 At this moment I'm going to ask the candidates to give a one-minute personal opening statement. Please tell us who you are, where you're from, and any information you can give our audience on a more personal level. In chronological order today, buying for District 9 seat, we have with us Richard Castagnon, he's not here. So we're going to go with Jeffrey Banslaiki. Good morning. I am honored to be here today. Thank you to the Chamber and to Telemundo. The opportunity to share a message is imperative. In eighth grade, I found an opportunity, I'm the youngest of six, to scrape trays during lunch because we just didn't have any money and that's the way I got my lunch. All the other kids went out and played while I scraped the trays at lunch in exchange for lunch. I don't know if, I guess at that point, I just perceived that as a process of being a servant rather than being an entrepreneur. I'm a retired police officer from San Antonio. I've trained police all over the world. Kosovo, Iraq, Russia, Germany, and currently I'm teaching over at Judson High School. Teaching kids that struggle with the star test and I look forward to visiting with everybody today. Mr. Joel Cryer, please. A personal statement. Thank you. I'm Joel Cryer. I have lived in San Antonio for more than 40 years and in District 9 for more than 30 years. I had the privilege for 20 of those years of being president and CEO of the greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce and spent a great deal of time during those years involved in all of the major efforts that brought jobs to our community and helped build our infrastructure like the AT&T Center and the Alamo Dome as well as numerous streets and drainage and libraries and bond projects in our community. Those are the kinds of things that build a better community. I've had the privilege of serving on City Council for a year and a half and during that time have led the effort to see that citizens got to vote on the streetcar project and ensured that we got a back-to-basics budget with no tax increase. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Cryer now. Mr. Thomas. Saaconi, am I pronouncing your last name correctly? Correctly, yes. I get it a lot of ways. I spend a tour in Alabama. I'm Bert Saaconi. I'm originally from Pittsburgh, which makes me a Steeler fan, not now but then. A Cowboy fan now. I went to the University of Pittsburgh dental school, graduate school through the Air Force at the University of Michigan. I have an interest in research and education and sports. I enjoy playing golf, although I take too many strokes even when I cheat. And I enjoy politics as a hobby and I don't know if I would like it as a contact sport. It's always a pleasure to be with Joe and Jeffrey and Mike. Mike and I are ex Air Force officers, but he was with the chief of staff and I was fixing the teeth of those that were fighting for us. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And I want you all to know that the last candidate in this district, Lori Slosher, previously committed to this event, but now she has a conflict and is unable to participate. So we have with us District 10 incumbent and current Councilman Mike Gallagher. Good morning, Mr. Gallagher. Good morning. And again, like the other candidates here, I just want to thank everybody for enduring having to listen to all these politicians over the last few weeks. We really do appreciate your efforts. I come from a military background, almost 29 years, the United States Air Force. I served in public affairs capacity. So ironically what I did in the Air Force is almost exactly what I'm doing here on Council, giving speeches, turning out newsletters, and oh yes, talking to the press. So we do that all the time. But I've been involved really in neighborhood work more than anything else. We organize the Northeast Neighborhood Alliance. Believe it or not, ladies and gentlemen, that's 85 neighborhoods that get together now. And so when we get up in front of them and talk about what's going on with city issues, it's amazing how many voters we get to communicate. And because of that, how many people that are interested in civic activities. So as far as I'm concerned, this was a great way for us to be involved and hear the voice of the people in the district. Thank you. On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, I want to tell you that we are very glad that you joined us, even though your opponent, Ms. Celeste Montestit, will decline our invitation. So let the forum begin. These are the questions for the candidates. We will decide them. Questions will take about 30 seconds. Each question will be limited to one topic and addressed to one candidate at a time. Candidates may or may not be asked the same question by the moderator. Answers will be 90 seconds. Green, yellow, and red light to assist in timing on teleprompter. At the end of the forum, each candidate will have two minutes for closing arguments. So don't feel that you have two minutes to say whatever you want to say. So let's start. The first question will be addressed to Mr. Sekoni. And it will be. San Antonio is committed to investing a significant amount of money into funding the 142-mile VISTA-rich water pipeline with the intention of expanding our water supply and securing additional water supplies for the city. As a city council member, do you support this project? Or do you have other projects to increase our water capacity? Pertaining to water, I rely on experts and their expertise in hydraulics. And I take their word for it. As a political activist, I know that water is our most precious asset. And anything that would ensure future water supplies, I would be in favor of. I'm in favor of that project. I don't know the details of it, but I certainly like the end results, which gets us about 50,000 acre feet a year, which ensures our water supply well into the future. That's it. Mr. Slick. Same question? Yes. I will be voting for it for the VISTA-Ridge project. I think that we can do additional things. When I say we, we as a community, as individuals and collectively, if you haven't been near school when it rains, the volumes and volumes of water running off the roofs. If we can develop more rainwater catchments, two things are going to happen. We're going to capture water that can be used. And we're going to provide some relief to the wastewater system, too. Back to the VISTA-Ridge, I think it does offer a solution and we can breathe. But I have some concerns with the transparency of it. And I think that, and I don't say that, casting any stones at anything. I just think that if we open up and we can see more information, we as a community then can activate and get more persons involved. And that's what we need to do with the VISTA-Ridge, is share more information. Who's going to be doing it? How's it going to be done? And let's bring more of the community involved, share the opportunities. And that will also address giving some employment opportunities. We've got to get more people involved. For the VISTA-Ridge, I'll be voting for it. I think that it does provide a sense of relief for the days ahead. Mr. Crier, related to the same topic, do you support the current financial commitment and corresponding rate increase this project has on taxpayers? Sure. The answer to that is yes, water is not free. It's going to be an increasingly expensive commodity. In this century, many people realize that in this century, water will have the economic importance that oil and gas had in the last century. And that's why I spent literally two and a half months meeting with a group of people every week to work on city council to get the VISTA-Ridge project passed, which we passed unanimously. We knew when we passed it that it would require a series of rate increases over time. Even as those rate increases are adopted, San Antonio will still have one of the lowest overall water rates per capita of any big city in Texas and of any big city in the United States. The good news, though, is that during the 20 years I was at the chamber, we lost a lot of employers who were considering moving to San Antonio and decided not to because we did not own our water future. We had great plans, but we had no ownership. And now, for the first time, we own a 30-year supply of water. Importantly, we will get more water at the front end than we need, which is one of the reasons why I initiated some meetings with the military community here to provide them with water so that they can get off of their current Stage 4 water restrictions. Thank you, Mr. Greyer. Mr. Gallagher? Yes, I think like everyone here this morning, this VISTA-Ridge project is one of the most important items that Joe and I had the opportunity to vote on this past year. It's absolutely essential for the future of our area. Believe it or not, one of the things just mentioned that we've got to be concerned about is what the aquifer level is right now. As the Base Realignment and Closure Commission will be eventually visiting us here in the next couple of years, they'll be looking at the resources that are available for these military installations. We could be in big trouble if we continue to dry up. And what's really been upsetting is to watch that Edwards Aquifer level drop and drop and drop. Unfortunately, this rain that we've had in the last little while has brought it up a couple of feet, but nowhere near where it needs to be. We have to have these other opportunities for water. And so I'm very pleased that this project is underway. But I also do like the unique ideas of coming up with other ways of preserving it, so I hope that we do that as well. Thank you. On to me. The next question, Albert, would be to you please. The city's public safety functions, police, fire, and EMS, are supported by the city's general fund. These funds also support other key functions such as libraries, parks, street repairs, and code enforcement. Alone, the public safety departments constitute the largest general fund expenditures in the city's budget, which has resulted in fewer funds being available to other city needs. Do you support the city's negotiations to reduce police and fire department benefits that would limit these expenditures to no more than 66% of the city's budgets? And if you're not in support of the current city's approach, which services would you recommend reducing or increasing taxes? Tough question. Not an easy answer. I am inclined to think that we have to be very careful with public safety. If we don't have public safety in order, I'm afraid that all those other things that you mentioned won't be functioning very well, as we see is unfortunately happening in some of our cities presently, you know, which city I'm speaking about. And to pick out how much money should go to which department is a very shaky thing, especially when you start talking about what base, which figures are you speaking about and can those figures ever be moved around? I would be inclined to see where we can get additional funds. For example, I think it's amendment number one, or proposition number one, voting on preserving the water supply, our aquifer, which is important and which we should do. But what I find very interesting is that that aquifer goes over six counties. And everybody uses the Edwards Aquifer. And the recharge is roughly 613 acre-feet a year. The city has an allocation of about 270 to 300,000 acre-feet a year, which basically means that the city of San Antonio gets 50% of the water and it pays 100% of the protection. Why don't these other counties chip in, they pay their 50%, and that will give us a 50%, that's millions of dollars, which we could apply to other needs such as public safety and infrastructure. Great, thank you very much. Jeffrey, same question to you please. Could I get a real quick overview of the question one more time, please? The city's public safety functions, please, via EMS, support the city's general fund, are supported by the city's general fund, and it represents a rather significant portion. The city is in the process of negotiating with police and fire. The approach being taken is to reduce some of the health care benefits that police and fire enjoy today that are different than most of all of us that work outside of the public sector. Are you in favor of that? Are you in favor of the negotiations and reducing the health care benefits of police and fire? And if not, what services would you address, reduce, or taxes would you increase to offset the continued increase that these services or these costs represent of the city's general fund budget? Okay, first off, I'm not sure if that's a true statement. Honestly, I'm not sure that the city is negotiating with police and fire at this point. It has been interrupted with a lawsuit, and until we can get that out of the way where both sides can come together in work in a spirit of negotiating, you take the resources, you look at the objective and the mission of the police department and fire department in public safety, and you bring the two together. And together, the associations and the city look at what objectives are, what resources we have, and you bring it together, whether it is for the medical, whether it is for whatever other needs there are. So if we can get that lawsuit out of the way, they can come together and work. Now back to the 66%, even that is a fluid number of late. And that's fair enough. The city management, you shift programs and that's not unfair. But to make that as a stipulation, what 66% was two years ago, last year and this year, is too dynamic to lock in on that. Yes, we need to come together. We're in there. The police have said, yeah, let's come together, let's look at what it's a matter of give and take. In years past, the police have sacrificed other benefits in exchange for that insurance. I think they need to come to the table and address the issue. Thank you. Joe, same question. And just to elaborate a little bit, being the chairman of the Economic Development Council for the last two years, we spent time validating those numbers. So the 66% is a real number and it is an apples to apples comparison over historical data that proves that police and fires expenditures are absorbing much, much more of the city's budget. So are you in support of the city's approach? And again, if not, what taxes would you increase and or services would you reduce? Well, number one, thank you for the question. I do support the approach the city has taken on this. We know that the current costs in this year's budget, because we do not have a union agreement, will be in excess of 66%, somewhere between 67 and 68%. We have got to bring those costs under control or they will eat up the funds that are currently available for streets and drainage libraries and parks. And that's not healthy. I do not support raising property taxes either in the last budget or in the budget coming up. We have had a series of good negotiations with the police union. The fire union is yet to come to the table. I think we are close to reaching an agreement. My prediction is we will reach one shortly after the election, frankly. And the good news is that the city's position in its last offer has been to offer a substantial pay raise and a reduction in healthcare benefits that would require a contribution for spouse and dependents. The better news is that when the police union came back to the table, they agreed for the first time that their dependents should make some contribution for that cost while the city continues to provide full coverage for the uniformed officer. 66% is a good number. We ought to find out a way to stick to it and not increase property taxes. Thank you, Joe, for your answer. Mike, I just want to elaborate a little bit more. We see across the country cities like Detroit, Chicago, Stockton, California that have these same issues. The city enjoys a triple A rating through the investment community today. Do you have any concern about the potential of losing that triple A rating, which would have a significant financial impact on the community and the city? And what are your thoughts on this issue, please? No, I think that you raise a very important concern that we all need to be looking at. One thing we have to step back, though, and look at this overall. Everybody here is really a victim of the problem of rising healthcare costs. They all are. I mean, that's what worked many years ago when the contract was signed does not work today. We have to take that into consideration, and that's what that lawsuit's all about. It's not against people. It's against this evergreen clause. If it were to continue, we would go to 2024 with the same contract. We could end up in a situation very similar to what happened to Detroit. That could bust the city's budget. So, yes, I feel for the fire and I feel for the police, but we've got to come to some kind of consensus. What I would like to do now, and this is a little bit out of line, and that is to criticize the media coverage of what's been going on here, because they've made it almost a personality issue, and that's not what's going on here. It's a numbers issue, and I've been very proud of the police and the city, how they've been getting closer and closer together, and I think that this is something that can be resolved, and I do hope that fire will step up and say, yep, this is a good solution to this problem, and let's get it done, but it is going to require that everybody's going to have to pay a little bit more in order to make this happen. Thank you. Mr. Gallagher, I'll make sure I'll put that in my package today from 430 to 530. You watch it in Telemundo. The next question is very simple. Is that yes? I will. I promise. The next question is very simple. It's basically a yes or no answer, and you can elaborate as to why you agree or not. Do you support spending taxpayer dollars to promote the recruitment and relocation of a professional football and or soccer team? Mr. Sakoni, please. I like football, and I like soccer, but I question public funds to recruit them. I don't know of going to many movies and theaters, and I don't recall any actors asking me to pitch in to build their theater, and I like their salaries are good, and I hope they make a lot of money, but I don't think that the taxpayers should fund their stadiums. I don't think we should pay to recruit them. We should make our city a city where people want to come and live and bring up their families, and I can assure you that football teams and baseball teams and so on would want to participate in our city. They need us more than we need them. And how many watched the Spur games last night? From beginning to end. I was working. And it's hard for me to stay awake because I'm over 29. But no, I would not expend... To answer your question briefly, I would not use tax money to recruit any professional sport, period. Thank you for your honesty, Mr. Slick. I want to back up and look at tax money. Out of the general tax budget? No. We do have the Hotel Motel Tax, a tourist design to bring tourism to San Antonio, which would include these sports. So out of the general fund budget and what you and I pay on our residential tax and any of the sales tax, that needs to go to the budget, take care of the streets and the libraries and the police and fire public safety. We don't need to be spending that money trying to recruit a football team. That doesn't make sense. If you have that special fund downtown to the Hotel Motel and the rental cars, that money should be designed if there's a legitimate effort and hope and it can be validated that, you know, we might be able to bring some of the town. We can use that money for recruiting. Yes. Okay, Mr. Crier. Thank you. We have used in the past Hotel Motel and car rental taxes to support, particularly the Spurs, the AT&T Center would not have been built without it. We had a voter approved sales tax which built the Alamo Dome. So we have set the precedent in this community of saying that major league sports are an asset that big cities have and particularly that the young professionals we want to move here and stay here expect to find when they live in a city. We've had ongoing discussions about a soccer field acquisition of the existing soccer stadium. It happens to be in Councilman Gallagher's district. He has really played a leadership role in recruiting a team and leading the charge for an effort that would bring us a professional soccer team. At this point, we do not have a deal on the table. So it's not possible for any of us to say I would support that deal because we don't have a deal to take either to the community or to City Council. And when that happens, I'm willing to take a look at it and see what's best for the community, recognizing that professional sports have been an asset to big cities around the country. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Gallagher. Thank you very much for this question because this is something that I've really supported. Major League Soccer could really help our city. You think about the jobs that can come, the development that can come, the new hotels and motels that will be built. This is a great opportunity for us and we right now have a facility that's not going to require the huge investment that other cities would have in order to make this happen. Out at beautiful Morgan's Wonderland, we have a Toyota field and it's actually been designed so that we can increase the size of it from 8,000 feet, 8,000 seats that it currently has to 18,000 seats, which is exactly what MLS wants in order to have a Major League team here in San Antonio. You think about where we're located right in the southern, central part of this nation. Think about all the people from Latin America that will want to come up and see these games. This is something that will be a huge economic boom for the city of San Antonio. I think we need to pay close attention to it and I agree with my colleagues here that it's something that we've got to make sure and do it right, do it smart, but I think it's something that will benefit all of us and I want everybody to get on board on this one. Thank you. So many good questions and obviously some good answers as well. And as I look through the list, it's really difficult for me to pick, but for the Chamber, one of the key priorities for the Chamber, and Bert this question is for you, sir, first, is related to transportation. Traffic congestion continues to be a critical issue for our economy and there are multiple solutions needed to address it. Do you support the use of managed coal lanes as one of these transportation solutions for our traffic congestion? My answer is no to that question briefly and to the point, but if we have toll lanes, I want to know who built them and who benefits from them and then demonstrate how it would improve traffic flow. And if that was proven to be a positive, then I would change my view, but that hasn't been proven to me yet. And I'm not sure it would solve a problem. Certainly by itself it wouldn't solve a problem. The more roads you build, the more cars that you make. I spend a tour in Southern California and half of that state is super highway and they have terrible traffic. So it's obviously not a solution by itself. And I'm going to cheat a little bit. I have a few seconds. I want to ask a question being, I'm from Western Pennsylvania and I love sports and I have a background in sports, but that's neither here nor there. I want to ask a question. What did the Baltimore Ravens do to help the situation that Baltimore is in today? I think there are other things more important than sports. I think I would rather pay teachers more money and respect their profession. I think we need to do all we possibly can to give all of our students the opportunity to have an education. And I would put those things ahead of toll roads and I would put those things ahead of sports teams. And I like and enjoy sports. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Jeffrey, same question to you, sir. My short and quick answer is no, I will not support toll roads. Now, when I say that, that is me. As the voice of District 9, if we can get a legitimate consensus and let District 9, I say District 9, let the city vote on toll roads, whatever the city has, if the city says, you know what, we'll become a part of this and let it happen. If District 9 were to overwhelmingly, the majority convinced me that they wanted toll roads. On behalf of District 9, I'd have to raise my hand. Myself, I think we need to make sure that the voters would understand what's involved. When you build toll roads, there is such a phenomenal increase in the cost of construction that it just throws it into a new arena. Pending on, as Mr. Sikoni had said, pending on how it's funded, if we have international funding and such, sometimes there is a, I've read about a no compete clause to protect that investment, and that's not unreasonable. But do we want to prevent ourselves from developing additional lanes that are available for free? And no compete clauses when the rates of tolls can increase? That's scary. And so I think we can build our infrastructure without adding toll lanes. Great. Thank you very much for your answer. I really appreciate it. Joe, and I want to kind of add on to that. If you're not for tolls, and I'm just talking about roads right now, you know, what are some of your options, alternatives? Because if you have to have a solution, there's got to be a solution to this. So what are some of your options? Well, look, here's the reality. San Antonio is going to have a million more people between the 2010 census and the 2040 census. Those million people are going to get to work, I predict, mostly in cars, and they're going to get to church and school and shopping mostly in cars. And that means we've got to provide roads for them to drive on. I've gone to Austin for more than 20 years to urge the state to quit diverting highway gas tax money to other purposes. This year for the first time, they're getting serious about doing that. But the truth of the matter is the state has been broke. We can't fund the kind of highway expansion we need with state money. Even with all the proposals in this legislature, as you know, Joe, there's still not going to be enough money to get back to the kind of robust highway construction that we enjoyed in the first half of the last century when we built one of the best highway systems in the country. So my view has been, if the state's not going to fund highways the traditional way, we've got to come up with creative alternatives. Toll roads have been one way to do that. And my position has been that I'm fine with toll roads as long as, number one, we're not tolling existing roads. Number two, there is a free alternative. And number three, there's no financial risk to the state. And thus far, all of the projects that have been built in Dallas and Houston and Austin meet that test. They have been financed and paid for in large part by outside risk capital. There has been a free alternative and we have not told existing roads. If we can continue to do that, then they fill a gap that no one else is filling. Great, thank you for your response. Michael, same question to you. Thank you very much. My answer is absolutely not. I do not support toll roads in any way whatsoever. Interestingly, when this argument came about, one of the new words that we use are managed lanes to describe things. I think you can have managed lanes without having toll roads. They don't have to be the same definition. By managed lanes, I think we should encourage car pooling. I think we should encourage where the via buses drive and so forth. Design the roads. Use a little bit of imagination. Design those roads so that they can be more efficiently used. Do we need to divert through truck traffic around the city instead of driving it through the center? For those of you who've been on I-35, you know, sometimes it becomes a parking lot. If you're up in Austin, it is a parking lot. Why don't we have some clever ways of thinking about how we can manage this? I think that's absolutely essential to our future that we do so. And I do think it's extremely important that we talk about the diversion of highway funds. I think a big mistake has been made in this state where that money that should have gone to the repair of our infrastructure has been diverted to other sources. That is wrong. And I wish this legislature would step up and get this cleaned up right now. Thank you. The following question is, one city charter proposal for San Antonio voters to decide in May is whether city council members should be paid for the services they provide. Do you support pay for city council members? And if you do so, do you think that will change the dynamic of who we run for the city council in the future? Mr. Sakoni? I don't know who made this batting lineup, but I think I'm the leadoff better. I can answer. It's a pleasure to answer that question. And I am in favor of council pay, and I'm going to tell you why. In 1951, we adopted the present charter. And at that time there were 400,000 citizens, and we occupied an area of 100 square miles. And they elected 10 council members at large at that time. And then from the council members, they chose who would be mayor. They met once a week for two or three hours. They were part-time. That was in 1951. And I know that's a fact because I eat with the gentleman. He's a very good friend of mine twice a month, and he sat on those councils. In San Antonio today we have a population of well over one and a half million people. We occupy an area, a vast area of 465 square miles, which is probably about the size of New York City. And we still elect 10 council members, but they are from a district. They have a constituency, and the mayor is elected at large. It is no longer a part-time job. It is a full-time commitment. In my district, for example, if each citizen in District 9 would contribute 25 cents to the salary of an elected official, they would earn $47,500 for the year. That is a great investment in democracy. And for that reason, I am for amendment number two, pay our council members. I'd pay Joe at least 30 cents a month. It went down from 31, Joe. And they deserve our support. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Slythe, please. Absolutely. I do believe that our council members and mayor should be compensated for the hours that they are investing in our community. For many of the naysayers, no, we shouldn't pay because they're not doing a good job. Let's not look back because the ones that we've had in the past have not been paid. Let's look forward to what a paid council person might draw. Once again, to those who say, no, we don't need to pay them because we have attorneys, we have retired officers on the council. That's not a bad thing. But again, we have professionals, we have intellectuals, we have a great many in our community that could participate if they could pay the rent and pay the mortgage. And so I think we need to open the door to involve more people. And we need not base the answer to this question on past performance because that's changing the opportunity to pay. We'll make a shift between what we've had and the great potential we could. Once again, we're opening the doors for more community involvement with council in mayoral pay. Thank you, Mr. Slythe, Mr. Crier. Thank you. Do I think that council members on average put in 40 to 50 hours a week plus in order to do a good job? Yes, they do. I see that on behalf of all my colleagues every week and have seen that since Colonel Gallagher and I got on city council a little over a year ago. Do I think they deserve to be paid? Absolutely. But I voted against putting council pay on the ballot and I did that because I think our number one responsibility right now is to get a police and fire union contract done, one that is fair to both sides and is affordable for the taxpayers. And it did not seem to me that we should be focused on pay for us at a time when we have not resolved the issue of what is the paying benefits for our police and fire going to be. There'll be plenty of time down the road in other elections to deal with council pay. But right now, that's the number one issue for me and that's why I voted not to put it on the ballot this time. Thank you for explaining that. Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. I am absolutely in favor of this change to the charter. I was appointed by the mayor to be on the charter commission and this was one of the items that I fought for diligently because I think it is absolutely essential to the future of San Antonio. I think there's something very wrong about having people work 50, 60 hours a week and not receive some kind of compensation for it. But it goes both ways. I also want 100% of the attention of that person who has been elected to that position because I want them doing that job and not showing up to meetings or going somewhere else when they ought to be doing their elected job. So for that reason, it's something that I strongly support. I believe that the city of San Antonio and the people that I've spoken to in many, many different forms all agree that this is something that is long overdue that we must make happen. One of the problems, and I understand that Councilman Crier's position on this is that we are in the middle right now of these negotiations but there will always be some issue that causes us not to bring this forward. And so I said, I don't care what time it is, it's something we've got to get done. So I would encourage all the voters to turn out and support this change to the charter. I think we have time for one more question for each of the panelists before we get into closing remarks. Would that be appropriate, Allegra? Okay, great, great. Wow. My question, I'm going to take my moderator hat off for a second. I'm going to put my banker hat on. And the reason why is economic development in a community is absolutely key. It really is the engine that helps foster growth in the community. My question to you, gentlemen, is San Antonio continues to grow at a record pace as a result of new business and job creation. Do you believe that tax incentives provided by the city should be used to attract prospective companies? I'll lead off again. Absolutely. I'll tell you, that was good because I don't know if I could hit with men on base. I'm, I guess like Coach Popovich, you know, they despise the intentional filing and some people want that rule changed and Pop's kind of used it because it's legal. My view is if somebody's getting paid $5 million and they can't make a file, leave the rule the way it is and he better learn how to shoot files. And when it comes to tax incentives, I do not like tax incentives, but every other country and every other state and every other city uses them. So I would imagine that we would have to continue using them as a prudent economic generator. I think the greatest economic generator that we could have is to have a well-trained and well-educated workforce. And you play by the rules as they are and the way they are, I think we need to continue with tax incentives and we need to continue to try to attract excellent paying jobs to our city in any way that we reasonably can. You owe me 15 seconds. Although you went over one for 15 seconds, so deduct it. I know you can never pay another guy's court. The same question to you, sir. Tax incentives work. They do work. And in some occasions, and I think it's a limited occasions, they fail. And so the challenge we have, and I think Burt brought it up, if we're competing with other cities to bring jobs and opportunities to San Antonio, and we take that off the table, we're done. And so we've got to continue with it. And once again, to help the population understand what's involved, we need to inform. When I say that, we have such a great opportunity to communicate to our community and share information and bring more participants to the table. You bring a company to town and provide them an incentive to give employment greater than bringing outsiders in to make our community aware of the value and the benefit of it, so our very residents could get those opportunities. And again, Burt offered up from the tax incentives come some employment education and development of the unemployed, where that could be stimulated through the tax incentives. So they work. They work. And like anything, there are the exceptional failures. But yes, I think that it's a great tool for San Antonio. Great. Thank you so much for your response. Mr. Crier, please send a question to you. You bet. Five years ago, we dramatically restructured how we do economic development in this community. I had a chance to participate in that effort and we decided for the first time that the city and the county would contribute money to the San Antonio Economic Development Foundation to be a full partner in those efforts. And in exchange for that, both of those governmental entities would be involved in the management of the foundation at the Executive Committee in top-most levels. I asked for, and we are now in the process of a five-year review of what did we get for that? The city has invested substantial cash, as has the county. It seemed to me that five years was an appropriate period of time to say what have been the results? Was the investment worth it? Should it be continued? In principle, we've got to offer these incentives. Why? Because our competitors do it. I used to go to the meetings of the 100 largest chambers in the country to a person. They all agreed that if we could live in a world where no one offered incentives, we would do that. But if your competitor is doing it, you've got to do it. As Marty Wender says, the reason we pay $5 million to our football coach is because that's what the other schools we're competing with do. So do we need the incentives? Yes. Do they produce results? You bet they do. I was a part of Team Toyota, and they sure produced great results there. This is a good time, though, to review what we've gotten for that, and I look forward to taking part in that review later this year. Great. Mr. Gallagher, please. I'm in full support of this, and it's really because I like the analogy that that's the game that's being played right now. If our competitors are using tax incentives, we need to do exactly the same thing. Otherwise, we could really be at a big loss. The one thing that hasn't come out, though, that everybody needs to realize is there are a whole set of rules that whenever that we talk to these enterprises, that we say to them, if you don't follow these rules, if you don't hire so many people, if you don't do this training, if you don't grow at this rate, you're not going to get those incentives. In fact, you're going to owe us money. Because of that, I feel very comfortable whenever we go through these, and you watch Cheryl Scully, she bangs her fists on the table and said, this is what they've got to do, or they're not going to get this benefit that we've offered them. And because that exists, because that is a written document that exists, we are protected as a city. So it's something that I think we can be proud of, and I know it can work if it's done properly. Excellent. We're going to have to move on to the closing statements. Whatever it is that you didn't get a chance to answer, like what would be the issues that you are more worried about in your district and how to solve for your closing statements? You're welcome. You each have two minutes. Let's do it. Just before we do that, General, I want to thank you really quick for your time today, but this, obviously, these forms are very, very important. The job that you're in the process of running for, I can't tell you from my perspective how important that is, and we, the taxpayer, and the voters put, literally our future, our lives in your hands. So we really appreciate the time that you're taking to be with us this morning. So closing statements. Mr. Kreier, you're up first, sir. Thank you, and thanks to the sponsors for this event. It's a great opportunity to talk about real issues. I've had an opportunity in the last year and a half to take part in some decisions that will affect this city for literally decades to come. The decision we made to give voters the right to choose on whether or not we build streetcars. The decision on securing a 30-year supply of water, which we desperately have needed for literally the last 40 or 50 years. The decision to adopt a back-to-basics city budget. So we've gotten a lot done in the last year and a half, but we've got a lot of big challenges in front of us. Number one is, we've got to get a police and fire union agreement that gives us the best police and fire personnel this city can afford. We need good pay and good benefits, a deal that's fair to both sides, but most of all is fair to the taxpayers. Secondly, we've got to make sure that the Vista Verde Pipeline project is done on time and on budget, and the council has got to stay on top of that issue. We're going to be looking at another back-to-basics budget this fall. Again, maintaining streets and drainage, police and fire, parks and libraries without a property tax increase. We're going to be selecting a new police chief, working with the city manager and a new city attorney. That's important. And finally, we will be laying the groundwork for the 2017 bond issue, and we're going to need to start a thoughtful process that brings community leaders together, representatives of neighborhoods and the business community, and say to each other, what kind of streets projects do we need in the next bond campaign? What kind of drainage projects? What kind of library and park improvements do we need? That's a big ticket item, and it's decisions that will impact the city for literally decades to come. I look forward to being a part of those decisions and a part of that review, if the voters are kind enough to re-elect me and I ask for their vote. Next, Mr. Van Swikey, please. Thanks, sir. We do have big decisions in the future, and how we go about doing them. And I think every time any person says we or they, we need to back up and say, who are we? Who are they? We should be everybody in San Antonio. We need to reach out. There's an ambivalent situation here. There's an overwhelming apathy, and you talk to the people, and without a doubt. They're frustrated with the political process, the perception of what's going on downtown, and so they just throw their hands up and say, I don't want to support anybody. And so we need to get them back into the fold. They have so much to contribute. We found energy down in South Texas, and so we go down and start fracking, and what amazing that's done for our economy, and for South Texas and San Antonio. We have that same energy in the population in San Antonio that has not yet been tapped. If we can tap that energy, our economic status will, it'll be a boom also. We have got to do that. I'd like to move on to the issue of the streetcar vote. That is, it's sad. That's a short voting, short-sighted vote for what was an ill-conceived idea by a few. And the same few that did design the streetcar issue have designed the toll roads, and so we need to expand that, or address that. The last thing I'd like to address, because I think that your questions have pretty much gone again, but Joe talks about hiring our next police chief. We need, we have got our qualified personnel here in San Antonio with a seventh largest city in the nation. We have officers, command officers that understand the city, the community. The challenges going elsewhere could happen here. I think that we need to hire within. Thank you very much for your response, Mr. Saccone. The floor is yours, sir. I feel much more comfortable betting third, like Clemente and Mutual, and so on and so forth. And my, you heard the kiss principle? Well, my principle is the kiss principle squared, and that is keep it simple and keep it short. And I am going to touch on the most important issue that will affect all of our decisions well into the future. And that isn't a police contract. It isn't a road. It isn't a toll road. And it isn't a baseball team or a soccer team. Soccer. What it is are the people that sit on city council and make, they become informed and they make the decisions. And we have to show respect for those people and give them reasonable compensation to work for us the best way they possibly can. And if we don't like what they're doing, it's a democracy. Vote them out. That is the most important issue and the amount of money. You can't put everything on hold because there's a contract that we're dealing with. It may take 10 years to solve that contract. And the amount of money we're talking about to compensate all of these excellent people that are on our council is less than the city manager makes and she's worth every penny she earns. Don't misunderstand me. But it's a pittance in a city budget. Right, Mr. Banker? Absolutely. It is very, very little. And I don't know. I've been with these men and women. I've been in enough elections and I've lost a few of them. But that's beside the point. We really don't deserve the men and women that have got into the arena and there are three of them right here with me. And I say three out of four isn't bad. And we need more competition. We need to show respect for the office and the people that hold it. Our elected officials deserve our support. Pay them. Thank you for your response, Mr. Sikoni. Okay, Mr. Gallagher, you're last up. But you're batting cleaners. Yeah, I'm batting cleaners. Using an analogy. Yeah, okay. Well, without question, number one, thank you so much for having us here today. I think you hit on all the big issues. You really did. Those were great questions. Those are the things that are on the front burner for all of us and we do care about them very much. One thing that I think that we need to be careful about though is city focus. Where is the attention to the issues that are facing us? I've seen this in my own district. In District 10, we have what we call the Northeast corridor that we're working on. And what that is, it's an area that back in the 1960s, 1970s was growing. It looked great. But over the years, it's just like the people there, they've gotten old and it's slowly deteriorated. Well, this wasn't a part of any downtown project. This was out in the suburbs at the time. But now what we really have because we're such a big city is a whole lot of downtowns. They're all over the city. And what we need to do as a city is start focusing on all of these areas and not just selfishly look at one because there's a bunch of areas need all kind of investment and cleanup. And I would just hope that the city as a whole will take that into consideration. And the last thing I want to say is that I'm very concerned about voter apathy. I think it's extremely important that voters do get out this time around and make sure that they do express or vote. Talk about this idea of the charter changes that are going to occur. Talk about those propositions that are going to affect our water supply in the future. And then, of course, we've got this huge candidate list for mayor that people have got to sort through. And then, of course, the council candidate. I hope people will turn out in this election and let their voices be heard. Thank you. Thank you all for participating. It is important for our community to hear from you. So thank you so much. Thank you, Elena. Yes, and thank you candidates for coming. I know it was early in the morning. We really appreciate on behalf of the chamber, your honest answers and opinions. Thank you for coming and taking the time and our moderators and our sponsors. UTSA has been so gracious to let us use this space. Tammy is here. Thank you. And especially Telemundo, our go to media source has been really great. Thank you for your district's specific questions and for covering. And now CAST has been here through every step of the way and they've been really great with us too.