By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
City council members discussed options for the city’s proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2026
budget during a special meeting on Wednesday.
During the meeting, the council also scheduled two more public hearings related to the
budget.
The first, a public hearing on the city’s proposed budget, has been set for 9 a.m. on
Saturday, Sept. 27, in council chambers at City Hall, 109 W. Broadway St.
The second, a public hearing on the city’s tax rate for the coming year, has been set for
6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 29, in council chambers at City Hall, 109 W. Broadway St.
Wednesday’s special meeting began with the council hearing citizen comments from
Municipal Judge Kassandra B. Flores and Del Rio resident Bea Vallejo.
The council then moved on to the budget workshop, and Mayor Al Arreola recognized
City Manager Shawna Burkhart.
Burkhart took the podium and told the council, “I would like to take the opportunity to
read into the record a press release that we sent out today. It is dated today’s date, and (entire release can be read here):”
After reading the release, Burkhart thanked City Attorney Ana Markowski Smith for
writing the document.
Burkhart told council members they should have three different documents in front of
them, the first being the proposed budget. The city manager said copies were also
available for audience members.
Burkhart began her presentation by reviewing a series of “talking points” from the town
hall meetings on the budget she had hosted last week.
Burkhart reminded the council the city started its budget planning for the 2025-2026
Fiscal Year with a $6.6 million shortfall. She noted the city would once again be using
transfers from enterprise funds like the international bridge, water, wastewater, gas and
refuse to subsidize the general fund. She said the city will face the same problem next
year because “the city does not have enough reoccurring revenues to cover reoccurring
expenditures.”
Burkhart said as a result of the two recent town hall meetings on the proposed budget,
“city council asked that city staff go back and look at more cuts and see if we could
totally pull out the reduction in force, and so that is what we’re presenting you this
evening.”
The city manager referred to a reduction in force she had proposed some weeks ago,
cutting more than 20 full-time and at least four part-time city positions.
Burkhart launched into her presentation after she and Smith answered some questions Councilwoman Carmen Gutierrez asked about the additional public hearings.
Burkhart said the supporting documentation she had provided for the council and
audience members included all of the drafts of the proposed budget she had presented so
far.
In particular, the city manager called council members’ attention to the fifth draft of the
budget, which she said included no reduction in the city’s workforce, but an increase in
transfers from four city enterprise funds to the general fund “to balance the revenues and
expenditures.”
Burkhart said the fifth draft increased transfers from the enterprise funds to the general
fund in the amount of $1.9 million.
Burkhart told the council, “It would be a one-time transfer. You wouldn’t necessarily do
that next year, but it would balance you.”
She explained it is important for the city to show a balanced budget when it seeks loans
for the financing of water and wastewater projects in the near future.
“We believe that it’s best to balance, and that is why we’re suggesting that the fifth draft
be the one you consider approving,” Burkhart said.
Burkhart also presented a draft budget designated “Draft 5B,” an option that would
involve not transferring the $1.9 million from enterprise funds and which would leave the
general fund with a $1.9 million deficit.
She also went over a draft budget labeled “Draft 6,” an option that would include the
reduction in force she had suggested, “but with a three-month phase-in,” which had been
proposed by Mayor Pro-tem Jim DeReus.
Burkhart again told the council, “. . . we encourage you to consider the fifth draft. I have
been asked if I believe this is the best way to move forward. I think without a reduction in
force, this is the best way to move forward.”
She added, “I still believe that we will have to consider a reduction in force at some time
in the future, and as we move through this next year, I will be reducing positions that
become vacant, and I will have to hold on vacancies and try to reduce the cost that way. I
will also have to, if, through attrition, attrition meaning that if someone were to leave a
position, we would hold that vacant as well, and so we will try to create cost savings that
way.”
Councilwoman Ernestina “Tina” Martinez asked, “I just want to clarify this. By
transferring from the enterprise funds, the $1.9 million, we do not have to, there will be
no reduction in force, right?”
“That’s correct,” Burkhart replied.
Gutierrez asked from which enterprise funds the $1.9 million transfer to the general fund
would be made, and Burkhart replied the funds would come from the international bridge
fund, the water fund, the wastewater fund and the gas fund.
Gutierrez and Burkhart then engaged in a lengthy discussion, where Gutierrez
closely questioned the city manager about the exact amounts of the proposed transfers
from each enterprise fund. Gutierrez especially wanted to know if the transfer of those
funds would affect any planned projects or purchases.
“I think it’s important to identify, publically, how we will be impacted, because,
technically, we’re robbing from Peter to pay Paul,” Gutierrez commented.
“That’s correct,” Burkhart replied.
After Burkhart went over the exact amounts of the transfers from each of the four
enterprise funds, Gutierrez said, “So by reducing the amounts that you just said (in each
fund), what will not be done? Do we know at this time? . . . I’d like to identify on each of
these enterprise funds what will not be done, just in simple terms.”
Burkhart replied, “What’s not going to be done is the capital improvements that each
fund would have financed out of their own fund reserves, capital projects. Now, if they
were COs, meaning financed by debt, (those projects) will occur. But if they were going
to be financed by their own reserves, that’s what would be affected, and that’s in all of
those enterprise funds.”
Gutierrez asked about specific projects, such as the continued city changeover to
automated water meters. Burkhart said the city plans to continue installing the remainder
of the automated water meters over the next two years.
Burkhart also spoke about a planned project to install automated gas meters, saying that
the city does not have enough in reserves to take on the $2 million project, adding, “So
we cannot move forward on those gas meters until we find another funding source.”
Gutierrez asked if the plans to renovate the concrete wall around the East Springs would
be affected by the planned fund transfers, and Burkhart said it would not.
Burkhart called on City Public Works Director Greg Velazquez, and he spent some time
discussing the East Springs repair, as well as several other public works projects.
At the end of her presentation, Burkhart thanked the council and “three people that have
taken the burden of this budget and all the many drafts,” Budget Analyst Flavio Aguilar,
Assistant Finance Director Roxy Soto and Interim Finance Director Linda Coones.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
