Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lubbock council votes 5–2 to set roadway impact fees to zero after public comment
Summary
At a special called meeting the Lubbock City Council approved on second reading Ordinance No. 2025-000096 to set roadway impact fees at 0 by a recorded 5–2 vote after an extended public comment period with residents and committee members urging opposing positions.
The Lubbock City Council voted 5–2 at a special called meeting to set roadway impact fees to 0, approving Ordinance No. 2025-000096 amending Chapter 41 (Impact Fees) of the City Code on its second reading. The council conducted a recorded vote after an extended public comment period in which residents, business representatives and former committee members offered conflicting views on the ordinance’s fiscal and growth impacts.
The decision will remove the city’s current collection of roadway impact fees, a funding mechanism council members and members of the public debated as an alternative to using bond proceeds or general-fund revenue for road projects. “Impact fees are a fair, equitable, and essential tool for funding critical infrastructure,” said Chris Berry, a member of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, urging the council to retain the existing 25% builder-paid ratio. “Setting impact fees at $0 will not only remove the key funding mechanism, it would also signal an infrastructure cost to existing taxpayers.”
Several residents urged the council to keep or raise fees so new development bears more of the cost. “If people in Districts 5 and 6 want new development, let them pay the impact fees,” said Stephanie Smith, a District 2 resident. Opponents of the current fee structure argued developers and new homeowners should carry more of the cost of roads and utilities that new development requires.
Other speakers argued the city benefits from collecting impact fees at permitting and that the fees have funded projects already. “There have been $14,000,000 approximately of impact fees collected to date,” said Thomas Paine, former chair of the impact-fee committee, adding that a portion of those funds “enabled the substantial completion of $26,000,000 of roadway projects.” Paine warned that eliminating impact fees could increase the need for future bond issues and general-fund spending.
Members of business and pro-growth groups argued for planning and coordination rather than elimination of fees. Jordan Wheatley, representing four local pro-growth associations, urged the council to develop a multi-year plan and real-time bond tracking to coordinate road funding with development.
Mayor Pro Tem expressed concern for taxpayers, saying more residents likely will face tax increases even as she acknowledged the broader debate and thanked all parties for their work. The motion to set the collection rate at 0 was adopted by recorded vote, 5 in favor and 2 opposed. The council did not identify individual votes in the public record excerpt provided; the mayor announced only the final tally and that the ordinance “passes 5 to 2.”
The meeting included many public speakers and several committee members who described the history and mechanics of the city’s impact-fee program; speakers offered differing counts for amounts collected and spent. The ordinance’s effective date and any administrative follow-up were not specified in the meeting excerpt.
The council adjourned after the vote.
