Lubbock County adopts $322.6 million 2026 budget after heated debate over cuts and staffing

Lubbock County Commissioners Court on Sept. 22 adopted a $322,558,982 fiscal year 2026 budget after a lengthy public hearing and debate that included two failed amendments to shift additional funding to detention staffing and to roll precinct parks’ special tax rates back into the general fund.

The budget was presented by Lubbock County Auditor Kathy Williams, who said the county’s total proposed budget is $322,558,982 and that the general fund totals about $162 million. Williams told the court that the county realized a $15 million reduction in the total budget from last year, noted one-time increases such as a $4 million bump in motor vehicle registration revenue, and said the county will draw down reserves this year (roughly $6.8 million) to balance the budget.

The proposed budget drew public comment from Cassie Graham, who identified herself as a county employee and urged the court not to cut departmental funding, saying the cuts would harm morale and the county’s ability to serve children and victims. “When you underfund our departments, beat our morale, and run us off, who’s going to stand in the gap for the kids in this community?” Graham said during the public hearing.

Auditor’s summary and why it mattered

Williams said the budget relies in part on drawing down reserves and that sustained use of fund balance is not a long-term solution. She highlighted revenue changes: a $1.8 million estimated reduction from the no-new-revenue tax-rate calculation, roughly $4 million of one-time motor-vehicle-related revenue, and a projected $800,000 drop in phone commission revenue tied to a law change. She also said the budget includes reductions required of general-fund departments (an additional 10% reduction totaling roughly $2.4 million) and that not all requested new positions were funded—38 positions were requested and 12 were funded.

Key debate and failed amendments

Judge Parrish offered Amendment 1 to transfer $169,104 to fund two additional detention-center deputy positions (one per shift) to try to reduce mandatory overtime in the detention center. Parrish said the additional positions would help reduce overtime costs and burnout; opponents argued the county could not afford the increase and questioned whether the hires would materially reduce overtime. The amendment failed on a 2–3 vote (tally recorded as 2 in favor, 3 opposed).

Amendment 2 would have removed precinct park special tax rates (returning those revenues to the general fund by adding 0.002 to the general-fund tax rate) to align park funding with cuts imposed on other departments. Supporters said the change would make the court’s budget cuts consistent across departments; opponents said it would imperil park and clubhouse operations and staff funding. That amendment also failed on a 2–3 vote.

Final vote and positions

A motion to adopt the FY26 budget as presented was made by Commissioner Corley and seconded by Commissioner Shaw. The adoption passed 3–2. Judge Parrish and Commissioner Dolby voted against the final budget, citing its reliance on reserves and the effect of cuts on public safety, firefighters, facilities and road and bridge. Parrish and Dolby also argued the budget would harm county employees and was not sustainable if draws on fund balance continued.

What the budget does and does not include

- Total FY26 budget presented: $322,558,982; general fund approx. $162,000,000 (Auditor Kathy Williams). - The budget reflects an overall reduction from last year’s total and uses $6.8 million (approx.) in reserve drawdown to balance the plan. - General-fund departments faced a required 10% operating reduction; public-safety reductions totaled roughly $1.4 million for the sheriff’s office funds referenced by the auditor. - The budget does not include a countywide cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) or merit pool for FY26; several elected officials declined pay increases that had been proposed.

Court members and staff quoted in debate

“Who’s going to stand in the gap for the kids in this community?” Cassie Graham, a Lubbock County employee, asked the court during public comment, urging against deeper departmental cuts.

“If there’s an avenue to reduce the amount of overtime that the county is paying, I’m willing to go down that road and look at it,” Commissioner Shaw said in support of a modest additional staffing amendment intended to reduce detention overtime.

Judge Parrish said the budget’s reliance on reserves left the county vulnerable. Auditor Kathy Williams warned the court that continued reliance on fund balance is not sustainable and could affect the county’s bond rating and financial standing.

Ending

After the vote the court adjourned into an executive session; the budget takes effect for FY26 under the adopted tax-rate framework as explained in the auditor’s presentation. The court’s minutes show ongoing concern on both fiscal-conservative grounds and public-safety staffing needs; commissioners signaled a willingness to revisit staffing and overtime options in future budget cycles.