On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho San Antonio is a fast growing, fast moving city with something new happening every day.

That's why each week we go on the record with Randy Beamer and the newsmakers who are driving this change.

Then we gather at the Reporters Roundtable to talk about the latest news stories with the journalist behind those stories.

Joining us now as we go on the Record with Randy Beamer.

Hi, everybody, and thank you for joining us for this edition of On the Record.

This week, we are going to talk about everything from Hemisphere and the Institute of Texan Cultures building.

What's going on with that, as well as via his latest project, The Green Line and some concerns about that.

But first, we are going to talk about money and the city budget.

I'm going to start with Mark White, District ten, city Councilman, thank you very much for coming in.

Yeah, thanks for having me.

You have the city, I guess, is going to be talking about this council starting next month.

And it's always then that we talk about the budget and planning for it for the next fiscal year, but you have a different idea of how it should be done.

What is that?

Sure.

Well, what the city and a lot of cities do is they use what's called incremental budgeting.

We're really they start with last year's budget and then build upon that.

And so when you do that, governmental departments just continue to grow and grow and grow in size.

What I think we need to do is something that's called zero based budgeting.

Now, I don't know that we need to do this every year, but every few years.

It just makes sense to go back to square one.

I want every department to start with zero $0 and then have to come before council and rebid their budget line item by line item and explain to us how each expense is going to go towards providing the results.

They say we can expect at the end of the year.

It's budgeting for results rather than just budgeting to spend money.

I think now is really a great time to do it because, look, the world is a different place today than it was four or five years ago before COVID, right?

We're using different technologies.

Things cost different amounts of money now.

Let's go back to square one.

And if we do this right, I think what you're going to find is we're going to find inefficiencies in our budget duplication areas where we can save money and then put it to use somewhere else, provide the taxpayers a better return on their investment.

What about the timeline for doing this?

People would think, okay, it's going to take those departments a lot more time to defend it, a lot more work.

And then also for the city council, a lot more time to investigate that.

Absolutely.

It is going to be more time intensive and the other cities around the country that have done it and the state of Texas, which did it back in the early 2000, they gave their staff a runway to do it.

So so while we may not be able to do it in time for this year's budget, I want to get a commitment that if we don't do it this year, we're at least going to do it next year.

I mean, look, every good company, right?

Every few years they go back, they look at what they've been doing, what's been working, what's not, what programs are providing the results we want.

Which aren't.

And then they just try to make better use of their money.

We've got to do this.

And I think when we do, we're going to see a big, big benefit.

And so, yes, it's going to be more time intensive for both city staff as well as council, but it's going to be worth it in the end.

Do you think we haven't been doing this partly because the tax base has gone up with the property tax base and property tax values going up.

Is that one reason we haven't?

No, I'd tell you that the reason we haven't been doing it is just because it's easier to keep doing what we've been doing, right.

It's easier just to do it how we did it last year and the year before that and the year before that.

Right.

It's it's almost a shortcut and we got to get away from that.

We need to spend our money better here in San Antonio.

It may be our biggest issue.

How can we put our dollars to better use for our citizens to provide growth and opportunity for our citizens and our local businesses?

Now, as I understand it?

Eric Wall, City manager, has said he is open to this, at least in certain departments or certain times.

Where would you like to see it now?

I mean, where do you see a budget problem after your time in office here so far?

Yes.

So I am optimistic that there's support for this from other council members.

We're in discussions with city staff about how we can get this done.

Look, for me, we've got to start with the delegate agencies, right?

We have these third party agencies.

We provide money to some, frankly, are just misusing our funds.

Others, we're not getting the results that we should be.

We're not getting our bang for our buck, if you will.

So we need to start with a review of the delegate agencies and see which one should stay and which one should be defunded.

Let's start there and then let's move on to all the other departments.

You know, in the state of Texas did this back in the early 2000.

They consolidated so many of the state departments.

They found millions and millions, if not billions of dollars that they could then better put to use for the citizens of the state of Texas.

We got to do the same here in San Antonio.

People might be concerned about stability and retaining employees if there's an ax hanging over their head.

What do you tell people about, say, especially people want streets, drainage parks, things like that at the top of their list, and they would be concerned about keeping people as well as just keeping the money for basic necessities.

Yeah, I'd tell you that we can do this without cutting city personnel.

In fact, when the city of Houston looked at this two or three years ago, that was one of their requirements that we don't cut any that they don't cut any jobs down there.

So I would want to do it in a way where we're not going to be downsizing.

On employees simply looking at which programs are outdated and not working.

And this wouldn't affect public safety because fire departments, police departments have a standard built, and that's what most of the city money is spent on.

Absolutely not.

Yeah, public safety, fire, police, EMS, none of that should be touched.

All right.

We're talking about Money Migrant Resource Center on San Pedro.

That was established a couple, three years ago because of the influx of people coming through San Antonio, The asylum seekers who then go on through the airport.

The problem at the time was they were all sitting in the airport and that was a problem.

But the money is going to run out.

The federal money is going to run out toward the end of the year.

Right.

So we had this debate a week or two ago on city council for the first time, which I was happy to have because the federal funding has been stopped.

And that's what we've been using to operate the Migrant Resource Center on San Pedro, as well as that airport facility.

It's set to run out in September.

Now, recently, just in the past week, it looks like the federal government might have gotten their act together and maybe they're asked a budget that would have some money in there for it.

That's right.

Some.

But not to the levels that we've received in the past.

So the question could still remain this year.

Should we be spending our local San Antonio tax dollars, our general fund money on the Migrant Resource Center?

We had that debate a couple of weeks ago.

My position is we should not be our San Antonio tax dollars should be spent on San Antonio.

Some would argue that some have argued and said that if we don't spend it on that, then some of those people aren't going to be going on to wherever their sponsors or final destination is, and they would be added basically to the homeless population or people wandering in that area where they are dropped off right now.

And we'll still be dropped off.

Yes, sir.

So two points there.

First of all, if you look at the numbers, we have never had the amount of people coming to San Antonio that we have before.

We had the Migrant Resource Center.

The numbers drastically increased after we had the Migrant Resource Center.

My position is if the migrant network knows there is no facility here for them to come to and get all the supplies and things that they get, the flow will at least be minimized, number one.

Number two, to my council colleagues that want to spend our money on this, where do they want it to come from?

And that's something we didn't hear two weeks ago.

They said they were in favor of using general fund money for this.

They didn't say whether they wanted to take it from streets, libraries, parks.

There were no ideas there.

What I don't want is us to be Denver.

If you saw what happened in Denver in the past month or two, they cut four and a half million dollars from their Parks and recreation budget to deal with their migrant center issue.

They limited their DMV hours, right, because they needed to pay for their migrant services over there.

We should not cut basic city services here to continue to support the Migrant Resource Center.

Would you be spending more, though, on police and that kind of, you know, social agencies to deal with those people if they are staying in San Antonio?

Again, I don't think we're going to see these folks come over in the numbers that they are.

Right now, that's just 1% of I think, of people that are coming here are staying in San Antonio.

Most of these folks that do come here, they're trying to go relocate to wherever their family is across the country, but rather than them come to San Antonio or we need to disincentivize them from coming to San Antonio, maybe find other means in other cities that they can travel through.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

And it's going to be an interesting time to see what happens with that and the budget.

Mark White, councilman, District ten, thanks for coming in.

Thanks for having me.

Recently, you may have heard about a push to possibly bring a new Spurs arena to somewhere in the downtown area, possibly on the Institute of Texan Cultures site, the old Texas Pavilion.

It's own now by UTSA.

But there's also been a push to save that building.

And there are some developments there.

With us here to talk about that is Betty Bouchet, who is a retired director of DARE County Heritage and Parks Department, also a member of the Conservation Society and of the Coalition to Save the Texas Pavilion.

And now we're out of time.

No.

So tell us about the recent developments in terms of the push to get that building designated as a national historic landmark or on the places of the National Register of Historic Places.

Thank you, Randi, for the follow up interview.

Sure.

I'm glad that we are actually on the record because there's been some misinformation out there.

The the fact is that these kinds of designations can be done on publicly owned property.

And it is not illegal for that to take place, even if that publicly owned property or the, you know, the people over that don't want it.

That's correct.

Even if they object.

Now, that's not true for privately owned property, but this is owned by the taxpayers of Texas.

And so a state agency has deemed it worthy of being designated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Texas Historical Commission has completed their process.

There was a unanimous vote by the Board of Review who approved this, and that nomination has now made its way to the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior.

And their process takes about 45 days.

And if that is approved, then they recommend to the state another or they can okay for the state to make another designation.

So, yes, right after this first designation of listing on the National Register is approved by National Park Service, then it's R.A. mention to also apply to the state of Texas for sale, which is a state antiquities landmark.

Now, neither of those designations, though, would precluded from being demolished to make way for something else that UTSA is okay with because they would possibly do a deal with the city and the city is okay with.

So what does that mean?

What's the impact of these designations?

I mean, it means that they are required to go through a much more thoughtful process, a much more careful investigation to basically prove that it's really a good idea to demolish this far greater study than what they have engaged in so far.

And it would also mean that they would have to have public hearings, which they have not had.

The taxpayer so far have not had the opportunity to attend an open public hearing where they receive information, factual data and that kind of thing.

They have had input online.

It's all you do is ask for that.

It has all been online and the committees that UTSA set up to participate in that process were appointed by UTSA.

So there were very few people who you would say represent the general public.

Now we've had people from UTSA who say, you know, it's a it's a building that needs millions of dollars of repair to keep it going.

Also, the institute itself, they're talking about moving that to behind the Alamo and that it hasn't been really a going operation there.

So it's wonderful default, that is, you know, the state legislature has a line item budget to support the operations of the ATC $1,000,000 a year just to operate that building.

And you can look at the building and you have to ask the question, I wonder where that million dollars goes every year.

I also would say UTSA became the steward of this around 1986, and until UTSA became the steward, it was a great place that lots of people went there.

They loved it.

The programs were wonderful.

Research was being done, the collections were being managed properly.

The exhibits were great.

And what happened after that makes you wonder, is UTSA really the best steward?

This building originally reported directly to the office of the governor.

And if you ask that question further, you say, well, who would be a better steward?

Well, do you want to save the building for the institute and keep the institute's collection programs there?

Or would it be better because they argue, would it be better to move it near the Alamo where there's more people?

It would be easier to get those people interested in history.

There's a couple of points having to do with that.

The Coalition wants the Institute of Texan Cultures with its programs and collections to remain where it is.

The Conservation Society wants to preserve the building and it can be adapted for reuse for some other purpose.

It's a very iconic, significant building, otherwise it wouldn't have been approved unanimously.

But that site is also, they say, worth a lot of money and that even if it's kept as it is, possibly the Spurs or other private developers could come in and do that.

Would you be okay with that?

The yes, we would be the Spurs.

If they would want to adaptively reuse the building, that would be fine.

And let me also remind you that the Robert Kisner engineers report on this building identified it as being in pretty good condition and that the maintenance backlog was around $7 million for 155,000 square feet, a building that has been neglected since 1986.

$7 million is not bad.

It's certainly a whole lot less than the 103 million that UTSA says that they need to build another mid-rise building behind the Alamo.

Well, thank you very much for coming in and come back when we at the next stage.

And I know there's going to be developments there and I assume from UTSA as well, and we'll have other people on.

But thanks very much, Betty Bouchet, past retired director of the Bear County Heritage and Parks Department and the Coalition to Save the Texas Pavilion.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Randi.

On Reporters roundtable this week, we're going to talk about the cost of living in San Antonio and just how much it's gone up over the past year.

But first, we're going to talk about the Green Line blues.

You may have seen the story in the San Antonio Current about this green line, the advanced Rapid Transit plan for San Pedro down through downtown from 410 and then all the way toward the South Side.

And businesses are concerned about the impact of that construction.

Joining us to talk about all that is staff writer Michael Carlos with the San Antonio Current.

Thank you very much for coming in.

It's great to be back.

First of all, the green Line blues, This is a project that is planned for construction to start next year.

Right.

So construction is supposed to start early.

2025 is the latest date that Via gave me.

And unlike Elon Musk's boring tunnel, this project is definitely happening and it will connect the San Antonio Airport down San Pedro through downtown, through Southtown, before ending up by the missions.

And this is a different kind of bus line than we've had before.

It would be a dedicated lane in the center for busses, and they would also have red lights synchronized so they could get through.

And then also people would get on basically at the level of the the bus and they would pay beforehand.

So you wouldn't have to wait for people to take.

So it should be faster.

Yeah.

It's exactly right.

It's it would be San Antonio's first so called advanced rapid transit, kind of like a test trolley or something.

A train, but quicker.

Right.

It's like a light rail, but without the rails.

So it's much cheaper to build and it's much more flexible.

So if there's construction or if a road is closed or whatnot, or if they want to change the route, they always can.

And that's the bright side.

That is the bright side.

But you wrote of the Green Line blues and concern about it.

What is that?

Well, a lot of local business owners that have businesses located along the proposed route are concerned.

And a lot of those concerns stem from the construction on Saint Mary's, which went almost 12 months passed when it was supposed to be finished.

And the Broadway corridor, which is still under construction, as we can see from outside the studio, a couple, three years.

Exactly.

And they have every right to be concerned.

And I spoke to Aaron Pena, who's a local restaurant owner, and he used to own the squeezebox on at Saint Mary's.

And he said he there's a serious lack of trust between the city construction companies and the small business community.

Why is that?

It seems like the coordination, because there's so many different entities, CPS stores, the city, other you know, there's gas mains.

They found a creek under Saint Mary's and that made it longer than they had expected.

Right.

Well, so the difference between the Vila Project and the Saint Mary's project is that Saint Mary's was a complete reconstruction of that road.

They redid the sewer lines, they kept hitting utility lines.

They found stuff that wasn't even charted on maps.

It's a very old road, a very old part of town.

Vila says that that is not going to be the case for this project.

However, they essentially boiled the down to repainting lines on the road and some concrete barriers.

Well, that's the other thing.

There is going to be construction.

They said they have to construct 26 new stations and that lane widening will occur around those stations.

But that's about the extent of what they said, the construction.

So it shouldn't be the excavation, the trenches that we've had on Saint Mary's and Broadway.

That's what they're saying.

How and there's 60% of this project is being funded by federal money and via kind of told me that because the federal governments are heavily involved, there's a heavy incentive to not go past deadlines and to meet expectations.

But to be frank, you know, I grew up in Boston and Boston.

They did the big dig, the big dig that lasted 20 years and some $20 billion later.

And so the point I'm trying to make is just because there's federal money behind a project doesn't always mean it'll be done on time.

This is much smaller than the Big Dig, but you understand.

And how about the difference between the projects as you understand them?

Is it that big a difference?

And in much less construction.

And you know, there is distrust because of those other projects, but those other projects were different.

What's your your sense?

I mean, they're not digging up sewer lines.

And that was the crux of the issue on the St Mary's Street.

But I mean, it is a 12 mile long project and they want to finish it in two years by 2027.

So I don't know.

I can't say for sure whether they'll meet that deadline.

But I will say that if they are unable to meet that deadline, that San Antonians would be unlikely to be forgiving and the lane widening, that's a part of it that people might not realize has to be done at some point.

No.

Yeah, just just around the stations, just to make room for them since the stations will be in the center of the road.

And how about the business?

The businesses Right now, some of them are, I don't wanna say are having trouble, but, you know, there are some empty storefronts along San Pedro and different areas.

Is that already a concern of how are they going to bring businesses in or bring people back?

Well, any area that has direct access to advance rapid transit usually is becomes higher in value.

But then, of course, this isn't in the story, but of course, you get into fears of gentrification because you definitely have some areas of San Pedro that are doing better than others.

And there is certainly some low income neighborhoods along that route, and some people will take busses to that area, but some people will also want to park in that area.

They looked at parking and along that corridor they they didn't mention that.

I'm going to ask them.

Cost of living.

Let's get to that, because this is just a scary study and almost hard to believe how much cost of living has gone up in San Antonio and why.

Right.

So financial, you know, online financial website, smartasset, every year comes out with a study.

Smart asset.

Smart asset.

Yes.

Smart asset comes out with a study every year determining how much it takes to live comfortably in the 100 largest metro areas in the country last year, 2023, it costs $59,000 to live comfortably.

So that means decent house, enough money to save pay off debt and, you know, money for for entertainment, whatever that may be.

Last year was 59,000.

This year they said it takes 85,000 for a single person to live comfortably.

Why San Antonio And what is I mean, what's behind that?

So when you get into the numbers, a lot of that has to do with housing, right?

So during the pandemic, we saw a boom in the cost of housing, mainly because of the low interest rates.

The issue today is that interest rates are now between six and 8%, but the cost of homes has not declined.

They're the same.

So if you're buying a $300,000 house, it's going to cost you more to buy that same house than it did two years ago.

And that was a big portion of it.

And then the other thing driving up the cost of living comfortably per say is the cost of debt.

So living comfortably in their study includes paying off existing debt like student loans, car loans, whatever, cards, whatever right credit card.

But those interest rates have also gone up.

So it's costing more to pay off your home, your credit card or student loans or whatever.

But if you don't have, say, a student loan or a mortgage, that's going to be changing.

If you have a fixed rate, that's not a problem.

So you're 59, wouldn't have gone to 80, whatever it is.

Yeah, but the cost of food is also gone up.

I'll tell you, last night I spent $30 to buy 12 chicken wings from Pizza Hut.

Wow.

Cost more than the pizza.

$3.

You got to get coupons.

Yeah, I need to.

I need to find some.

And so that's.

I mean, this is a believable study.

Are they finding the same thing in other cities across the country or worse?

It's not just San Antonio.

I think San Antonio had one of the highest increases in cost of living.

However, San Antonio has always been more affordable than other metro areas.

So.

So more or less, San Antonio is just catching up to the national average, but it's still lower than the national average, which was about 90 something that that thousand dollars.

Well, thank you very much, Michael Carillo.

Some fascinating stuff.

You always have that in the San Antonio Current and, you know, maybe you need to cut down on the wings.

All right.

Thanks for coming in.

And thank you for joining us for this edition of On the Record.

You can see this show again or previous shows as well as the podcast at KLRN.org I'm Randy Beamer, and we'll see you next time on the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho