Lubbock adopts 2025–26 budget, approves tax-rate increase after council debate and failed amendment

The Lubbock City Council adopted the fiscal year 2025–26 budget and approved a tax rate on second reading after hours of discussion about possible cuts and priorities.

The council voted 5–2 to adopt the budget the body had previously approved on first reading, and later ratified the decision as required by state law. The ordinance setting the tax rate passed 5–2; the city manager said the combined interest-and-sinking (I&S) and maintenance-and-operations (M&O) rates amount to a 2.22% increase and would raise the average single-family residential bill by $15.33 per year.

Why it matters: The adopted budget funds city services, capital projects and utilities and sets the local property-tax allocation that determines how much homeowners and property owners pay. Council members who pressed for additional cuts said they were trying to lessen the tax impact on households with limited incomes; others warned that further reductions would jeopardize planned projects and services.

The debate and amendment attempt

Mayor (role: Mayor) opened a sustained debate about possible reductions after the council reviewed the budget presented by Jared Atkinson, the city manager. The mayor said, “I don't believe the budget that's before us reflects a serious effort to keep taxes as low as possible,” and proposed an amendment that would have reduced spending by $971,000 across several line items.

The mayor’s initial amendment package would have: shifted $300,000 from the I&S tax component into M&O (a revenue move), cut $100,000 from Market Lubbock, trimmed $556,000 from non-public-safety non-personnel budgets (a roughly 2% cut of non-personnel spending outside police, fire and animal control), and reduced council-program spending by $15,000 by replacing the Japan Ambassadors trip with a locally run junior leadership program. After further discussion the mayor removed the $300,000 I&S shift and offered a revised $671,000 expense reduction. The revised amendment was seconded but failed in a recorded vote, 4–3.

Council members who opposed the amendment cautioned that many city departments are interdependent and that prior cuts already removed $1.7 million from a street-maintenance contingency. Dr. Wilson, who moved the underlying budget motion on the tax rate, argued that the proposed reductions would have only a marginal effect on the average taxpayer while harming critical services and projects.

Formal actions and votes

- Amendment to reduce the budget by $671,000 (revised from the original $971,000 proposal): failed 4–3. (Yes: Mayor; District 1; Councilman Glasheen; Councilman Rose. No: Councilman Harris; Dr. Wilson; Councilman Collins.)

- Adoption of the fiscal year 2025–26 budget (second reading): passed 5–2. The motion adopted the budget package that the council had voted on in the previous week.

- Resolution ratifying the adoption of the fiscal year 2025–26 budget (state-law ratification of a vote that raises more revenue from property taxes than the prior year): passed (vote recorded as 5–2).

- Ordinance setting the 2025 tax rate and levying taxes: passed 5–2. Staff reported the I&S rate at 0.107586 and the M&O rate at 0.364605; the manager stated the combined change represents a 2.22% tax-rate increase and an average single-family annual increase of $15.33.

Budget and numbers cited in debate

Council members referenced the overall budget scale multiple times in argument: the mayor contrasted a single $15,000 cut with the roughly $316,000,000 size of the city’s budget as an example of the relative scale of proposed savings; council members also noted a prior $1,700,000 adjustment that affected the city’s contingency and tax-rate calculation. Jared Atkinson told the council the city’s budget exhibits further line-item shifts (for example, transfers to parks capital funds tied to new athletic-field fees) and explained the tax-rate components.

What the council did not change

Council members agreed not to change employee pay increases during the amendment discussion; the mayor explicitly said his motion would not affect the salary increase for city employees.

Looking ahead

Council members who voted against additional cuts warned that reducing contingency or capital funds could jeopardize planned projects such as street work already bid at higher-than-expected prices. Supporters of deeper savings said they wanted to minimize tax impacts on households with constrained incomes.

The council completed the agenda after adopting the budget and related motions, and then moved on to other items on the agenda.