[Prairie Pup]

I have bad feelings about this idea. The storm drainage utility district fees that are a part of some city's water bills sort of smell like water, and allow major contributers to storm water runoff (school districts, churches) to participate in mitigating the flooding problems caused by overaggressive paving. Of course stormwater runoff is really a regional, or better yet, watershed concern, rather than being city-specific... But street maintenance is a basic city service isn't it? Impact fees for developers who build out in the sticks where no infrastructure currently exists is seems fair, especially when the plan will spread sprawl: inefficient urban planning requiring more linear feet of services than more sustainable "block-based" design. So why should households be assessed a street maintenance charge on their water bills? What if the residents don't drive? (elderly, poor, urban pioneer, Luddite) Is this really a fair way to pay for street repair?


Fort Worth transportation plan would hit developers, residents

BY ALESHIA HOWE
July 22, 2009

Fort Worth Business Press
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=10654

Sal Espino, District 2 councilmanThe cost of funding Fort Worth’s transportation needs may be hitting home soon for not only developers, but all Fort Worth citizens who pay a water bill if the council adopts recommendations from a recent study on transportation infrastructure funding.

A joint work session of City Council, the City Plan Commission and the Zoning Commission heard recommendations July 21 from a study commissioned from Willdan Financial Services that suggested the city increase its impact fees currently charged to developers within the city limits and tack on a $5.50 per month street maintenance fee to each Fort Worth water bill – suggestions that raised more than a few eyebrows.

“I know the burden as we look at one more addition to water bills. It leaves a bitter taste in your mouth, but if anyone has a better suggestion, it’s something we would all like to hear,” said Mayor Mike Moncrief. “… It’s a challenge, but our options are limited.”

The joint work session was scheduled so members of each group could hear the formal recommendations from Willdan Financial Service’s study, which was commissioned last year to review the city’s transportation funding needs. The presentation was the first of its kind with several public hearings and discussions to follow said Susan Alanis, director of planning and development.

“It’s a new approach and I do think the $5.50 per month fee may cause a lot of concern in some parts of our community and I think we’ll have a lot of discussion from that point,” said Sal Espino, District 2 City Councilman. “We’re going to need a dedicated revenue stream to maintain our streets and that is a way to do it, but there are other ways too so we’ll be discussing those.”

Espino said he didn’t know of any cities near Fort Worth that had a street maintenance fee added onto a water bill, though Austin does have one.

Jacq A. Duncan, who serves as the District 5 member of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, raised concerns about the impact of a street maintenance fee on fixed- or low-income residents. Alanis said the City of Austin has mandated an exemption from its street maintenance fee for citizens that use public transportation – a measure that could become administratively taxing on Fort Worth.

Transportation Impact Fee

Last year, City Council approved a transportation impact fee that went into affect on July 1, 2008 with a one- and two-year grace period granted to all building permits associated with a plat that was filed before the impact fee effective date. The fee charged is 27 percent of the maximum allowable under state law for non-residential developments and 36 percent for residential developments. Per the findings of the Willdan Study, the cost of developing in Fort Worth was determined to be “at or below the median of comparable cities” according to the report. Willdan suggested the city raise the impact fee to a flat 50 percent rate for north, south and west Fort Worth (the equivalent of a $3,005 charge per single-family home) and holding a $2,000 fee for each single-family home built in east Fort Worth.

The rate increase, for example, would raise the collection rate for a 1,000-square-foot day-care building from a $6,851 charge at 27 percent to a $13,725 charge at 50 percent. To help to off-set the costs, Willdan suggested a hike in the discount rate for developers building along existing arterials – taking it from the current 15 percent discount to a 50 percent discount under the new 50 percent collection fee. Council members and planning and zoning officials had mixed feelings about the proposed 50 percent increase, but many said it was only fair to spread the costs of transportation to everyone.

“There is a concern by me and other council members about the occupancy costs, what is that tipping point where development is too expensive and those developers start to go outside Fort Worth to build,” Espino said. “We’ll continue to have dialogue with all stakeholders. That’s what we’re all wrestling with right now is how to pay for this. Everybody is going to have to have a little skin in the game because growth has to pay for growth.”

Other recommendations from Willdan included an increased share of debt for transportation, which would change the city’s debt service tax rate, and promoting the use of Public Improvement Districts, tapping into the designated taxing pools for that area’s transportation improvements.

Council members each voiced concerns about the recommendations and their potential impact, but added that something had to happen to fund the city’s transportation needs.

“Everybody in here knows we have needs we can’t pay for with the income we get annually as a city,” said District 7 Councilman Carter Burdette. “… We keep calling these fees, but they’re taxes and we, as elected officials have got to get over that hump. We’re trying to collect more taxes and allocate them to specific needs. [But] in our society, our public facilities are paid for by citizens and they’re just going to have to understand that.”

Alanis said city staff would hold public hearings about the proposed plans and would return to City Council in October with specific recommendations.

ahowe@bizpress.net

[360texas]

If the cost for repairing city streets has increased.. its because the contractors that repair the streets are charging far more than its worth to fix them. Tell the contractors to reduce their city street repair prices ! I am tired of paying more taxes .. just because local contractors think they have to charge more for their work. My fixed retirement income has not increase .. why do they think they can charge more ? If I get more retirement income.. then I might consider paying them more to fix the streets.

OH by they way.. my city property tax increased...property tax include street repair. How come the city wants more money ? Didn't they plan their budget correctly? You are right its really MORE taxes they are asking for.. not FEES. Reduce the street repair pricing don't come back to us for more taxes just because you "the City" can't budget street repairs correctly.

How about the city making street repair to a higher construction standard.. say.. make the repair last 10 years or more.. or get the contractor to pay for fixing their failed repairs out of their own company pocket. Add in soils compaction tests, concrete strength testing, asphalt core testing.

AND

That Storm Water Utility Tax and the Environment Protection Tax in my mind really are not a utility services like water, garbage and waste water.

The Storm Water Utility Tax is to assess a TAX based on Roof and paved surface run off water in order to repair and do new drainage structures construction. The City of Fort Worth then goes out and much like repairing street pot holes and road repairs - repairs drainage structures.


To me applying this TAX to my UTILITY Bill is mis characterized tax collection method. Storm Water IS NOT a Utility.

At this point I have no idea what Enviornment Protection Tax represents or to whom the taxes collected go to which department ? Federal Government EPA maybe?

[360texas]

May 2008 there was a city bond election where The City of Fort Worth passed a 150 million dollar bond. I did a forum search: http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/forum...p;hl=bond+issue

How about the City provide some 'Accountability' for how they used the money !
Since the two bridges seem to be no longer needed in the Trinity Vision I suspect that (10+ 12m) $22 million unused allocation can be reallocated for road repair.

May 9 2008 comment Monee9696 was kind enough to provide a breakdown of the bond

$81 million for 20 miles of multilane arterial streets

$33 million for 33.4 lane-miles of neighborhood streets

$5 million for traffic signals citywide

$2.5 million for intersection improvements

$12 million to pay the city's share of replacing the Seventh Street bridge over the Trinity River.

$10 million to pay the city's share of two other bridges that are part of the Trinity River Vision project, a plan to create a lake and diversion channel where the river flows to downtown Fort Worth. The ultimate goal is to revitalize the industrial area just north of the river.

$3.3 million to use as matching funds for state and federal grants

$3 million for public art

[Fort Worthology]

Since the two bridges seem to be no longer needed in the Trinity Vision I suspect that (10+ 12m) $22 million unused allocation can be reallocated for road repair.

Kind of depends - they still need *bridges*, just not the Bing Thom ones.

[360texas]

To reinforce that this Storm water utility TAX is really a full scale Multi year storm water construction program. The City of Fort Worth is contracting with construction contractor to perform this new construction and repair and channel maintenance work.

Click on item # 5 Storm Water Program Update when you visit this page (it is a city council agenda 8:30 Tuesday July 21, 2009.

http://fortworthgov.granicus.com/MediaPlay...amp;clip_id=524

[Prairie Pup]

Two comments:

The work the stormwater utility funds generally pay for involves cleaning out drainage channels. Trees, trash, junk autos, etc. end up in there and impede drainage, resulting in mosquitos etc. A lot of the work has no provision for stormwater surge retention/detention though, so straightening and cleaning out the creeks actually adds to the destructive flood potential of the river and it's major tributaries downstream. There are very few requirements for new developments to mitigate or contain the stormwater drainage they create by paving and constructing impermeable surfaces. Perhaps we need another fee to pay for floodwater damage mitigation

The city of Fort Worth has very obviously overextended itself through runaway annexation in the northern reaches of the county. In attempting to provide new infrastructure out there, the city is neglecting normal repair and replacement of streets in the more established areas of the city. One aspect of street construction and maintenance I haven't heard discussed publicly is tied to one of the "Traffic Calming" techniques being touted as resulting in safer streets. Could building narrower streets also result in more affordable streets?

Narrower streets are known to slow traffic naturally; drivers psychologically slow down on narrow streets as opposed to wide ones. But narrow streets also require less material to construct. Much of the surface of most residential streets is dedicated to the prospect of parking at the curb; and this is effectively the city (taxpayers) subsidizing residents with multiple cars, too many to park on their property. This of course might be a result of having several teenage children at the same time, or perhaps from multple individuals, related or not, sharing the same single-family residence. Of course, if you have a party, you need spaces for your visitors. Curbside parking could be provided where appropriate acording to traffic calming principles, such as a set distance away from intersections. Also, curbside parking space should not be allowed in front of fire hydrants, etc. Where parking is not desired, the space along the street shouldn't be paved. This will, as a by-product, provide more green space, and that combined with less pavement means less storm water runoff (see above). No parking space in front of hydrants, naturally reduced speed, etc. means less need for expensive signs. Of course, "bulbouts" will result in more linear feet of curbing, but I am pretty sure that is a relatively small part of the cost of street construction. Also, the cost of engineering might be more since there will be more twists and turns in the curb, but the overall savings in materials and the reduced long-term cost of maintaining less paved surface (not to mention less damage from floods downstream) should result in lower cost streets for the city.

The city of Fort Worth should seriously discuss adopting street standards for new and rebuilt streets to conform with principles of traffic calming before they consider placing a fee on the water bill to pay for something that should be provided by traditional taxes.

[Fort Worthology]

The city of Fort Worth has very obviously overextended itself through runaway annexation in the northern reaches of the county. In attempting to provide new infrastructure out there, the city is neglecting normal repair and replacement of streets in the more established areas of the city.

No kidding. Every time I see a map of the city limits, with parts of northern Fort Worth now *in the next county,* it's almost infuriating. I really do think it's starting to come back around and bite us now, and it's only going to get worse.

[360texas]

Anyone heard any "new" news on putting street repair on our water bills ??

[Bart]

Haven't heard anything new regarding this, but in contrast to other comments the use of a water bill adder to pay for street repairs is not necessarily illogical in my opinion. A primary function of streets is to carry stormwater - curb and gutter. If the roads are not properly maintained, then you can negatively impact the primary conveyance method of runoff for various watersheds in the City.

Granted, many of the dollars and repairs will not be directed to the stormwater conveyance portion of the roadway, but rather to fix damage from traffic. That is just how it will happen.

In general, it is a tax, but as with numerous other taxes that people complain about, if they do not see the 'ME' benefit they automatically see it as wasteful. I am sure there are several other taxes from which those complainers recieve benefits that numerous others would see as wasteful. It is all in the eye of the beholder. . . as always IMHO.

[360texas]

How about the City provide some 'Accountability' for how they used the Bond Election street repair money !

The other day I read/heard on TV that the City over estimated its ability to use the Road Repair Bond Election money and now has delayed street repairs. [didn't say which streets]. I have a growing concern for the FW City's ability to timely complete the work required under the Bond Election.... and now might be using this 'Street Repair on Water Bill' as an alternate method of collecting MORE tax money with out letting the City Tax Payers vote on the issue.

After watching the City Council meeting on Storm Water [see link above] the Storm water repair scope of work apparantly has out grown its original intended purpose into a full fledged multi year Construction Program containing realignment projects and new construction. This includes a new GIS software program. Issue is, I do not think the Storm Water program was approved by voters [could be wrong] I know the Streets Bond Election was voted on and passed with the city leaders promise of doing a better job of tracking projects and support money.

[Prairie Pup]

Haven't heard anything new regarding this, but in contrast to other comments the use of a water bill adder to pay for street repairs is not necessarily illogical in my opinion. A primary function of streets is to carry stormwater - curb and gutter.

There already exists a stormwater utility fee to cover what you mentioned. The difference in terming the added item onto the water bill as a "fee" is that otherwise tax-exempt organizations (schools, churches) would pay the fee; appropriate since a major component of storm water runoff is generated by occasional-use-only parking.

[360texas]

What happened to all the money for the 2008 bond election for City Roads ?
What has happened to all the property tax monies that went into the City Budget for city Road repair

Monies spent on city road repair - Fort Worth City budget office - Accountability ??

NOW Why is the city now wanting to put a fee on our water bill for road repair

A fee is something you can avoid by not using the service.
I can choose to turn off the water thus avoid paying those fees on my water bill.
AND I can still drive in the City of Fort Worth.

A tax is something you cannot avoid. I think a tax would have to be voted on by the city tax payers.

Fees versus Taxes interesting dialog in Colorado

Partial Quote from " http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/2009/...-court-says-so/ "
"Morphing Taxes into Fees - the Mullarkey/Ritter shell game

Governor Ritter, the Colorado Legislature, and the Mullarkey Majority find the requirement to first ask before raising taxes (as required by TABOR) to be rather tiring - and restricting their power to accomplish their goals with your money. What to do, what to do? Simple - creatively define their way out of the restrictions; impose fees, instead of raising taxes - no need to ask the voters first; then just transfer the collected revenue (the ol’ shell game) into the general fund, so as to avoid those pesky restrictions on spending the money only on the “particular governmental service” for which the fee was collected.

But these semantic shenanigans can’t be legal, right? That’s what the plaintiffs in the Barber v. Ritter case thought - and they had good legal precedent (Bloom v. City of Fort Collins) on their side, too. However, they failed to reckon with the logic-bending and creative writing skills of the Mullarkey Court.

Starting with Bloom’s premise that a fee “might be subject to invalidation as a tax” when the “principal purpose” is to raise general revenues, the Mullarkey Majority went on to declare that to find “principal purpose” and legislative intent, “we look to the language of the enabling statute for its expression.”

If the language discloses that the primary purpose for the charge is to finance a particular service utilized by those who must pay the charge, then the charge is a “fee.” On the other hand, if the language states that a primary purpose for the charge is to raise revenues for general governmental spending, then it is a tax. Moreover, the fact that a fee incidentally or indirectly raises revenue does not alter its essential character as a fee, transforming it into a tax. (Barber, p. 26)

Ergo, as long as legislators remember to say that a “fee” is for a particular purpose when drafting legislation, it makes no difference if in practice the “fee” is collected and spent for purposes entirely unrelated to the enabling statute. Legislators can now avoid the dreaded “ask first” TABOR restrictions on taxes by simply calling it a fee and remembering to specify a particular purpose - say, “restore crumbling bridges” - one can always shift the collected revenues to one’s pet project later. "

Isn't the current city budget road repair allocation sufficient for road repairs ?


Thoughts ?

[360texas]

FWST Jan 22, 2010 Section B page 1 "Homestead exemption may be scaled back"

Mike Lee once again brings us up to speed concerning what the City Council is up to these days. While it was not immediately mentioined, I suspect they are talking about 2011 budget.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1913059.html