Trinidad Councilmember Steven Stearman believes the City can buy smart water meters, pay down its debt and keep every employee it has without asking residents to pay more. On Monday, November 9, he sent me the plan.[1][2]
He reached out first. "Do you wanna talk about the budget?" he wrote at 11:00 that morning.[1] Over the rest of the day he answered my questions in Messenger, sent a written proposal, a screenshot of an email from the City's auditor and a link to the state's water funding list. Everything below is what he told me, in his words.
Two Questions
I asked him for two things. The first was how and when the smart meters would be paid for, since they're a large expense and the question I hear most. The second was when the FY2025 audit will be done. On October 25, Mayor Dennis Haws told me it was "a couple of weeks away," and we're about there.[3]
He asked for the same in return: "Ask me questions. Challenge the numbers. That's perfectly fine with me. I just want to work through it one piece at a time."[1]
The Audit
His answer on the audit started with what he expects it to show.
I'll be honest with you. I don't expect the current audit or even the next one to look particularly good. That's not necessarily because I believe the city's financial numbers are bad. My bigger concern is how certain things were handled, documented, and accounted for in the past.
I expect the auditors may identify several findings, internal control weaknesses, and areas requiring corrective action.[1]
He said the audit now underway covers the 2024-2025 fiscal year, "before I joined the council," and that he was on the Council for only the last three months of the next one. "I'm not suggesting I could have changed everything overnight, but I have learned a lot from dealing with the auditors and now have a much better understanding of what they're looking for."[1]
On the timing, he agreed the audit should have come first:
I also want you to understand that I genuinely believed we would have the audit completed well before we had to address the new budget. I agree that having the completed audit would have given us a much stronger foundation for preparing and approving the budget. Unfortunately, that's not how things worked out, and we had to deal with the circumstances and information available to us at the time.[1]
He also pointed to the police department. "I'll also be the first to say that shortly after joining the council, I anticipated the possibility that the police department would eventually be shut down. Once we received the TCOLE letter, that concern became a reality." Waiting for that process to play out, he said, "created additional uncertainty while we were trying to address the city's finances and prepare the budget."[1]
He described what has changed since: "a three-step purchasing and approval process, purchase order numbers, and better documentation and oversight of city spending." He still expects findings in the next audit "because these changes take time to show results."[1]
To me, an audit isn't just about identifying what went wrong. It's about making sure we don't continue making the same mistakes.
For the date, he sent me the most recent word he had from the auditor. On October 27, David K. Godwin, CPA, wrote to him that the firm was "working through your audit," that "there will be several comments that will need to be addressed before it is finalized," and that it "should be almost completed by end of next week."[4] The end of that week was Friday, November 6. He told me he would send me the date Godwin last gave him.[1]
The auditor's October 27 email to Steven Stearman, as he sent it to me.
His Plan, in Order
He was direct that this is his proposal and that it would need the Council's votes.
First, I want everyone to understand that this is my proposal, not a decision already made by the City Council. Every part requiring council authorization would have to be presented, discussed, and approved through the proper process.[2]
"I don't necessarily believe I have enough support from the other councilmembers to get every part of this plan passed," he told me. "But that doesn't mean I'm not going to bring the ideas forward."[1]
His sequence starts with the budget itself: "Get a legally compliant municipal budget approved using the best verified financial information currently available." Then he would work with the CPA to confirm cash, restricted funds, debts and the effect of each change, and only after that bring budget amendments to the Council.[2]
He put his combined figures this way:
| Proposed annual reduction | Amount |
|---|---|
| Police interlocal agreement | $200,000 |
| Truck payment | $18,567 |
| Parking lot loan | $13,787 |
| Equipment lease | $9,547 |
| Police vehicle leases | $40,055 |
| Expiring 2007 bond payment | $45,000 |
| Aqua Services reduction | $16,200 |
| Total annual reductions | $343,156 |
| Less estimated meter financing | -$58,560 |
| Less annual cellular subscriptions | -$6,300 |
| Preliminary annualized budget improvement | $278,296 |
Steven Stearman's figures, from his November 9 working proposal.[2]
He framed that total with conditions. "This should be treated as an annualized projection after implementation, not a guaranteed reduction in the current year's spending or bank balance." He had first recalled about $383,000, "but I want to review my original calculations before using that number publicly."[2]
Paying for the Meters
On my first question, his answer is financing. "My preferred approach is to evaluate financing over seven years rather than paying the full purchase price out of current operating funds."[2]
| Item | His estimate |
|---|---|
| Badger cellular meter equipment | $264,978.78 |
| Installation | About $30,000 |
| Estimated project cost | $294,978.78 |
| Estimated financing payment, per year | $58,560 |
| Cellular subscriptions, per year | $6,300 |
| Total annual cost | $64,860 |
Steven Stearman's figures, from his November 9 working proposal.[2]
"The financing payment is a working estimate and must be verified against the actual seven-year lender terms before the council relies on it," he wrote. The meter purchase is fifth in his sequence, after the budget and the debt amendments.[2]
What he wants from the meters: "more accurate readings, earlier leak detection, reduced manual input, better water-loss data, and improved information for long-term infrastructure planning."[2]
The Police Contract and the City's Debt
The largest single piece of his plan is the $200,000 the budget sets aside for a law enforcement interlocal agreement. He doesn't want to move forward with it, and he gave me two reasons:
One there was no guarantees of presence or faster response times. To pull the records on how many calls we had in the last 3 months, I can't justify it.[1]
He said he pulled county records of law enforcement calls in Trinidad before taking that position. His plan also says, "It does not mean the city would have no law enforcement coverage. Any alternative arrangement would need to be evaluated for cost, availability, and adequacy."[1][2]
He would put that $200,000, plus $25,000 he lists from a past City Hall sale, toward paying off two debts: $40,334.12 and $114,108.61, for a total of $154,442.73.[2] His own conditions come with it:
These figures are preliminary. The CPA would need to verify that the funds are actually available and legally usable for these purposes, that sale proceeds have been received and are unrestricted, and that the payoff figures are current.
Budgeted money is not automatically available cash. We also cannot count the same money both as cash for debt repayment and as a separate cash saving.[2]
He lists the City's annual payments he wants to remove: truck financing, $18,567; the parking lot loan, $13,787; an equipment lease, $9,547; and police vehicle leases, $40,055. The fifth, the 2007 bond at $45,000 a year, makes its final payment in January 2027, which he notes "is expected to end independently of this proposal."[2]
Jobs
I had a follow-up on the meters and jobs. Paying someone to read meters, and do other work along with it, keeps a local job even if it's less efficient. The counterargument is all the billing errors. My view going in was that Trinidad is broke, and keeping one job while saving the money for one more year looked more responsible to me.[1]
His answer was that no one would lose a job.
One thing I want to make absolutely clear is that I do not intend to eliminate anyone's job.
He said three employees do the meter work now, two full-time and one about nine months a year. "For example, rather than spending so much time manually reading water meters, I believe their time could be better utilized repairing roads, clearing trees, maintaining drainage ditches, and addressing other infrastructure problems throughout the city."[1]
The City's earlier estimate for meter-reading labor was about $24,078 a year, he wrote, "However, I am not counting that $24,078 as a payroll saving, because I intend to retain those employees."[2]
He also proposes cutting the $1,800 a month he says the City budgets for Aqua Services by about 75% once the meters are running, which he puts at $16,200 a year, keeping "the services still needed for administrative and billing support."[2]
The State Water Funding List
He sees the meters as part of a larger goal: state money to replace Trinidad's water lines. He sent me the Texas Water Development Board's list for the current funding year. It ranks Trinidad's water distribution project 90th, with 50 points.[1][5]
He told me he has talked with the City's engineers and grant writers about how much the meters could help:
Based on those conversations, I believe we may have an opportunity to gain approximately 5.5 additional points through several different scoring categories, provided we meet the applicable requirements.[1]
He listed them as water loss mitigation (2.5 points, if Trinidad documents qualifying water loss and the project addresses it), water conservation plan goals (1 point) and a qualifying water efficiency or related plan (2 points). He also listed asset management points the City could pursue. He believes the lowest score among projects funded last year was about 66, and said those numbers "still need to be officially verified."[1]
I want to make something very clear: Purchasing AMI meters does not automatically give Trinidad 5.5 points, nor does it guarantee grant funding.
He tied it to the Capital Improvement Plan the City has started with SPI Engineering. "My goal is to earn every legitimate point available to Trinidad and put us in the strongest possible position to compete for funding to replace our aging waterlines."[1]
Water Revenue
He also believes the budget undercounts what water customers now pay. He told me the City's water rate ordinance "had not been properly implemented in the billing system," and that the corrections are starting to show.[1]
| Monthly accounts receivable | His figure |
|---|---|
| Average, October 2025 through July 2026 | $99,136.96 |
| Average, August through October 2026 | $128,909.83 |
| Monthly increase | $29,772.87 |
| Annualized difference | $357,274.44 |
Steven Stearman's comparison from the City's financial reports, sent to me November 9.[1]
"My concern is that the current budget was prepared using historical numbers that don't fully account for the recent implementation of the water rate ordinance and the resulting changes in billing," he wrote.[1] Later that afternoon he added a combined figure: "$635,570 this should be the combined number of the corrected ordinance revenue, and the savings just for one year."[1]
The Tax Rate
He also explained why the Council didn't adopt a 2026 property tax rate. He quoted Texas Tax Code §26.05(c), under which a taxing unit that doesn't adopt a rate in time gets "the lower of the no-new-revenue tax rate calculated for that tax year or the tax rate adopted by the taxing unit for the preceding tax year."[1][6]
"You probably already know this, but this is why we didn't adopt a new tax rate. There's no reason to do it."[1]
Waiting on the Audit
There's only so much anyone can judge until the FY2025 audit is in. If the numbers hold up, this is the plan one councilmember intends to bring to the Council, and he says himself that it needs the CPA, the contracts, the payoff statements and the votes. I'm holding my own questions about the budget until I can read the audit.
I appreciate Steven reaching out with this information for me to document and pass along. The line of communication stays open while we wait for the audit, and I'll report what it shows.
If you have questions about any part of this plan, the Council is where to ask them, on the record, at the next meeting.
Sources
- 1.^ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwx Steven Stearman, Messenger messages to me. November 9, 2026. The full exchange, 11:00 a.m. to 6:37 p.m. He started it: "Do you wanna talk about the budget?" He reviewed this article before publication and confirmed his tenure on the next audit is its last three months. On file.
- 2.^ abcdefghijklmno Steven Stearman, "City of Trinidad: Proposed Budget Amendment and Financial Restructuring Plan, Working Proposal, November 9, 2026". November 9, 2026. Sent to me in Messenger. Reproduced in full below.
- 3.^ My November 1 article: Two Budgets, No Audit: What Trinidad's Numbers Show and What They Leave Out (opens in new tab). Watchtower CI. November 1, 2026. The audit timeline, including Mayor Dennis Haws's October 25 message to me.
- 4.^ David K. Godwin, CPA, CGMA, email to Steven Stearman, "RE: Audit". October 27, 2026. 3:38 p.m. Screenshot sent to me by Steven Stearman on November 9.
- 5.^ Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, SFY 2027 Intended Use Plan (opens in new tab). Texas Water Development Board. Appendix J, Project Priority List by rank, page 127 of the PDF: Trinidad, PIF 17412, rank 90, 50 points. Steven Stearman sent me this link.
- 6.^ Texas Tax Code §26.05 (opens in new tab). Texas Legislature.