Alliance PetSmart Charities Adoption Center<\/a>, which the city runs in a longstanding partnership partially funded by grants.<\/p>\nThe closure would save the city $403,000 in 2027 but likely lower the shelter\u2019s near-90% \u201clive release rate\u201d \u2014 the percentage of animals who leave the shelter alive, through adoption, rescue or return to their owners. That closure could also hurt foster participation, volunteer engagement and adoption levels, the staff said. PetSmart also provides the city with grants for microchips and vaccinations, and the center\u2019s closure could damage that relationship, the staff said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think this is somewhere we can just cut,\u201d Mayor Mattie Parker said during the budget workshop. \u201cI think this is something we need to put back in the budget. \u2026 It\u2019s insurmountable to try to come back from that years later. It would cost us millions.\u201d<\/p>\n
In reviewing the PetSmart Alliance partnership in response to council members\u2019 questions, staff said the center generated 4,627 animal adoptions for fiscal 2022-25 and 1,277 thus far for fiscal 2026, which ends Sept. 30. The center has accounted for between 11.9% and 13.25% of Fort Worth Animal Care & Control\u2019s adoptions during that time, the city said.<\/p>\n
The center has a \u201clive release rate\u201d of 88.5%, the staff said. Animal Care & Control\u2019s live release rate is 80.9%.<\/p>\n
A 90% live release rate \u201cis the standard for a no-kill shelter,\u201d Brian Daugherty, Fort Worth\u2019s code compliance director, told council members.<\/p>\n
Chapa proposed a $1.1 billion general fund budget with a 3.2-cent raise in the city property tax rate and the cost savings that close the budget shortfall for 2027.<\/p>\n
The tax increase would increase the property tax rate to 70.2 cents per $100 of value appraised for tax purposes. If approved by the city council in September, the new rate would generate extra cash for city services. However, the average homeowner would see their 2027 city tax bill decrease $21.34 to $1,630.48, because the average value of a home in Fort Worth decreased to $232,000 from $246,000 under new appraisals.<\/p>\n
Chapa told council members he would bring the adjusted projections back to them at Friday\u2019s scheduled budget workshop.<\/p>\n
Several council members raised questions about whether proposed eliminations of vacant positions and freezes of other openings will materially affect city services.<\/p>\n
Chapa\u2019s recommended budget includes deleting 35 vacant positions, saving $3.2 million; freezing 29 vacant positions for 2027\u2019s first six months, saving $1.3 million; and freezing 92 vacant positions for all of 2027, saving $4.9 million.<\/p>\n
Peoples and council members Elizabeth Beck and Chris Nettles focused on proposed cuts to parks and libraries.<\/p>\n
Forty five of the job openings proposed to be frozen for all of 2027 are in parks. Additionally, the department proposes to eliminate 10 open part-time positions that it said were hard to fill because they were budgeted for only seven hours per week.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am incredibly concerned about our parks and recreation department, because it does seem like the lion\u2019s share of these positions are coming from them,\u201d Beck said, asking the department director, Dave Lewis, if the cuts would affect customer services.<\/p>\n
Lewis said it was possible the department could absorb the cuts, but he needed more time to study the question.<\/p>\n
The library staff is proposed to see 18 vacant positions frozen for 2027 and one opening eliminated.<\/p>\n
Peoples said she wanted reassurance the proposed budget cuts don\u2019t affect park maintenance.<\/p>\n
\u201cMany of our residents don\u2019t come to city hall,\u201d she said. \u201cThey go to the parks or libraries, and their view of the city is based on how well we maintain those.\u201d<\/p>\n
Peoples, Beck and council members Mia Hall and Nettles, whose older urban districts include neighborhoods with alleys, raised questions about the staff\u2019s plan to cut mowing cycles for 2,300 unimproved alleys citywide to two times per year, down from four. Each mowing cycle costs $324,000.<\/p>\n
Peoples said cutting mowing in her district \u201cwould be a nonstarter.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s a key issue in my district,\u201d she said. \u201cI get more complaints from residents about alleys. I think this impacts a lot of our inner-city areas.\u201d<\/p>\n
Beck proposed a compromise: \u201cI think the pragmatic approach here is maybe reducing by one mowing cycle a year.\u201d<\/p>\n
The city this year expanded the service to four cycles in all unimproved alleys, up from a more limited service.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s a relatively new service,\u201d Beck said. \u201cI\u2019d like to see a compromise here. Three mowing cycles instead of four. Maybe not in the winter.\u201d<\/p>\n
Also, District 7\u2019s Macy Hill asked council members to forgo their conference budgets for 2027. The proposed budget includes a total $140,000 in conference travel for the 10 council offices.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019d like to challenge us just to think about that,\u201d Hill said, offering to give up her budget and let Chapa \u201creallocate that as you see fit.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Fort Worth Report has recently examined council travel expenses<\/a>, finding Fort Worth City Council members spent more than $167,000 on taxpayer-funded travel in less than two years.<\/p>\nScott Nishimura is senior editor for local government accountability and a Fort Worth City Hall reporter at the Fort Worth Report. Reach him at scott.nishimura@fortworthreport.org.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
This <a target=”_blank” href=”https:\/\/fortworthreport.org\/2026\/08\/18\/fort-worth-city-council-deliberates-proposed-budget-cuts-fate-of-alliance-pet-adoption-program\/”>article<\/a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https:\/\/fortworthreport.org”>Fort Worth Report<\/a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nd\/4.0\/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a>.<img src=”https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/fortworthreport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/cropped-favicon.png?resize=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”><\/p>\n
<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https:\/\/fortworthreport.org\/?republication-pixel=true&post=737156&ga4=2820184429″ style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https:\/\/fortworthreport.org\/2026\/08\/18\/fort-worth-city-council-deliberates-proposed-budget-cuts-fate-of-alliance-pet-adoption-program\/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } <\/script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”\/\/cdn.parsely.com\/keys\/fortworthreport.org\/p.js”><\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"by Scott Nishimura, Fort Worth Report August 18, 2026 Fort Worth City Council members wrestled over several proposed…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1009810,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5138],"tags":[5229,4653,4654,7371,86329,7372,5615,11017,7926,358,3187,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":["post-1009809","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-fort-worth","tag-america","tag-cats","tag-dogs","tag-fort-worth","tag-fort-worth-animal-care-and-control","tag-fortworth","tag-lead","tag-pet-adoption","tag-pets","tag-texas","tag-tx","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/117119602678035916","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1009809","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1009809"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1009809\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1009810"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1009809"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1009809"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1009809"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}