I Made Some Mistakes: Correcting the Record on Building Blocks, Steven Stearman, and Discussing Trinidad's Budget

This article starts with my own mistakes. On Halloween morning I posted on my Watchtower CI page that I had two Trinidad articles left: this budget article that day, and Part 3 of my daycare series after the election.^[1] A reader, Benjamin L., asked why I'd wait. He wrote that waiting "protects Stearman, at the expense of protecting the voters."^[2] That changed my mind about one thing: I don't want my own mistakes about Councilmember Steven Stearman left standing going into Election Day. So my corrections to my recent Trinidad reporting come first, daycare and budget both, and the budget follows.

I'm holding the rest of the daycare discussion for now. I want to invite Steven back to the conversation he invited me to start, so we can finish it on the same page, with all the information on the table. If you know Steven, I'd appreciate you asking him to reach out to me.

Then the budget. Trinidad's FY2025 audit is more than seven months past due.^[3][4][5][6] A month into its new fiscal year, the City still has no adopted budget. It has two versions of one: the October 6 file on its website, and an "Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal" dated October 26 that the Council had in hand and the website still didn't carry as of my October 31 check.^[7][8][9][6] Before either version came to a vote, the October 27 agenda asked the Council for $291,723.78 in new water meters.^[10] The City's seven posted audits keep reporting the same two problems, adjustments not posted and spending over budget, and the newest audit isn't done.^[11][12] I believe that record is why the City should finish its audit before it makes a commitment this size.

I talk to anyone who reaches out, on every side, City officials and their families included, and I'm prepared to be transparent about any of those conversations. I haven't paid to boost or promote anything I've published about Trinidad.

I didn't send requests for comment to the City, Steven Stearman or Velma Womack for this article. I've laid out the City's own records as fully as I can, and I'd ask you to review them, draw your own conclusions and keep the discussion going.

I invite Steven, Velma, the City and anyone else involved in these matters to reach out to me. Send me information or corrections, set up a phone call, or give me a statement or comment, and I'll add it to this article. That invitation doesn't expire.

Correcting the Record on My Daycare Coverage

I didn't start this to influence an election, and my daycare questions would be the same if Steven weren't on the ballot. I don't want to leave unresolved questions on the table before Election Day, and I want to hear from him before I publish anything more on the daycares.

Journalism is a research project that never ends. New details turn up all the time, and the smallest one can change a story in ways nobody expects. So I stay open to new information, to corrections and to adversarial peer review, and that's the standard I hold myself to.

The Self-Report: My Retraction and Apology

In my October 23 article, Part 2 of my daycare series, I wrote this about Steven Stearman's claim that he reported the Seven Points escape to the State himself: "An email in his sent folder would prove me wrong, and I asked him to forward it. He never did. I believe it was a lie."^[13]

I retract that, and I apologize to Steven.

Stephanie Morgan, the mother of one of the three toddlers, gave me a recording of her meeting with Steven at the Seven Points center after the escape. On it, Steven reads off a confirmation number and says he notified his licensing representative "at 5:13 on Tuesday." December 5, 2023, the day of the escape, was a Tuesday. On the same recording, Morgan says Felicia Stearman, his wife, sent her a photo of the computer screen.^[14]

I haven't verified that number with the State, and I haven't seen the email or the screen. Nothing I have makes a lie more likely than the truth, and I shouldn't have called it one.

I had asked him more than once for anything he could send. On October 17 I asked, "Do you have an intake number?" He answered, "I don't have that intake number," and then, "I don't have the email on the intake. Remember, I called her and she did it for me."^[15] I took the missing email as proof, and that was my mistake. I didn't have Morgan's recording when Part 2 ran; she sent it to me on October 26, three days later. Even without it, the missing email was never enough to call his account a lie, and I should have held myself to a higher standard before using that word.

The Waiver Correction That Already Ran

Part 2 also listed the State waiver for his 20-year-old director at Seven Points as one of the places I believed he lied. On October 17 he had told me, "And just so you know about the 20 year-old director, she is allowed we did request a waiver before that was done," and, "The waiver is on file at state."^[15]

He was right. I verified that the State granted the waiver, and on October 24 I added a dated update to Part 2: "He told me the truth about it, and I was wrong to call it a lie."^[13] I posted the same correction on Facebook that day: "He told me the truth on that one."^[16] He gave me his word without a record, and his word held.

When the Officer Reached the Door

Part 2 said the officer reached the door "at 4:49, about ten minutes before Stearman arrived."^[13] I had that time wrong. The officer's body camera starts at about 4:39 p.m. as he drives in, and by 4:39:13 the door is visibly open. By 4:39:41 he was standing with the bystanders who were holding the children. At 4:40:22 he walked up to the open door, where a worker stood in the doorway, and he walked through it at 4:46:47. The 4:49 time belongs to the frame I published.^[13][17]

The same paragraph in Part 2 set the bank camera's "open from 4:34" right beside the door stopper, which reads as though the stopper held the door the whole time. The body camera shows the stopper already under the door when the officer first walked up at 4:40:22. Neither camera shows when the stopper was first put down, or who put it there, and I should have said so.^[13][17]

His Sister-in-Law

In September I called Emmily Stearman, the admin of the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group, Steven's sister. On September 17 she wrote, "By blood, no. I'm married to his brother."^[18]

She is his sister-in-law. I was wrong. I also apologize for antagonizing the situation with the whole "sister vs. sister-in-law" debate.

Her own words on September 17.

Correcting the Record on My Budget Coverage

Between October 21 and October 27 I published several things about Trinidad's budget and its council that don't hold up, and one line, repeated on four slides, that needs a clarification.

The Audit Deadline, Counted Correctly

My October 25 article said the FY2025 audit "was due March 29, 2026," and my October 27 timeline said the same.^[19][20] Both missed a rule.

State law gives a city 180 days after its fiscal year ends to finish its audit.^[3] Trinidad's fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, and the 180th day after that was Sunday, March 29, 2026. The state's Code Construction Act covers that case: "If the last day of any period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period is extended to include the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."^[4] The Local Government Code applies that act to its own deadlines.^[5] So the FY2025 audit was due Monday, March 30, 2026. My last check of the City's website, on October 31, found no FY2025 audit posted.^[6]

The same rule moves the FY2024 audit. Its 180th day was Saturday, March 29, 2025, so the deadline carried to Monday, March 31. The auditors signed it April 25, 2025, which makes it 25 days late. My October 25 chart said 27.^[12][4][19]

The last three audits, counted under the same rule:^{[11][12][3][4][6]}

Audit	State deadline	Signed	Days late
FY2023	Thursday, March 28, 2024	May 29, 2024	62
FY2024	Monday, March 31, 2025	April 25, 2025	25 (my October 25 chart said 27)
FY2025	Monday, March 30, 2026	Not posted as of October 31, 2026	More than seven months

The Meter Timeline I Posted October 27

At 4:03 p.m. on October 27, before that night's called meeting, I posted a seven-slide timeline of the meter proposal on my Watchtower CI page.^[20] Here is where each slide stands against the record:

• Slide 1's title stands. "A Solution, or the Plan From the Start?" meant that the meters have been in the City's plans since at least late February, while the FY2025 audit and the budget still aren't done. I'm not suggesting anything improper.^[21]
• Slide 4's Aqua Services date was wrong. Aqua was already working for the City by August 2025, two months before the October 21, 2025 date on the slide.^[22][23]
• Slide 4's "radio read meter bids" line was partly right. The February 20 minutes record bids for repairs and upgrades without naming the meters, and the meters come up on February 27. The slide's February 27 quote is the clerk's wording in the minutes.^[24][21]
• I withdraw slide 5 in full. Its title and closing line asked motive questions the record doesn't answer. BuyBoard purchases are legal in Texas.^[25]
• Slide 6's audit due date was off by a day. Under the weekend rule, the audit was due Monday, March 30, 2026.^[4][5]
• The Sarah Crocker billing contract, on slides 3 through 6, needs a clarification. The amount and scope come from the City's agendas, and I don't have minutes confirming the approval.^[26][27]
• Slides 2 and 7 stand as posted.

The slides, and the record behind each correctionClick to expandClick to collapse

Slide 1 asked, "A Solution, or the Plan From the Start?" I stand by that question, and here's what I meant by it. The meters have been on the City's table since at least late February. The February 27 minutes already treat them as coming. Discussing Aqua Services' contract, the City's water operator said city employees were still reading meters, and the minutes go on: "Jeremy stated once they get the radio-controlled meter readers in our employees wouldn't have to do that anymore either."^[21] The August 18 agenda's billing contract included "Future Implementation of Automatic Meter Reading Data."^[26] The September 29 budget workshop discussed "a separate loan of approximately $240,000 for water meter replacement."^[28] I'm not suggesting anything improper in that. My point is the contradiction: the meters have been part of the City's plans since at least late February, and in that time the City still hasn't finished its FY2025 audit or adopted a budget.

Slide 1 of my October 27 meter timeline, as posted. The meters have been in the City's plans since at least late February, and the audit and the budget still aren't done.

1. Slide 4 dated Aqua Services' hiring to October 21, 2025. The minutes from that night report the switch as already done: the "transition from Ford Services to Aqua Services reduced annual costs from $166,000 to $120,000." The hiring came before that meeting.^[23] The August 19, 2025 minutes already report that "aqua services continues to work on flushing," so Aqua was working for the City by that August. I haven't pinned down the exact start date.^[22]
2. Slide 4's February 20, 2026 line said the operator reported on "radio read meter bids." That's partly right. The February 20 minutes record his operator report, and that "Jeremy discussed several bids that he has gotten for various repairs/upgrades," without saying what the bids were for.^[24] The radio-controlled meter readers come up in the minutes a week later, on February 27, in the line I quoted above.^[21] The minutes I have don't tie the February 20 bids to the meters, so I withdraw "radio read meter bids" as written. The rest holds: an operator report on bids for upgrades on February 20, and the meters on the table by February 27. The slide's February 27 row also put that line in quotation marks as Crocker's own words. It's the clerk's wording in the minutes, and I've marked it on the slide.

Slide 4 of my October 27 timeline, with my corrections marked in red. Its Aqua Services date doesn't hold up, and its February 20 row is only partly right. Its August billing row gets a clarification.

3. Slide 5 asked, "Decided before the vote?" and its closing line asked who chose the vendor, and when. Those are motive questions the record doesn't answer, and I withdraw the slide in full.

Here's what the record does show. The October 15 agenda proposed a resolution to buy the meters by competitive sealed proposals.^[29] At that meeting Steven said "the company that we looked at agreed to sell to us through another company, through BuyBoards," and the Council tabled the resolution on his motion.^[30] The October 27 agenda then asked the Council to approve the meters through the BuyBoard Purchasing Cooperative, and that meeting ended with no vote.^[10][7] No vote has approved a BuyBoard purchase.

BuyBoard is a purchasing cooperative. In its own words, "The Texas BuyBoard Purchasing Cooperative streamlines the purchasing process for schools, municipalities, and other public entities in Texas."^[25] Buying through a cooperative like it is legal in Texas.

My stance on the meters comes down to the money. I don't believe the City should commit $291,723.78 to meters before both the budget and the FY2025 audit are finished.

4. Slide 6 said the FY2025 audit "was due March 29, 2026." Under the weekend rule in state law, it was due Monday, March 30, 2026.^[4][5]

Slide 6 of my October 27 timeline. Under the weekend rule the audit was due Monday, March 30, 2026. The audit point stands. Listing these contracts together wasn't meant to suggest anything improper about any of them.

Slides 3, 4, 5 and 6 each say a water billing contract with Sarah Crocker was "reportedly approved" in August. The August 18 agenda proposed "Contracted Water Billing and RVS System Management Services with Sarah Crooker in the Amount of $1,800 per Month," including "Future Implementation of Automatic Meter Reading Data."^[26] The August 27 agenda listed "the contract with Sarah Crocker" for approval.^[27] The contract was reportedly approved, but I don't have council minutes in my possession confirming it. The amount and the scope on those slides come straight from the City's agendas.

Slide 3 of my October 27 timeline. The amount and the scope on the middle card come from the City's agendas. The contract was reportedly approved, but I don't have council minutes in my possession confirming it.

The slide's heading put three names together, and the connection among them is the City's water operations. Aqua Services runs the water system under contract, the August agendas put Sarah Crocker's billing contract before the Council, and on July 23 the Council voted 4-0, with his own abstention, to make Steven its Council Liaison to the Water Advisory Committee.^{[23][26][27][31]} That's why these three names and Aqua Services keep turning up together in the water records. I'm not stating any other connection among them, and nothing I have shows anyone stood to gain from the meter purchase.

Slides 3 and 4 also say he "campaigned on new smart meters." The record I have is his September 19 comment listing "replacing our aging water meters with new smart meters" among his plans.^[32]

The figure at the center of all seven slides holds: $291,723.78 for meters on the October 27 agenda, with none of it in the proposed budget.^[10][8]

What I Wrote About Velma Womack

On October 21 I posted in The Receipts group that Councilmember Velma Womack "did later finally start 'voting against the grain' in May."^[33] The minutes put her first recorded split this year from Marie Bannister and Leah Melton on March 17, when she voted against reducing the municipal judge's pay to $400 a month. The vote tied 2-2, and the Mayor broke the tie against the cut.^[34] Her four No votes in May were all cast at the May 28 meeting itself.^[35]

Five days later, at 3:08 p.m. on Monday, October 26, I wrote on the Watchtower CI page, "On May 28 she was the only 'no' vote, four times over, when the council removed Judge Shellena Bivens..."^[36] She was the lone No on four 3-1 votes that night, and only one of them, item 7, was the removal. The other three hired Flowers Davis, ended the Gaddis agreement and appointed Susan Carver.^[35]

Both lines were wrong, and I apologize to her for both.

No Budget and No Audit, a Month Into the Year

Trinidad's 2026-27 fiscal year began Thursday, October 1, with no adopted budget. When I checked the City's website on Saturday, October 31, the only budget posted was still the October 6 proposal, and no new meeting or hearing notice had gone up.^[6] The audit of fiscal 2025, the year that ended September 30, 2025, wasn't there either.^[6]

Why There Was No Vote on October 27

The budget and the water meter purchase were both on the agenda for Tuesday, October 27, posted under the title "City Council Called Meeting Agenda."^[10] Jennifer Combs's livestream video of the meeting shows three aldermen answering the roll: Velma Womack, Steven Stearman and Marie Bannister. The fourth seated alderman was missing: "Leah Melton is absent tonight."^[7]

Trinidad is a Type A general-law city with five alderman seats, and one of them is vacant.^{[37][38][39][40]} Under Local Government Code §22.039, a called meeting needs two-thirds of the aldermen for a quorum, which in Trinidad is four.^[39] I raised the point. The city attorney checked and said, "since this is a special meeting, it appears that we do need it." Mayor Dennis Haws closed it out: "We're done, folks."^[7] The Council took no vote on the budget, the meters or any other item.^[7][10] My October 28 article covers that night in full.^[41]

Earlier in the meeting, the Mayor read aloud from the agenda that a taxpayer impact statement "is attached to this notice."^[7] The agenda on the City's website and on the City Hall doors was three pages, with no attachment and no budget, and I found no impact statement anywhere on the City's website.^[10][42][43] Government Code §551.043(c)(2) requires that statement in the notice of a meeting to adopt a budget, and §551.141 makes an action taken without following the Open Meetings Act voidable.^[44] No vote happened, so there was nothing to void. If the Council calls the hearing again, will the notice carry the statement?

On October 31, the City's agendas page listed the October 27 meeting as "Canceled." The aldermen present, the Mayor and the city attorney met at 6:00 p.m., and the meeting ended on the quorum point.^[6][7]

The Audit, Update by Update

The fiscal 2025 audit was due Monday, March 30, 2026.^[3][4][5] As of Sunday, November 1, 2026, it is more than seven months past due, 216 days by my count. As of my October 31 check, it isn't on the City's website, and no posted agenda has carried it for the Council to accept.^[6] The last public updates came from Councilmember Steven Stearman, in posts in the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group, and from Mayor Haws.^[45][46]

The March 30 deadline passed before the Council appointed Steven on June 18, and so did the deadline behind the Attorney General's August list.^[47][48] I believe the auditor's own timing is out of any councilmember's hands.

On Saturday, June 27, Steven wrote that the audit "should have been completed back in January" and that "only about 20% of the requested information has been gathered." His goal was to have everything "submitted to the auditor by July 31." Once the audit was complete, he wrote, "we'll finally have the accurate financial information we need to build next year's budget on solid ground."^[45]

Steven Stearman's June 27 audit update in the Beware group. Screenshot from the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group.

On Tuesday, July 21, he wrote: "The audit is now down to just three remaining items, and I expect to have everything ready to meet the deadline for submission."^[45]

Steven Stearman's July 21 post: the audit was down to three remaining items. Screenshot from the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group.

On Thursday, August 6, he wrote: "we completed the City's annual audit today. We are now waiting on the auditors' final report, which we expect to receive by the end of the month. As soon as we receive it, we'll post it online for everyone to review." In the same post he wrote that he had "not found any evidence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing."^[45]

That post also estimated the City "has been losing approximately $500,000 per year" because approved water rates were never programmed into billing. The post dates the rate ordinance to March 2025. The minutes I have record the Council adopting an ordinance numbered 2025-003 on February 27, 2026, and I can't match the two.^[45][21] Which ordinance, and which months of billing, does that estimate rest on?

Steven Stearman's August 6 post, as captured; the capture cuts off partway through his closing sentence. Screenshot from the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group.

On Thursday, September 17, Renee Weaver asked in the same group, "Does anyone know the current status of the City of Trinidad's annual audit? Has the completed audit been returned to the City yet?" Steven answered, "Not yet." She replied, "they are not fast. That's why I disagree with only giving municipalities 180 days to be compliant, it's hard to accomplish that." He answered her: "well I'm about to start the next one as soon as possible."^[49][45]

September 17: Renee Weaver asked whether the audit was back. Steven Stearman answered, "Not yet." Screenshot from the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group.

At the September 29 budget workshop, the minutes say the audit was "expected... within approximately two weeks."^[28] On Sunday, October 25, the Mayor wrote me about the auditor: "I exchanged emails with David Godwin last Monday and he said three weeks. That should leave us a couple of weeks away."^[46] By that count, the report would arrive around November 8.

Red flag:The audit was due March 30. It still isn’t on the City’s website, and the latest estimate, on Oct. 25, was a couple of weeks.

• All dates 2026
• The deadline is 180 days after the fiscal year ends; it fell on a Sunday, so it ran to Monday, March 30
• The Aug. 6 post said “we completed the City’s annual audit today” and that the City was waiting on the auditors’ final report

Source: Steven Stearman’s posts in the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group (screenshots from the group); Sept. 29, 2026 minutes; Mayor Haws to me, Oct. 25, 2026; Texas Attorney General, Aug. 17, 2026; trinidadtexas.gov, Oct. 31, 2026; LGC §103.003

View the data as a table

When	What	Detail
March 30	State deadline for the audit
June 27	Councilmember Steven Stearman: “only about 20% of the requested information has been gathered”	Goal: everything “submitted to the auditor by July 31”
July 21	Steven: “down to just three remaining items”
Aug. 6	Steven: “we completed the City’s annual audit today”	“We are now waiting on the auditors’ final report, which we expect to receive by the end of the month. As soon as we receive it, we’ll post it online for everyone to review.”
Aug. 17	Attorney General lists Trinidad among cities sent late-audit letters
Sept. 17	Asked whether it was back, Steven: “Not yet”
Sept. 29	Workshop minutes: expected “within approximately two weeks”
Oct. 25	Mayor Dennis Haws: “a couple of weeks away”
Oct. 31	Still not posted on the City’s website (my latest check)

The Attorney General's August List

On Monday, August 17, the Texas Attorney General's office released a list of more than 110 cities "sent violation determination letters" under Senate Bill 1851, the late-audit law, and Trinidad is on it. The office names the cities in its releases but doesn't post the letters.^[48] Trinidad wasn't on the office's May 14 list of more than 130 cities.^[50]

Local Government Code §103.005 has been in effect since September 1, 2025. If the Attorney General determines that a city hasn't filed its audited financial statement "before the 180th day after the last day of the municipality's fiscal year," the city "may not adopt an ad valorem tax rate that exceeds the municipality's no-new-revenue tax rate." The limit applies "for the tax year that begins on or after the date of the attorney general's determination," and for later tax years until the audit is completed and filed.^[3][51] Does Trinidad's letter cap the 2026 rate, the 2027 rate, or both? Has the Council seen it?

The same law says, "A person may submit a complaint to the attorney general," and the office takes complaints through a form on its website.^[3][52]

What the City's Own Records Show

The City's own posted audits, FY2018 through FY2024, and its debt and tax filings already show several of the gaps in this year's budget.^[11][12] The audits report the same problems year after year. These are audited years through FY2024. The City's position may have improved since then, and the October 26 cash figures haven't been audited. That's why I'd want the FY2025 audit first.

Seven Audits, the Same Two Findings

Anderson, Marx & Bohl signed all seven of the City's posted audits, FY2018 through FY2024, and every finding the firm issued was a material weakness.^[11][12] Two findings keep coming back. In the FY2024 audit, finding 2024-001 reads, "The City failed to post material adjustments." Finding 2024-002 reads, "The City did not maintain proper budgeting controls over expenditures by exceeding its budget in several areas."^[12] The City's answers were "The City will post all necessary adjustments" and "The City will review existing procedures and adjust its budget accordingly."^[12]

The FY2022, FY2023 and FY2024 findings and the City's corrective plans are word for word the same. Plans dated September 30, 2020 and September 30, 2022 came and went, and the FY2020 audit marked both findings "Corrected" before they returned.^[11][12] It appears to me, based on those seven audits, that the City has been promising the same two fixes since 2020.

Over Budget, Late and Debt Budgeted at Zero

The general fund spent past its budget in six of those seven years. The three biggest overruns came back to back: $368,050 (48%) in FY2022, $411,445 (55%) in FY2023 and $350,613 (45%) in FY2024.^[11][12]

Red flag:Spending ran past budget in 6 of the 7 audited years, and each of the last three ran more than $350,000 over.

• FY2022-FY2024 overruns were 48%, 55% and 45%
• Earlier years are not shown

Source: City of Trinidad audits FY2022-FY2024, budgetary comparison schedules and notes

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2022	$368,050
FY2023	$411,445
FY2024	$350,613

Part of that gap is debt the budget left out. In FY2022, FY2023 and FY2024, the general fund budgeted $0 for debt service while paying $35,660, $63,213 and $71,203. The FY2018 through FY2021 budgets had carried it, and each audit's own schedule printed the payments coming due.^[11][12]

Red flag:The City paid its loans in each of those three years and budgeted nothing for them.

• Budgeted
• Paid

• Budgeted: the final budget's debt service lines
• Paid: principal plus interest from the same schedule (my sums)

Source: City of Trinidad audits FY2022-FY2024, budgetary comparison schedules

View the data as a table

	Budgeted	Paid
FY2022	$0	$35,660
FY2023	$0	$63,213
FY2024	$0	$71,203

The general fund also budgeted $0 in loan proceeds in those three years and took in $275,989, $288,732 and $129,027.^[11][12] Two of those loans, the $500,000 city hall loan at 5% (with $480,367 left) and the $129,027 parking lot loan at 6.75%, cost about $45,852 a year together, by my arithmetic.^[12] The FY2027 budget's Admin debt line is $58,403 in both versions.^[9][8]

The audits were late, too. Six of the seven missed the 180-day deadline. Counted with a weekend deadline carried to Monday, the same rule that puts the FY2025 deadline on Monday, March 30, 2026, the FY2018 audit was 325 days late and the FY2022 audit 205 days late, while FY2021 was on time.^{[11][12][3][4]} The auditor's opinion date is the only completion date the audits show, so that's the date I counted to.

Red flag:Six of the last seven audits missed the deadline, and the FY2025 audit, still not out, is already the second latest.

• Counted from each audit's opinion date, the only completion date the audits show
• Day counts are my arithmetic
• FY2025 was due Monday, March 30, 2026, and is counted to Nov. 1, 2026 (217 days on Nov. 2)

Source: City of Trinidad audits FY2018-FY2024, auditor's opinion pages; LGC §103.003; Gov't Code §311.014(b)

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2018	325 days
FY2019	143 days
FY2020	93 days
FY2021 (on time)	0 days
FY2022	205 days
FY2023	62 days
FY2024	25 days
FY2025 (not out yet)	216 days

Reserves, Deposits and Transfers

The water fund's restricted reserve fell from $266,791 at the end of FY2019 to $6,518 at the end of FY2024.^[11][12] The October 26 cash table shows larger reserve balances, and those balances haven't been audited yet.^[8]

The general fund's unassigned balance, the part not set aside for anything, went from $209,070 in FY2021 to $175,450, then $87,335, then -$70,253 in FY2024. At September 30, 2024, the general fund also owed the water fund $140,306.^[11][12]

Red flag:Three straight years of decline left the spendable general fund below zero in the last finished audit.

• Unassigned: the part of the fund not restricted or set aside, which the City could actually spend
• FY2025 has not been audited

Source: City of Trinidad audits FY2021-FY2024

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2021	$209,070
FY2022	$175,450
FY2023	$87,335
FY2024	-$70,253

No audited year moved anything close to what next year's budget moves out of the water fund. The largest audited transfer from water to the general fund was $145,421, in FY2020, and in FY2023 and FY2024 the money went the other way.^[11] The posted budget moves $368,618 out of the water fund, and the October 26 version moves $414,461.^[9][8]

Context:Both plans move more than twice the largest audited transfer out of the water fund.

• In FY2023 and FY2024 money went from the general fund to the water fund
• Other audited years are not shown

Source: City of Trinidad audits FY2020-FY2024; proposed budget FY2026-27; Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal (Oct. 26)

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2020 audit	$145,421
FY2027 posted budget	$368,618
FY2027 Oct. 26 budget	$414,461

On Tuesday, September 15, Renee Weaver asked in the Beware group, "Does anyone know how much the City currently carries in refundable customer deposits?" She added, "I'm NOT suggesting the money is missing. I'm asking whether anyone knows where this obligation appears in the City's financial records and what the current balance is." In a comment under her post, she wrote, "I just don't see it as a line item on the financials and it should be."^[53]

Renee Weaver's September 15 question about customer deposits. Screenshot from the Beware of Trinidad Texas Water group.

Customer deposits are money the City holds and owes back when an account closes. The two figures here measure different things. The audit figure is an obligation on the books, the budget figure is one named bank account's balance two years later, and one account isn't necessarily the only place the City keeps deposit money. Nothing I have shows any deposit money is missing. In the audits, what the City owed depositors rose every year, from $65,239 in FY2018 to $92,319 in FY2024. That's the obligation Renee Weaver asked about in September. The October 26 version's Water Deposits account holds $9,927.^{[11][12][53][8]} Where does the City hold the money behind its customer deposit obligation?

Debt Balances Neither Budget Shows

The FY2024 audit lists 11 debt instruments. At September 30, 2024, the City owed $1,318,291 in principal, with $682,351 more in interest still to come, and the payments scheduled for the year ending September 30, 2027 total $158,453, by my sums.^[12]

The October 26 version lists $85,420 in FY2027 principal and the cash set aside for debt payments, and it shows no balance owed on any loan.^[8] That $85,420 is close to the audit's $88,435 in water principal, and I can't reconcile the two.^[12][8] Which loans does it cover?

The Texas Bond Review Board, as of August 31, 2025, shows $515,000 outstanding in four issues: Series 2000 revenue bonds ($195,000), 2001 revenue bonds ($65,000), 2007 certificates ($165,000) and 2007A certificates ($90,000). It schedules $72,000 in bond principal in each of FY2026 and FY2027, and the 2007A's last principal payment falls on January 1, 2027.^[54] If the 2007A is the bond he means in the meters funding discussion, that schedule fits what he described.

The Texas Water Development Board shows two active 2007 State Water Fund loans to the City: $400,000 for sewer work (L070045) and $250,000 for a pump station (L070046).^[55] Matching them to the 2007 and 2007A certificates works by amount only, and I haven't confirmed it.

The FY2027 budget carries $49,602 in police debt service.^[8] It matches no loan in the FY2024 audit. The only police loan there had $14,161 left at $2,086 a month, which would have run out around spring 2025, by my arithmetic.^[12] The City's own 2026 tax-rate filing lists six notes with $126,991.60 of debt service this year, and two of them aren't in the FY2024 audit: KS State Bank police vehicle notes ($47,682.44) and a Fleetwood police equipment lease ($9,546.97).^[56] They look to me like the likely source of the police line. What's left on those notes, and how long do they run?

Which 2026 Tax Rate?

I can't find a 2026 property tax rate item on any agenda the City has posted since June, through my October 31 check.^[43][6]

For tax year 2026, the county tax office's worksheets, dated August 19, give Trinidad a no-new-revenue rate of $0.462670 and a voter-approval rate of $0.641038 per $100 of taxable value, on a certified taxable value of $83,238,479 as of July 25.^[57] Last year the City adopted $0.478944, for a $387,208 levy.^[58]

Context:The county tax office lists $0.462670 as adopted, the state-required tax database shows no rate at all, and I can't find a rate vote on any posted agenda.

• No-new-revenue rate: about the same tax money from the same properties as last year
• Voter-approval rate: the most a city can adopt without an election
• Agenda check through Oct. 31, 2026

Source: Henderson County tax office worksheets (Aug. 19, 2026) and 2026 rate table; county property tax database (Oct. 31, 2026); Texas Comptroller

View the data as a table

Figure	What it is	Signal
$0.478944	2025 adopted rate	Context
$0.462670	2026 no-new-revenue rate	Context
$0.641038	2026 voter-approval rate	Context
$0.462670	2026 rate the county tax office lists as adopted	Red flag
No rate	2026 rate in the state-required tax database (listed as $0.000000)	Red flag
None	2026 tax rate items on any agenda the City has posted since June	Red flag

The records disagree. The county tax office's table lists $0.462670 as Trinidad's "Adopted" rate. The state-required property tax database lists Trinidad's proposed and adopted 2026 rates as $0.000000. I don't know whether that means no rate was entered.^[59][60]

Three public records, three different answers. Which 2026 rate applies to Trinidad, and was it adopted or ratified at a posted meeting?

Other Questions in the Numbers

The October 26 version's System Reserve includes a $213,251 deposit dated September 10, and Turner's own memo says its "source and restrictions should be established."^[8] The posted budget shows the same $213,251 for raw water through July.^[9] The figures match, and that's all I know. Is that deposit the raw water money, and what restricts it?

At the September 29 budget workshop, lagoon repairs were "estimated at $100,000" "to avoid EPA violations."^[28] Which budget line pays for them?

On October 21, 2025, about three weeks into last fiscal year, the Council ratified the prior budget "on an interim basis."^[23] I can't find a similar item on any 2026 agenda the City has posted through my October 31 check.^[43][6] Not finding it online doesn't mean there isn't one: an earlier appropriation, an amendment or a record the City hasn't posted could cover it. What authority has covered the City's payments since October 1?

Council Work on the Record

Steven's council work is on the record too. On July 23 he moved to reauthorize the quarter-cent street maintenance sales tax, which the minutes say the City hadn't been collecting, and he flagged the billing errors that kept customers from being charged under the City's ordinances.^[31]

In September he helped stop a proposal to cut Trinidad's water rates again, and I give him credit for it. Pat Jones, who chairs the City's Water Infrastructure Advisory Committee, wrote after the Tuesday, September 15 meeting: "If it weren't for Steven, Marie's proposal Tuesday could have put the city another $66,000 in the hole."^[61][62] That figure is his.

In his August 6 audit post he also wrote that he had "not found any evidence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing."^[45]

Two Budgets: October 6 and October 26

What Changed Between the Versions

The budget on the City's website is a "Council planning worksheet" from the City's outside CPA, Christopher A. Turner. Its summary page is dated August 21, and the PDF itself was built Tuesday, October 6.^[9] The copy handed to the Council on October 27 was an eight-page "Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal" from Turner, dated Monday, October 26.^[8] That night the website still carried the October 6 file, byte for byte, last uploaded October 19, and it still did when I checked on October 31.^[43][6]

The changes are real money. Water fund spending for next year rises from $1,062,329 to $1,164,997, up $102,668. Admin salaries go from $75,611 to $90,000. The water fund, which the posted version said had moved its salaries to streets, carries $50,000 in salaries again. The surplus across all funds drops from $708,562 to $605,894.^[8][9]

Context:The version the Council had carries $102,668 more in water fund spending than the one the public could read.

• Surplus is planned income minus planned spending, before counting the grant’s study, loan principal or the meters

Source: City of Trinidad proposed budget FY2026-27 (posted Oct. 6); Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal (Oct. 26)

View the data as a table

Item	Value
Posted online (Oct. 6)	$708,562
At the meeting (Oct. 26)	$605,894

Turner's update also fixes things. It shows the City's cash at September 30 for the first time: $801,468 across 15 bank accounts, each labeled by purpose. It replaces ten months of projections with 12 months of actual results, and its transfers balance, which clears the $28,666 gap between pages I reported in the posted version.^[8][19]

Page 1 of the October 26 budget version, which wasn't posted with the meeting agenda. My scan, with the source hash at the foot.

All eight pages of the October 26 budget versionClick to expandClick to collapse

Page 1: the comparative budget summary.

Page 2: financial highlights and proposed funding priorities.

Page 3: the bank accounts, each with its planning purpose and its September 30 balance.

Page 4: account-level lines, prior budget, actual and proposed.

Page 5: account-level lines, continued.

Page 6: account-level lines, continued.

Page 7: the Water and Sewer Department.

Page 8: the notes on debt principal and the water line study, ending at Turner's signature.

Some pieces are still missing. Local Government Code §102.003(b) calls for a budget to show the city's outstanding obligations and "the estimated tax rate required to cover the proposed budget," and Tax Code §26.04(e-5) calls for the rate calculation forms.^[63][64] The October 26 version shows no balance owed on any loan, no estimated tax rate and no rate forms. Its eight pages end at Turner's signature.^[8]

State law lets a council make "any changes in the budget that it considers warranted" when it adopts one, so the Council can work from a newer version.^[63] I believe residents who want to speak at a budget hearing should be able to read the version the Council will vote on. When will the October 26 version be posted?

Cash the Surplus Doesn't Count

The October 26 version shows a $605,894 surplus across all funds. That surplus is planned income minus planned spending, and two items of cash sit outside it. The version counts a $300,000 grant from the City's EDC as income while leaving the water line study it pays for out of spending, and it leaves out $85,420 in loan principal due this year.^[8] Loan principal is cash the City pays out, even though accounting rules keep it off the expense lines. I haven't confirmed how the City books the grant and the study, or whether the study's cost appears somewhere else. If both come out of this year's cash, by my arithmetic about $220,474 of the surplus is left.^[8]

The $291,723.78 water meter purchase on the October 27 agenda, plus about $6,355.80 a year for the meter network, isn't in either budget version.^[10][8] Set beside that $220,474, a cash purchase this year would take about $77,606 more than the surplus covers, by my arithmetic. I offer that figure only to show the size of the commitments next to the surplus. It's a conditional illustration, and the City's CPA could account for the grant and the study differently; a reconciled cash-flow forecast would have to come from the City. The City keeps its funds separately, its year-end cash could differ, and financing the meters would spread their cost over later years. The budget doesn't say how the City would pay for them.^[8][10]

Context:Count the grant’s study and the loan principal, and about $220,474 of the surplus is left. A cash meter purchase this year would take about $77,606 more than that.

• Total
• Decrease

• Grant study: counted as income, but the study it pays for is left out of spending
• Loan principal: cash paid out, kept off the expense lines
• Meters: on the Oct. 27 agenda, in neither version
• Beyond the surplus: my arithmetic, a conditional illustration across separate funds; the City’s CPA could book the grant and study differently
• Financing would spread the meters’ cost over later years

Source: Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal (Oct. 26, 2026), pp. 1, 7-8; Oct. 27, 2026 agenda, item D.3

View the data as a table

Step	Amount	Running total
Surplus in the budget	$605,894	$605,894
Grant study	-$300,000	$305,894
Loan principal	-$85,420	$220,474
Meters, year one	-$291,724	-$71,250
Meter network	-$6,356	-$77,606
Beyond the surplus	-$77,606	-$77,606

Water Sales: Last Year's Actual and Next Year's Plan

The budget expects $799,784 from water sales next year, against $527,659 in actual water sales for the 12 months that just ended, about 52% more.^[8] Some increase makes sense. In July the Council heard about billing errors that kept customers from being charged under the City's ordinances, and the posted version bases its projection on "last two months' RVS reports using updated rates."^[31][9] Will two months of bills hold up for a full year?

Context:The budget counts on about $272,000 more in water sales. The posted version bases it on the last two months of bills at the updated rates.

• The Council heard in July about billing errors that kept customers from being charged under the City’s ordinances
• FY2026 carried the new rates for only part of the year

Source: Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal (Oct. 26, 2026), pp. 2, 7; proposed budget p. 14; July 23, 2026 minutes

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2026 actual (12 months)	$527,659
FY2027 budget	$799,784

In his August 6 post, Steven estimated that the billing, meter and trash sales tax fixes "could see an increase of approximately $536,000 in annual revenue." The budget's water sales line rises $272,125, about half that. The two figures measure different things: his includes trash sales tax, and fiscal 2026 already carried the new rates for part of the year.^[45][8] Which number should residents expect?

Payroll, Court and Police

Salaries outside the police department go from $156,615 in fiscal 2026 to $245,643 in the proposal, about 57% more.^[8] Some of that may reflect a year of turnover in City Hall. Trinidad needs consistent, experienced leadership to guide it through these financial hurdles.^[65][21] The memo asks the Council to "confirm approvals for the proposed City Administrator role," and it doesn't say what the new salary money pays for.^[8] Which positions does it fund?

Context:Non-police payroll rises about 57%, and the memo doesn’t say which positions the new money pays for.

• FY2026 was a year of turnover in City Hall
• The memo asks the Council to confirm “the proposed City Administrator role” before adoption

Source: Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal (Oct. 26, 2026), pp. 2-7

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2026 actual	$156,615
FY2027 budget	$245,643

Trinidad has had no police department in operation since Friday, September 18, when the State's revocation of the department's appointing authority took effect.^[66] The budget still expects $138,889 in municipal court revenue, against $214,596 in fiscal 2026.^[8] Old citations, outstanding fines and payment plans can keep bringing in money after the officers are gone. How much of the $138,889 is that, and how much depends on new citations?

The budget also carries $200,000 in police contract labor with no approved interlocal agreement. The October 15 agenda described a potential agreement "with the Henderson County Sheriff's Office or the City of Log Cabin for the provision of law enforcement services," and Jennifer Combs's livestream video of that meeting shows the Council took no action on one.^[8][30][29] From what I know firsthand, the $200,000 is what the City expects to pay one of them for dedicated coverage, and no deal has been reached yet. Budgeting for that before a contract is signed is reasonable. The budget carries $49,602 in police debt service too.^[8] Which notes does it pay?

Context:Trinidad's police department stopped operating Sept. 18. How much of this is old citations, and how much depends on new ones?

• The state’s revocation of the department’s appointing authority took effect Sept. 18, 2026
• Old citations, outstanding fines and payment plans can still bring in money
• The budget also carries $200,000 for a police agreement the Council hasn’t approved

Source: Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal (Oct. 26, 2026), p. 5; TCOLE letter, Sept. 9, 2026 (first published by FOX 4’s David Sentendrey); Oct. 15, 2026 meeting

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2026 actual	$214,596
FY2027 budget	$138,889

Water testing is budgeted at $5,964 in lab fees, "based on current year spending." The City spent $49,494 on testing lab fees in fiscal 2025 and $5,770 in fiscal 2026, a drop of almost 90%.^[9][8] The budget doesn't say whether testing is now paid under the operator's contract or from another line. Where is it paid from?

Context:Lab fees fell by almost 90% last year, and the budget doesn’t say where testing is paid from now.

• The FY2027 figure is “based on current year spending,” per the budget
• The budget doesn’t say whether testing is paid from another line

Source: City of Trinidad proposed budget FY2026-27, p. 14; Updated FY2026-2027 Budget Proposal (Oct. 26), p. 7

View the data as a table

Item	Value
FY2025 actual	$49,494
FY2026 actual	$5,770
FY2027 budget	$5,964

The Meters: $291,723.78 Before a Budget

About 12.5% of the Posted Budget's Spending

The October 27 agenda asked the Council to approve up to $291,723.78 for new water meters.^[10] That total is $264,973.78 to Accurate Meter & Supply, LLC through the BuyBoard Purchasing Cooperative, plus up to $26,750 for Aqua Services, the City's contract water operator, to install up to 535 meters at $50 each.^[10] A cellular network subscription billed by Badger Meter, Inc. would add an estimated $6,355.80 a year.^[10] I went through that item line by line in What's Wrong With Trinidad?.^[19]

By my arithmetic, $291,723.78 is about 12.5% of the $2,341,510 in total expense in the budget the City posted on its website, the version built October 6.^[9] Neither version of the budget includes the meters.^[9][8]

The October 27 meeting ended without a vote on the budget, the meters or anything else.^[7] As of my October 31 check of the City's website, no new meeting had been posted.^[6]

The Financing Proposal

On Friday, October 30, Steven posted a video in the Beware group, filmed at what appears to be the water plant. His post says, "I was asked to do a video about the meters and what it would cost."^[67]

Steven Stearman's meters video went up in the Beware group on October 30 at 2:01 p.m., filmed at what appears to be the water plant.

"The financing we're considering would cost approximately $58,000 annually," he says. The City has "a bond dating back to 2007," he says, with payments of "approximately $45,000 dollars annually" and a final payment "scheduled for January." He proposes redirecting that money to the meters, which leaves a "$13,000 annual difference before savings and subscription costs." He estimates $26,000 to $27,000 a year in potential savings from less meter reading and administrative work, and he says himself that "those savings still need to be verified."^[67]

He also says "the first annual payment wouldn't be due until next year's budget, so that loan payment would not be an expense in our current budget, assuming those terms are finalized."^[67] The budget he means, for the year that began October 1, hasn't been adopted yet, so that timing depends on the version the Council adopts.^[7][6]

On the subscription, about $1 per meter per month, he says, "I do not support passing that subscription cost directly on to residents," and he wants that "formally adopted in writing by the council."^[67] His $1 matches the agenda: $6,355.80 a year across 535 meters comes to about 99 cents a meter a month, by my arithmetic.^[10] He also wants a 10-year rate plan "formally adopted by Council."^[67] I give him credit for putting both on the record.

Some of his numbers sit beside different ones in the City's records. The September 29 budget workshop minutes describe "a separate loan of approximately $240,000 for water meter replacement" with "an estimated monthly payment of approximately $4,000," which is about $48,000 a year by my arithmetic.^[28] The same minutes say one of the Water & Sewer Department's bonds "will be paid off in January, freeing approximately $15,000-$20,000 annually."^[28] His figure in the video is about $45,000 a year.

The 2007 bond is on the record. The FY2024 audit lists "$400,000 Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2007 A," paid in installments "through January 1, 2027," with $115,000 left on September 30, 2024.^[12] The Texas Bond Review Board showed $90,000 left on the 2007A on August 31, 2025, with its last principal payment due January 1, 2027, and a separate 2007 certificates issue with $165,000 outstanding.^[54] That schedule points to a final 2007A payment of about $45,000, which is my inference; no record I have prints it. Neither budget version has a debt schedule, so neither one shows the bond.^[9][8]

Under his post, Ruth K. asked what SPI stands for and reminded him that "many don't have access to internet or even computers to check the apps proposed." He answered, "Schaumburg & Polk, Inc," and offered, "if you have anybody you would like me to come talk to directly I just let me know and I will gladly meet with them."^[67]

What Residents Said, For and Against

In Jennifer Combs's livestream video of the October 27 meeting, two Trinidad residents spoke for the meters. One described automated meters at a coastal property: accurate readings, daily usage, leak alerts and no big jump in the bill. The other said grant programs want hard numbers on water pumped, sold and lost, and the old meters can't supply them.^[7]

Jennifer made her own case on October 21. "That is one reason I support the proposed smart-meter upgrade," she wrote. "Nobody should promise that every bill will decrease. More accurate measurement could increase some bills even without a rate increase."^[68] She set conditions: "My support comes with expectations: correct installation, verified account assignments, resident access, a clear billing-dispute process and public reporting on results." She added, "Meters alone will not make the water clean or affordable."^[68]

She cited "a citys report at the Council meeting" of about seven leaks and an estimated 500,000 to one million gallons lost the month before, and wrote that "the city has said the cost would NOT be passed along as an additional charge to residents, and existing water-sales revenue could fund the purchase."^[68] Those figures are hers. Her account and Steven's October 30 bond plan are two public descriptions of how the City might pay.

Residents split under her post. Keith S. wrote, "I live in Mexia now and we converted over to smart meters about four years ago and the only thing that has increased on my bill is garbage pickup." Lee Ann T. wrote, "Again, smart meters would save the city and its citizens in the long run."^[68]

Ruth K. wrote, "Trinidad residents deserve clean drinking water and a true bill that reflects actual usage. Period." She also asked, "don't they have to purchase all the equipment to do the correct reading and billing?? Even more costly for a near broke city...." Benjamin L. asked, "how does installing these meters improve the quality of the water?" and noted, "Also, I live outside the city limits." Gerald D., writing about Murchison, said "smart meters ruined Murchison" and "Operators lose track of meter boxes and water lines."^[68]

Renee Weaver commented under the same post:

Trinidad is operating without an approved budget. HOW ARE THEY APPROVING anything related to finances?^[68]

Weeks earlier she had asked Steven about the money directly. In a September 19 thread in the Beware group, where Steven listed "replacing our aging water meters with new smart meters" among his plans, she replied:

How much will the smart meters cost, and where would the money come from? What would residents gain from having these, most residents are laymen when it comes to water systems. Would installing them add a pass through fee to the residents water bill?^[32]

In the same comment she praised him: "Kudos for you for stepping up, for rolling up your sleeves and digging in."^[32]

Why I Think the Audit Should Come First

My own comment under Jennifer's post put me on the other side: "Smart meters are a luxury the city cannot afford. ... There are pros and cons to both sides, but at the end of the day, this is a conversation that only fiscally responsible cities get to have. Trinidad isn't that."^[68] Reading it back, I'd put it more precisely. I can't show that the City is unable to pay for meters, and financing like the plan Steven described could make the yearly cost workable. What I believe is that committing to them before the budget and the FY2025 audit are finished would be financially irresponsible. I'd ask the City to be fiscally responsible, and to be open about spending and about its real financial position.

As of my October 31 check, the FY2025 audit still wasn't on the City's website.^[6] The newest finished picture of Trinidad's finances is still the FY2024 audit, with the two findings that keep coming back.^[12][11]

If the audit shows the City is fine, good. I believe a city should know where it stands before it commits $291,723.78, about 12.5% of its posted budget's spending, to anything.^[9]

My Recommendations to the City

These are my recommendations to the Council before it votes on a budget again. Six of them carry questions Renee Weaver sent me.^[69] They start from the same plan: the audit first, then any purchase the size of the meters.

The Eight

1. Settle the tax rate first. Get the no-new-revenue and voter-approval calculations and forms from the county tax office, and put the rate on an agenda.^[57] A tax-rate meeting needs four aldermen present for a quorum.^[39] Then state on the record which 2026 rate applies and how it was set. The Attorney General's office lists Trinidad among the cities sent late-audit letters. What does the City's letter say, and has the Council seen it? (Renee's question)^[48][3]
2. Put spending authority since October 1 on the record. In an open meeting, I'd ask the Council to state what authority has covered the City's payments since October 1. Last year an interim ordinance did that job. I can't find one this year, though an earlier appropriation or an unposted record could cover it. (Renee's question)^[23][6]
3. Check opening balances against the audit, and file it. Mayor Dennis Haws told me on October 25 that the FY2025 audit was "a couple of weeks away."^[46] If it's that close, I'd ask the Council to read it and check the budget's opening balances against it before adopting, and to tell residents what the CPA used to check them in the meantime. (Renee's question) The audit was due Monday, March 30, 2026, and it should be filed with the city secretary as soon as it's done.^[3][4]
4. Post the complete package with proper notice. Post every version the Council will vote on, along with the ordinance adopting the budget, agenda item D.1.^[10] The law lets the Council "make any changes in the budget that it considers warranted" at adoption, so the unposted October 26 version is a transparency question.^[63] Put the impact statement in the meeting notice,^[44] publish newspaper notice 10 to 30 days before the hearing, and hold the hearing after the 15th day after filing.^[63] Is Turner's memo the whole proposal, or is there another budget document the public hasn't seen? If the October 26 version is filed, does the 15-day count start over? (Renee's questions) The City's finance page jumps from the FY2023-24 budget to this year's proposal, so I'd also post the adopted budgets for the last two years, with their amendments.^[43]
5. Add a debt list. One page: each loan, its lender, its balance, its rate and this year's payment, starting with the police notes. What is the $49,602 police debt service, what's left on it, and how long does it run? (Renee's question)^[8][56]
6. Budget the cash that actually goes out. Appropriate the $85,420 in principal as debt service and the $300,000 water line study as a project line.^[8] Put the meters in with a line and a named funding source, or take them out. The $291,723.78 purchase and its roughly $6,355.80 a year aren't in the budget.^[10][8]
7. Base revenue on actual collections. Budget water sales on a full year at the new rates.^[8][31] Budget court revenue on what has come in since September 18, when the department's officers were separated.^[8][66] Keep the $200,000 police contract line as the estimate it is, and show what it's based on, so residents can check it against whichever agreement the Council approves.^[8][29]
8. Show what the money buys and what's spoken for. Adopt a Council-approved staffing table: non-police salaries go from $156,615 to $245,643, and the memo asks the Council to "confirm approvals for the proposed City Administrator role." Replace $29,589 in miscellaneous lines with real ones, release the ledger behind them and last year's $24,416 in Admin miscellaneous, and list the street positions and repairs behind $105,643 in salaries and $55,555 in building repairs.^[8] Document every account labeled restricted, keep the $9,927 in customer deposits apart from operating cash, and follow Turner's own advice to keep "a separate restricted cash and cash-flow schedule," and update it monthly.^[8] Fund the lagoon repairs, "estimated at $100,000,"^[28] and water testing first; the budget sets testing at $5,964, "based on current year spending," after an FY2025 actual of $49,494.^[9][8] Finally, list what the Council reviewed before voting, and get the city attorney's sign-off. (Renee's questions)

Where These Questions Came From

Renee Weaver sent me 37 budget questions of her own in late October, after my budget articles.^[69] Eleven of them were new to me, and those eleven are in my recommendations with her name on them. The rest overlapped my own questions or already had answers. She also asked publicly in September about the audit and about customer deposits.^[49][53] Thank you, Renee.

Let's Talk About It Openly

Unless new information changes the story, this is my last article on Trinidad's city government for the foreseeable future. The records are all here. I'd ask Trinidad's residents, its Council and its leaders to discuss these topics openly, at council meetings and in public, where everyone can see the numbers and weigh in. Accountability takes open, respectful dialogue, even when we disagree.