Lubbock council adopts $316 million budget, approves 2.22% tax-rate increase after 5–2 vote

The Lubbock City Council adopted a $316 million fiscal 2025–26 budget and set a combined tax rate that the city manager said represents a 2.22% increase, increasing the average single‑family homeowner’s bill by $15.33 per year. The budget passed on a recorded vote of 5–2 after council members debated a mayoral amendment that sought additional cuts and failed 4–3.

City Manager Jared Atkinson told the council the package before them reflected changes since first reading, including reduced property‑tax revenue, transfers tied to street capital projects, a $15,000 cut in the council budget and a $1.7 million transfer into the general fund. He said the adopted tax components are an interest and sinking (I&S) rate of 0.107586 and a maintenance and operations (M&O) rate of 0.364605, which together produce the 2.22% increase.

The mayor, speaking during debate, said the budget “does not reflect a serious effort to keep taxes as low as possible,” and proposed an amendment that initially would have shifted $300,000 from the I&S levy into M&O and cut roughly $671,000 in expenses (including a $100,000 reduction for Market at Lubbock, a $556,000 reduction in non‑public‑safety non‑personnel budgets and a $15,000 reduction in the council budget to substitute a local youth leadership program for an international travel program). The mayor said the package would reduce the originally proposed tax increase by roughly half.

Several council members pushed back. Councilmember (Doctor) Wilson argued modest reductions would have minimal household impact while risking essential services, noting the budget’s proposed increases largely reflect inflationary pressures and critical public‑safety and infrastructure needs. Councilmember Collins said the council had already moved $1.7 million at an earlier meeting and warned additional cuts could jeopardize road projects and broadband commitments.

After discussion the mayor removed the $300,000 I&S shift from his amendment; the revised amendment then failed on a recorded vote, 4–3. The council then reverted to the previously proposed budget and approved it by a recorded vote of 5–2. The council also took the statutory ratification required by state law for a budget that raises more revenue from property taxes than the prior year.

The council’s vote sets the FY2025–26 budget and the tax‑rate motion that supports the adopted spending plan. Council adjourned at the conclusion of the meeting.