By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
City council members voted today to postpone action on the city’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026
budget until a special meeting set for Monday.
The council took action following a public hearing on the proposed budget, which
included comments from several citizens, and a presentation by City Manager Shawna
Burkhart.
Mayor Al Arreola opened the special meeting and after leading the council, city staff and
audience members in the pledges of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flags, opened the
public hearing on the proposed budget.
Del Rio residents Bea Vallejo and Olalia Gonzalez spoke to the council briefly, voicing
their concerns about the city’s financial situation.
Arreola closed the public hearing about five minutes after he had opened it when no one
else indicated they wished to speak, then recognized Burkhart.
Burkhart told the council, “Today we are contemplating a proposed budget for Fiscal
Year 2025-2026. Again, we are down to three potential options that council has funneled
down from about seven or eight, and I’d like to go over those.”
The city manager first spoke briefly about the budget adoption process, noting the city is
in the final stages of the process and reminding the council there are two meetings left,
today’s meeting and a meeting set for 6:30 p.m. Monday.
“Through these efforts, we want to reflect the city’s commitment to transparency, fiscal
responsibility and ensuring the final decisions are made with the most accurate and
complete information available,” Burkhart said.
She went over the three options.
The first includes balancing the budget this year “on the enterprise funds’ reserves.”
Burkhart said, “We can do that for one year. That is a one-year fix. It also is assuming
that we go from five months to three months on our general fund reserves. That, again, is
only a one-year fix.
“It will also take into account that there will be no capital expenditures for those
enterprise funds that we will be utilizing. When we utilize those (enterprise fund)
reserves, we’re basically stopping all those capital purchases, and that would be a
balanced budget,” Burkhart said.
In the second of the three remaining budget options, Burkhart said, “You would end up
with a negative $1,960,100. That would just reflect what’s negative, that you wouldn’t
cover with (transfers from the) enterprise funds.
“So the only difference between (these two options) is the use of enterprise fund
(transfers),” Burkhart said.
She said the third option “is basically the reduction in force with a three-month delay, so
as to give the city and the employees the opportunity for the transition.”
One of the aspects of the budget with which the council has wrestled over the past several
weeks is a proposal by Burkhart to cut more than 20 full-time and four part-time
positions from the city budget.
Burkhart then pulled up spreadsheets for each of the three budget options she had
summarized and went over the numbers for each of the budget options she had
summarized.
She called council members’ attention to particular line items on the spreadsheets. Those
line items listed the amounts of the transfers from specific enterprise funds.
She noted, “Th(ese transfers) are over and above what we annually do in the enterprise
funds. We normally take transfers from the enterprise funds, but this is over and above
that amount, and this is simply to balance the general fund budget.”
Burkhart said because of those additional transfers from the enterprise funds, the city’s
revenues would equal its expenditures, resulting in a balanced budget.
She next reviewed the spreadsheet for Draft #5B.
“This (is the version) where we just end with a negative balance of $1,960,100,” she said.
Burkhart last reviewed the spreadsheet for Draft #6.
“(In this version), you will have a reduction in force, with a three-month delay, and this
would have a net change in fund balance of negative $1,461,400,” Burkhart said.
The city manager said that completed her presentation and told the council there could be
no “substantial changes” made to any of the budget options she had presented “due to the
fact that we don’t have the timing to have another public hearing.”
Arreola asked if there were any questions or concerns from council members.
Arreola said he wanted Del Rioans to know that even with the city’s current budgetary
concerns, “we’re still doing quality of life (projects) for our citizens.”
“We’re not stopping,” the mayor said.
“That’s correct,” Burkhart responded.
The mayor also pointed out the city “will still stay with our focus on infrastructure.”
“We’re still going to work on infrastructure, the new water well, that is still the vision of
this administration to continue forward with that. We’ll continue fixing streets. It’s not as
many as we want, but it’s going to be in this budget also. Am I wrong?” Arreola said.
“No, you are not wrong,” Burkhart replied. “All of the projects listed in water, the well,
the rehabilitation of the filtration system at the water plant, as well as the East Springs
wall (repair). Those will all still proceed.”
Arreola spoke about performance evaluations for city employees, noting he would like to
see such reviews for all employees.
“We are beginning that process Oct. 1, to be completed by Oct. 31,” Burkhart said,
adding the council will need to make some changes in the city personnel manual.
“The only section in there that discusses performance evaluations is merit pay. Well, you
should have evaluations regardless of whether you have merit pay, and so we are
rewriting that, and you will have that on the Oct. 14 meeting,” Burkhart said.
Councilwoman Carmen Gutierrez said in one of the budget option, Burkhart had
mentioned taking an additional $1.9 million from the enterprise funds to transfer into the
general fund. Gutierrez asked the amount of the “regular” transfers to the general fund
from the enterprise funds.
Burkhart asked budget analyst Flavio Aguilar to go over the amounts “regularly”
transferred from the general fund.
“Currently, our transfers this fiscal year were $600,000 from our debt service fund,
$200,000 from the EDC (economic development corporation), $500,000 from gas,
$1,300,000 from water, $6,570,000 from (international) bridge, a transfer from refuse for
$500,000 and wastewater, $600,000,” Aguilar told the council.
He said this year’s transfers totaled $10,270,000.
“This year, we’re proposing no transfer from your debt service. We’re proposing EDC
remaining the same at $200,000, $800,000 from gas, $2 million from water, $6,500,000
from bridge, $550,000 from refuse and $1,360,100 from wastewater,” Aguilar said.
He said that total equals $11,360,100.
Gutierrez also asked about a comment Burkhart had made about no capital purchases.
“When you talk about no capital purchases, I’m thinking vehicles. What else is a capital
purchase?” Gutierrez asked.
Burkhart replied, “Painting the water tanks, the water towers. I believe that’s one we
pushed to an out year.”
Gutierrez said she had asked City Public Works Director Greg Velazquez about this
during a previous meeting and recalled he had told her “projects that are currently being
funded by these capital improvement would not be funded” and asked if that was correct.
“The only thing that will be funded is anything that is issued debt on, which are the COs
(certificates of obligation): the water well, the East Springs (wall repair) and the
rehabilitation of the water plant,” Burkhart said.
Mayor Pro-tem Jim DeReus then made a motion to postpone the council vote on the
proposed budget until Monday night’s meeting. Gutierrez gave the second, and the
motion passed unanimously.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com
