[00:00:08]
>> MAYOR JONES: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE TIME IS NOW 1:39 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2026, AND THE SAN ANTONIO CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORK SESSION IS CALLED TO ORDER.
>> CLERK: MAYOR, WE HAVE QUORUM. >> MAYOR JONES: GREAT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. TIME IS NOW -- ERIK, OVER TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED.
>> WALSH: THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUSTINA HAS A SHORT POWERPOINT ON THE MEMO THAT WE ISSUED YOU ALL LAST NIGHT.
AND THEN PART TWO OF THAT ARE COMMITTED TO BRINGING BACK TO YOU SOME OF THE ITEMS IN SCENARIO A THAT GAVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE.
AND SO WE'LL PRESENT THAT TO YOU THIS AFTERNOON. AND HAND IT BACK OVER TO
Y'ALL FOR THE CONVERSATION. >> TATE: GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS JUSTINA TATE. I'M THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.
AS ERIK MENTIONED, WE WANT TO REVIEW THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE MEMO THAT WAS SENT LAST NIGHT, AS WELL AS POTENTIAL REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS AND EXPENSES TO MAINTAIN A BALANCED BUDGET. AND FINALLY, WE'LL GO OVER THOSE REDUCTIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN ALTERNATIVE A THAT WE MAY RECONSIDER, IF THE TAX RATE IS NOT INCLUDED --E INCREASE IS NOT INCLUDED. IN TERMS OF THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS, THERE INCLUDES EIGHT ITEMS FOR A TOTAL OF $6.1 MILLION OVER TWO YEARS.
THIS INCLUDES RESTORING THE FUNDING FOR THE PART-TIME NUTRITION AFTER-SCHOOL CHALLENGE FOR THE SOUTHWEST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF ABOUT $50,000 EACH YEAR. IT RESTORES TUITION REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY EMPLOYEES. AND IT ALSO ADDS 10 SAN ANTONIO FEAR-FREE ENVIRONMENT, OR SAFFE OFFICERS. THIS WOULD BE ONE SAFFE OFFICER FOR EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT. RESTORES THE SAN ANTONIO EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP SCHOLARSHIPS AT $1.1 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR '27 .
IT ALSO RESTORES FUNDING FOR ONE POSITION THAT SUPPORTS CULTURAL INITIATIVES IN THE OFFICE OF HISTORY AND PRESERVATION AND RESTORES THE FUNDING FOR THE GASTRONOMY PROGRAM FOR WORLD HERITAGE. FINALLY, THROUGH COUNCIL CARRY FORWARDS, IT'S PROPOSED TO REINSTATE THE FUNDING FOR DIEZ Y SEIS AND THIS WOULD BE FUNDED FROM CARRY FORWARDS FOR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
SO THE NEXT TWO SLIDES WILL SHOW HOW WE'LL FUND THOSE ADDITIONS TO THE BUDGET.
SO FIRST I'LL TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL REVENUE INCREASES. SO THE FIRST WOULD INCREASE THE BOOTING FEE FROM $60 TO $120 AND THAT WOULD GENERATE ABOUT $16,000 OVER TWO YEARS. THE SECOND IS TO INCREASE VACANT LOT AND DANGEROUS PREMISE ABATEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FROM 250 TO 400, WHICH WOULD GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL ABOUT $170,000. NUMBER THREE IS INCREASE THE PARKING FINES, WHICH GENERATES HALF A MILLION OVER TWO YEARS.
AND INCREASING THE RIVER BARGE TICKET FEES FROM $15 TO $20, GENERATING $2.8 MILLION OVER TWO YEARS. THE LAST TWO ARE TO INCREASE THE HAZMAT FEES FOR RETAIL GAS STATIONS FROM $150 TO $173 FOR THOSE THAT HAVE 30,000 OR LESS GALLONS.
AND FROM $600 TO $690 FOR THOSE THAT HAVE MORE THAN 30,001 GALLONS.
THIS GENERATES $60,000 OVER THE TWO YEARS. FINALLY, THE NON-RESIDENT FEE FOR LIBRARY CARD WOULD INCREASE THE PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES A NEW REVENUE OF $20 PER LIBRARY CARD FOR NON-CITY OF SAN ANTONIO RESIDENTS.
THIS WOULD INCREASE IT TO $30. GENERATING ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE TWO YEARS. SO IN ORDER TO BALANCE WE ALSO ARE REDUCING SOME EXPENSES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET OF ABOUT $1.6 MILLION AND SEVEN ITEMS. IT ELIMINATES FUNDING FOR THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS MEMBERS DURING THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD COMMISSIONS.
IT WOULD ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR CUSTOMER ANALYTICS AT THE LIBRARY AS WELL FOR
[00:05:03]
BIOMED SA AND ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR BUILD SAN ANTONIO GREEN .THERE ARE TWO ITEMS THAT FUNDING WOULD BE REDUCED. THIS INCLUDES FOR THE AMBASSADOR PROGRAM AS WELL AS FOR DREAM WEEK. THE FINAL TWO AMENDMENTS ARE RELATED TO RESTRICTED FUNDS OR THE CAPITAL BUDGET. SO THE AMENDMENT LIST INCLUDED $500,000 FOR TWO YEARS FOR A TOTAL OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH PROGRAMS FOR THE REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE. AND THIS WOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH THE MEDICAID WAIVER RESERVES. AND THEN THE CAPITAL BUDGET INCLUDES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS $8 MILLION, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT FROM $200,000 TO A MILLION DOLLARS. AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH THE USE OF DEBT CAPACITY. NOW AS DISCUSSED DURING YESTERDAY'S B SESSION, IF A PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE IS NOT APPROVED, THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE BUDGET, AS NECESSARY, TO MAINTAIN A BALANCED BUDGET.
IF NEEDED, THOSE REDUCTIONS WOULD START WITH ALTERNATIVE A AS PRESENTED ON AUGUST 19 WITH SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS. ON THE TABLE TO YOUR RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THOSE REDUCTIONS THAT WOULD -- OR THAT COULD CHANGE FROM WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE ALTERNATE A. THIS INCLUDES THE QUALITY ASSURANCE TEAM AT 311. THE COMMUNITY ANIMAL SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE.
DOWNTOWN ACTIVATIONS, NOW A PORTION OF THIS COULD BE REDUCED BUT WE WOULD MAINTAIN THE -- WE WOULD CONSIDER MAINTAINING ABOUT $700,000 OF THAT FUNDING.
WE WOULD MAINTAIN OR CONSIDER MAINTAINING THE CLOSURE OF ONE PART-TIME NUTRITION CENTER. WE WOULD CONSIDER MAINTAINING THE LIBRARY HOURS, SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAMS, PARK STEWARDSHIP, WHEATLEY HEIGHTS, NON-SERVICE ALLEYS, AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS. OVER THE TWO YEARS, THIS EQUATES TO ABOUT $23 MILLION IN REDUCTIONS THAT COULD CHANGE FROM THAT ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO THAT WAS PROVIDED ON AUGUST 19. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> MAYOR JONES: ERIK, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >> WALSH: NO, MA'AM.
>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. THANKS, JUSTINA. COLLEAGUES, I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT RAISING PROPERTY TAXES DURING THIS DIFFICULT TIME ON OUR NEIGHBORS IS MY LAST RESORT. I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID RAISING PROPERTY TAXES IN FY27 AND FY28 IF WE DO THE FOLLOWING. ONE, REDUCE EXPENSES ACROSS THE BOARD BY 1.6% IN FY27. AND THEN REDUCE EXPENSES AGAIN ACROSS THE BOARD 2% IN FY28. AND MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RESERVES.
THIS ACHIEVES THE $75 MILLION THE CITY MANAGER SAID WE NEEDED TO SOLVE FOR ACROSS THE TWO YEARS. COLLEAGUES, I WOULD WELCOME YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS.
PLEASE SIGN IN. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: MAYOR, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?
>> MAYOR JONES: SURE. SO TO AVOID RAISING PROPERTY TAXES IN FY27 AND FY28, WE WOULD DO THE FOLLOWING: REDUCE EXPENSES ACROSS THE BOARD BY 1.6% IN '27.
AND 2% IN '28. THIS AVOIDS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN FY27 AND IN
FY28. >> WALSH: MAYOR, ONE CLARIFICATION QUESTION.
SO THOSE WOULD BE -- YOU'RE PROPOSING TO REDUCE PERMANENT REVENUE AND THOSE
WOULD BE PERMANENT REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING? >> MAYOR JONES: CORRECT.
>> WALSH: AND THEN FOR FISCAL YEAR '28, THAT WOULD BE PART OF OUR PLAN FOR '28?
>> MAYOR JONES: THAT'S RIGHT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AS IS ALWAYS, THE OPPORTUNITY -- RIGHT? WE HAVE A REALLY HOT SUMMER AND CPS DOES REALLY WELL. AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HERE, WE HAVE TO SOLVE ACROSS TWO YEARS SO THIS WOULD BE THE PLAN GOING IN AND GIVE OUR RESIDENTS SOME COMFORT AT LEAST THAT WE ARE THINKING ACROSS TWO YEARS, NOT JUST ONE.
AND HAVE LOOKED AT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE THE OPPORTUNITY OR NEED FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE, NOT JUST ONCE BUT TWICE. 1.6% IN '27.
2% IN '28. OKAY. COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ,
PLEASE. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
ULTIMATELY, I THINK IN THIS -- I'M GOING TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS AND THEN I'M GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION. ONE, I WANT TO NOTIFY ERIK AND TEAM AND COLLEAGUES I JUST FOUND OUT A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO THAT THE BOYS AND
[00:10:01]
GIRLS CLUB INTENDS TO CLOSE ON THE 30TH, DISRUPTING SERVICES FOR A NUMBER OF MY RESIDENTS. THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB DOES FALL WITHIN THE INNER CITY TIRZ SO I WOULD ASK THAT AS A PART OF THIS BUDGET WE PRE-AUTHORIZE EMERGENCY FUNDING FOR THREE MONTHS OF OPERATING EXPENSES WITH AN ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS CONTINGENT UPON A PLAN FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB TO GET INTO A BETTER FINANCIAL POSITION. IN THE EVENT THEY ARE NOT, WE BEGIN PLANNING FOR AN ALTERNATIVE WHERE EITHER THE PARKS AND RECREATION OPERATE THE FACILITY OR DO A SOLICITATION FOR ANOTHER ORGANIZATION. BUT I WOULD ASK FOR MY COLLEAGUES' SUPPORT IN THAT. AND THEN I CAN SCHEDULE A TIRZ BOARD MEETING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. SECOND, WHICH IS NOT AS FUN.I DO APPRECIATE -- THAT WAS NOT FUN AT ALL, ACTUALLY. ANOTHER NOT-FUN THING.
I DO APPRECIATE THE BALANCED APPROACH Y'ALL TOOK TO THE AMENDMENTS AND THE PROPOSAL Y'ALL HAVE PUT FORTH. I DO STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT WITH THE TEN ADDITIONAL SAFFE OFFICERS AS THAT IS ANOTHER RECURRING EXPENSE. THERE WASN'T CONSENSUS FOR THAT IN ANY OF THESE PREVIOUS MEETINGS. I HAVE ONLY HEARD IT MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES AND I FEEL AS THOUGH IT WOULD BE A BETTER LOOK -- A BETTER -- I WOULD HAVE A BETTER OUTLOOK IF WE INSTEAD ADDED BACK THE FILLED LIBRARY POSITIONS AND THE FILLED MATERNAL HEALTH METRO HEALTH POSITIONS WITH THOSE DOLLARS. THEN ANYTHING ELSE CAN GO TOWARDS WHATEVER AMENDMENTS THERE'S CONSENSUS FOR. BUT THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE.
IN RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL, I THINK IT IS GOING TO PUT US IN A BAD POSITION OVER THE NEXT THREE, FOUR, FIVE YEARS IF WE DON'T DO A RATE INCREASE.
SO THAT WOULD BE -- I THINK I'M AT THAT POINT WHERE, AS A COUNCIL, WE SHOULD BE VOTING ON THAT TOMORROW. AND I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE SHOULD MOVE IN OR ELSE IT IS GOING TO HAVE A TERRIBLE IMPACT ON THOSE OF US IN DISTRICTS 1 THROUGH 5. SOME OF 7 -- EVERY PART OF THE CITY BUT LARGELY THOSE OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE MOST VULNERABLE. ON TOP OF THAT, THOUGH, I DO THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT ACROSS THE BOARD CUT FOR THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR AND ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE WE HAVE SHOULD BE USED TO BALANCE OVER '29, '30, '31.
THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST IS BLEAK AND WE'RE NOT JUST SOLVING FOR THESE TWO YEARS, WE HAVE TO SOLVE FOR EVERY YEAR WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEFICIT.
THAT WOULD BE MY COMPROMISE THERE IN THE EVENT THAT WE DON'T DO THE RATE INCREASE, THEN I THINK WE HAVE TO DO THE ACROSS THE BOARD CUT THAT THE MAYOR MENTIONED AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE APPROACH THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IN THAT SCENARIO.
THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN,
PLEASE. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
SO I THINK IT IS TIME FOR A RATE INCREASE. I DON'T THINK -- THIS IS AN INVESTMENT IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND I WANT TO THANK COPS/METRO AND OTHERS WHO HAVE SAID THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A RATE INCREASE.
THAT IT'S A CUP OF COFFEE OR AN INTERNET SUBSCRIPTION OR A STREAMING CHANNEL SUBSCRIPTION FOR THE MONTH OR FOR A YEAR. AND JUSTINA BROUGHT UP THAT SLIDE SHOW. SO I THINK IT'S TIME TO INVEST AND THAT IS THROUGH A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. I THINK SAN ANTONIO HAD A VERY INTERESTING SUMMER.
5,000 JOBS COMING TO SAN ANTONIO THROUGH IEM AND TOYOTA.
JOBS, ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO SOLVE THIS DEFICIT. BRINGING MORE PEOPLE HERE, HELPING MORE PEOPLE GET INTO HOMES, HELPING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR BUDGET IS AND WHAT THEY CAN SPEND.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE KNEW THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE TOUGH. BECAUSE WE WERE COMING OUT OF A PANDEMIC AND WE WERE RUNNING -- WE NEEDED TO SPEND THESE ARPA DOLLARS.
WE DIDN'T EXPECT TO BE IN MULTIPLE WARS. WE DIDN'T EXPECT INFLATION TO GO UP THE WAY IT DID. WE WERE PROMISED REDUCTIONS. WE WERE PROMISED LOWER PRICES AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. SO HERE WE ARE.
AND AFTER 33 YEARS OF THE CITY USING WHAT WE HAD WITH CPS AND OUR TAX REVENUE, AFTER HAVING GROWTH, WE BUILT PARKS. WE BUILT HIGH SCHOOLS.
COUNCILMAN MUNGIA AND COUNCILMAN GALVAN WEREN'T EVEN AROUND 33 YEARS AGO.
>> WASN'T EITHER. COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO -- SHE WAS HERE.
GOT TO GET THEM ALL. [LAUGHTER] HERE'S THE THING.
[00:15:06]
WE'RE ASKING THEM AND SOME OF THEM THEIR FIRST TERM. BUT LET'S RAISE THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. WHY? TO INVEST IN SAN ANTONIO AND THE PEOPLE IN SAN ANTONIO. ERIK, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN PUTTING TOGETHER A BALANCED BUDGET AND TAKING A LOOK AT AMENDMENTS WHEN I WAS AT THE POINT WHERE I WAS LIKE WE JUST GO WITH WHAT THE CITY MANAGER PUT FORWARD. BECAUSE I DON'T SEE WHERE THE DOLLARS ARE GOING TO COME. BUT MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES MADE AMENDMENTS, WERE OKAY WITH INCREASING FINES, INCREASING FEES, AND HERE WE ARE TODAY WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. BUT I BELIEVE, BEFORE WE TAKE ON ADDITIONAL AUDIO] COSTS WITHIN THE SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH I AM A HUGE ADVOCATE FOR. WE HAVE A NEW SUBSTATION COMING ONLINE IN THE FALL OF 2027. I WORKED THERE FOR SEVEN YEARS.I KNOW HOW HARD THEY WORK. I DON'T THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO ADD ANY MORE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL. SAFFE OR OTHERWISE. LET ME TELL YOU WHY.
ONE, WE JUST PASSED A BUDGET WHERE OUR POLICE ARE GETTING WELL COMPENSATED AND THEY AGREED TO LOOK AT EIGHT-HOUR SHIFTS AND TEN-HOUR SHIFTS. I THINK WE NEED TO SEE HOW THAT WORKS ON THE LOADS. THE OTHER THING IS WE ARE UNDER THE NEW CHIEF, AND THAT IS CHIEF SALAME, WHO I KNOW IS HERE. AND I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD AND TO COORDINATE WITH THE OVER 40 ENTITIES THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATIONS HERE, IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, AND SEE HOW WE COOPERATE WITH EACH OTHER TO MAKE THE STREETS SAFER.
TO PATROL MORE. TO GET THOSE VEHICLES OUT THERE.
AND THIS DOES NOT -- SO WE HAVE OVER 5,000 OFFICERS AND THIS DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE THE STATE TROOPERS THAT ARE WORKING IN THIS AREA. AND I KNOW THEY'RE WORKING IN THIS AREA BECAUSE THEY GUARD THE ALAMO RIGHT NOW. AND THE PARK RANGERS THAT ARE AT THE MISSIONS. THE NATIONAL PARK RANGERS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT FOR AT LEAST A YEAR, IF NOT TWO, AND THEN WE COME BACK WHEN THE ECONOMY IS STRONGER, WHEN WE HAVE SEEN MORE JOB DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH COME, AND WHEN WE ARE NO LONGER LOSING ANY HEADQUARTERS OR BUSINESSES.
AND WE TALK ABOUT WHERE WE REALLY NEED THE PERSONNEL. BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S EASY TO SAY SAFFE OFFICERS -- AND EVERYBODY LOVES THEIR SAFFE OFFICERS BUT WE MAY NEED IT IN TRAFFIC. WE MAY NEED IT IN PATROL. WE MAY NEED TO CREATE ANOTHER SPECIALIZED UNIT TO DEAL WITH WHITE-COLLAR CRIMES THAT ARE PATROL OFFICERS. THE OTHER THING THAT WE ASK, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THIS COUNCIL ASKED FOR, WAS AN AUDIT OF OVERTIME. AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE WE MOVE ANY FURTHER IN INCREASING THAT. SO WITH THAT SAID, AND WITH THE AMENDMENTS YOU PUT FORWARD, JUSTINA, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT -- I BELIEVE IT'S ITEM NO. 4 ON THE AMENDMENT LIST? CAN WE ELIMINATE ITEM NO. 4 AS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND USE THAT SO THAT WE CAN, FOR A ONE-TIME FEE, KEEP -- ON THE LAST PAGE, ATTACHMENT 2, REVENUE INCREASES.
IF WE CAN KEEP THAT FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET FOR THOSE SEVEN ORGANIZATIONS, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT WE PLAN TO ELIMINATE. SO WE CAN GIVE THEM TIME TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEED IS. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN DO THAT?
>> TATE: JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO ELIMINATE THE FUNDING FOR
THE SAFFE OFFICERS, WHICH IS ABOUT $1.7 MILLION -- >> VIAGRAN: YES.
THE WHOLE $3 MILLION. >> TATE: AND RESTORE FUNDING
THAT ARE LISTED ON THE ATTACHMENT 2? >> VIAGRAN: YES.
>> TATE: WE COULD DO THAT. >> VIAGRAN: THEN COULD WE TAKE THE REMAINING BALANCE AND TRY AND SEE WHAT POSITIONS WE COULD FILL? BECAUSE I REALLY THINK, AFTER PASSING THE BUDGET WE DID -- I'M VERY PROUD OF THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF OUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES RIGHT NOW. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE CAN FILL SOME OF THE FILLED POSITIONS, RESTORE SOME OF THOSE FILLED POSITIONS FOR THE LIBRARY OR METRO HEALTH OR THINGS LIKE THAT WITH THE REMAINING BALANCE OF THAT $3.1 MILLION?
[00:20:03]
>> TATE: WE CAN PULL THAT AND I CAN GET THAT TO ERIK AND WE CAN GET THAT ANSWER.
>> WALSH: YEAH. WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T DO THEM ALL BUT I THINK YOUR INTENT
IS TO DO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE? >> VIAGRAN: DO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE. THE OTHER IS I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE GETTING MOVED AROUND AND THEY MAY WANT TO MOVE. BUT I REALLY WANT TO -- ESPECIALLY WHERE THE LIBRARY IS CONCERNED -- MAKING SURE WE'RE STAFFED SO THAT WE'RE NOT BACK HERE NEXT YEAR TRYING TO GET MORE EMPLOYEES.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY THERE TO DO THAT.
THOSE ARE MY AMENDMENTS. I KNOW I DIDN'T PUT ANY FORWARD BECAUSE I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A TIGHT BUDGET BUT I BELIEVE NOW IS THE TIME TO INVEST.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, WITH THE JOB THAT THE TEAM HAS DONE.
AND OUR BUDGET TEAM WORKS REALLY HARD AND HAS DONE THIS FOR MANY YEARS.
I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT YOU GUYS COME UP AND TAKING THE VOTE TOMORROW.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILWOMAN ALDERETE
GAVITO, PLEASE. >> GAVITO: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ERIK FOR -- AND JUSTINA FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHT OF NOT RAISING AND THE MAYOR'S SENTIMENT FOR NOT RAISING TAXES ON OUR RESIDENTS. I FEEL THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMAN WHYTE AND COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS AND MYSELF HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
WE CAN FIND THE CUTS, BECAUSE WE ABSOLUTELY CAN. THEY'RE GOING TO BE HARD DECISIONS. THEY'RE GOING TO MEAN JUST SHIFTING THINGS AROUND.
THEY'RE GOING TO MEAN THINKING DIFFERENTLY BUT WE'VE BEEN PUSHING ON THIS NOTION FOR A WHILE. WHEN I HEAR THE PROPOSAL ABOUT CUTTING 1.6%, YOU KNOW, SCRATCHING MY HEAD A BIT BECAUSE I THINK COUNCILMAN WHYTE AND HIS TEAM HAVE TALKED ABOUT CUTTING OVERALL 2% ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS.
I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE DOING THIS ALL AT THE LAST MINUTE.
BECAUSE I DO THINK, IN TALKING TO SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES EARLIER, YOU KNOW, THAT IS CUTTING 2%, CUTTING 1.6% IS A TOTALLY REASONABLE PLAN.
BUT WE COULD HAVE BEEN SPENDING THIS TIME LOOKING AT THE IMPLICATIONS THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE. YOU KNOW, WHAT DO THE IMPLICATIONS LOOK LIKE WHEN WE CUT 2% OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHEN WE CUT 2% OF THE WORLD HERITAGE OFFICE AND ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? AGAIN, I'M PUSHING FOR US NOT TO HAVE A TAX RATE INCREASE AND I'M PUSHING FOR US TO MAKE THOSE TOUGH DECISIONS AND MAKE THOSE CUTS. BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN WE'VE HEARD THIS PLAN FROM COUNCILMAN WHYTE ABOUT CUTTING 2% -- FROM COUNCILMAN WHYTE AND HIS TEAM. I'M WONDERING WHY WE'RE DOING THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE. THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS. THANKS.
>> MAYOR JONES: YEAH. I HAVEN'T SEEN A LIST FROM COUNCILMAN WHYTE FOR 2%.
WAS THAT PART OF YOUR MEMO? THAT WAS YESTERDAY. SO LESS THAN 24 HOURS AGO.
BUT THIS SOLVES FOR A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ACROSS TWO YEARS.
NO, NO. WHAT IT DOES IS MAKES THIS FAIR ACROSS THE BOARD.
IT MAKES IT ACROSS THE BOARD. >>
>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU FOR SHARING IT YESTERDAY. THAT WAS 24 HOURS AGO.
>> NO, YOU PRESENTED THIS MEMO YESTERDAY. YOU SAID YOU WOULD SEND A
LIST AND YOU NEVER DID. >> WHYTE: MAYOR, WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR SIX WEEKS DOING
THIS WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. >> MAYOR JONES: I KNOW. >> WHYTE: AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR HERE COMES THE PLAN THAT WE LITERALLY PRESENTED TO YOU.
>> MAYOR JONES: I UNDERSTAND -- OKAY. SURE.
SURE. 1.6% AND THEN ANOTHER 2% IN '28 AVOIDS A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN THE TWO YEARS. SO APPRECIATE THE MEMO THAT WE RECEIVED YESTERDAY AND THE CLARIFICATION, THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT.
COUNCILWOMAN, WAS THAT ALL YOUR COMMENTS? >> GAVITO: YES, BUT I'LL CONTINUE AFTER THAT WHOLE THING. I THINK THE POINT IS TOO THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUTTING FORWARD THE PLANS. WE HAVE BEEN PUTTING FORWARD THE IDEAS. I THINK ALL OF OUR INTENT IS THE SAME IS NOT TO HAVE A PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE. THAT'S WHY, AS PAINFUL AS IT WAS, I WASN'T FOR ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS YESTERDAY. $65 MILLION, WE'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY.
WE NEED TO BE FINDING THE REDUCTIONS INSTEAD OF ADDING ON TO OUR BUDGET.
YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATED D10'S EFFORT IN DOING THE 2% REDUCTION ACROSS THE BOARD.
I THINK IT IS AN IDEA WORTH FLUSHING THROUGH. I'M SCRATCHING MY HEAD BECAUSE WE'RE HEARING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE EXACT SAME PLAN THAT
WE HEARD YESTERDAY. >> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMEMBER KAUR.
>> KAUR: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GO THROUGH AND REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS TO GET TO TODAY.
[00:25:04]
WE'VE KNOWN ABOUT TOMORROW, THE THIRD WEEK OF SEPTEMBER ALWAYS TO VOTE ON OUR BUDGET. AND THAT'S KIND OF THE PATHWAY THAT WE TAKE EVERY YEAR. AND SO HIGHLIGHTING DATES FOR HOW WE GOT HERE, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S MEMORY, I ASKED MY TEAM TO LOOK AT THAT.ON MAY 14 WE DID OUR SIX PLUS SIX BUDGET ADJUSTMENT AND WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE HAD SPENT SIX MONTHS' OF DOLLARS. JUSTINA, CORRECT ME IF I GET ANY OF THIS WRONG. WE THEN, AFTER THAT, WE DID A BUDGET GOAL-SETTING SESSION WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT OUR PRIORITIES WERE AND WE ALL WENT AROUND AND SAID THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE BIG PRIORITIES FOR US.
ON JUNE 17 WE HAD A TRIAL BUDGET. AND AT THAT POINT WE ALL HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WOULD WE BE WILLING TO DO TO ENSURE OUR MOST VULNERABLE AND ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE GETTING THE PROGRAMS THEY NEED.
AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED, A LOT OF THE PROGRAMS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK COULD AFFECT THE MOST VULNERABLE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE.
AND CITY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ALL SUMMER UNDER THE DIRECTION THAT WE PROVIDED IN JUNE. AND AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND WHAT WOULD POSSIBLY BE A TAX INCREASE. AND I BELIEVE WHAT CITY STAFF HEARD WAS THERE WAS SOME CONSENSUS AROUND DOING SOMETHING TO ENSURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS GET THE SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. AND THAT IS WHY THEY WENT BACK, TRIED THEIR HARDEST, HAD SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CUTS, AND GOT US TO A PROPOSED BUDGET ON AUGUST 13. THAT DIDN'T INCLUDE ALL OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE BY STATE LAW BUT THE INCREMENT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO USE TO STILL HAVE POSITIONS THAT WE ARE STILL FORCED TO BEING CUT THAT I HAVE REVIEWED.
THANK YOU, TEAM FOR PUTTING THIS LIST OF POSITIONS TOGETHER.
THOSE ARE REALLY TOUGH POSITIONS WE ARE LOSING IN SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS.
AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE TAKING ON OTHER ROLES BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S WHAT THE CITY NEEDS RIGHT NOW. AND SO WE'RE ALREADY MAKING REALLY TOUGH DECISIONS.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE DID THIS VERY FLIPPANTLY WHERE WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY LOOK AT ANY OF THE DEPARTMENTS, DIDN'T SEE WHERE THERE COULD BE REDUCTIONS.
I THINK CITY STAFF DID A GREAT JOB NEGOTIATING FOR THE CBA AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE WERE AS JUDICIOUS AS POSSIBLE WHILE STILL MAKING OUR OFFICERS FEEL HEARD.
SO ALL THAT TO BE SAID, SINCE AUGUST 13 WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET. AND SO I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE PROPOSED THIS 2% INCREASE YESTERDAY. I ALSO REMEMBER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING YESTERDAY WE HEARD A DISCUSSION ABOUT IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS TAX RATE TOMORROW -- I WAS GOING TO SAY NEXT WEEK. IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS TAX RATE TOMORROW, THE TEAM HAS TO THEN GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE CUT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT 1.6% OF EVERY DEPARTMENT LOOKS LIKE.
I HAD TO QUICKLY TRY TO GO BACK AND SEE WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY DIRECTOR FEELS COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO COME UP AND SAY WHAT THEY WOULD CUT. LIKE, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR DSD, FOR PUBLIC WORKS? THOSE ARE HUGE DEPARTMENTS. WHAT DOES 1.6% EVEN MEAN? WHO ARE WE CUTTING? WE HAVE NO IDEA. WE'RE BARELY FIGHTING OVER THE 14 EMPLOYEES THAT HAVEN'T ACCEPTED THEIR JOBS. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT 1.6% MEANS ACROSS THE BOARD. ERIK, DO YOU HAVE ANY COLOR TO WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK
LIKE? >> WALSH: WELL, SO WE CAN READ OFF SOME OF THE NUMBERS WE CALCULATED WHAT 1.6% IS IN DEPARTMENTS. AND IN SOME DEPARTMENTS IT'S
GOING TO BE HARDER THAN OTHERS. >> VILLAGOMEZ: GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 1.6%, BASED ON THE '27 PROPOSED BUDGET, IS ROUGHLY $28.2 MILLION, WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE PROPOSED TAX RATE INCREASE THAT WE HAVE IN THE PROPOSED. THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS POLICE AND FIRE. 11 -- CLOSE TO $12 MILLION IS POLICE AND FIRE.
FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC WORKS AT $1.8 MILLION. WE ALSO HAVE ANIMAL CARE SERVICES, $600,000. PARKS AND RECREATION, $1.1 MILLION.
AND THEN THE LIBRARY, CLOSE TO A MILLION DOLLARS, TO MENTION A FEW.
THAT WOULD BE THE MAJORITY OF THE CUTS. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC IMPACT TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS. WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM TO COME UP WITH WHAT
SPECIFICALLY WE WOULD BE REDUCING. >> KAUR: $1.6 MILLION OF PUBLIC WORKS, ESPECIALLY IF THAT WAS COMING FROM SIDEWALKS, WOULD BE REALLY FRUSTRATING FOR MY RESIDENTS. I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS ALL SUMMER WITH MY RESIDENTS AND EXPLAINING TO THEM THIS IS WHAT OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS RIGHT NOW. IT IS TOUGH. IT IS REALLY TOUGH, I UNDERSTAND. BUT FOR AN AVERAGE MEDIAN HOME OF 220K FOR $3 A MONTH, IF YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING PEOPLE, IF YOUR HOME VALUE IS DOUBLE THAT, DOUBLE WHAT THAT WOULD COST AND REALIZE THAT THAT IS PUTTING DOLLARS INTO PROGRAMS THAT REALLY
[00:30:01]
NEED IT. INTO PUBLIC WORKS, INTO LIBRARY THAT'S ALREADY HAD SO MANY -- WE'VE ALREADY CUT --E COMPREHENSIVE BUDGET REVIEW ON THE LIBRARY.I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A MILLION DOLLARS WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THE LIBRARY RIGHT NOW. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THIS IS -- I FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE A LOT OF HARD WORK TO GET TO THIS POINT AND I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IS IT -- WHAT MESSAGE DO WE WANT TO SEND TO OUR RESIDENTS ABOUT WHAT WE FEEL THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR CITY AND OUR CITY BUDGET IS.
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT FOR THE NEXT 24 HOURS.
AS FAR AS THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU CAME UP WITH, WHEN I READ THEM LAST NIGHT, I WAS LIKE, WOW, YOU GUYS CREATIVELY PUT THIS TOGETHER.
I DO HAVE SOME OF THE SIMILAR SENTIMENT AS MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE OFFICERS. I THREW THIS OUT TO MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE THE MEETING SO I'M GOING TO SHARE IT PUBLICLY IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD FEEDBACK. I KNOW OUR NORTH SIDE COLLEAGUES HAVE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL PATROL. RATHER THAN DOING TEN SAFFE OFFICERS ACROSS THE BOARD, MY PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE THAT TO TWO OR THREE FOR THE NORTH SIDE FOLKS WHO FEEL THEY NEED AN ADDITIONAL PATROL AT THEIR SUBSTATION. THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO CUT ALL THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING LIST IN ADDITIONAL REVENUE, PARTICULARLY FROM LISC FUND. ALL OF THE THINGS 1 TO 7 I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IN THE BUDGET. I THINK BIOMED SA DOES GREAT WORK.
I KNOW SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES FEEL THE SAME. CHILDCARE FOR BOARD MEMBERS, WE ALREADY DON'T PAY OUR BOARD MEMBERS. IT'S NOT A POSITIO THAT'S PAID AND THAT'S ELIMINATING ONE THING THAT CREATES ACCESS.
AS WELL AS THE AMBASSADOR PROGRAM. I HAD SOME REALLY GREAT AMBASSADORS THIS SUMMER BUT I UNDERSTAND IF WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM UP.
I UNDERSTAND IF WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOME COMPROMISE WITHIN THOSE AMENDMENTS.
THANTHANKS, MAYOR. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO,
PLEASE. >> CASTILLO: THANK YOU, JUSTINA FOR THE PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE THE BUDGET TEAM AND ALL THEIR WORK PUTTING INTO TODAY'S BRIEFING AND THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS. A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A HANDFUL OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND WE WERE DISCUSSING THE PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENT AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND SERVICES. I ASKED WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS WERE AND THEY SAID, WELL, WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT MY BUDGET FOR MY BUSINESS AND IF I'M HAVING ISSUES IN TERMS OF EXPENSES AND COSTS ASSOCIATED, I LOOK AT WHAT IS MY BIGGEST EXPENSE WITHIN MY BUDGET. IS IT LABOR? IS IT COST FOR GOODS? IS IT UTILITIES? AND THEN I TAKE A STEP BACK WHILE OPERATING MY BUSINESS AND LOOK AT THE GOODS. DO I NEED TO IDENTIFY ANOTHER VENDOR? MAYBE WE NEED TO SWITCH THE BRAND, OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
ULTIMATELY, WHAT THEY LEFT ME WITH IS THAT NO CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE, DRASTIC CHANGES, UNTIL THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING WITH A LARGE CHUNK OF THEIR BUDGET IS SPENT ON. HE SAID WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED WAS SITTING WITH THE LARGEST PORTION OF OUR BUDGET AND POTENTIALLY AUDITING WHERE THERE COULD BE COST SAVINGS. I UNDERSTAND, WITH PUBLIC SAFETY IT HAS GONE THROUGH AUDIT. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS.
BUT THE COMMUNITY HAS ASKED FOR A LARGER-SCALE AUDIT. I FEEL LIKE IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE FOR US TO CONTINUE TO INVEST IN A COMPONENT, PARTICULARLY LINE ITEM 4, WHEN WE'RE SEEING A REDUCTION IN VIOLENT CRIME IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND JUST UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT FINANCIAL IMPACT WILL BE IN THE LONG TERM.
WHAT FOLKS HAVE MENTIONED, THAT LINE ITEM 4 WILL HAVE REOCCURRING COSTS IN TERMS OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND WITH THAT LINE ITEM, GOING TOWARDS REINSTATING THE SUSTAINABILITY POSITION THAT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION. AGAIN, WE KNOW WHEN WE EXPERIENCED THE EXTREME WEATHER STORM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, IT WAS A RESILIENCY HUBS THAT SUSTAINABILITY HAS CONNECTED AND EDUCATED THE COMMUNITY ON THE VALUE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING CONNECTED TO THOSE SPACES.
AS WE EXPERIENCE MORE EXTREME WEATHER CONDITIONS, WE SHOULD BE INVESTING MORE IN OUR SUSTAINABILITY TEAM. I SEE VALUE IN MOVING SOME OF THOSE FUNDS TO REINSTATE THE CLIMATE ADAPTATION POSITION. I ALSO WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT THE VALUE OF THE SAN ANTONIO AMBASSADOR PROGRAM AND SEEING THAT AS A POTENTIAL REDUCTION, I SEE VALUE IN USING LINE ITEM $4 TO GO INTO THE SAN ANTONIO AMBASSADOR PROGRAM. I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES HAVE MENTIONED OTHER AREAS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE INVESTED BEYOND 4 AND I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THOSE ITEMS. BUT AGAIN, I THINK FOR US TO ZERO OUT VACANCIES AND MOVE FOLKS TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, WHICH I'M GRATEFUL THAT A PLACEMENT WAS FOUND FOR THEM, I FEEL LIKE IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO CREATE NEW POSITIONS WHEN WE'RE EXPECTING A DEFICIT NEXT YEAR.
REDIRECTING LINE ITEM $4 FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
[00:35:04]
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN WHYTE'S RECOMMENDATION ISN'T 2% REDUCTION.WHAT I SHARED WITH THE COUNCILMAN WAS 2%, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR SUSTAINABILITY IS AN ENTIRE POSITION VERSUS LOOKING AT 2% FOR SAPD.
BUT I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION BUT I FEEL HAVING -- NOT BASED OFF OF YOUR SUGGESTION BUT DISCUSSING THIS TODAY AS A CONSIDERATION IS IRRESPONSIBLE, GIVEN WE'RE VOTING ON THE BUDGET TOMORROW AND WE HAVE BEEN HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS SINCE MAY. BUT I APPRECIATE YOU SITTING DOWN WITH ME, TALKING ABOUT THAT RECOMMENDATION. WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE.
TOTO ME IS LOOKS LIKE REDUCING THE DEPARTMENTS THAT MY CONSTITUENTS RELY ON. THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENT. THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR JONES: MARIA OR JUSTINA, FOR EVERYONE'S EDIFICATION, CAN YOU HELP US
IN THE THE DIFFERENCE FROM SAVINGS OF 1.6% TO 2%? >> SO IF WE REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND 1.6%, THAT'S $28.2 MILLION. IF WE REDUCE IT BY 2% IT'S
$35.3 MILLION. >> MAYOR JONES: GREAT. THANK YOU, MARIA.
COUNCILMAN GALVAN, PLEASE. >> GALVAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR AND JUSTINA FOR THE PRESENTATION AND FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE BEEN PUTTING TOGETHER FOR THE AMENDMENTS LAST NIGHT AND HEARING US YESTERDAY WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE, RESTORE, REDUCE IN WHATEVER WAY WE CAN TO MAKE THIS BUDGET BALANCED. I WANT TO ECHO A LOT OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER KAUR MENTIONED ABOUT THE ACROSS THE BOARD POSITIONS.
IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO MAKE THAT FULL DECISION -- LET ME ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR JUSTINA OR ERIK OR FOR THE TEAM. INSTEAD OF DOING THE TAX INCREASE, 1 POINT OF% CUT, THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT IDENTIFIED CUTS AS WELL, RIGHT? HOW MUCH IS THAT ONE, 40 MILLION?
>> YES, IT WOULD BE ON TOP OF THE ADDITIONAL CUTS PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET.
>> GALVAN: FIRST AND FOREMOST IF WE'RE CAN YOUING ALL THE WAY WE'RE NOT ADDING ANYTHING BACK IN. WE'RE JUST GOING TO CUT ACROSS THE BOARD MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS THAT WILL BE LOSING ALL KINDS OF SERVICES THAT OUR RESIDENTS RELY ON.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE AND I WISH I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT.
I'M ASSUMING BASED ON THE SCENARIO A, I KNOW AREN'T GOING TO ADD UP TO 1, 2%, BUT I ASSUME THOSE WOULD BE LOOKED AT IN ANY OF THE BUDGETS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR TAX INCREASE. IS THAT A FAIR ASSUMPTION, ERIK?
>> ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, COUNCILMEMBER? >> GALVAN: I ASSUME IF WE DID 1.6 ACROSS THE BOARD FOR '11, THE 75 MILLION ADDITIONAL CUTS WOULD BE SIMILAR? SOME OF THE POSITIONS IDENTIFIED FOR EACH
DEPARTMENT. >> 1.6, WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE 1.7-MILLION-DOLLAR
ADJUSTMENT TO PUBLIC WORKS. >> GALVAN: THOSE WOULD BE THE ONES TO LIKELY COME UP.
I'M SAYING THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT COLOR THAT I HAVE ON THIS IDEA.
I THINK ABOUT THAT, I THINK ABOUT NON-SERVICE HOW IT WORKS OR PAVEMENT MARKINGS IN PUBLIC WORKS THAT ARE REDUCED. IT MAY NOT FEEL LIKE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS AT THE MOMENT, BUT I JUST STRUGGLE WITH THE IDEA OF MAKING ARREST OUR SERVICES OF LESS QUALITY IN THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT.
I GET IT THAT'S WHERE THE TRADE-OFF IS AT RIGHT NOW DO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE REDUCING COSTS IN SOME WAY NO MATTER HOW SMALL THEY MIGHT BE TO A RESIDENT AND SACRIFICE QUALITY SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS AND ACS AND POLICE AND FIRE AND ALL THE ABOVE, ALL THE PRIORITY SERVICES, AND MORE. OR ARE WE GOING TO SAY THAT AFTER 30-PLUS YEARS MAYBE IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT WE ADJUST A LITTLE BIT FOR A POPULATION THAT'S GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE THAT TIME TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXPENSES AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE SEEING A SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN? IT'S A DIFFICULT ONE, I GET IT. I DON'T THINK I'M THERE ON A 1 POINT OF OR ACROSS THE BOARD PERCENT BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE WHAT IT WOULD BE, BUT SOME OF THE ONES THAT I HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IT COULD BE MAKE ME GENERALLY A BIT NERVOUS. IF THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL TODAY SAYS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD ON, HOW WILL WE SEE THAT DISPLAYED? WOULD IT BE TONIGHT?
WOULD IT BE TOMORROW MORNING? >> PREFERABLY IT WOULD BE
THIS AFTERNOON. >> GALVAN: FAIR ENOUGH. >> YEAH.
EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO WEIGH IN ON THE AMENDMENTS AND THE PROPOSAL THAT THE MAYOR LAID OUT OR COUNCILMAN WHYTE LAID OUT YESTERDAY, BUT REALISTICALLY AND PRACTICALLY I THINK THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THESE BUDGET WORK SESSIONS BACK TO BACK AT THE END SO THAT YOU GUYS CAN HAVE CONTINUOUS CONVERSATION, AND KIND OF
[00:40:02]
THE GOAL TODAY FOR ME WOULD BE TO WALK OUT OF HERE WITH ENOUGH DIRECTION TO PROVIDE YOU A MEMO, YOU AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL A MEMO TODAY OF WHAT THE PLAN IS TOMORROW. THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE ONTHURSDAY'S AGENDA. THAT'S MY GOAL. >> GALVAN: YEAH.
I APPRECIATE THAT. I GUESS I'M CONCERNED TOO THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO -- IF WE MOVE THIS DIRECTION, TOMORROW WE SEE THINGS THAT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT TO SEE AND WE HAVE THIS SAME CONVERSATION TOMORROW. THAT'S OF COURSE OUR DISCUSSION HERE. BUT I WANT TO LAY THAT OUT FOR MYSELF ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC AND MY COLLEAGUES HERE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A RIGHT SOLUTION AT THIS MOMENT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND I'D BE CONCERNED IF IT MEANS CERTAIN PROGRAMMING FROM OUR PARKS ARE CUT OR LIBRARIES CUT IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS ALREADY BEING PROPOSED TO BE REDUCED. I'M NOT SOMEONE WHO ENJOYS LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN INCREASE REVENUE INTO OUR CITY BY NICKEL AND DIMING OUR RESIDENTS. IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF FACEBOOK THAT OUR EXPENSES ARE EXPENSES, PLAIN AND CERTAINLY, AND THEY'RE SERVICES OUR RESIDENTS ARE EXPECTING. I HEARD IT IN MY DISTRICT 6 TOWN HALL, I'VE HEARD IT IN THE BUDGET SURVEY WE'VE PUT OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
I'VE HEARD IT FROM PEOPLE CALLING IN. WE OF COURSE HAVE A MIXED VIEW ON IT. BUT I SEE A MAJORITY OF FOLKS TELLING ME IN DISTRICT 6, LOOK, I GET IT. IF IT MEANS THAT THE HEALTH OF OUR COMMUNITY IS TABLE, WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT. IF IT MEANS WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT EDUCATION SUPPORTED IN OUR COMMUNITY, WE HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
IF IT MEANS THE BASIC SERVICES THAT I'M ASKING FOR, THAT I'M CALLING YOUR OFFICE TO USUALLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT THEY'RE NOT DOING ENOUGH CAN AT LEAST STAY MAINTAINED IF NOT A LITTLE IMPROVED? THAT'S GOING TO BE OKAY.
THAT'S THE REALITY OF WHERE WE'RE AT. I DON'T THINK I CAN SUPPORT THAT. I'M MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS LAID OUT AT YESTERDAY AUTOS MEETING AND THE FOLLOW-UP LAST NIGHT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM CITY MANAGEMENT. I ECHO MY COLLEAGUE'S STATEMENTS, COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO ON THE RESE POSITIONS IN PARTICULAR ALONG WITH THE OVERTIME AUDITS. I'M GRATEFUL TO SEE SAPD GETTING A MILLION FOR A SEMESTER. I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE HOW WE CAN GET IT TO A FULL YEAR. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT AT THE MOMENT.
THOSE ARE MY INITIAL COMMENTS AT THE MOMENT. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER MEZA GONZÁLEZ. >> GONZÁLEZ: THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO -- JUSTINA AND YOUR TEAM FOR GETTING US HERE AND WORKING THROUGH THOSE AMENDMENTS YESTERDAY. I'M SURE IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US AS A CITY, AS AN ORGANIZATION, AND TO EXPLAIN TO OUR RESIDENTS THAT THIS IS OUR NEW NORMAL. AND I UNDERSTAND THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF FINANCES AND YOU COULD ASK ANY CFO AND THEY'LL TELL YOU WHAT GOES UP COMES DOWN AND OPPOSITE.
BUT THIS IS MORE THAN THAT TO ME. BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS WE HAVE AT OUR STATE GOVERNMENT WITH THE 3.5% GAP AND AT THE OTHER END IT IS INFLATION AND DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE SOMEWHAT INFLEXIBLE AND RIGHTFULLY SO FOR THE MOST PART, AND WE'RE TRYING TO SQUEEZE EVERY LITTLE BIT BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOT ONLY MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WITH OUR ACTUAL BUDGET, BUT EVEN IN HOW WE ARE PREPARING THAT BUDGET TO THE COMMUNITY.
WHETHER IT'S THROUGH PRESENTATIONS AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME, BUT WHETHER IT WAS THROUGH THE PRESENTATIONS OR TOWN HALLS, THEY LOOKED ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE THE ONES I WOULD SEE WHEN I WAS IN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
IT'S JUST NOT THE SAME. EVEN US BEING HERE FOUR YEARS IS DIFFERENCE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST ARE CLEAR TO RESIDENTS THAT HOW WE GOT HERE AND WHY WE'RE IN THIS POSITION. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE 1.6 AND TWO PERCENT CUT. OBVIOUSLY I THINK LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, I NEED MORE TIME AND MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
I THINK WE WERE ALL ELECTED TO MAKE TOUGH CHOICES, AND SOME OF THAT DOES INCLUDE AN INCREASE TO TAXES AND A SAWS RATE INCREASE AND CPS RATE INCREASE THAT I WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO, BUT AS A BIG CITY, A GROWING CITY, A CITY THAT STILL WANTS TO BE OPEN AND INCLUSIVE TO EVERYBODY THAT COMES HERE, THAT IS PART OF THE JOB.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. I TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY. I HAVE 25,000 HOMESTEADS IN MY DISTRICT. 10,000 OF THOSE HOMESTEADS ARE FROZEN.
THEY WILL NOT BE IMPACTED BY THIS RATE YES. I WILL.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT 8. WE HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, BUT I WILL BE IMPACTED BY THAT. SO THERE'S A LOT GOING ON I THINK IN EVERYBODY'S
[00:45:04]
CALCULUS RIGHT NOW AND WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO LAND, BUT I AM -- I'M READY TO MAKE THAT TOUGH CHOICE BUT I ALSO DO WANT TO SEE WHAT THIS 1.6-2% SCENARIO LOOKS LIKE.AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ONE PERCENT ACROSS THE BOARD, WHAT DOES THAT DO
AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, MARIA? >> THE 1.6, COUNCILWOMAN?
>> GONZÁLEZ: SAID OF THE 1.6 IT WAS ONE PERCENT ACROSS THE BOARD IN '27 AND
'28. >> ONE PERCENT IS ABOUT $17.5 MILLION.
>> GONZÁLEZ: SAY THAT AGAIN. >> 17.5 MILLION IS ONE
PERCENT OF THE GENERAL FUND. >> GONZÁLEZ: AND THAT WOULD ALSO NOT REQUIRE --
>> NO. IN ORDER NOT TO HAVE A PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE WE GO BACK TO SCENARIO A, $75 MILLION IN CUTS OVER TWO YEARS, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE MAYOR PROPOSED, THE 1.6% IN FISCAL YEAR '27 AND ANOTHER TWO PERCENT IN '28.
>> SO THERE'S AN 11-MILLION-DOLLAR GAP BETWEEN A ONE PERCENT --
>> GONZÁLEZ: YEAH. OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS
FOR NOW. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY, THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MUNGIA, PLEASE.
>> MUNGIA: SO ERIK, JUST TO CLARIFY, EXCUSE ME, THE 1.6 REDUCTION IN '11 IS EVERY DEPARTMENT -- '27 IS EVERY DEPARTMENT CUTTING 1.6%?
>> THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTED. >> MUNGIA: OKAY.
>> AND LET ME SAY THIS, THERE OBVIOUSLY ARE ELEMENTS OF OUR BUDGET THAT WE COULDN'T DO, LIKE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. SO WE'D HAVE TO MAKE IT UP
SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> MUNGIA: SOME DEPARTMENTS WILL SEE MORE THAN 1.6 REDUCTION BECAUSE OF STATUTORILY -- LIKE THE SERVICES WE TALKED ABOUT.
SOME THINGS ARE MANDATED BY LAW TO DO IN CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT THAT CUT INTO OTHER DEPARTMENTS. SO SOME FOLKS, SOME DEPARTMENTS WILL MORE THAN LIKELY SEE MORE THAN A 1.6 CUT IF THE MAYOR'S PLAN IS
PASSED. >> PERHAPS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE STATEMENT. IF YOU WANT TO PAUSE THE COUNCILMAN'S TIME.
>> MAYOR JONES: PLEASE. PRACTICALLY SPEAKING AS I'M THINKING ABOUT THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTION OVER HERE, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, IF YOU ALL DECIDE TO DO THAT TOMORROW AND ADOPT THE BUDGET, THEN OWE WE WE EVERYBODY'S BUDGET TOMORROW IN THE ORDINANCE WOULD CHANGE. THEN WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DEPARTMENTS AND MANAGE DOWN AND BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT DOES THAT 1.7-MILLION-DOLLAR IMPACT TO PUBLIC WORKS LOOK LIKE. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO POLICE AND SO FORTH? BUT YOU WOULD ADOPT THE BUDGET TOMORROW AT THAT LOWER AMOUNT AND IT WOULD BE US TO US TO MANAGE TO THAT. WE WILL NOT HAVE THAT THIS AFTERNOON OR TOMORROW MORNING. WE WOULD JUST NEED TO MANAGE AS WE GO THROUGH THE YEAR, AND THAT WOULD BE -- DEPARTMENTS CAN'T GO -- IN THE BUDGET ORDINANCE DEPARTMENTS CAN'T GO OVER BUDGET SO WE WOULD JUST NEED TO PRACTICALLY MANAGE TO THAT NUMBER, THAT NEW NUMBER, IF THAT'S ADJUSTED IN THE BUDGET ORDINANCE, BUT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE -- THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A LIST WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SAY THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. BECAUSE THINGS WILL COME UP DURING THE YEAR AND WE'LL NEED TO MANAGE TO IT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS DECIDE
TO DO. >> MUNGIA: IN THE PROPOSAL AS IT STANDS ON THE 1.6 REDUCTION AND FISCAL YEAR -- ON TOP OF THAT THERE WOULD BE A TWO PERCENT REDUCTION.
>> YEAH. AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MAYOR IS DOING AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MAYOR, IT WOULD BE PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR '28 PLAN.
THINGS CHANGE AND THEN THEY CHANGE. >> MUNGIA: I WANT TO MAKE SURE IN PRINCIPLE MY UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT. SO CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME
THE RESERVES? WHAT'S THAT ABOUT? >> OUR FINANCIAL RESERVES ARE A PERCENTAGE, 15% OF OUR OPERATING REVENUES IN THE GENERAL FUND SO IF THERE IS NO PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE OUR PROPERTY TAX WILL BE LOWER THAN WHAT'S IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET SO THAT CALCULATION OF THE 15% WILL BE MADE IN A LOWER AMOUNT.
SO THAT REDUCES THE FINANCIAL RESERVES. THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANT.
>> MUNGIA: BECAUSE OF THE OPERATING BUDGET BEING LOWER.
>> THE OPERATING REVENUES BEING LOWER THAN THE PROPOSED.
[00:50:03]
>> MUNGIA: GOTCHA. SO I GUESS MY CONCERN OBVIOUSLY, AND I OF COURSE WOULDN'T EXPECT YOU TO HAVE THIS, BUT NOT KNOWING WHAT IS GOING TO BE CUT IS WHAT GIVES ME PAUSE ONLY BECAUSE, AGAIN, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE MAY AND THIS REALLY HASN'T BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
AND SO WHEN WE HAD OUR BUDGET TOWN HALLS, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE STAFF'S C AND E, WAS THE GREATEST PARTICIPATION EVER SO FAR. THIS WASN'T PART OF IT, RIGHT? WHAT WE DISCUSSED BACK THEN WAS A TAX INCREASE EFFECT AND THEN WHAT WAS THE EFFECT OF CUTS IF THERE WAS NO TAX INCREASE.
SO WE HAD THE CUTS AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING THE CUTS IN SCENARIO A ARE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU WILL BE DOING BECAUSE THIS MANDATE IS A 1.6 ACROSS THE BOARD VERSUS TAKING A SCALPEL TO THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT BUDGETS AND OUTLINING PROGRAMS AND TAKING THEM OUT. SO THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME PAUSE IS THAT WHAT I SHOWED MY RESIDENTS AS THE ALTERNATIVE IS ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE ACCURATE, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT, AND THIS IS IN SOME WAY CEDING AUTHORITY TO YOU TO MAKE DECISIONS AND TO YOUR DEPARTMENTS TO MAKE DECISIONS OUTSIDE OF WHAT I THINK IS BEST FOR MY RESIDENTS OR WHAT I THINK MY RESIDENTS NEED THE MOST, RIGHT? SO THESE ARE FINE FOLKS, ALL THE DIRECTORS ARE GREAT FOLKS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY MAKE A CUT TO SAY HOW ARE WE GOING TO HELP D4 OUT ON THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET? THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE CUT SYSTEM-WIDE, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE FOR D4 AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY UP HERE CAN TELL WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE ON ANY RESPECTIVE COUNCIL DISTRICT. SO THIS CUT IS JUST FOR GENERAL FUND, SO IT DOESN'T
TOUCH ENTERPRISE FUNDS? >> I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL IS ON THE GENERAL
FUND. >> MAYOR JONES: THAT'S CORRECT.
>> MUNGIA: SO I JUST THINK AT THIS POINT, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAD BROUGHT FORTH FROM YOUR TEAM, ERIK, BASED ON THE INCREASES IS PRETTY BALANCED ON INTEREST SO CERTAINLY THERE COULD BE TWEAKING THERE, BUT WITHOUT NOACK WHAT THE CUTS ARE GOING TO BE, I DON'T THINK I COULD GO TO RESIDENTS TODAY OR TOMORROW OR FRIDAY AND SAY I DID THIS, SURE, WE PREVENTED A TAX INCREASE, BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU, TO THIS COMMUNITY CENTER THAT WE'RE SITTING IN. SO I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE ALTERNATIVE FROM THE GET AND NOT HAVING THAT INFORMATION NOW IS NOT DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE TO MY RESIDENTS AND PROVIDING TRANSPARENCY ON WHAT THEY CAN EXPECT TO BE REDUCED THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS. SO I THINK WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS GREAT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROGRAMS, WHAT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, WHAT SHOULD NOT BE THROUGHOUT DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER ENTITIES.
I WORRY ABOUT A 1.6 CUT TO HOMELESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, IS THAT A STAFF PERSON, IS THAT A PROGRAM? THE NEW PROGRAM THAT THEY'VE BEEN TELLING FOLKS THEY'RE GOING TO DO? YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT NOW, CAN YOU? NO. SO THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO DO ALL THAT.
FOR SOME OF THE SMALLER DEPARTMENTS WILL ALSO HAVE THE EFFECT.
WITH THIS 1.6% REDUCTION WILL THERE BE A COLA ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY STAFF?
>> AS IT STANDS, YES, BECAUSE WHAT THE MAYOR IS PROPOSING IS TO REPLACE PERMANENT REVENUE FROM TAX, THE TAX ADJUSTMENT, WITH PERMANENT CUTS.
SO IT WOULDN'T IMPACT ANYTHING ELSE. >> MUNGIA: SO THERE'S STILL AT LEAST IN THIS SITUATION WOULD BE A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT,.
>> AS I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTION, YES, SIR.
>> MUNGIA: BUT YOU CAN'T SAY IT FOR CERTAINTY NOW -- THE CITY MANAGER CAN SAY IT
FOR CERTAINTY FOR NOW. >> MAYOR JONES: HE WAS SAYING THAT'S MY PROPOSAL.
I AGREE WITH THAT, THAT'S RIGHT. >> MUNGIA: OKAY.
SO YEAH, I JUST WORRY THAT NOT KNOWING WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING TO BE CUT IS A PROBLEM FOR ME, AND THANK YOU CHANGING AT THE LAST MINUTE TO WHAT RESIDENTS CAN EXPECT IS QUITE DIFFERENT. AT THIS POINT I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS, ERIK.
I THINK THAT'S A TOTAL REVERSAL TO THE STAFF THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON THESE AMENDMENTS BECAUSE ALL OF THIS WORK THAT WAS JUST DONE BY THE AMENDMENT PROCESS DIDN'T HAVE TO BE DONE IF WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS SIGNIFICANT CUT.
SO I HAVE QUESTIONS. I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHWEST PROGRAM.
SO IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THAT ANYTHING ON THIS AMENDMENT LIST FOR EXPENDITURE
ADJUSTMENTS WOULD GO AWAY? >> WHAT SCENARIO, COUNCILMAN?
>> MUNGIA: UNDER THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL THAT SHE JUST TOLD US.
>> MAYOR JONES: YOU CAN STILL CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS AS PART OF THAT.
>> YEAH. I THINK THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTION IS DIFFERENT THAN THE AMENDMENTS. IT'S KIND OF LIKE IT'S OVERLAID ABOVE IT.
SO THE AMENDMENTS WOULD STAY. >> MAYOR JONES: EXACTLY,
WE WOULD STILL -- >> IF YOU GUYS WANT IT TO STAY.
>> MUNGIA: IF WE WANT IT TO SAY. THAT MEANS THE ADJUSTMENT OF
[00:55:05]
1.6 WON'T BE FELT BY EVERY DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THESE AMENDMENTS WILL CHANGE WHATTHE BUDGET DEPARTMENT WILL BE. >> IT'S SLIGHT.
IT'S $6 MILLION OUT OF 7. IT WON'T BE MUCH. >> MUNGIA: AND THE 1.6 INCREASE, DOES THAT ALSO ASSUME THE POTENTIAL REVENUE INCREASES THAT ARE ON
ATTACHMENT 2? >> YES. >> MUNGIA: SO THE 1.6 REDUCTION DOES INCLUDE THE FEE INCREASES? ENCOURAGE THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT EXPENSE REDUCTIONS. IT WOULD NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON ANY REVENUE CHANGES YOU ALL HAVE DISCUSSED OR THAT I PROPOSE.
>> MUNGIA: SO THE REVENUE INCREASES WOULD STILL CONTINUE.
>> YES, SIR. >> MUNGIA: WE'RE GOING TO SLASH FUNDING AND ALSO INCREASE THE FEES AND THE BOOT REQUIREMENTS AND THE VACANT LOTS AND TOWING FEE, ALL THAT IS STILL GOING TO GO UP, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SLASH THOSE SERVICES BASICALLY. OKAY. WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THESE DETAILS, AT THIS POINT I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT.
MORE TRANSPARENT TO FOLKS AND SO AT THIS POINT I JUST DON'T SUPPORT IT.
THANK YOU, ERIK. >> MAYOR JONES: I JUST WANT TO SAY A FEW THINGS ABOUT THIS. AND I CAN APPRECIATE AS SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE DAIS LONGER THAN I HAVE, YOU ALL KNOW THAT THIS IS THE PROCESS.
YOU GET TO THIS POINT, YOU KIND OF LOOK AT EVERYTHING AS LAID OUT AND THEN YOU UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHERE FOLKS ARE WILLING TO GIVE AND WHERE THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO GIVE. AND SO I CAN APPRECIATE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONCERN WITH, WELL, HOW IS 1.6 REDUCTION IN THE HOMELESS SERVICES AND STRATEGY GOING TO AFFECT THEM. THE FY'27 PROPOSED BUDGET IS $5.26 BILLION, ONE PERCENT OF THAT IS $82,000. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1.6 PERCENT.
AND SO I HONESTLY -- THE REASON I PROPOSED THIS IS BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE IDEALLY SEEN THAT WE HAD REAL OPPORTUNITIES TO HELP OURSELVES BOTH IN TERMS OF, FRANKLY, USING OTHER POTS OF MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE FREED UP THE GENERAL FUND. AND I AM SURPRISED, FRANKLY, ABOUT SOME OF THE UNWILLINGNESS TO DO THAT. I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT, FRANKLY POTENTIAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE TO OUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT'S STILL IN THIS BUDGET? THE 700,000-DOLLAR FIESTA SUBSIDY? DO YOU KNOW WHAT'S STILL IN THIS BUDGET? $2 MILLION TO UT PUBLIC HEALTH ON TOP OF THE CUTS TO MATERNAL MORTALITY, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER -- THE EVICTION PREVENTION THAT I ASKED US TO CONSIDER MOVING THAT FROM DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE TO EVICTION PRESENTATION, THAT'S STILL IN HERE.
SO I'M MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT, FRANKLY, THE FAT THAT IS STILL IN THIS BUDGET VERSUS SOME OF THE REDUCTIONS. AT 1.6 ACROSS THE BOARD I THINK IS FAIR AND IS MANAGEABLE AND ALLOWS US TO UNEQUIVOCALLY SAY TO OUR COMMUNITY WE HAVE DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE, THAT WE CAN WITH WHAT WE HAVE.
THIS IS A FAIR KIND OF SACRIFICE ACROSS THE DEPARTMENTS, 1.6%, AND WE CAN SAY WE WILL NOT RAISE YOUR PROPERTY TAXES IN '27 AND '28.
THAT GIVES CERTAINLY THE -- STAFF PLANNING PURPOSES. AND AGAIN IDEALLY HOPEFULLY 28 IS BETTER, BUT THIS AT LEAST ALLOWS US TO SAY THAT WE HAVE -- WE'VE DONE THE HARD WORK OF REDUCING WHERE WE CAN AND MOVING SOME EXPENSES TO BUCKETS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO COVER THAT. BUT ABSENT AN UNWILLINGNESS TO DO THOSE THINGS, I THINK WE DO HAVE TO REDUCE SPENDING. WE DO HAVE TO CHANGE SOME OF THE SPENDING BEHAVIORS THAT GOT US TO THIS POINT, SO HENCE THE RECOMMENDATION.
OKAY. COUNCILMAN WHYTE, PLEASE. >> WHYTE: THANKS, MAYOR.
AND WE AGREE, WE AGREE. AND LISTEN, IFSLESS I WAS I WASO COME HERE TODAY AND SAY THAT THE PLAN THAT THE CITY MANAGER FINALIZED LAST NIGHT WAS THE WAY TO GO BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THE SHIP HAD SAILED HONESTLY BECAUSE FOR THE LAST SIX, EIGHT WEEKS I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT WE NEED NOT TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES ON PEOPLE, BUT WE NEED TO DO IT THROUGH SPENDING CUTS. I MEAN, YOU ALL HAVE BEEN SICK OF ME, SICK HE MULTI-FAMILY SAYING IT, I'M SURE, AND THEN WE GET TO THIS WEEK, WHICH IS AMENDMENT WEEK, AND THAT'S WHY I PUT FORTH THAT PROPOSAL YESTERDAY FOR TWO PERCENT ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS FOR THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR TO HELP US AVOID THE PROPERTY TAX HIKE. NOW IT APPEARS THAT
[01:00:08]
POTENTIALLY THIS IS BACK ON THE TABLE, AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S MY PROPOSAL, THE MAYOR'S OR THE MAN ON THE MOON'S, IT DOESN'T MATTER.THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO NOT ASK OUR CITIZENS TO SAY MORE.
AND IT IS TO MAKE THE CUTS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE. DO OUR JOBS AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, STOP THE OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING. AND IN THE END THAT WILL BE DOING RIGHT BY THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO. FOR THE LAST SIX WEEKS WE'VE BEEN OFF ON THESE WILD GOOSE CHASES OF MOVING -- YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MOVE TIRZ MONEY AND TRYING TO MOVE HOT MONEY AND DOING ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS TO TRY TO AVOID MAKING THE TOUGH DECISIONS OF SPENDING CUTS. THERE'S ONLY ONE PATH FORWARD TO HAVING OUR CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATING FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH.
AND THAT'S ONE, OF COURSE, LONG-TERM WE HAVE TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE AS A CITY THROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. IT'S NOT ABOUT ASKING PEOPLE TO PAY MORE, IT'S GETTING MORE PEOPLE INTO BUSINESSES AND INTO THE SYSTEM.
AND THEN OF COURSE IT'S GETTING SPENDING UNDER CONTROL.
AND WE CAN START THAT TOMORROW BY VOTING FOR AN ACROSS THE BOARD EXPENSE CUT IN EVERY DEPARTMENT IN OUR CITY. AND SO I AM IN FAVOR OF THE ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS A RESPONSIBLE CITY GOVERNMENT. AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I WILL SAY TODAY, ERIK, IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW I'VE SAID TO YOU MANY TIMES OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, AND THAT IS IF OUR CITY GOVERNMENT CONSISTENTLY SAYS THAT PUBLIC SAFETY IS NUMBER ONE IS MOST IMPORTANT, YOU START WITH WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT.
WHEN ANY SAN ANTONIO FAMILY IS LOOKING AT THEIR BUDGET THEY START WITH PAYING THEIR MORTGAGE AND FOOD PROBABLY BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS.
THAT'S WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT. WHEN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT BUDGETS WE NEED TO DO THE SAME AND IF PUBLIC SAFETY IS NUMBER ONE YOU PUT THE PUBLIC SAFETY IN FIRST AND THEN YOU BUILD EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT.
TO CITY STAFF, YOU ALL HAVE WORKED SO HARD. ERIK, YOUR TEAM, MARIA, JUSTINA, ALL THE WORK OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS HAS -- LONGER THAN THAT, I KNOW, HAS REALLY BEEN AMAZING. AND REGARDLESS OF HOW WE VOTE TOMORROW, NONE OF THAT WORK WAS IN VAIN. THIS WAS NECESSARY WORK THAT WE HAD TO DO TO PUT US IN A POSITION TO DECIDE WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITY MOVING FORWARD.
SO I TRULY APPRECIATE ALL THAT WORK. I KNOW MY COLLEAGUES DO TOO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE OUTCOME IS TOMORROW. THANKS, MAYOR.
>> MAYOR JONES: THANKS. I DO WANT TO -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND I THINK WE MIGHT BE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER HERE, BUT THE EXERCISE IN GOING THROUGH HOW CAN WE USE HOT MONEY DIFFERENTLY, HOW CAN WE USE TIRZ MONEY DIFFERENCELY, THAT'S JUST CALLED DUE DILIGENCE, RIGHT? BECAUSE IN FACT WE COULD ACTUALLY SAVE AN ADDITIONAL $8 MILLION, ALMOST $9 MILLION IN EACH YEAR IF WE WERE -- LOOKED AT DIFFERENT ALLOCATIONS AND MOVED THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY FUNDED OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND THAT DON'T HAVE TO BE. SO I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK, BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE INTELLECTUAL EXERCISE FOR FOLKS TO REALIZE WE COULD HAVE PAID FOR PROJECT QUEST COMPLETELY AND PLUSSED THEM UP TO $4 MILLION OUT OF READY TO WORK.
WE COULD HAVE COVERED THOSE SCHOLARSHIP KIDS FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT AND WE LANDED WHERE WE DID OR WE'LL SEE WHERE WE LAND TOMORROW, BUT BUT ULTIMATELY THAT'S CERTAINLY WHY I AM NOW WHERE I AM HAVING GONE THROUGH THAT AND LAID THAT OUT BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD -- THIS BODY REALLY HASN'T HAD A SERIOUS CONVERSATION, FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT HOT AND HOW WE CAN BETTER DISTRIBUTE THAT. NOTHING WAS MEANT TO IN AUDIO] NOT AVOIDING ANYTHING, BUT RATHER TO MAKE SURE WE DO
[01:05:07]
OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND EXPLAIN THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE.>> WHYTE: MAYOR, I DO THINK THAT WHILE SOME OF THE TIRZ CONVERSATION AND THINGS WERE HELPFUL IN INFORMING THE PUBLIC, I WOULD SAY THAT SOME OF THE FRUSTRATION I THINK YOU'RE SEEING UP HERE TODAY IS THE RESULT OF SORT OF POLITICAL GAMES BEING PLAYED FOR TWO MONTHS AND THEN AT THE LAST MINUTE COMING BACK AND SAYING THAT YOU'RE SUPPORTING THIS SOLUTION OF ACROSS-THE-BOARD.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: MAYOR AND COUNCIL REAL QUICK. I WANT TO MAKE A POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE HOURS AND HOURS AND WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AT 5:00.
WE'RE NOT BEING PRODUCTIVE RIGHT NOW. THE REALITY IS THAT THE MAYOR HAS IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF REVENUE STREAMS THAT SHE BELIEVES WOULD SUPPLEMENT OUR BUDGET, COULD HELP FUND SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE FUNDING.
WE DISAGREE WITH THAT AS A BODY. THERE IS NOT CONSENSUS FOR IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT. OUR JOB IS TO COME UP WITH IDEAS EVEN GOING INTO BUDGET. SO YOU PROPOSING YESTERDAY THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU DID, ME, A NUMBER OF US PROPOSING AMENDMENTS, EVEN IF WE DO THAT TOMORROW RIGHT BEFORE WE VOTE THAT IS WE VOTE THAT IS OUR JOB AND RESPONSIBILITY.
US BEING UP HERE, NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING THINGS THAT THERE'S NO CONSENSUS FOR.
THERE'S NO POINT IN ARGUING ABOUT READY TO WORK, HOT TAX, TIRZ, THERE'S NO POINT IN ARGUING ABOUT THE ACROSS-THE-BOARD ACROSS BECAUSE I'M HEARING THERE'S NOT -- ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT CONSENSUS FOR IT.
DO WE EVEN NEED TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE BUDGET IS -- WE'LL SEE TOMORROW IF THE RATE INCREASE PASSES OR NOT AND WHETHER OR NOT WE CEDE OR AUTHORITY OVER TO ERIK OR IF WE'LL MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES. IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE POSSIBLY GOING TO MAKE HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND LAID OUT BY ERIK AND THE TEAM. SAVE FOR A COUPLE OF TWEAKS HERE AND THERE.
ERIK, WOULD YOU COME BACK WITH FEEDBACK ON THOSE SMALL TWEAKS AND THEN THAT BE
THAT? >> YEAH. MY INTENTION IS TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CONVERSATION WHAT THE MEMO LOOKS LIKE TONIGHT SO WE'RE NOT DOING THAT TOMORROW MORNING. I HOPE TO DO THAT HERE.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: ALL WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS STRESSING EACH OTHER OUT, ADDING MORE TENSION IT. IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE DEBATING THINGS THAT WE HAVE NO CONSENSUS FOR AND IT'S GOING TO DOMINATE OUR DISCUSSION, IT'S POINTLESS AND CONTINUES TO MAKE US LOOK LIKE FOOLS. MULTIPLE.
>> CALL THE QUESTION. >> MAYOR JONES: THERE'S NO VOTE, BUT THANK YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION. COUNCILMEMBER SPEARS, THANK
YOU. >> SPEARS: I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S NEED FOR BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB.
THAT'S 7,000 KIDS SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ENTIRELY IN THE INNER CITY TIRZ.
OBVIOUSLY I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE SAFFE OFFICERS AS WELL. IT'S THE ONLY THING I ASK FOR. AND IT'S THE ONLY THING I REALLY NEED.
AND IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR MY DISTRICT AND I SEE THINGS HERE THAT ARE IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE IN THEIR DISTRICT, AND I'M GLAD OF THAT.
I FEEL LIKE THIS WAS VERY BALANCED, ERIK, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WORK AND VERY HARD AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM.
EVERYONE IS HAVING A HARD TIME BECAUSE IT'S HARD, IT'S REALLY HARD.
I WILL ADD THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BIOMED ADDED BACK IN AND I DO STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE LIBRARY CARD. I'M FEELING CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTION THAT WE DO THE CUTS OF 1.6 AND 2% AND I APPRECIATE THAT MY COLLEAGUES, COUNCILMEMBER AL ALDERETE GAVITO GAVITO AND COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE, WE'VE BEEN SAYING WE WANT TO KEEP THE TAX RATE DOWN AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, YOU PRESENTED YESTERDAY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT THIS PIVOT --G DISCUSSION AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING TODAY, MAYOR. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. I THINK THAT'S BASICALLY ALL
I'VE GOT. THANKS. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU.
COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZÁLEZ, PLEASE. >> GONZÁLEZ: JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I DON'T THINK I STATED THE QUESTION CORRECTLY.
HOW MUCH WOULD A 1% ACROSS-THE-BOARD REDUCE THE CURRENT OR THE RECOMMENDED
TAX RATE? >> GIVE US TWO MINUTES TO CALCULATE IT FOR YOU.
[01:10:02]
MAYOR, WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, IT WOULD ALSO BE HELPFUL AS YOU GO INTO THE SEVERAL ROUND, SEVERAL OF YOU KIND OF VOICED IT, BUT HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE LIST WE ISSUED LAST NIGHT TO COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S POINT.SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE MADE SUGGESTIONS ON OTHER THINGS, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY SO THAT WE MAKE SURE WE GET IT CLOSE TO THE X.
>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. AND WE WERE ACTUALLY -- COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHERE YOU GOT THE 500 ON THE MEDICAID WAIVER. I THINK BOTH OUR AMENDMENTS
WERE A MILLION EACH IN '27 AND '28. >> THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ABOUT A MILLION AND BASED ON THE CONCERN OF USING MEDICAID WAIVER MONEY WE SPLIT IT OVER TWO YEARS. AND THIRDLY, THE LAST TIME WE DID IT, DID THIS THREE YEARS AGO, WE SET ASIDE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS AND IT TOOK US TWO YEARS TO SPEND IT. SO I DIDN'T QUITE THINK THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY SPEND A
MILLION DOLLARS IN ONE YEAR. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. WHILE WE'VE GOT SOME TIME WHILE WE'RE DOING THE MATH, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME COLOR ON WHY IT TOOK SO LONG TO
SPEND AS YOU REMEMBER. >> WE HAD A SOLICITATION THAT HAD TO BE DONE AND ONCE THE CONTRACTS WERE AWARDED THE SPEND AND THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT AS GREAT AS
ANTICIPATED. >> MAYOR JONES: THAT'S HELPFUL, THANK YOU.
WE'LL JUST GO AROUND THE CIRCLE FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE LIST THAT WAS PROVIDED YESTERDAY EVENING. COUNCILWOMAN KAUR, PLEASE.
>> KAUR: THANKS, MAYOR. I WANTED TO ALSO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. I DID ASK JUST TEEN THAT WHAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN WE DID THE DELEGATE AGENCY FUNDING BECAUSE THAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN WE PROVIDED THAT AS WELL. FROM THE LIST SPECIFICALLY SPECIFICALLY -- I WANTED TO MENTION A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I FORGOT.
FOR ITEM NUMBER 7 FOR THE GASTRONOMY PROGRAM, I THINK WE CAN TAKE THAT OUT BECAUSE I SPOKE WITH VISIT SA AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT, RIGHT, ERIK?
>> FROM OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THEM, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THEY WERE GOING TO ABSORB
IT, RIGHT? >> KAUR: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
HOW ABOUT WE FOLLOW UP WITH THAT AFTER -- >> MAYOR JONES: ONE SECOND. ERIK, TO BE CLEAR, WOULD THAT BE FROM OUR
CONTRIBUTION? >> LET'S LET MARIO COME UP. THAT WAY WE'RE ALL SQUARE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IS IT FALLS IN LINE WITH OUR CURRENT MISSION OF BRINGING THE WORLD TO SAN ANTONIO.
WE ALREADY DO AN ELEMENT OF THAT AS WE TAKE OUR CULINARY CHEFS TO MEDIA MISSIONS TO TELL THE STORY, THE CULINARY STORY, SO THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAMMING, I GUESS, FITS IN THE MARKETING ASPECT OF WHAT WE DO, SO
WE'D BE OPEN TO THAT CONVERSATION. >> KAUR: AND YOU WOULD
TAKE PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY AND TRY TO FUNDRAISE FOR IT. >> THAT WOULD PROBABLY JUST FALL UNDER OUR MARKETING, UNDER OUR CURRENT MARKETING. SO OPEN TO THAT
CONVERSATION. >> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT WOULD BE ABSORBED.
IT WOULD NOT EFFECT THE ALLOCATION. >> IT WOULD BE ABSORBED -- THAT'S RIGHT. IT WOULD STAY WITHIN OUR MARKETING.
>> SO IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE ALLOCATION, IT WOULD BE ABSORBED.
>> IT WOULD BE ABSORBED. >> WE'LL REMOVE IT FROM THE LIST.
>> KAUR: THANK YOU, MARIO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW THE CHEFS WILL REALLY APPRECIATE THAT AS WELL. IF THAT IS POSSIBLE, THERE WAS ONE POSITION THAT I THINK COUNCILMAN CASTILLO ALSO MENTIONED, BUT I MENTIONED IT YESTERDAY, BUT I'M GOING TO REITERATE IN CASE ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES. IT'S THE CLIMATE READY NEIGHBORHOODS POSITION AND RESILIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT.
IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN SWAP THAT OUT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY APPRECIATED.
THE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THIS CUSTOMER ANALYTIC SOFTWARE PROGRAM WAS. WAS THAT THE PROGRAM THAT COUNCILMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT? I THOUGHT IT WAS THE CHECKOUT SOFTWARE?
WHAT'S THAT 94 I KNOW IT'S A REALLY SMALL AMOUNT. >> IT'S NOT THE SAME THING
THAT COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO WAS ASKING ABOUT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCILMEMBER. THE CUSTOMER ANALYTICAL SOFTWARE IS A PROGRAM WHICH WE USE FOR OUR MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION PURPOSE WITH OUR PATRONS.
THIS IS CONNECTED TO OUR INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM SO WITH THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAVE A CHANGE OF SERVICE, IF ONE OF OUR [INDISCERNIBLE] LOSE POWER,
[01:15:03]
WE ARE ABLE TO REACH ALL OF THOSE PATRONS WHO ARE USING THAT BRANCH.>> KAUR: SO WHAT WOULD WE USE INSTEAD? >> SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO SOME OPTIONS. WE ARE LOOKING INTO SOME OF THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.
>> KAUR: OKAY. IT 50K. LET'S KEEP IT UNTIL YOU GUYS FIND ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY AND THEN WE CAN REPLACE IT. THANKS.
YEAH, SO I WOULD SAY GO BACK TO MY INITIAL, WHICH IS LET'S NOT DO THE ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS AND I THINK THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE ENOUGH TO DO SOME OF THE CONTROL THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHATEVER ELSE MY COLLEAGUES -- I DON'T REMEMBER. I DEFER TO THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES.
>> NOT DO WHAT ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS? >> KAUR: 1 THROUGH 7, THE
ADDITIONAL 800K THAT Y'ALL FOUND LAST NIGHT. >> DON'T DO THOSE?
>> KAUR: CORRECT. >> IF WE DON'T DO THOSE WE'LL REDUCE THE AMENDMENT
LIST. >> KAUR: RIGHT. AND MY POINT WAS THE SAFFE
OFFICER. >> GOT IT. >> KAUR: BUT YOU MIGHT STILL BE ABLE TO DO SOME PATROL WITHIN THAT IF YOU JUST TOOK OUT 800K FROM
THAT. >> MAYOR JONES: ERIK, TO CLARIFY, THE -- YOUR MEMO YESTERDAY, IT'S NOT IN THE -- IT'S NOT IN THE CHART, BUT IT IS IN THE TEXT, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID -- IT SAYS BASED ON STAFF REVIEW THE WORD HERITAGE ACTIVITIES ARE AN ELIGIBLE EXPENSE UNDER THE HOT REALLOCATED GENERAL FUND EXPENSE TO THE HOT WOULD REQUIRE A REDUCTION TO THE VISIT SAN ANTONIO CONTRACT. IS THAT THE -- ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT VISIT SAN ANTONIO IS ABSORBING AS PART OF THAT? THERE WERE THREE THINGS THAT WERE ZEROED OUT. SO THEY JUST TALKED ABOUT THE GASTRONOMY PROGRAM, BUT THE WORLD HERITAGE OUTDOOR EXHIBITS AND THE WORLD HERITAGE WORK PLAN IS 160.
PLUS THERE'S ALSO THE WORLD HERITAGE OFFICE JUST GENERAL FUND ALLOTMENT OF THREE
MILLION. CAN THEY TAKE ALL OF THAT? >> NO, THEY CAN'T.
THEY CAN'T ABSORB THAT. THAT WOULD HAVE THE REDUCTION OF THE REALLOCATION. I'M SORRY, NOT REALLOCATION, A REDUCTION IN THE
ALLOCATION. >> MAYOR JONES: UNDERSTOOD.
RIGHT NOW THEY'RE AT 25 MILLION, IS THAT RIGHT? >> ROUGHLY.
>> MAYOR JONES: SO WE WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE THEIR ALLOCATION BY THREE MILLION IN ORDER FOR THEM TO PICK UP ALL OF THE WORLD HERITAGE OFFICE ACTIVITIES?
>> YES. >> THAT WOULD FREE UP ANOTHER THREE MILLION IN THE
GENERAL FUND. >> YES. >> MAYOR JONES: AND ALLOW US TO -- HOW DOES THAT HELP US POTENTIALLY WITH -- THAT'S 3 MILLION -- 6 MILLION TOTAL ACROSS THE TWO YEARS. OKAY.
I WOULD ASK FOR MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER THAT AS IT HELPS US FREE UP AN ADDITIONAL $6 MILLION. COUNCILWOMAN KAUR, DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> KAUR: MARIO, CAN YOU COME UP AND TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN FOR OUR ROI WHEN IT COMES TO HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE COMING, HOW THAT AFFECTS HOT?
>> WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A MATERIAL IMPACT TO VISITATION.
WHAT WE'RE CHARGED WITH VISIT SAN ANTONIO IS SELLING AND MARKETING THE DESTINATION, PROMOTING, NOT PROGRAMMING THE DESTINATION. EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE RECEIVE RETURN TO THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO $45 IN RETURN. SO EVEN A 250,000-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN MARKETING TO THE DESTINATION WOULD EQUATE TO AN 11.2-MILLION-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE CITY. AND THAT GETS EXTRAPOLATED THROUGH MARKETING AND VISITATION. YOU TAKE 250,000 OUT, FOR INSTANCE, YOU WOULD LOSE ABOUT 80,000 ATTRIBUTABLE VISITORS TO THE CITY, WHICH WOULD REDUCE 3.5 MILLION IN HOT TAX AND ANOTHER 800,000 IN SALES TAX.
SO IT'S MATERIAL. IT'S REALLY ABOUT ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. >> THANKS, MARIO. >> MAYOR JONES: OF THE 25 MILLION, REDUCING IT BY 3 MILLION IS ABOUT 12%ISH OF YOUR BUDGET, IS THAT RIGHT?
ISH? THAT'S JUST MATH. >> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.
>> MAYOR JONES: THANKS. >> JUST TO FOLLOW UP TO COUNCILWOMAN KAUR, REMOVE THE SEVEN AGENCIES, OFFSET THAT WITH THE SAFE OFFICERS. YOU SAID USE THE BALANCE FOR OFFICERS. GOT IT. OKAY.
AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZÁLEZ, WE GOT AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
>> MAYOR JONES: GREAT. >> SO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT REDUCING ONE PERCENT IN THE GENERAL FUND WOULD GENERATE $17.8 MILLION. THAT WOULD REDUCE THE
[01:20:03]
PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE FROM TWO CENTS DOWN POSITIVE .8 CENTS THAT REDUCES THE MONTHLY IMPACT ON THE AVERAGE HOMESTEAD OF $231,000 FROM 295 A MONTH TO$1.54 A MONTH. >> ONE OTHER THING I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S FEEDBACK ON. WE CAN ALSO FREE UP MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND BY LOOKING AT IF THE ARTS AGENCIES RECEIVED A LITTLE BIT AS NOTED IN THE MEMO, IF THEY RECEIVED 13% REDUCTION, THEN WE COULD INCLUDE IN THERE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MLK COMMISSION, SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY FUNDING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. IT'S NOT ON THE TABLE, BUT IT IS NOTED IN THERE AS WHAT IT ALLOWS US TO DO. SO IF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD PLEASE COMMENT ON WHETHER THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT DOING SO WE CAN MOVE SOME OF THOSE ART-RELATED THINGS FROM THE GENERAL FUND INTO THE ARTS. YOU CAN SEE THERE WHAT IT WOULD MEAN IF WE CAPPED SOME OF THOSE AGENCIES AS WELL AT 250,000.
OKAY. COUNCILMAN MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: YEAH, THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE CHART THAT ERIK PROVIDED, WE WOULD BE GETTING BACK THE PRIME NUTRITION SITE AT DARNER, TUITION REIMBURSEMENTS, SAFFE OFFICERS, THE SAEP SLIP SCHOLARSHIPS FOR ONE YEAR, THE CULTURAL INITIATIVES, THE GASTRONOMY PROGRAM THAT I THINK IS NOW BEING MOVED ELSEWHERE. THE DEIZ Y SEIS COMMISSION, MEDICAID WAIVERS, THE WOMEN'S HEALTH PROGRAMS, INCREASE THE IP. LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THERE THAT I THINK ARE GOOD AND THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR, AND QUITE HONESTLY, THOSE WERE OUR ONLY AMENDMENTS. IN ADDITION, ALL OF THE FEES I THINK I'M SUPPORTIVE OF. I DO WONDER -- I WORRY ABOUT THOSE ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS THAT WE'VE LISTED AT THE VERY BOTTOM 1 THROUGH 7 IN ATTACHMENT 2.
BUT AT THIS POINT IF THAT IS WHAT WE NEED, THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS.
I MAINTAIN MY STANCE THAT WITH THE SAFFE OFFICERS THOSE ARE RECURRING COSTS AND NOT ONLY JUST A FLAT RATE, THEY'RE NOW TIED TO THE CBA SO THOSE WOULD BE INCREASED COSTS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. SO I STILL CHALLENGE THAT SO THAT'S WHERE I AM AT THE MOMENT WITH THE 10 SAFFE OFFICERS.
I ALSO WILL POSE THIS FOR MY COLLEAGUES IS IF THERE IS AN INDICATION THAT -- HOW I FELT AT TIMES IF IT IS BELIEVED THAT JALEN IS GOING TO VOTE NO ON AN ITEM, WHY WOULD WE NEGOTIATE WITH JALEN, WHY WOULD WE NEGOTIATE OR CONCEDE TO JALEN FOR WHATEVER THIS THING IS? SO IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE SAYING UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE WE GOING TO ENTERTAIN OUR REVENUE INCREASE, UNDER NO -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THE BUDGET, WHY WOULD WE ENTERTAIN WHATEVER -- LIKE WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT FROM MY COLLEAGUES BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IF THE GOAL IS FOR US ALL TO GET TO A YES, ALL WE REALLY -- IF WE NEED SIX PEOPLE -- IF WE NEED A STARTING LINEUP OF SIX -- I JUST WANT TO HEAR LIKE WHAT IS THE PATH FORWARD TOGETHER? I DON'T THINK WE'RE -- I WILL ADD WITH REGARD TO THE HOT TAX, WITH REGARD TO READY TO WORK, I THINK RIGHT NOW WE END THOSE CONVERSATIONS. I THINK AS SOON AS WE FINISH THIS -- LET'S WAIT A FEW MONTH. AS SOON AS OCTOBER COMES AROUND LET'S HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOT TAX, LET'S TALK ABOUT POLICY, LET'S TALK ABOUT DOING A SOLICITATION FOR THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE TO BE FUNDED THERE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT DEPARTMENTS THAT WE COULD FUND. LET'S DO ALL OF THAT.
LET'S ASK -- BECAUSE THE MAYOR MIGHT BE THERE ALREADY.
THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS, A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, THAT WE HAVE TO GET THAT I DON'T THINK WE'LL HAVE BY TOMORROW IN ORDER TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
LET'S COMMIT TO HAVING THAT DISCUSSION AS A BODY. LET'S DO THAT THEN.
BUT FOR NOW I THINK WE'LL FOCUS ENTIRELY ON THIS. I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMAN -- I'M SORRY, MAYOR.
SO YOUR EARLIER COMMENT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SAFFE OFFICERS AND USING THAT MONEY TO RESTORE HEALTH, FILL HEALTH AND LIBRARY POSITIONS.
NOW YOU JUST MENTIONED THE SEVEN AGENCIES. WHICH IS YOUR PREFERENCE?
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: I'D PRIORITIZE THE POSITIONS, THE FILLED POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE. AT THIS POINT I HAVE SAID THE LIBRARY AND METRO HEALTH ARE MY PRIORITIES. THE OFFICE OF RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY.
THERE'S NOT A DEPARTMENT THAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE RESTORED.
SO WHATEVER THE WILL OF THIS BODY IS, IF WE CAN PRIORITIZE FILLED POSITIONS,
[01:25:03]
WHATEVER THOSE MAY BE, I'M OPEN. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY COLLEAGUES IS WHAT DEPARTMENTS WORKS FOR YOU.THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: GREAT. AND IF COUNCILMAN WHYTE OR COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS OR COUNCILWOMAN AL ALDERETE GAVITO GAVITO WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK TO THE POINT HE JUST MADE. >> WHYTE: THANKS, MAYOR.
I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE I WAS TALKING ABOUT IT WITH TERI AND SOME OTHERS EARLIER. THERE IS ONE POT OF MONEY, RIGHT? REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE DO THE REVENUE OR NOT, THERE'S -- AT THE END OF THE DAY THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE POT OF CITY MONEY. A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WANT THE REVENUE INCREASE WANT $28 MILLION OF THAT POT OF MONEY TO COME FROM ADDITIONAL TAXES. WHEREAS I SAY THE BETTER METHOD IS CUTTING OUT $28 MILLION SOMEWHERE ELSE RATHER THAN THE TAXES. YOU'VE GOT THAT ONE POT OF MONEY. IT'S NOT POLICE OFFICERS, IT NOT THE 10 SAFFE OFFICERS THAT ARE CAUSING US TO NEED THE INCREASED DOLLARS. THAT'S NOT HOW I VIEW IT AT ALL. IT'S IN THAT ONE POT OF MONEY THAT THIS CITY GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SPEND NEXT YEAR, I BELIEVE THE POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD BE IN IT. SO TO TIE AN AMENDMENT REQUEST TO NEEDING INCREASED --N REVENUE FROM THE CITIZENS, I REJECT. WE DON'T NEED AN INCREASE IN REVENUE FROM THE CITIZENS TO ASK THE OFFICERS BECAUSE WE CAN CUT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE BUDGET. SO THAT I THINK IS WHERE WE HAVE A DISCONNECT.
THE INCREASED REVENUE YOU WANT FROM A TAX HIKE IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO ONE SPECIFIC ITEM IN THE BUDGET. THAT JUST GIVES US MORE MONEY AS A WHOLE TO SPEND ON
ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE WANT TO DO. >> MAYOR JONES: SURE.
>> KAUR: I WANT TO CHANGE MY REQUEST
HEALTH AND OTHER POSITIONS. >> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMAN MUNGIA, PLEASE.
YOU CAN GO AFTER HIM. GO AHEAD. >> MUNGIA: THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. TO ERIK REAL QUICK, I WAS ASKING YOU THIS EARLIER.
I WANTED TO ASK YOU THIS. SO THE 1.6% ACROSS-THE-BOARD WOULD PROBABLY, MAYBE, MEAN
STAFF REDUCTIONS OF FILLED POSITIONS? >> YES.
BUT PRACTICALLY SPEAKING YOU GUYS ADOPT THE PERSONNEL COMPLEMENT IN THE BUDGET AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE WOULD ELIMINATE POSITIONS MIDYEAR. WE WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO HOLD POSITIONS VACANT OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
WHICH MEANS WE WOULDN'T FILL THOSE POSITIONS. >> MUNGIA: IN SOME OF THE SMALLER DEPARTMENTS, THOUGH, WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO CUT THE PROGRAMMING, YOU
MIGHT END UP CUTTING A POSITION. >> WE WOULDN'T CUT THE POSITIONS MIDYEAR. WE WOULD MANAGE IT AND KEEP THOSE POSITIONS VACANT.
IF THEY'RE IN A SMALL OFFICE WHERE THERE ISN'T A VACANCY WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE OTHER
EXPENDITURE CUTS. >> MUNGIA: IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
>> YES. >> MUNGIA: SO EVEN WITH THIS REDUCTION YOU WOULD
KEEP ALL THE FILLED POSITIONS CURRENTLY. >> WE WOULD, BUT AS SOON AS THEY BECOME VACANT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE TAPS WE WOULD HIT TO HIT A 1.6%
DECREASE. >> MUNGIA: I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE INTERESTING.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO GO WITH THIS NOT KNOWING WHERE THAT WOULD GO, RIGHT? SO JUST AN EXAMPLE I'LL TAKE YOU FOR EXAMPLE, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, YOU HAVE A BUDGET. YOU WOULD GET 1.6 INCREASE, YOU HAVE ALL YOUR FILLED POSITIONS, YOU CAN'T CUT ANYTHING. THAT CUT IS GOING TO BE FELT IN ANOTHER AREA, ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, ANOTHER PROGRAM. TO SAY THAT IT'S ACROSS-THE-BOARD IS NOT NECESSARILY CREATE AND I ALSO DON'T THINK ACROSS-THE-BOARD IS NECESSARILY FAIR. I THINK EQUITY IS FAIR.
I DON'T KNOW THAT EQUALITY AND CUTS IS FAIR. SO THAT DOES GIVE ME PAUSE NOT KNOWING. I THINK THERE ARE EMPLOYEES WATCHING THIS MEETING RIGHT NOW THAT DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY STANDPOINT WITH THIS NEW PROPOSAL.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS RELATED TO HR. I HEARD IN HR MEETINGS ARE GETTING CANCELED FOR THIS FRIDAY SO FOLKS DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, IF THEY'LL HAVE A POSITION TO GO INTO OR THEIR JOB IS NOT GOING TO BE VACANT SO THEY DON'T NEED TO MEET WITH HR ANYMORE. SO IT'S GIVING A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY TO EMPLOYEES WHO ARE IN THEIR OFFICE RIGHT NOW WATCHING THIS UNSURE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THEM. SO THAT LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY IS NOT GOOD FOR EMPLOYEES.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY FAIR. THE DELEGATE AGENCIES, THE
[01:30:07]
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE A CUT AS A RESULT OF THIS 1.6ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUT. >> YES, SIR. >> MUNGIA: AND WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT THOSE CUTS BE FELT EQUALLY AMONGST EVERY SINGLE NON-PROFIT THAT HAS A
CONTRACT IN THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING? >> LIKELY.
>> MUNGIA: WOULD IT BE LIKE A PERCENTAGE OR WOULD IT BE A NUMBER?
>> PERCENTAGE. >> MUNGIA: OKAY. SO I SEE A LOT OF FOLKS HERE TODAY, BIG BROTHERS, BIG SISTERS AND SOME OTHER FOLKS HERE TODAY, EDUCATIONAL NON-PROFITS AND HOMELESS NON-PROFITS THAT HELP HOMELESS COMMUNITIES AND SCHOOLS, JUST EDUCATION PARTNERSHIPS. WHEN WE DID THE ANALYSIS, WHEN YOU PROPOSED THE OUT YEAR CUTS IN '28, TUMOR BASED ON THE CUT YOU PROPOSED HOW THE EFFECT WOULD BE FELT ACROSS THE COMMUNITY.
YOU SHOWED US THAT 70% OF THOSE CUTS WOULD COME FROM DISTRICTS 1 THROUGH 5.
GOING THIS ROUTE I DON'T KNOW THAT. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW YET, BUT I IMAGINE IF IT WAS EXTRAPOLATED OR BROUGHT BACK DOWN IN PERCENTAGEWISE, IT WOULD STILL BE NO MATTER WHAT THE CUT WAS MOSTLY DISTRICTS 1 THROUGH 5 AFFECTED
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> WELL, SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT IT WHILE YOU ARE TALKING, IF THE MAJORITY OF THAT EXPENSE IS PUBLIC SAFETY, WE'D HAVE TO THINK THROUGH HOW THOSE ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY STANDPOINT.
THERE OBVIOUSLY ARE DIFFERENT CALL LOADS AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF CALLS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY. THE APPROACH THERE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE ACROSS-THE-BOARD AND WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE SURGICAL. IT WOULD NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE SURGICAL. WE WOULDN'T BE RECOGNIZING, YOU KNOW, THE EMS HOT SPOTS
THAT WE HAVE. >> MUNGIA: RIGHT. I GUESS MY CONCERN ON THAT TOO AND I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER, IS IT'S WHEN IT SHOULD BE ON US TO COME UP WITH THAT. WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH PROGRAMS, WE'VE BEEN SAYING, HEY, THIS DOESN'T ALIGN, WE CAN CUT THIS, WE CAN SACRIFICE THAT. BUT NOW WHEN I HAVE TO GO TO MY COMMUNITY AND SAID THE CITY MANAGER DECIDED THAT THIS WAS A CUT AND IT LIKE WHERE WERE YOU, COUNCILMAN, WHEN THIS HAPPENED? I DON'T LIKE CEDING THIS OVER TO YOU, TO BE HONEST.
>> YOU'RE MAKING ME SOUND LIKE A BAD GUY. >> MUNGIA: EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS TO MAKE A CUT SOMEWHERE AND I WILL NOT HAVE AN ABILITY TO INFLUENCE THAT LIKE THE WAY WE ARE WITH THIS AMENDMENT PROCESS NOW AND THE WAY WE'VE BEEN GOING. SO IT IS A VERY UNCOMFORTABLE FEELING TO TELL FOLKS. AND NOT EVEN TO SAY HEY, WE'RE GOING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES. EVERYTHING HERE TRANSPARENTLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO RAISE TAXES, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE FEES, BUT WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE SERVICES AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHERE.
AGAIN, IT'S NOT VERY PRODUCTIVE OR TRANSPARENT FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU. >> COUNCILWOMAN, HOW DO YOU FEEL GENERALLY ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT LIST? >> MUNGIA: GENERALLY WITH THE LIST IT'S GOOD.
THERE ARE SOME TWEAKS BASED ON MY COLLEAGUES' RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAN BE
MADE, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PATH FORWARD. >> MAYOR JONES:
COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN, PLEASE. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU.
SO LET ME BE MORE SPECIFIC, ERIK. ON THE AMENDMENT LIST, 1, 2, 3, CUT 4, 5, 6. 7, I WOULD LIKE THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 TO REMAIN WITH THE CITY. FISCAL YEAR 2028, I LIKE THE IDEA OF MOVING IT INTO THE MARKETING FOR VISIT SAN ANTONIO. HOWEVER, I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY AT THE STATE LEVEL TO GET SOME FUNDING FROM THERE.
I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT BEFORE WE MOVE IT FULLY OVER.
AND NO. 8, OF COURSE I WOULD LIKE MY COUNCIL COLLEAGUES TO VOLUNTARILY DONATE THE $3,636 FOR DIEZ Y SEIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
AGAIN, I WILL RESTATE FROM ITEMS 1 THROUGH 7, I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP FISCAL YEAR 2027 INTACT BECAUSE I DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF ELIMINATING FUNDING FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF MAKING THEIR BUDGETS AND FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE NEED TO HELP RAISE THEIR FUNDS IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO DO THAT PERSONALLY.
THAT'S MY -- FOR THE AMENDMENTS. IN TERMS OF THE ART AGENCY IMPACT, I THINK ANYTHING RECEIVING OVER $100,000 FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WE CAN TALK WITH, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REDUCE ANYTHING PERMANENTLY.
I THINK THESE ARE CONVERSATIONS WE NEED TO HAVE NEXT YEAR AND FOR
[01:35:02]
FUTURE, REGARDING WHAT WE MOVE OVER TO THE ARTS. ANYTHING WE MOVE OVER TO THE ARTS TAKES FROM THEIR HOT FUND. BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THEY GET FROM THE GENERAL FUND IS THAT $500,000 FOR ART MAINTENANCE.IF WE START REDUCING FROM THE ARTS COMMUNITY AGAIN, WE COULD GET OURSELVES IN A COVID PREDICAMENT WHERE ARTS IS BASICALLY OUT OF MONEY AND UNABLE TO DO THINGS.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE LOOK AT LET'S JUST MOVE THINGS OVER TO THE ARTS. BECAUSE THEY'VE WORKED REALLY HARD IN BECOMING AN ECONOMIC GENERATOR FOR THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. I AM NOT FOR THAT.
ERIK, WHY DIDN'T YOU COME TO US AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET AND TELL US TO DO 2%
OR 1.6% OR 1%? >> WALSH: WELL, BECAUSE WHEN WE GO THROUGH EXERCISES LIKE THIS, WE ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A PROGRAMMATIC STANDPOINT.
NOT AN ACROSS THE BOARD STANDPOINT. IN YEARS PAST THE CITY HAS DONE THAT UNDER THE PRIOR CITY MANAGER WE DID THAT. AND I THINK IT LOSES -- IT
CAN BE AN INEQUITABLE WAY OF MAKING REDUCTIONS. >> VIAGRAN: CAN BE?
IT IS AN INEQUITABLE WAY OF MAKING REDUCTIONS. >> WALSH: IN SOME CASES I THINK IT'S ACCEPTABLE BUT MY APPROACH TO THIS HAS BEEN TO LOOK AT PROGRAMS TO REDUCE, IF WE HAVE TO REDUCE, OR SCALE BACK RATHER THAN PEANUT BUTTER.
>> VIAGRAN: BECAUSE HERE'S THE THING IS I'VE BEEN IN THIS CITY FOR A VERY LONG TIME. THE MAJORITY OF MY LIFE, EXCEPT FOR COLLEGE.
AND YOU COME IN AND WE TALK ABOUT COULD BE -- IT IS INEQUITABLE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAD COUNCIL COLLEAGUES AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, STARTING WITH HARDBERGER, TRYING TO MOVE US FORWARD TOWARDS A MORE EQUITABLE SOCIETY.
TRYING TO MAKE AMENDS FOR THE EVILS DONE IN THE PAST TO CERTAIN PARTS OF THIS TOWN. TO COME IN AND ASK A 2% ACROSS THE BOARD AND A 1.6 ACROSS THE BOARD IS NOT INEQUITABLE -- IT IS. AND THIS COUNCIL WORKED REALLY HARD. COUNCILWOMAN GONZALES, COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN, COUNCILWOMAN ROCHA GARCIA. COUNCILMAN RAY LOPEZ WORKED REALLY HARD TO GET US AT THAT POINT. INCLUDING COUNCILMAN KRIER. I AM NOT ABOUT TO TANK GENERATIONS' WORTH OF WORK BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO RAISE A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT INVESTMENT.
AND TO SAY THIS ISN'T RELATED -- WE DID SOMETHING FOR THE POLICE THIS BUDGET.
WE PASSED THEIR CONTRACT. 66% OF OUR BUDGET GOES TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
DON'T TELL ME WE DON'T DO FOR OUR OFFICERS. SO I GET IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD TEN EXTRA OFFICERS OR HAVE MONEY BUT WE'RE ASKING FOR A HIRING FREEZE ACROSS THE BOARD AND THEN WE WANT TO CREATE TEN NEW POSITIONS? I HOPE YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED, ERIK. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO TOMORROW.
>> WALSH: I HAVE ONE QUESTION, COUNCILWOMAN. YOUR SUGGESTION AROUND THE GASTRONOMY PROGRAM AND WORLD HERITAGE, YOU SAID LEAVE IT WITH THE CITY IN '27.
DO YOU MEAN LEAVE THE REDUCTION OR FUND IT? >> VIAGRAN: FUND IT IN '27
AND '28 -- >> WALSH: VSA. >> VIAGRAN: IT IS TIME FOR US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS -- I PUT THIS OUT TO THE ARTS AGENCIES TOO.
YOU NEED ME IN FRONT OF YOUR DONORS, YOU NEED ME TO TALK ABOUT HOW Y'ALL IMPACT THE OTHER DELEGATE AGENCIES, I'M THERE TO TELL THEM YOU ARE CRITICAL TO HOW THIS CITY MOVES FORWARD. I'LL DO THE SAME FOR WORLD HERITAGE AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WITH THIS GASTRONOMY PROGRAM WE CAN GET THAT FUNDING AT A STATE LEVEL.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY, WITH MY 56 SECONDS LEFT, IS THE GOVERNOR HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE WANTS ANY PROPERTY TAX INCREASE TO BE A SUPERMAJORITY FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. WE ARE ALREADY LOOKING AT HOW MANY VOTES -- OR EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO LOOK AT HOW MANY TEAM MEMBERS WE NEED.
BUT THE THING IS WITH THAT CONVERSATION, WITH THE CONVERSATION THAT IS HAVING AT THE STATE LEVEL ABOUT WHETHER THEY COME AFTER OUR CPS, WHERE IS SAN ANTONIO GOING TO BE? SO WE REALLY NEED TO GET PAST THIS BUDGET AND START
[01:40:01]
THINKING ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THAT LIE AHEAD. AND JALEN WANTS TO WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER. I'LL WAIT UNTIL FRIDAY OF NEXT WEEK.SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMEMBER CASTILLO,
PLEASE. >> CASTILLO: THANKS, ERIK. GOING BACK TO THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS, AGAIN TO REITERATE. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF REALLOCATING THE LINE ITEM 4, THE 1.7 AND THE $1.6 MILLION TO SUPPORT RESTORING FUNDING FOR THE EMPLOYEE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM.
RESTORING FUNDING FOR THE CENTER FOR POLICY AND RESTORING FUNDING TO THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY FOR THE CLIMATE ADAPTATION MANAGER POSITION. THAT DOES LEAVE SOME FUNDING AVAILABLE TO ALSO RESTORE THE POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE -- THE REDUCTION, RATHER, FOR THE AMBASSADOR PROGRAM. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO SEE THAT FULLY FUNDED AS LAST YEAR. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY
CLARIFY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> WALSH: PERFECT.
THANKS, COUNCILWOMAN. >> MAYOR JONES: COUNCILMEMBER GALVAN,
PLEASE. >> GALVAN: THANK YOU, MAYOR.
I WANT TO ECHO A LOT OF COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO'S COMMENTS ON 4 TO MOVING IT TO METRO HEALTH -- OR SUSTAINABILITY, I MEAN. AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WOULD BE TO THE LIBRARY AS WELL. ANY ADDITIONAL -- ANY LEFTOVER REVENUE FROM THAT TO GO TO THE LIBRARY POSITIONS THAT COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER AS WELL. ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF COUNCILMEMBER MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ'S REQUEST ON THE INNER CITY TIRZ ON THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. I GUESS I WANT TO WRAP UP A COUPLE -- MAYBE ONE THING.
I MEAN, IT IS JUST GOING TO BE CONTINUOUSLY DIFFICULT OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS TO SEE IF WE CANNOT -- TO STAVE OFF A TAX INCREASE. AND THE CUTS WILL JUST GET DEEPER. THERE WILL BE MORE PROGRAMS SACRIFICED.
I MEAN, EVEN WHEN LOOKING AT ANY OF THESE BUDGET LINE ITEMS, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION WE HAVE BEEN HAVING ABOUT USING DIFFERENT POTS OF FUNDING FOR THIS.
I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO TRY TO LOOK AT THAT. JUST FOR THE RECORD, I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO DO THAT. BUT THERE ISN'T AN APPETITE FOR THAT SO WE MOVE ALONG AND WE CONTINUE DOING THAT UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT SPOT. THIS IS A TOUGH CONVERSATION AND I'M SURE IT WILL BE A FUN MEDIA BLITZ TOMORROW AND HOW THIS ALL CAME DOWN TO THE WIRE BUT I THINK THAT'S WORTHWHILE IN TERMS OF OUR OWN SCRUTINY TO THE BUDGET, ESPECIALLY RAISING TAXES IN OVER 30 YEARS. NOT MY FAVORITE THING TO DO BUT I UNDERSTAND ITS VALUE.
THAT'S HOW ALL THIS IS FUNDED. WE HAVE SOME FEES HERE AND THERE. PRIMARILY, A LOT OF THIS IS FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAXES.
WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, WE CAN DO ONE OF TWO THINGS. EITHER CUT IT OR FIND A WAY TO INCREASE REVENUE. I THINK INCREASE REVENUE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON SO MANY DIFFERENT ISSUES IN OUR COMMUNITY. I DO NOT SEE THE WAY THAT WE CAN KEEP CUTTING BACK TO THE BONE BEYOND THAT. I WILL SAY ON THE CONVERSATIONS AROUND ARTS PROGRAMMING, AROUND SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMMING, AROUND HEALTH PROGRAMMING, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS AT COMMUNITY HEALTH.
WE CAN HAVE IT MORE IN DETAIL. I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH DAVIS ON MY LONG LIST OF WHAT I WANT TO SEE DONE NEXT YEAR. I CAN COMMIT TO DOING THAT, ALONG WITH THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMITTEE. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE'VE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS THIS YEAR. IT'S BLEAK.
THESE PROGRAMS -- THERE'S NO OTHER FUNDING FOR IT. SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST BE COGNIZANT OF THAT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT SAYING LET'S NOT LOOK AT ANY OTHER REVENUES, NEXT YEAR IT WILL BE DEEPER CUTS AT THOSE SAME DEPARTMENTS.
WE CAN KEEP DOING IT ACROSS THE BOARD. IT'S GOING TO HIT PEOPLE DISPROPORTIONATELY IN SOME WAY. WHETHER IT'S PARKS PROGRAMMING, HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMMING. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE SUPPORT BECAUSE THE CRUCIAL PART OF MY DISTRICT BUT I THINK ABOUT NEXT YEAR IT'S A REDUCTION TO ANOTHER NUTRITION CENTER. WE'VE GOT TO FIND A WAY TO FUND IT OR LET OUR RESIDENTS KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT NEXT YEAR.
THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH. THAT'S AN EASY 1.6% OR 1% ACROSS THE BOARD FOR PARKS OR HUMAN SERVICES TO LOOK AT.
IT'S EXPENSIVE. THAT'S THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITY.
SOMETIMES THESE PROGRAMS ARE JUST EXPENSIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THEIR HOMES, TO FIGHT ALZHEIMER'S IN THEIR LIVES AND HAVE A QUALITY OF LIFE HERE IN OUR CITY. FOLKS WHO TYPICALLY HAVE NO OTHER MEANS TO DO SO.
AND ALSO WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT CERTAIN GROUPS GETTING SOMETHING, EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO THE PROGRAMS. WHETHER THEY USE THEM OR NOT WE ALWAYS LOOK AT
[01:45:11]
EFFICIENCIES. AS WE KEEP TELLING OUR COMMUNITY TO EXPECT LESS FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO. THANK YOU, MAYOR.>> WALSH: COUNCILMAN, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE AMENDMENT LIST?
>> GALVAN: GOOD. >> MAYOR JONES: I THINK YOU HAD SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON 4. DID YOU CATCH HIS COMMENTS ON ITEM 4, THE SAFFE
OFFICERS? >> GALVAN: REQUESTED MOVING ITEM 4 TO METRO HEALTH, SUSTAINABILITY, AND ANY OTHER REVENUE EITHER TO LIBRARIES --
>> WALSH: I MISSED THAT. >> MAYOR JONES: ERIK, IN CASE IT IS COLORING OTHERS' THOUGHTS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS CUT IN '28, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS YOU ALL ARE MAKING AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRE CONTRACT?
>> WALSH: I WOULD RATHER NOT IN OPEN. BUT WE MAKE CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS IN THE FORECAST FOR KNOWN OR ANTICIPATED EXPENSES, WHETHER IT'S THE SOUTH FLORES SUBSTATION OR A NEW LIBRARY COMING ONBOARD. WE MAKE CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS.
>> MAYOR JONES: I WANTED THAT TO BE CLEAR. THERE'S NOT NOTHING IN THIS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT THAT MAY BE, JUST BASED ON LOGIC AND TRAJECTORY.
COUNCILWOMAN ALDERETE GAVITO. >> GAVITO: THANK YOU.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE 1.6% OR 2% CUTS IS NOT ON THE TABLE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING, ERIK?
>> WALSH: YES, MA'AM. >> GAVITO: WITH THAT LOOKING AT THIS LIST, YOU KNOW, I AM STILL ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO A PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE.
BECAUSE OF THAT, I AM NOT FOR ANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS ON THIS LIST.
ON THE RESTRICTED FUNDS, YES. STILL FOR THE WOMEN'S HEALTH PROGRAM. AND THEN THE CAPITAL BUDGET, YOU KNOW, INCREASING OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BACK TO A MILLION DOLLARS. STILL IN FOR THAT.
I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENTS LIST. THE SAN ANTONIO EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THOSE SCHOLARSHIPS WERE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY AWARDED. IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD WORK IT TO WHERE THEY ARE GETTING MONEY FROM EACH COUNCIL DISTRICTS TO CARRY FORWARD? THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR ONE YEAR. IT'S NOT SUSTAINING.
ALSO, TWO, THESE SCHOLARSHIPS WERE ALREADY AWARDED.
IS THERE A CREATIVE SOLUTION THAT WE CAN WORK OUT FOR SAEP THAT THEY GET A CHUNK
FROM OUR CARRY FORWARDS? >> WALSH: SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS 50% OF WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED. THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES.
WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT THOSE CARRY-FORWARD BALANCES ARE AND PROVIDE THEM TO YOU ALL.
YOU ALL PROBABLY KNOW WHAT YOUR INDIVIDUALS ARE. THERE LIKELY IS CAPACITY TO
BE ABLE TO DO ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS. >> GAVITO: THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M POINTING THEM OUT IS BECAUSE -- AGAIN, I DON'T WANT A PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE SO I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU ALL FOR MORE. IT DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME.
BUT I DO THINK THAT SAEP DOES HAVE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THESE SCHOLARSHIPS WERE ALREADY AWARDED AND I JUST FEEL THAT WE NEED TO HONOR THAT.
>> WALSH: THEY STARTED THE PROCESS BUT THEY HAVEN'T AWARDED IT.
>> THEY HAVE BEEN SELECTED. >> GAVITO: I THINK FAMILIES HAD PLANNED FOR
SCHOLARSHIPS. >> WALSH: YEAH. AGREED.
AGREED. >> GAVITO: I THINK FAMILIES HAD PLANNED FOR SCHOLARSHIPS SO I FEEL LIKE US TAKING THAT AWAY IS JUST -- IT'S NOT GREAT.
THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY TO HELP FUND IT.
AGAIN, I DON'T FEEL -- I DON'T WANT AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD THEREFORE CONTRIBUTE
TO A PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE. >> WALSH: WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND PROVIDE THAT AS PART OF TONIGHT'S MEMO FOR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION FOR
TOMORROW. >> GAVITO: PERFECT. AND THEN ON THE ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW THIS LIST WAS CHOSEN BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M SEEING ELIMINATES FUNDING FOR BIOMED SA. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? I DEFINITELY WANT BIOMED'S FUNDING TO BE RESTORED. I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THIS LIST
EVEN CAME ABOUT. >> WALSH: SO, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ISSUES HAD BEEN
[01:50:01]
RAISED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS. >> GAVITO: OKAY.
YEAH. SURPRISED BY BIOMED SA. I THINK YOU HAVE HEARD A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES SAY SUPPORT BIOMED SA AND I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR FUNDING RESTORED. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE RHYME OR REASON FOR THE ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, STAND FIRM IN NO ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO OTHER WAY.
WE SHOULD BE DECREASING AND FINDING A CREATIVE SOLUTION FOR SAN ANTONIO EDUCATIONAL PARTNERS. IS THAT ALL YOU NEED FROM ME?
>> WALSH: YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES:
COUNCILWOMAN MEZA GONZALEZ, PLEASE. >> GONZALEZ: THANK YOU.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE REVENUE INCREASES, ATTACHMENT 2.
1 THROUGH 6 -- ON THE TEN SAFFE OFFICERS, WE'RE IN A CRUNCH HERE.
I KNOW PATROL OFFICERS ARE VALUABLE BUT IF EFFICIENCY -- FOR ME I THINK IT'S ABOUT DURING THIS CONVERSATION IT'S ABOUT EFFICIENCY NOW MORE THAN EVER BECAUSE OF THIS DEFICIT OR THE SHORTFALL, EXCUSE ME. WOULD THE ADDITIONAL SAFFE OFFICERS DIRECTLY AFFECT POLICE CALL RESPONSE TIME? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR RESIDENTS TALK ABOUT. REDUCING RESPONSE TIME. THAT'S THE ONE THING -- AND
TO BE MORE EFFICIENT, IF WE ADD TO THIS BUDGET -- HI. >> NO, THEY WOULD NOT AFFECT RESPONSE TIME. THESE ARE GOING TO BE SAFFE OFFICERS SO THEY ARE IN THE PATROL DIVISION BUT THEY ARE NOT ASSIGNED TO PATROL FUNCTIONS.
>> GONZALEZ: I THINK THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT FROM MY COLLEAGUES THAT WANT TO INCREASE BUT I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE -- IT SHOULD BE QUALITY OVER QUANTITY. MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS AN EFFECT TO THAT INCREASE. WHAT WE HEAR ALL THE TIME IS RESPONSE TIME AND HOW TO BRING THAT DOWN. THEN THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE -- THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THAT DEPARTMENT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING OFFICERS. JUST CONCERNED A LITTLE BIT THERE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HELPS US. I THINK -- I AM SUPPORTIVE OF INCREASING THE -- I THINK IT'S THE BARGE TICKET TO $20, USING THAT $1 FOR THE CULTURAL OFFICER.
I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED?
>> WALSH: NOPE. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN SPEARS, PLEASE. >> SPEARS: THANKS, MAYOR.
KIND OF IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN SAYING.
WE SUGGESTED THE SAFFE OFFICERS BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE MORE AGREEABLE TO AS A BODY. BUT ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
I REALLY WANTED PATROL. THAT'S REALLY WHAT I NEED. I NEED MORE PATROL OFFICERS.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED -- MANY OF YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE GROWING POPULATION. WE'RE ASKING THE POLICE TO DO MORE WITH LESS.
FIRE AS WELL. ALL OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY ARE DOING MORE WITH LESS AND THAT'S JUST NUMBERS. THAT'S JUST FACTS. AND I HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE INEQUITY BUT I DON'T HAVE A TIRZ FUNCTION. I'M IN A DISTRICT WHERE I DON'T HAVE ANY ABILITY TO ASK FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN MORE OFFICERS OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND. AND MY DISTRICT PAYS A LOT OF TAXES.
THEY'RE ALL HARD-WORKING PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS AND IT'S JUST RAISING TAXES ON THEM IS GOING TO MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE FOR EVERYONE AND THEN WHEN I'M ASKING FOR THE ONLY THING THEY ASK ME FOR IS PUBLIC SAFETY, MORE OFFICERS, HAPPY TO SWITCH TO PATROL. HAPPY. 10, 15 PATROL OFFICERS BECAUSE THEY'RE LESS EXPENSIVE, IN FACT. YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT EACH OF YOU AND I SEE 150,000 PEOPLE BEHIND YOU AND I HOPE YOU LOOK AT ME AND SEE THAT.
150,000 OF MY BEST FRIENDS BEHIND ME. WHEN YOU SAY YOU NEED SOMETHING IN YOUR DISTRICT, I HEAR YOU. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF ITEM NO. 4
[01:55:04]
IN ANY FASHION. MORE OFFICERS. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM IS WHAT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF. AND THAT'S THE ONE ITEM I'M TRULY SUPPORTIVE OF. OH, I ALSO DO AGREE WITH COUNCILWOMAN ALDERETE GAVITO ABOUT BIOMED. THEY'RE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VEHICLE AND THEY'RE NEEDED IN THIS CITY. THE ONLY WAY TO GROW THIS POT OF MONEY IS THROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WE CAN'T ANNEX OUR WAY OUT ANYMORE.THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE, PLEASE.
>> WHYTE: THANKS, MAYOR. SUPPORTIVE OF THE OFFICERS IN ITEM 4.
HAPPY IF THEY'RE PATROL OR SAFFE OFFICERS. SUPPORTIVE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. I HAD SUGGESTED WE NOT TAKE IT TO A MILLION BUT WE TAKE IT TO $500,000 FROM THE 200. SO THERE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT ADDITIONAL MONEY THERE BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY WANTS THAT TO GO TO A MILLION. ON THE REDUCTIONS, I'M FINE WITH ALL THE REDUCTIONS.
THE BIOMED SA ONE IS THE ONE THAT WOULD GIVE ME THE MOST PAUSE BUT I REALLY THINK WE NEED A TON OF CUTS ACROSS THE BOARD. THIS TAX CUT, ERIK, THIS PROPOSAL THAT YOU HAVE MADE, IT CONTEMPLATES A TAX HIKE, I SHOULD SAY.
IT CONTEMPLATES A TAX HIKE THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR, RIGHT?
>> WALSH: YES, SIR. >> WHYTE: OKAY. SO WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS TAX HIKE AND WE HEAR, OH, IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE 35 OR $40 MORE FOR THE AVERAGE RESIDENTS. NEXT YEAR IT WILL BE MUCH MORE.
IT IS A TAX HIKE BUILT UPON ANOTHER TAX HIKE. WHEN VALUES START GOING BACK UP ON PROPERTY, LIKE THEY WILL, THE COST TO THE AVERAGE RESIDENT WILL BE EVEN MORE. AGAIN, OUR OWN STAFF HAS TOLD US THAT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW YOU CAN RAISE PROPERTY TAXES THIS YEAR. YOU CAN RAISE PROPERTY TAXES NEXT YEAR. FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WE STILL HAVE 100-PLUS MILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEN? YOU'RE GOING TO RAISE TAXES AGAIN THEN. YOU WILL HAVE A TAX HIKE BUILT UPON A TAX HIKE BUILT UPON ANOTHER TAX HIKE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.
VALUES TO HOMES AND PROPERTIES WILL BE GOING UP IN FIVE-YEAR.
HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL MONEY IS THAT GOING TO COST THE AVERAGE SAN ANTONIAN TO LIVE IN THIS CITY? IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE HOMEOWNERS.
IF YOU THINK THE FOLKS THAT OWN THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES AND ALL THE OTHER MULTIFAMILY FACILITIES ARE NOT GOING TO PASS THAT INCREASED COST THAT THEY'RE FEELING ON TO THEIR RESIDENTS, YOU'RE KIDDING YOURSELVES.
THIS IS GOING TO MAKE COST OF LIVING MORE EXPENSIVE ON EVERY SAN ANTONIAN.
IT'S NOT JUST $40 A YEAR. HOW MUCH WILL IT BE TWO YEARS FROM NOW? FIVE YEARS FROM NOW? IT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM. WE'RE EITHER GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM OR WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PLACE AN ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE COST TO THE CITIZENS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. THERE IS A PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE TO CUT ACROSS THE BOARD. THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL, 1.6%.
MINE, 2%. TRYING TO LIMIT THE PERSONNEL CUTS THAT WOULD GO WITH THE ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS. IT ALSO INCLUDES SOME FEE INCREASES AND SOME TARGETED PROGRAM REDUCTIONS. I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO LOOK AT THIS. WE DO NOT NEED TO RAISE PROPERTY TAX RATE ON THE CITIZENS OF SAN ANTONIO. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. COST OF LIVING IS TOO HIGH ALREADY, JUST LIKE EVERY SAN ANTONIO FAMILY BUDGETS, WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER JOB BUDGETING OURSELVES. I KNOW WE ALL WANT TO DO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS PROPOSED BUDGET BUT WE CAN'T. WE'VE GONE 33 YEARS WITHOUT DOING IT. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH COVID. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE FINANCIAL CRASH. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH 9/11. HAVEN'T DONE IT.
[02:00:04]
YET NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO MAKE THE CITIZENS PAY MORE? COME ON, GUYS. THERE'S STILL TIME TO GO TO WORK TONIGHT, LOOK AT WHAT THE ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS WOULD MEAN AND TAKE ADIFFERENT PATH. THANKS, MAYOR. >> WALSH: MAYOR?
>> MAYOR JONES: PLEASE, GO AHEAD. >> WALSH: YOU KNOW, I KNOW THESE ARE DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS. YOU'RE NOT ALONE.
A LOT OF OTHER COUNCILS AND BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC ENTITIES ARE HAVING THE SAME CONVERSATION. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT GETS LOST HERE IS THAT OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET IS GOING UP $69 MILLION NET. 65 OF THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY.
WHETHER THAT'S PAY RAISES OR IT'S FIRE HOSE EXPENSE OR POLICE TIRES OR WHAT HAVE YOU, RIGHT? THE PROPOSED BUDGET CONTEMPLATES A SMALL ADJUSTMENT IN THE TAX RATE THAT GENERATES $28 MILLION. SO THAT DOESN'T EVEN PAY FOR THE INCREASED COST FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. AND SO WHAT DID WE DO, BASED ON Y'ALL'S FEEDBACK AT THE BUDGET WORK SESSION? WE CAME BACK AND SOLVED IT IN THREE DIFFERENT WAYS. A SLIGHT ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAX RATE.
AN ADJUSTMENT IN FEES AND REVENUE. AND A MASSIVE REDUCTION IN SPENDING. OVER $90 MILLION -- NOT OVER.
AT $90 MILLION OVER TWO YEARS. AND SO IT WAS A BALANCED APPROACH. AND SO THE NOTION THAT WE CAN SOLVE EVERYTHING AND DO EVERYTHING, WE CAN'T. WE HAVE GOT A FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND FINANCIAL MEASURES AND FINANCIAL POLICIES. I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANAGE THIS CITY FINANCIALLY AND YOU ALL HAVE AN OBLIGATION, AS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO GIVE DIRECTION AND EXECUTE DECISIONS.
AND SO IT'S NOT EASY -- AND I APPRECIATE THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN -- THAT YOU ALL ARE IN IN THESE CONVERSATIONS. BUT DON'T FORGET THAT WE HAVE RISING COSTS IN TWO OF OUR CORE AREAS. AND IT'S NOT ANYBODY'S FAULT, RIGHT? THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT WHEN YOU TAKE REDUCTIONS IN TAXABLE VALUE OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, INCLUDING '27, AND YOU COMPOUND THAT GOING FORWARD, THAT IS OUR SITUATION IN THE FORECAST.
AND, HELL, WE'RE GENERALLY PRETTY MODERATE. WE'RE MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE ANYWAY SO WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO GIVE YOU THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO ALMOST.
I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE YEAR FIVE OF THE FORECAST BECAUSE COUNCILMAN WHYTE'S RIGHT. WE'RE IN A DOWNWARD CYCLE. IT WILL PICK UP.
THIS IS AMERICA. WE RUN IN CYCLES HERE. MY CONCERN AND SHOULD BE YOUR FOCUS IS THE TWO YEARS' BALANCED BUDGET. THAT GIVES US 12 MONTHS OF FLEXIBILITY THAT NO OTHER CITY IN THIS STATE DOES. EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT IT IN SMALL INCREMENTS. WE TAKE A LONGER VIEW AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO DO BECAUSE WE'RE BALANCING TWO YEARS' WORTH AT ONCE BUT IT GIVES US THE LEG ROOM WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST AND ACCOMMODATE AND PIVOT IF WE NEED TO.
I'VE GIVEN YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT HERE IN THESE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT. AND YOU'RE NOT ALONE, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
THANKS, MAYOR. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO ILLUSTRATE A
MATH POINT. >> MAYOR JONES: PLEASE. CAN'T WAIT.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: THANK YOU. AUDIO-VISUAL MAN, AS JACK FINGER WOULD SAY. I HAVE A PAPER, IF I CAN PUT IT ON THE THING.
I COULD GO UP THERE AND DO IT LIKE A TEACHER. >> WALSH: REMEMBER WHEN
YOU DID THAT YOUR FIRST BUDGET? >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: YES.
I WISH I HAD MY WHITEBOARD. SO WHAT I HAVE HERE, MS. AUDIO-VISUAL MA'AM, IS OUR BUDGET BASED OFF THE PROPOSED BUDGET YOU HAD. THE FIRST YEAR, THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST WITH NO TAX RATE INCREASE. I WISH YOU COULD SEE THESE NUMBERS BUT THEY REALLY DON'T MATTER. THE RESOURCES ARE THE FORECAST OF REVENUE. BELOW THAT WE HAVE EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN STARTING WITH POLICE, FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, ACS, PARKS, AND LIBRARIES. POLICE AND FIRE, I ACCOUNTED FOR THEIR EXISTING CBAS.
THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE BOXES NEXT TO POLICE AND FIRE. AFTER THAT, I ASSUME A 4%
[02:05:03]
INCREASE TO THE POLICE AND FIRE BUDGET BECAUSE WE HAVE GONE WELL AND ABOVE THAT EVERY YEAR. I DON'T ANTICIPATE WE WOULD CHANGE THAT ANY TIME SOON.PUBLIC WORKS AND ACS, I SAY WE GROW BY 2% ANNUALLY. IT'S AN ASSUMPTION BASED OFF OF OUR PAST EXPENSES. PARKS, LIBRARY, AND EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GROW. THE REASON I HAVE PARKS, LIBRARY, PUBLIC WORKS, ACS, FIRE, AND POLICE, THOSE ARE CORE FUNCTIONS NOBODY CAN REALLY ARGUE WITH.
WHAT I THEN DO IS LOOK AT IF WE WERE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT THE NEXT YEAR -- WE KEPT THE BUDGET EXACTLY THE SAME. MEANING WE DON'T GROW ANY DEPARTMENTS AFTER THIS. WE HAVE THE BALANCED BUDGET IN '27.
WE MATCH IT IN 2028. WE HAVE THE INCREASES FOR POLICE, FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, ACS. AFTER THAT -- '27 AND '28 LOOK FINE AND DANDY MINUS THE FACT THERE WOULD BE NO WAGE INCREASES FOR EMPLOYEES, WHICH IS NOT FUN.
IN 2029, WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE MONEY FOR HUMAN SERVICES, CITY CLERK, ARRESTING PROCESSING CITY, CUSTOMER SERVICE, 311, HOMELESS SERVICES, ANY OF THOSE SERVICES. THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF CUTS WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE IF WE DO NOT INCREASE OUR REVENUE AND IF WE CONTINUE TO SPEND ON POLICE AND FIRE IN THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN. I KNOW THAT ERIK WOULD NOT MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION BUT THE GOOD THING IS THAT IN 2029 WE WOULDN'T HAVE A CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
IN 2030 WE MAKE MORE CUTS AND IT GETS CRAZY. SO BY THE TIME -- I'M ACCOUNTING FOR THE PERCENTAGE OF CUTS WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IF THIS WAS OUR REVENUE, BASED OFF OF THE FORECAST. AFTER 2031, WHICH IS THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST, I ASSUME WITH 2% GROWTH FOR OUR I'M NOT ASSUMING IT STAYS FLAT. I'M ASSUMING 2% GROWTH WITHIN THESE FIVE YEARS THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT SEEING 2% GROWTH.
I'M BEING VERY GENEROUS AT THE MOMENT. YOU FAST FORWARD TO 2041 AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEPARTMENTS BUT POLICE, FIRE, ACS, PUBLIC WORKS, LIBRARY -- THOSE. THEN WE HAVE TO START CUTTING INTO THOSE.
SO WE'RE GETTING BEYOND THE CORE SERVICES WE'RE MAKING CUTS UNTIL 2049 WE CAN NO LONGER PAY FOR POLICE AND FIRE. WE WILL BE OVER BUDGET.
SO AT SOME POINT OVER THE NEXT 23 YEARS, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AN INCREASE TO OUR RATE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GROW OUR REVENUE.
THIS SHOWS YOU. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CUT OUR WAY OUT OF A BUDGET DEFICIT.
SO YOU CAN MAKE THE POINT THAT, OH, THE STRUCTURAL ISSUE IS OUR SPENDING.
THAT'S NOT THE SPENDING THAT IS THE PROBLEM, SIR. AND JUST LAST WEEK WE VOTED TO APPROVE $102 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS FOR POLICE ENTHUSIASTICALLY WITH NO QUESTION. AND SO THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR MY COLLEAGUES IS AT WHAT POINT DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT SPENDING BY METRO HEALTH, HUMAN SERVICES, ARTS AND CULTURE. IT'S NOT THAT.
IT'S NOT THAT. I THINK MY POINT HAS BEEN MADE, MAYOR.
THANK YOU. >> MAYOR JONES: SURE. GO AHEAD.
>> SPEARS: YOU'RE DISCOUNTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RISING EVERYONE UP ENTIRELY. THAT'S THE GOAL. THAT'S THE WHOLE GOAL.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO MAKE MORE MONEY AND DO BETTER IN THIS COMMUNITY.
THAT'S THE GOAL. AND THEN EVERYONE'S PAYING IN MORE, PROPORTIONATELY.
>> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: WHAT TAX ABATEMENTS DO WE NEED TO DO FOR CORPORATIONS IN ORDER TO GENERATE ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS? ALSO ON THE POINT OF POLICE AND FIRE -- POLICE AND SAFFE OFFICERS, IS IT POSSIBLE, ERIK, FOR EITHER COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE, COUNCILMEMBER SPEARS, ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ALLOCATE FUNDING FOR AN ADDITIONAL SAFFE OFFICER, COULD THEY TRANSFER A MEMBER OF THEIR STAFF OR A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE FROM THEIR STAFF TO POLICE?
IS THERE ANYTHING AGAINST THE LAW -- >> WALSH: IT WOULD BE AN
ADJUSTMENT TO THEIR PERSONNEL COMPLEMENT. >> MCKEE-RODRIGUEZ: IF ANY
OF THEM WANT TO DO THAT, Y'ALL ARE FREE TO DO THAT. >> WALSH: SURE.
IT'S AN ADJUSTMENT. IT'S AN ADJUSTMENT IN POSITIONS AND PROBABLY DOLLARS BECAUSE A POLICE OFFICER IS GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN AN LGC
EMPLOYEE. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY. HAS EVERYONE SPOKEN ON THIS ISSUE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY.
GO AHEAD. COUNCILWOMAN KAUR. >> KAUR: IF WE COULD TAKE SOME OF THE OFFICER DOLLARS AND SPEND IT TOWARDS SOME OF THE POSITIONS THAT COUNCILWOMAN CASTILLO LAID OUT IN SAEP. I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY
[02:10:01]
FINAL POINT, SINCE I'VE CHANGED MY MIND THREE TIMES NOW .THANKS, ERIK. >> MAYOR JONES: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE HEALTHY DISCUSSION. I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PUBLIC DESERVES TO HEAR AS WE'VE MADE THIS VERY DIFFICULT DECISION OR POTENTIAL DECISION.
BUT I AGREE. THERE IS STILL TIME TO KIND OF THINK THROUGH HERE ABOUT WHAT IS POSSIBLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE -- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE DONE ENOUGH HERE TO JUSTIFY A RATE INCREASE. WE HAVEN'T MADE SOME OF THE CUTS SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS WOULD EXPECT. I MEAN, WE COULD, RIGHT, STILL.
YOU COULD CUT -- THERE'S STILL THE 700K SUBSIDY IN HERE FOR FIESTA VERSUS USING THAT ON THE PART-TIME NUTRITION CENTER AT DARNER. USING THAT AT THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM OR FOR THE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
THERE'S STILL A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE BOTANICAL GARDEN.
WE JUST DID NOT HELP OURSELVES IN A WAY THAT I THINK HELPS EXPLAIN TO OUR NEIGHBORS THAT THIS IS TRULY THE LAST RESORT. CYCLOVIAA IS STILL THERE.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE -- LET ME GO BACK TO THE FEEDBACK ON THE AMENDMENTS IN CASE -- I DON'T SUPPORT THE CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENTS AS DESCRIBED. I DO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENTS IN THE RESTRICTED FUNDS. AS MENTIONED, WE CAN PAY FOR SOME OF THE THINGS IN THE GENERAL FUNDS EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS OUT OF FIESTA. I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT.
IF FOLKS WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT THIS EVENING, I KNOW COUNCILMAN GALVAN MENTIONED USING THE READY TO WORK MONEY TO SUPPORT THE SCHOLARSHIPS AND FUNDING THEM AT THE FULL AMOUNT OF $2 MILLION. THE POTENTIAL REVENUE INCREASES, I'M GOOD WITH ALL OF THAT. ON THE REDUCTIONS, I DO NOT -- IT'S $10,000 BUT THE IMPACT TO, IN PARTICULAR WOMEN, BUT SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS FOR THE CHILDCARE ELIMINATION. THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR US, WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE DIVERSITY OF LIVED EXPERIENCE WE WANT ON THOSE BOARDS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS A HIGH ROI. I DON'T SUPPORT ELIMINATING THE FUNDING FOR BIOMED SA. OKAY. ERIK, YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED. CAN YOU SUM UP WHAT WE CAN EXPECT THIS EVENING?
>> WALSH: YES. SOME OF THIS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT BECAUSE UTILIZING THE MAJORITY OF THE AMENDMENT LIST LOOKS OKAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE TO MAKE TWEAKS TO THE SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM.
THE SAFFE OFFICERS, WHETHER IT'S SAEP OR RESTORING SOME OF THE AGENCY REDUCTIONS, THE SEVEN AGENCIES TO INCLUDE BIOMED SA. WE WILL DO THE FOLLOW-UP ON COUNCILWOMAN GAVITO'S QUESTION ABOUT THE CARRY FORWARDS FOR THE OTHER HALF OF SAEP SO WE'LL INCLUDE THAT IN THE MEMO. AND MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS -- I THINK WE'LL MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS ON THE GASTRONOMY PROGRAM. AND MAYBE A COUPLE TWEAKS AS WE COMPARE OUR NOTES.
GENERALLY, WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SOME TWEAKS TO LAST NIGHT'S MEMO TO COME IN LINE WITH THIS AFTERNOON'S CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO ALL OF THE RESTORATIONS FROM THE SAFFE MONEY BUT WE'LL TAKE IT IN PRIORITY ORDER OF THE SUSTAINABILITY POSITION, THE FILLED POSITIONS IN LIBRARY
AND HEALTH AND SAEP. AGENCIES AND SAEP. >> MAYOR JONES: OKAY.
I THINK JUST FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, I WOULD ASK THAT WE DO HAVE A VERSION OF THE BUDGET WORDING THAT DOES, IF A COUPLE OF MY COLLEAGUES -- IF THERE IS SUPPORT FOR THAT 1.6 REDUCTION. ESSENTIALLY, THE SCENARIO THAT I OFFERED.
IF THERE IS -- THERE MAY BE SUPPORT. PEOPLE MAY SLEEP ON IT SO I
WOULD LIKE US TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT TOMORROW. >> WALSH: YEAH.
[02:15:01]
WE CAN DRAFT THAT UP THIS EVENING AND HAVE IT READY. OR THIS AFTERNOON.>> MAYOR JONES: THE TIME IS NOW 3:54 AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
WE HAVE 34 FOLKS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.