speaker identified as a fire/public-safety commenter) requested an IR on the city’s practice and fees for “lift assists” at private facilities (not private residences), noting that some peer cities charge a fee that reduces repeat calls; staff said they would prepare that information for a future budget year (2027) review.

Public outreach schedule and hearings

Staff reminded council of the public meeting schedule for budget outreach and said one district meeting (District 5) will be rescheduled to avoid conflicts with a memorial service. All scheduled meetings will be live-streamed and recorded; staff offered to provide additional district or standalone town-hall events if councilmembers want more coverage for geographically large districts.

No formal votes or ordinances were taken at the work session; staff framed the presentations as follow-up material and opportunities for council to identify changes before public hearings and final budget adoption. The council will consider public hearings on tax rate and budget on Sept. 16 and is scheduled to adopt the tax rate, budget, the CIP and the fee ordinance following those hearings.