Megan Navarro
DRIPPING SPRINGS — Dripping Springs City Council held its first special workshop Tuesday, June 30, for the 2027 fiscal year budget, focused on the general fund.
Included in the general fund are the budgets for the following departments: Administration, Communications, Human Resources, Legal, City Secretary, Maintenance, Project Management, Building, Planning, Finance, Emergency Management, Information Technology (IT) and Parks.
In his presentation to council, Deputy City Administrator Shawn Cox explained the total revenue, expenditures and balance forward for the FY 2026 adopted, amended and projected — what is anticipated for the close of the fiscal year — budgets, as well as the proposed FY 2027 budget. They are as follows:
• FY 2026 adopted: $17,817,128 in revenue, $16,616,528 in expenditures and $1,200,600 balance forward
• FY 2026 amended: $18,859,935 in revenue, $17,385,014 in expenditures and $1,474,921 balance forward
• FY 2026 projected: $19,817,831 in revenue, $18,116,432 in expenditures and $1,701,398 balance forward
• FY 2027 proposed: $16,633,220 in revenue, $16,127,876 in expenditures and $505,344 balance forward
“Our fund balance has gone up. In [FY 2027], we are using some of it as well, but, again, you can see we are paying very close attention to the revenues coming in and making sure we are not spending more than we have in the budget,” Cox said.
In the budget, the consolidated general fund is broken up into city — administration and routine operations of the city — Parks and Founders Day. In the proposed FY 2027 budget, city makes up the largest part of the revenues at $16,090,407 and then, Parks is at $327,003 and Founders is at $215,810.
“We split it out and call it the consolidated general fund just so we can see how those groups within the general fund are doing in budgeting amongst themselves,” the deputy city administrator said.
On the expenditures side, the consolidated general fund has the city at $15,112,656, Parks at $723,362 and Founders at $213,258. According to Cox, it is “pretty consistent” with what was originally adopted in FY 2026 at $16,616,528 and what is proposed for FY 2027 at $16,049,276.
The expenditures are then broken down even further in the proposed budget, according to highlights presented by Cox:
City
• Office IT equipment and support: $132,200
• Software: $327,266
• Transportation improvement projects: $515,825
• Street improvements: $664,000
• Office maintenance and repairs: $129,400
• Fleet maintenance: $174,700
• Liability insurance: $36,000
• Property insurance: $121,426
• Worker’s compensation: $89,766
• Financial services: $62,850
• Training: $150,464
• Transfer to Tax Increment Investment Zone: $1,024,101
• Transfer to Utilities: $2,000,000
Parks
• Park consultants (feasibility studies, grant writing and consulting): $45,000
• All parks improvements (balance of remaining parkland funding): $223,801
Founders Day
• Portable restrooms: $19,674 — increase from $12,198 in FY 2026, which was covered by the Lions Club, due to moving the carnival to the school site and needing additional restroom facilities
• Tents, tables and chairs: $30,500 — an increase from last year because previously, the costs were charged against the sponsorships line item and the city has added more shaded locations for the event
Moving into supplemental items that departments requested, Cox first explained the Stephenson Building project, which is the preservation and renovation of the building at 101 Old Fitzhugh Road to serve as a community meeting, programs and performance space, with some civic offices. He stated that the Stephenson Building is being folded into the budget as a division of Parks in order to track its revenues and expenditures against itself.
The proposed total Stephenson Building revenue is $75,500, including transfers in from the landscaping fund — with the possibility of more from the general and hotel occupancy tax (HOT) funds — sponsorships and donations, contract instructor and recreation programs and rental income.
Equipment rental at $2,000, building supplies at $27,325, building maintenance at $9,500, contractual services at $24,800, promotions at $8,500, utilities at $23,080 and landscaping at $15,000 make up the operation expenditures, which come out to a total of $110,205, with a balance of $34,705.
Mayor Bill Foulds said that he knows the city needs to take care of the building maintenance, however, “when we are putting in like $3,000 for [heating, ventilation and air conditioning in the budget] this year. We’ve got new air conditioning; they’ve got warranty covered. I would like to make sure that money doesn’t get spent somewhere else and we start accruing funds to replace these air conditioners, so we are not sitting like [Dripping Springs Ranch Park (DSRP)] in five years needing to put $30,000 in for development services,” Foulds emphasized. “This money needs to be kept in a fund to be used for replacement when it’s not used, not an automatic transfer somewhere else.”
Council member Geoffrey Tahuahua said that he would like to see an itemized version of some of the items, such as recreation programs, because the proposed expenditure of $15,000 “seems like a lot” for what is listed, which includes crats, carts, mats, etc.
The Stephenson Building numbers are not captured in the budget document that the council had at the table or what he previously presented earlier in the meeting, Cox clarified.
Council member Taline Manassian asked if the supplemental list for the Stephenson Building is being given to council, even though it’s not in the budget, so that council is ready for this step in the coming year.
The deputy city administrator responded that he wanted to see what staff is proposing for the division or department, but did not want to presumptively put it in the budget without bringing it to council first.
“What we're showing, I think the total impact to the general fund is around $35,000, based on projected revenues and projected expenditures,” Cox said. “So, that would be the impact if we put it into the general fund, but again, I wanted to have the discussion with council before being presumptuous and throwing it in there.”
This could, however, come back to council as a budget amendment in the future, once the building opens and the operations are solidified, Tahuahua said. He also stated that he is concerned that “this is proving to be the money pit that I thought it would potentially be” and council and staff may be acting too quickly on it.
Other supplemental requests outside of the Stephenson Building include a total of $1,411,500 for Parks for DSRP wayfinding signage and storage building, recreation center feasibility study, aquatic feasibility, Phase 1 Rathgeber Natural Resource Park improvements, picnic tables at the baseball and softball field and scoreboards for the adult softball fields.
Parks & Community Services Director Andrew Binz explained that if council wants to do a recreation center feasibility study, it would include an aquatics component; however, solely an aquatics feasibility study is also an option or council can opt to readdress it next year.
“When talking with the consultants, they suggested that if we're interested in pursuing the recreation center idea, let's do a recreation center feasibility study that would include an aquatics component and that may replace our current facility,” Binz said. “They said if you're not up for a recreation center and doing that feasibility study, then they would recommend doing an aquatic center feasibility study just to address our current facility.”
Tahuahua said that even if a feasibility study is done and a need for a recreation center is found, his concern is finding the budget for it: “We are essentially trying to to find and source a million dollars over the next five years to cover the wastewater stuff and, while I think we have found ways to ratchet things down, could we afford a feasibility study? Probably. But then we're going to probably shelve it, the actual project itself, for five years, at which point we're going to need to do another feasibility study to see how [things have] changed. Do we now need a bigger recreation center? It would be potentially premature to move forward with these knowing that we couldn't, within a reasonable amount of time, actually act on any kind of improvement because I think when you do these studies, the thought is that you're moving forward in a three- to five-year timeline and if it's going to sit on the shelf for five years, I don't think it necessarily helps anyone in terms of actually trying to plan long-term.”
Council member Travis Crow agreed, stating that $200,000 for a study is a lot and, while the city could benefit from a feasibility study, he feels more comfortable waiting.
Legal artificial intelligence support at $50,000 for the city attorney, as well as a trailer kit at $184,000, crowd control interlocking barrier at $15,000 and portable message signs at $15,000 for Emergency Management were also supplemental requests. Additionally, the Maintenance Department’s requests for positions, etc. total to $595,090.
Council will meet next Tuesday, July 14, to discuss the DSRP, Dripping Springs Visitors Bureau, HOT, farmers market and Transportation budgets.
To listen to the full budget workshop and find meeting agendas, visit www.drippingsprings-tx.municodemeetings.com.
