Public hearing on impact‑fee ordinance draws lengthy defense from Lubbock Compact; staff present data on permits and trip generation

The council held a public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapter 41 (impact fees) of the Lubbock Code of Ordinances. City staff emphasized the hearing was for public comment only; any ordinance changes would come later if council chose to act.

Staff presentation: a city staff presenter summarized recent building‑permit trends and impact‑fee background. Staff showed that single‑family permits peaked in 2021 (the presentation cited roughly 2,659 permits and valuations of about $649 million that year) and that commercial permits have been more stable, noting valuation outliers such as a major permit in 2022 and the expo‑center permit in 2023. Staff also said elevated interest rates and inflation have affected development. City Engineer John Turpin explained the transportation demand factor and trip‑generation inputs used to calculate transportation impact fees, and he said the city uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual (11th ed.) as the source for those trip rates.

Public testimony: multiple residents and policy advocates spoke. An early speaker suggested red‑light cameras as an unrelated revenue measure; the mayor reminded the public that comments must be on the impact‑fee ordinance.

Stephanie Smith, speaking as a resident, urged council to raise impact fees to the maximum (which she said is 50%) and argued for smaller, walkable development with more green space to reduce heat, water use and vehicle miles driven.

Joshua Shankles, managing director of Lovett Compact Foundation, delivered an extended argument in favor of impact fees. He said the council’s role is to “set the parameters for a fair market,” argued that impact fees help prevent uncontrolled outward sprawl, and warned that repealing impact fees would shift costs for new infrastructure onto all taxpayers — through either higher taxes or increased bond debt and interest. He addressed alternatives floated to the council (such as relying on bond financing) and said those approaches would amount to socializing developers’ costs, increasing debt and raising taxes. Shankles also noted the impact‑fee schedule runs on a five‑year cycle and that apparent large increases reflect accumulated capital projects and costs since the previous cycle.

Adam Hernandez, communications chair for Lubbock Compact, echoed Lovett Compact’s position and said a 50/50 split between current taxpayers and new development would be fair, with 25% developer/new‑growth contributions being the minimum acceptable floor if the council does not move to 50/50. Tom Laney of Lubbock Moonlight Musicals told the council he was confident the council is studying growth and thanked members for thoughtful deliberation.

Council procedure and next steps: staff reiterated the hearing was for comment only and no action was taken at the meeting. The hearing record will be part of the council’s materials when it considers the proposed ordinance and rates at a later date.

Ending: The hearing drew sustained, detailed testimony defending impact fees as a tool to cover growth‑related infrastructure costs and to incentivize infill over sprawl. Council members paused the hearing for a brief recess during the testimony; further council deliberation on the ordinance and recommended rates was left to future agenda items.