The time is now 9 07 a.m.

on Friday, May 22nd, and the City of San Antonio budget goal setting session is called to order.

Madam Clerk, please call roll.

Councilmember Corps.

Councilmember McKee Rodriguez.

Present.

Councilmember Via Gran.

Here.

Councilmember Mungia.

President.

Councilmember Castillo.

Councilmember Galvan.

Here.

Councilmember Alvarete Gavito.

Here.

Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Present.

Councilmember Spears.

Councilmember White.

Mayor Jones.

Here.

Mayor, we have quorum.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Well, thanks again, Eric and team for and I know as everybody reviewed the slides, all the work that went into having this very important conversation.

And frankly, we've alluded to much of what we would discuss this morning in the course of not only the six by six, but also the five-year outlook.

So you know, as things unfortunately are not looking any better, and we have to make some critical assumptions in light of what we know now, but also the impending cuts that we see and the changes that we see both at the federal level and potentially at the state level based on the elections later this year.

But we've also seen some of the ways in which we could potentially help ourselves and address and mitigate some of those risks as the very helpful tabletop exercise that Justina and you all ran um uh late last year.

That helped that can help inform um where we might be able to mitigate risk.

Um so appreciate again all the work that got us to to this point.

Um and Eric, I'll turn it over to you for uh to begin.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh good morning, Mayor and Council.

Um here we find ourselves again in our annual process, and uh so appreciate all the work and time you all spent with uh with the staff uh with Maria, Justine, and I um as we got to this morning.

Um this is an important uh day for us.

Um I'll quickly just overview of the of the of the agenda.

We're gonna start with um a review of our financial policies and uh property tax overview.

Um we will uh kind of recap.

We're not gonna go back through the entire forecast presentation, but Freddie will just kind of recap where we're at, um, and then we'll talk uh the council will have some time for uh a general discussion over the financial overview and those and those matters.

Alana will talk uh give you an update on where we landed in terms of the community um budget process.

Um I'm sorry, the community survey uh process.

Um the uh the short answer is there's no uh um big changes, the the the consistent things of affordable housing um uh housing uh homeless public safety infrastructure are at the top of our of our um survey results.

Um and then uh Danielle uh Parker from PFM, who all of you had a chance to uh meet or at least have a conversation with will uh kind of walk through uh an overview of the budget decision making lens and council priorities and what she heard in the individual conversations with you all.

And I think it'll be an important um primer for your afternoon uh conversation, which is really about you know the the way we approach our annual budget, um how we uh utilize uh the priorities of the council.

Um we're not gonna talk about um core versus non-core.

What you're gonna hear the terms are uh mandated city services, those city services that are required to be we're required to do under the um under federal law, state law, city charter, contracts, um, and then we have priority city services, which are things that are going to be recognizable to all of you, and then all other city services, and I will tell you that um the departments went through a lot of effort to categorize what we do in a lot of different areas.

Um, and I think it's just a sets of foundation for a council conversation of all those services as we go uh through the afternoon.

So an important day that the the big part for us after today is bringing back to you all on June 18th a trial budget, and that trial budget um is gonna look a little bit differently than it has the last couple of years in that um we will we will lay out potential adjustments to the budget to include revenues as well as uh reduce uh reductions in spending and show that to you on Thursday, June 18th, for you all to provide some reaction to that gives us uh the opportunity to um work through July and come back with a proposed budget that is balanced, um, a proposed two-year uh balanced budget in August.

So I'm looking forward to the conversation today.

I will tell you that that um uh the conversation you all had at the end of the forecast presentation a couple of weeks ago was helpful in the sense that it gave us a sense of where you all were at, and we used a lot of that conference conversation to get prepared for today.

So and with that, I'm going to turn it over to uh Troy to kick us off.

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

Troy Elliott, Chief Financial Officer.

I have the privilege of kicking us off this morning with the staff presentations on the exciting topics of financial policies and property taxes.

So I hope you've had your coffee and caffeine as we move forward.

Every year as we start our discussion on goal setting and preparing for the next year, we'd like to start off with a confirmation or an affirmation of our financial policies.

These are the fundamental building blocks or guidelines that we use in the development of our trial budget, our proposed budget, and ultimately our adopted budget.

These financial policies establish policy guidance on our financial management.

They provide a cohesive policy and practices for us to follow as we prepare those budgets.

They allow us to maintain strong financial position, and as you see today, as we have talk about a couple of our topics, they also provide us with flexibility and the ability to adapt to changing economic conditions, allows San Antonio to perform well financially, and these are financial policies that the rating agencies rely on, and it gives them comfort that our council are in alignment and supportive of these policies as we move forward and we manage our financial policies.

Very quickly, I'm going to run through kind of what these financial policies are and summarize them.

Our first one is maintaining a minimum general fund ending balance of 15%.

That's comprised of our 10% reserve plus our balance that we carry forward for the trial budget every year.

Allows us to manage a structural balance in a general fund, meaning that we have sufficient revenues in place to manage our expenses.

We are structurally balanced.

The one that we will talk about quite a bit today in my second part of my presentation is and to the ability to annually review the impact of our state imposed 3.5% property tax cap, the amount of revenue that we can grow up to 3.5% each year, that impact on service delivery, and provide a recommendation on whether to adjust the property tax rate.

The last one on this slide is annual review property tax relief with a focus on homeowners, and I will go over that with you as well.

On this next page, continuing our financial policies, annual review and periodically adjust fees and charges, provide for cost recovery, consumer relief, and our alignment with policy goals.

Maintain our public safety spending below 66% of the general fund, then also maintain a 3% million contingency in our capital budget.

This next one is addressing internal service fund deficits within three to five years.

Our internal service funds they really consist of our workers' comp fund, our liability fund, and our employee benefits funds.

And then lastly, this is the overarching policy that we use in guiding us with our CPS revenues to annually assess the city payment from CPS Energy to determine the portion, if any, that is deemed to be unusual, out of the ordinary, one time in nature, and make recommendations for that amount taking into consideration factors that will be important for this year, such as the city's overall financial position, the impact on service delivery, benefit to community, and responsible ownership.

The last thing I remember when we talked about this, and it's not the focus of today's presentation, but also potentially a new policy as we have continued discussions on our capital management or our capacity under the debt plan, an additional another policy as far as how we manage our variable tax rate or fixed tax rate on the debt side.

Moving on to the city property tax rate.

Historically, prior to 2019, we had an 8% rollback rate, meaning that we could grow our values and our revenues up to 8%.

In 2019, that changed.

That revenue growth cap changed to 3.5%.

It does have a significant impact on us because we cannot recover as fast.

We only grow our revenues to 3.5 year over year.

I'll talk a little bit more about what that means.

But that 3.5% revenue growth cap is only applicable to our maintenance and operations portion of the tax rate.

It does not apply to the debt service tax rate.

And as we've had conversation in the past that our debt service tax rate has been level, that is not the case for our maintenance and operation portion of the tax rate.

Also only applies to our base value, it does not apply to new improvements and it exemps new improvements from the calculation.

So as we run through this calculation, every year in high value taxable value growth years, we are allowed to capture automatically 3.5% of that growth.

And that's reflected through our tax rate.

In years where we are in lower values and we are our adopted tax rate is below the voter approval tax rate or that 3.5% cap, it allows us to bank the difference between that in terms of an unused increment and rolled that forward for a period of three years.

So in periods of high value growth, our tax rate is automatically being adjusted to capture that value.

In periods of low value growth, we are in a position where we have to raise that tax rate to up to that cap.

Or we have to we have the option to leverage unused increments that we've banked in the past.

So when the when the legislature lowered the rollback rate from eight percent to three and a half percent, um it was intended um to bring the rate more in line with the the growth in inflation.

Um and uh but but however, as as we have seen at least for the last six years, taxable values tend to fluctuate uh more wildly than inflation, to be honest with you.

Um, and there was an example.

Um tax entities had historically seen.

Um so I wanted to read to you uh from the House Research Organization report that was provided to legislators in advance of the vote on SB2.

Uh, the report said, quote, the bill could lead to local governments adopting a tax rate equal to three and a half percent rollback rate each year, each year, even when additional revenue in that amount was not needed in order to save for unforeseen contingencies or the the ups and downs of of the markets.

Um Senate Bill 2 provides for budgetary flexibility by allowing local governments that had not exceeded the rollback rate in prior years to bank this unused amount toward raising the rollback rate in a subsequent year.

And Troy's gonna talk a little bit about that um uh unused amount here in a second.

That the report finally uh also suggested that in order to avoid cutting spending on critical public safety and infrastructure, some cities could rescind the homestead senior and disabled exemption.

So, you know, not that anybody has really talked about it.

Actually, I think we got a question about that in the forecast, but but this is part of the report that legislators received in SB2.

So in the six years since this went into effect, SB2 and the three and a half percent cap, we've not done any of those things.

Um we've not raised the tax rate to hedge against any future downturns.

Uh we haven't uh we we've tapped into uh unused increment but not consistently once, and we have we certainly haven't rescinded any exemptions over that time period.

Um in fact, um we we've made adjustments to frankly increase the the uh the tax relief to homeowners.

So, you know, that's just a little bit of context about what happened in 2019 and what the justification was as uh as the legislature was voting on SB2.

Thanks, Troy.

Yeah, thank you, Eric.

And as Eric for clarification, just because it's a significant point that you just made.

Has any community revoked that senior homestead?

I would imagine not.

Well, I don't know the answer to that question, but certainly plenty have gone to three and a half percent used on use and used unused increments for sure.

Thank you, Eric.

Um as Eric mentioned as we go through the presentation, I will be kind of showing you some examples in the in the future part of the presentation of what that unused increment looks like looks like and also moving to that 3.5%.

Another piece of uh significant legislation that was passed last year and is actually effective for 2027 was HB9, which exempts $125,000 of the appraised value of tangible personal property, and that's up from the prior exemption of $2,500.

That's not only an exemption increase from $2,500 up to $125,000, the calculation changed as well.

So that impact in 2027 for the general funds, about a reduction of about $5.6 million in revenue.

It also impacts our debt service side total between general fund and debt service, about $9.2 million reduction.

So it has an impact on our general fund revenues and our capacity on the debt side.

As Eric mentioned, there are several city exemptions under state law that you as city council have the ability to increase or decrease, to be honest.

We have the homestead exemption that um that has been increased over time, starting in about 2020, from a small point zero one percent or five thousand dollars up through 2024 when it was increased up to 20 percent.

There's about 254,000 homesteads that receive that homestead exemption.

We also have the child care facility exemption, there's about 113 exemptions included in that category.

The over 65 in disabled persons, it was increased from 65,000 to 85,000 in 2023, and then we have what is I think is significant for our residents for the city of San Antonio is a tax freeze.

In Texas, when you look at our major cities, there's only two other cities that have a tax freeze to include Fort Worth and Corpus Christi.

And what that means is that when you turn 65, your tax bill for the City of San Antonio tax bill essentially freezes at the level it's at.

You don't pay any more taxes unless you have an improvement to your property.

So in the event that you have value increases or you have a tax rate increases, those seniors and those disabled persons are insulated from those increases.

And when you're looking at those exemptions, and these are all estimates.

They are very preliminary and they will change.

So as we progress through the certification, these numbers are going to continue to change and will be significantly different once we actually get the certification.

But based on the estimates that we have today, these exemptions provide about a hundred and forty-nine million dollars in property lease, property relief or foregone revenue to the to the city.

And down below in the lower hand right-hand corner, you can kind of see the estimates on how each of those exemptions actually relate in terms of value in terms of that foregone revenue.

Local homestead exemption, about 73 million over age 65, 50 million, and then the tax freeze about another 22 or 23 million dollars.

And as I mentioned at the very bottom, it's not a city exemption, this is a state exemption was the impact of HB 9, which had a total been a total foregone revenue of 9.2 million between our M and O and our debt service.

This is actually kind of uh I think a good example of how SB2 works in terms of the cap.

So on this slide, you have our maintenance and operation tax rate, and you also have our debt service tax rate, and I'm not gonna talk a lot about our debt service tax rate.

We've had a lot of conversation about that already.

But on the debt service side, you can see how it's been fixed throughout um 2022 through 2026.

When you look at the maintenance and operations tax rate in 2022, you roughly have about a 35 cent tax rate.

That tax rate, and those are 22, 23, those are high value growth years.

So when SB2 comes into play and it caps you at that 3.5% revenue growth, you see the tax rate is declining.

So we're adjusting our tax rate down to cap the amount of revenue that we're producing under that cap.

Similarly, for 24, the revenue goes down again.

We did have that unused increment that was about ready to roll off that Eric was talking about.

We did leverage some of that, a small portion of that increment, 0.0098 of the amount that was available.

And then the tax rate is flat from 24 through 25 through 26.

In those years, we adopted a tax rate that was below our voter approval tax rate or that 3.5% growth.

So the delta between this tax rate and that voter approval tax rate, we can bank in terms of unused increment and we can roll that forward.

Y'all have seen this table, but I just wanted to show it again, it's kind of a reminder based on our estimates of where we're where we're projecting in the forecast as far as taxable value growth.

2025, about a 4.2% growth over year over year.

Our reestimate for 26 is about a 0.9.

And then throughout the forecast overall, about 2.1% decrease, flattened 28, and then slow growth from 29 to 3031.

And as I mentioned to y'all, I think in the last presentation on the debt plan, we modeled this after the 2008 recession, specifically for 27, 28, and 29.

When you look at that recessional period though, the growth in those outer years, I guess in years four and five was more dramatic, it increased more substantially, but the three point five percent revenue cap wasn't in place at that time.

So that has changed since that point in time.

So we cannot grow as fast.

So what does that mean in terms of uh property tax rate options and what does it do in the event that we leverage our unused increment and we move up to the state allowed revenue growth?

And again, these are projections based on the best information that we have now.

And as I mentioned, SB2 is only applicable to the M and O tax rate.

So that's all I'm focusing on this slide.

So in fiscal year 2026, we have revenue of 473.4 estimated at our current tax rate.

Rolling forward into fiscal year 2027, leveraging the same tax rate and keeping it constant.

We lose about 8.2 million dollars in revenue for our projected 465.2 million.

We have 29.1 million dollars in unused increment available from tax years 24 and 25.

If we were to utilize that 29.1 million dollars, it roughly equates to about a 1.9 cent increase to our property tax rate.

If we move up to the state allowed revenue growth of 3.5%, that equates to about a 1.6 centre in our property tax rate, but it's also equal to 24.7 million dollars in additional revenue.

So if you combine both of those, being the unused increment and the state allowed revenue growth rate, it puts in a total of 53.8 million dollars in additional revenue and about a 3.49 cent increase in our tax rate for a total tax rate of 0.36 or $519 million in total revenue.

What does that mean to our homestead tax bill in terms of a monthly standpoint?

As I mentioned on that prior slide, we have about 254,000 homesteads in San Antonio.

Of those 254,000 homesteads in San Antonio, of those that are age 65 that have the frozen tax bill, about 116, 117,000 of those are insulated from that tax rate increase or value increases.

So of those 254,000 homesteads in San Antonio, about 137,000 would be impacted in terms of a tax rate increase.

As far as the average homestead taxable value, based on the information that we have, about 233,000 is that average homestead, that would that would result in a average in a monthly property tax increase of six dollars and $6.75 cents per month for the total of utilizing that unused increment and moving to the 3.5% combined, and that $6.75 per month basically generates revenue of about $53.8 million dollars for the city of San Antonio.

If you look at it from a median homestead, I think in the past, several of you have asked me, Troy, what happens with the median?

So with a median homestead of 198,000, the increase to the monthly property tax is about $5.84.

And as I mentioned, this is not impact over 65%.

Looking at this just a little bit differently from a monthly to an annual bill, looking at from a total property tax rate, and again, we're only adjusting the MO tax rate here.

So we have a 54% tax rate, the unused increment of 1.9 cents, moving up to the state allowed revenue growth of 3.5% equates about 1.6 cents for a total of 3.489 cents.

The average home still tax bill a year for the city of San Antonio, not taking into consideration other taxing entities, about $1,260 per year.

That equates for an unused increment annually to $44 a year.

Or that $3.67 monthly.

Moving to the 3.5% that would equate to $37 a year or $3.08 monthly for a total of $81 a year, and the $6.75 I talked about on the prior slide.

And down below, you can see the impact on the medium homestead as well.

Finally, wrapping up here, I wanted to talk about a couple of several important dates.

You know, as you know, on January 1st, BCAT actually appraises the property values on January 1st.

On April 1st, the notices of appraised values are mailed out to property owners.

And as I mentioned, on April 27th, after those notices were mailed, we got our first um indication from Bear County Appraisal District where our property values were headed.

We need to make significant estimates based on that, because at that point in time, we do not know what's happening with appeals.

We do not know what's happening with litigation.

So we're making assumptions from April all the way through September of 2027 and next year what we're going to experience after we receive the certified role in July.

The deadline to protest is passed on May 15th.

Starting on June 1st, we will start getting regular updates from BCAD as far as what's happening with appeals and litigation, and we can start refining our estimates and the numbers that you've seen on the prior slides.

July 1st is the last day if we were wanting to make any changes to exemptions that we would have to have an action passed by city council to make any modifications to our exemptions and have that in the hand of Bear County Appraisal District.

Then on July 25th, we receive our certified role, and then that informs us in terms of our adopted tax rate, and then property tax bills are mailed, and then they become delinquent on February first.

Mayor, that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

My name is Freddie Martinez, and I am the interim budget director for the city of San Antonio.

And today I'll cover the recap of the general fund five-year financial forecast.

Here's a quick overview of the general fund revised budget, which is which is 1.69 billion dollars.

And as you can see here, the general fund is funded by four major revenue sources.

The first being property tax, which is budgeted at about 473.4 million.

Our CPS payment, which is just under 559 million, our sales tax, which is 416.7 million, and then our other revenues are other resources which come in at 244.4 million.

Among these other resources are revenues such as EMS transports, telecommunication, and user fees.

The revenues uh combined fund the basic services provided by the city.

These include public safety at about 63.9% of the general fund budget, streets, infrastructure, and parks, and the remaining funds will fund such services such as library, animal care services, and code enforcement.

This next slide details our other resources or other revenues that you saw on the previous slide.

Overall, majority of our revenues, as you can see here, 85% come from our big three revenues of property tax, sales tax, and CPS energy payments.

The remaining 15% include user fees and other charges to include items such as EMS transport fees, payments from SAWs, river barge revenue, interest, and other revenues.

It also includes user fees for parks, libraries, and service charges, such as birth and death certificates.

The city does have some flexibility under these, and I and the manager mentioned at the beginning, we will be taking a look at these and providing some recommendations as part of the trial budget.

Here's an overview of the general fund by category or by expense category.

So as you can see here, of the 1.69 billion, about 1.16 billion is for uh personal services, which is about 60 60 um 8.5% of the general fund.

Next is uh cost for fuel IT and insurance, which is 211 million or about 12.5, followed by contractual services at about 170 million or 10%, which fund things such as affordable housing contracts, vehicle repaired maintenance, delegate agencies and maintenance of buildings and equipment.

Um and then the final uh larger one is our transfers, which is about 5.5% or 92.4 million.

This includes funding for infrastructure, grant matches as well as city tower operations and maintenance as well as some debt.

This slide recaps the five-year forecast that we presented to the council on May 6.

So, as you can see, revenues are projected to decline by about 0.6% in FY27 and grow on average of about 2.1 in the outer years.

However, expenses are projected to grow by 6.3% in 27 as well as 3.8% in the outer years.

So as you can see here, the general fund is not structurally balanced as the FY28 projection currently is uh projects a deficit of 130.7 million dollars, and with that deficit growing over the final three years of the con of the of the forecast to 264 million.

So this next slide uh presents a couple scenarios on how to eliminate the 130.7 million dollar projected deficit in 28.

Um, as you can see, by maintaining the property tax rate, it would require 130.7 million dollars of reductions, department reductions over the next two years.

However, on the next on the next uh scenario, our recommended scenario, um, by using the increases in the increases available from the unused increment and the three and a half percent state allowed growth, it would generate um enough revenue to um mitigate those required reductions, and um we would require about 15.6 million dollars of reductions over two years.

Just want to keep in mind when we talk about the reductions that are presented here, um, these are on top of the 10.7 million dollars in reductions that we currently have in the 10 point, excuse me, in the FY27 plan that was included as part of the 26 adopted budget.

And our recommendation here is to use the unused increment and the state allowed growth to generate more property tax revenue.

So, as Freddie's going to the next slide, um the the um the notion of utilizing the recommendation to utilize that unused increment that's available to us, as well as the the three and a half percent adjustment, which generates almost 54 million dollars.

Um, that is um that is that is solely going to pay for the increase in public safety expenses we have, and and if we can pull that slide up and Freddie will go through it.

But we just we have normal growth, some of it driven by collective bargain agreements, some of it driven by other aspects of the police and fire departments, and and you know, as we prepared for the for this conversation after the forecast, you know, um it and I said that the forecast is certainly not lost upon me the fact that we are having this conversation right now, but but the next question is what are you doing with the money?

Well, what we're doing with the money is paying for the existing public safety expenses.

That slide does not include another EMS unit or more patrol officers or safe officers.

It pays for what we have right now, and it's certainly the the you'll see another slide here in a second.

It is one of the largest cost drivers that we have within our budget.

And and so confidently, from my perspective, uh, we could say that the average homeowner um is gonna pay would potentially would have to pay six dollars and seventy-five cents more per month to pay for public safety services for the city of San Antonio.

Okay, so this slide kind of illustrates those uh categories of expensive public safety expenditures that would be funded by this uh increase.

So you see here fire police and fire uh collective bargaining agreements and benefits of 55 million would be the cost um for 27.

Also for support services, technology, equipment, and fuel for public safety about 17.4 million, and then some of our mandated costs for public safety, which includes our grant matches for our cops grant, um, additional cost for the D3 substation that are open next year, as well as uh body cameras.

So in total, between those three categories, the increase in public safety next year currently is projected to be about 77.2 million.

Um, however, the the uh increase or the from the revenue is only 53.8, so there's still some work to do to uh um close the gap just as far as the public safety part is concerned.

For clarity on this slide, um Eric, you've um I want to make sure I understand this because we've talked about the expenses related to the CBA specifically, but then there's a specific call out for the health care expenses.

I know we're trying to rectify a potential billing issue uh right with a with a provider.

Is that what the health care expenses are referring to?

Are those only health care expenses as part of the CBA's?

That that is that is all health care related to public safety.

So it's not just the the one issue that you're referring to.

It's just the norm the we have the normal cost increase, medical inflation that we deal with, so it includes all that.

Okay, but it also does include that billing issue that we're trying to address, correct?

Uh it does.

Okay, but that doesn't solve that issue.

Understood, but I want to make sure it's included in here, and that's so that's not only um CB CBA related kind of natural growth, got it.

No, thank you.

Yeah.

Well, let me let me make sure I'm clear that that we in a normal year with uh covering 29,000 lives, we're gonna see increases in medical inflation or pharmacy costs.

It includes that plus the particular situation you're talking about.

Thank you.

So by utilizing those changes with the property tax uh rate changes as well as re uh targeted reductions, you can see the change in the general fund forecast here where revenues will go from increases 0.6% to 2.6% in 27 and then grow by about 2.6% in outer years.

Um expenditures with the reductions would decline to about 5.8% in 2027 and 3.8% in the outer years.

So you can see um we would um solve the challenge in 208 by utilizing the recommended scenario, and then it would reduce the deficits in the outer years um to 155 million in FY2031.

So, in summary, to to uh balance the budget, we recommend adjusting the property tax rate to utilize the unused increment as well as the state allowed revenue growth so that we can maintain our operations.

We'll also be looking at adjusting fees and charges, and some examples here would be EMS transports, fire prevention fees, and the parks environmental fee.

Uh we'll also look at other uh fee adjustments without impacting vulnerable populations, and as I mentioned, there'll be uh targeted reductions and we'll be targeting non-mandated city services for that.

All these things will be outlined in the trial budget, which would be presented during a session on June 18th, where we'll outline those strategies to obtain a balanced two-year two-year budget.

So, with that, Mary and Council, this concludes our presentations.

Uh, first batch of presentations in the morning, we're available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Troy and and Freddie.

We'll move on to uh to council comments for those that have signed in for uh the first round of comments.

Okay.

Um if you'd like to make a comment, please sign in.

Um councilman uh McKee Rodriguez.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, staff for the presentation.

Um, I'll be fairly quick.

Um, I support the recommendation.

Um and then I do want to I think when when we met earlier and we had the brief the pre-briefing about the um unused increment and uh how we intend to use that this this upcoming year and to uh close the budget gap pretty substantially.

Uh the question that I asked is, you know, have we done this previously?

And we haven't always, and I wonder if it would be a sound financial policy to because at this point, if we have three years worth and we end up losing it, then that one reduces our ability to grow our revenue because we're capped at three and a half percent.

And if we incorporate that the unused increment, that increases our base and uh helps us achieve higher revenue in future years.

Um, but if we don't use it, then we lose it.

And so um I don't know that it makes sense every year, it's a set of a policy where we use all available increment, but maybe there's a way that we can adopt a policy in which we use the oldest one or two years of increment um in whatever way that makes most sense uh makes most sense for us.

And some years we'll need more, some years we won't need any, some years we won't be able to access it at all.

Um but I think that's something I would like to uh hear staff you know evaluate what would be a sound financial policy for that and uh what makes the most sense because that's the most interesting piece of this to me.

So can I um provide let me absolutely I I it I I'll almost liken to what you're asking uh to um maybe that CPS policy we created a couple years ago that said uh on the off system sales that we're gonna review it annually and use it if we need to, but if not be a responsible owner.

What I think what you're describing there or potentially suggesting is that on the unused increment, we we we establish a policy that says we're gonna look at it every year and and use it if we need to, but if we don't, we're gonna bank it, is what you're kind of describing, right?

Yes, and then I guess I think in that in that situation, worst case scenario is you get to that third or fourth year where you're having to look at the the oldest the third the first year of increment, and maybe we're at a time where we've reached that three and a half percent, we can't use it, you know, and so we lose it.

I don't think that's worst case, and I don't think that's a horrible scenario to be in.

Right.

So, yes, I agree with you.

Troy, do you want to weigh in on you on on uh on that thought or ask any clarification?

Um not really, but I think we can go back and we can evaluate it.

I think um I understand what you're asking for over that three years.

I mean instead of losing that year rolling off that we look at how we can utilize that in the future.

For sure.

And is this um this is a uh state policy, yes?

State law?

State law, yes, sir.

Is there, I mean, I think we've talked about IGR and our legislative agenda a lot for a lot of different things, and I do think we do need to make financial policies a part of our legislative agenda, and I imagine other big cities are having, I mean, I imagine everyone's having this problem, and so is there any legislation that we should be looking at that might make it a little bit easier for for us to close out some of these deficits because I think the deficits of we're not the only city, we're not the only county, it's happening everywhere, not even in just in Texas, it's happening everywhere where everyone has these major deficits, and so I think we need to make uh closing that gap a big part of our legislative agenda, and so I don't know.

I mean, I'm not gonna draft what that policy looks like, but if we have some ideas that um experts on staff can look at, I think I'd love to have that discussion as soon as possible.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

I mean, just on that, unfortunately, we've seen session over session them going in the complete opposite direction of that.

Um, so uh maybe maybe we can hope for something different, okay.

Um the next person, uh, council member Aldrate Gabito.

That's fine.

Would anyone else like to speak during this run?

Council member Mungia.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so Eric, this presentation was slightly different than the last time, but I just wanted to be clear in what you guys were recommending.

You're recommending the unused increment, and you're recommending uh 3.5% increase to property tax, mostly just to cover fire and police uh expenses that are mandated.

Uh yes, sir.

And and and what's unsaid there is that I don't think it's I don't think it's um I don't think uh reducing 130 million dollars over two years um and the impact it'll have on services is uh is um I don't want to use the word appealing but but would be acceptable because that would remo that would require us to um make some pretty significant cuts to services that I think um that I think are important that I and I know I'm certain you guys do.

That's okay.

So the extra and I think maybe uh a by-district breakdown of the median and average uh home value prices for all of us would be helpful so that we can go to our residents, we can say, you know, the effect to your property tax bill would more or less be this amount of money.

Uh, but I just want to be clear that that is the increase to the property taxes specifically in your mind to cover uh police and fire department needs.

And I think jumping ahead to the budget survey, which we'll talk about a little bit.

I think that's in line with what the majority of folks want.

So uh look forward to bringing that to my community and talking to them about the and the tax freeze for you know, over 65 and disabled, that's only if they have those exemptions on the books with BCED, right?

That's correct.

It's an application process, and so if they're on the books, then they get that exemption as well as the homestead.

Gotcha, okay.

The only thing I worry about that just you know, understated is the um rental properties, right?

That maybe other folk people who are kind of qualifying these categories or are renters, uh, that then are gonna feel the impact of that increase, but just something to note.

Um, so thank you.

That's all for now.

Thank you, Councilmember Aldrata Gavito.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I know I've asked for this before, but I I am also aware it's gonna take a little bit of time to get to on slide fourteen, the police and fire, that blue chunk of the graph.

If we could have that broken down as well.

Um slide 14, you see the police and fire.

We have all of the details on the on the right side, but I would love the details on on the left side too.

Um on slide eighteen.

I'm I'm definitely um against raising the the property tax rate on our residents.

Uh, you know, I think that we need to really think about our senior citizens who are on fixed incomes.

Uh you know, I I'm not even uh opposed to talking about um increasing our property tax rate at a different time.

Now is not the time.

I mean our everyone's filling the pinch with we're talking about a SARS rate increase.

We're talking, I mean, people are getting um squeezed at the at the grocery store, at gas stations, like, and so it it's just not the right time to have this discussion to increase the property tax rate for for our residents.

Um I know times are tough, but I do think that there are ways that we can um look internally before we ask residents to to foot the bill, and so I'm looking forward to seeing what those mandated services are and and um going from there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Mesta Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I think this is a tough conversation for everybody, but uh as council members said, every city, every taxing entity is going through this, even Alano Colleges is going through this right now.

So I think this is um how do we keep up with the services that our residents are expecting um and make sure that those don't um diminish in any way possible is important to me and I know is important to residents.

I was at an HOA meeting yesterday and I asked a resident there, hey, what do you think about this?

And he goes, Well, how else are you gonna pay for the ambulances, Eva Lease?

And it was just kind of cut and dry, but I thought, okay, well, I'm glad I'm gonna take him with me everywhere I go for the next month uh to say that, but I appreciate it that kind of understanding of of where we are and where the city is, and so um, and I know that's not the case for every resident, and so we have to do a really good job during these uh town halls, um, and maybe even approach them differently, where we're not giving these high-level budget discussions and really getting into the weeds of what really how this affects them, right?

How this affects their bill.

This has got to be part of that of those budget town halls.

Um, because most of the time they are kind of high level and we're towards the end, and um I remember that the first town hall I had, we voted on the budget a week later, so it's not a lot of time to digest any of that.

So uh just want to make sure that we are communicating as much as possible um about how this is impacting res residents specifically, right on their bill.

And I know the state has provided some property tax relief, um that helps in some way, or maybe um yeah, lessens that a little bit, and so uh we want to make sure that folks understand, and obviously our seniors have their tax exemptions, and so I'm glad to see that that impact will not affect them.

But I support this recommendation right now, um, considering what's at stake, um, and just look forward to further discussions.

So those are all my comments.

Thank you.

Councilmember White.

Yeah, I'm gonna just be really brief.

This is an absolutely non-starter for me.

Um under no circumstances should we be raising uh the property tax rate on our citizens right now, and every city's not doing it.

Um last year uh Fort Worth cut cut their tax rate.

Um there were some fees that went up there, but but here with this recommendation, uh I think it's it's cutting the the it's it's raising the tax rate and raising raising additional fees, I saw there as well.

Um if you look at the five-year forecast that was presented, uh we're projecting even with a tax hike, uh still having a hundred and fifty-five million dollar deficit uh by 2031.

So a tax rate increase is is just not the solution.

Um, we we have structural problems here with the way we are spending money.

Um 68.5% of the budget, um, you know, uh uh on personnel costs I think is something that uh you know we're is worth scrutinizing.

Um all the other money we spend on on various um programs and things that that are not I think core to our city function.

Uh I know we're gonna talk about that this afternoon, but we have to look at that as well.

And I don't accept that you know this property tax increase would would be going towards increased public safety costs.

I mean, we have one pot of money, we got one pot of money.

Money's fungible.

I mean, you can see you you can try to say, oh, this is gonna go to that just to uh make it more appealing for folks, but but I I don't accept that.

We we got one pot of money here, we need to spend it in a better fashion, and asking the citizens to pay more is simply not acceptable.

Seven bucks more a month, right?

That's what eighty-four dollars a year, put that on top of the two hundred and twenty-eight dollars a year that uh if SAWS has their way, everybody will be paying additional amounts at the end of four years.

It's too much to put on the backs of our citizens.

It's not right.

We need to do the work as a city government.

It's tough work.

I mean, it's tough work, don't get me wrong.

We are gonna have to really dig in, and it's gonna take a lot of hours to find where we can consolidate um programs, departments, and the rest of it, but that's the work that the citizens hired us to do, not just hit a button and raise and raise their tax rate.

So I'm adamantly um against it, and um I look forward to more of these uh this conversation this afternoon.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eric.

You wanted to say something.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Um, so um it is not just it it is mathematical reality that um one of our two of our core services um are growing in terms of expense, and it is um both intuitive, it's a common sense approach, and it is a fact that uh that that money that additional revenue if utilized is gonna go towards public safety.

And I think that's important for us.

You I know you disagree, councilman.

I know that's important for us to be completely transparent and explain where the where the money's needed.

If it's a core service, we have we have to do that, the public expects that.

And and then lastly, and I can appreciate that that there is a lot of work to do.

Um, this is, you know, uh 22 slides of a behemoth effort um lost upon here.

I want to remind the council that what Freddie talked about, that even in that scenario, we're gonna need to cut reduced spending of about 27 million dollars.

And and that will undoubtedly include cuts to programs and uh the line item budget stuff and the zero-based budget, all the stuff that Danielle's gonna talk about in the afternoon.

Um but that is all work that we still need to do, and it's not just um, you know, hitting the button and and making our uh budget woes go away.

We still have we're still gonna need to reduce spending to your point.

Our spending is growing faster than our revenue, and so this does not solve everything.

We have a significant amount of work, and you will see reductions on June 18th in either scenario that um that are gonna affect services.

And um Justina had a uh an answer to uh the question earlier.

Thank you.

Uh Justina Tate, Interim Assistant City Manager.

I just to address the question about the detail, uh, the 1.1 billion, about 632 million is police, 428 million is fire, and then about 20.6 million is park police.

So that makes up the 1.1 billion dollars.

And if I may, um I that's that's awesome.

Thank you for that.

But I I even think even more granular than that, like how much headcount for police officers, firefighters, resources, and that kind of stuff.

I think it would just be helpful to see that level of detail holistically.

But thank you, Justina.

You're welcome.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Via Grande.

Thank you, Mayor.

In a deficit economy, our responsibility is strategic and transparent stabilization that safeguards the city's long-term financial health while continuing to deliver the essential services our residents expect and deserve.

The reality before us is significant, and uh, Councilman White, I'd appreciate if you'd pay attention.

The reality before us is significant.

The city is facing a projected cumulative deficit over the next two fiscal years, and addressing that challenge will require difficult but responsible decisions over the next four years.

Today's budget discussion is an opportunity for us to openly share priorities, concerns, and recommendations regarding where the city should continue investing resources as well as where reductions in funding may necessitate adjustments to service or programs.

We need to look at the whole.

So as we move through this process, we must remain focused on protecting essential municipal functions, maintaining public trust, and ensuring fiscal sustainability for the city of San Antonio.

The balancing of the budget will require comprehensive approach that includes both expenditures, reductions, and identification of new revenue opportunities.

But what I am not hearing from some council members is where we are going to cut, what you're willing to sacrifice, just what you're willing not to do.

We have to examine all available options, including adjustments with the fees, permits, transportations and fines, and property taxes that haven't increased for the last 33 years.

This is the second time we've been through this budget where I have council colleagues speaking and saying no, but yet they do not provide an opportunity of where they would cut, and then they end up not voting for the budget anyway because we have delegate agencies in it.

So as we move forward, and we talk about transparency and accountability and thought for stewardship of taxpayer resources, I would just like a little bit of honesty of why we're not looking seriously at what the staff has recommended.

If we look at the city property tax relief on slide seven, we see that there is a tax freeze that applies to all over 65 and disabled persons.

We have an homestead exemption, but I have residents that are using their homes, using their homestead exemption, but still using their homes for commercial use.

And I don't have the code officers to go out and enforce the fact that they shouldn't be doing this.

I hear about how, oh, the city can't do this and the city needs to cut.

Nobody's having conversations with their neighbors that says, hey, maybe you don't subscribe to Netflix and Hulu.

Because if you look at this, there is budgetary opportunities that we have.

This is gonna be hard, and nobody likes to raise taxes, but everything is going up, and you continue to ask for the city and allege that the city is being wasteful when they have not.

I've sit here on five years and we've been trying to get this budget together, and I've voted on budgets.

Some sometimes the whole, sometimes not, the whole budget, or but I have voted on the budget to move the majority of the budget forward to keep this city moving forward.

So I there is gonna be a lot of work to do.

I I think we do need to look at um raising the taxes based on that.

We need to protect our reserves, we need the reserves, we understand this.

This didn't come right after the pandemic because we had ARPA dollars.

But we knew that this day was coming and we see it nationally across the board.

And the city of San Antonio needs to be thoughtful, but I need honest conversations and not just speaking points.

Where are you going to cut from?

And I can tell you right now, don't start.

If if you're so into cuts, cut your staff.

Cut your city hall staff.

I'm not willing to do that, and I think the majority of us aren't either.

So, where are we gonna get this money from?

We have to look at the programs, we have to look at increasing permits and fees.

This is how it's going to get done.

I look forward to the conversations there.

My council colleagues are right, and then this is gonna take uh cooperation with our other entities here and our other taxing entities, but to ask the city to take the majority and to allege that the city has been irresponsible with its funds is um i i it just I I want I want to see the evidence that it has been.

That's what I'm saying here.

So as we go through this goal setting session, I hope we get more frank answers.

And if you're just not gonna vote for the budget because you haven't voted for the budget in the last three years, you have voted for the budget monitoring.

Okay, please please direct your comments this way.

Thank you.

So if you're not gonna vote for the budget because the delegate agencies and all this, then just give us something we can work with.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um, Councilmember Galvan.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you uh for the presentation today.

Of course, difficult conversation here.

We knew that coming into it.

Um, I think it's I think it's tough.

Um, when I talked to folks on the campaign trail um last year, a lot of folks in the district, it's district six is a very diverse district where some parts uh can take a bit more, some folks cannot, in terms of increasing costs.

Um, of course, everyone's feeling the pain on every single level, whether it's groceries or it's gas prices or it's uh utility rates in the past have already been increased, etc.

So there's always a feeling of you know what more can we take?

But there is also the same feeling and instinct um and desire, frankly, from a lot of our communities-both folks who um can take another increase or cannot, who say, but what point are we gonna do finally deliver the things that we deserve here?

We're constantly asking for the bare minimum things of just make sure our streets are paved, making sure our sidewalks are built, making sure that you know our streets don't flood as much as possible.

Um, but when do we get to the next part of our of one of the largest cities in the country feeling like all of our neighborhoods are just as quality as everywhere else are?

When do we get that the moment where we feel like this is where we deserve to be?

This is where I'm proud to live, this is where our whole city connects to each other, and it doesn't feel like we can ever get there by this kind of austerity mindset of constantly saying, No, we have to just completely restrict ourselves to only the bare essentials, everything else hopefully happen one day by some miracle.

Well, we know that there's different parts of our communities that so they're not gonna see the economic investment, are not gonna see those kind of uh public uh public expenditures created in the area because the money's not there anymore.

That means there's not a park nearby that encourages investment, there's not the quality infrastructure that encourages the investment, there's not the quality.

Uh how to developments are also bringing in more investments for even more housing opportunities, and so it just kind of leaves us in the same rut perpetually.

Um, and so I mean, this isn't a full solution here, right?

Of course, we know we're seeing the whole forecast here that even with this tax increase, um, we're still gonna have to kind of deal with it as you go on and on.

Um, those are limitations caused by the state.

There's not anyone here could have save us from the federal state level at this point, um, hopefully in the future.

But uh until then, we had to figure out how we can do it, how we can take care of all these things, including the essentials, and a little bit of the other things that people just frankly have been asking for the shade structure over the over the park, um, some of the the increased resource in ACS, all these pieces are part of it here, and so I feel comfortable with the staff recommendation.

I think we should at least look at the budget in that way.

If it doesn't feel good as we get into the summer, we can adjust from there, but I don't think we can we can start ourselves off at saying let's go with nothing.

Let's go with 136 million cuts.

Cause I I would imagine those services that are being cut are going to be pretty significant, of course.

Um I don't know, Eric, if we have this already, and I know we're still working through this process today and over the next couple months, but do we have an expectation of how many staff would be impacted by a cut?

We don't have to go into who and where, but I'm nervous about seeing okay.

Well, how many staff do we lose from this?

How many folks are now unemployed in our entire city?

Not just city COSA, but city, um, and what's that impact to our economy?

Beyond that, right?

How many departments simply stop functioning and some of those essential services that our residents are asking for, not that not even the nice to have, not even the things that they're just looking for to make their communities a bit more spruced up, but the essential code uh responses, the ACS response, the even the police and fire response.

What part of that is then impacted or expected to be impacted here, I think would be helpful for us to a bit understand.

Cause at some point when we talk about you know household budgets and how we kind of look at it day-to-day, when the rent increase, when housing costs increase, you can do your best to cut all the subscriptions, you can do your best to cut all the the going out to eat and doing those things.

At some point, you still have to eat.

We cannot cut our way out of the essentials that we have here.

People in our community do it all the time.

I'm someone who has done that in my life where we just don't go to the doctor anymore.

And you hope you just get better.

You hope everything just gets a little bit better because you can't afford to do it anymore.

Because you have to make the the bigger cost of the increase here, you gotta make those ends meet first.

At some point, you have to figure out how do we get more revenue here for our personal household budget as well as the city level budget to not only again deliver on the basics, but also things that are frankly just quality of life.

Not the kind of quote unquote luxuries, no one's asking to have the city go make a yacht for everybody.

It's simply making our communities a bit stronger, a bit more stable.

Um, and frankly, what we deserve, especially the communities that have often not had those investments in there.

And so I think you know we can I think we should look at uh this increase here, and I think we should continue to look at beyond this, of course, the adjustments internally, of course, the efficiencies and internally, and also how we can make sure that we're looking at external revenue sources that can come in.

Now, I'm not look talking about guest grants, of course, but even looking at make more productive land use uh decisions here, making sure that we have better infill development here so we can actually get this income generation back more naturally, um, looking at the workforce and educational investment that we have to do here to actually get our folks into those higher paying jobs to be able to withstand some of this work and to be able to pay back in to our system a bit better so they're able to actually deliver these services.

It's a whole ecosystem here, and I think cutting it off immediately, cutting our nose off immediately isn't gonna get us to a better spot.

Not only now, but frankly, ever.

Um I simply believe our community deserves more than this, and it's it's difficult with this one.

I get it.

Um, I mean, I'm grateful we have the exemptions here for our seniors, uh, but I know it's gonna be tough for our working families, and so it's just trying to figure out where we can do that the best.

But I think our residents get it.

When I talk to my neighborhoods, when I talk to communities in our in my district, folks will say, I mean, at some point, something's gotta give here.

We can't just keep saying, I don't want to pay for any of these things that we can't afford to do it, and then we be surprised when no sidewalks come, be surprised when nothing else is addressed in our neighborhoods.

We're surprised to see cycles of crime advanced in our community when no intervention services can be funded anymore.

We're already super limited in those.

How do we actually get to the bigger point?

It's gonna have to come at more revenue from somewhere.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Castillo.

Thank you.

Can we pull up slide 16?

I guess it's my slide 16.

It's the general fund revised expenditures overview with the expense categories.

Oh, here we go.

Yeah, so um, like many families throughout the United States and here in the city of San Antonio, folks are faced with increased insurance costs, increased fuel cost, and the cost of those one time purchases, whether it's groceries, a washer, dryer, needs for your vehicle, equipment and tools to maintain your home.

And the city of San Antonio is not exempt from those increased costs to maintain services.

And as residents all throughout this country face economic uncertainty, whether it's because of inflation, the war, et cetera, I believe that the city of San Antonio should lead in terms of ensuring that City of San Antonio employees have secure employment.

Because when we're talking about navigating a deficit and budget cuts, it's going to be city employees that are going to potentially lose their positions, have consolidated roles, particularly grant funded positions with the city of San Antonio.

And those are San Antonio residents who are also likely taxpayers who have children and aging parents that they're responsible for.

So I'm supportive of a recommendation that ensures that we continue to maintain services and maintain the roles of our current city employees.

Because again, this is a conversation where it can be politically convenient to say no to rates, right?

We need to keep in mind that these are City of San Antonio employees that also have bills to pay.

And by not taking this conversation seriously on what alternatives can look like, we're telling our shared constituency to kick rocks and go find another job.

And I believe it's our role and responsibility to ensure that we're keeping San Antonio residents working, and that includes City of San Antonio employees, ensuring that they have guaranteed employment, that they're not facing scarcity and trying to find a job in this really bad job market.

So I'm supportive of staff's recommendation, of course, with the condition that we continue to prioritizing keeping uh grant funded employees staff, uh keeping city employees uh here as well, um, but ensuring that um we're not reducing uh whether it's with the Metro Health Department, neighborhood and housing services, any city department, uh my priority is ensuring that we're keeping San Antonio residents and city employees employed.

Uh and we're not talking about what those reductions look like.

Uh further, I think it's important to emphasize and reiterate that this um recommendation ensures that we maintain services with fire and our police department.

And I think it's important to highlight the hypocrisy.

You can't say you want the most expensive thing, which are more police officers, but then not advocate to get the funding to support that most expensive thing.

And I think it's important, right?

We are having CBA conversations, and our police officers deserve a fair contract.

And by not exploring what this looks like, we're we're we're shortening our police officers in the negotiation end.

Um, but those are all my comments, and I'm supportive of staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Corps.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you for sending this presentation in for my briefing yesterday.

Uh I wish this presentation was done at the end of the day, because it feels almost a little bit hard to make decisions about property tax rates when we don't know what the impact is for our goals and priorities.

So I and I didn't have that feedback yesterday, but I I as I was thinking about it last night, I thought, okay, you know, we're starting the day with this conversation, and yet we have not even discussed all of the programs, the priorities that we have, the additional asks that I know each of us want to make that we usually get to make sitting here on this day.

Um, and so I am just thinking like it's it's it's easier for us to work backwards, right?

If this is the end that we want to get to of programs and services, what does that mean for our tax rate?

And it is like I initially thought it was just one of those buckets.

I didn't realize we were gonna try doing both with the leftover increment and also the increase to three and a half percent, and so that's now two different in my mind, two different decisions that we're making.

And so I guess for me, the biggest thing I need to better understand is what is the impact if we don't, and until we make that very clear, it is hard for me, and I said this last time, like, of course, we don't want to cut core services, and I would support an increase, but I still do think we need to visualize.

If we don't do this, what does it mean?

We were talking yesterday, apparently there's 800 vacancies right now in city staff, which is actually pretty significant.

So I was like, what if we just cut all those vacancies?

That would fit uh help fix our deficit.

Um but those vacancies are some of them are short-term where they're in flux, and that means programs would be hurt.

But I do think we could look at those vacancies and see maybe are there five or some that can be removed from those that don't need to be filled.

Um, and just I don't know who the to Eric's point, Eric was like you want me to put up all these positions or all these people's jobs and show it publicly of like they could be under threat.

And and I think Councilmember Gilvan was kind of alluding to that.

Like you don't have to say who or what, and I understand the sensitivity there, but I also want us to know.

I mean, if we look at Office of Historic Present Preservation and say that's where we want to uh skinny down, I know my historic neighborhoods would be like I know some all of ours, we all have historic neighborhoods that oh, except for Council Member and get your um that might really come that that might have a lot of feelings about that.

So I think it and also in the budget right now is only budgeted for the current proposal that we have sent over to the police, right?

For the CBA, it's only the three percent increase that's or what's budgeted right now in the budget for uh CBA.

I'm not gonna ask that, sorry.

Should I not ask that?

Yeah, we'll talk about that in the executive session briefing.

Okay, sorry.

Yeah, sorry, my bad.

But to what Councilman Castillo's point was that if we want to make sure we're getting to a a place where our officers feel like they are getting as good of a deal with as much respect as the firefighters did uh a couple a year and a half ago, we've got to make sure we have the budget allocated for that.

And so I just don't see how we increase anything.

The last thing I'll say is to Councilmember Galzvan's point is like we always go for the bare minimum.

I do think there is room for improvement in services to get us more goodwill with community.

So there's two things, right?

Like one, we can do more, but two, we can also do better.

And I think there is ways that particularly for some of our programs where we could say, like, are we making sure we're executing on the top level that we can for our street program?

I'm really excited to see what the new PCI scores come back as from public works, but I think we need that program revamped because I cannot justify to so many of my residents why is your street getting done and the street next door is not.

There's no good reason for it right now, or why has this street been paved five times and this street has never been touched, or why are the why is Bassie Road never gotten a reconstruction effort, right?

So all of these things, I don't have I don't have a good justification.

Like it's on the plan.

Well, you know, where did that come from?

How did those numbers get there?

So just my when you were talking, I was thinking, well, we can also just be stronger and better at the work that we do so that they do see work happen.

I feel like people that tell me they don't want to increase their taxes because they feel like they've gotten no benefit from it.

Although they do get solid waste services every week, which is like our top-notch service pro like service that we provide, but um other folks feel like, oh, I'm increasing my tax rate and you haven't fixed my sidewalk.

And so that's the hard part when people are not getting the service that they they're not feeling like we are performing at the level that we should be, and then asking to increase the tax rate.

So I I definitely know all the people that got major minor home rehab uh funding this last year in my district would probably definitely support this because they've seen the actual benefit from us increasing funding.

Um I think that's all for right now.

I'm just curious to see where things go with the conversation on what we want and how we get there versus what we're going to cut.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

So, Councilman Corps, you're you're you're a hundred percent right.

I mean, we went we got straight to the meat of the matter this morning, and and uh as you were talking, it what what I want to make sure that that you all understand is that in it in a uh four billion dollar a year corporation, um we can always reduce spending, and so um you will see consolidations, you will see reductions, you will see um where we can make improvements or do things better in the budget.

And and we didn't really talk a little a lot about that on the first part of the slide presentation this morning, but those are things that are uh natural to us and are required.

Even to be honest with you, even if we weren't in this um offsetting or unstructured environment, the revenues and expenses, we have to kind of recreate those things all the time.

And so that's that's part of the part of the normal work we need to do.

And I don't I don't want you all to think that that uh one or two of these recommendations are gonna solve all our woes, because at the end of the day, we've got to make sure that we are continuously managing that and improving where we can and making it easier for us to provide services or easier for the employees to make services or deliver services.

And so all that we'll do, we just didn't we just didn't talk a lot about it this morning.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I I actually saw it um the other way, councilwoman.

I appreciate your point though.

I think it was really helpful just to kind of level set and make sure we all understand just how bad things are, uh, which kind of tampers the tempers the the appetite for for additional asks.

Um, because as was mentioned, not only are we looking at um uh potential uh increase here, we're looking at um an increase on the capacity side if we wanted that for the bond as well as um the utilities.

And um, Eric, for those listening that have the that are curious, if we also raise the property tax for bond capacity, would the property tax uh what when would that one go into effect?

You're talking about the debt service conversation, right?

Well, so we the the um uh we're gonna come back to you all in August with the certified role to kind of lay that out.

Um if we have a bond election and and the council chooses to to follow that path where the rate can the debt service rate can go up or down based on market, that that would not have to go into effect until after the sale, and we would need to structure that.

I'm sorry, the the vote, not the sale.

The vote would have to pass, uh we'd have to see where the markets were at, we'd have to see where values at.

It could it would certainly be a subsequent conversation and in the outer years the council would have to make, but you would not have to make that decision technically on the tax rate uh for fiscal year 27.

Okay.

Um just simply when is just for again for the intellect, when is potentially, right?

Mrs.

Martinez is listening, all right.

So when could I potentially see that, right?

When is the early if that pass if the bond passes, right?

And if we say yes, we'd like to increase the property taxes to allow for additional bond capacity, when is the soonest somebody might see that just to manage expectations?

The soonest would be January of 28.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Troy, for laying out the financial policies.

I know we have seen, as you all have alluded to, um, the increased fuel cost, um, as some of the uh um public safety entities have mentioned have have um significantly increased their budget requ their budget needs, um, as has the um the increase in the health care costs, not only as relates to the CBA, but also as it relates to um billing with a with a vendor.

How close are we to um um violating if you will some of those financial policies?

For example, are we butting up against 66 percent?

So if you uh go to that slide with the with the spinning wheel, Jacob, it's actually 63.9% currently.

Currently, okay.

But yeah, um that's something we would have to monitor going forward as we develop the budget.

Okay, so at um in June, you'll let us know where we are with respect to 66.

Yes, we can provide that.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um, and while we're talking about the financial policy, um actually, Freddie, if you don't mind, thank you so much.

Um I echo some of my colleagues' concerns about the growth in the out year.

Um, when we were doing this exercise last year, we were um at if we didn't help ourselves in 2030, our out-year growth, five-year deficit growth was 220-ish million, right?

So this we're talking this year, five years out, we're looking at 264 million.

So in one year, we've seen a 17% increase in our deficit growth in just in one year.

That that to me, I mean, you have you have alluded to structural imbalance, but that growth to me seems wildly unsustainable.

So I'd I'd welcome your thoughts on on the feasibility, and if this is something we could also um understand as part of the June 8th conversation, is what is the financial policy look like that caps um uh out your growth in our deficit, right?

So, yes, we've got a balance in the two years.

However, if we also wanted to help ourselves and say, and we're not gonna let five-year out-year growth increase um increase by more than 10%, for example, whatever in your mind is is a reasonable number to plan for.

Because when you're only looking at balancing in the first two years, right, then you're really only able to cut because you don't have a lot of other options.

Um, so but if you're looking at that five that that longer outlook, then you're potentially exploring other revenue options.

So I would welcome your comments now, but also how we might be able to think about that as a as a community.

So I think um as far as part of the financial policies, we can certainly go down the road of looking at limiting expenditure growth.

But I think from my point of view, um, and we've talked about it in the past uh kind of aligning our revenue growth to our expenditure growth and having that balance.

So as our revenue growth either increases or decreases or stays flat, that expenditure growth should be in alignment with that, which currently it's not.

Agreed.

The um I think it's very helpful the um the slide that you had in terms of um where the uh where we're foregoing property tax um as part of the June 8th conversation, I'd like us to understand as well what that looks like in terms of property tax um abatements for corporations as well as where we are with the TURS.

Um but I think June 18th, if not if not sooner.

Thanks, Freddie.

Thank you.

Um I I'd also like um to make sure, and we talked about this this last time though, in these in terms of these additional revenue streams, um, Eric, if you want if you would couch it that way, or or frankly, if we would just describe it as um uh, you know, at cost or or a for-cost model for some of the things that we um subsidize in the community, right?

So for example, I think some of us were shocked to learn that we subsidize one Fiesta event $600,000 in the cost in the turn in the in the form of um cops and trash, right?

So um what is what is a different model by which we might um pay for a charge appropriately for those services so those entities can plan accordingly for the next year.

In terms of revenue, um the uh so I think everyone's second favorite document after the charter is now the revenue manual.

Um can you uh help us understand for that June 8th June 18th meeting rather um if we were to max out where we can, um, what does that do in terms of revenue streams?

How does that help us?

What does that help us bring in?

Um I know that's a very large document, but uh, you know, some giving us an idea of how much um head would headroom we have in some places as it relates to that revenue model, I think will be very helpful.

Are you are you able in the time frame to help us understand where we can max out?

I think there's areas where we can do some targeted look um kind of increases in making sure that we're recovering our costs, but as you know, there's other charges that um we're not recovering our costs because uh the population that it serves, and it wouldn't it would be detrimental to provide those services by charging a higher fee to those that can't necessarily afford that.

And that's a very important caveat, thank you.

To the extent though there are some areas, some folks that do have more capacity where we would be interested in exploring what that would look like.

I appreciate um providing that.

One other thing, Mayor, and you know, there so several of you talked about a couple of these at the forecast presentation.

There was a there was talk about uh Airbnb uh type of license, vacant and and um uh vacant properties and vacant uh or vacant homes or vacant properties.

So we'll certainly take take a look uh at how far we can push some of those things and incorporate in the June 18th.

Appreciate that, thank you.

Um, because one of those things that we and Eric, you and I talked about it, but for example, just on this um consent agenda that we approved, the uh the affordable housing.

There's an affordable housing item, and we have when I actually calculated the fee, it was like 0.001% of what we uh charged off of that 45 million.

So if there's headroom there, and and honestly, that goes into that goes into the affordable housing fund, but it sounds like a portion of that can come into the general fund.

So it's welcome exploring that while maintaining competitiveness to your point.

For those that are um are tracking, um, you know, we have been we have been or we may be gifted additional police officers as a result of G DOJ grants.

Is correct um Eric and Andy?

That we have or we may.

We may.

I that's what I'm checking.

What what is the status of there was a contract where we may be gifted additional officers, correct?

Florida's police substation 20A police officers that was granted to the city this fiscal year.

We have not seen an application yet out of DOJ for DOJ for hiring police officers, but we're monitoring that and see there's an opportunity there.

Okay.

Thank you for that, Maria.

What I was trying to get at is as was alluded here, much of any increase that we experience uh that we impose on property tax goes toward CBA related costs.

And so if we are accepting additional officers, we want to make sure we understand the sustainment, the sustainment tail of that um over time.

And if any of that is specific to this to this budget.

Okay, the 20 uh excuse me, the the 20 million that was found as part of the deep dive for the Medicaid waiver, um Justina, that is that's one time money, correct?

That's not money we can continue to bank on.

Based on what we present as part of the budget in terms of what programs we would continue, it could be multiple years that we could continue some of those programs through that um through that Medicaid waiver reserves.

Okay, but that um that that reserves is us spent um uh the reserves will eventually run out, expire.

Right.

Understood.

Okay, okay.

So it sounds like it's up to us if we wanted to use 20 million in just 27, or if we need if we wanted to spread that out across a couple of years, is that right?

So right now the programs that are funded out of Medicaid waiver are about eight million dollars per year.

Annually, um so we will come back as part of the budget process to provide recommendations in terms of programs.

Um so that could allow us based on those programs we recommended funding that could allow us to continue those programs for multiple years.

Okay, thank you for that.

Um, what I'd like as part of the June 18th briefing is is helping us understand if we wanted to max that max that out in um in this budget year uh what is that what does that look like versus to your point spreading it across across two years, um understanding some of the cuts that we're gonna see.

Okay.

Please.

Um so we spend in a normal year eight or nine million dollars.

When you say max out, what do you what are you talking?

If we have the ability to use all of the 20 million in one year, what would that look like?

Could you spend could you even spend it that much if you needed to?

If you wanted to.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um I would like to understand um uh our assessment of moving the SAS um contribution from from four to cent from four percent to five percent.

Um look forward to that as part of the June 18th briefing.

Um the I I am not at this point um prepared to say that I support all that has been presented in terms of increasing the rate.

I'm not saying that there isn't some level that may need to take place.

I I do though, when we are looking at where we are seeing the largest growth in our budget.

Um, I want to make sure we have some as identified by the auditor and team, um, some opportunities to really wrangle in some of the spending uh that we have seen.

If folks have taken a look at some of the fire department recent audits, um there are some some low-hanging fruit there that can, I think would go a long way in terms of um cost controls, certainly as it relates to overtime fuel expenses as well as just basic inventory control.

So what I ask, but for the benefit of the public, is um uh some kind of documentation either from Buddy or others that helps us understand that all the things that can help us save money, right?

I mean, you know, folks uh should not be able to approve your own overtime.

Like there are basic things that we can put in place that would help to save resources.

Um at the same time, we are making sure that we have full confidence in in funding these obviously very important um important services, public safety services.

Mary, let me jump in here real quick.

Just uh I don't I don't want the impression that that out of our four billion uh that that people are approving their own overtime.

There was a finding that in an instance in the fire department in an area uh when buddy was uh when the chief was made aware of that, yeah.

We corrected it, and frankly, that's the reason why we asked for the audit of fire overtime and we do that periodically.

Um audits are done, and as they as we present as as audit, I'm sorry, as the auditor presents those to the audit committee, and you get them and and you also get the management response.

Anything that adjusts that requires the adjustment of cost controls or management policies or processes, it's up to me and the directors and the executives sitting behind you to make sure that we're instituting that.

So we will certainly incorporate within the June 18th and the proposed budget and every budget thereafter for the rest of our lives, and changes that that are needed, and we'll take advantage, frankly, of of making sure that we are doing that cost cutting where we can be more efficient.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

The cuts, the the additional 10 million um that uh that we have to find this year, which uh it sounds like based on what's already proposed would be another 30 civilians, in addition to unfortunately, frankly, the 62 uh that were cut as part of the adopted uh 26 um budget, right?

So in 26, we cut 27 million and then um across the two year to balance it across another 25 million, um, which is a total of 62 civilians.

So um implementing just the additional 10 million brings us to just in two years having cut 92 civilians.

And so I also share my um colleagues' concern about making sure we're not um putting undue work on on those folks that are um remaining, but also frankly are not even not frankly kidding ourselves about the lost capacity um as a result of that work.

We're not just you know, we found the money, but let's we need to be cognizant about the lost service um as a result of having to cut those positions to find the revenue.

Okay, the other uh important part of piece of this, which is not only the property tax we forego and in for in the term of um abatements for corporations and for the tours, um, as was mentioned, we also want to make sure that we have a good accounting of any outstanding debt owed uh by private entities to the city.

So I look forward to what that looks like um in June 18th and our efforts to recruit that.

Okay, okay.

Those are my comments.

Um actually, yeah, one second.

On the I've got one person on second round.

If you if anyone else would like to come in on second round, though.

Would you like to do that?

Is that what you're talking about?

Okay.

Councilman Galvan, please.

Just briefly, I was gonna say I echo a lot of the Council Record mentioned about the kind of larger view here and then looking back at it or going more granular and then ending there.

I would be interested in seeing if we can just kind of do our wrap-up at the end about where we're standing with this kind of topic uh at hand, just so that way we you know aren't leaving things about I decided this at 9 a.m.

Now I got more information later.

Let me try to reassess a little bit.

Um I also forgot to mention the CPS policy, uh, the financial policy.

Uh I know that has a kind of uh what's it called caveat in there about if there are moments like this that'll be uh focusing bringing the money back in, but I personally don't see the the use of it uh overall, and so I just wanted to echo voice that um and then of course continuing the same hammer about looking at the long term infrastructure costs or energy efficiency needs that we can have here again is being the long term view about not just tax increases but that inner working inefficiencies that we can have here that's it mayor thank thank you council member white yeah there was a slide on additional fee increases too up there w what what are we what are we looking at or contemplating for additional fee increases.

So as part of the fiscal year 2026 budget it included about three million dollars of of new revenue so that was adjustments to the EMS transport fee as well as fire prevention.

So that that was included in the 27 plan the other things that we could look at are like our garage sale permits some of our different uh permitting that we do through the general fund um areas that would not impact vulnerable population but those are some of the the fees and oh so so there are additional fees that are being considered to be raised as part of the 20 26 adoptive budget the 27 plan included increases in EMS transport and fire prevention and so where will some of these additional fees show up for people the particular ones that we have in the plan yeah or additional ones that are being considered so the ones that were included in the plan is any our development uh fire prevention revenues so development related cost okay um ems transport would be if a person is um has to be transported to an uh emergency oh the insured and yes so most of that cost for an EMS transport is covered by insurance if they're if they're insured and if they're not we have the charity care program that reimburses us for for those that are underinsured or not insured.

Okay.

Thanks.

Uh councilmember Viegeron yes I do want to apologize I misspoke councilman white abstained and then he voted for 25 and 26 budget.

So uh thank you.

Uh uh I do want to clarify in terms of the TURS that's a reinvestment zone so it's not all abated it just goes into specific areas uh areas that are in need and have not been invested in historically so um just want to clear that up to make sure that this isn't while the monies uh will go back to some of the developers that develop in that area it is because they've developed the infrastructure so it's it's not necessarily an abatement um and the other as we move forward is just making sure that when we look at the permits and uh we talked about um you know uh affordable housing is understanding uh that we define we and I guess we'll get to that point when we talk about our priorities because affordable housing has and continues to be one of our priorities and making sure that that that mix is there so um just wanted to clarify those points thank you yeah thank you um on the tours as we have routinely um discussed wanting to make sure we have a good accounting of money that is not coming into the general fund as a result of of those entities so we can have a strategic conversation about um what frankly not only meets the needs of that local community but potentially also helps to shore up um services across the city councilman mckey rodrigues thank you mayor um just on the topic uh of going back to um I guess some points that council member white made about you know not guaranteeing that any of a rate increase would go to police and fire um there's one clear way to make to make sure that that's true and that's you know does this would you would you imagine that we're gonna do an across the board increase for all civilian employees would you imagine that uh Eric.

Um under uh under 130 million dollars worth of reductions over over two years?

Yeah, it's I know the answer to the question.

I want to hear you say it.

Well, uh, there's no way we could not make adjustments to police and fire.

No, no, no, that's not the part I'm saying.

So right now, okay, so I don't I'll I'll I'll feed it.

So we cannot increase any of the non-police and fire department.

We anticipate that those are going to remain exactly the same as they are, minus any, you know, aside from any cuts that we have to make.

If anything, they're gonna reduce, but right now everything stays exactly at the base.

There's no CBAs that dictate we have to raise these but these departmental budgets, the wages of any of these employees, none of it.

So right now we imagine that those 30 samrad departments will all stay exactly the same, right?

Minus some cuts, right?

Right.

Fire, we have to raise the budget, right?

Because of the CBA.

Well, I I know where you're walking me through.

I yeah, I think you know the answer to that question, but let me go back to the first question.

I mean, that part of uh several of you mentioned it.

I mean, I know times are tight and we had to make adjustments on compensation last year, but but I want to make sure that we've got the the ability as uh one of the largest employers in the city to make adjustments for civilian employees too, whether we got a contract or not.

Now, if the bottom falls out and we gotta do and it's tight times, then everybody's gonna have to tighten their belt.

I don't really want to be in that position, but but I want you to I want you all to know that that's a top priority for me as your CEO.

Um, and so I know you're trying to draw a distinction between the two.

I got you, I get what you're trying to do, you get what I'm trying to do, but we also have to we have to go with what I'm trying to do.

Uh which is all right, fair enough.

Which is right now, all the rest of the departments flat.

There is nothing that allows that dictates that they have to grow.

We don't have the money to ensure that they do.

I would love to advocate for across the board wage increases.

I'm sure there's many of my colleagues that will as well.

That is gonna be a very tough thing to do.

It doesn't mean we won't try to do it, we want to.

We're gonna see what's possible and how we can prevent as many cuts as possible to uh departments and we want to retain all of our staff if pop if right if possible.

We want to do as much as we can.

We have to increase the fire department, we have to increase the police department, and so even with a deficit, those two departments have to grow.

So we would I would anticipate that any cuts that happen to other that happen to other departments are going to be so that we can make up for the growth in the fire and police department.

Yes, and so if we are to implement a rate increase, that offset some of those losses to the rest of the departments by directly funding police and fire.

That's how I view it.

Thank you.

That is exactly why you can shake your head, but you are not you don't do math, bro.

You don't please direct your comments to the chair.

Thank you.

I just clear point, and then second, it was brought up earlier about the you know, we want to protect our seniors.

I think that's a huge priority for all of us.

There is a uh a rate freeze for seniors.

Yes?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so seniors would not be impacted by any such rate increase.

Okay, and that's true for the uh members of this disability disability community as well.

Right, okay.

So just a few of those points I wanted to address.

Thank you, Mayor.

So go ahead, Eric.

Mayor, just and to the point I mean, uh they we we went through this, but to your to your question or your point again, Councilman, out of the two hundred over almost 254,000 homesteads we have, um, 116 almost 117,000 of those uh have city taxes frozen.

Maybe just Cina knows this, but very quickly, the the 30 positions that are anticipated to be reduced as part of the addition to meet the 10 million dollar cut.

Are those already are those positions filled currently?

Are they nobody in those seats?

Yeah, no, they they probably are filled, Mayor.

They they but but I say probably because this was the snapshot from last year in terms of reducing not just positions but but services and functions.

So as we go through uh those those 27 reductions that we had in the budget, we're gonna go back and revalidate and and frankly, they may look a little bit different.

Maybe we'll we'll the we'll we'll adjust them, but we're gonna go through that revalidation process between now and for the June 18th.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Munghea.

Thank you.

Um Justina, was the um fiscal year twenty seven, the proposal I have here, does that include any increases in civilian paying?

The five-year forecast that was presented included increases in civilian pay.

It was three percent across the board.

Okay, so the projected deficit that we have includes the three percent, okay.

I just want to make sure that's clear.

Um, can you go to slide 15 real quick?

So, Eric, I'm hoping in June 18th, even you know, I think it's still a good exercise to show what type of cuts you'd be recommending, but I'm hoping you can do it in a couple ways, right?

Of course, showing what we talked about this, I don't want to want the the number of employees, right?

Not necessarily names or positions, but you know, the number of employees, and then the different pay ranges of those employees that would be planned to be cut, because I think it's gonna show a lot of folks that are in um you know working class salary ranges that would might be proposed to be cut, which I think would be helpful.

I'd also like to see the proposed cuts, the amount, uh, but based on department elimination, all starting from the bottom going up.

So these are the least funded departments, and if you start from the bottom and you take out the ones that are you know core service that's mandated, I'd like to see how many of those departments would essentially be cut through the projected deficit that we'd have.

So obviously, you know, when you do deficit cutting, it's gonna be or spending cuts, it's gonna be throughout all these different departments listed.

But I think we should be able to see it as far as this is like what maybe 10 different departments that would could be eliminated, all programs, all employees, just to plug the deficit.

So I think that's also another way for us to view that is how many of these different departments that we all depend on have that.

Yeah, thank you, appreciate it.

Okay, has anyone anyone else have any questions on the or questions and comments on the second round?

Council member Korn.

Thanks, Mayor.

The only one other thing that I wanted to highlight from our discussion yesterday was um Eric mentioned to me the last time they had to do these significant cuts was during COVID.

And when in that time they actually didn't cut any people.

So I just said what did they end up actually doing?

And the biggest, it was about 185 million, and 50 million of that was street maintenance projects that they just deferred.

Just like said, we're not gonna touch these for now.

And so if we look at, like, say, for example, we want to protect our what our all of the folks like Councilman Castillo said, which we do, we want to make sure that we're not uh creating more unemployment because then guess who's gonna be looking for housing support, etc.

Like all of the things down the line, but uh also uh I mean 50 million dollars of deferred street maintenance is bad planning, and so I it's a core service, straight up core, nothing about street maintenance is not what is in our charter, so I don't think that any of us would want um to see more potholes or street breakages because we're kicking the can down the road, and honestly, like if you look at uh the slide that shows the five-year projection, we are actually trying to do this right now to help us for five years from now.

So just thinking about like, yes, this might be a tough decision for us today, but the council after us will be really grateful that we have made these decisions to help support them.

So maybe they'll give us shout out sitting here four years from now in fiscal year 31 when they're at a better place than we are today.

Um, and then the last thing the slide that Councilmember Mungia just had up with the departments of like the smallest departments, and this is like I was just thinking as as he was speaking about the if you go from the bottom up to see where we have you know things that you could consider, like okay, are we going to reduce the World Heritage Office, Councilmember Viegon?

And I know that's something that she's super passionate about.

So, like, I and as we all should be, but like government affairs, we just talked about the importance of actually having more support there to ensure that our veterans are getting housed safer.

Um, we have the integrated community safety office that's been doing amazing work with data and has a whole team of data analysis folks that are helping us develop our third part of our violence safety prevention plan.

And so that's really important there.

So I just like just going through those departments.

I'm like, what are we 311 customer service?

Are we just gonna take more calls for our staff because we're getting rid of some folks at 311?

Anyways, it just made me think about like what each of those departments is responsible for and how impactful all of those, even really small departments are.

So just wanted to share that.

Thanks, Mayor.

Councilmember Messi Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Just quickly, I want to make sure we don't call out any specific departments during this because you're cities and city employees working as we speak there, and so I don't want any of those employees to think that.

I mean, we're literally talking about their department, so I just want us to be mindful of when we talk about cuts, we're two departments or anything like that.

We are just mindful of the employees working there right now.

Thank you.

So go ahead.

Any other comments on the second round?

Okay.

Um Eric, the um the potential reductions, at least from the last budget.

Um helpful to understand, again, just kind of amount and civilian positions.

But as I was making a note on my own thing, it's it's it's really helpful for us to understand.

As I was mentioned earlier, what does the cut actually do to that entity and their ability to do what we're asking them to do?

So some kind of um context that helps us understand hey, when we're thinking about five folks from this office, that's actually in fact 20% of their office or 30% of their office or 1%.

So, percent of the force would be helpful here, as well as some qualitative and quantitative impact of that decrease in personnel in that office.

Like when you say, you know, there's no impact because somebody else is gonna pick it up, like what exactly is the other person picking up, right?

Okay.

Okay, we are, unless you had other things you wanted to, okay.

We are scheduled to take a break based on those two items, um, having been complete.

Eric, please provide a recap and then we'll go into break.

So we're gonna well, I'll provide a recap at the end of the day.

At the end, yeah, let's see.

Let's see how we end the day.

Okay, all right.

Um we will break for 10 minutes.

Thank you.

Eric, over to you for the uh the next portions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so our next uh our next portion uh is uh Alana who will go through our community survey presentation.

Um it's a relatively short presentation, and then we will go directly into uh Danielle's uh part of the part of the presentation.

Alana?

Good morning, Mayor and Council.

I'm Alana Reed, Director of Communications and Engagement, and today I'll walk you through the FY 2027 budget priority survey results and share how we engage residents throughout this process.

This survey is an important tool in helping us better understand what services matter most to our community as we begin setting priorities and developing the FY 2027 budget.

The FY2027 budget priority survey was conducted from April 1st through May 1st.

This year we used two complementary engagement approaches, the SA Speak Up Public Survey, which was open to all residents, and a statistically valid survey conducted by ETC Institute.

Both surveys were available in English and in Spanish to support accessibility and broader participation.

And the goal was simple to better understand which city services residents believe should receive the highest priority in the upcoming budget cycle.

The community participation was strong again this year.

In total, we received 9,554 responses through SA speak up, 8,355 online submissions, and 1,199 paper survey responses.

And those paper surveys were distributed at our libraries, our senior centers, community centers.

It was also doing fiestas, so we got out to some events as well, and with partner locations.

Across both online and paper participation, several themes consistently emerged as top priorities: homeless services, affordable housing, fire and EMS, police services, and streets.

The consistency across engagement channels reinforces that residents remain focused on core quality of life and public safety issues.

In addition to the open participation survey on SA Speakup, ETC Institute was hired to conduct a statistically valid survey.

Key points include 1,104 completed surveys, a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9% at a 95% confidence level, and representation from all 10 council districts.

The survey was conducted through mail, phone, and online with additional participation encouraged through text messages, emails, and social media advertising.

This methodology allows the city to compare priorities consistently and confidently across districts and demographic groups.

This slide shows the geographic participation across the city in that statistically valid survey.

One of the goals of the statistically valid survey was making sure that all 10 council districts were represented, and each district had about 100 completed surveys.

ETC Institute also designed the sample to closely reflect the community across age, gender, race, and ethnicity.

That helps give us confidence that the results represent priorities from residents across San Antonio as we move into your budget discussions.

When residents were asked to identify their highest service priorities, several categories clearly rose to the top.

The highest ranked priorities overall were homeless services, affordable housing, police services, streets, fire, and EMS.

And if you look at the order ranking for first place, that's that Riverwalk Teal color.

It's a little different with affordable housing being the first choice, followed by police services, homeless services, streets, and animal care services.

Overall, these results reflect continued resident interest and balancing public safety, infrastructure, housing stability, and quality of life investment.

In closing, I want to thank the residents who participated, the council offices that helped promote engagement efforts, and our community partners who assisted with outreach throughout the city.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

We'll be sharing the comprehensive survey results with your offices as well and posting them to SA SpeakUp.

And I'm I'll answer questions after this and also have Ryan Murray, he's the director of community research with ETC Institute available as well.

Just as she's coming to the podium, um Danielle Parker and her team with the PFM have worked for us or worked with us, well, and for us, I guess, for a little over a year on a couple of different functions.

And the first engagement that we had with PFM, which is a um uh a much larger company that does a lot of uh work in public financing areas, and um Danielle and her team were part of the group that presented back to the council last year on the budget hybrid methodology that we have been employing that we employed last year, that we were employing this year as we go into 2027.

Uh Danielle has a lot of experience in this area.

You all had a chance to talk to her individually, but um uh her and her team have done an outstanding job for us to get us to this point, and um, it has been uh great working with them in terms of their intuitive sense about the things that are important and uh good public policy around budgeting.

Danielle, I hyped you up there a little bit.

What's to say thank you so much to the mentor.

It's great to be here with y'all.

My name is Danielle Scott Parker, I'm a director at PFM, and as Eric just said, we've had a long-standing work in relationship with the city over the years.

Most recently with the budget methodology work that we did worked with y'all last year, and that I think this work and the effort that we're going to be working with for you all today on is really building upon that.

PFM has a wears a bunch of hats, and our consulting practice really focuses on the issues of management, budget, really at the intersection of policy operations as well as finance and budget.

We feel really strongly about the value and the importance of the budget for local governments for residents and for communities of all shapes and sizes.

And in our work across the country, supporting local governments, we really think that it's essential, as the most important policy document that it is data-driven, strategic, thoughtful, and all of those, you know, very important can be buzzwords, but I think really values is what we have seen in the work of the city so far, and in the thoughtful discussions that we've had with each of you over the course of the last handful of weeks.

So what we really hope to get out of today's session is helping to continue to highlight the city's budget picture, the options around balancing the budget in context.

We will report out about what we heard from you all, and thank you in advance for the continuing conversation and for the thoughts that y'all shared with me and my team up until this point already in our sort of one-on-one meetings.

And then we'll likely spend a lot of the time in the afternoon talking about sort of the evaluation of city services and programs and functions that are not mandated or priority for funding cuts.

And so I think all of this will be important as we think about what the budget looks like, and as y'all have the very not so easy task of developing and sort of thinking about what this looks like in practice.

So I think there's a consensus, and y'all heard it and discussed it a little bit this morning around the need for immediate action.

Um like its peers across the country of folks really having to contend with rapidly growing costs and somewhat stagnant or softer growing revenues on the other side.

Um you all will have to explore a combination of solutions that include not only new revenue and as well as budget solutions, and I think it's interesting to make sure we're keeping in context the maintenance of effort versus the need to do above and beyond to make additional investments and to really make sure that the priorities that y'all have articulated to me and my team and that you've continued to articulate to the public are being able to be funded.

And so what we heard and what we know is that there's a handful of options already on the table around revenue when it comes to property taxes, EMS transport fee, but there will need to likely be a combination of things brought to the table in order to address the various solutions, and this need to sort of do things differently and do different things are very much part of what I think the work that our team supported the city on last year really sort of stood upon.

You all really wanted to ensure that your budget process was as thoughtful, strategic, transparent, and data-driven as possible.

And I think that's really where our recommended recommended hybrid budget approach, as well as where the city is navigating in this budget cycle and has continued to navigate, that's what you're seeing.

Um, leveraging sort of the the best of the sort of different budget approaches out there from zero base to performance to target outcome, leveraging the uh comprehensive budget review process that really helped to sort of take a diagnostic approach at specific departments on an annual basis, but then also really thinking about a methodology that evaluates the budget based on at the time it was core and non-core, but you'll see in a second, really based on mandated priority and then all other city services and all of these things come together to hopefully make at least the transparency around what the impacts of these cuts are, where the needs are from a regulatory and policy standpoint versus uh community impact as well.

So when we think about this sort of lens, this new lens around budget decision making, focusing on first the mandated services that must be delivered, so that's thinking about the graduations of the legal authority.

So the Texas or the US Constitution, state law, federal law, the city charter, and then also inclusive of voter approved bond or referendums.

And then the non-mandated pieces are sort of everything else that falls into the organization and the operations around what city services look like.

And so those pieces, while oftentimes outlined in your city code or in contracts and ordinances, certainly represent important and vital services, are up to the discretion of the council and of the city to ensure to fund and to mandate or to implement over time.

And so we have asked and sort of taken into our consideration a lot of our conversations with you all around sort of what falls into these priority services versus city services as a part of the lens that the budget will be sort of available to be considered on.

And so I want to make sure we kind of focus in on why the mandate piece actually is really important when we're talking about it.

It's the pieces of y'all's city services and budget that must be funded first.

Otherwise, you're sort of representing or setting the city up for some material risks that are not, I think, agreeable or worth the the hassle to navigate.

Those are the pieces, and then everything else, particularly when revenues are constrained, the other pieces are the things that need to be funded after sort of the mandated obligations are met.

And I want to make sure we're clear that the mandated distinction doesn't just reflect the legal obligation and community value or policy priority.

It will be a challenge to sort of continue to think about what that means and represents for the city.

But we know that these budget decisions around priority and city services are likely going to involve trade-offs.

And so we'll have to really think about the full picture.

But I did think that framing here around the mandated piece in particular is really important.

And you'll notice as you go through the information in your binders and the templates that the city staff have been spending a lot of time trying to pour into, that the budget for each of the departments was sort of broken out into what's mandated, what's priority, and then what's a city service.

And so as we were preparing to help the city think about what falls in those categories, we sort of knew what the mandates were, but what's priority?

And so our team spent time one on one with y'all, really hoping to get to responses and insights from y'all on these four questions around what are your top priorities for your district and for the city as a whole.

Um, what are the things that are most critical to address in if resources were limited and initiatives and programs that you needed to prioritize, maintain or reduce in funding, what does success look like, and as well as are there programs that are currently funded that may not clearly be considered, uh clearly contributing to desired outcomes.

And so again, wanting to make sure things are transparent, data-driven, outcomes driven.

Um, and so we have taken in a lot of that guidance, and that's what's really informing some of the additional pieces of information that y'all have at your disposal.

And so I want to just lay out some key considerations, particularly for this conversation today that I think will be important as y'all are thinking about and participating and sort of evaluating next steps, thinking about what the outcomes are, really trying to focus in on the community impact, rather than just the specific programs or line items, you may want to consider things like what the ideal outcome or change you're trying to achieve, the benefits to do these investments, um, considering a multi year strategy, which I know has already been talked about a little bit today.

That's a thing of thinking about not only sort of this year, which and this budget uh deficit that y'all are navigating, but also what the long-term priorities and from a strategic perspective may also help to color some of that decision making, effectiveness versus efficiency, and how well programs are delivered and how efficient resources are being used, how can you better leverage partnerships?

Um, and then thinking of the business of the city versus a delegate partner and where the it's appropriate for the city to continue being sort of the best or the most efficient or the best use of the service provider versus another partner entity within the region, and then again the city mandates versus policy priorities and making sure that there's somewhat of a differentiation distinction between the two.

Public safety, infrastructure, and human services, and when we talk about public safety, it's thinking about increases to public safety presence and deterrence, particularly relating to issues around speeding, gun violence, and property theft, maintaining strong fire and EMS response capabilities, response capabilities also came up when in coordination with 311 with coordination around animal care services and making sure that there's expansion of support and prioritization of the pieces that ensure resident safety.

On the infrastructure side, I think it was almost a unanimous comment around making sure and improving and maintaining streets, street mobility, with a focus on the priority prioritization of the DNF related rated streets and enhancements.

On the human services side, homeless response and expansion of social services, we heard a lot about a lot of good programming and efforts that are going on, and folks wanting to make sure that there's you all don't lose momentum around that work, and then a specific call-up for making sure that y'all are continuing to support and care for your seniors, and then uh making sure that there's access to public spaces from parks, libraries, community, and senior centers as well.

And so, in the presentations that y'all have, we sort of really get in the weeds on like what this looks like.

We talked a little bit about public safety and infrastructure on the last slide, around animal care services, fire, emergency response, infrastructure, sidewalks, and streets, and there's some real, I think, consensus in areas that as y'all are thinking about where we want to prioritize funding, but also as you all think about the needs for additional revenue, um, how you can think about these things from a multi-year perspective, and knowing that if you make some adjustments this year, is there a long game to be played for some of your other priorities that you can think about in the next year and future year budgets.

Um, we heard a fair amount, like I said, about homeless support services and recognition around housing affordability and mental health, um, expanding some of the really strong programming that y'all are seeing that residents have articulated are helpful and beneficial, and then you know, making sure that there's continued support around these community spaces, parks and libraries, and senior centers with a strong support for access and the facilities themselves, and perhaps some opportunities to think differently about programming and evaluating what the level of services looks like based on need, based on utilization and usage.

On the economic development front, uh many folks talked about needing and an interest in evaluating your TERS and the return on investment there, ensuring that those investments are tangible and that the community benefits and long-term impact are sort of focused in job creation and in business attraction efficiency and accountability as well, making sure that not only are you all in the city running from a perspective of providing high value services, but that the thoughtful work that y'all are putting time and effort and dollars into planning are being and leveraged in a meaningful way.

And then we did hear again about the thoughts and thinking around what's the city's responsibility role, and making sure that by and far that there's support for employees across the board.

So, again, what we heard was very much in line with the responses from the community survey, which I think is helpful to know that there's some general consensus around what you all think the priorities are.

Um, and and how I think, as you're thinking about from a budget cut perspective, where the things that are not on this list and sort of are not highlighted in some of the earlier slides in our conversations may be worth continuing to explore.

So, what this slide does is provide a brief overview of the city budget from a mandated perspective.

So the big sort of two-thirds chunk that is your mandated city services, where you've got almost seven more than 72% of the budget is a mandate based on, like I said, the charter constitution, um, voter referendums.

Of those mandated services, almost 40% you all have identified as priority anyway, um, and things that you are hearing from residents that you are hearing from your constituents that you think are main priority uh for the budget and priority for the city.

Of the remaining uh chunk that are were not identified as mandated services, um, that's about 27%.

You've got about 12% of that that you again identified as a priority that is not currently mandated by the charter or one of the other uh obligating entities.

And so we have a little bit of example just as a specific call out so you can kind of get a flavor on what this can look like around what a mandated service is, what a priority service is, and then what a city service is and what we are encouraging folks, and think that the conversation this afternoon will really focus on is looking at the city services in each of those different categories and identifying there where there may be opportunities to think about things differently, where there you think that um from a prioritization standpoint that the priorities there are accurately reflecting where your dollars think they should be going based on what you all have articulated, and then really moving forward with a discussion that hopefully helps to provide some insight as the city staff go into developing that trial budget.

So the considerations that uh will be for this afternoon are are the city services, are there city services that should be priority?

Are there cross-cutting topics or services that should be evaluated for redesign or for funding reductions?

Um, and are there other opportunities to increase revenue or to reduce spending that the city should consider?

Um that's really where I think the the most value and the insight that you all can provide will be most helpful as in the sort of period between now and the trial budget in a handful of weeks.

Daniel, let me can you go back, can we go back on the slide?

Absolutely.

Yeah, so I I just wanted to share with the council, I think I shared with some of you individually.

This was this was a very and and you all had talked about elements of this last year.

This was a uh a pretty intense process for the people behind you to go through because there are some there are some uh intuitive and non-intuitive reactions when you see things like, you know, technically a community center is not mandated or EMS, but they are things that are obviously ingrained in the in what we do in this community, and um the departments work really hard along with the city attorney's office and the budget office to help break it down in this way.

We've never done it this way, um and and I think it's it just it's another lens or another dimension for you to look at.

But um this took a lot of work because it's it it doesn't it's not a natural uh break, because there are things that that um that are technically not mandated, but are obviously things that are needed and required in in frankly any municipality in this country.

Um but so hats off to all the departments uh sitting behind you today uh because um they did a lot of work to get to this point.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Point of clarification on the um on the construct.

So, for example, mandated when you look at park maintenance.

Um, there's not a level of service that's mandated though, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So some of these things, even within the mandate, we have different opportunities to to your point do differently or do things different different things.

Do things differently or do different things.

There you go.

Um, okay.

So I I think that's that's helpful as we think about um additional opportunities.

Yep.

Okay.

Thank you all.

We are a little bit ahead schedule, and I think I actually I know we're not scheduled to have questions on what she just presented, but I'm gonna go ahead and do that, Danielle, in case any of my colleagues have questions about um the presentation you just provided.

Absolutely.

So just go ahead and raise your hand if you have questions about what she provided.

Councilwoman Viegadon.

Uh thank thank you.

Thank you for all the hard work and what you did.

And so you went over the exercise, and thank you, Eric, for bringing it up on page 18, uh the day to day now.

Between the mandated and the priority, did we ask the departments and I think this is kind of what Eric was talking to, mandated park maintenance, community centers priority, city service culture programming.

If I looked at that, there are gonna be some residents that are gonna say that they value cultural programming in the park rather than having the community center.

Did we ask those questions of the departments in terms of could they rank in terms of priority in city service?

What is most more popular with the community?

No, ma'am, we didn't.

Okay.

Yeah, and and thank you.

Cause that is the one thing is I think it's gonna vary from uh which side of town and district to district, uh, but I I do appreciate the efforts, and I think that this is this is gonna be key as we move forward, and I think as we talk about what we prioritize and um how we take this out to the community when we talk about um needing to uh raise the property taxes.

So thank thank you for that.

Just wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

In case it informs anyone else's um questions, you said the analysis was completed on 91.2% of the general fund, what was not included.

Thank you, Mayor.

So some of the things that weren't more I'm sorry, we did it on all the public facing departments, so some of our internal, like the budget office, finance department, those types of administrative.

Protecting yourself, Justina is that what you saw.

Mayor, everybody's gotta get paid every two weeks.

You can't get the finance department.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember McKee Rodriguez.

Councilmember Aldrate Gabito.

I just wanted to say uh thank you, Danielle.

This is phenomenal work.

I think it provided us structure to have what is going to be very uncomfortable conversations.

So uh I think uh you know that that structure is needed.

None of us want to see um to councilwoman Via Grand's point, you know, some of these things can be more meaningful to others, but but we needed that structure to to make to have these tough conversations.

So I just wanted to give you kudos.

Thank you for helping us with this.

Thank you.

And kudos really go to the city staff who put in so much time and effort to think about this effort.

Yes, and and yes, I will add that, and thank you to city staff because again, even just the mindset shift that we have to go through to think of these again uncomfortable conversations, but absolutely necessary conversations, uh, especially given our outlook.

Thank you.

Councilmember White.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Um, when we put forth that that uh zero-based budgeting CCR a year and a half or so ago, this is really exactly where, or close to exactly where I was hoping we would get.

And so I also want to thank um Eric, the team, staff, because I know that a lot of work went into this when when you're digging within each department and really trying to identify um what is necessary and what is not, and and what is is core to the city and and what is not.

Um, that's an exhaustive exercise or an exhausting exercise, and so thank you for that.

Thank you to the PFM group um for for your work in helping us.

And and to me, I just want to conclude by saying this is really, I see it as a three-step process.

Like, number one is is doing this work and identifying you know what what we actually really have to do and need to be focused on and what is extra.

Uh number two is us going to be having the will to say, okay, we need to put our dollars towards um what our city government um should be doing, what we are mandated to do, and then three is how do we get as efficient as we possibly can, cutting out the waste, cutting out the redundancies, and then focusing uh the dollars that we have uh and that we find directly on our city priorities and um and again what the city is mandated to do.

So this is the first step.

Um, but all you can do is give us the structure.

Uh then it's going to take this body making those tough decisions uh and focusing the money on where it should go.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to ask a couple of questions of Daniel?

Oh, Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Sure.

Um, this looks a lot nicer than our conversation over film.

So thank you for that.

Um, I on slide eighteen, um, those mandated services total about 72%.

Do you do you have an idea of how much that has grown?

Or can maybe not now, but I don't have that right now, but that's something we can look at.

Okay.

We can look back at 26 and and um I'm sorry, 25 and do the same exercise.

And just any financial policy around that in that the mandated services don't exceed a certain percentage.

We're at 72%, and so I'm just curious if no, that's a that's a great point, Councilman.

I think we were so focused on trying to get to here, but but so your bless you, bless you.

Um but what is the what is kind of a historical look back based on this categorization?

We can do that, yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Core.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you so much for this presentation on that slide, slide 18.

Do we have this breakdown for all the departments?

And like how hard would it be to get this breakdown for like all of the departments and all of the services?

So included in your binder is 21 departments, and those are the public facing departments.

So uh on those each department has their own sheet, and it breaks out um their budgets by mandated priority services and city services.

Um so that's included in your binder.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

Um yeah, I just think it's really interesting.

Like the example that you provided about SACORSA CORE has been one of our most successful programs uh in the fire department, and it's actually cross-departmental.

Um, but so I just think that's an interesting one and adopt adoptions foster and rescue as like listed as a city service.

Uh I I'm pretty sure all of our nonprofits that do the work are ACS cannot do what they do without those folks that are doing adoptions, foster and rescue.

So it's just interesting when you break it up this way because we do talk about mandated and priority, but those other city services are incredibly important as well.

Um, and then the only other question that I have or questions is like, did you guys track like how many um like I'm assuming this is like the departmental breakdowns from like what we've heard?

Um, was the majority of what you heard?

Is it like synthesis?

Like how many people said these were the top things?

Oh, sure.

Are you talking about the departments?

No, sorry, like so it says like what we've heard top three priority areas are like in these infrastructure things, like how many are you talking about city council input?

Yeah, okay.

I think I can answer that.

Councilwoman.

And I don't want to speak for Danielle, but it was her general impressions of y'all's conversations.

She didn't tally or score uh for legal reasons.

So it's really just her impressions of her conversations and to set a framework for further discussion.

Okay.

Got it.

Thank you.

I just was looking at um, you know, the top three priority areas, and half of those things are expansions or growth of programs, so uh just wanted to point that out.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to ask questions of Danielle in the presentation?

No.

Okay.

Danielle, I'm curious, because again, when we talk about what's mandated, but actually how we go about meeting that or defining what we are comfortable with.

Obviously, one expression of that is our as our FY26 24-7 second quarter report, right?

Which outlines the things that we understand to be what right looks like.

And so some of these in fact have to do with the mandated right.

So you're talking about response times for police and response times for fire.

Did you have you seen this document by chance?

I have not reviewed it in context of this in detail.

Yeah.

Okay.

I say all that because when we're thinking about outcomes, right, as you point out, that these actually show us how well we're doing toward what we said we wanted to do, and if we then have room, because we're maybe overachieving in some of these areas, it actually helps us understand.

Not only are we meeting a mandate, we're actually doing it better than we expected.

So how might we actually understand what head space we have in that in that area?

Um understanding some of these, right?

Like lower is better understood, but at what level are you comfortable with?

Understanding that allows you to invest in other either other mandated or other priority areas.

I would encourage folks to look at this if they if they haven't, just to see how well we're meeting some of these already, or in fact, in some of the areas where they're not related to some of the mandated functions, but more priority as well as city service uh where you have where we have head space.

Helpful document.

Okay.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay, I think that's it.

Eric, less, you have anything else you'd like to add on this?

No, ma'am.

I I think uh frankly, this would be a good break.

I think uh councilwoman, if the council wants to look at those the 21 the breakouts of the twenty-one, certainly during the break, then we can we have time afterwards for to continue this conversation.

Okay, great.

Okay, great.

Thank y'all so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Danielle.

Thanks to the team as well.

Um so with that, we will break for lunch and then come back at um 12 30.

Thank you.

Okay.

Welcome back, everyone.

The time is now 12 50, and we'll reconvene and begin discussion on goals and priorities and budget reductions.

I'll make a few opening remarks.

Um there'll be two rounds though of uh council members' speakers, uh, each having 10 minutes, um, and then of course five minutes in your in our second round.

Um, you know, unfortunately at at lunch we were talking about how quickly this was going, um, and it's in large part based on um as Eric and I discussed, it's a lot easier when you realize there's not um extra resources.

Um, and I think that's the staff did a really good job of a good job of laying out one of our our immediate um challenges are as well as some of the long-term challenges that are only exacerbated if we don't say some significant changes to how we go about not only looking at revenue streams but also um potential reductions in services to our community members, when we're looking at um the things that as was pointed out our mandated um aspects though in large part many of the things that I will focus on this time are are not terribly different um in given um the focus and and the attempt to to uh identify those items last time in the last budget, rather.

So funding our no fail missions, um minimizing any long-term impacts to our most vulnerable, um, and of course minimizing any long-term impacts as a result of some of the reductions.

I think we do, as you heard me articulate earlier, actually, um identifying potential options to bring in new revenue streams is something that we have to look at, prioritizing not only a balanced budget across the two years, but really thinking about how we can help ourselves.

I think the point that um Councilmember Corps made earlier in terms of how might we, even if we're not in the seats, but how might we think about helping ourselves and helping our community down the line with making some of these smart strategic decisions now when it comes to additional revenues into our community?

One of the things I will also ask that we look at Eric when we're thinking in particular about some of these mandated functions, is identifying potential opportunities to provide those same services in a maybe potentially more cost effective way.

When he and I spoke, the 10 million dollars that is anticipated that needs to be cut for 27, the 10 million as identified in the um in the in the proposed that that might not be the exact 10 million that's cut, but it does give everybody at least a sense of where what it could look like, even though it might look different in the um in the final outcome.

I think one of the things that's really important because we know this will be a difficult budget, is the point that I've made earlier, which is we know we all want to make sure, especially our law enforcement public uh public safety folks have what they need.

I think the other complement of that is really showing the public the ways in which we've tried to minimize any unnecessary costs, right?

As a result of maybe doing things in a I'll just say inefficient way, right?

So let's make sure we're doing we have whatever we propose, we have, you know, we've looked at it inefficiencies, we've looked at other ways to do this.

This is literally the bare minimum that we need to ensure that we can provide, I'll use the term mandated services, our priority services, but we really feel like we have kind of cut to the bone as much as possible.

As mentioned, I'm gonna be looking for those recommendations as well, Eric, in terms of, and that's why really understanding the impact of some of those cuts on the overall ability of that entity just to accomplish that function.

If you cut it so much as to where it's no longer doing what you need to do, presenting that as a hey, this is actually below now.

What would somebody would find acceptable from this off from that entity, right?

And say, so then we can have a conversation.

Do we just go ahead and actually cut that completely, potentially repurposing some of those individuals, of course, but if we're not providing a level to a level of service that one would expect, might we serve ourselves better by um by not doing that and reallocating those resources and personnel?

I am looking at a couple of things in the context of both the budget and the bond.

Um, so for example, I'm uh echo the um my comments, excuse me, my my colleagues focus on particular infrastructure.

So, one that I'm looking for to see how much we can potentially get done both through the budget and the bond, ideally saying we're task complete on all of the Kleinfelder report recommendations, as much as we can get in there again in the interest of um uh public safety, of course, and just in light of the fact that we're just not getting a lot of help from the state on some of those flood-related infrastructure that is so necessary in our community.

As mentioned, you've also heard me talk about things that we need to provide a minimum level of service in our community.

Um I think that is senior centers.

Um, and so if there is an opportunity, Eric, to come up with what is that basic level of service that everybody should expect, help us understand what it would take to have that same level of service across our city.

What does that look like in terms of the bond, and what does that look like in terms of this budget, right?

Right?

Because I think, as was mentioned, there are many multi-year things that we just need to account for in the same way that in the same way that we do with CBAs for our um for our public safety officers.

I think a key part of the communication strategy with the public as well will be communicating the innovations, technol technological solutions that we are investing in that show that we are trying to make use of those things in the interest of one cost savings, but also efficiency, Eric.

So laying those out, i.e., we're spending half a million dollars, for example, on entity X.

We think as a result of that, we'll be able to spend time, save time, better serve residents in, you know, capacity X, Y, and Z.

I think those types of things where people understand it's actually an investment and a cost savings overall is important.

One of the things in particular, um, that I wanted to make sure that we do invest in because I think it pays dividends not only for us as a city, but also for the entities that we own, uh, is the uh is our digital twin.

Um, this is a conversation I've had with Craig from IT and the innovation folks.

Um, but a digital twin allows you to understand yourself, the city, above and below ground, and what it does is also help you better plan, right?

And I know frankly, one of the areas, one of the departments that is uh has been cut over time and is proposed potentially for cuts as well as our planning department.

So the ways though in which we can leverage technological solutions to better help us do that, not only from a hey, I need Susie to get from point A to point B faster, um, in light of, for example, some of the major investments and changes that are gonna happen downtown, but something like that can also help you understand how you could better um understand the trajectory of property tax revenue in a certain area as a result of additional investment.

So I want to make sure that we are investing in our digital twin to the extent that only helps our conversations but also helps us better plan with the utilities.

Okay.

You've heard my comments um as well, but I I will foot stomp um making sure that there's a tight connection between closing all of the recommendations from the audit reports to ensure that we can tie as a result of those being implemented, we have saved X amount of money.

I think that's another um, you know, good news stories for those folks that are um that are tracking and and paying attention to how we utilize those reports to inform our investments and provide basic level of accountability.

Okay, I'll save the rest of my comments.

Um the first individual that I signed up is Councilman McKee Rodriguez.

Thank you, Mayor, and again, thank you uh staff for the uh presentations that y'all have given uh today and uh all the discussion that we've had up to this point, and also for the information she provided in this in this binder.

Um I went through the inventory of city programs and what was considered mandated priority versus uh general another service that an alternative service that we provide.

Um, and I wanted to see what would all of that look like if we were to look just at the services that are not uh mandated or priority, and it looks like about 231.1 million, which sounds like a lot if you look at it like that, and then you start going through the list and you look at, you know, what does that include?

And if you look at fire, you know, 13.8 million dollars, which includes SA core and it includes health and wellness for our firefighters, and is that an area that we want to cut?

Those are the two highest portions of that uh budget with metro health, 32 million, uh, domestic violence and mental health programming.

Is that an area that we want to see cut and what happens if we do that?

You look at human services, and that's you know, child and youth services, it's head start 22.1 million.

Do we want to cut those programs or anything else within?

And these are I'm not saying that those are the only two within that, those are the largest portions of of what's included in that.

So I'm just listing a few things.

With the library, 16.5 million dollars, adult and child services, teen services.

Do we want to give less pro productive activities for our teenagers and young people to go do?

And then you look at police, 94.1 million dollars.

And this, you know, that's critical response team, mental health unit, fusion intelligence.

I wouldn't I can't even find within the police department um clear programs that I would want to see cut if we had to go through it this way, and so even though I understand that the goal of doing this was to have a more productive conversation about what our priorities are as a body and what's going to, you know, be the low-hanging fruit in terms of potential cuts that we have to make, I still don't think we're there.

We're absolutely not there in terms of what's going to be an easy cut based off of this list that's been provided to us, based off distinguishing mandated versus priority versus everything else, because even some of those programs that aren't considered priority or mandated are very much priorities of us or priorities of this body and priorities of many of us who have been here for uh several years now.

And so I still see a bit of conflict in our future.

Um, and I think what I want to what would be in of interest to me is if we could go through each of these um each of these categories.

So look, for example, for ACS, it's adoptions, foster rescue, those are three individuals.

I that's a horrible one to look at.

Let's do center city development, downtown activations.

What are the personnel related costs?

What are the commodities?

What are the contractual services?

I would like a breakdown of each of those.

And I think we need to.

What I want us to figure out ultimately is is there area, is there opportunity to scale down any of these programs?

Are there any vacancies within these programs that we're budgeting for but haven't been filled for a year?

Are there any like what is the are there people who probably need a promotion because they've been doing the work of a vacancy?

Like what are the things that need to happen?

And I I know that's gonna be pretty complex.

You have until June.

Um, if you could in any way um help break this down even further, because I still don't know that if the goal is for us to have a productive conversation about what are some potential cost savings, I still don't know that we're there.

Thank you, Mayor, and again, thank you, team, and thank you to all the city staff who um who really make the city run.

It's gonna be uh the highest priority for me is gonna be sure that every single one of you has a job, much to Councilman Castillo's point that you know, despite the fact that we're gonna have to make difficult decisions, uh, we're not we don't want to place you on that line.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Who else would like to speak?

Please sign in so can Debbie can can track it.

Uh Councilman Monkey.

Thank you, and thank you to all the of course the work and the level detail that we're getting uh for some tough conversation.

I did want to highlight a couple tragic events that one of which took place in district four recently, another one was right outside D4 and D6.

But in District 4, we had what people thought was a car accident on Valley High 410, which is where I grew up, and if I was on the corner of the block I grew up and I could see this happen.

And it was a um it turned out to be a school district police officer uh had pulled the car over, uh, and you know, unfortunately killed his wife and then committed suicide.

Right.

Just pulled over on the highway and did that.

A hundred, two hundred feet are houses right there.

Uh, and everybody, of course, read the situation on Richland Hills over there by Councilman Galvan.

Also, you know, these are incidents that happened close to where we live, and it was a tragic situation of a mother with some severe mental health issues who um, you know, basically killed her kids in a car fire intentionally.

And so when we think about cutting some of these programs, and especially the nonprofits and services, um, you know, I wonder what things could have done been uh prevented what programs these people could have had access to to prevent these tragedies that were senseless.

Talk about the domestic violence issue in the city, um, the mental health crisis that somebody goes through that is okay with doing that type of activity.

And at one point do these cuts to these very important services, make the job of a police officer even harder?

Uh because I worked with SAFE uh for a long time as a staffer, and they'll be very quick to tell you, you know, they can do what they can do, but there's a whole lot of issues that they're being forced to address and see that's not in the purview of the police department.

And they do their best to make referrals, but the more we take away these services and have these issues happen on the back end, the more police are having to deal with these issues.

And so I think all over all the years I've worked with them, they realize the need for all these other things to happen because they'll be the first to tell you we cannot do that.

It's just simply not in our purview, and they'll be the first to tell you we need resources for these folks.

All the police officers that deal with homeless encamps will tell you like we need places for these people to go, right?

So I just want to make sure we're clear that while we're protecting and preserving public safety, which is a priority of this council, it's obviously a priority of the survey responses.

It could also strain and make their jobs harder by doing and removing these other pieces of the budget.

Um I just wanted to point that out, and that you know, those types of things are preventable and they're preventable by good programs and good education, and so I just wanted to make sure that you know folks knew that point also.

Um those are all my comments for now, but I didn't think it was interesting.

The survey response, and hopefully we can see that by district uh continued focus on homeless uh prevention and homeless services, that was still number one affordable housing, public safety, um, those are all things that people uh value in our community.

Um, and we should also take in consideration the paper surveys because I think most of the paper surveys are probably filled out by senior citizens, um, so we should just kind of make sure we're we're thinking about that also as we go along.

Um, and Eric, maybe also I know we we talked about the presentation, the three and a half percent, but could you also show us what the options are for you know, one percent, one and a half percent, kind of those increments to see how much money could be yielded.

Um, obviously we'd still need to make cuts no matter what, but I think it'd be helpful for us to see like even if we did a one percent increase, maybe that's two dollars a month for somebody, but that means we can cut less on the other side.

And the other thing I'd be interested in is um we have a lot of existing plans, strategic plans, goals that the community has weighed in on, the council has voted on and supported, and how much of these proposed cuts or these things you'd identify would impact those strategic plans that this council has made a priority.

So I think about one right off the bat, right?

ACS has a strategic plan, five-year plan.

I think we're probably year three of that plan.

Uh, but with any cuts to that department, how are we pushing back the goals of that?

Remember, you know, we like to fund all these things and put a lot of money in when there's a huge tragedy in a situation.

Someone died as a result of a dog attack, and suddenly this council rushed and we put all this money that had been needed for many years in ACS, but hadn't had an investment, and now that we're a few years after that tragedy, and we're gonna make some cuts to that also.

I think that impacts the things that we kind of set in motion.

So I'd I welcome you know what that's gonna look like for us.

Uh, and not just ACS, right?

But we have like the strategic plans for the whole essay tomorrow.

Those goals, we have this the ship plan.

Um, so some of these cuts and staff reductions, how's that gonna impact things that we have all previously said or are priorities for the city?

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember White.

Thanks, Mayor.

I I don't have a lot new to say, but but I wanted to highlight a few things.

Um, again, the tax increase that's being proposed, it's still gonna leave us 155 million dollars in the hole in fiscal year 31.

Uh it it is merely a delaying or putting a band-aid on the problem that is not going away.

Um, Councilman McKee Rodriguez and I had a conversation the other day, and I think we all agree about the need to bring more revenue into the city.

Uh the answer is not taxing people so that they pay more for what they already have.

The answer, of course, is growing the revenue base in San Antonio.

Having more people invest in land here, putting more money in people's pockets uh so that they spend more in our community.

We need more economic development in this city.

Councilman Mungee and I have talked about perhaps getting a B session together at some point in the future to talk about it, what our strategy is there, because in the three years that I've been here, I can probably count on one hand the amount of times we have really sat down to strategize about what our economic development plans are.

We the only way out of this is to grow the revenue base here in our city, and that starts with economic development, and so I would like to see more of an emphasis on that moving forward.

I know we all just met with that uh consulting group who is who's gonna uh help us in that regard.

Uh they talked a lot about uh to me about the the turnarounds we've seen in Fort Worth, some of the things being done up in Plano.

I think there's a lot that we can take from that, but the bottom line, what they said to me is you have to invest in this area.

And while a lot of these programs that we've been talking about today, that again are all good programs.

Uh Councilman McKee Rodriguez just mentioned a few of them.

I know that they do great work.

They provide some immediate solutions for people, long term is how we have to think.

We have to make investments that are not going to show immediate dividends tomorrow, but down the line.

That's the only way that we are gonna move out of this.

From the presentation we saw earlier, it looks like there's almost 250 million dollars that we're spending in programs that are not you know mandated for us uh as a city government.

And to me, before we even begin to think about asking the public to pay more in property taxes, we need to look there at frankly, what has to go.

And these are and these are hard decisions, and and we can all you know twist our minds into thinking, well, this program does this, and it can actually theoretically help this core function down the road.

I get it, but we have to make the hard decisions today.

Additionally, I want to read some of these that were in some of the backup documents here, um, just some some quick examples of of where we're spending some money here.

One point three, one point three million dollars facilitating downtown events and and park renovations.

1.5 million dollars tenant relations and event coordination at La Vieita, $500,000 essentially the same function at La Vita, tenant relations and event coordination at a city-owned commercial property, three hundred thousand dollars conducting fair access impact uh reviews, five hundred thousand dollars, which by the way, is an internal administrative function.

Five hundred thousand dollars developing analytical tools for fair practices and vulnerable populations, which is like a consulting uh function that we have that we have inside our city government.

Uh $300,000, sister city programs uh facilitating international diplomatic engagements that are primarily ceremonial, $400,000 for international protocol and diplomatic functions, $100,000 promoting San Antonio to foreign students.

The list goes on and on and on, and and you can say, well, this program does do that, and it could benefit us here.

Do we need all of that?

When we aren't fixing streets fast enough, we don't have enough police officers, we've got these other core city functions that we're trying to do and provide services at a higher level.

I mean, do we need all of that?

And this is just, I mean, my staff, um, Rebecca on my team did a did an amazing job, and and and she's got this color coded on things that are absolute cuts and others that we need to scrutinize, and and I could spend the rest of my 10 minutes, you know, going through it all.

But my point is just that is our work.

As a city government, when we are in this type of position, we need to be going through all of these things and saying, do we need it or not?

You add a you add a bunch of this up, and again, I'm not saying to cut all this, but a lot of these have scrutinized next to it.

That's what we need to be doing, looking at each one of these.

I bet you there's millions of dollars just in these three pages that we could find if we took the time to go through and do it.

And I'm happy that we're beginning this process, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, and I'm sure that that I've already lost that battle.

But, but come on, like now's the time, and this is important.

And when you're talking about taking more money out of people's pockets for taxes, you should be doing this work before you take their money.

I've got my favorite line in here, that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

And we do, I mean, we do we do have a spending problem.

There is no question about it.

Um, but we should also focus on growing growing revenue and not by taxing people by creating development by incentivizing companies to come here and hire our people and pay them more so that they go out and spend in our community.

That's that's the way out of this.

I also want to mention, and I was thankful that my my colleagues in um District 7 and 6 uh on the budget book memo, Eric, that uh that that that we sent you.

Um, and I'm happy to share it with you for others that haven't seen it.

But I I think while our budget book is great and it's it's it's it's nice and everything, I do think there's a better way, a more clear way that we could present uh the budget book.

Dallas and Houston have some really good examples where things are more easily identifiable, everything's sort of more in one place.

Um I have those examples, I'd love to share them with you if I haven't, because I think that moving forward, I don't know if there's time to do it for this year.

Um, but moving forward, I think uh making the budget book more easy to understand and read, not just for council members but for the public would be extremely important because I have had questions in the public about them.

Hey Mark, I can't find this.

Where do I go?

I have to go three different places to gather all the information.

Um so I was pleased that that my colleagues join me in that.

I would I would like to see that if if we could do something there moving forward.

But um overall, that's that's really um that's really what I've got.

I just I think we have a structural problem with with the way we're spending our money.

I'm pleased that we're making these efforts.

Thank you again to staff for for digging in and let's make the hard decisions that we have to now and get on a path to to more fiscal uh sustainability moving forward.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Aldra de Gavito.

Mayor, just real quick, I'm sorry, just a reminder for the council that um we do have a B session in June.

It's either the third or the 10th, where um that consultant that you re that the councilman referred to that I think most of you spoke to is coming back and presenting to the council on that economic development framework, and so that's an opportunity for you all to kind of weigh in on some of the things the councilman was talking about.

Um thank you for for this uh work.

Um, I will reiterate that yes, this is tough conversations, these are difficult conversations, these are uncomfortable conversations, but it is absolutely necessary that we do this before we hit residents in the pocketbook.

It is a tough time for everybody right now, and I think just out of respect for our residents, we have to make the tough decisions before um even entertaining an idea of raising uh property taxes on them.

Uh I agree with Councilman McKee Rodriguez on some of more of that granular level of detail, um head count, personnel impacts.

Um, you know, reading through some of these departments, you know, you see that some of the city services budget is actually higher than the mandated budget.

So I think that that's interesting.

That's something that we need to look at.

I do want to say one thing I really feel that we need to focus on here is partnerships.

You know, I know the county has animal care services.

They also have a library, and so I think that that uh library, um, sorry, I know I'm gonna.

So I think that, you know, in the past we've not necessarily had the best relationship with them.

We got to get over that.

We got to get over the egos, and we need to focus on what on the duplication of services uh with the county so that way we can um that you know they're in there in this bind too, and so there is a lot of opportunity there that I'd like for us to explore.

Um, Councilman Mungia, I agree with you that you know, nonprofits are extremely helpful and that they do so much for our city.

Um that that's why you know we were calling for that strategic session session, because that's a chunk of money, 25 million dollars, and how we could be more strategic with it is what we have to be asking.

You know, I know I've said it before, I'm gonna say it again.

Our city budget is not meant to be all things to all people.

And sometimes I think that, you know, in the past we've we've had surplus of funding, then we saw ARPA funds, and you know, with that inefficiency grows.

And so now is the time to tighten our belts and and to make those tough decisions.

And um, and and we owe it to our residents to to do that.

That's literally why we're we're elected.

Um, I agree with Councilman White on the way out of this is through economic development.

I think that we become bullish on it, um, extremely bullish on it.

Um, I know Greater SATX is doing a great job, uh, and and so is uh, you know, we have aspects of our economic development team doing it, but we need to figure out um ways that we can double down in those efforts because instead of more money coming out of our residents' pocketbook, there's there's other ways that we can increase our revenue as a city.

I will also say that you know, while a lot of these conversations are uncomfortable, I think one thing that uh councilman Galvan and I were talking about is the need um to um protect a lot of our front facing um uh jobs.

You know, that residents, you know, if you are serving a resident directly, that's extremely important.

And so we we need to make sure that it'd be kind of interesting to see that breakdown too, um, to see how much of our personnel is front-facing and uh and serving residents directly, uh and Eric, I'm not sure that we'll be able to do this, but I am curious going back to the partnerships with the county, but there are some things that only the city can do, and I think we should identify those.

I mean, we're seeing a lot of them in the mandated bucket, but I'm I'm curious if there's a way that by June or by the next iteration of this, we'd be able to see what and how we can partner with the county.

Let me chime in a little bit on that, Eric.

I think I shared in the last meeting that I've had conversations with Judge Sakai about his interest in working in a couple of areas uh to identify some low-hanging fruit.

So before we um publicly share what that might look like, I want to make sure that I hear from Judge Sakai as he's communicated that with his team to figure out what they are on board with, what uh we all come to agreement on what are some of those uh those immediate areas that we can look at as part of this budget, and that ideally be a process that we revisit each year.

Well, also to add to that, I know councilman White and I, well, not necessarily to add to it, but Councilman White and I have talked to our respective uh county commissioners, and we've identified some low-hanging fruits on ways that we could partner.

So, you know, we could uh funnel those conversations to you, Eric, so that way we can um look at that um holistically.

Uh that's about it.

Thank you.

I'll be certain to share uh my conversations with Judge Sakai and what we settle on.

Um Councilman Galvan.

Thank you, Mary.

Thank you to staff for the incredible work done on this and continue work that's gonna go on throughout the summer.

Um I think a couple different things I want to start off with.

Um, you know, I agree with the point on looking at ways to.

I said it earlier, right?

When we talk about the property tax conversation, that you know, for this point, it makes sense to have to do that so we can actually get to the funding we need to take care of all the services we have for the most part, um, within the limitation that our state has put us in.

Um but I do think we have to look long-term.

And I think I I'm hearing that with economic development, and I agree with that, but I also want to be clear about what we're talking about when we talk about economic development because the major barriers we continue to hear from greater STX and from our economic development department and others uh who are looking to come to San Antonio, who are looking to invest in San Antonio, primarily, um, it's education, it's workforce, and since it's infrastructure too.

Some of that relates to utilities, right?

And so that's still an ongoing work there.

Um, but I think in the education workforce space, of course, partnerships are gonna be needed there, but that partnership also needs to come from us too.

And we've done a lot of good work in the education opportunities committee, even though it's only the first year of it, talking about some of these programs that we have that double up as that investment, right?

And we talk about the after school challenge program, we talk about um some of the juvenile services within the municipal court, we talked about project work, the next level, all these things that make sure that our folks who are uh our students, frankly, uh, who are learning who are trying to become the best version of themselves, uh, that intervention services we have do lead to those uh better educational outcomes to prepare to be the next workforce here in our city to help build upon that economic development here and become that attractive force here.

I worry about economic development strategies that lead us towards simply doing technical kind of abatement, uh, given the fact that we're here because of a lack of property tax revenue or lack of revenue in general.

Um any kind of foregoing of that in the future is gonna be real difficult to I think sell, despite the kind of job return and everything of the sort.

Um, I think it looks, I think we should look at the more conditional aspects of it of how do we create the conditions necessary for economic development.

I think part of that goes into, again, infrastructure, workforce slash education, and then going into, of course, further, looking at uh housing affordability and public safety prevention services.

Um of course, public safety response is always needed there, but also the prevention kind of goes twofold there.

And so I'm interested, I guess, within this goal setting and within this framework of how do we braid those together a bit.

Because I worry about when we talk about the, you know, only this kind of services we're looking at here, that the ones in the other departments that may not be looked at as mandated are doing this work right now that's still supplement to Counselor McGill's point, some of the other work in public safety or etc.

Um, but also economic development too.

And so just trying to figure out a little bit more about what a bit more granularity, what those programs are.

I definitely think I said to uh some of them, but there's definitely more out there.

Of course, even with our health department uh and our resiliency department, there's a whole bunch of different things there that we do that no one else does in our city.

Um, but also helps us get to those bigger points, economic developments here.

So just wanted to kind of lay flat my perspective on that, um, that I think it's necessary, but we got to I think do it in a good one.

I believe is the right way there.

Um beyond that, I think, you know, I talked to um Danielle Daniela and the folks at the PFM.

We talked a lot about the kind of the big overarching structures um that I hear from my constituents a lot in district six and one public safety prevention, right?

Talking about um homeless services, talking about vacant lots, talking about uh animal care services needs, um, and some of the other wraparound services that come along with public safety.

Um, that includes mental health resources, includes um some of the community policing with safe officers, uh stand-up SA, particularly too, the gun balance prevention aspect of it comes from a lot of these departments, and so finding ways to preserve that is really important to me.

Um, of course, always looking for ways to expand, but given the circumstances.

Um housing affordability, right?

Same thing there.

We talk about making sure that our community uh has places for folks to live in uh that we want to go out to the edges of our city that uh how to then commute into our city to get to the jobs that we're looking for here or trying to create here.

Uh, I think that's a really crucial point.

Looking at home repair, the housing trust fund, the work, of course, rental assistance giving people housed the entire time, as much as possible.

Um, infrastructure we've I will continue going on on nauseum about implementing complete streets and the kind of cost efficiency that saves us here, and of course, general street safety, making sure that uh the rehaving we're doing, the infrastructure investors we're doing are not just leading to also continued levels of death that we see and and injury we see on the roads.

Um, incorporate a little bit too, of course, the resiliency and sustainability aspects of uh our heat playbook.

A lot of our capital projects, um, finding ways to continue to incorporate those needs are gonna be crucial.

Um, so I'm interested in seeing how we can continue to do that with some of these cuts and not losing sight of some things that maybe certain departments look at um solely uh but in sort we're uh focusing on incorporating them through these um through this budgetary process permanently hopefully and then quality of life right again kind of reiterating the same kind of point there that there are places including district six that have not had um investments in public uh infrastructure public space um that can lead to of course and does lead to um reductions in uh in crime in violence in the community we know some of the highest rates uh of crime in our community happen uh when school lets out we're coming right time to it it's hotter uh kids are more available teenagers are more available to do uh different activities finding productive ways to get folks there but also having access to those programs is crucial we know the growth of our city has gone primarily over the last several decades to the north and northwest side of our city of course we're seeing it more expanding in the east and even south as well but we talk about those areas those services are not there um and I get it we're looking at different ways to to expand that access but I think by trimming down we're leaving out these big portions of our population who are just as needy uh needing of those services uh nearby then we talk about community centers senior centers um park space frankly um even uh aquatics um I mean they don't seem like the they seem maybe like as nice to have but they're not we talk about the heat that we have and the places that our kids need to go and when people are struggling to afford their bills and are struggling to even maintain AC in their homes there's these are places where people can go to stay safe and frankly alive but also have productive uh conversations outside of or productive uh pathways towards um their education and the workforce et cetera all that being said uh I think it's a whole bunch of a slew of programs here that we still have to maintain uh to ensure that we're being economically uh competitive um and frankly taking care of our most vulnerable folks in our city and so I'm hopeful we can do that within this budgetary process and I think as long as we find ways to we're gonna have to make cuts here and there as long as we find ways to keep this I don't want to say spirit but a little bit of the spirit and the focus that many of our small departments have that are going into some of the larger departments I think that's gonna be really crucial.

I don't want to lose sight of the resiliency episode I don't want to lose sight of the street safety focus and vision zero focus uh the transportation has I don't want to lose sight of all those things that we constantly recommend to our large departments and to us to maintain and invest in that our community often also takes part in uh with essay tomorrow planning conversations that we need to implement in some form.

And so I just would like to see how we can kind of braid all those together within our our large departments and if we need to look at um need to look at consolidation departments I know that's a funky one and not too sure which ones we look at exactly but I would like to see what that would look like in terms of both cost savings um and efficiency there but also efficiency in the delivery of services that we're looking at here.

I'll stop there but thank you mayor.

Thank you councilmember Via Gadan.

Thank you Mayor um thank you for uh just all the hard work and what y'all did last year in terms of to get the program cuts here I think uh what I'm hearing is there's still this this big divide between um the halves and the halves not I I don't think anything that has been put forward right now to cut would help economic development uh we need to have those connections with sister cities it's called soft diplomacy it's how we get them to come here um because we are shocker in the middle of Texas and we do not we do not sit on the border we do not have a port we do not have the airports of DFW so to compare us to that or try to is misleading and misguiding because we are San Antonio.

So I think we need to understand what we need to do and I have points of of concern economic development the construction mitigation program cut that that needs to be thought out because we do need um we do they do need help and I think that was on page 190 of budget cuts, community health worker um page one ninety three four positions eliminated uh I do need to see what that's gonna look as the mayor mentioned in terms of percentage and and how much more work that's going to be on our city employees.

I do not want to, I do not want them to say that they are underemployed because they're doing two people's jobs and they're not getting compensated for it.

Advertising budget for recruitment.

So if we're going to reduce that, how are we going to attain our our our current quality employees restructure central library information systems?

The whole library thing as we talk and and some members bring up that they they don't want a tax rate increase and they want to focus on streets.

Let's close the libraries in their district then and we can partner up with they can partner up with the school districts there because I know my school districts in my district are closing, so I need all my libraries.

So if we're gonna do this and and they don't want their libraries, or everybody can go to a north side one of the school district libraries, then let's put it into the southern sector in the downtown sector for that.

Um parked park and recreation, right size mowing contract.

Um I'm concerned with the rain, what sort of flexibility we're gonna have because I don't want to then start going over Justina.

So just making sure we have a cushion for that.

Public works.

I don't know if each district can take a look at their big projects on public works and then just pick one that they're like for budget sake.

We can move this down a year, or we can look at doing it two years with with um, we're gonna need to look at what we're doing in our district, and public works and public safety are two biggest, that's where the biggest budgets are.

That's where the most employees are.

We're going to have to look at our projects that we're doing, what we need to prioritize, what needs to be done if it's flood, we have to look at that because cutting from the other 20 smaller departments that have a hundred thousand versus one that has a hundred and sixteen million is gonna be harder.

So we need to we need to look at that.

I'd have to look and see what in my district, but I'd be willing to defer one project if it means that we can we can continue and work on getting in budget.

Um the substation on Flores is coming up.

What do we do with the other substations?

What do we do with outdated equipment?

Looking at that, as we look at our public safety fire stations.

I need all my EMSs to work within my district, so that's gonna be problematic for me if they think the hospitals can take absorb some of those EMS runs.

They can't.

So there's there's a lot that we need to do.

I think I think we also need to look at what we do in terms of that is, and some people might call it nickel and diming, but what is the permitting fees?

Where can we um raise some of the fees for not just I don't want to say frivolous home improvements, but people that are getting home improvements just because that's what they do.

They get a home improvement every other year for aesthetic reasons and not because they need it.

Maybe we we do that because that takes out from our um our inspectors having to go out to that.

So I think we we do need to kind of look at where we can add to some of those fees, garage sales.

Maybe we do uh my idea is to do one big one, and I know you're like that's not enough, but cutting sister cities, cutting programs that get us on the map globally, is not the answer either.

So we got if we're if we're if we're looking for that, I need to see how much in the permit fees that we have, we can do that.

We just learned if we actually send somebody out there to collect fees on our parking tickets, we get some of that revenue back.

Maybe we can do that with with some of the permits.

I because of all this celebration, I'm ready to permit firework areas in the city of San Antonio if I can get money for that, because they're shooting them off anyway.

So let's charge them and then charge them if they don't get a permit.

So I think we have to be creative, and I really want to see that.

But if you are if you're sitting here and you're telling me you don't want to raise taxes, and you want to cut, I am willing to look at what's happening in my district and seeing what I can defer.

I want to hear that from other members who are I who and especially those who are saying no tax rate increase.

So I think uh you know it I just wish we weren't there.

I wish we weren't still at that line with the have and have nots.

But again, the South Side, most of it was annexed in to the city of San Antonio.

We've been struggling for since we've got annexed in, since we went to um single member districts, and um it's going to be the southern sector and some of the west, definitely the east, that are gonna feel it um if we don't if we don't really get serious about where we're gonna where we're gonna be thoughtful in this process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Um I'll keep it short.

We've all been kind of saying the same thing, and I just I think beyond the statistics and everything we're talking about, this budget belongs to our residents, right?

It belongs to residents in district eight, to every one of us, and so making sure that when we talk about increases, um, we're just explaining it at every point in time.

I personally am not satisfied with the presentation, uh, the morning presentation that slide seven, which just is a square that just says 53 million increase from property taxes will be used to fund collective bargaining expense bargaining expenses, health health care expenses, and other support services.

Like tell me more and tell the residents more.

I think that just is important when we're getting into this level of just I think every one of these meetings till we pass a budget should just have more than one slide um explaining what this increase is because I don't know how to explain that to my residents, I really don't.

I'm gonna just repeat that point and then sit there and look at them.

And so that's concerning me, and I just want to make sure that we are explaining this as uh as well as we can better than this, so and uh that goes to the town halls that we'll be having, uh making sure we're explaining every one of these points to folks to better understand how does this change um their neighborhood, how does this change their uh level of safety?

Um, how does this make their life better?

Um so the cuts I and I appreciate the work that city staff does uh during this time.

Uh I know I've seen city staff work godless hours on all of this, and I appreciate all the work that they do.

Um, and I think we have a great team.

Um, we're very fortunate, unlike other cities.

I think we're very fortunate with uh the team that we have here, and to all of you sitting here, I I commend all the work you do every single day on behalf of residents, so thank you for that.

Uh, but I just want to make sure that we are as transparent as possible and clear um when we talk about these increases, and they're tough conversations.

Again, all the cities um are going through this, and um that's something that's just been kind of I've been thinking about as we've been sitting here.

Um, and so I know this is a first of many conversations, and um just want to look forward to all those that everything else that's coming after this.

So thank you.

That's it.

Ma'am, just um go ahead.

I and I I appreciate that.

Uh councilman.

I obviously I'm hearing that um from a number of you that we need to be prepared to um be very transparent and focused in the communication on whatever we end up doing this summer and so message received and and I guess if you feel like um or if any of you feel like um you have to explain that, then I'll just simply say that that we are recommending, I'm recommending that we utilize that revenue to pay for what we have.

Like quite simply to pay for what we have in two major core areas, well, one major core area of public safety.

Um, and the details are are there, and we can talk about details, but then to to your point and other council members, it gets lost in the details, but it's not about the the the CBAs or anything else.

It is about taking care of the functions and the employees that we have that provide a major service.

And that expense is the largest driver, and that should be appropriately where any additional increase in taxes should go.

I mean, end of story.

Um, the detail we could we could we could we could take that slide and break it out into a long spreadsheet.

That's gonna that's really not gonna communicate it.

It is about making sure that we are um paying for a core service and the growth of what we have.

Um, and but we will.

I mean, I'm hearing that I'm hearing that from a lot of you that making sure that we are explaining this in a way that is um understandable and is can it is um that the folk that the public will understand and and we we will continue to work on that.

All right, thanks, Eric.

Um, Councilmember Castillo.

Thank you.

Um really great discussion.

I think in terms of the conversation of economic development.

I would like for us to I understand there is the strategic framework, but I would like for us to get into the weeds of what that looks like for us.

I'm more inclined to see economic development as Councilman Galvan explain it, and or does it look like more property tax abatements that's going to result in property taxes foregone than impacting the general fund for the next year?

So I think those are really important conversations for us to have uh in terms of what size of abatements and what is the duration of those abatements that are impacting the general fund.

Uh, I'm also supportive of what my colleagues have expressed in terms of ensuring that our budget priorities continue to run parallel to adopted frameworks, whether that's the SA forward plan, um, the strategic housing implementation plan, and uh there are several so many plans, but again, highlighting that I think our budget priorities should align with those adopted frameworks.

Um to reiterate again, right?

None of the work that any of our council offices accomplish or can accomplish is can't be done without the work of city employees.

I understand there's hesitation to have which departments would be impacted by cuts, but I do believe there is value uh in listing what those departments are because it humanizes uh the role and the faces behind the work that's getting done, not just for our offices but for our shared constituency as a whole.

Um, and with that being said, again, just wanted to reiterate district by priorities, which of course continues to be uh supporting uh cost of living adjustment for city employees, uh, maintaining our public infrastructure dollars, particularly with CIP and IMP to ensure that we continue to make uh those impacts in our communities for our residents that have been paying their property taxes but continue to wait for basic infrastructure.

Of course, grateful for the role of NHSD, DHS, and Metro Health.

Uh these are programs as my colleagues in the South Side have mentioned that um go beyond um public health, public safety, and so much more.

So want to ensure that we continue to preserve um those roles, and then of course, in terms of the comment on public safety, I want to ensure that uh with the animal care service that we continue to support the pet care connect program.

I think there is value in us exploring and and or restructuring funding to make that a full program rather than a pilot program, it is impactful in terms of connecting residents to services and addressing that public safety component.

Uh, I did have a couple of comments in terms of some of the general fund reductions.

Uh, for example, I think there's has been missed opportunity.

Um, for example, under innovation research and development, it's going to address funding for research and development agreements from 250,000 to 75 for two to four research projects.

Uh, I think there's opportunity when I look at past bond projects with universities in which we've helped publicly subsidize uh infrastructure for universities.

I think there was opportunity for us to ask for some type of agreement or assurance that they would help cover the cost of research initiatives that the city needs assistance with.

So I think moving forward, I know the bond's going to be another conversation, but I think there's opportunity for us to work with our universities to help support some of that work if it can't be done in house with the innovation department.

We should lean on those large institutions that have leaned on the city for public investment.

If I recall correctly, the unlocked program, this was also zeroed out last year.

But this is something that I've had an opportunity to sit with the Bear County reentry team to talk about the impact and the role that those employees had with the re-entry services.

So I understand here it states that there are other services, so it's essentially a duplication.

But talking to the folks doing the work, they found a lot of value with the folks who were working with unlocked.

And I did have one clarifying point in terms of one of the reductions is around park maintenance.

I just want to understand what that means and what that will look like.

Because I know the parks team has been doing a great job, and if there is an issue, folks go out and take care of the maintenance issue within the park.

So I want to ensure that we're not going to potentially see uh impact to services.

It's on page 1990 restructure maintenance of parks.

Councilwoman, and just to clarify, those are reductions that were we already took in fiscal year 26.

Okay.

And that particular one, we had budgeted a higher amount for that contract.

When we weren't out for a bid, we got a lower cost in the contract.

That's why we were able to reduce that.

So there was no impact to services.

Thank you for that clarification, Maria.

And then again, just going back to looking forward to the next budget conversations in terms of uh where there's opportunity for us to generate revenue.

I know Eric laid out what those could look like in terms of vacant properties, uh vacant lots, and then of course increasing the fees.

I think there is lots of value, and I'll continue to emphasize that looking at type two short-term rental fees.

I understand this won't be the impact in the millions, uh, but there is value in that it has a ripple effect in terms of homelessness, access to housing, so on and so forth.

Thank you.

Councilmember Cork.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you again for the conversation today and for all my colleagues that have already spoken.

Um, I'm actually gonna start off shockingly, not with public works, but actually with um homeless services.

If we go back and look at the survey results last year, if I remember correctly, I didn't verify, but I remember homeless services and is always been number one, but affordable housing on that slide.

Um I forget I have to give you guys slide numbers.

Um scroll the way up.

It's slide, it's like the last slide of the budget.

I don't have a number on it, or of the survey right before the budget ends.

Slide six.

Yeah, um, so interestingly, I think like streets dropped a little bit this year and police services increased.

Uh, I don't remember police services being as high as it was.

Um, but it's also interesting to see what people select as like first choice versus second choice.

So, affordable housing is actually listed as the majority of people's first choice.

If you look at the blue bar, which is I don't believe it's ever been that high before.

And so I think that goes to show you what uh councilman Casilla was kind of reiterating earlier today that everyone is really feeling the costs of everything increasing.

And um, interesting to see that this is the statistically significant survey results that's showing affordable housing is so high.

And so that goes back to the points around like what NHSD's services are and how important what they are doing it, what they are doing is, and for everything that we are focusing on with major minor home rehab, but also the rental assistance program, how that we can't absolutely not touch.

And with the veteran voucher um incentive program that that should be added on top to that program given the priorities because if we're truly listening to what our community is saying, that's got to be number one.

The other thing that I was interested in the backup slides, I'm not sure if the backup slides you guys have, but on the homeless service department where it says mandated services, everything on the homeless services one is priority services.

It's not any of those are city services, they are all listed as priorities.

One of the only ones that has nothing as city services, just priority, and that's page 19 on the backup slides.

And the thing that I I'm unsure about here is where is our low barrier shelter on this list?

Because I know it was grant funded previously, but is that does that mean it has not made it onto this list yet?

And I'm I don't know if you guys have it's it's slide 19 on the individual budget um individual.

Yes, councilwoman.

So the the 4.8 million for the low barrier shelter that was funded in 2026.

It is um it's part of a um it's within the ARPA funding.

Um that we we use we swapped out general fund for that, so it sits in a restricted fund.

So it's not it's not part of the that general fund budget, okay.

Is it going to be?

Just to clarify, there are no more ARPA funds.

Right.

What just need is talking about is we had we had segregated all the ARPA funds the last, but but it's all there isn't any of that left.

That that um uh low barrier shelter was initially funded with ARPA funds, it was added in this year's budget with the general fund, but it runs out this year, and so it doesn't exist going forward in our in our budget.

So it's not in our planned budget right now, no, no ma'am for 2027.

What's no that lease ends in uh was Carmona, like October, November?

I thought we had a plan for it.

Well, that goes to the larger conversation that Mark presented the other day with council is that we're gonna go through a transition, and that's why part of the framework that Mark presented was that we need to start targeting potentially through the bond program a permanent facility or partnerships for low barrier transition and permanent supportive housing.

So we're not gonna have a solution from fall of this year to uh a bond program.

No, no, ma'am.

We we did we do not right now.

Our plan is to close that facility and then begin working on the larger partnership and business case that Mark laid out to you all.

Okay, I miss that.

I totally miss that.

And I don't think that I I don't know where we're gonna find um three million dollars from forward.

I guess what would be the budget to add to keep that in place until we approve a bond program to go forward on a longer term plan.

Um, my uh my um estimate would probably be about five million bucks.

It was 4.8 for the fiscal year 2026.

Prices go up.

Um, I'm confirming that was that that's it was 4.8, yes, ma'am.

For that one fiscal year, yeah.

Uh I feel like that's gonna be a huge hit to our community.

That shelter has been full basically since we started it and it has been so important.

And if this is the number one thing that our community is telling us that we need to do shutting down our lowest barrier shelter, I think is it is a mistake.

Um I would love to advocate for us figuring out a way to make sure that gets added at least until we have a bridge, because that's a revolving of 190 people that we're now just putting out on the streets because we don't have a place for them to trend if we don't have a place for them to transition to.

I I understand some might be able to, but um I just don't I don't know how we just get rid of that like from completely.

So before you when you when after you're done, I'll ask Mark to kind of refresh for the council and and everybody kind of what the general plan was and then but message received your you're identifying that as a priority.

Yeah, I think it should be a priority.

And um, thanks, Mark.

If after that you want after you I speak you want to come up and give any comments, and if any of my other colleagues want to reiterate um that, I just I guess I missed that from Mark's presentation last week.

Um the okay now over to public works.

Um so I think this has definitely been um the one of the most important things in district one, as some of my council colleagues have reminded us that our districts are not all equal, and so we don't have all the same issues.

Our district one was built a lot older than a lot of parts of our north side districts or in even really deep south.

So when we have sprawl, the things that happen is our most urban core streets are the ones that get forgotten.

And so streets is definitely, I think, one of the things we need to look at.

And so what I kind of mentioned earlier about how we do things, I think we can think about doing things a little bit more equitably, even in our budget.

Like we say we have this equity focus to our budget, but what does that really look like when we translate to actual projects?

Does that mean we have an equal amount of C D E and F streets across all the districts that are being funded, or do we look at exactly where the biggest need is and making sure we're addressing that, even if it means for the streets component, some of our urban core districts get a more funding or more focus on it.

So I think we have to continue to look at that with public works.

I'm excited that last year we funded a consultant to redo our PCI scores, and that is going to happen.

I'm pretty soon, I've been told that that those results are going to come out pretty soon.

And I think like I was talking to even Craig and our new IT director about how dare I say how we can use AI to better make help us make strategic decisions of we go and look at like right now.

If I wanted to say, see when was the last time X Street got addressed, I have no way to find that.

And so if we could put into algorithms like all of our historical data on which streets have been addressed by when, and then state create a result that shows us a more strategic, thoughtful way of like how long something's been addressed, how much work it needs, I think would be really great.

A small request that we've been talking about is the sidewalk rebate program.

And so I'm gonna make my argument now, and I hope my colleagues will um support this.

But our sidewalk rebate program in last fiscal year only was used, it's budgeted for 150k.

It's basically what we do to help our residents that can afford to replace their sidewalk with a little bit of help by giving them a rebate if they do it because sidewalks are the are the responsibility of the residents.

I actually had no idea.

This is like uh my ignorance that someone you could sue a homeowner if you trip on their broken sidewalk and they would have to pay for it, like they'd have to go get an attorney and get defense to be able to pay for it.

Um I had no idea.

So that's why this program was created to help support, but right now it's being used at about a third because quite frankly, I have a broken sidewalk, but I'm not gonna fix it.

I don't like you know, and so but I sorry, um, but there is some funds left over in that bucket, and I'd like to be able to grow that program to incorporate churches and commercial businesses that are willing to do it because those places also have um the also have the same similar situation, and if they're willing to step up and help us fix some of this, I think they should be able to be a part of that program.

So I'd like to be able to expand that program to both churches and um commercial residents or commercial businesses as well.

Um thank you to the governance team members that uh supported the QuickBook program to move forward to TNI.

This is not something that's an extra budget cost because we can pay for it out of our public works or our NAMP.

Oh, sorry, I'll dump back.

Councilman Sears.

Hi everyone, I was uh with my kids.

This is when they get out of school, so that's where I've been this morning.

It's a rough week, but they're out, so now shifting gears.

Um, but it I don't think it it doesn't change how I feel about the present of all the backup that we've been looking at, all the presentations and everything that y'all have worked really hard on.

Um, but my community keeps asking me how did this sneak up on us like this?

And I I have to say, you know, Councilwoman Corps brings up a good point about the low barrier shelter.

ARPA dollars are gone.

Were they misused on programs and projects that we either weren't doing before or they were the funds were not applied the way they were intended, they were supposed to be one-time use, and if it's funding programs, that's unsustainable.

What did we do?

I would like to know what we did for all of these services before ARPA dollars hit, and I know there's been impacts, it's been a while, but I mean, I just want to know what we were procedurally doing programs, how we handled all of that, funded it, spending, because that was just like Christmas money, and somehow it's become part of the budget, and and we and it was never meant to be like that.

Um, it was just never sustainable.

My priorities remain clear.

I want to protect our core services, support public safety, improve accountability, maintain our disfiscal discipline, um, economic development.

Absolutely right.

That is that is something we have to do because I still look at this very much like I do my own household, where if something tragic happens in your family, and you are all of a sudden low on cash, low on money, you cut back on your luxuries, you pay do the must, the things that you must, which is pay your mortgage, your rent, your your utility bills, your clothing, food, necessities, and you figure out how to get more money in your bank account, and that's economic development to me, and it's got to be sustainable.

I think I'm concerned about talking to the to our residents and to San Antonio about raising the tax rate because I need to show them how we're cutting back too.

We have to show them ways we are cutting our spending because also they need to have confidence that we're doing things that are completely sustainable, like they don't they need to have confidence that we're not going to continue to do this constantly over and over and just hit them again and again with tax rate increases.

Um we owe it to them to deep dive on the budget.

So I want to see, I appreciate the presentations, but I want to see schedules, I want to see data, I want to see models, I want to see it modeled without the tax rate tax rate increase.

I want that list of subsidies that I've asked for.

I want to see all the grants we apply for, what grants can we go after?

Um, I want to see what ARPA projects we've had.

I want to see our one-time expenditures that we anticipate for 2027.

I would agree.

Homeless services is at the top of that list.

It also ties in with public safety though, because when I know when I talk to my residents about that, they kind of all go together, and they definitely work together.

Um, so when we're looking at all of these priorities, I like seeing them by department, but I also just need to see outright schedules and lists, and um, you know, my accounting background, we'd work till two or three in the morning during tax season over and over and over, diving into all of these schedules, and I think that's our job, and then we are able to go explain this to our residents, and um I'm really focused on making sure.

Oh, this one too.

We have the intergovernmental relations committee.

We need to think about that too.

How are we gonna approach any funding sources that could come out of that or any legislation that we need to see that works in our favor for San Antonio?

I think too, when we dive into this departmental budgets, these smaller cuts add up to big numbers.

So things that we can look at that are inefficiencies or just cutting back on, or maybe we need to collaborate to the point that councilwoman Adrete Govito and the mayor have made about collaboration with the county and suburban cities, there's definite things that we can do.

I I know because I was over there, and I look forward to hearing what Judge Sakai says, and you know, um, most cities are facing this problem.

I agree the economic development piece is is gonna be key here.

That is also incumbent upon us to find more jobs, higher paying jobs, educating our workforce.

Those are things that make a lot of these programs unnecessary.

That's really changing things, making our our entire community better.

And I think I really would like to see us stop talking about everything as it's this district versus that district.

They have more, we have more.

It's us, because I care about my residents all over the city and in my district.

I'm gonna definitely be advocating for District 9, but to think we live in a silo is not right.

It's all of us, and so a col they want us to collaborate.

They want us to to be confident, they want us to show leadership, and um I'm just really uncomfortable saying, hey, yeah, let's let's look at raising our tax rate without uh at least seeing what it looks like when we don't and how we really really go in there and cut, cut, cut.

As my and I I'm where I'm ready to cut, even in wherever.

I'm ready to cut in in District Nine, I'm ready to look at this.

Um but models, I mean, they're extremely helpful and um we're gonna have a lot of town halls in district nine.

I've already got them on the calendar, we're doing a survey.

We are getting the information from the residents, and then I'm just gonna come back and share it all with you.

And I need data to share.

I happen to like this sort of thing, so you can throw it at me and I'll be running around with my budget book as soon as you give it to me.

So, um, I really appreciate it though.

I know it is a lot of work, I know that y'all y'all spend a lot of time on it, but I want we're partners in this, and we really need to act like that.

So, um I think that's all I have right now.

Thank you.

Mayor, uh just one thing, and just and and the councilwoman talked about ARPA.

So just the to remind some of you and and obviously some council members were not here when we did ARPA, we got 326 million dollars, and the vast majority of it was spent on one time.

We did not, unlike other entities throughout the country, um, hire police officers with it or add EMS units or do recurring stuff, and we did so in a very deliberate method so that we did would not create a recurrent expense issue for us.

Um the the the we added we expanded the SA core program during ARPA and then moved that pilot program into the general fund, and it's still here today.

Uh we expanded some domestic violence prevention and outreach services through ARPA, and uh the council prioritized that and we moved part of that spending into the general fund.

Uh we added um we expanded senior center hours, um, and we um during ARPA and we moved that expense into the general fund.

Um, and we did one year of the low barrier show through which we are in right now, but the vast majority, and and we'll get you the total on that, but that can't be more than um ten million dollars uh probably since in all those programs.

Nothing else exists from the ARPA days, um, and because what I think we were we and the council were we're very focused on not creating a one-time uh situation or a cliff that we would be dealing with.

And uh just wanted to um share that with the council and remind uh everybody of what we did with ARPA.

Thank you.

Mayor, if I could add the the legal uh aspect of that.

The the ARPA pro the Opera program came with some very clear criteria as to what the money could be used for.

There were some some remedies the federal government had, including audit and claw bag if we didn't use that money properly.

So we were very diligent, as Eric said, that we complied with all the legal obligations and criteria in terms of using the ARPA funds.

Thank you, Andy.

Councilman Galvan.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just a couple last quick things.

Um I wanted to voice support on the digital twin thing that you mentioned, Mayor.

I think it's something that's gonna be helpful, especially when you look at the land use conversation.

I've often asked a lot about, you know, have we can we do an evaluation based on our land use to see what was productive uh way we could have those lands be utilized?

Um, not only city land, but just generally, but we look at our actual land use development plans and patterns.

Um I think that'd be really helpful, and of course, with the infrastructure parts of it too.

Um I think I heard this a couple times, other council colleagues, but uh getting a bit more clear too, even if it's on the back end just for us to look at uh some of these proposed reductions of the FY2027 uh portion.

Um, there's a point about human services specific, it has four positions, library, same thing with 11 positions, price reduction, just like to understand a bit more what that looks like and what that means in terms of service.

Um again, if it needs to be in the back end for us to do that, uh, so it's not, you know, or just so it's uh we're looking at it, um, it'd be helpful for me to better understand that.

Um definitely supportive of aligning the strategic plans and seeing, you know, how we're still meeting those plans as well as any pivots we're making.

I think overall, it's something I've had a couple conversations with different department directors the past two weeks, um, and with Justina, uh talking a lot about, you know, what are the how can we better understand what programs need to get to a higher level of service?

Um, and then vice versa, right?

That if they're reducing this way, what's the impact of the level of service there?

If this program uh doesn't have X many people, we can only serve this many neighborhoods or whatever may be.

Um I think that'd be helpful along with the strategic plans to kind of see just where exactly we're going when we do this kind of uh this budgeting.

Um the last thing I was gonna say is a little bit maybe a little bit silly.

Um, but I think overall when we're looking at cuts, I think we can also look at places.

Um I know there's something about billboards here somewhere.

Um I think recruiting can be a little different one, but I think when we look at other kind of like public messaging overall, um I would be interested to see the efficacy of billboards and the costs that they all have along with any kind of branded materials uh that we create um that aren't necessarily to informational campaigns and such like that.

Again, don't know how much that all costs, but we'd like to see what that looks like.

Um, even if it's $800,000 closer to the million, whatever it is, I think it's helpful for us to kind of look at um before we get to programs that are positions or positions or programs overall that are solely 500,000 or 495,000 that we're looking to cut before some of these things.

Um that's all Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Mungio.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think when we talk about the proposed property tax increase, um I don't think I saw it on there, but maybe you could break down what the cost would be to residential properties versus commercial, because I think we're we're assuming that that's all residential, but obviously that does include commercial properties that would be asked to pay more.

Um, just as a as a note for us too.

I think um, you know, if we're gonna have such large drastic cuts, especially with everything going on in the economy, um, we shouldn't be uh spending on rough proportionality.

So if we're gonna have these draconian cuts, cutting programs, cutting possibly departments, the way we spend money has to be very strategic based on need.

So, you know, if there are limited after-school opportunities at Harlandville ISD, then these social services at libraries and maybe focused in those particular areas where there's also other gaps.

Because we don't want to say is in Councilman Via Grammy's point, some of our communities, only in some parts of town, are seeing reduced services through schools because of their budget cuts, animal colleges, and now the city, and that's gonna have a disproportionate effect on certain people in this community.

So, yes, we're all one city, but we do have to realize that there are different needs in different parts of town, and how do these cuts worsen someone's life?

Because we talk about economic development, the number one piece to economic development is human capital.

You need people to do the job.

And if people are having to work a second shift, they're not gonna be able to do the jobs training program.

Uh, or if they don't have these programs for their kids through Metro Health, they're not gonna be able to show up to work at all times.

So, just also keep that in mind.

The human capital piece is the most important piece to economic development.

Um, and you know, I'd be interested to see what it looks like for CIP development also because I know we do want to raise the, you know, some of us have talked about raising the debt service piece of that.

I believe that is where we get CIP dollars from.

And as we see cuts, maybe, you know, that's an equity lens on that, right?

It's a million dollars per district, but maybe something more than others, and who's been using that money to actually get programs in the streets and things done.

So that's also supplemental work to the IMP, right?

We all have projects that are not in the IMP that are getting done because of NAMP and CIP.

I know we're offering a lot of different exercises to go through, but I think another helpful one would be let's take the scenario where we do these large drastic cuts and then add the tax increase to these services that people are asking the most for.

So that way you're having all these large cuts that everybody wants to, but some people want to make, but you have the tax increase, and then you're actually investing real money in homeless services, affordable housing streets, uh, animal care services, because to councilwoman's point, there's a lot of people who are existing in a homeless shelter who are about to possibly be homeless again.

Uh and that is a really really hard problem to address, right?

Because that they're gonna end up in other parts of town, and so also what is that gonna do to those folks, right, that have gotten housing, feel safe, and now they're gonna get an eviction slip and say, you know, the shelter is is gonna go private sector, we can't have you here anymore.

Um that's gonna be devastating to those folks.

It's 2026, and there are still people in the city of San Antonio without a sidewalk.

That's ridiculous.

It's just flat out ridiculous.

Every cycle, every campaign has always more sidewalks to close the gap, and we're still running on that.

So I think it's also worth looking, right?

If we're we have the four-year term that's given to us for strategic planning purposes, not to make us comfortable in our seats.

Let's see what these hundred million dollars worth of cuts looks like, add the tax increase and fund it into these really core areas based on need, again, right, not necessarily equally distributed, but close the gap for people.

Like there's districts that have miles of gaps of sidewalks, unacceptable.

There's sidewalk gaps near schools still to this day, unacceptable.

Um, we don't have enough resources for animal care services, right?

They're not because we're focusing on you know the critical call list, and that's important, and we want to make sure we have a live shelter rate, we're also not picking up stray dogs, and that's very that's existent and very particular communities in district four, where I live and where I drive around D4.

I mean, I see a whole a stray dog every single day.

And I have to try not to normalize that because I see it every day and I think, oh, that's just another straight dog.

But in other, there's other parts of town that don't have that problem.

And so we've got to be really strategic.

If we're gonna have all these cuts, we need to make the investments in the right spot.

Because we're gonna continue the same cycle over and over again where my community, other people on this side and then over there have these large gaps.

And so if we're gonna ask people to pay more, then we should really be basing it on the need of the community and have that real focus.

And it's not the controversial E-word, right?

It's just based on need.

So I would add that to the conversation also, thank you.

Uh, Councilman White.

Yeah, very briefly.

Um, you know, just back to the sister cities example.

Um, you know, doing things just because we've always done it doesn't cut it anymore.

And maybe maybe these sister cities and international, which one did I read here?

The sister cities, 300,000, 400,000 for international protocol and diplomatic functions.

Maybe these are returning an investment that I just haven't been made aware of.

So if we've been going to some of these places and spending money on this and and we're we're getting, you know, companies investing in San Antonio because of it or whatever it is, you know, I'd like to see some metrics on on what what the program um has returned.

Well, what is the ROI?

Um, I do want to highlight also, uh, Councilwoman Corps brought up the slide of what was people's first and second choice.

Police services was I think second among people's first uh their first choice.

Um we also need to make sure that our officers have the latest and greatest um equipment too, so that they can do their jobs more safely.

So I wanted to add that in as well.

Uh and then when you talk about housing affordability, uh I couldn't, you know, let that go by without saying that raising somebody's property taxes does not make it more affordable for them to live in their home.

Um so um, but look, I think the discussion overall has been has been good.

I don't know if we've gotten anywhere, um, but uh, you know, because we all have our own ideas of of what is necessary and priorities and all that.

Um the PFM group, though, I think if we if we go back and focus on their presentation, if we are really going to be serious about doing this, and to Councilman Mungia's point, um, yes, it's strategic cuts, it's strategic investment of dollars, but we are going to have to agree on a framework to get this done.

It it can't all be our own ideas on what we should or or we shouldn't be doing.

It's good where we're never we're never gonna reach any any sort of consensus, and Eric and his team is gonna go back after this and huddle up and say, you know, what the hell do we just hear?

Oh, they would never say that now.

Um but yeah, I mean, you get my point.

So again, I appreciate the conversation, and I'll tell you this between now and finalizing that budget.

Um I'm ready, and I know y'all are too, to work day in, day out with all of you to try to reach some sort of consensus on these things so that we invest our dollars the best way we can for our citizens.

Thank you, Councilmember Viegadon.

Uh, thank you.

So I am I we are definitely one San Antonio, and we are definitely Team San Antonio.

Um I still think there's a line between, and I don't want to get into who who brings more jobs or who brings more industry.

Um, because there are some areas that are heavy residential, and then there are some areas of town that we've talked about that it's like you name the zoning, we've got it.

Um, and councilmangee and I can talk to that in length.

So um is there a return on investment?

There is, and we we've seen it year after year since I've been on this dais.

Greater S SATX in conduction in conjunction with EWDC, brought JCB.

Um, here we have got solar plants from uh the solar from Korea, so it's coming and it's here, and and that's why the investment is critical that we have it, and they see that this is a council that is uh well informed, uh well traveled and and has a global perspective.

Um, so I I think that that that has been proven by what we've done here in the last few years.

I would like us to be cautious in terms of when we compare our budget to that of a household budget, because a household budget does not need to compete with Phoenix or Austin or New Bromfels for businesses and for for income.

So understand that a city and how we compete for industry and jobs and and growth is different than you know your your household income and just cutting some things and it just working as that.

We need to be continually moving forward.

The other thing about that a city has that a household budget doesn't is the things that we are mandated to do.

And I I do appreciate the the presentation that was brought for us, but again, I go back to what is mandated, what is priority services, and what is city services.

If we take this out to the public and we ask them, and we see that 311 service calls aren't mandated, but what is the one thing they're gonna ask for is 311 and customer satisfaction of 311.

So I think we need to be really thoughtful about our constituency about our community and what they're asking for and what their expectation is.

So I think as we move forward and we make these choices, I am still looking to see where it where exactly we're going to tighten up because I'm still not hearing specific projects or specific departments.

All I'm hearing is, you know, protect, protect.

The thing is, we need to, we need to come to you next time, Eric, with things that we have thought of in terms of where we are going to where we are in agreement that we will increase the budget, what projects, public work projects we would be willing to defer.

I think also understanding what memberships, if it is about memberships, what memberships we can get creative with and maybe join through a chamber or travel other ways.

And then Andy, I think you need to chime in about about legally what we could do as elected officials to do this because that is where we are kind of constrained.

And I know some trips, great.

Some I'm a guest of a foreign government.

This is just the way it is.

So how do we do that?

Get creative, make sure we we move forward.

And I know that's some with uh some of my other colleagues have made conferences because they've invited you as a guest and taking care of things.

So Andy, if we could just get more of that in terms of we as we as council members, how we are going to travel and move forward on that.

But um, I think we've made some progress.

I think we've heard some some ideas uh Eric for you to start with, and I just look forward to getting through this process.

I think it is gonna come with the opportunity to get more creative, but I don't think we should we should rely too heavily uh on taxing other taxing entities because they have their own problems.

I think we can definitely work with them, but I think we do need to start engaging with our our business communities and and bring them along in our conversation as we make adjustments, but I think we need to decide what we're going to adjust first.

Uh, thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Um, Councilmember Castillo.

Thank you.

Whether it's scenario one or scenario two, I do believe there is value at us having a conversation and how we meet the need where one exists.

Similar to council member Dr.

Sukor, one of the conversations that we have in our community is how our infrastructure lags, and I do walk our constituency through that since we are older part of town and it was constructed before specific building codes, and that's why they may see on other parts of town that they have newer infrastructure.

It's because the developer uh is required to build in that infrastructure in the project.

Uh, and I know with the budget town halls going up, that's likely going to be a comment because I know I've heard it every year since I've been on council, is you know, that northern districts have something that we don't, um, and again, I walk them through the code and the reason why.

Um, but all that to say, I think whether it's scenario one or scenario two, we do need to have that conversation uh in terms of NAMP and CIP where where is the need, and should we all be getting the equal budget when there are districts that lack again the basic infrastructure, have the sidewalk gaps.

I still have streets that are on gravel.

Um, so there's just uh a lot of need, and we should be ensure we should be working towards ensuring that uh we're meeting those needs of uh folks all throughout the city.

I know there's sidewalk gaps, not just in D5 all over, but how are we intentionally meeting that need with our limited dollars?

Um, but I did want to um chime back in to express support for uh the point that council member Dr.

Sukwore raised in terms of the permanent supportive housing.

Um we also know with the closure of Laurel Ridge, we're also going to see more uh individuals with lots of needs out in the community, so we don't have an opportunity uh, in my opinion, to allow us to divest from permanent supportive housing or anything in terms of the work that Marca and DHS, uh the DHS team are doing as well.

Um, so just wanted to highlight those two um points uh in terms of infrastructure and ensuring that we're supporting the work of Mark's team, and then also just preparing for what we're about to see in terms of the closure of Laurel Ridge.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Corr.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just wanted to kind of pick up where I was ending off on the first round regarding the quick build program.

If you look at the transportation department budget on the slide, I can tell you which slide, but I don't know if you guys have those attachments.

It is slide or page 40 of the um the appendices.

Man, that budget is only actually two million dollars.

And transportation has like such a key part of everything that we are trying to do.

This last week, we got to do a memorial ride for silence for all of the cyclists that have lost their lives on streets, and that is listed in our vision zero.

It's like a part of our vision zero program.

We were the first city in the state of Texas to adopt a vision zero program.

And that's under city services.

So when we make these comments about, let's look at these slides and determine what is not as important.

We're gonna cut vision zero.

We we're gonna come back on our commitment to have no cyclist deaths on our streets.

And so I just like I have this data is really fascinating, and it's just illuminating to me that we are so awesome as a city for all of the city services that we are providing that may not have come up in our mandate mandated or priority, but they are so critical to who we are.

Now passing Philly as the sixth largest city in the country, we have an expectation to live up to that by actually doing what we say we're gonna do and providing great course, great services and core services, which I would argue are these mandated priority in city services.

That being said, I just wanted to reiterate the support that my colleagues provided for the Quick Build program.

That was something that came to us from our active from our activists and district one that really support pedestrian and cyclist safety, and and honestly, the goal there is just to increase the amount of implementation for work that we're doing.

So whatever city staff comes back with, however, it looks like I think our goal is just to set a target.

I like these target measures that we that um Eric and the team have been doing, and so like let's just set a target for 20 projects over the next year and see if we can hit that target, and however we get there, I think would be great.

As another uh component that I wanted to highlight was just on the public safety measure.

I know my colleague brought up that public safety was listed there, or police was listed as the top three things.

I think, like I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure we have enough safe officers in our communities.

For me, the things that I always get accolade for in terms of how great they are is our safe and our bike patrol.

So I want to make sure that we have sufficient services in those areas, and then from ACS, we we just had a really bad case that many of you heard about in District One with another dog that was attacked and killed in the Shearer Hills Ridgeview neighborhood.

And so I think we need more dangerous, and I know to your comment, Councilmember Mungia, that this is why more attention had been placed on it several years ago, but I still don't think we have enough, and I think it's also really hard.

We we hear from our individuals every week at public comment how much they how much support that ACS needs, and I think we need to really be thinking about how do we better recruit for those positions that are really hard to fill because I feel like what I hear from ACS all the time is it's so hard to find ACS officers and folks that want to do dangerous dog investigations, but it's really important.

Um, so I'll just end off by saying that I wanted to echo Councilman Castillo's point about humanizing.

So these it's easy to see like what so, for example, the sister cities line item under EDD, it says 1.5 in the authorized count.

That's 1.5 people we are talking about, and that's easy to see as a number, but if you look at the person, I mean, I know who that person is, and they're such a critical individual to everything that we do when it comes to uh international relations with the city staff, and like think about that person and think about their face when you're thinking about oh, yeah, is this work important?

Are we saying that what the work that they're doing doesn't make a difference?

Because I know when I interact with them that they are doing an incredible job of making sure we are being seen as the sixth largest city in the country.

Um and Sarai agrees.

Um and so uh the last thing I'll end with, but at the same time.

So I'm gonna actually be my little uh find a media middle ground here.

I understand what you are saying when it comes to there are ways that we can make sure we are doing the job as efficiently as possible.

But I don't think that means going through and going through all the city services and just slashing those.

But I do think there are ways we can find efficiencies, which is I think Eric, if you take one away one thing away is maybe what we are asking for a little bit more.

Is like how do we make sure that this is not just um blanketed, you know, $55 million for X that we don't have justification for, but really thoughtfully um thought out.

Thanks, Mayor.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak on this item in the second round?

Okay.

Um just in a question.

The um we were able to identify 20 million dollars from for the um Medicaid 1115 waiver program through a a quote, a deeper dive.

Um, do we have any of those deeper dives anticipated in in other areas?

So with the Medicaid waiver, we knew that was expiring, so we went back and we looked at it.

Um there's that that fund or that those reserves, that's the um that's one of the only programs that we have an expiration date that we know it's coming.

I mean, our grants are are have expiration dates, but um, you know, that's the only that was a very unique situation that we had.

Um so that's why we went back and did that full analysis.

Okay, so we don't anticipate doing anything else like that um in other programs.

Because that piece was so unique, that's why we did that.

But we are also we are always looking at efficiencies and areas where we um like through our our CBRs.

Right.

Yeah, the understood.

Yeah, right, right, right.

Um, okay.

I want to um foot stomp the point that my colleague, um, councilwoman Mesa Gonzalez made.

I think it's it's important because it is the elephant in the room when it's when we and we should already be thinking about how we're going to explain this to our neighbors.

Um, but on the public safety piece, um, Eric, especially if the connection is made, hey, a lot of much of this property tax increase would actually need is needed to go toward um meeting our requirements as part of the CBA.

Um, I think showing um what actually is in the CBA that is dictating that um that growth in the budget, I think is would be helpful to walk as many people along as possible.

I think also tying whatever that um cost investment is to the outcome that we all have said is what we think is sufficient for our community, for example, a response time, right?

From either police or from from PD.

So not only are we mandated to do this by the CBA, but this also this level of investment also allows us to meet an outcome that we all have agreed is is necessary for our community.

I think as much as we can walk walk it for folks is important, um, I echo the comments about the importance of making sure that we continue to invest in some of these um international partnerships.

Um, Secretary Cisneros will go on at length about how Toyota came here.

Um, and that was by really investing in that relationship, going to Japan, a relationship that continues with that same family and advisor today.

Um, many of them were actually just uh at the Toyota at one of the Toyota events last year where he was recognized.

Um and similarly, as I have found, and and greater will Greater SATX echoes this, right?

Communities know about Houston, they know about Dallas, they don't know about Austin, they don't know necessarily know about San Antonio.

Um we saw that uh when we went to Taiwan, and and really had to highlight the unique opportunities that exist in in San Antonio for for uh economic development purposes for those companies.

So that is not a I mean, which also when you're talking about $300,000, that is not a place where I think it's we've got to look at everything.

But when you look at the ROI of some of these things, we can look in other places, I believe.

The low barrier shelter, Mark, did you want to or did Marco?

Here he is.

The low barrier shelter, um the cost of that three is it three point.

If you would just elaborate for everybody, since I think folks were curious about that number again.

So the cost in this fiscal year was 4.6 million, I believe.

It's to pay for the lease, it was ARPA funds, it was one-time use.

Um but when you look at the the framework that we laid out last week, uh the the item around guiding people off the streets was adding shelter capacity.

Uh I mentioned last week as well that we are working with our partners to councilwoman coor's question around uh the loss of capacity in community.

We are working towards placing people into housing before the end of the contract period.

It obviously is a gap that we're working with our partners on right now.

We do have a solution with Sam ministries having funding from TDHCA to build out a shelter, permanent shelter capacity in the community.

And so we're working with them right now, but it is contemplated, Mayor, uh, in the framework focus.

Okay.

Um so and that ends in September, the correct.

The lease does, and it's 4.6, you said.

Correct.

Okay.

4.8.

4.8.

Thank you.

Um, and so when we're thinking about um the partnerships, I I want to make sure that we are kind of making these connections between the thing that we think is really important, identifying funding for it, and where we have some outstanding um debts, right?

Because the MLS soccer stadium, the number this year is 3.1 million if we collected that.

So 3.1 million, if we were able to transfer that from the PFC into the general fund, could go to the low barrier shelter.

Okay.

Go ahead.

So I don't think it's as easy as is that of just moving the money to the general fund.

It takes a vote, that's right.

Yeah, it would yeah, there's a there's we have a requirement, well us and the county have a requirement to um maintain and operate and own that facility.

Um if there was a thought that either entity was going to transfer money to either either the courthouse or city hall, then it would require a vote of that group.

But uh I'll add that that that would be tantamount to us taking uh a million dollars from the Alamo Dome to uh solve a uh a general fund issue, which is a which we wouldn't do because that money is needed to operate and maintain that facility.

So, so the money, just to be very clear, like on this point, that's that's money that no one expected to actually have years ago, right?

Because the agreement is based on us bringing a team here.

So as a result of that that happening, this is kind of new money that no one anticipated.

So it's not necessarily the money that goes toward the operating expenses as originally envisioned.

No, I think it does, Mary.

We'll go back to the that's what the lease contemplates, but but but it's a penalty because we didn't do something, and nobody thought we'd have to do the penalty because people thought we'd bring a team here.

I understand your position.

I'm just saying that that the the money first, the first hoop it's got to run through is the operations and maintenance or capital need of the facility.

Then if either entity wants to pull money to to the home base, then it requires a vote of that.

Uh, and I'm just telling you that I likely wouldn't recommend that we take money out of a facility that we've got to operate and maintain or capitalize to solve the general fund but problem.

Okay.

As we look at um money that we could come in, though, given the size of this deficit, um I think we need to, as somebody has previously said, put on our innovation caps.

I also want to um I think it's a an excellent point, um, and I know Mark, it's kind of core to your your whole strategy, which is better leaning into uh philanthropy and and corporate.

I think that's excellent.

I think some of these things are are ripe when I look at the FY27 general fund reductions.

I think, you know, if we're looking at the the restructuring the explorer program, I think that seems like a great opportunity for one of our corporate partners to come in and help with I think you know when we're having to reduce 11 positions and funding for the book festival which is three quarters of a million dollars I think that is something certainly I would think one of our local corporations could could also be helpful with so um you know we so I I'm going all that to say I'm going to look forward to having conversations with my colleagues about a united front that we can have to our local philanthropy and corporations about how they can help offset some of these services which I think which we think are important I think they think would also be important and frankly has also been done in other cities which is philanthropy and and corporate stepping up in light of the very challenging fiscal environment for all of us.

One thing Eric on the for the June 18th briefing will this presentation will that presentation rather help us understand how your budget helps us meet the performance measures as currently outlined i.e you know we'll still be able to meet this one this one will fall short 25% like will it be structured in that way at to the broader discussion earlier about investments of vis-a-vis outcomes.

So um it ideally yes in the areas of reduction so that so that um the council understands the potential impacts we will not have that for the entire budget that's what we'll do in August but but we'll want to make sure that we do that as part of the the trial budget especially in any key areas where we're proposing reductions.

Okay.

Okay so for the 58 some odd performance areas um how can we understand how our budget helps us meet those goals so if we're in those 58 in the six plus six if if in any of the areas that we propose reductions and spending in on June 18th we'll make sure that the the associated 58 measures but but I'm not sure it's going to be all 58.

Okay that's helpful thank you um great uh thank you again to the staff for all the hard work thank you to my colleagues for the very thoughtful discussion um and um indication of what is still necessary um I think what you heard a lot as well here um Eric was some some feedback not only on on process that helps us understand truly kind of where we are versus where we need to go as well as of course some folks had some some specific ideas um about where we might be able to to take some cuts but laying all of that out for us in terms of the options and then the other things that um allow us to better understand what we're already doing for example where we're potentially foregoing property tax to understand how we might be able to help ourselves because I think it is important as was I forget who exactly said it but thinking about this conversation and some of the other major decisions we have the bond of course how we are going to structure our economic development framework so that I mean one of the things that really kind of jumps out at me when we're talking about these especially kind of the public health programs that are so important that we just may not have funding for when we're thinking of our economic development framework you know an approach to that is hey do no harm not only do you you know come into our community and make sure you've got enough child care but when you come into our community you've also got to make sure hey you're um abiding by admission standard emission standards for example some of which may or may not um uh apply federally based on the endangerment clause and what's happening there but I think it does require us being thoughtful about how we ask for the things, how and how often we ask for the things that our community needs and deserves okay um Eric, if you'd recap for us, please.

Oh, this is a recap um so uh listen, thank you for the conversation uh today.

That this is, you know, that these aren't easy conversations, and I and I know they're not.

But they're important, and uh and they're important for me to understand kind of where you all are at as a group and as a body so we can move to the next milestone.

The next milestone is going to be the June 18th uh trial budget, where we will lay out certainly some of the things that um that um you guys talked about today.

Um I think we will also make sure that we're focused on kind of the balancing the communication of ensuring that we're doing that we're being the best stewards of public money uh and being efficient uh towards our services and the use of that money, whether it is um um just tightening our belt or it is ensuring that audit recommendations are squared away, all those issues, but but ensuring that we're doing everything we can and and and just a reminder that the trial budget will just be the first run at it.

The the real um test of that will be the uh August proposed budget.

Um so um I think that the other aspect of this that uh I think will be important for me is uh ensuring that we are thinking through how we're gonna communicate this as it relates to the priorities that you all identified that really mirror the um the uh community survey and um be able to ensure that that we are putting together a plan to be funded in next year's budget and a two-year balance budget that continues to accommodate the things that the public expects, and certainly that you all as a group expect.

Um and uh it's no um, probably just those those three sentences uh sound real easy, but I think it's gonna be a lot more difficult than than my summation, but we're ready to get to work and uh looking forward to the conversation on June 18th, Mayor.

Okay, great, thank you.

There being no further discussion, the time is now 2 47 p.m.

and the meeting is adjourned.