San Antonio City Budget Work Session on FY27 Scenarios - August 19, 2026

On Wednesday, August 19, 2026, at 2:03 PM, the San Antonio City Council convened a budget work session to discuss two alternative scenarios for balancing the FY27 proposed budget. The session was called to order by the Mayor and included roll call of council members. City Manager Eric and Budget Director Freddie Martinez presented two options: additional spending cuts to avoid any property tax increase, or moving the previously planned FY28 property tax capacity into FY27, which would raise the tax rate more in one year but restore many proposed reductions.

Discussion Items

• Scenario 1 (No property tax increase): This would require an additional $75 million in cuts over two years (total $164.6 million), eliminating 171 positions (154 filled). Cuts include elimination of quality assurance team, animal care trainer program, half of discretionary delegate agency funding, downtown event activation, neighborhood enhancement team, senior services, parks programming (dance, music, arts, summer youth, volunteer services), library adult services and interlibrary loan, minor home repair program, and several outside contracts (Biomed, Dream Voice, LISC, etc.). Also includes elimination of the World Heritage Office and consolidation of Transportation into Public Works.
• Scenario 2 (Move FY28 property tax capacity to FY27): This would increase the property tax rate by 8.7% in one year (vs. 8.3% over two years in the original proposal). It provides $127.4 million in revenue, reduces required cuts from $89.6 million to $57.6 million, and restores $26.3 million in reductions including hiring freeze, rescue partner initiative, neighborhood enforcement team, downtown event funding, fire explorer program, tuition reimbursement, SAEP scholarships, botanical garden funding, police special initiatives, street maintenance, delegate agency funding, and World Heritage Office programs.
• Property Tax Impact: The original proposal showed an average monthly increase of $2.95 per homestead (avg value $231,356). Under Scenario 2, the increase would be higher, with some districts seeing larger monthly impacts due to differing appraisal growth. Budget Director noted that Scenario 2 would result in an 8.7% tax rate increase, not simply the sum of the two-year percentages.
• Councilmember Positions: Multiple councilmembers expressed strong opposition to Scenario 1. Councilmember Via Gran said he would not support losing 171 jobs and wanted to know the names and districts of affected employees. Councilmember Mungia supported Scenario B (scenario 2) and stressed the need for transparency about cuts. Councilmember Galvan was opposed to Scenario 1 and supported the original proposal with possible tweaks. Councilmember Castillo argued austerity leads to unemployment and criticized cuts to police and fire overtime. Councilmember White opposed any tax increase, advocated for deep internal cuts, and questioned the long-term deficit (projected $135M in five years even with tax increase). Councilmember Corps supported the original proposal as a pacing strategy and noted multiple other impending cost increases. Councilmember Aldrate-Gavito wanted more internal administrative cuts rather than resident-facing services. Councilmember McKee Rodriguez rejected Scenario 1, emphasized that district 2 residents need services and cannot afford cuts, and asked for more analysis on tax impacts per district. Councilmember Mesa-Gonzalez expressed discomfort with Scenario 1 and supported the original proposal with additional exploration of internal cuts. Councilmember Spears was against any tax increase and wanted focus on essential services and zero-based budgeting. Councilmember White also proposed cutting police pay raises as a way to reduce the deficit.
• Additional Proposals: Councilmember McKee Rodriguez suggested scrutinizing the police collective bargaining agreement (102M increase) as a potential source of savings. Several members requested more detailed breakdowns of cuts by district, resident usage data, and impact on city employees. The Mayor asked for a better format to explain tax impacts to residents.

Key Outcomes

• No formal vote was taken, but the City Manager asked for clear direction on which path to pursue. A majority of council members expressed support for Scenario 2 (moving tax capacity to FY27) or the original proposed budget, with some members wanting further tweaks to prioritize certain programs (e.g., libraries, parks, senior services).
• Staff will provide additional analysis: breakdown of tax impacts by property value ranges, information on the 171 positions (vacant vs. filled), and a comparative analysis of how San Antonio’s administrative costs compare to other Texas cities.
• The council agreed to continue using the original proposed budget as a planning basis while staff works on amendments based on council feedback.
• The budget process will proceed with further work sessions and a budget town hall scheduled for August 24 (District 5) and other districts. A final budget adoption is expected by September 2026.
• Staff will also explore additional non-property tax revenue options (e.g., increased developer fees, barge fees for non-residents, potential use of TIRZ funds) and evaluate the ROI of various contract agencies before the final vote.