San Antonio City Council Budget Session and Property Tax Debate - September 16, 2026

The San Antonio City Council held a budget session on Wednesday, September 16, 2026 (noted in the transcript as September 17 but corrected per provided date) to discuss proposed amendments to the fiscal year 2027-2028 budget and consider a potential property tax increase. The meeting focused on balancing the budget through a mix of fee increases, spending cuts, and a debated property tax rate adjustment. City Manager Assistant Justina Tay presented a package of amendments including revenue generators (fee hikes) and expenditure reductions. Mayor Jones proposed an alternative plan of 1.6% across-the-board cuts in FY2027 and 2% in FY2028 to avoid a property tax increase, sparking extensive debate among council members about priorities, transparency, and long-term fiscal sustainability.

Consent Calendar

• No consent calendar was presented or discussed in the meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• The transcript notes that three to four members of the public were waiting to speak at the close of the meeting, but their comments were not recorded in the provided material.

Discussion Items

• Proposed Budget Amendments (Justina Tay): Presented eight items in Proposal A, totaling $3.6 million over three years, including funding for a part-time nutrition program in Darner, after-school programs for the Southeast Independent School District, employee tuition, 10 additional SAFE police officers, restoration of scholarships for San Antonio Education Partnership, restoration of a cultural initiatives position in the Historic Preservation Office, restoration of a gastronomy program for world heritage, and other additions. Revenue increases were proposed via: increasing permit fees, increasing fines for vacant lots and dangerous premises from $250 to $400, increasing parking fines (generating ~$500,000 over two years), increasing River Barge non-resident ticket fees from $15 to $20, increasing HAZMAT gas station fees (generating ~$60 million over two years), and increasing lost library card fees from $20 to $30 (generating ~$1 million over two years). Expenditure reductions included eliminating local support programs, board member childcare, library funding, and funds for Dream Week San Antonio and San Antonio Green. Additional amendments included $1 million for women's health/reproductive justice programs funded via Medicaid reserve and capital fund, and $8 million for capital improvement projects for council districts.
• Mayor's Alternative Proposal: Mayor Jones proposed to avoid property tax increases in FY2022 and 2028 (note: referencing 2026 and 2028 per context) by reducing costs 1.6% in FY2027 and 2% in FY2028 across all departments, generating approximately $28 million and $35.3 million in savings respectively. She emphasized this would allow the city to cover the budget gap without raising taxes and provide residents relief.
• Council Member Maki Rodríguez: Supported the Boys and Girls Club, requesting emergency funds for a transition plan, and expressed concerns about adding 10 SAFE officers, suggesting priority should be given to filling vacancies in libraries and Metro Health. She opposed the mayor's across-the-board cuts without knowing the specific impact on vulnerable districts.
• Council Member Villagran: Supported a property tax increase as an investment in the city, citing growth from Toyota and other developments, and argued the city cannot cut its way out of the deficit.
• Council Member White: Advocated for the 2% across-the-board cuts (proposed by him the previous day) and argued the city must control spending rather than raise taxes. He stated families prioritize essentials and the city should do the same, with public safety as the top priority.
• Council Member Curl: Noted the difficulty of last-minute proposals and requested time to review impacts. She expressed concern about eliminating 10 SAFE officers and suggested redirecting those funds to libraries and Metro Health positions.
• Council Member Castillo: Supported restoring positions for Metro Health, libraries, and the sustainability department. She opposed creating new police positions when the city faces a structural deficit and lacks a comprehensive audit.
• Council Member Galván: Voiced anxiety about the 1.6% cuts, noting the lack of detail on specific service reductions (e.g., sidewalks, parks, libraries). He asked for clarity on how cuts would affect public works and small departments.
• Council Member Mesa González: Stated she was ready to make a difficult vote on a tax increase but needed more information on the 1.6% scenario. She asked for a calculation of a 1% cut across departments, which would generate $17.8 million and reduce the property tax impact by about $0.02 per $100 valuation (monthly savings of roughly $2.31 from $2.90 to $1.50 for an average home).
• Council Member Munguía: Raised concerns about the across-the-board cuts being inequitable, as 60% of prior cuts fell on districts 1-5. He worried about giving the city manager authority to decide cuts without council input and highlighted the discomfort of employees listening without job security.
• Council Member Spears: Supported the mayor's 1.6% and 2% cuts, backed the Boys and Girls Club funding, and wanted to restore Biomed and Great Hearts. She argued the city needs more patrol officers for her district.
• Council Member Gavito: Opposed both the 1.6% and 2% cuts and also opposed a tax increase. She specifically questioned removing scholarship funds already committed to students and asked for a memorandum to consider alternative funding.
• Council Member González: Emphasized the need for transparency with residents and noted that the city must grow its revenue base, not just cut. He presented a projection showing that if the city continues flat cuts without revenue growth, by 2041 only police and public works would be left, and by 2049 not even those.
• Council Member Core: Supported restoring the gastronomy program and suggested reducing the World Heritage Office allocation by $3 million (12%) to free up funds, but was cautioned by staff that this could cost $11.2 million in lost economic impact.
• City Manager Eric: Clarified the practical implications of the mayor's proposal: if adopted, the city would have to manage the 1.6% cut within each department, potentially through vacancy management and not filling positions. He noted the 1.6% ($28 million) and 2% ($35.3 million) would require adjusting the property tax rate downward. He also explained that the long-term forecast shows structural deficits and that a small tax increase combined with cuts is a balanced approach.

Key Outcomes

• No final vote was taken at this session. The mayor committed to providing a memorandum by the evening summarizing conclusions and potential revised amendments for the council to consider at the next meeting (scheduled for the following day, September 17, 2026, per the agenda).
• Council members expressed a range of positions: some supported the mayor's across-the-board cuts to avoid a tax increase, others advocated for a modest property tax increase to preserve services, and a few proposed specific reallocations (e.g., redirecting funds from SAFE officers to libraries, restoring Biomed, funding the Boys and Girls Club).
• The city manager noted that a 1% general fund reduction would generate $17.8 million and lower the tax rate impact by about 2 cents per $100 valuation (monthly savings of approximately $2.31 for the average homeowner). t- Several council members requested that items from the amendment list (e.g., SAFE officers) be reprioritized to restore funding for libraries, Metro Health, and the Boys and Girls Club.
• The meeting adjourned at 3:54 PM, with three to four public speakers still waiting to be heard.