Council receives 2025 impact‑fee restudy; public hearing draws competing views from builders and business groups

The Lubbock City Council received July 8 a statutorily required 2025 impact‑fee restudy and held a public hearing that produced sharply divided public comment from home‑builder and business groups and from the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CEAC).

City Engineer John Turpin summarized the restudy and told council the study uses a 2.2% annual growth assumption, a 10‑year planning window and updated trip‑generation factors from the 11th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. The methodology groups the city into service areas (A–H), projects vehicle miles traveled per service unit, and converts those travel demands into a maximum assessable fee and a per‑unit fee once a service unit (for residential, per dwelling unit) is applied.

Why it matters: impact fees are one tool to help pay for new road capacity triggered by new development. The council must receive the restudy report before proceeding to any later ordinance that would set or change rates. Council received the report unanimously.

Study highlights and policy options shown to council - Growth and time horizon: the study assumes 2.2% annual population/land‑use growth and models needs over a 10‑year window. - Methodology: traffic demand factors (vehicle miles per unit) from the ITE manual were applied to single‑family and multifamily units and to nonresidential uses (by 1,000 sq. ft.). Updated TDFs moved some use categories up and others down compared with the prior study, the engineer said. - Recoverable costs and allowable percentage: the study calculates a universe of roadway projects, selects a 10‑year recoverable subset and applies the statutory 50% reduction required under state law (the statute limits the portion cities may recover). The advisory committee recommended collecting 50% of the remaining 50% (i.e., 25% of total project cost), which staff presented as one option among several. Staff also presented an averaged option between CEAC recommendation and current rates. - Service‑area variance: fees vary by service area; Area F currently shows the highest per‑unit fee because it has a relatively large planned project cost but lower recent permit activity.

Public and stakeholder comments - Chris Berry (CEAC chair) thanked staff and urged council to consider CEAC’s recommendation and said the committee tried to balance developer and city needs. - Thomas Payne (commenter, longtime local developer) argued impact fees distribute costs that otherwise would fall to all residents and warned that lowering collection rates reduces funds available for roads; he said impact fees enabled the construction of Quaker Avenue and other projects. - Jordan Wheatley (representing a coalition of home‑builders, Realtors, apartment and business groups) and Victoria Whitehead (home‑builders) urged council to pause or reduce impact fees, saying the city should instead rely on focused road‑bond planning and developer agreements. They argued the study and the program have been costly and that bond elections and developer agreements are more effective for funding major road projects.

Council action and next steps The council voted to receive the 2025 Impact‑Fee Restudy and the CEAC recommendations (a resolution to receive the report). The vote to receive the report was unanimous. No fee changes were adopted on July 8; staff told council the next formal steps toward ordinance adoption would happen in August if the council chooses to set rates before September (staff said new state timelines and audit rules could affect effective dates).

Council members asked for additional data and suggested options, including: detailed TDF tables, breaking out use‑specific rates (for example coffee shops with and without indoor seating), and further analysis of service‑area differences. Staff said they will provide the underlying spreadsheets and additional comparisons before any council vote on rates.

Quotes used in the hearing were from City Engineer John Turpin and members of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and public commenters.