Early voting for Lubbock’s May 2 municipal election is underway, with the race for mayor at the top of the ballot.
One of the candidates is U.S. Veteran and local community leader Stephen Sanders.
In an effort to get to know the candidates in this race, the Avalanche-Journal sent out a questionnaire to all the candidates to get to know their platforms and priorities.
Here are Sanders’ answers to the questionnaire, as early voting is from April 20 – April 28. Election Day is May 2.
Q: The hyperscale data center proposal for northeast Lubbock was rejected by Planning and Zoning and then withdrawn. The developer plans to resubmit. What criteria should the city require before approving a project of this scale — and should the city require mandatory water and energy consumption disclosure from data center operators?
A: Before approving any data center, the city must require:
1. Mandatory water and energy disclosure: Real-time reporting of consumption. No secrets.
2. Water impact assessment: How much aquifer draw annually? What’s the 20-year projection?
3. Grid capacity study: Will this overload our electrical infrastructure? What upgrades are needed, and who pays?
4. Long-term tax revenue vs. short-term hype: We’ve heard promises before. I want independent analysis comparing data center revenue to what residential/commercial zoning would generate.
5. Clawback provisions: If the project doesn’t deliver promised jobs or tax revenue, the city has recourse.
My position: I’m skeptical of large data centers given our water constraints. But I’m open to considering smaller, less water-intensive tech operations if the data supports it.
Q: LEDA’s CEO said the project would bring significant tax revenue. Critics say the same land zoned for residential and commercial use would generate more long-term revenue. How do you evaluate that tradeoff? Is Lubbock even ready for an AI project, given the recent developments across the state on AI Data centers?
A: LEDA’s job is to sell projects; our job is to protect Lubbock’s long-term interests. I don’t automatically trust the “significant tax revenue” claim without independent analysis.
The real question: would residential and commercial zoning on that land create more sustainable, long-term wealth than a single data center that depends on current AI market hype?
Lubbock is not ready for a hyperscale data center. We’re still securing our water future and stabilizing our grid. Until we’ve answered those questions definitively, bringing in massive industrial water/power users is reckless.
I’m focused on the Inland Port and festivals—projects that don’t compete with us for our scarcest resources.
Q: The City, like other governing entities, is facing budget constraints, and recently the city dissolved impact fees. Last year the city also saw shortfalls in sales tax collections and lost dollars from LCAD. Given that the 2026 budget already required a tax rate higher than the no-new-revenue level just to maintain current services and the growing size and population of the city, are you for or against raising the tax rate? Explain your reasoning
A: I am against raising the tax rate. Here’s why:
The budget crisis isn’t a revenue problem—it’s a spending problem. We’re drowning in debt and administrative bloat, not because we don’t tax enough, but because we spend recklessly.
Raising the tax rate is surrender. It tells residents: “We can’t manage what we have, so give us more.”
My answer is the Taxpayer Protection Act (balanced budget) paired with the $100M growth plan (Inland Port + festivals). We grow our way out of this fiscal crisis by bringing in outside revenue, not by squeezing residents.
If we can’t fix this without a tax increase, we’ve failed.
Q: Lubbock’s crime rate has dropped significantly, but staffing hasn’t kept pace with population growth. How many additional sworn officers and firefighters does Lubbock need, and how will you pay for them without raising taxes or would you raise the tax rate for this reason?
A: Good question, and it deserves a real answer.
Based on population growth and current crime trends, Lubbock likely needs 30-50 additional sworn officers and 15-25 additional firefighters over the next 4 years. That’s roughly $5-7M annually in salary/benefits.
Here’s how I pay for it without raising the tax rate:
1. Redirect savings from administrative bloat (zero-based budgeting, consultant cuts).
2. Use growth revenue (Inland Port, festivals) to fund operations without tapping reserves.
3. Pay-as-you-go capital spending frees up debt service dollars for operations.
Public safety is non-negotiable. I will make the tough cuts elsewhere to fund it.
Q: The First Friday Art Trail generates tourism, foot traffic, and economic activity downtown — exactly what HOT funding is designed to support. In 2024, the council cut that funding over content concerns, then restored it with new restrictions requiring grantees to avoid issues of a divisive or controversial nature. Who defines “controversial” and is that standard enforceable without becoming viewpoint-based censorship?
A: This is a free speech and viewpoint discrimination issue.
“Controversial” is deliberately vague, which makes it a tool for censorship. One council member’s “divisive” is another’s “important dialogue.”
My position: HOT funding should be evaluated primarily on economic/tourism impact, not content. If First Friday drives foot traffic and visitor spending, it’s doing its job. Content restrictions—especially vague ones—invite lawsuits and damage Lubbock’s reputation as a city that welcomes artists.
If the council wants to restrict content, they should vote publicly and own it. But hiding behind vague language like “controversial” is cowardly and legally vulnerable.
Fund the impact. Not the message control.
Q: Hotel Occupancy Tax is paid by visitors, not Lubbock taxpayers. Should HOT-funded cultural grants be evaluated primarily on their economic and tourism impact, or should the council exercise content-based oversight of what artists and venues present?
A: HOT funding should prioritize economic and tourism impact, period.
Here’s the principle: visitors pay the Hotel Occupancy Tax, not Lubbock residents. That money exists specifically to attract tourism and economic activity. Using it for content control contradicts its purpose.
If the council believes certain art or messages are inappropriate for the city, they can vote to defund it publicly. But they shouldn’t hide behind vague “controversy” language to avoid accountability.
I trust artists and venue operators more than I trust bureaucrats to decide what’s “divisive.” Let the market and tourism metrics decide. If something doesn’t drive visitors, it won’t be funded next year anyway.
Q: The feasibility study noted the Civic Center has reached “the end of its functional life”. What is the cost of doing nothing — how much economic activity is Lubbock losing by not having a competitive convention facility?
A: The cost of doing nothing is massive and cumulative.
A failing civic center loses major events (conventions, trade shows, concerts) to competing cities. That means lost hotel nights, lost restaurant revenue, lost sales tax. Over 10 years, that’s likely $20-40M in foregone economic activity.
Also: the building deteriorates faster, repairs become emergency-mode expensive, and liability grows.
But a $100M new civic center built on debt is worse than doing nothing.
My approach: conduct a feasibility study on a modest civic center upgrade/replacement ($30-50M) funded through public-private partnership or phased pay-as-you-go. We fix the problem without going bankrupt.
Q: Private-public partnerships have been a contentious point with the City of Lubbock with a big project being stalled for a while — outside of the city control— while smaller ones under the city’s purview have succeeded but not without their complaints — lack of funding, ambitious ideas having to be edited down or the entities having to place a timeline on it. Should the city consider pursuing public-private partnerships for the civic center project and/or for future projects?
A: Yes, but with strict guardrails.
PPPs work when:
1. The private partner assumes real financial risk (not just operational risk).
2. The contract is transparent and the city retains control over core decisions.
3. Performance metrics are clear and clawbacks exist if goals aren’t met.
Lubbock’s past PPP failures happened because the city was too desperate and didn’t negotiate from strength. I will only pursue PPPs where:
• The private sector brings capital, not just expertise.
• The city keeps majority voting control.
• Financial terms are publicly disclosed.
Done right, PPPs can deliver projects without draining city reserves. Done wrong, they’re just hidden debt.
Q: Lubbock loses college graduates to bigger cities. What specific quality-of-life investments would you make to retain young professionals — and is “affordable” enough to compete with cities that offer more cultural and recreational amenities?
A: Retention requires three things: jobs, community, and affordability.
Jobs: My Inland Port and growth strategy create middle-class career paths—not just retail and tourism.
Community: Invest in downtown walkability, parks, and cultural events (First Friday, festivals). Young professionals want a vibrant neighborhood, not just a job.
Affordability: Keep housing costs down by reducing development friction (30-day permits) and using infill incentives. Young professionals will stay if they can afford to buy a home.
But here’s the reality: we’ll never compete with Dallas or Austin on “coolness.” We compete on affordability + opportunity. Build that, and retention improves.
Q: If elected, what issue would be your top priority, and how would you work with council to accomplish it?
A:Priority #1: Restore fiscal sanity through the Taxpayer Protection Act.
Everything else—public safety, infrastructure, growth—depends on fixing the budget first. We can’t invest in the city’s future if we’re drowning in debt and reserve depletion.
How I build consensus:
I won’t be a “my way or the highway” Mayor. I’ll listen to each council member’s district priorities, find the fiscal space to fund them, and ask in return for support on the Charter Amendment.
Council members care about delivering for their districts. If I can show them how fiscal discipline enables more district investment (not less), I’ll have allies, not enemies.
Leadership is persuasion, not coercion.
Mateo Rosiles is a reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal and USA TODAY Network in Texas. Got a news tip for him? Email him: mrosiles@usatodayco.com.
This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Get to know about Lubbock mayoral candidate Stephen Sanders, his platforms
Reporting by Mateo Rosiles, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal / Lubbock Avalanche-Journal
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
