<\/p>\n
A view of downtown San Antonio from Alamo Stadium on Friday night, Sept. 20, 2024.<\/p>\n
Sam Owens\/San Antonio Express-News<\/p>\n
City Council members brawled Wednesday over the question of which would be worse for San\u00a0Antonians:\u00a0deep cuts to basic services or the city’s first property tax rate hike in three decades.\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
City Manager Erik Walsh has proposed cuts totaling more than $90 million<\/a> over the next two years, with $41 million outlined in spending plan for fiscal year 2027, and a property tax rate increase to help fill a $158 million deficit.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n On Wednesday, Walsh and his staff previewed an additional $75 million in cuts that would kick in if City Council rejects a tax rate hike. The reductions would be necessary to balance the budget.\u00a0<\/p>\n Then the fighting started.<\/p>\n Three council members\u00a0\u2014 Marina Alderete Gavito, Misty Spears and Marc Whyte \u2014 dug their heels in, refusing to entertain the possibility of a rate hike after being presented with cuts that would reduce library hours, eliminate jobs, shutdown a home repair program and jettison a slew of parks department programing.\u00a0<\/p>\n Whyte noted a tax rate increase would still leave the city with a multimillion-dollar deficit over the next five years.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u201cThe cycle goes on and on and on,\u201d Whyte said. \u201cWhat the hell is the point of that? We\u2019re going to continue to raise property taxes on the people of San Antonio. It doesn\u2019t work. Why don\u2019t we actually address the real issue right now, which is that we spend way too much damn money. We cannot do all of these things. Nobody is saying these aren\u2019t all good programs, but you can\u2019t do them all.\u201d<\/p>\n Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones and the 10-member council must adopt a budget for fiscal year 2027, which starts Oct. 1, and property tax rate next month.<\/p>\n Walsh recommended raising the tax rate by two cents, to just over 56 cents per $100 assessed value. That could raise the city tax bill for the average homeowner with a homestead exemption by just under $3 each month, or a little more than $35 each year.<\/p>\n The three council members’ reluctance to consider a rate increase drew the ire of several colleagues, including Councilman\u00a0Jalen McKee-Rodriguez.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m really, really exhausted at this high ground that certain folk were taking \u2014 this ‘I cannot fathom that we would increase property taxes for people,’\u201d McKee-Rodriguez said, taking on a regal tone as he mocked his colleagues’ stance. \u201cThat is ridiculous because the alternative is that you can fathom that we\u2019re going to cut 171 additional people and that we\u2019re going to\u00a0cut all of these programs that my constituents rely on. You can fathom that. You can fathom people being unemployed and having to rely on social services that we\u2019re no longer going to provide.\u201d<\/p>\n At one point in the meeting, McKee-Rodriguez floated the idea of reevaluating a tentative contract<\/a> with the police union, which bakes in pay increases for the officers. The trio that’s against the tax rate hike is pushing for the budget to include money for more patrol officers.\u00a0<\/p>\n Whyte shook his head as McKee-Rodriguez spoke.\u00a0<\/p>\n Councilman Ric Galvan sarcastically suggested the city make more cuts in the districts whose representatives are not OK with a tax increase, an idea that Walsh later said \u2014at Whyte\u2019s insistence \u2014 that he would not consider.\u00a0<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n Galvan said the additional $75 million in cuts to avoid a rate increase go too far.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThese are real cuts, man,\u201d he said. \u201cThese are real things for people\u2019s lives that they rely upon.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Alderete Gavito accused city staff of purposefully selecting service cuts that would hit residents hard to pit council members against each other, which Walsh denied.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI think it\u2019s interesting that y\u2019all put up these line items that really impact residents and start riling us up against each other,\u201d she said. \u201cThe argument is not against each other for our residents. I think the argument should be \u2018How do we cut the fat internally?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n But only cutting items that don’t affect residents\u00a0wouldn\u2019t be enough to dig the city out of its fiscal hole, Walsh said.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are a rather lean organization administratively,\u201d he said. \u201cWe are not going to be able to solve our issue with administrative cuts. Period.\u201d<\/p>\n Nevertheless,\u00a0Alderete Gavito asked city staff to flesh out an alternative $75 million in cuts, ones that target internal city structures instead of services.<\/p>\n Next year\u2019s proposed general fund, which supports basic city services, totals $1.76 billion. The city\u2019s overall proposed budget is $4.4 billion.<\/p>\n Article continues below this ad<\/p>\n