Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Groves council hears consultant on proposed transportation use fee; feasibility study estimated at about $42,000
Summary
At a Dec. 1 workshop the City of Groves heard a presentation from NewGen Strategies on a possible transportation use fee to fund street maintenance; staff said a feasibility phase would cost about $42,000 and take roughly 60–90 days, while residents urged protections against commingling and asked about exemptions and trucks that merely pass through.
A workshop of the Groves City Council on Dec. 1 focused on whether to pursue a transportation use fee — a user‑based charge consultants say can create a stable, dedicated revenue stream for street maintenance and reconstruction.
Matthew Garrett, a partner at NewGen Strategies and Solutions, told the council the fee is not a property tax but a user charge tied to how properties generate trips on city roadways. “That fee would then be specifically used only on transportation,” Garrett said, describing curb‑to‑curb or broader transportation definitions communities have used. He said NewGen converts commercial and residential parcels into a single‑family equivalent to estimate billing potential, then scales revenue to the city’s capital needs.
Why it matters: city staff reported Groves has 182 streets totaling just under 75 miles, and a 2017 pavement survey showed roughly 37% of streets in good condition and 63% fair or poor. City staff gave per‑block repair and reconstruction figures to show the scale of need: simple seal coating extends pavement life for several years but full reconstruction can cost roughly $173,000 per typical block and about $1.8 million per mile, figures officials used to explain why current ad valorem revenue allocations (primarily fire and police) fall well short of the work needed.
Consultant’s approach and examples Garrett outlined a five‑step methodology: measure trip generation (using the ITE trip generation manual), simplify land‑use categories for administration, map parcels using appraisal and billing records plus field checks, calculate billing units (per room, per bay, per 1,000 square feet, etc.), then estimate revenue and design rates. He cited peer examples, including Copperas Cove’s $10 monthly fee (effective Jan. 2026) and said many Texas cities use similar tools.
Timing and cost When asked, Garrett estimated a feasibility phase of roughly 60–90 days to reach about 80% confidence in the billing universe; he emphasized the feasibility product is for decision‑making, not final billing. City staff said a prior proposal for the feasibility phase was in the ballpark of $42,000.
Community concerns and exceptions Public commenters and council members pressed on several issues: whether existing tax‑funded maintenance would be preserved or supplanted, how the city would prevent commingling of the new fee revenue with general fund dollars, whether heavy trucks that pass through Groves but do not originate or terminate there could be captured, and whether seniors or low‑income residents might receive discounts or exemptions. A resident who gave a street address said he did not want the new fee to replace money already allocated for street maintenance; Garrett and staff said the typical practice is to keep new fees in a dedicated fund and to retain existing maintenance funds for routine repairs.
On exemptions, Garrett said some jurisdictions apply discounts or exemptions but cautioned that completely exempting people who “don’t own a car” is often difficult to justify administratively since roads are used for many services; he noted councils can write exemptions or discounts into the ordinance. He also described an appeals process for individual billing disputes once accounts are billed.
Scope and next steps Garrett said councils must decide scope (surface‑only vs. broader transportation items such as drainage tied to road function) and that the ordinance, rate design, exemptions and billing uploads require careful testing before first bills. Mayor and staff framed the immediate decision before council as whether to move forward with the feasibility study and how to fund it; the mayor said the council will return with additional work sessions and decide how to finance any study and a possible program. The workshop adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
What remains open: council must vote separately to commission the feasibility study and to approve any ordinance; no formal motion or vote on adoption of a fee occurred at the workshop.
