Nine amendments that would change how Fort Worth officials run the city, including pay raises for council members, go before voters on May 2.
The proposed changes include doubling the salaries of mayor and council members, allowing the city manager to make changes to departments without a City Council vote, and streamlining several internal processes.
On Tuesday, the City Council formally called the city charter to coincide with the $845 million bond election. That came one week after council members had their second discussion on what city charter changes they’d want to see.
While eight of the changes were presented to council members on Feb. 3, a ninth was added to the election ballot in an ordinance posted less than 48 hours before the vote.
That amendment would update the language on how city leadership vets and approves expenses.
Currently, the city charter requires that each expense be tied to a “purchase order,” which the leader of the department or office must approve. The expense then goes to the city’s chief financial officer for final vetting and approval.
Under the amendment, departments and offices would have to submit “appropriately detailed documentation” to support the expense claim, regardless of whether that documentation is considered a “purchase order.”
Sana Syed, chief communication officer, said in an email that the amendment was a “minor technical update that had been suggested in years past by Council Members.”
“The City isn’t changing how it verifies claims or loosening financial controls, just updating the language to cover different types of legitimate debts,” Syed said.
The proposed ordinance comes about five months after city officials told the Fort Worth Report they were not sure how much money council members spent on the taxpayers’ dime because of discrepancies in how expenses were documented.
Subsequent to the Report’s findings, council members committed to better monitor their expenditures.
Syed said the proposed amendment does not change anything about council spending and is essentially a “language modernization update to reflect that not every debt the city pays is called a 'purchase order.'"
The charter serves as the playbook for a city’s government structure as well as the powers and responsibilities of its elected officials. Municipalities can call a charter election once every two years to ask residents to authorize or reject amendments.
Council members first publicly mentioned the charter amendment election in December.
In contrast, the bond election saw months of public engagement and discussion on how to spend millions to address city needs.
Other amendments seek to allow city manager to act without City Council approval, clarify authority
Another amendment — Proposition M — seeks to give the city manager the power to create, abolish and consolidate departments without council’s approval, as long as those departments are not required by city charter.
Currently, council members must approve such changes.
Gavin Midgley, an assistant city attorney, told council members on Feb. 3 that the requirement “limits the organizational control of the city manager,” who already has broad administrative authority under Fort Worth’s structure of government.
Before council members' vote on Tuesday, City Attorney Leann Guzman argued that the amendment is aligning the charter with the authority that the city manager already has.
“We have had multiple times over the years where things get moved around, departments get renamed, and those are really administrative functions that end up having to come to council,” Guzman said. “This is a clean-up item that we feel would not expand any power.”
Last summer, the City Council voted to eliminate Fort Worth’s diversity and inclusion department to comply with a directive of President Donald Trump. Before that vote, council members heard from 62 speakers, including local civil rights activists, business owners and faith leaders, 45 of whom implored council members not to eliminate the department.
After Tuesday's charter amendment vote, Guzman told the Report that she wasn't sure if the diversity and inclusion vote — and the related public engagement — would have been required under Proposition M's changes.
Before Tuesday's vote, about 10 speakers spoke against Proposition M, arguing that while they understand the amendment could streamline City Hall processes, efficiency should not come at the cost of the public’s voice.
“Unlike the management of a corporation with a board of trustees that hires a manager and lets them handle things, a city is a corporation for the living people of the city,” said Fort Worth resident Kent DeCardenas. “It is their lives that are on the line here, and having a responsive management system is key to that.”
Chapa, who started as city manager in January 2025, is hired and reviewed annually by the City Council. He oversees Fort Worth’s $3 billion budget.
Propositions H and I would change how a city manager terminates department directors and council appointees by removing a provision that allows such individuals — if they’ve held their positions for at least six months — to demand a written statement and a hearing in front of council before being terminated.
Midgley told council members the hearing requirements are also “in conflict with” Fort Worth’s structure, as the city manager can already fire staff without council approval. Such hearings — which rarely crop up — often only open the door to mudslinging between the city and an outgoing employee, he added.
At the Feb. 10 meeting, Guzman said the City Council is not allowed to interfere with Chapa's employees.
“Obviously, (council members) employ the city manager, and if they're not happy with the decisions that he makes, they can deal with it in that manner," Guzman said.
Charter amendments seek to increase council members’ pay, streamline internal processes
Proposition G asks to double the mayor’s and council members’ salaries from $29,000 and $25,000, respectively, to $60,000 and $50,000. If approved in May, the pay raises would go into effect in October.
Most speakers who spoke against the proposed amendments regarding the city manager’s authority over city departments also spoke in support of the pay raises, applauding the move that they say makes running for office more achievable for the middle class.
Another shared call, however, was to increase the pay proposed, with speakers arguing that $50,000 is still not enough for most residents to live on. Dallas pays council members about $60,000, and Tarrant County pays commissioners $215,000, despite running off a smaller budget.
“I strongly believe elected officials, from the local level to the federal level, deserve a livable salary for the job they are elected to do,” said Fort Worth resident Andrew Torre. “Being an elected official is a full-time job, and that job should not be limited to those who are independently wealthy.”
Another proposition would allow council members to approve the city’s yearly budget at the same meeting that the city holds a public hearing, where residents can speak to council about the budget.
Council members currently must wait until another meeting to adopt the budget — a provision not required by law. Last October, this fiscal year’s budget was approved in a meeting scheduled directly after the public hearing.
The city is asking voters to remove a requirement for Fort Worth public utilities to create annual reports for council. Midgley said such reports are unnecessary, as the information can be found online.
Another proposal could change some timelines for calling special elections to comply with state law.
The final proposal would remove requiring council approval to make a company a city-sanctioned garbage and recycling hauler. If passed, city staff could recognize such haulers through a process known as “Granting of Privilege.”
City Council already has requirements for companies seeking to become a garbage hauler, Midgley told council members Feb. 3, so the additional council approval is unnecessary, he argued.
The bond is split into five sections that residents can vote on individually, including street improvements, open space initiatives and Fort Worth’s first affordable housing proposition.
This spring’s ballot also will include one City Council seat as Alan Blaylock steps down to run for a seat in the Texas House representing Fort Worth.
Proposition O’s language: Shall Section 7 of Chapter X of the Fort Worth City Charter be amended to clarify that appropriately detailed documentation must support payment of a claim, regardless of whether that documentation is considered a “purchase order”?
Proposition M’s language: Shall Section 1 of Chapter VIII of the Fort Worth City Charter be amended to allow greater flexibility in creating, abolishing, and reorganizing city departments by eliminating the requirement for ordinances to be adopted?
Proposition H’s language: Shall Section 3 of Chapter V of the Fort Worth City Charter be revised to remove non-binding charge and hearing requirements that are inconsistent with the City Manager’s personnel responsibilities?
Proposition I’s language: Shall Section 1 of Chapter V, Section 4 of Chapter VI, and Section 3 of Chapter XXVIII of the Fort Worth City Charter be revised to remove redundant charge and hearing requirements?
Proposition K’s language: Shall Section 6 of Chapter XXVI of the Fort Worth City Charter be deleted, removing a requirement of public service corporations to submit an annual report to the city, since that information is readily available from the state and via the internet?
Proposition N’s language: Shall Section 4 of Chapter III of the Fort Worth City Charter be amended to eliminate a conflict with state law in regard to the timelines of special elections to fill vacancies?
Proposition G’s language: Shall Section 3 of Chapter III of the Fort Worth City Charter be amended to provide that, effective October 1, 2026, the Mayor’s annual pay shall be sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) and that the other City Council Members’ annual pay shall be fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)?
Proposition L’s language: Shall Section 4 of Chapter XXVI of the Fort Worth City Charter be amended to allow each grant of privilege for use of city streets to be approved without an ordinance being required?
Drew Shaw is a government accountability reporter for the Fort Worth Report. Contact him at drew.shaw@fortworthreport.org or @shawlings601.
At the Fort Worth Report, news decisions are made independently of our board members and financial supporters. Read more about our editorial independence policy here.
This article first appeared on Fort Worth Report and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
