A conflicted City Council took the first step to kill controversial impact fees Tuesday with a final vote August 26.
Technically, the Council kept impact fees in place, but zeroed out how much they can raise on a 4-3 vote.
The city now charges the fees for new construction in most parts of town to pay a portion of the cost of paving new streets.
Opponents say they don’t raise enough money and decry the extra cost – more than a million dollars for a large commercial structure like a shopping center. The fees stifle new growth, costing Lubbock both money and jobs, they’ve argued.
Those in favor of impact fees spoke of fairness. Why should everyone else pay for the roads leading up to your new house on the edge of town?
“This has caused more sleepless nights for me than anything,” said Tim Collins, councilman for District 6.
Collins seemed to struggle more than other council members not wanting to charge impact fees but also not wanting to get rid of them. He was torn between both sides.
“Everyone who has spoken about this issue to us from the public has said something that rings true with me,” Collins told the council.
In speaking with LubbockLights.com, he added, “Everybody has made, I think, a good point.”
The vote
Collins offered compromise during the council’s Tuesday meeting – keeping impact fees on the books but lowering the amount collected to where it offsets inflation costs. It failed on a 4-3 vote.
David Glasheen, councilman from District 3, offered an amendment to reject the Collins compromise – opting for zero instead.
The majority voting for zero were Glasheen, Mayor Mark McBrayer, Jennifer Wilson, councilwoman from District 5 and Braden Rose, councilman from District 4.
“Road bonds have not been beneficial to my district. They just haven’t.”
Mayor Pro-tem Christy Martinez-Garcia
On the other side of the vote, Collins, Mayor Pro-tem Christy Martinez-Garcia and Gordon Harris, councilman from District 2, voted in favor of keeping the fees at a reduced level.
The council needs to affirm the decision again on August 22 in a second vote to make it final.
Argument for impact fees
During the meeting, Martinez-Garcia said, “Road bonds have not been beneficial to my district. They just haven’t.”
Her District 1 constituents got some 2022 bond money for unpaved streets but no major thoroughfare projects in the last two bond elections.
In the meeting, there was a brief discussion on the improvement of 19th Street from Keel Avenue to East Loop 289 – a project in Harris’ nearby district – paid for in part with impact fees.
Martinez-Garcia supported keeping impact fees but lowering the city’s percentage of collection to offset inflation, meaning fees would not rise with road construction prices.
For the last five years, the city collected 25 percent, and the state maximum is 50 percent.
“I would like to keep them where they’re at. I think that that’s fair right now,” Martinez-Garcia said.
Collins said impact fees could be thought of as a user fee for new homes and commercial structures, which he thought was perfectly fair.
“There is a fee because of where you chose to do that,” Collins said.
Former councilwoman Sheila Patterson Harris spoke up during the public comment period.
“I had the privilege of watching impact fees actually contribute to a huge roadway – a portion of it in the eastern portion of the city. And had it not been for impact fees, I do not believe that this project would have got off the ground,” Patterson-Harris said.
“The reality is the costs have passed down – resulting in higher home prices and rents.”
developer robert wood
Argument against impact fees
Patterson-Harris was not the only former government official to speak up. Chad Seay, former county commissioner, also took the mic.
“We can all call these impact fees, when we really know what they are is a tax,” Seay said.
“I actually work for some of the developers here. As a contractor, I know how expensive these projects are, and we’re asking them to risk their money plus collect the taxes for the city. … If we continue to raise the fees, there’s no incentive for the developers to keep developing,” Seay said.
Developer Robert Wood spoke.
“I represent the Zero Impact Fee Task Force … the West Texas Home Builders, Lubbock Apartment Association, Association of Realtors and the Lubbock Chamber of Commerce,” Wood said.
“The reality is the costs have passed down – resulting in higher home prices and rents,” Wood said.
But he also said folks are looking to build in other places like Wolfforth or Shallowater, which don’t charge impact fees.
Wood did not say this, but some people might also want to be in the Frenship or Shallowater school districts for their children.
Glasheen said, “The city is killing the Golden Goose. … This is an appropriate time to call it a failed experiment and to put an end to impact fees.”
Also, proponents of road bond elections say impact fees raise millions, but hundreds of millions are needed for roads to keep up with Lubbock’s expected growth.
The economic impact of impact fees
Collins said there’s no question the local economy is down from a few years ago.
In 2021 interest rates were near zero, and Lubbock built 2,428 new single-family homes.
By 2024, the interest rates were well over 5 percent and new single-family homes dropped to 1,558.
The taxable value of new commercial property in Lubbock went through the roof in 2022 – $1.3 billion of new growth. (In all fairness, the larger part of that was the new Leprino Foods facility.) It has dropped since then. Use the charts below to see the recent economic trends.
(Click the images to enlarge – charts from the City of Lubbock.)
Did impact fees cause a slowdown in the last two years? Collins is not persuaded.
“How detrimental this was? Again, it’s hard to quantify,” Collins said.
“As a small business owner, it’s important that we be pro-business and that we create pathways for people who want to get into business,” Collins said.
The expense was one thing. The complexity another.
“I think very much the complexity of impact fees and their calculation method – and all of the hoops you had to jump through to actually assess those fees – played a role in in their decision making. Those who were opposed to it, I certainly believe it played a role,” Collins said.
At a hearing on impact fees in early July, Wilson talked about her problems with that complexity, mentioning how a coffee shop with seating pays more than a coffee shop with only a drive-through.
“I’m just saying this out loud because my brain cells are trying to wrap around that,” Wilson said.
“So, you’re telling me one coffee shop that has people sitting in the chair versus one that has them driving through is a different amount? The same car – whether they’re driving to the drive-through … [or] parking in the parking lot – that’s the same amount of traffic to me. … It’s the same amount of cars,” Wilson said.
Are people tired of bonds?
Impact fee opponents said it’s better to use road bonds – which Martinez-Garcia challenged.
“It’s not just the city trying to do them. It’s also school districts and other jurisdictions,” she said, adding she thinks the public is increasingly tired of bond issues.
Collins addressed her concerns with LubbockLights.com, saying, “Who knows what the appetite of the voters will be?”
“To their credit, they’re seeing a vision forward for the city, for the school district and for our region. … If we don’t do a good job of selling that vision, then the taxpayers are going to recognize that. They’re going to say ‘no,’” Collins said.
Voters approved the last two road bonds and school bonds in Lubbock.
How impact fees started, recent debate and links to our five previous stories
Initiating impact fees:
- Public hearings were held on May 28, June 23 and October 6, 2020.
- The effective date was June 1, 2021 – with the city collecting 25 percent instead of the state maximum 50 percent in most areas of Lubbock. Two areas in Central Lubbock were set to zero. (Click here to see a map in a new window.)
- The fees were assessed when a plat map was approved. They are charged before a building permit is approved.
- The money can only be spent for “capacity” projects – building new thoroughfares or expanding current thoroughfares to handle more traffic. The money can only be spent in the same area of town where it is collected.
The recent debate:
- Prior to being elected mayor in 2024, Mark McBrayer campaigned on a willingness to get rid of impact fees, which were a point of contention with developers.
- An impact fee restudy costing $289,000 was ordered by the council on November 12, 2024, which has to happen every five years.
- The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) on May 12 this year approved a draft of the restudy for presentation to the council. Because the cost of road construction nearly doubled in the last five years, the collection was proposed to nearly double.
- Fees vary by area, but a single-family home in Area F (the most expensive) was originally $1,764. The proposed update in 2025 would have set the new fee in Area F at $3,149. For commercial buildings, the fees were much higher. Something the size of Canyon West was $671,000 in Area F. It was proposed to go to $1.2 million.
- A debate got underway even before the restudy was finished, which we followed in the links below. Opponents claimed there was harm to the local economy. Supporters said impact fees were a more fair and just way to pay for the thoroughfares leading to new developments.
- Builders not fond of impact fees for new Lubbock roads, but mayor wants to know what would replace them – February 3, 2025
- Could road costs price people out of new homes or push growth burden on current owners? Developers debate best path forward – April 9, 2025
- As impact fees come back to Council, are they best for road needs or is city-run bond process better? – May 22, 2025
- If Lubbock needs 139 road projects in 10 years for growth, how to fund? Public hearings on impact fees will tackle issue – July 3, 2025
- Impact fee changes for new development compared to ‘calculus 3’ – Council struggles with proposed increase – July 9, 2025
- Public hearings were held July 8 and July 22. The first of two votes on updating the impact fees was August 12. The second will be August 26.
Leftover money
Impact fees raised $14.3 million since their implementation in 2021. In the same timeframe, bond elections raised more than $300 million for roads.
Assistant City Manager Eric Rejino told the council $5.1 million already went toward three projects.
City Engineer John Turpin told LubbockLights.com, “We can still use those for the intended purpose of expanding roadway because they were collected during a time when impact fees were in place.”
“There’s lots of expansion projects that are happening right now,” Turpin said.
The money can even be added to projects that are already on a bond package so long as the money stays in the same part of town where it was collected.
