Council reviews FY2025–26 budget proposals; members propose parks fee increases and dedicated maintenance funding

City Manager Jared Atkinson and budget staff presented the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 operating and capital budget to the City Council during a work session Aug. 26, showing a proposed total budget of about $943,000,000 and a net $2.3 million increase in the General Fund.

Atkinson highlighted two categories with year-over-year increases: Public Safety (about $6.5 million, mainly for police and fire) and Cultural and Recreation Services (about $729,000, which carries Parks & Recreation and Museums). Other general fund categories were reduced to offset parts of those increases. Enterprise funds showed mixed changes: Lubbock Power & Light and stormwater were down, water/wastewater up, and airport activity remained grant-driven.

Atkinson proposed two technical changes to the proposed budget: remove a $24,000 traffic-sign printer from next year’s request because staff could buy it this year, and increase the vehicle replacement fund by $110,000 to acquire a machinery unit for cattail removal (funded from a $2,000,000 street bond contingency). Those changes were presented as staff recommendations.

Separately, Councilmembers Rose and Collins presented a fee-change proposal for Parks & Recreation. Under their plan, user-group resident fees would increase from $6 to $10, user-group nonresident fees from $8.50 to $20, and per-game field fees from $35 to $50. Staff estimated those increases could generate an additional $236,000 annually. The proposal as presented would allocate 60% of the additional revenue to the General Fund (to preserve current funding levels) and 40% to a dedicated capital-improvement fund for parks (to finance future maintenance and turf replacement). Council discussion included requests to formalize a mechanism (for example, a resolution) to set aside the dedicated portion, with staff noting that funds already allocated to a dedicated CIP could be backed by a resolution similar to other programs but that any future council could change such a dedication by action.

Councilman Collins and others emphasized that prior investments in turf fields (for example, at Burl Huffman and Tom Martin complexes) require planned maintenance and replacement funding; Collins asked staff to quantify the cost of raising staff pay by a half percentage point citywide as part of broader compensation discussions. Atkinson said staff would provide that cost estimate.

Atkinson also briefed the council on two fast-moving special-session bills at the state level that could affect local budgets. Senate Bill 10 (misstated in presentation as Senate Bill 1; corrected to SB 10) would change statutory voter-approval thresholds for certain tax rate increases; the House version proposed lowering the current 3.5% voter-approval threshold to 1% with a carve-out tied to police and fire expenditures calculated on year-over-year actual expenditure changes. The Senate version proposed 2.5% without the carve-out; staff and CFOs across the state were still evaluating the practical effect. House Bill 17 would require mailing a taxpayer notice to owners of all tax parcels with a more detailed form letter than existing notices; staff said the content largely exists in published budget documents but HB 17 would require a mailed notice to every taxpayer.

No final vote on Parks fee changes or the staff-recommended technical adjustments occurred during the Aug. 26 meeting; councilmembers generally signaled support and directed staff to return with formal language or an ordinance for the Sept. 2 hearing cycle. The presentation and the Rose/Collins proposal will be considered at the council’s upcoming budget and tax-rate hearings.