Fort Worth staff map 2026 bond priorities for minor roadways; propose reallocating developer funds to cover shortfalls

At a Fort Worth City Council bond workshop, city transportation staff presented the prioritization method for the proposed 2026 bond’s minor-roadway program and identified several funding shortfalls the council must address before the ballot process.

The presentation said the city has more than 1,800 lane miles requiring work beyond routine maintenance and estimated the cost to replace all streets with a pavement condition index (PCI) below 50 at roughly $4 billion. Staff described PCI categories (good, fair, poor) and said about 23% of the network falls in the poorest category that typically requires full reconstruction.

Why it matters: The council must decide how to allocate limited bond dollars across districts with uneven pavement conditions. Staff said the ranked list of candidate projects the council received totals about $125 million; roughly $35 million of that list is currently unfunded. Council members pressed staff on whether the proposed 2026 allocations match district needs and on options to cover remaining shortfalls in the 2022 neighborhood-streets program.

How streets are prioritized: Staff described a multi-step process that begins with the city’s PCI data, then assesses curb and gutter condition and other street-level factors, and finally applies council-set priorities. Projects are grouped geographically to reduce construction mobilization costs and to account for schools, bus routes and high service-request density. Staff said heavy maintenance (asphalt overlays and panel replacement) is typically funded with PAYGO and is distinct from bond-funded full reconstruction, which can include ADA upgrades, curb/gutter/sidewalk repairs and water or storm improvements.

District disparities and project counts: Staff provided district-level breakout data showing Fort Worth’s network is roughly half concrete and half asphalt, with concrete streets generally scoring higher on PCI. The presentation noted District 9 had about 35.5% of its lane miles below a PCI of 50 and District 11 about 36.2%; council members from District 9 flagged that their district had relatively few lane miles included in the initial 2026 minor-roadway recommendation despite the high share of failed streets.

Funding shortfalls and staff proposal: Staff said the 2022 neighborhood-streets program had a $16 million shortfall; on May 20 the council approved a $10 million tax note that allowed three contracts (contracts 15, 17 and 19) to proceed, and those are expected to begin construction this winter. Remaining needs include an unfunded list totaling about $35 million and individual contract shortfalls on specific 2022 contracts. To address one remaining neighborhood-streets shortfall, staff proposed redirecting $7 million from the proposed 2026 major-roadway allocation — funds made available because a developer will fund adjacent work on a major project — to cover a $2.4 million shortfall in the 2022 neighborhood-streets program and apply the remaining roughly $4.6 million to higher-ranked minor-roadway projects in the 2026 proposal. Staff characterized this as a recommendation, not a final council action.

Council requests, communication and next steps: Multiple council members asked for district-sorted lists, explanations of why particular streets qualify for bond reconstruction versus heavy maintenance, and clearer, shareable materials (including web pages and district handouts) for constituent outreach. Staff said they will provide the full ranked lists electronically and hold biannual district updates that include handouts showing active and planned work. The city’s timeline presented at the workshop called for a follow-up bond presentation on July 17, public meetings beginning in late July, and a final bond list to council in December to prepare for a bond election process next year.

Public-art and open-space funding debate: Several council members raised whether the proposed bond should shift funds from open-space and public-art allocations into streets. One council member urged restoring open-space funding to prior levels; others argued scarce street-repair dollars made that difficult. Staff and several council members said the city could pursue partnerships or other funding tools rather than an across-the-board transfer; no formal change to bond allocations was approved at the workshop.

Meeting context and staff guidance: Staff emphasized that if a neighborhood street is not on the proposed bond list it is not necessarily a final exclusion — many streets are candidates for heavy maintenance or programmed work outside the bond cycle — and council members may discuss “swaps” of ranked projects within their districts before the public process to reduce confusion. Staff reiterated that pavement life-cycle analyses, soil and utility conditions (for example, the presence of cast-iron water lines), and total life-cycle cost inform whether a street is a candidate for heavy maintenance versus full reconstruction.

What the council did: No formal votes were taken at the workshop. Staff closed by saying they would resend the complete ranked lists and return to council with the next presentation as scheduled.