Good afternoon.

The time is now 2.02 p.m.

on Tuesday, September 16th, and the City of San Antonio budget work session is called to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Corps.

Councilmember Castillo Angiano.

Councilmember Via Gran.

Councilmember Mungia.

Councilmember Castillo.

Councilmember Galvan.

Councilmember Alderete Gavito here.

Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Present.

Councilmember Spears.

Councilmember White.

Mayor Jones.

Okay.

Mayor, we have quorum.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This meeting is to hear about potential amendments.

The FY26 proposed budget.

Eric, over to you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

So I'm sure you've seen we sent a new memo out earlier.

Um, and we're gonna walk, justina's gonna walk through a quick presentation.

It's got a couple of other adjustments, and we'll point them out.

Um, but but for reference purposes, there's been a lot of things, uh, a lot of uh adjustments and requests, so I would ask that you look at what's being presented as the latest information on the presentation slides, just a couple of adjustments, and we'll make some clarifications because on the memo that was sent out.

We you know, we attempt to capture um council members that we've heard in prior work sessions.

Justina will point out in a couple of areas where we left off some of the council districts.

But this is a this is one of two budget amendment work sessions, and uh I'll be working with you all and the mayor to make sure that we get a good summary of today so that we're prepared for tomorrow.

Justina thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Justina Tate, I'm the budget director for the city of San Antonio.

Today we wanted to provide a brief uh recap budget recap, and then we'll move into the uh potential budget amendments, and then finally, we'll review potential reductions and new revenue as a um as a way to pay for these budget amendments.

So the budget is a comprehensive plan that guides the city spending, reflecting council and community priorities.

The fiscal year 2026 budget proposed budget is four billion dollars, and this budget has been presented to city council over the past 10 budget work sessions.

In addition to these work sessions, we hosted 11 town hall meetings as well as two public hearings to provide to provide information about the proposed budget as well as get community input.

Additionally, uh the questions that mayor and city council had during the budget work session presentations, those responses have been provided, as well as the report and summary of our town hall meetings.

Today we will begin deliberation on potential budget amendments to the 2026 proposed budget.

It is required that we maintain a balanced budget for fiscal year 2026, and this is required by law, and our goal is to keep 2027 the 2027 plan balanced.

So, as we started preparing the 2026 budget, we faced several challenges that we had to address.

As presented during our five-year forecast as well as the trial budget, the general fund faced deficits in both fiscal year 2026 and 2027.

As you may recall, our revenues are still growing, but they're growing at a slower pace than what we have historically seen, and our expenses were outpacing our revenue growth.

As we saw, this was not unique to San Antonio.

Cities across Texas as well as the United States are experiencing the same challenges that we are.

When we presented the budget on August 14th, it was balanced, and the plan for 2027 was balanced as well.

We balance this budget by reducing spending with minimal impacts to services, used savings from completed project and unspent balances, moved eligible projects to capital, implemented the CPS revenue financial policy, and finally increased fees and fines to add additional revenues.

We balanced the budget using our guiding principles that were adopted by city council during the goal setting session.

These included protecting essential and mandated mandated services, minimizing impact to vulnerable population, and avoiding long-term risk as a result of changes in the budget.

So in summary, our total budget is about $4 billion, is comprised of three main components the general fund at about $1.69 billion, the capital budget at $1.1 billion, and our restrictive funds at about $1.2 billion.

I do want to remind us that when we presented the trial budget, the general fund was projected to grow about 3.5%.

With the reductions, we reduce that growth to about $1.6%.

However, we do face challenges in fiscal year 2028 and beyond.

Now I'll move on to the potential amendments that have been provided to you, as well as the city manager mentioned, a couple additions that have been added.

The first is to add funding to increase the employee compensation, adding $750 to the base salary.

The second amendment would restore funding to install 60 new radar feedback traffic signs as well as 70 flashing stop signs.

The third provides funding to add 40 new police officers for patrol, increasing the number of officers from that are being added from 25 to 65.

Number four would restore the minor repair program, adding a million dollars back, increasing the budget from $7 million to $8 million.

Number five would restore the SA Book Festival, adding $50,000, increasing the total amount to $247,725.

And number six would restore $1.4 million to our small business construction grant program.

Number seven, this would restore one position for the vacant building program in the Office of Historic Preservation.

And number eight, adds $3 million in one-time funding for the installation of street lights in 2026.

This would be funded from the community safety reserves, so it would have no impact on the general fund.

Number nine would allocate $144,000 for Big Mama Safe House.

And the next several are uh related to delegate agency funding, and the funding for these increases for these agencies would be taken from the delegate agency reserve for the fiscal year 2026 and 2027 solicitation.

So this includes an increase of $50,000 for American Gateway, an increase of $125,000 for family violence prevention services, and this would this amendment would make this agency a designated agency and would combine the two contracts into one.

The next is a delegate agency, Lamo Area Rape Crisis.

Number 15 would add funding in the amount of 650,000 for mental health and language access.

And finally, this the last one would increase SA Kids Breathe by 50% or $300,000 for a total general fund of $900,000.

Now I do want to mention that on number 11, the Family Violence Prevention Services, District 8 is in support of this, as well as number 14, which is the funds to purchase essential equipment and tangible resources for UT San Antonio.

And finally for the capital budget.

So that those are the potential amendments for the general fund.

I'll move on to our potential amendments for tax increment reinvestment zone.

Now these would all be funded through our TURS.

The first one would be $250,000 for a total of $500,000 over two years for Prosper West.

The second one would provide 150,000 for pet deposit assistance pilot program.

The third one would provide 200,000 for the Martin Luther King commemorative program performer.

And finally, in the TURS, this would provide funds in the amount of $300,000 for feasibility study for secondary ACS campus.

Moving on to restrictive funds in the capital budget, we have for all the restricted funds.

This would add $750 to the base salary increase for a total amount of $4.1 million over our restricted funds.

And then finally, in our capital budget, this would add a million dollars for each city council district for capital improvement projects.

Now the next slide illustrates some potential reductions and revenue enhancements that could be adopted to balance the fiscal the general fund budget.

In terms of reductions, we uh the elimination of the inner city incentive fund.

So this would be three million dollars over two years or one and a half million dollars each year.

Number two would be to move the Alamo Promise funding to ready to work.

This would be 1.9 million dollars in 2026.

So these additional reductions would equate to about 4.9 million dollars over the two years.

In terms of our revenue enhancements, uh this revenue enhancement would increase the parks environmental fee by 50 cents, increasing it from $1.50 to $2.

And this would generate about $4 million, which would allow us to move some parks expenses that can be funded out of the parks and environmental fund and create about $4 million in capacity in the general fund.

This concludes the presentation, and we'd be happy to take any questions.

Just one clarification on item number 15.

I think that's that's incorrect.

It's it is funds in the total amount of 650.

It's 500,000 in mental health, it's 150,000 in additional TB work, and then it's $10,000 for language access.

And those amounts came from one of the follow-up memos that Metro Health uh provided to you all, and I just wanted to make that that correction.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thanks, Eric.

Uh Ms.

Tate, thanks, and and truly thanks to the entire staff.

I mean, we were all uh receiving numerous memos at all hours of the evening with um uh your very diligent responses to our questions.

So thanks for for helping us do that.

I think um what this has also shown is you know we've often talked about um the uh the tabletop exercise that we will do to help us understand um where are we making some assumptions um and where we're gonna have some more challenges in 26 obviously was was not the the kind of the big hurdle, the really one is is in 27.

And I think for those of us that you know read uh um uh Claude's uh Dr.

Jacobs memo about you know where we anticipate some challenges really on the the Metro Health budget, frankly signifies that um a great deal.

So thanks for for providing that and helping us illustrate helping us understand those federal grants, what they what they pay for today, what they may pay for, but if we wanted to get to neutral, how we could how we could do that better.

On the um on the first, as we go down these, um, I'm gonna provide a couple of comments and then I'm gonna go around and ask my colleagues kind of where they'd like to prioritize these, um, but maybe some clarification on these will also be helpful.

Um, in light of frankly, no new money.

Um, one of the things I think it'd be helpful for us to understand, um, Eric is where we may have an opportunity for some new money if we if we wanted to stress that a little bit more, um, in particular looking at um additional fees from the um uh the food and and beverage piece of the yeah, Mayor.

That was one of the one of the topics I think there was for follow-up.

Um we can um one of the homework assignments we can take away from tonight is making sure that whatever bounds the state law allows to provide you all with some options to to make sure that um we potentially come up with additional resources.

Yeah, that's helpful.

Thank you.

The other piece again, just because there is a long list of asks, and I think we want to treat all of our employees equitably.

I think we also recognize um the vast majority of of the folks are making less than 100K.

So I'll welcome understanding how much room that gives us if we limited that pay raise uh to only those making less than 100K.

In terms of some of the questions on on here, on number on number three, I think all of us support again, all of us prioritize making sure that we are adequately investing in public safety.

I think it is important for all of us though to understand how these life cycle costs increase when we move some of those bills up, right?

And so helping us understand as a result of adding the 40 new police officers sooner than anticipated.

How much does that increase the cost of those more over time?

I appreciate the additional resources put toward this.

How can we do a minimum level of repair at more homes?

So welcome understanding what that menu might look like, Eric.

Number 10, I um uh support additional funding for American Gateway.

I actually had the opportunity to visit with them this this Saturday, they had a clinic and appreciate their work, largely volunteer uh lawyers that are helping those folks get through the process.

Um, and those folks are uh that are going through that many all of them actually, as the uh as the San Antonio office lead mentioned, are all legal permanent residents.

So here already working, already paying taxes, et cetera.

And frankly, unfortunately, in this time have been uh uh larger targets for for scams.

So that minimal amount of funding to help those folks attain um attain their citizenship, I think is a small investment with a very high return.

I'd welcome understanding what is um more about the transitional care clinic.

I know this was a little bit of a of a late ad on there on the Alamo Promise piece.

I um uh appreciate the uh the some some flexibility to pay for that in a different way.

Um I uh don't want to make it any more arduous for them in terms of reporting, but if we do have the ability to um further refine where those folks are focused, I mean we know what we want folks to be to be spending their time and energy on, and so if there was a way to um make sure that that money specifically went to the advanced manufacturing program, I would appreciate that.

In general, with these, I know we're doing things uh, you know, as as mentioned, reductions in in um in costs and some of these things, and we're doing things a different way, Eric.

A couple of programs though that that come to mind to make sure that we are monitoring implementation so that when we say there is no impact to budget and we're still providing a certain level of service that we can say that with fidelity.

So, for example, um, you know, monitoring the community health care health workers program to ensure that the implementation of that we're still meeting the the spirit intent of that.

And then um I attended the youth town hall, the uh the the project worth uh piece, frankly, anything related to to mental health services for our young folks, but in particular, as we're doing that uh providing that service differently, the project worth.

I want to make sure that we're also monitoring it so that there is uh no degradation and in providing that.

Okay.

Okay, great.

First one that we've got um is Chair Via Grand.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I want to thank you all for your very hard work in the four years I've been here and in the many years as an employee and as a uh as just a citizen watching, um, this has probably been a pretty difficult one, other than the lean years of COVID, uh, which were difficult nationally, and I think some of this is reflecting nationally.

I think the priority uh that I'd spoken about since the beginning was if we're looking at slide eight was the funding to provide an increase.

And so from what you presented to me, I'm ready to move forward with this because it's two percent across the board, a 750 base salary increase, and then some of our employees will get four percent.

So I think this is this is uh a good amendment that we need to see move forward.

Now, how we're going to see that happen is a whole other conversation.

In terms of two and um my my concern is maybe we can scale this back just because the um the emphasis of support seem seemed to come from the northern district, and I think that's stuff that we can get done within our funds as a district, and then we could pilot possibly uh for number three, we do have the 25 proposed officers, and it would be amiable if we needed to scale that a little and bring on maybe an additional 10 to 15 officers to get to a nice even number there.

For number three, we do have the 25 proposed officers, and I would be amiable if we needed to scale that a little and bring on maybe an additional 10 to 15 officers to get to a nice even number there.

Um but I I really think the conversation is going to be had to have on where these reductions are going to come from or where the increase in funds are going to come from.

Um minor repair is key, but I do agree with the mayor.

If we could do more repairs with uh minimal repairs, maybe we do need to look at that and possibly see how that moves.

Um, and then I'll I'll talk about the others later because other than the um reduction grant, I think after we get past four, we are really gonna have to make some hard uh decisions here as a council.

Um this priority, what this council has the previous councils and a majority on this council has made is that we know that we need to address our housing issues, and what I don't see is the help in the housing issues that we we're trying to meet our ship goals.

So I really think as we as we look through this, we need to make a decision on what we're doing for housing.

I think everything should be uh with housing as the type priority, uh, and then second only to our small business community that is being impacted by our construction and by um the current financial situation.

So uh TUR's emphasis should be on housing and small business and infrastructure.

And I think as we look at other amendments, I'm not for putting anything on the budget that should be done within a tour a TURS board meeting.

And I think you should let I think it's myself and SOC will be joining TURS here shortly that we can look at that because that uh brings concern.

In terms of the inner city tours, I think we really need to look hard because that was some of or the inner center funding on the slide where you're looking at cutting to get to our goal.

Uh that uh our any inner city incentive, some of that was used for housing.

So if we are going to cut that, I my question is where are we gonna find and then we don't do minor repairs or we scale that back.

Uh, where are we going to find the inner city incentive?

Moving all Alamo Promise, I think we can move it.

I don't think Alamo Promise should be under the restrictions of ready to work.

I think we need to re-look at that and rethink about how we're gonna work these two tracks because they are two entirely different tracks.

Um, and this will impact residents in my district because I know at Palo Alto, a lot of my students from Harlandale and McCullum go to school there on the Alamo Promise.

So I'm a little concerned about not moving it, but as we flesh out the requirements of how we do this, because I don't I've I have people that do Alamo Promise that want to go on to be attorneys and um doctors and things like that, and I don't I I want to make sure that that we can give them that opportunity and and chance.

Uh in the revenue enhancements, I think the uh increase in the parks and environmental fee is long overdue.

I think every year we we know that uh it's getting harder.

We just had the Office of Sustainability do two streets on the south side for um cool pavement, and I think uh 50 cent to generate four million is a good move right here to make sure that our employees get the raise that they deserve.

Uh when it comes to public safety, I think that's gonna be where our conversation is going to have to reach consensus within this dais because part of me sees the need for officers.

Yes, we need to do that, but then part of me sees the amendments that are coming forward regarding um for her and family violence prevention services.

My concern, however, with this delegate agency reserve move that we're making right now is if it is fair to the other delegate agencies that have gone through the process.

I would like by the next meeting for Melody to give me the reason of why family violence prevention services is currently not a delegate agency, why Alamo Area Rape Crisis is it was only funded through ARPA and that aspect, and then for for her, I I kind of know that story, but what I heard when they spoke the other day is that they're they're getting referrals from two agencies that we're already giving money to.

So this is my my concern.

And then and then the other thing in terms of public safety, the streets and um mental health are key.

So I am torn on where to sit.

But I look forward to hearing for from my um council colleagues about why it should be something else.

I did visit with Big Mama Safe House.

That was not the dollar amount I was given.

So I am I am I would be open to put them on the um amendment and in the general fund because they have made some commitments to help with things outside of just um you know working with the police, but I I would need to really see uh where those dollars are going.

Because for me at this point, as we move forward, it's about um accountability, it's about where we move forward.

Does it account with our goals uh when it comes into regards for housing um and uh and safety and just really moving the city forward?

So I I'm I look forward to hearing my my council's conversation uh regarding why some of these are supported, but at this rate, and I know that this isn't where some people sit, I don't see us making any amendments without moving the revenue enhancements with the with the parks environmental fee.

And if if that's the case, then the budget you brought forward to us um with other than I I really do want the money for the city employees, and I really don't want to see um any more city employees lose their jobs or any more uh jobs be frozen because that only means more work for our current employees.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Eric, to manage expectations in terms of when everyone will see the full list of amendments and then the full uh list or our opportunities for revenue sources.

Um is that something is that something that we might be able to see today or maybe end of today or by tomorrow, just so we understand where there is give and where there's really not any.

Yeah, thanks for mayor.

I probably should have said that at the beginning.

So we'll we'll we'll take um some of the feedback we get, and I would anticipate you all getting the memo tonight.

And then there may be anything that we can't leave this evening, we'll send the follow-up memo with some of the answers in the morning.

Okay that way everybody's got all the material as we get closer to tomorrow at two o'clock.

Okay, and and because I know it's gonna be um a significant topic, in case it helps anybody's um kind of internal deliberation on item number three.

Uh, if we wanted to do the 40 new police officers, do we just divide that two million by 40?

There's not a my point is that there's not a fixed amount that is required, whether you have 15 or whether you need 40, or should we write if you to the to Chair Viegeran's point if we did some number, can we just divide that by 40 and understand we multiply that by the number of officers we want, and that's what we could expect.

And not necessarily, Mayor, because there's some vehicles there in one-time calls that um is not a one-to-one per officer.

Okay, but we'll be happy to come up with whatever calculations you want us to do.

Thank you.

Maybe for reference points while y'all are talking, we'll calculate what 10 officers is with the vehicles, and then we at least have some sense of that.

Great.

Thank you, Eric.

Chair Corps.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you, Eric, Justine and Ria, for your hard work over the last couple of weeks and for putting this together.

I actually think we got a lot more frequent updates on the these amendments, and it helped me as we were going through the process.

So I just wanted to say I appreciated that.

Um I had initially going to, I'll start off with the cuts and the additional ideas for revenue.

Initially, I had had some struggle putting additional costs on our residents.

We we know this is this is gonna go on the CPS bill, right?

Eric, and so we know that's coming up recent uh coming up here potentially next year.

And so I just wanted to um say that that is it's a hard ask for us to be funding one thing by putting more money on our taxpayers.

So uh if we have to dip into that, I think we should do so very judiciously and thinking about what the right way to what what the most uh the amount that is most needed to um increase that fee too.

Uh as far as the Alamo Promise goes, I you're gonna hear this from all of us because we all have the same this has come to us before even today in terms of ready-to-work paperwork.

And and I hope it's okay, Mike, if I can bring you up and can you just tell us whether or not we can make sure we can streamline that process for folks going through Alamo process.

Um, did I did I say something?

Sorry.

Process, sorry, promise.

Got it.

Yeah, we've been um working with Alamo Promise and the Alamo Colleges for a while on what it looks like last year's budget, had about 2.1 million funded from ready to work, 2.4 million from the general fund.

And we've tried to streamline it as best we could to ensure that it wasn't an additional paperwork burden on the student.

Um so we accept the applied Texas application that's going to Alamo Colleges for residency, for the student age, their FAFSA application for their income level and their right to work in the United States.

There's two pieces of paperwork that they have to do in addition to the applied taxes and the FAFA.

They have to sign a release form from the Alamo Area Community Network, which is our central data hub for referrals within that system, and they also have to sign the commitment from ready to work, commitment to pursue a target occupation that's in demand here locally, a commitment to ensure that once they've complete their degree that they find work here locally in San Antonio.

Okay, I am charging you with figuring out a way to because uh based on the information that we're getting, it's still not as streamlined, and students are still choosing not to fill out the ready to work component because they feel like they've already gotten the promise grant funding.

So I'd love for you to think about whether we could get those two forms to the case managers over at Alamo Colleges and they have them fill them out or whatever the process is.

So the impact should not be that kids aren't getting this funding.

I agree.

Cool, thank you, Mike.

Um, okay, as far as actual amendment goes, I agree.

I think everyone's gonna say yes to number one, and I uh so I think we've got to figure out a way to fund that.

But if we only use cuts and not uh additional revenue sources, that's basically all that we can fund.

So everything else, I guess, is a uh conversation.

I had put in the memo that I sent uh shared with some of you guys that I thought you doing some funding for radar feedback signs and stop signs is really important.

I would actually prioritize that over the patrol officers because only because the biggest biggest challenge we have in some of our residential neighborhoods, and I know council member was thinking about a memo for this is speeding, and so folks really feel like speeding is a really big challenge, and we know we don't have enough patrol officers to address speeding, to address parking tickets, to address traffic challenges.

So that would be my uh preference over those two.

Uh I do agree that some of my colleagues have shared that we believe in safe officers, safe officers really help support our community safety, and they are the first line of defense, I think, for all of our residents who have who are building relationships, and so continuing building positive relationships through safe officers, I think is uh important.

So if there is any additional funding left, um if we all decide to increase that revenue, then I I would support just the safe officer component.

As far as the minor home repair, I know um councilman just mentioned this is important, housing is really important, but I was I was frustrated to see that there's not enough capacity in this.

So I think we need to figure out if we're gonna still do 144 units, we need to figure out how we can actually add capacity to that to our nonprofits, and maybe that's something that we can tackle from the housing trust.

And then as far as the other pieces, um, you know, if you guys, if anybody who's having major construction projects, I know council member Mungia has one coming up.

If y'all really want to advocate for the small business construction grant program, I like I mentioned last time I would support you, but I have had some major challenges with it, and I still get calls every day from another business being like I wasn't eligible because I've only been around for two years, and they told me they haven't seen enough of a loss, or whether like two years ago um I made 500k, this year I made 510, so I'm not eligible.

But it's 10,000 really an addition, is that increase a sufficient increase for a business that's growing with interest rates with tariffs, right?

There's so many nuances when you get into this, and uh once you set create rules, anyways.

I'm ranting.

Uh, but uh so I'll support whatever you all want because I know we we were able to help some of our businesses with that.

Obviously, book festival I think is really important, so I'm hoping we can squeeze out a 50 50k for that.

We talked about that a lot of support.

And then um, in addition, I just wanted to reiterate the delegate agency question.

So uh Melody, I'm gonna bring you up if you don't mind really quick.

On the delegate agencies, I do think we have to be careful because we did say we were gonna redo the process.

The only reason I was advocating for the three um organizations that did not get their full funding because they were told via email they were gonna be funded for eight months, and then they were not.

So can you just tell us a little bit about the difference between that and maybe a new agency that's looking for funding?

Sure.

So there were three agencies that received ARPA funding in fiscal year 24 and fiscal year 25, totaled 500,000.

Those agencies were time limited, they um as they were going through the process and in their contracts, they were told they would only be funded for those two years.

Um we sent an email out to delegate agencies that's that recommended, told them that we were recommending the eight months of funding so we could reset the contract process, and the agencies that were funded with ARPA received that.

We've notified the agencies, and um they disagree with that decision not to fund them, and so that's how we're here.

Thank you.

I'm sorry to put you, but I just wanted to say like that's why I think the advocacy there is important because they were told one thing, and um we we had public safety committee meeting this morning, and they do a lot for our our domestic violence support.

So um, those are the three ones that I think are really important to make sure they become whole because they were given that information.

As far as the last thing I'll mention is the tourist funding, I do agree that tours, I think these are great endeavors, like Prosper West, we've been working a lot with with the Housing Trust, and they're doing a lot better, and so I do think we need to fund them.

But I agree with Councilwoman Via Gran that this should go to the Tours boards before we um vote on them because if we vote on them, we're preemptively telling the boards that we've already said yes, we're doing like final authority before they've gone through tours.

So I agree that the tourist board should have that discussion, should be able to, because we want to make sure that those board members that we're appointing also feel that their voices are going to be taken into consideration in our final vote.

So I would support that going to the uh tourist boards.

Um I think that's it for now.

I'd be curious, uh, just as a follow-up.

I didn't um I may have missed the memo from Metro Health about the mental health support and the additions there.

So um I'll I'll go back and look at it, but I'd be am curious about that.

I I must have missed that.

We'll we'll pull that specific one.

It was in the second Metro Health follow-up.

Okay.

But we'll pull and point you to the to that amount.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

One clarification, Mayor, if you don't mind um on the on the tours.

You're you're talking about all four of those items go to the board first.

Yes, because what we're they uh yes, thank you.

Just to clarify that generally the process would be the tourist board votes on it, and then it comes to us.

Yes.

Okay, so I would just say let's follow the process that um that we've been going through.

I understand that it takes a little bit of extra time, but um that's what I'm saying.

Okay, thanks, Mayor.

I'm gonna foot stomp that memo that you just asked about is from September 5th, 2025.

And it was the question that I asked of hey, if you had 20% more money, how would you spend it?

Um, and they talk about what they would do in 26, but again, the real gap is in 27 where those when those um those federal funds expire, and how we have to essentially potentially come up with seven million dollars.

Um, but it that's a that's the that's the memo.

Uh councilwoman Spears Thank you, Mayor.

Um so I just went back to the survey.

Thank you for the presentation, just Tina.

Um I went back to the survey results, and the only amendment on here that meets the top three is item four.

And that's what my residents are asking for.

That's what y'all's residents are all asking for.

And I just we gotta have that 65 patrol officers.

Um, I agree the SAFE program is important, but if we divert to SAFE, we're taking away from patrol.

And like I've told y'all before, for my district, that's primarily what we need is patrol.

Um, and I know our needs are different across different districts, but this is this is for this is the one I really really want.

Um, I care, I do think that it's important we look at how we fund the um COLA adjustment, the two percent, but we're not looking enough at how we can cut expenses.

I I mean I'm looking at things every time I'm looking for something to add, I'm looking for a way to cut as well.

I'm not just saying I want, I want, I need, I need.

And um, in doing that, I'm I'm asking Brial to go back and look at can we defer some of the uh fixed assets that we're trying to purchase and upgrade and the capital expenditures as well.

I think we can look at cutting back on some of that.

And um, I'm I'm hesitant as well with the delegate agencies to start cherry picking right now because we're gonna go do a review in October.

And while I know so many of them are extremely worthy, it was abundantly clear that ARPA dollars would come to an end, and to be using them on anything other than a one-time expense is just um it's hard for me to understand how we how we can be expected to continue to to outlay money for the delegate agencies.

Um I I know so many of them are wonderful.

I'm not I I don't at all mean to say that they're not worthy causes that they're supporting, but I just have to focus on core services.

That that's that's all I think we should focus on first, and public safety is first, and that was outlined in the survey results from our residents for all of us.

So um I I am struggling with American Gateway because it's it isn't a core service, it's um money for non-citizens, and I want to serve our citizens first.

So and real quick, the question I had on number 15, Eric, was that is that it's reading as a duplicate.

Is that for a different department?

Or is this my printout wrong?

It is wrong.

Yeah, uh sorry, councilman.

The um that was um the statement I made at the beginning.

Um we had a couple of late additions that you should refer to the PowerPoint.

I was looking for the now clinic.

Is that anywhere?

Um, it's on okay yes, number 14.

Um I consider that I I I mean, if that is supporting our our law enforcement officers, then we do need to be looking at that as well.

So I'm just all about public safety, y'all.

And and I want to help in all of your initiatives as much as possible, but that one is the one I really want to drive home as what's most important to me.

So um I think that's everything.

Thank you, Mayor.

That's it.

Councilman White.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um I wanna I want to reiterate what councilwoman Spears said.

Public safety.

Ever since I've been here, everybody says it's our top priority.

Right?

It's the most important thing we do.

Nothing else matters if we don't keep the people of San Antonio safe.

And again, uh for the last two years we've been saying we're gonna add these officers because our law enforcement has told us that we will be a safer community when we get these additional officers on the street.

And Chief McManus stood uh at that podium just a few weeks ago, and he said the quicker we get to that 60-40 ratio, the safer San Antonio is going to be.

And we need more police officers.

Um we did the UTSA study, of course, um or and we saw earlier this year, um, more officers on the street helps deter crime, particularly in high crime areas.

Um at that same meeting, um assistant city manager Maria Villa Gomez said right into the mic, yes, the plan is 65 uh new officers to get funded this year, 65 the next year, and 65 the year after that.

That's what we promised the citizens of San Antonio.

And and and I I have a hard time sitting here today and and listening and and and looking at at these proposed budget amendments, and the fact that we're even questioning adding funding for for more officers to get to that 65 number, which we promised the citizens, which our head law enforcement official has said is critical to our citizens' safety.

The fact that we're questioning it really, really disturbs me.

So um I wanna we've got 25 in the budget.

I'd like funding for the other 40 to get us to 65 as we promised.

If we want to make 10 of those additional 40 safe officers, one for each district, um I'm happy to to work with all of you on that because those that have spoken up for safe officers are are absolutely correct.

Um they they do a lot for our communities.

But please, we need to keep our promise to our citizens and fund these officers.

Um I also agree with the councilwoman on cuts and and and Eric and and team and Justina, and thank you for the for the presentation as well.

I know that this year's been difficult.

I know that cutting is hard, but when I see us attempt to shift the burden from us making the cuts to placing the cost of these amendments onto the citizens of San Antonio, I mean that really bothers me too.

We need to do the hard work.

We need to make additional cuts.

Three that jump out at me.

You know, we've got this $500,000 for art maintenance.

We could cut it in half to 250.

The councilwoman mentioned this capital outlay, right?

Where we we schedule these replacements of computers and phones so often, if we scale back on that, just a 15% reduction looks like it saves us $465,000.

And then the delegate agencies.

Very well said.

Extremely important groups.

For her is a district 10 delegate agency does great work.

Um around and I think is is deserving uh of funding as we go forward when we look at these things in the fall, right?

They should all have to go through the same process, right?

And I I think the numbers around 24 million dollars that this pool of money for the delegate agencies.

What I would like to do is reduce that from 20, what whatever it is, if it's 24, let's let's cut it back by a million bucks.

Okay, and let's use, you know, it's it's still a healthy chunk of money that we're putting towards these organizations.

And again, we'll talk about who gets what coming uh this fall and in the next year, but if we cut it back just a million dollars, we can help fund our top priority, which again is public safety.

I support um the now for our uh um because I because I do believe that that helps uh our men and women in uniform.

I um in terms of the TURS, I I agree with uh with the councilwoman and and uh what was said on on you know letting letting the the board first take a look at this before before we uh we on council um weigh in I I support the increase uh in in pay for our uh for our employees here as well.

Um American gateways, of course, I I do not support that was funded through ARPA uh that should not continue.

Uh frankly, I think it perhaps runs afoul of the law, which could which could get us in some um hot water on on the federal level.

But guys, I I just ask you all to really think about, and I didn't bring the numbers this time because I wasn't gonna do it again where we go through the amount of um crimes against people that have been committed in each of our districts, which the chief gave us over the last year, the amount of crimes against people's property that have been committed in each of our districts uh over the past year.

I mean, I'm not taking away from the importance of all of this.

But what matters to San Antonians the most is that they can go to sleep at night and know that themselves, their loved ones, their children, their parents, their friends, their family are all gonna wake up the next morning safe, that they're gonna go out, be able to go out and travel all across this beautiful city every single day, and they're gonna be safe.

Visitors, businesses that want to come here to our city, invest in our city, be a part of this city, go see our sites, see our spurs, go to the Alamo, go on the riverwalk.

They all want to know that they're coming to a safe city.

This is important.

It's important that we keep our promise and fund um our police as we should.

Thanks, Mayor.

Liz, I'd like to ask you, are there any of these amendments that in any way infringe upon a legal?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and just for the opportunity to be able to clarify um the short answer to your question, Mayor, is is we can ensure legality by the scope of services.

And as we do in any of our contracts, um, we would ensure that we stay compliant with the law in the way that we draft our contracts in the scope of services and any terms and provisions.

Thank you.

Chair Galvan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you again to the staff uh for working really hard on this work.

I mean, uh I know Council Record and I were texting and emailing last night, pretty late at night, uh, as we're getting some of the follow information and trying to figure out what things we were gonna be talking about, sharing some ideas as well as just trying to think about what things we can do uh to make sure that some of these important funds are well maintained if we can, um, and what can we you know discussed later on.

Um I'm very interested in the parks environmental fee and seeing um what what other potential fees could be could be utilized in such a way to where we create more capacity within uh our general fund by having those fees provide for or fund the services that we're asking for.

I echo Councilmember Corps' point though about raising costs or yeah, raising costs for our families, right?

Whether it's on a CPS bill or a SAS bill.

Um some of the ones I was looking at within uh the fee um fee book that uh that Eric and Maria put together along with of course city staff.

Um I can't remember when we got it, maybe back in September, uh mentioned the uh where is it?

I think it was the detention pond fee in lieu of.

Um and some of those use fees, I guess, within development, uh I'm interested in looking at as well.

Some of those were not been looked at since 2015.

And so I'm interested to see what potential that could have along with the stormwater um fee as well.

Um of course, understanding that those may impact our our development, whether it's in residential or in commercial.

Um, but we'd like to see what what increasing those rates, whether it's even by a nickel or a dime, what that could lead out to just because I I think it was in the residential one for the fee in the three million dollars that we're I think we received in 2024.

Um and so there's I'm wondering what that could look like and what that could impact our general fund with if it creates capacity for infrastructure development or it raises general funds for funds generally for our general fund.

Um I'm interested to see what that would look like.

Um in terms of the amendments, of course, priority is uh the employee compensation piece, and so making sure that we can have uh that well-funded, I feel confident that we can.

Um I'm open to to looking at the the radar feedback signs uh if we need to scale back a little bit and see if we can supplement with CIP dollars or other kind of resources that our council offices have.

Um but I'd like to see what what that would look like and how that can reduce the overall budget requests or amendment requests in total.

Um not supportive of a number three.

I I Eric, could you remind me?

I don't know if you have this offhand, but how what how many departments in our city with this FI2026 budget are seeing personnel increases?

Uh police fire, um parks because of some of the mandated parks we're opening up.

Right.

Um city clerk has one position.

Right.

Um we're not that's about it, I think.

Right, it's very limited.

Yeah, it's very limited.

Okay, thank you.

And I think just for myself, that I mean I get it's slower pace, and maybe some folks want to go, and I understand that completely and the and the importance of public safety to our community, but I think still having that addition uh speaks volumes in terms of what we're looking at for not only this budget but next budget as well.

Um every other department's facing either cuts or no cuts, hiring freezes and maybe potential for cuts in 2027 in terms of personnel.

And so I I understand the need, but I think you know my district survey said very clearly homeless services, streets and affordable housing were the top three concerns for my residents.

And so uh that's just where I'm gonna be on that on amendment number three.

Um similar to Councilmember Corps' piece on the small business construction grant program.

I know in uh uh initially I had some uh concerns about it as well during our presentation about uh that work.

I'm hopeful that with the the new department, um the capital deliveries department that we can maybe reduce some of the need for this assistance program.

But I did want to ask um on that piece, uh within the current with the FY2026, are we gonna see uh funding maintained for the 2022 Marbach bond project?

Uh I know that it was originally slated for some of the construction mitigation grants.

Yes, sir.

That project is is in our capital budget.

Okay, and that will still have the construction mitigation with the reduction in the construction mitigation grants.

It does not have but it's it isn't it is not in the capital budget.

Okay.

Just the cause the the design and the construction.

Of course.

But more Bach is in the capital budget.

I see.

And so then with the current funding that was in the presentation a couple weeks ago with uh the construction mitigation grant, would that still fund the Mar Buck piece or no?

No, it wouldn't.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

Um a little bit longer and think about that one um and review some of the Marbach uh uh small businesses on along the along that route.

Um everything else generally I think I'm supportive of.

Uh on the delegate agency piece, I think there's a lot of really good groups out there, including you know Big Mama Safe House for her, the rape crisis center, uh, or the Almore Area Rape Crisis um that are important to support and also American Gateway as well.

Um I I am a bit torn about is it better to wait for that process?

Uh I think I'm supportive of that uh for the fall, so we can have this kind of comprehensive review of folks who are asking for support and making sure that they're they're sound going into uh next year.

Um but I think these are crucial.

I think a lot of these ones are public safety.

I think they support uh our community's health and well-being.

Um I think it'd be a disservice to not try to find ways to continue to support them as they could as a support our work um within the community.

I think the same thing goes for what we saw with I think it was the designated delegate agencies, uh whatever the phrasing is called within the delegate agency presentation that we got earlier this year uh this month.

Um I talked about Center for Healthcare Services um being something that is truly the only resource there in that in that realm for the issue that we're trying to address, whether it's healthcare or mental health resources.

Um that's that's how I view some of these ones as well.

Let me see if I'm missing anything here.

The tourist boards policy, um a little indifferent too.

I mean, uh I think it's worth having the tourist boards review and have that conversation.

Um, but I'll leave that to the folks who have who have tours.

Um the Alamo Promise Um piece, I I just wanted to ask a clarification.

Um I think I'm generally supportive of it moving to ready to work and make sure it's still accessible, of course.

Uh, but I do want to ask our contribution that we provide.

Um, how much is that in terms of uh the Alamo Promise budget overall within Almo Colleges?

Is it a significant portion of it?

Is it a minimal portion of it?

What does that look like?

Um I want to make sure that that investment is still still valuable to Almo colleges and to our students, of course, and I think every dollar is, but just want to make sure that uh is it a drop in the bucket or not?

Um I think it's all my comments for now.

Thank you, Mayor.

Chair Alder Gavito.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you, Justina, for the presentation.

Um I'll be brief because I really only have three uh top priorities, and that is for if we can go to the amendment slide, sorry.

I just want to make sure my numbers are right.

I think it's number three, the 40 police officers.

You know, um, Councilwoman Corr brought up Melody about kind of how we promised some of these nonprofits something and then um are doing something different.

I feel that is applicable to us promising our residents, these police officers, and then doing something different.

And I think that when we all campaign, we all hear and reiterate that public safety is a top priority.

So I think it should be uh incumbent on us as representatives to make it a top priority, especially because we already committed these police officers.

So that is Eric, that's my top priorities number three.

The second one is um the city employee adjustment number one, and then lastly, um, I think it's on the next slide.

I don't know what number it is, the the vacant building position, restoring that position.

I think that there were some thoughts about maybe maybe moving it, uh, councilwoman core had a thought about maybe moving it to a different department.

However, you all want to slice and dice that position.

I think it is important though, because again, all of us I'm using the word complain, but we we bring up the the issue about vacant buildings constantly.

And so to eliminate something that is actively working towards towards um holding vacant building structures accountable and making sure they're maintained just doesn't make sense.

So I am all in for that.

Um I do uh after feedback from councilwoman core, I'm I'm in favor of eliminating that 1.4 million for the small business construction grant program.

I think that the intent is positive, but we're not getting it right somehow, some way we're not getting it right.

So I think we take it back to the drawing board and figure out the best way to move forward with that, but not to invest um what is it, 1.4.4 million in it just to get it wrong again.

Um so again, just want to reiterate top priorities of 40 police officers.

That is a commitment we made to residents, and all of us made it to residents.

It is public safety is all of we hear again, all of us on the campaign trail saying public safety is number one priority, public safety is number one priority.

We we uh we better stick to that commitment that we're making to our residents.

Um city employee adjustment and then the vacant buildings position.

On delegate agencies, I had a question.

This these delegate agencies, it totals I think nine nine something million.

Why are we saying that it's zero dollars to the general fund?

I know that some delegate agency funding is covered by grants, but isn't it still coming out of the general fund?

Or what am I missing here?

You are correct, councilwoman.

They're coming out of the general fund, but is that an additional cost?

Because we in this case we would be using the delegate agency reserve for the 2627 solicitation process.

So we had set aside the equivalent of four months of funding uh for all those agencies that are recommended in the proposed budget, so we can do a new process beginning in the fall.

So that's where that money could come from.

So oh, thank you for that clarification.

Because I think what we have in delegate agency funding around 25 million ish.

Yes, that is all all funds, including grants.

So then it's not 25 million plus nine million.

No.

Um and if if we were to fund this nine million, are we taking away from other delegate agencies?

Councilwoman, and the nine million you're talking about is a total for the general fund.

I'm only speaking about items 10, 11, and 12.

So those items that are recommended to be funded within that delegate agency reserve, yes, that would be taking money away from the competitive process that we're gonna do later in the year.

So I think that that's worth us considering, right?

Because there's other delegate agencies.

Uh you know, I served as a nonprofit executive director.

All nonprofits missions are noble and worthy.

Um, but you know, if we take from this this bucket to to something, you know, to fund these agencies, we're gonna be hearing about it from other nonprofits too, who are also gonna have noble and worthy causes as well.

Just want us to consider that on the TURS piece, number 16.

I believe it was the pet deposit, have a issue with that um because that was actually voted down in PCDC on December of 25 by Councilwoman Castillo, Councilman Palaez, Councilwoman Rocha Garcia, and um someone else, uh I can't remember who.

Um yes, Councilwoman Villagran.

Um and I think one of the main concerns that we heard from that is that if we're one, the city should not be in the business of paying people's pet deposit.

But two, when that pet ruins the apartment, what's gonna happen then?

You know, then they're gonna come to the city.

Oh, well, we need funding to help fix our apartment.

It doesn't make sense.

It was already voted down.

I was surprised to see this on here again.

Um I feel it's kind of a sneaky way to try and push it through, and so not happy about that.

I also agree with Councilwoman Villa Grande and Councilwoman Corps that these church initiatives need to go to the TURS board first before they come to council.

That's I feel like again, trying to bypass the process.

Um I'm glad that we found you know, the way to make the CIP dollars work for each of our districts, those are that is important money that we use to enhance our districts.

Um again, that is something that residents um that goes to a direct benefit to our residents.

Um, and then also on Alamo Promise, I heard some of my colleagues talk about this.

Mike, I want to be very clear.

What we're saying is that we don't want students to go through more bureaucracy through the ready-to-work forms, because they're already going through the Alamo Promise form.

So to for I I get that we have to move funding around to make things work, but to put that burden on our students doesn't make sense.

So just want to make make sure I'm very clear with that.

Um and that was all I had.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor, one one clarification.

If we can go back to uh slide um slide nine.

Um so when you were asking Maria about the delegate agencies item number 10 on there, and then on the next slide, item number 12 and 13.

Those three are taking potentially to your point capacity out of the next license.

Item number 11 is not because it is taking and combining two contracts and and using the same amount and moving from an eight month to a 12 month, that's not taking additional capacity out.

So there's a little bit of a distinction there.

Yeah, no, thanks for that clarification.

I think just in general, you know, we we need a think about, you know, and really I'm just trying to plant the seed in in my colleagues' um head about hey, we're gonna take from here, then you know, we're gonna get some other nonprofits knocking on all of our door.

Also, they're gonna have no noble and worthy causes and um it's opening up a can of worms.

Thank you.

In case it informs others' questions, um the funds to purchase essential equipment for the now uh clinic is UT San Antonio came back and said they don't have resources to buy their own equipment.

Okay.

300,000.

Okay.

Councilwoman Castillo.

Thank you, Marin.

Thank you, Justina, for the presentations.

Um I'm not quite sure where folks are gathering the San Antonio resident priorities, but looking at the priority investment ratings by council district uh in district one, streets was the top priority, and district 10 rather, streets was a top priority, two was services to assist homelessness, and three was homeless encampment cleanup in district nine.

The top priority from constituents in D9 uh was services to assist the homeless through outreach and shelter, uh, two homeless encampment cleanups and three streets.

In district um seven, for example, the top priority was service to assist the homelessness, uh, affordable housing and homeless encampment cleanups.

Um so I think when we talk about what the priorities are of San Antonio residents are affordable housing and homeless services based off of the data uh gathered by the budget survey.

So um in alignment with the request to help restore the one million for home rehab, I'm hesitant to reduce the amount of improvements we're going to make, but maybe if we're uh allocating it towards the minor repair rather than major repair, I think there's opportunity there.

I think San Antonio residents who participate in the program have expectations about the improvements that are going to be made.

Um so I think there would be value in looking at can that potentially go towards minor rehab um uh projects instead.

Uh now public safety is a priority for us as well, and I believe our constituents have the expectation that we invest in result-driven solutions.

And today at the public safety committee, uh, there was a nonprofit, for example, for her that was cited as something that oftentimes um whether it's a city department or metro health, get referrals from give referrals rather to for her.

Uh and with the drastic decrease in violent crime that we've seen citywide, I believe that's due to the result of stand-up essay under Metro Health as well as investments in Big Mama Safe House.

Um, so that's why I think investing in those delegate agencies are important.

And while I value the importance and understand the need to have that conversation in October, there are nonprofits that are doing the work.

We're hearing it from employees from city departments and our constituencies as well.

Uh so I don't see it as cherry picking.

I just see you know, their results being shown and presented in the public safety committee, like we heard today with some of the nonprofits uh on the potential amendment list.

So uh with that, of course, support of a big mama safe house uh receiving their support, and I could provide the the itemized requests that they've submitted to us as well as for her and of course American gateways as well.

Um but of course, as folks have already hit on, one of the top priorities is ensuring that we add the funds across the board for the for our city employees.

So I'm supportive of identifying ways to help invest in that.

Uh as the councilwoman mentioned, in terms of item three, for example, when we're at neighborhood association meetings and uh speeding comes up as a concern.

Sometimes I get asked from our safe officers how can we prioritize uh a speedometer in this area, or how can we invest in more of these uh traffic calming measures?

So I think to help address those public safety concerns around traffic in particular, right?

We'd see a greater return by investing in the flashing stop signs in the priority areas as well as the new radar radar traffic signs to help address those needs that the safe officers are recommending, and of course, to get that material improvement uh in our communities as well.

Um I'm pleased to see that there's CIP.

I'm hopeful that we can uh continue to see that on Thursday's budget.

Again, whether it's the speedometers, uh quick builds in our community, CIP is just very impactful to help meet those immediate needs of our constituents regarding infrastructure.

Uh I also wanted to emphasize the family violence prevention services.

I again understand uh that conversation October, um, but we have so many residents that we've connected to the women, the battered women's shelter, and I think ensuring that those nonprofits that are providing services to women and children, uh, if there's opportunity to earmark and vote on Thursday to provide support to women and children who need our needed services on Thursday, I don't think we should pass up that opportunity.

Um lastly, um, I'm supportive of the councilman's request for the street lights.

Uh, we know this goes hand in hand with um addressing our concerns whether with uh violent crime and or illegal dumping, which is a huge issue in D5.

Um that's something that I would be supportive of.

Uh regarding the conversation with TURS, um I would be comfortable with the committees uh reviewing those proposed items, but I just ask and encourage consistency, right?

Like, for example, the MOU that we voted on for the Spurs uh has assurances and guarantees with TERS, but the TURS board did not vote on it, right?

On action.

So I just asking for for consistency from my colleagues that are saying let's follow the process.

Um let's see.

With the restoring of the one position for the vacant buildings program, I'm supportive of that, Eric, but I would like for us to have a larger conversation in terms of roles and responsibilities and how we're we're working with this program to address those nuisance properties uh to help bring them into compliance and or potentially land bank those properties regarding Prosper West.

I'm pleased to see that there's a recommendation to support them through the TURS.

Um I am comfortable with the Westside TURS convening a meeting to have a conversation and take action on that item.

Uh but again consistency.

Those are all my comments.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor um Go ahead.

Uh to your to your point, uh, Councilwoman.

The last week um there were a number of questions, last two budget work sessions regarding vacant buildings, and so um I had shared with some council members that you all had asked follow-up questions of uh Shannon Miller last week about how are we going to continue on our program and and what Shannon shared with you was the perspective of having that position in in HPO in historic preservation.

Um if that is an amendment that gets added, um I'll likely work with Amin and Shannon because I think based on some of the council conversation around vacant buildings and vacant lots, it's more of an enforcement and a code issue than a historic preservation issue.

So if that's an amendment, we will likely try to retool that and then have another conversation with the council around those ordinances because I'm definitely sensing the the need to revisit those ordinances councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you, staff, for the presentations.

Um just want to show my support for uh most importantly our city staff.

So supporting the increase of the 2% and the 750 base.

Um also want to continue my support.

I know uh some of my colleagues and I uh sent a letter to you at the beginning of the uh budget process supporting our 40 new officers.

Uh want to continue that support.

Uh we promised that in 2025 or in the last budget, um, and so we should just make good on that promise.

I know when I was campaigning, I went to council uh what was it, a coffee with the councilman, and it was about public safety, and um Chief McMahon has brought up the amount of emergency calls and non-emergency calls that um they receive every year.

And nobody got the number right.

Well, they were way off.

Um and I think it's 2.4 million calls.

Um on the emergency side, it's 1.4 million.

Um, so in order to feel safe, I think residents also want that response time to go down.

So uh making sure we have the officers um on hand to respond to that is important.

Um I'm in favor of the uh making those nonprofits whole that were told that they were gonna get that um that funding over those next eight months, I believe.

Um so I think that's important that we do that.

That aligns with our public safety goals, um, just as um the now clinic does.

Uh those are important programs.

Uh really comprehensive uh behavioral health care for our city's most critical workforce, our first responders.

Um we know that it's hard for us to keep um doctors on staff for PDE and fire.

Um, and so the now clinic offers that support.

We know that our first responders are using it ever since it's been opened for the last four years.

Um, so want to make sure that we continue supporting in uh whatever way we can.

Um I'm in favor of the revenue enhancements.

Uh we started, I think that new stream of revenue in 2014 at a dollar.

Um we moved it up to $1.50 in 2019, and now in uh this fiscal year um another 50 cents.

So over those last 12 years, um I think it's important that we use that revenue and um to to get this uh budget through.

So um I'm also as when we talk about Alamo Promise, um, extremely supportive of the Alamo Promise program and what they've done uh for our students across the city.

So I want to make sure we continue to make it as easy as possible for those students to get in um get into school.

And um I know there's a number of extra steps in the ready-to-work process uh ready-to-work process that would um impact them.

So uh want to streamline that um as much as possible.

So also on the TURS funding, I know a number of council members talked about this, just making sure that it goes through the TURS board first um and that we are consistent in those conversations.

So uh that is all for me.

Thank you.

Uh Councilman Castillo Angiano.

All right, Chair Wungia.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation earlier.

Um couple questions.

The um parks environmental fee, does that have to be allocated to something specifically?

Yes, councilman.

So a state law allows us to charge for that specific fee, and the fund and and the funds are restricted to be used specifically for sanitation services at our parks and for trade training services at our parks as well.

Okay.

So how is that offsetting the increase in what we're asking?

So we have right now roughly about seven and a half million dollars worth of expense that we're funding in the general fund that could be paid with that fee increase.

Okay.

So that's that particular fee, if approved, would increase roughly about four million dollars of expense in the general fund.

We'll free up general fund money.

Gotcha, okay.

Thank you.

Uh and I uh so for folks are brought this up by just a clarifying question on the Alamo Promise requirements.

Um if we move the 1.9 million from the general fund to ready to work, are we able to keep those restrictions as they are in the general fund, even though they'll be in ready to work?

Yeah, so Mike, why don't you come back up and let's go through that chart one more time?

So when you say the restrictions as far as the program of study within Alabama Promise, um within ready to work, you can only pursue in-demand occupations.

So that is what this council would have to decide if they want to stay that track of only presuming pursuing locally in-demand occupations with the ready work dollars, or if you want to open it up to whichever majors the students may choose.

Um and when we talk about the two forms, like those two forms are required for data tracking and for outcomes tracking.

So we have to go into it knowing that if we don't require that piece, then as far as outcomes go, we won't be able to track towards job placement, which is what ready to work was all about.

And is that just for the folks that would be under this program?

Is that for everybody?

Just for the ones that will be funded through the ready to work dollars.

But you know, that's uh you know something that we can discuss with Alibo colleges to find out what that outcome data can look like outside of the ready to work platform.

Yeah, I think they do substantial tracking on their own as well.

So I think it'd be pretty easy to for them to plug in and I think there's a level of trust we certainly have with them to provide that data.

So I think that's a you know a unique opportunity for us, and I appreciate the creativity with that.

So I just want to make sure that it's as easy for students as possible.

Um, district four has the most number of Alan L promise students actually.

So make maintaining that low barrier for students is very, very important for me also.

So as much as we can work with them to accomplish that, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Uh as far as amendments go, you know, I somebody last week just told me something about us at City Hall, and they said, you know, don't let the the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And I just thought that was so unique uh for today, especially especially the tours.

So you know, I think those council members work on those things, and so I you know, if it has to go here before it goes there, the money's there, it has to be approved by both people.

Uh so you know, I would say go for it.

These are good causes, and I think the council members in those respective districts have worked really well with their communities to get these things done.

So um, yeah, totally go for that.

And you know, the same thing with the delegate agency processes, that's gonna change um pretty soon, but you know, we're looking at a lot of changes for them.

Uh especially the ones that were promised something uh that you know by mistake of the city, I think we should do that, uh, make that correct.

And you know, Big Mama Safehouse, I have not gotten a chance to meet with them, but from what I hear, they do a lot of great work, and much of that can uh probably go to uh statistics for crime prevention.

So I think that's really important, and that's a good investment uh on the east side.

And I think you know, ultimately I I don't have a problem with any of these amendments except uh for number three on this slide.

Umly because you know, Chief McManus was here, and I believe he said there were or somebody on the staff said there were 40 or 70 vacancies in SAPD.

Do you recall what that number was?

I thought it was 25.

I think it was more.

Yeah.

69.

69 vacancies in the police department.

Uh and we're not freezing any positions in the police department or cutting back on their budget.

No, no, council member fact.

We're likely getting ready to start a September class.

Right, Rick?

That we are actually graduating a class uh on the 26th, I believe, and then we're starting a new class pretty soon.

Yeah, another 69.

I mean, how many of those do you know are patrol or the admin directors of departments?

Councilmember Rick Riley, I'm the assistant director for SAPD.

Currently, we're actually seven overhired in the police department.

So that counts all of our active officers, your boots on the ground doing their thing, as well as cadets.

That gives us the seven overhired of our 2775 authorized straight.

Seven overhire.

So uh currently uh boots on the ground, 2659 uh in the academy, uh cadets 212.

So you add those two together to get that seven overhired number.

Gotcha.

And then to answer your question, all those whatever the positions are in the academy, they're all at the patrol level because as there's a a retirement at the sergeant or lieutenant level, there are promotions that occur up the chain.

And so everybody that graduates from the academy is going into patrol.

So that's the that's the process.

So we have plenty of spots going into this upcoming fiscal year for patrol.

Yes, okay.

Uh yeah, so I think with the information you just provided, uh, and based on the fact that other departments are squeezing their budgets, I think that's a good amount.

And again, this is to get to a 6040, not um what is a minimum requirement or above minimum requirement for the city of San Antonio.

So again, there are six two people up here.

I think it will merits more discussion on that 6040 number, especially the data behind that and what that proactivity actually yields us, I think is extremely important.

So, you know, when we have um, you know, schools cutting back programs, uh, it's important to invest in literacy.

When we have, you know, a lack of hospital care on the south side, it's important to invest in these things, as you see in the amendments.

Uh, and so yes, that's some communities the the major thing is is an officer.

But you know, to one of the amendments today, um, you know, one thing people fear my district on in front of my field office is um state troopers and ice.

They are they're in my community and they're stopping folks for traffic stops for obvious reasons.

Uh, and so that's a huge worry for people.

And unfortunately, there's a lot of our community that is uh more worried about um blood sugar issues, high blood pressure issues, um getting to work on time without an accident uh in some of our districts, yeah.

You know, there's a rain that's stops them from going to work.

So those are some real things that unfortunately, you know, they may not be the voters that we ask for when we talk to them.

They may not fill out a budget survey, but that's the reality of a lot of people, especially those that happen to live south of 90.

So that's a little bit about why I'm advocating for that.

So thank you.

Chair Corps.

Did you can go to Councilmember Castellano?

Uh Castillo Anguiano if you want.

I'm sorry, go ahead, please.

I didn't even know the first round was done.

That was quick, but it was, but it wasn't quick.

Uh thank y'all for the presentations.

Uh, this is my first budget, so this is a lot.

But um some of the things that I want to press is I do want to echo my other council members about the uh new police officers.

I think that if we're especially dealing with a budget deficit, um and looking at this paper number three with with the increase in officers, this is the most um money that's being allocated towards anything on this paper.

And so I think we need to kind of slow down, and especially since crime um we know crime is there, but here in San Antonio, it kind of decreased to 12%.

Um and so I think we need to figure out you know, what does public safety look like in our neighborhoods?

How do we address those?

Um, and figure out other alternatives because I don't think that putting more cops on the street is a solution.

Um so there's that, and then I think it was number eight with a community safety reserve.

Um I know we want to put some street lights, which I think is pretty cool, but I was talking with my team and Maria Vodagas, and uh I know that some of our funds are being used to implement the phase three plan of the violence uh crime production um plan.

And I I think that if we use that funding for street lights, we're not gonna be able to um get to phase three, which is the goal um of our violent crime reduction plan.

So just those two.

Um and then one of the things that's really really present to me is houses services.

Um over the last three years, house of services, houses issues.

It's been another one, it's been one of the top issues um from all of our constituents, and I think um consolidating services is helpful, especially with this new department, but I don't think it's um it's it's not the solution again.

Um and you as y'all know, I'm literally from Thrive, and so I'm the person that's always just been conducting research, you know, being the person that's on foot on the ground seeing it every single day.

Um so everything that's on this sheet, there's nothing really addressing um abatemans encampments or other alternatives to that, or um I guess just anything along the lines of that.

And so my pitch for the team to understand you know the severity of it is to do a ride-along with the outreach team.

Um, they do incredible work, and I I think it would really really change your perspective of how abatements actually go and how um violent they actually are.

And I would actually like to see you know what I'll uh get with you, Eric, for another side conversation.

Um, but I I think those are pretty much the issues that I kind of wanted to address today.

Um so yeah, I I I think from now I'm gonna work on a policy memo from my with my team, and so just hopefully we can get that to y'all by the end of today or tomorrow morning.

Um, that way we can figure out just another alternative to you know, better use our our city funds because I I think that we just need really need to do better um in that aspect.

Thank you, Mayor.

Chair Corr.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to echo some of the points that my colleagues had made.

First, on the um vacant building program officer, I support the idea of moving it to DSD.

I think those of us that do have historic neighborhoods, it's important in working the shin is important, but I think overall we see that as an issue across our neighborhoods and not just in our historic neighborhoods, so that needs support.

So I I appreciate that recommendation and support it.

Um I also wanted to ask about the now clinic because I um got some uh conversation about that, and I know some of my colleagues have supported.

I'd be curious to see because the feedback I got was the supports that they're receiving directly, and we actually talked about this a little bit in public safety today that we're having a hard time hiring for some of those mental health supports.

And so, is there a way like what would folks think about the transition of if we don't fund that directly, but they get the service that they need from the now clinic?

Like, what's the trade-off if that makes sense?

Uh thank you, councilwoman.

And just to clarify what we talked about during the public safety committee, is uh we have um find difficulty in hiring our psychologists for the fire department, so we're um using resources from police and also contracted services to be able to do the work that we need to do.

Uh for purposes um I will be making a phone call.

I'm not familiar with the services that they are providing, so we can report back to the council and Tremso that investment that they're requesting.

That would be great.

And and you know, they um we mentioned that we were trying to use interns in our public safety committee to provide this resource, but if the now clinic can do it better, maybe there's some kind of support that we can provide in uh instead.

Yeah, one of the things that um we don't have a lot of information on the now clinic, um, but one of the things that we'll follow up on is what has been the activity level um at the now clinic by our first responders, uh the police officers and and firefighters, um, and how much activity of their of their total work is part of that.

Um, and we'll we'll do that follow-up this afternoon.

Okay, great.

Um, and in addition, I uh the question that was just mentioned about the phase three of our program.

Did you want to add any highlight to that?

Uh yes, councilwoman.

So uh in the crime prevention plan, we have phase three, which is focused the Terrans in this program will bring um nonprofit organizations to kind of help us provide services to those individuals that will participate in the program.

So one of the ideas that we have to be able to provide those services when we come back to you in the fall and talk about the priorities for the delegate agency funding, is that uh if that is a priority of this council, then we can direct some of those contracts to help with the focus deterrence uh um face or the crime reduction plan that we anticipate it will launch probably in 2026.

Okay, okay.

I appreciate that.

I think that's a uh I appreciate that thing thought of like okay, where are we gonna get that funding for?

Because I think it's really important, and that is a part of our crime violence prevention plan.

So, as mentioned by some of my colleagues here, we have to think about public safety more holistically.

So I actually um found the memo that mayor was referring to and was reviewing it just now, and the amount of funding that's getting cut from federal cuts from Metro Health.

Um it's really scary.

So I don't know, Maria, are you gonna say something?

I was just gonna say that that 115 waiver program that expires at the end of September 2026, that's what that reflects that the question that the mayor had requested from Nitro Health.

Yeah, like I I think uh Councilman Castillo mentioned the stand-up SA program and there's a mobile testing unit that has tested over 13,000 folks.

And so that being said, I don't think it's smart for us to use any of this amendment money to put personnel back into the budget because those are a reoccurring costs.

So if we support, you know, um some amount of lights or some amount of uh uh of delegate agency funding that's not reoccurring, I think that makes sense to me, but putting any money into this budget, knowing that we're going into uh that's recurring costs uh of personnel, I don't think is the most judicious use of our dollars.

So I take back my earlier statement um about even adding safe officers just because I'm uh I'm I just don't want I want to be more judicious with the dollars.

And maybe it'll be helpful for the context for those of the council members and Claude.

If you want to come up to the podium, the the the memo that both the mayor and councilman are talking about are uh the mayor asked Claude a question at his budget work session if your budget went up 20 percent would be the highest priority, and part of that answer in that follow-up memo is that we are going to lose next September.

We know now, um, 11 1115 waiver dollars, and in that attachment that Claude laid out, it's it's a little bit of a lot of what you do in the health department, and we're gonna see those adjustments.

I don't know if you want to add anything, Claude.

Yeah, thank you.

Um just know that what you see on the September 5th memo lays out the fiscal cliff that we're gonna see in a year from now.

So while the question was specific to the next fiscal year, we wanted to telegraph our our vulnerabilities.

Again, there are 10 different programs, there are different eight different teams.

Uh you see the $8 million hit, and that's why we wanted to at least forecast it's initiatives like our Healthy Neighborhoods program, half the stand-up team, our diabetes program, our OR Health Program.

So there's a constellation of programs that we've supported over a decade tied to that funding made available to us.

So at the end of the day, what you see is at least a snapshot.

Um, given the disruptions tied to this uh year and uh some of the federal budget cuts, we wanted to signal the council this is what we're concerned about, and so what you see for FY26, that's 660, and I see the uh the support for SA Kids Breathe, but also effective FY27, that's where we see that uh over eight million dollar hit and over 80 staff impacted by those cuts.

Thank you for that context.

Um, just one really quick last thing I was gonna say is Councilman Castillo, I hear your point on consistency and it's well taken.

We just need to have a process and use that process.

So point taken.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, Councilman White.

Yeah, just real quick.

Um I support what my colleagues said on Alamo Promise and making sure that if the money's moved, we still have a very streamlined process and there's not more hurdles put in the way.

Um I heard um a couple of people say, you know, we need to slow down, you know, these hiring of the officers, and we can't like a personal how often do we sit around this dais and talk about how this is one of the fastest growing cities in America?

I mean, how how do you slow down adding officers to keep your citizens safe when more and more people are coming to this city?

You can't do that.

I mean, people that come to this city need to be safe, they need to be able to travel around the city um safely, they need to have places to live.

And there was recently, um, and my staff did a great job on this.

There's a company called Smart Asset, and they they they ranked America's big cities in terms of safety.

Where did Texas in in Texas, where did San Antonio rank?

Last.

Austin, Houston, Dallas, El Paso, Arlington, Fort Worth.

They looked at crime per capita, violent crime, property crime, vehicular deaths, drugs last.

That's that's not good enough.

So while maybe violent crime is is down in the last couple of years, there's still too much of it.

We got more and more people again coming to this city.

We have to keep our citizens safe.

We cannot slow the hiring of our officers.

And I'm gonna say it again.

I mean, when when the boots on the ground, you know, it's not it I hate when policymakers at all levels try to um substitute their knowledge in judgment for the boots on the ground.

When the guy that's out there every day, the chief of police who's talking to his rank and file members every single day, when he says that we will be safer when we get these additional 200 officers on the street to move to this 6040 ratio, that's something that we need to take very, very seriously.

I mean, I don't know about y'all, but when you go to a doctor and you're sick, and they say, here's what you need to do to get better.

Do you substitute your own knowledge and judgment for the advice of the professional that you've gone to see to get you better?

I mean, let's not substitute our judgment for the boots on the ground that is out there every day.

And again, I'll say if you want more evidence, you know, we did that UTSA study.

Not that we needed to, because again, we know when officers are out there, it deters crime.

It's a growing city.

We can't stop the hiring of these officers.

Thanks, Mayor.

Um, Councilwoman Castillo.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Just wanted to find back in for a couple of things.

Um one just to restate my support for American gateways within this budget, and then of course, to also just reinforce the point of Dr.

Core regarding uh hiring additional personnel with this upcoming budget and with uh the budget amendments in particular.

Thank you, Mayor.

Chair View Gadon.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um so again, I am going to talk about um paying our employees correctly.

We've got 696 vacancies.

Um that um the my I am thank you, Councilman Mungia, and I I noticed that I am troubled by the 69 vacancies within the police department and the retirement.

So I I would like Eric if and Maria, if you could come back and tell me we know a new substation is being we're gonna break ground, we're gonna move forward with a new substation.

How many officers do we need so that seamlessly when it opens, we can have those officers.

However, I am starting to think that this problem isn't more officers as much as it was we have a recruiting problem and we have a problem of getting them to stay.

So uh we may need to get creative on how to if people are taking early retirement, they're retiring it at 20 or 25.

We need to look at how we keep them and and that's budget.

I mean, that'll be uh negotiations possibly, but we need to find out what what the problem is in recruitment, and do we need to look at another way to get officers from other cities to come here with with the experience all already?

So uh I'd like to see some of that information before we add any more to the 25.

I do think we're we need additional officers.

I just don't like the idea of bringing in 65 more officers, and then we have 125 vacancies.

You're gonna have to give me that vacancy number with within police if uh with the number of officers we add in because that's that's becoming problematic as we have this conversation.

Um because we have vacancies all over the city, and close to 700 is too many.

Uh and it just means if we're freezing these salaries, it just means more work for my solid waste workers, more weight and more work for my animal care services, uh just more work all around.

And um, I'd like to see in the amendments that we have what we can do.

Um I do look forward to seeing what Big Mama's Safe House has broken down because if we do have a delegate agency that has a full picture, and if Melanie, you could tell me this is they're ready to go, they're not so ready to go, and where they serve in the district.

I know Big Mama's house has been essential to helping the police department and they rely on them, so I think that addresses some of our public safety issue that we've talked about, but I know that they've all they're also willing to help with our like lead lead paint and some of our other programs that we have, and I think that they'd be a good asset if if they can talk about our diabetes prevention program with Metro Health and things like that.

But again, um my priority is going to be making sure that we get our um fires getting a raise and police is getting a raise, and it's not fair if our civilian city employees don't get a pay increase that's that's somewhere near um what that reflects the work they're doing.

So I think it's important that we go uh and we all support item number one, and then uh if you can bring back the informations for item number three, and then if you could take the ideas that some of my council had about maybe instead of restoring the one million, we look at the major repair programs and look at that, and then um and looking at those delegate agencies that are kind of taking up some of what Metro Health is going to be and we have the dollars there, maybe we look forward we look towards that.

So um thank you for all your input.

I I can tell this is a council that really cares about their city, and um what we do need to do though as a council is we do need to give hard recommendations, and and I want to thank uh I think I heard I think I heard two, one from Misty and one from Mark.

But mine is um 10% from from some of these agencies that are specifically charging and now charging more because they bring in, and that is botanical gardens, because I know they have their light show, and uh I don't know what the revenue is that brings in, but if we could cut 10% from there for some of these agencies, and then in the art maintenance that um you know how passionate I am about that.

Uh however, if arts and cultures is slowing down or cannot hit the number, and they can release uh 10 or 10% or 5% of that budget to help us this year.

Uh I wouldn't be opposed to that.

But I'd like to see where they are on schedule.

Thank you, Mayor.

Chair Galvan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just a couple of quick things.

Uh I wanted to echo um Councilmember other Gavito's point about the small business construction grant.

Um I yeah, I think it's just I would like to see what public what public works plans are and maybe the capital delivery um on communicating with small businesses, uh, whether it's Marbuck or other places that we're gonna see construction uh impact small businesses potentially, uh, what that looks like versus what economic development is looking uh to do with small business construction grant.

Um I know of course they're different programs and one provides funding as well.

Um I think I just would like to see that if we're able to deliver some of these projects faster um or in a more productive manner, and we're able to make better plans with the with small businesses to adapt to the situations to the construction situations, that may be a better use of resources than making a convoluted process to provide supportive funding in some form.

Um just want to echo that piece there.

Uh very open and eager for vacant building policy review, um, and also open to looking at ways that DSD can support on that.

Um then just the last thing was just uh heard a lot about promises made uh as well to to residents, and I I think about metro health violence prevention violence prevention portion within their SA forward plan and how that uh you know residents uh in my district are talking a lot about dusty violence and ways that they can continue to support from the community health workers, ways that uh stand up SA supports in their communities, um, ways that trauma informed practices support uh their sons oftentimes, um, and that you know the the goal and the hope that that work was gonna continue to expand, and yet we're gonna see a complete cliff uh 2026 to 2027 that may not be by our own making, of course, um, but it will heavily impact us.

And so I'm you know, I think I see the the increase for patrol officers, whether it's 25, uh which is proposed within the general budget or more, uh, compared to other departments that are having to completely almost close up shop at this point, uh, frustrates me as well, and thinking about the promises we made to our residents about holistic public safety about looking at ways to really resolve issues of crime, not just respond to both are important.

Um, and so um, you know, we're seeing response continue to increase uh with additional officers from 25.

Um but it's also the back end work too, right?

So the work of dismantling the root causes of crime and violence that's also important and detrimental to uh public safety in our communities and to making sure that our families feel safe at home, feel safe in the city.

Uh it's really breaking down uh those cycles.

Uh so I think that's the work that we're gonna see cut, unfortunately.

And so I want to make sure that as we're going through with the next budget, as well as just looking into our financial forecast into the future, that we're really taking a hard look at ways that uh, you know, there are uh ways to really break those cycles of of crime and violence in our communities with some of the work that the public health department or metal health department, other public health measures have done in other cities as well as having done here as well in a smaller form.

I think it's just it's easy to dismiss uh I don't think it should be, but easy to dismiss public health experts or sociologists, uh, and somehow never easy to dismiss uh other academic uh academia these are dismissed as far as finance professionals.

Um, but here we are.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez.

Has everyone spoken who would like to speak?

Okay.

Um Eric, thank you again.

I know you still have um you and the staff have um some more work to do um in short turn here, given some of the um options that we've asked for as we look to really understand how much we may have to potentially offset in light of the um the additional amendments.

Um the uh I would appreciate um understanding on the on the vacant building program.

I know you're gonna relook the program, but for the purposes of our discussion, if there could be some goal that we understand this this one body would be able to achieve, um, that would be helpful so we can compare again again the ROI of of what is it additional you know units in the land bank, what what what how can we contextualize when that person is actually going to be to be working on the Metro Health piece, um again, thank you, uh Dr.

Jacob, for for pointing that out because when we look at those those cuts, again, 26 is not the challenge, it's really 27.

And when you look at the impacts of some of those services that go away, uh those are the areas in which we are least prepared, least prepared to deal uh with the ramifications of a lack of testing or a lack of TB prevention and control, my goodness, um mental health support, etc.

etc.

Um, and so when we are thinking about um things like public safety, and I can certainly appreciate the comments of of Chief McManus.

What I want to make sure that we don't do is make an assumption that um an increase in police officers is going to mitigate the risks created by defunding some of these other very critical services.

That's a critical assumption underlying that entire argument.

On the Alamo Promise piece, I think it's really important um that we um do have good data on this.

And so I support um actions that allow us one to better tailor um what folks are are studying and frankly ensuring that yeah, we know where they're working afterwards, make sure that's in San Antonio, by the way.

Um, because the the the you know the statistic of 25 folks um in the ready to work program still not in approved job after 12 months is unsat, right?

And if we can help ourselves through this funding, which is our resources, uh, we should do that, and I think that's what the taxpayers expect.

Um let me just say, in general, you know, 26, this is not the hard year.

Like the really tough conversations are gonna be in 27.

We saw it a little bit in Metro Health, but we will continue to see it, not only in light of decreased funding, but also increased need in our community as people have less money in their pockets when they begin to see the implementation that cuts Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and SNAP and CHIP.

And so I just also want to remind ourselves that um we have opportunities to help ourselves.

Um I'm thankful that uh Chair Viegon brought up the idea of revenue sharing.

We in fact have an opportunity with again the arena and some of the other downtown developments to look at real revenue sharing, real money that could come into our general fund.

Uh so we're that not talking about do we help kids get more resources for asthma care or do we pay for other things with large amounts of money that are coming into our that could be coming into our general fund, we can be thoughtful about meeting all of these needs in addition to additional police officers.

Um based on that, the time is now 3.51 on September 16th, unless Eric you'd like to say something.

Yeah, please, Mayor, just real quick.

So um thank you for the the feedback today.

Uh there are a number of questions that we're gonna follow up on, specifically a couple regarding um uh potential resources um that we'll do we will update you all tonight and then in the again in the morning.

Um and and I think I think I heard enough today to start to uh make some adjustments on that amendment list.

And again, just to remind everybody, we will be doing this again tomorrow afternoon to make sure that we're prepared for Thursday uh morning.

So um if you have any questions in the in the meantime, please don't hesitate to reach out to Justina Maria or myself when we when we send that information out.

Thanks, Mayor.

The time is now 3 52 p.m.

September 16th, and this meeting is adjourned.