Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lubbock council sets roadway impact-fee rate to 0 after hours of public comment; vote 5–2
Summary
After an extended public-comment period in which residents and business groups argued over who should pay for new roads, the City of Lubbock on a recorded 5–2 vote approved an ordinance amending Chapter 41 to set the roadway impact-fee collection rate to 0.
LUBBOCK — The City of Lubbock City Council voted to set the city’s roadway impact-fee collection rate to 0 after a special-called meeting that included more than an hour of public comment from residents, developers and association representatives.
The ordinance (cited in council discussion as ordinance no. 2025-000096), considered on its second reading, passed on a recorded vote, 5–2, after Mayor Pro Tem requested a roll call. The measure amends Chapter 41 of the Lubbock Code of Ordinances with regard to roadway impact fees.
The public-comment period that preceded the vote featured starkly divided views. Adam Hernandez, communications chair for Global Compact, told council that “Altogether, impact fees have brought in about $14,000,000 in 4 years,” and urged members not to set fees to zero, saying service-area collections already fund substantial projects. Jordan Wheatley, representing four pro-growth associations, warned against changing a system he described as working, saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and called for a 15-year strategic plan to coordinate bonds and impact-fee funding.
Speakers who supported retaining impact fees argued fees provide a predictable revenue stream to pay for arterial roads, water and wastewater infrastructure and reduce pressure on the general fund or on future bond elections. Chris Berry, who read a letter into the record, said the 25% builder-paid share recommended by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee had proven reasonable and cautioned that replacing impact fees with bond financing could delay projects and increase costs.
Those who supported eliminating the collection rate argued that lowering or removing impact fees would encourage growth or respond to current budget pressures. Several speakers questioned staff presentations and asked for additional data or time to review exemptions and collection projections before a final vote.
Council members debated procedure and clarification before the mayor pro tem called for a recorded vote. The presiding officer announced the vote tally as 5 in favor and 2 opposed, and stated that the ordinance setting the rate to zero passed.
The ordinance was taken up on second reading; council did not record individual vote tallies by name in the public audio transcript available. The measure’s immediate effect is to set the collection rate at 0; next steps for implementation, any administrative adjustments, and whether the council will revisit the ordinance were not specified during the meeting.
The council convened and recessed into an executive session earlier in the meeting to consult with staff on information-resources security matters under Texas Government Code §551.089. After reconvening, the council heard citizen comments and then proceeded to regular agenda items, including the impact-fee ordinance.
