In the winter of 2022-2023, the Real Estate Council of Greater Fort Worth (REC of GFW) proposed ten recommendations to the City of Fort Worth to improve local development processes. These recommendations aimed to promote a problem-solving culture, enhance interdepartmental coordination, invest in customer service, and support HR retention for a more efficient, developer-friendly environment. To track progress, REC of GFW has conducted a series of surveys involving both city employees and private developers.
Round 1: The first survey in early 2023 presented a mixed outlook. On the positive side, respondents acknowledged improvements in the Development Services Department and customer service training. However, challenges remained in fostering a city-wide problem-solving culture, resolving internal conflicts, and addressing HR retention. While city staff expressed optimism, private developers pointed to unresolved issues, such as departmental silos, conflicting directives, and complex platting processes. This highlighted the need for more comprehensive efforts to create a seamless development process.
Round 2: The second survey, conducted in October 2023, showed further progress and emphasized ongoing challenges. Successes were noted in implementing bi-annual engagement forums, centralizing development staff in the new city hall, and continuing customer service training. Yet, concerns persisted regarding interdepartmental coordination, HR retention, and the expansion of a problem-solving culture. City employees generally reported optimism, while private developers expressed frustrations, especially with the Water Department, operational silos, and slow platting processes.
Round 3: The latest third survey, conducted in September 2024, reveals substantial progress:
Engagement Forums: City employees expressed renewed optimism about the effectiveness of the bi-annual forums, and developers value these sessions for fostering dialogue.
Centralizing Development Staff: Most respondents acknowledged the success of centralizing staff both managerial under Development Services and at the new city hall, marking this effort as largely effective.
Customer Service Training: Both groups recognized the positive impacts of customer service training, though developers stressed the need for deeper cultural change.
Overall Status: The question has been asked, where is the City headed today vs. when the Ten Recommendations were first published in early 2023? In comparing an average of the first survey to the third survey today, 60% more of both city and private participants now feel that the 10 recommendations are improving or have been resolved. This clearly shows that the city is heading in a much more positive direction than when this process started. Breaking it down between city and private survey participants, we have an amazing 97% of private participants stating that overall things are improving or resolved. While the work is not yet done, congratulations are in order to city staff and their managers for all the hard work.
Key Survey Metrics: Progress from Survey 1 to Survey 3
Question | City | Private | Average |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | -30% | 62% | 16% |
2 | -7% | 76% | 35% |
3 | -40% | 194% | 77% |
4 | -16% | 194% | 89% |
5 | 40% | 106% | 73% |
6 | 12% | 76% | 44% |
7 | 40% | 62% | 51% |
8 | 12% | 155% | 84% |
9 | 87% | 45% | 66% |
10 | 130% | 1% | 66% |
Total Avg | 23% | 97% | 60% |
While broad progress has been made, round 3 also brings forward both persistent and new issues brought out within the survey itself, as well as follow-up discussions with the participants:
“Platting Takes Too Long and Costs Too Much vs. Other Cities”: From a developer perspective there was a great deal of comment about “platting taking too long” or “platting being too expensive” vs. other Texas cities. It was even said multiple times by multiple participants that “platting should be avoided whenever possible.” However, in discussing this, one must realize that developers see the “platting process” as inclusive of all manner of entitlement, studies and infrastructure investment that must take place prior to being granted the right to apply for a building permit. In reference to this question we heard the following specific objections:
For Worth plats, in particular infill replats have perhaps become too complex, expensive and time consuming for many smaller developers. Too many developers and their consultants are seeking to accomplish projects without platting. The amount of information, studies, and other notes requested beyond the plat boundaries indicates the city has a well intentioned desire to create a reference library. However, this desire has likely gone too far as evidenced by many simply finding ways to bypass the process entirely, robbing the community of an updated plat map. Additionally, overly complex processes like CFA’s are inappropriately being applied to simple projects like tap kills greatly adding to the time and expense of platting. Development Plats, like other cities utilize, would likely move many of these costs closer to actual construction where financing is typically in place to pay for them.
Infrastructure Studies, in particular water, sewer and stormwater studies, are in need of focus. Reviewers, particularly 3rd party storm water reviewers working under SDS, are asking applicants to study regions that other applicants have already studied or are in the process of studying. Attempts to collaborate on regional studies are discouraged. Expansive studies of infrastructure are beginning to cost more than the infrastructure being studied itself, yet, polite objections over costs or timing of expensive complex studies are not acknowledged. An additional issue with SDS is overly expansive maintenance documentation and design requirements for private infrastructure is adding a great deal of complexity and time to when the owner is required to maintain almost everything anyways. The expense of the studies is affecting project budgets and in some cases halting projects with the potential to deliver. Staff seem overly concerned about studying infrastructure even at the expense of getting it delivered.
The IPRC process is not able to effectively communicate with applicants. The IPRC communications process should be examined end to end. In particular, the limitations of Acella as well as staff being overwhelmed, are leading applicants to complain they are unable to partake in substantive discussions with staff and resolve comments in a timely fashion.
The IPRC Water Department Reviewers are not able to practically interpret their own design criteria. The reviewers appear unable to make any decision outside an overly rigid application of design criteria that cannot account for everything encountered in the real world. Sound engineering arguments on why something cannot physically happen are simply rejected with an automatic “Does not comply”. Issues require constant elevation to directors where site specific issues can be considered in addition to the design criteria. Of note, the director of the Water Department was highly praised as an excellent engineer making excellent resolutions to the issues highlighted above. However it is broadly agreed that the Water Department Director cannot be the sole decision maker to resolve conflicts for a city of this size.
Workflow and Communication Issues with Acela: Review Comments are not being effectively communicated as evidenced by taking 3, 4, and 5 review cycles to resolve.
Reviewers do not readily discuss comments outside of the “one-way street” of Accela. Applicants appear to be actively discouraged by some staff from attempting to discuss issues via phone or in person meeting requests.
Accela notifications are not working for applicants or reviewers. Both are spending a great deal of time of their valuable day watching all their projects in Accela to monitor for changes.
Interdepartmental Coordination: Improvements are acknowledged, but challenges remain with too many projects being idled for the following reasons:
Focus on timely resolutions or increased accountability within the Water and Legal departments should be studied as participants voiced increasing frustration over the need to escalate to obtain resolutions.
Departments don’t recognize other department’s authorization or appointment of agent forms. Legal should create a universal authorization form allowing an owner to empower their consultants to work a project through the city end to end.
Acella should have the electronic equivalent of a paper form for all necessary applications. Applicants are expressing frustration having to repeatedly enter applicant and project information onto a various departments’ paper forms and upload a scan of the form when the relevant data has likely already been captured in the Acella system. Projects should not stop waiting on paper form to duplicate project information already entered.
Real Property should outsource the recording process or allow applicants to record their own instruments as they appear overwhelmed and cannot record instruments in a timely fashion and projects are halted while waiting on recorded forms.
The city and REC should insist Tarrant County to purchase more modern scanning technology commensurate with the level of detail city reviewers are requiring on legal instruments.
Employee Overwork & Retention: Despite ongoing efforts, concerns about over work, incentive based compensation, and staff recognition are growing among city employees and developers. It would appear HR still can do more to proactively support recognizing standout employees and better work life balance.
Reviewers often appear forced to “game the system” when unable to meet their own deadlines, will give non-actionable comments to reset the clock. They are forced to hold applicants to rigid submittal deadlines and look for minutiae to reject applications to reset clocks and buy more time.
Staff are unable to follow through and execute on oral commitments/resolutions made in meetings.
Staff continue to complain that work sharing/accountability remain a problem as well as those putting in the extra hours are not recognized by HR.
Conclusion
Round 3 findings reflect both significant progress and remaining challenges. The City of Fort Worth has made notable strides with initiatives like engagement forums and staff centralization, but ongoing issues—such as interdepartmental coordination, problem-solving culture, and employee retention—require continued focus. With many processes now improved, it is easier to identify and address the most critical areas in need of attention.
REC of GFW remains committed to working with the City of Fort Worth and the private development community to build a more efficient, responsive development process. We extend our gratitude to the city for their efforts and look forward to continued collaboration in driving meaningful progress.
Third Survey Results:
Recommendation 1 - "Expand the overwhelmingly positive trajectory within the Development Services Department to all development related departments."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
Still too many staff personnel choosing to be bureaucrats versus helpful participants. Unlike management who understands the challenge Not done, but headed in the right direction. Developments Services is doing great. Getting some of the other department that are involved with the process of development are about the same I believe the potential to get better is there, but there are a lot of new faces, new office, new processes and it's going to take some time. Storm Water and TPW have taken a positive attitude.
Recommendation 2 - "Instill a culture of problem solving across all departments and down to the customer interface level as is the norm in most cities."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
The goal is to empower staff to address issues at the lowest level and remove further delays in going higher up. Noticeable changes, but water department has not been part of this improvement. Their culture is steadfastly impractical. Still too many escalations for simple decisions. Many new staff though. Hopefully this will improve with time. Developments Services is doing great. Getting some of the other department that are involved with the process of development are about the same It's clear staff have been through training on this. However, IPRC reviewers are still too reticent to make a decision. I'm still having to escalate to decisions makers all the time. If a reviewer can't approve something, they should not be a reviewer. I'm starting to see this...or at least hear it from staff. Need to push to Assist. Directors to make business decisions that benefit FW vs looking for ways the ordinance says you can't do something. It feels the right things are being said in meetings but the follow through is lacking.
Recommendation 3 - "Resolve city’s internal process conflicts between departments and remove the expectation that the customer will find a way to resolve them on their own."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
IPRC/CFA and Platting remain giant outliers to this Very clear that staff have been told not to do this. However, they need constant reminding to resolve issues. It seems the more difficult the issue, the more they just want to not deal with it. Maybe a little better. This is so much better. Still work to be done, please keep it up. Still got to get Water Dept. on board. To many bites at the apple, making comments after design review is complete. While some departments have developed a team philosophy, the Water Department remains fiercely independent.
Recommendation 4 - "Place relevant partner department personnel responsible for commercial development under formal written operational control of the Development Services Department Director."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
Water department does not work for DJ. Not sure Give DJ whatever he needs. He is on the right track.
Recommendation 5 - "Employees with development responsibilities should be located on the same floor and in close proximity to the Development Services Department and each other in the new city hall."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
New office location will greatly benefit this. It is understood that this has been accomplished with the new City Hall move however I have not utilized it personally yet.
Recommendation 6 - “Schedule regular meetings with staff for workflow reviews. Broaden third-party lean process improvements and BPIs for multi-department evaluations to improve procedures and accountability."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
IPRC/CFA and Platting remain giant outliers to this Please continue this! It's working. not sure if this is happening? The "partner" departments need to held to the same customer service level as Dev Services. Need to start this back up with the new IPRC process in play
Recommendation 7 - "Invest in proven customer service training annually for all city personnel involved in the development process. Ordinances should be enforced not as brick wall, but as a problem to be corrected."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
4.5 stars. Really great efforts here. The training is showing through. However the culture and mindset remains for too many of the older reviewers. Too often they devote a great deal of time and energy to prove a consultant wrong. If they invested half that time into suggesting alternatives we would be so much better off. However, they do not see that is part of their role.
Recommendation 8 - "The City Manager should host a forum twice a year with all development personnel and the commercial real estate community to discuss and resolve specific items. Progress on resolved items should be tracked in subsequent meetings."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
Please continue this! It's working. Please keep doing these. First two were well done. These have been great.
Recommendation 9 - "Heavy investment in HR retention efforts is needed to support and promote high-performing staff for the cultural shift towards problem-solving. Provide opportunities to advance within departments to avoid talent loss."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
Please continue this! It's working. Staff tell me this is no better. They are not getting paid for working harder except in very rare circumstances. The best people are over worked and under paid. I think some employees are still getting burned out. I think the salary adjustments and bonuses are helping.
Recommendation 10 - "Significant resources should be invested in improving all aspects of Fort Worth's Legal Department's important input as the current process is too slow to be practical."
FREEFORM COMMENTS:
Need accountability. They are not accountable. They need to be added to Acela workflow and respond in a timely manner There was immediate improvement, now I feel they are understaffed and time to review documents is growing.
Read the Initial Report:
You can read the initial 2022/2023 Report below:
About the Real Estate Council of Greater Fort Worth
The Real Estate Council of Greater Fort Worth (REC of GFW) is the unified voice for the commercial real estate profession, influencing action and supporting change to accomplish long-term job growth and enhance the quality of life. REC of GFW is made up of more than 600 members from more than 250 different companies who touch all facets of commercial real estate development. Besides conducting events and programs benefiting our members, REC of GFW addresses policy issues that affect development. REC of GFW is focused on three main areas:
Expanding Relationships -- we provide forums and events where relationships are expanded and leaders are developed.
Addressing Development Challenges -- we acknowledge development challenges in Fort Worth, Arlington, and Tarrant County and formulate and execute solutions with other partners to solve these challenges.
Addressing Community Challenges -- we address and work to solve community challenges to promote long-term job growth and an enhanced quality of life in Fort Worth, Arlington, and Tarrant County.
The Real Estate Council believes that strong economic development is at the heart of growing Fort Worth, Arlington, and Tarrant County. Members work closely with civic, business, and public service leaders to strengthen the promotion of Tarrant County to companies, organizations, and others whose presence increases the prosperity of our community.