 And so if I could have everyone take your seats, please we will begin. Wow, it got quiet. Before I begin, this is kind of reminiscent of a meeting we had here in January 14th, I believe it was, the kickoff to the Big Give SA, where we had over 400 nonprofits in the room for that kickoff. And I'm just gonna put a little plug in before I begin the program. We are now at 800 nonprofits, participating on May 5th. Many of you in the room are obviously participating, so I just wanted to give a shout out. Registration deadline is Friday, so if you know of any other nonprofits, get them on going. So good afternoon, I'm Scott McInnidge with the San Antonio Nonprofit Council, and it's my privilege to welcome you all to our vision for nonprofit impact in San Antonio, a mayoral candidate forum. There are nearly 300 attendees here today who registered to recognize the importance of our nonprofits in the community and eager to hear from our candidates about their visions for the nonprofit community here in San Antonio. We'll introduce them in a moment along with our guest moderator, but first I'd like to thank some folks and sponsors and acknowledge some special guests here today. First of all, I would like to thank Methodist Healthcare Ministries, the organization who is funding this endeavor and we appreciate their support, not only for funding, but for staff as well to help put this thing together because it takes an army and I wanna thank them. I wanna thank Nowcast, Charlotte Ann Lucas in the back. They are live streaming this event. It's on the website on Nowcast.org and you can find a recording of it after the event and you can kind of spread the word and all of that. I'd like to thank Clarity Child Guidance Center, our co-sponsor today for this event and of course the Whitley Theological Center for this gorgeous room and all of their staff. There are a number of guests I'd like to recognize today who are in the audience and who support the nonprofit sector in a big way. First, I would like to introduce Mr. Harvey Najem from the Harvey Najem Family Foundation, Mr. Kevin Moriarty from Methodist Healthcare Ministries and also thank you for being a member of the nonprofit council for the many years that I've been with the organization. That means a lot to me personally. I'm not sure if she's here but Amy Phipps from the Genevieve and Ward Orsinger Foundation. Hi, Amy and two folks that helped me out. Well, three, but two from Clarity Child Guidance Center, Chris Bryan and Mike Hannon in the back. Thank you guys and Sandra Martinez from Methodist Healthcare Ministries who again was instrumental in helping us get this thing going. So I know she's here, but there you are. At this time, I'd also like to recognize the president and CEO of Clarity Child Guidance Center and the chair of the San Antonio Nonprofit Council who is traveling today, Fred Hines. But we have an esteemed staff member who will be filling in for him. And I'd also like to recognize those executive committee members who are also in attendance. And if I could get you all to stand, Sandy Miranda, Denise Barkhurst, Annette Rodriguez, David Phipps, and Kim Jeffries, this is our executive committee. Thank you all. Thank you all. And Mike Bennett is also traveling as a member of our executive committee. And again, thank all of you for taking the time to join us here. Now it's time to introduce our mayoral candidates. And thank you all for joining us here today and rushing from one event to another. This has been quite a season of events. As I mentioned, the event is being streamed live on Nowcast right now for those who are not able to join us. If you're tweeting during the event, there's the hashtag, hashtag non-profit impact. So let's see that start trending. And now the candidates. I'm gonna introduce them one at a time in alphabetical order. County commissioner, Mr. Tommy Atkinson. And may I have you join us, join me on stage, I'm sorry. And if we need help with the mic, we can take care of that, right, Chris? Mayor Ivy Taylor, please welcome Mayor Ivy Taylor to the stage. Former state senator, Leticia Vanderpute. And former state representative, Mr. Mike Villarreal. Now it's my pleasure to introduce our moderator for today. Evan Smith is the editor-in-chief and CEO of the Texas Tribune, a non-profit, non-partisan digital news organization based in Austin. The Tribune's deep coverage of Texas politics and policy can be found on the website, texastribune.org. In the pages of the Washington Post and in newspaper and TV and radio stations across the state. In five years of operation, the Trib has won four Edward R. Morrill for Radio and Television Digital News Association, two general excellence awards and an award for innovative journalism. Before co-founding the Tribune, Evan spent nearly 18 at Texas monthly and back during those times, about seven years ago, we had Evan members of the non-profit council and it was a great event that we did all those seven years ago. On his watch, the Texas monthly won the National Magazine Award for General Excellence twice. I'd like to introduce Mr. Evan Smith. How about that, can you hear me now? Great. Thank you all, appreciate the opportunity to be here. Thank you, candidates. Thank you very much for having me as well. This appears from the outside to be the eight millionth mayoral forum. Something like that. Grace, I want to commend you for continuing to participate in these with such good cheer. The trend in politics, as you know, is the opposite these days, to debate less, to appear on stage less, not more. Let's please give the candidates a hand. Very good for the public discourse. Now, in trying to think about how to distinguish this forum from every other forum, I thought you're answering a lot of questions about hyper-local issues and why wouldn't you? You're running to be mayor of San Antonio, the second largest city in Texas, in Texas, the seventh largest in the country. Whole bucket of challenges that you all would enjoy as the next mayor of the city at the hyper-local level. But of course, I come down the highway from Austin and come from an environment in which there were a whole bunch of state issues that migrate down to the city level. And if you've been following the Let's Live sessions I have this year, the biggest tension point is in fact between the state and local entities. This whole notion of local control, what somebody in the legislature has termed local control versus out of control. And since there are so many state issues that impact cities and counties and disproportionately impact larger states like San Antonio, I thought we would spend some time today talking about the state level issues that you all as the next mayor of San Antonio would have to deal with, would have to interact with. Whether you've been in the legislature before Senator Representative or not, Mayor Commissioner, these issues are ones you should know that should be familiar to you and you're gonna have to deal with them like it or not as the next mayor of San Antonio. So I thought we might start there, if that's okay. We're gonna spend some time talking, the five of us up here, the non-profit organizations that are the sponsors of this event are gonna have an opportunity to each ask questions in the back half. And if we have time at the very end, we might be able to even take some questions as well. Okay? Mayor, let me start with you, if you wouldn't mind. There is a big debate at the legislature this session over tax cuts. We have so much money available to us at the state level this time, more than ever, 113 billion according to the controller. That was the revenue estimate this session. 107 billion is the spending cap. And the legislature has more money available to them to solve problems by spending it on big issues and big programs or to give back to the taxpayers. Not surprisingly, there's a lot of interest in giving money back to the taxpayers this year and so there's discussion of potentially $5 billion in tax cuts, much of which potentially could come through property tax cuts. Would you, Mayor Taylor, if elected, be a supporter of the state orchestrating a big property tax cut? And if so, how do you think that would affect the city of San Antonio? Okay. Well, thank you everyone for taking the time out to learn about the candidates and being here today. As someone who's been laboring at the local level for some years now, my main emphasis is on ensuring that we, as a community here in San Antonio, can thrive and grow. We've been at quite a few forums where we've been talking about economic development and workforce development and all that ties back to education. So I think really what I'd love to see is education be made a priority over any potential cuts because I think we are suffering as a result of the fact that we haven't made the proper investments into our educational system over the years, which has an impact on other ways that we have to pay for people who aren't prepared to fully participate in the economy and the workforce. So you worry that the property tax cuts might come at the expense of, for instance, investing in education and you would put education ahead of tax relief. Senator, you understand from your years in the legislature this kind of an either or, there's a lot of interest given the makeup of the Senate these days, your old stomping ground, significant tax cuts and the Senate in particular is jumping on the property tax cut bandwagon. If you were there, would you be joining them? And if you're mayor of San Antonio, would you want to see a big property tax cut? Evan, thank you for being here and hope your journey down I-35 wasn't as painful as some of my journeys back and forth over the last 24 years. No, it's no thing. It was okay. And thank you to all of you for participating today, the organizations. You know, the question that you ask is really how our state government and our local governments work in concert with each other and also against each other. You realize that there is a constitutional prohibition against a statewide property tax. So what the Senate approach is, is to lower property tax, the state doesn't collect any property tax. It's local eugnance of government. And so for me, it's been somewhat arrogant to take that approach when you could do a cut on the margins tax, which this goes and it's extremely discriminatory on small businesses. And the House version, of course, is to look at the sales tax cut. I believe that we will have tax cuts. That is one of the promises on the campaign trail. But the real argument is that first of all, I think the Senate should look at what's the need. We know that we've got an impending lawsuit to be resolved over school finance. The House has set aside and wants to say that it wants to put in about $3.2 billion into the formulas now. The Senate has not taken that approach. On the Senate side though, they have really looked at appraisal caps and the types of things that would hinder local government's ability to set their own tax rate. For me, the question is really simple. If we mean local control, then that means to allow local elected officials, who by the way, vote in the same elections and elect folks at the local and state, that we would look at maintaining that local control. But I think the state's most prudent pathway is one proposed by my dear friend, Republican Senator Altife, who says we really ought to look at our need, and that's transportation, that our facilities in the state, school funding, before we even have a discussion of that, to put those things in, what are our needs before? But I think we're gonna get a tax cut. I would say that we need to make sure that they are the least damaging to local governments, and to make sure that they really are prudent. Representative, I've heard two candidates up here say education should come first in some fashion. The reality is you may not get to decide that yourselves. That may be decided at the state level. Would you be an advocate for a property tax cut? Or would you like to see something else happen? Yeah, I think it's irresponsible in what the state legislature is doing, how they're approaching this. It is one thing to try to lower local education property taxes, which is the main focus of their attention, and then pay for state revenue. Why is that good? Well, when we lower our reliance on local property taxes, we increase the equity across school districts, because school districts rely heavily on local property taxes, and we know that some are very property poor, but have a lot of students, and some are property wealthy, and have few students. And so to the extent that we can rebalance how we fund schools relying less on property taxes, and having the state pick up more of the bill, that is a good thing, but that's not what they're talking about. What they're talking about is taking what today is excess revenue, primarily generated by the oil and gas boom, to reduce an ongoing revenue source. And we've seen this kind of movie play out, right? There are spikes and there are troughs. And so they're taking what is revenue produced by a spike, and using it to buy down, reduce, handicap, a revenue source that is ongoing stable, actually growing best in line with our growing population. So bad for San Antonio. And it's bad for San Antonio, and so it puts us in a position to pick up more of the responsibility for things that really are state responsibilities. Pre-K4SA, we took a step forward as a community to advance that initiative, because we were tired of the state dragging its feet and providing full day quality pre-K. If this tax cut goes through, that means there's gonna be more responsibility, and it's gonna be harder for us to do the things we wanna do for our community. Commissioner, who doesn't like a tax cut? How do you look the voters of San Antonio and the ION say, rather than let the state cut taxes, I'm gonna advocate that we keep your property taxes where they are right now? Well, everybody loves a tax cut, and that's why you see so much pandering in Austin, and the Grover Norquistians who believe that the best thing you can do for government is string it down to the size where you can drag it in the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. That's what our legislature's been doing. And it's the give us bravus thing, you know? Just give us somebody, but don't, that Jesus guy, he's gotta go on the cross. I think that we need to extend some measure of perhaps some kind of attack. Primary thing, when I look at, we're like 50th or 51st depending on the survey in mental health care per capita funding. That's not respectable. And I think we moved it up to about 25 in the nation. That's not respectable. We got a lot of people in our jail. The greatest mental health care provider in Bear County is the jail. Outside of the Center for Healthcare Services. That's ridiculous. And it's embarrassing and it's stupid and unnecessary. But the legislature imposes this on us. I think we've done everything we can at the low level of their highway financing. We've turned back roads. Remember that road you used to take care of? Well, now we're gonna take care of it, okay? Because we got so much money and you don't. That's dumb. The other thing is we've lent money to the state through our, this pass through projects, the pass through projects we've done. I mean, we're just like a servant of the state almost. I know we're an arm of the state. I just didn't feel like we're so much of a servant as we have become. So you would not like to see the state do this. You think it'd be bad for the city if they orchestrate this cut? I think, there's no absolutes, but I think that by and large, they need to invest in Texas and let's get on with living our lives. Senator, you mentioned education funding. This is obviously a big issue. If you've been around, let's say something that is always a problem, never seems fixed or not fixed permanently. And indeed, we have a lawsuit that is now making its way through the appellate process. There are some in Austin who believe that the state should not be making a big attempt to fit or increase school funding this time and wait until the Supreme Court rules. The house, as you indicated, is looking to put a few billion dollars more in than the Senate is. From the perspective of San Antonio, what would be best for the legislature to do in terms of education funding this session? Every school year that the legislature fails to properly fund our public schools is one more year in a child's life where they're not getting the best advantage of our state resources. What the judge said was that our school finance system was unconstitutional, ineffective, and inefficient. So what that means? Not enough, not fair, and not working. I'm proud that at least the House of Representatives is looking at putting in something over the enrollment growth. But we know the pain inflicted to our school districts and to teachers when the 2011 budget was cut by $4 billion. 12,000 teachers lost their jobs. We had over 8,000 class size waivers. And yet the data shows that there is a clear link between student performance and class size. We are paying now, so I would hope that my colleagues would be proactive and at least trying to mitigate that. It may not be taking the part that is how that is doled out across. We've got over 1,054 school districts and charter schools, very rural, small, very urban and dense, and all in between. What we need is to make sure that our state leaders are focused on that because without that, we talk about the need for workforce here. We talk about what is happening to our families. Most important is the quality of education of our children. Mayor, what do you think about the state's obligation? The state's obligation to fund public schools this legislative session. If you're the next mayor of the city, do you advocate for more funding? Well, sure, I'd always advocate for more funding, but I think also as folks from nonprofits in the room know more funding doesn't always equal better results. I think there are some other issues that the state could address as well as far as what happens in the classroom. And in light of the fact that those decisions aren't being made, I'm just so happy that we have so many people that are here working to augment the system that's been created by the state to help us here at the local level to provide wraparound services and to support the educational outcomes for our children here in San Antonio. Mayor, give us an example of something or give us more than one example of something that the state should be doing other than simply writing the city or the school districts a blank check? Well, I have some concerns as a parent related to the high six testing game. Right. And also as someone who chose to live in the inner city and is seeking out choices and options for my child, I'd also be interested in how they could better support some of those choices and options such as charter schools. School choice, bookmark that. We're going to come back to that in a second. Commissioner, what should the city's position be with regard to the school funding debate in Austin? Well, I think they need to step up the plate and they need to provide adequate funding. When they did not go forward on pre-K, I thought the city did probably the right thing, but really it shouldn't have been the only thing they could do. The state should pick up the tab on public education and that includes pre-K and be a leader. And then we've got some school districts that, as we know, are always struggling because they come from low wealth areas. So I think the city has to be right behind all the efforts to make equitable funding of education reality. So even in a situation in which the Supreme Court is yet to rule on the state's appeal of the suit in progress, you would go ahead and not wait a year, but you would jump in now and say to the legislature, you have the money available, put it into school funding right now. Yes. Representative, you know this issue very well. You worked on these issues very specifically when you were up in Austin. As the senator says, your old colleagues in the house seem to be stepping up a little bit more than her old colleagues in the Senate. What happens now? What should happen now for San Antonio? What should happen is that the legislature should act now. And I approach this not just as a former legislator, policymaker who understands school finance, but as a parent. My children attend our neighborhood public school in San Antonio. I see it on a daily basis. How's the school doing? How's the day parent? You know, we're very happy with our school community. Parents are engaged. We have a very vibrant, active parent community that is bringing resources to help everybody in the school. We've lobbied our school district to give us more campus-based control. That is a good thing. I'd like to see more of that all across the school district. Ultimately, the state needs to be a better partner with our local governments, specifically school districts, to question an ability. When they underfund the school bill so desperately, it is our locals that have to make up the difference by raising property taxes. And they have very little discretion. They're really just covering the basics that they can't enrich the curriculum. And so it then turns to individuals and the city who tries to do things like offer a quality after-school program or pre-K for a three- and four-year-olds in a more robust library system. And these are all expenses that should be borne by the state, ideally. That the city, I think rightfully so, is not going to wait around for state government to show up and be the savior. But it would be nice if they did the right thing on school funding. Now, I do want to mention something that came out of this conversation. If you talk to them, well, I will say there's no perfect candidate in this race, unless you talk to my mom. There are choices to be made. Has she told you how she's voting? She has told you. She's told everybody. You know the old line that your mother tells you, she loves you, check it out, right? In fact, check that the day after election day. So my mom is incredible, attends almost all of these forums. But the reality is there is no perfect candidate. They're just choices. And on this topic of school choice, there is a difference. I do not support vouchers. I do not support this outside of the public school system. I think there is a responsible form of charter schools. And that form is a charter school that is mission-driven to help low-income kids. And they do that by locating in low-income neighborhoods and having a policy to really reach out and recruit those kids. This is important because we have a trend of an advocacy for vouchers and school choice that really is harming our larger public schools. And that is indeed something that is in play up at the Capitol. Again, you pay attention to this stuff. You know that there is an attempt once again to orchestrate some kind of a plan that would take public dollars, migrate them either through scholarships or through outright vouchers out of the public system into private and parochial systems with concerns. Opponents of that scenario have that accountability does not follow those dollars out of the public system. You are opposed to any scenario that would take money out of the public schools and go into private and parochial. You're alluding to a difference up here on the stage. Any of your opponents are for that specific plan? We just heard from Mayor Taylor that she's supportive of school choice. I heard Mayor Taylor say that she supports charters. Mayor Taylor, does Representative Wright that you support school choice? I support charters as someone who's been focused here at the local level on how we can make our neighborhoods better. The way that I came to this issue is because I was the District 2 council member and was trying to figure out how we could get more middle-income families to locate on the east side. And at that time, David Robinson chose to partner with a charter operator and bring a high-performing charter to a neighborhood that was distressed. And that's how I came to my support of bringing more educational options into neighborhoods in particular that have been left behind. You have a problem with what she just said? I have no problem with charter schools that are mission-driven, are attempting to bring quality to populations that are being underserved. My concern is for those charter schools that strategically locate in some of the most affluent neighborhoods and only recruit by word of mouth from a limited pool of affluent families. That is not fair. That's not your kind of choice. Mayor, are you for vouchers, limited or full-on vouchers of the sort that are being discussed at the legislature this time? I'm not getting into that debate on vouchers. I don't really see that. Does that mean you're opposed or you're just not going to answer? Which does that mean? At this point, I would say personally that a voucher would not be something that I would want to use for my family. I think that there are other choices that we could pursue at this time. And I do think we need to invest more resources in fixing the current public schools. Commissioner, where do you come down on this question of vouchers and school choice? And you can take it anywhere from nothing to the most outbound case. Tell me where you fit along the continuum. Both my wife and I are products of 12 years of Catholic school. And we have leveraged heaven and earth to support them. But I have always opposed charter schools. You opposed charter schools. Well, let's say tuition vouchers. Tuition vouchers. Are you OK with charters of the sort that Representative Vireal, Mayor Taylor, were talking about? I think they have some use. But I think it should be really constrained. Limited. I do. Because you've got an existing array of public schools that needs, yes, a little bit of competition. It probably wouldn't hurt. But I think to go in there and unload their students or cherry-peck their good students and put them in a charter violates the whole notion of a free public education. And the idea of money migrating out of the public school system into either private or parochial schools through one or another of the forms of vouchers that are being discussed, you're not for that. Oh, I have consistently opposed it against the backup of my many good Catholic schools supporters saying, my gosh, no. Senator, we've had this conversation before. No devouchers from you. Is that right? Well, I have to tell you that Pete and I, we've been married 37 years, Roman Catholic, six kids in nine years. That decision that we made was to send our children to a Catholic school. And it was faith-based. But we didn't ask the taxpayers to pick up our choice of religion. I think that when you listen to the arguments, and I do, I listen to those that on one side, particularly children with special needs, the bills that we've had before the legislature in the past was to help children with special needs, with autism, with all of this. And they could not get their regular school districts to be responsive. It was hard to say no to that. But I know that we shouldn't even have a discussion about anything that takes away needed dollars until our state addresses the underfunding of the current system. A judge has already told us that. And when we get to the point to where they lift, and it's the complicated formula, the guarantee of yields, how it works, when we get to that point where our schools are, then maybe we can have that discussion. But until then, I mean, we're in the middle of a lawsuit. So while I understand and really hear the outcry of parents, particularly, that may have their students in a low-performing school, there are options here in San Antonio with charter schools. That's not the case throughout the state. In rural areas of this state, there aren't those choices. So I think the conversation is always great to have the data needs to be solid. But right now, I think it's ill-advised to even begin looking at siphoning dollars until we get through this lawsuit, until we get to the distribution of those funds. We haven't caught up to the cuts that were actually made in 2006, where the legislature compressed your tax rate and told school districts, oh, we'll make it up. Well, guess what? They never did. The legislature never made up those tax dollars. It was really the local school districts that had to burden that. Representative, let me shift over quickly as we try to get as many issues in this portion of the conversations we can to immigration. Many of us were up late last night watching the Senate Committee responsible for the debate over in-state tuition for undocumented students. Vote to, at least from the committee's perspective, overturn the 2001 law that provided the option for those students to pay in-state tuition. A week or so ago, the Sanctuary City's legislation that you and Senator Vanderpute saw not go anywhere in the legislature previously, roared back to life. Again, the Senate Committee passed that and it'll go to the full floor of the Senate. Help me understand where, from the city of San Antonio's perspective, the legislature weigh in on the portfolio of immigration issues. A very broad portfolio, but you can choose the one or two or three issues you think are most important to the city. If you had your wishes, Mayor, where should the legislature come down on this? I believe it is short-sighted to fund our children's education regardless of status, regardless of immigration, citizenship status, and then not allow them to continue. So we have a large population of kids who were brought over, no choice of their own, but who grew up here, who do not have proper documentation, earned their education, been very successful through our public schools. Met conditions that were set out by the law in 2001. Applied and have been admitted to any one of our many public universities and then not be allowed to afford to earn that higher ed degree. I think that's short-sighted. I'm against reversing the policy that has been the state policy for allowing long-time residents to pay the same residential and state tuition as those who have proper documentation. The representative of immigration policy that you'd like to see the state weigh in on that would be good for San Antonio? I'm a supporter of the Kevin McManus policy. This is our former police chief who advocated against policies that would have required him to play out the role of INS. I believe that public safety is very important and one way to ensure it is to make sure that all of our residents, regardless of their citizenship status, feel free to pick up the phone and bear witness when they see a crime. When we have residents who are living in the shadows, who are afraid to come forward, that makes us all less safe. Commissioner, you understand in a city like San Antonio which in so many ways and for so many years has been modeling a good public policy as it relates to the Latino community, Latino majority areas. This is a Latino majority city in what is soon to be a Latino majority state. In some ways, San Antonio is the epicenter of the conversation in Texas. As Texas is the epicenter of the conversation nationally. San Antonio really occupies a significant role in the national conversation about many of these immigration issues. What should the legislature be doing? How should they be thinking about these issues as it relates to San Antonio? Well, they ought to also remember that we're the epicenter of Texas history. The workhorse, the warhorse for the Texas Revolution and we have birthed the state. So I think they would do well to understand how it is that we have become the city of choice for many of the people who have come up here from Mexico over the last several hundred years we're about ready to celebrate 300 years of having been established by the Spanish and then later on the Mexican government. But the reality is that we ought to find a way to be a gracious state. We are supposedly the friendly state for Tejas Indians, friendly Indians, friendly state. I think that we ought to not be unmindful of the need to enforce certain laws that keep us in a balanced condition. But I think that we've got to be gracious. We have to err on the side of generosity for our many young children. And having come from Bear County where 40% of our work is on the criminal justice or the civil justice side, if you don't educate these kids, they're gonna end up in the wrong system, the criminal justice system as opposed to the other systems that you and I and others have enjoyed. Mayor, is the kind of graciousness that the commissioner is talking about being compatible with public safety? Are there legitimate concerns expressed by those so-called hardliners on immigration policy in Austin who are trying to dictate for San Antonio and other cities what the law should be? Sure. Well, my philosophy is that I like to stay in my lane. Okay. I've been mayor of San Antonio and I'm asking for the privilege to continue serving as mayor. And my focus would be on bringing San Antonians together on things where we can make a direct impact here through working together. I think in the past we've had some folks in office who have focused on some issues that are being played out at the national scale or at the state scale. And it tends to divide us as a community. We have the luxury and the benefit here in San Antonio of having a nonpartisan city government. And while certainly I believe that there are some practical issues as well as moral issues related to immigration as your mayor, what I would focus on is ensuring that all San Antonians are safe and that they feel that they can call the police if they need to, that everyone would be free of harassment but I prefer to work on issues that will unite us as a community. Senator, please offer your perspective on this. I know you talked a lot through the Lieutenant Governor's race about where you thought this issue intersected with communities like San Antonio. Well, I don't quite understand staying in your lane because the Office of Mayor is about leadership. I was the Senate sponsor of the House Bill 1403. The House got that measure out which was in state tuition in 2001. It's been working well for 14 years. I had difficulty in the Senate. It was a Republican Senate but it wasn't about Republican or Democrat. It was about the potential of a child who gets here through no fault of their own. So the qualifications that I worked with, the Texas Association of Business, Governor Rick Perry and my colleagues to pass this bill out of a Republican controlled Senate was to put the qualifications. You have to have been here three years. We didn't pick that number willy-nilly. It was from the best economist and Dr. Charles Foster in Houston who really proved up that any family who was here for at least three years probably paid enough in taxes to be able to merit the ability to pay in state tuition. Many people think it's a free ride that it's admission. No, it's not. These children and these students who have graduated from Texas schools have the ability, they have to have been here three years. They have to have no interface with all with the criminal justice and they have to promise that as soon as they're able to apply for citizenship status, they will. Those qualifications are there and I think right now my colleagues are focused. Well, how do you figure out the last qualification? Well, it's the lack of willy, the dysfunctionality of our federal government to do comprehensive immigration reform. This is important to our students. Why would we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars educating these students through our public school systems only to tell them when they graduate, you've made the grades, you've done well, you've stayed out of trouble. Oh, by the way, you have to pay three times as much in college tuition at your community college or at a four year institution than the person you graduated with. And so for me, I think that this is very important for that. I'm hoping that they won't return it but let me address the issue of sanctuary cities. What San Antonio does right now is very important. We don't have our San Antonio police officers acting as immigration officials. We don't have a show me your papers type of enforcement here. What happens is we check for citizenship status at the point where they are booked as they should be when they're charged. And anybody with a violent offense needs to be taken off the streets, period. But all I know is from law enforcement, they tell me of legislation that was now being discussed wouldn't make their job any easier. We need to make sure that our citizens, when they dial 911, when they're a witness to the crime that they come forth. And so I'm not gonna stay in my lane. And this city council is already on record two sessions ago with passing a resolution, asking the state legislature not to interfere with the ability of local police forces to have that community policing. The most compelling testimony didn't come from the Latino community. It came from the Jewish community and the rabbis who spoke very in front of city council because they know what happens when you start dividing people between us and them and labeling them. And so I wouldn't stay in my lane. I would be as other mayors in this community and across this state and say, we've got to do what's right and make sure that our police officers can do what they're supposed to do and not act as immigration officials. Let me go back to Mayor Taylor with maybe another version of public safety that you may feel like is more appropriate to your lane. And that is the discussion of guns as it relates to city of San Antonio and to the state of Texas. This is a session in which there's been a real rush to pass legislation that would turn Texas into the 45th open carry state in the country. For a lot of us, the idea that Texas is only one of six states that didn't permit open carry came as a surprise. Goodness, Massachusetts had open carry, but Texas did not. It turns out that actually one of the, one of the interesting parts of this is that San Antonio would be among the largest cities in the country to permit open carry if the state law passes this session. I interviewed Mayor Mike Rawlings of Dallas recently who said that he thought that if open carry passed from as the leader of Dallas, it would make the city of Dallas safe. Do you concur, Mayor, if you're elected again that if open carry is the law, it would make San Antonio much less safe? Yes, certainly public safety of the list of services that we provide to our citizens. And so I don't think it's necessary for people to have to walk around with their guns. Oh, I would certainly be opposed to that. Yes, I would say that it would be less safe. You have a problem with the Second Amendment of any kind? No. So you think it's compatible to be for the Second Amendment but be opposed to open carry? Yes. Representative, how would you be voting if you were up in Austin then now? Would you be for open carry or against? I'd be against. I would also be against allowing students to carry weapons on campuses. Yeah. In 2011, I called the point of order on the bill that would have allowed campus carry. That does not make our campuses safer. We know that it actually increases the costs because universities have to hire and extend the training of security to be able to show up on the scene and figure out who's a bad guy, who's a good guy. These policies do not make it safer. You agree with Mayor Taylor that open carry would make the city of San Antonio if you had the opportunity to be mayor? That it would make San Antonio less safe? I do not support open carry because I believe it does not make it safer. Are you for the Second Amendment? I am for the Second Amendment. Again, those two positions are inconsistent. You think they're not incompatible? They are not incompatible. Commissioner, what do you think about open carry in a city like San Antonio? Blazing saddles. That's just so stupid. I'm going to take from that that you're opposed. You could assume that. Okay. Yeah. Senator. I voted for concealed carry and we know that there were great predictions that that would be the end. But I know that our police forces, our law enforcement, everyone involved had been trained and there is a certain level of proficiency when getting your CHL. What the legislature was talking about were two different forms. One was constituting, which it was kind of Katie bar the door. Essentially unlicensed open carry. Unlicensed just that. And I had, one of our senators said, are God given right to not have to have any permits? Thank goodness they didn't pass that. But what did pass through the Senate was open carry. Had I been there, I would have voted against that. In visiting with our communities and with law enforcement, that does not make their job any easier. And particularly on college campuses, I was willing to allow our own university regents to set that policy. In Colorado, they use that approach and the Colorado state system at one particularly campus decided that that would be appropriate. The others that were in metropolitan areas, the university did not. That's probably as about as far as I can go. As you were willing to go. That's about as far as I would be willing to go. But think about what happens here at all of our Alamo community colleges. Think about how our officers would respond at UTSA. A campus with 30,000 students. And so I'm on the side of safer communities and side with law enforcement on this one. Okay, commissioner, let me take the conversation away from public safety to tolls, to transportation. We are collecting the Senate and the House to put perhaps as much as $5 billion in a transportation annually to try to get a handle on the complicated transportation problem of the state. We seem to have less interest in or taste for tolls than at any time that I can remember. In fact, there are pieces of legislation in competition to be the most anti-toll bill filed this session. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has said he would be in support of a toll moratorium. The governor in announcing transportation as an emergency item said he wanted to see money put into a new road funding without tolls. That seems to be the momentum. Would you be for no tolls? Where along that continuum would you be? No new tolls, get rid of old tolls, or you're totally fine with it? No tolling of existing highways. No tolling of existing highways. That's pretty much where we have been. I have been the vanguard of the opposite tolls in Bear County. For the record, the state of Michigan has, last time I checked, has no tolls. The auto state. What problem do you have with all of us getting home in time for dinner? I don't have any problem at all. Just start early enough. Is that it? Okay, so Atkinson has come out. That should be in the paper tomorrow. Atkinson's for a shorter work day. That's it. So you say, no, would you get rid of tolls or would you just say, basically, no more tolls going forward? Well, there aren't any tolls in Bear County, period. Right. And we shouldn't have any on existing highways. I think the state of Texas, in fact, Senator Nichols, has a bill that I understand is filed that will allow some vehicle sales tax to go into transportation only. And there are a lot of things we can do. That's why at first I thought I was gonna be for this because I've served on the MPO. Unlike everybody here, except I think you were at one meeting, Mayor, two meetings. That was enough. It was a wild and crazy place. But when I saw, it reminds me of Jim Hightower's statement that you can't clear up the water until you get the hogs out of the creek. And there are a lot of hogs in that creek. That creek is full of lobbyists and special interests and people that will do things beyond transportation. It just helps their bottom line. So that's why. Mayor, do you share Commissioner Atkinson's distaste for tolls? As Commissioner Atkinson mentioned, I was on the MPO for a total of two meetings before I asked to be reassigned to something where I felt I would be able to make some progress on behalf of my constituents. What I believe is that we need to focus on transportation planning at the city level and at the regional level. And my understanding is that tolling may make sense as congestion pricing. So if you want to get home for dinner by 5.30, if you're willing to pay more to leave the office at 5, then it makes sense for our community within a range of other transportation options. But that would really be the extent of what I should say. But you're not opposed to a scenario like the one you just described. Senator? I hate to pay tolls. I really do. But I love what they buy me. And that's time. And that's the most precious commodity that I have. We have communities in this state where you've got an hour and a half to and from work. And that's an hour and a half that you don't spend with your family or doing things with nonprofits. In San Antonio, we've been blessed. We had a great interstate highway system that was really implemented by President Eisenhower not to get goods to market, but get troops deployed. And so San Antonio for the longest time had more capital miles for citizens than almost any other community. We just really didn't start feeling that congestion really tell about a decade ago. And what we know is that local communities ought to have those options. I know that our current guidelines are that you don't toll existing lanes. But if there are new highways and that there is a way to do that, we shouldn't preclude local governments from looking at that option. It is one that is in a handful of tools. I'm just thankful that the legislature, after two decades of kicking the can down the road, has finally decided to stop the diversions of the highway motor fuels tax and start putting it where it needed to be, which was on the highway construction, and also with the Proposition One funds. But I think that the tools need to be there for any community that wants it. Representative Senator Vanip, if you wouldn't take it off the table, it sounds like Mayor Taylor wouldn't necessarily take it off the table, would you? I'm not in support of toll roads in that we would see them take away existing capacity and put up a toll booth or have a toll tax system. But the Senator is saying, here's what I am for adding capacity, having that be dedicated to an HOV lane in order to support a vision of a more robust bus rapid transit system, also allowing people who carpool to be in that lane. And if you desperately need to get there and you're not carpooling, you're a single person in your vehicle, then you need to be willing to pitch in to help finance that extra capacity. Right, okay. I think we're gonna move to questions, I've got a couple more, but I'm gonna cede to the audience here the opportunity to ask the next handful of questions. We have a group of nonprofit organizations, supporters and sponsors of this forum and I wanna give them an opportunity and their representatives an opportunity to ask the next set of questions. Now we have a microphone, should we move the microphone over to the front here? Let me ask, I guess you mentioned that Fred Heinz is not here, so already I'm gonna fail and my role is moderator because I'm gonna call on Fred Heinz and he won't actually materialize. You have somebody, a Fred Heinz sub, might be able to ask this question. Yes, we have Rebecca Hulterbrand from Clarity, who I already caught out earlier. Very good, so Rebecca, your first question on behalf. One in five children will have a mental, emotional or behavioral disorder. We've been working to transition the conversation from the detrimental effects of stigma to effective mental health treatment options. What are you proposing the city can do to augment the current state and federal resources and funding so that children and adolescents can access that desperately needed mental health care treatment? Mayor Taylor, why don't you take that one first? Okay, sure. Well, I know that everyone in the room knows that our funds of course are limited at the city in relation to what we provide to assist you all in the important work that you do and of course we'd love to have more resources to provide but I don't see that happening right away, not in this budget cycle. As we work on growing the economy, hopefully we'll have more revenues to be able to address issues like this but I think we've just have to streamline the system and have strong collaborations and partnerships. I don't think that there are a huge impact at the city that may be well versed on that so it's of course very important for us to talk with the folks who are experts and to listen and then decide what would be the most strategic investments that we could prioritize probably within a system that also revolves around education because I'm assuming that probably the same kids that have challenges are somehow within the educational system so there could be a way that we could wrap around and embrace them as we address their basic education. Representative, what do you think about that? I'm interested in the city being a better collaborator and funder for social and health services in our community. Probably the biggest barrier that's keeping us from moving forward in this direction is the growing public safety budget. We need to get right the contract between the police union and the city, the firefighters in the city. The public safety budget represents 60 today, 67% of the general fund. It is growing on average year to year by 6%. Our revenue that feeds the general fund is growing year to year closer to 4%. It's unsustainable and it is causing the crowding of all of these other services. As mayor, I will make sure that we get that contract right, which means we can grow public safety but no faster than our revenue grows so that we can provide for other important services that help our children and others that need a helping hand. I talk a lot on the campaign trail about making San Antonio a city of opportunity. I fully recognize that for many of our fellow community members, that is not attainable simply because they can't access proper health or social services. As your mayor, I will make sure the city is a strong partner with you. Senator. I think- Thought about this? I think that there is much that the city can do. But it has to have what my grandmother always used to call more want to the want to. We've got city facilities right now that are underutilized that could be used in the community for a collaborative effort. It's not just about the dollars and those dollars are precious. But right now, the city does not pay a major part. In working with members of this, we passed legislation called Bear Cares. What we knew was that families who had children, as you described that are sometimes at clarity, in our school district, on the caseload of CPS, the child support system, that these are families that really are in chaos. I had a mother come to me and she said, I'm in a training program. I don't have a car. I'm trying to leave my pre-schooler at a place. And then I have a teenager, a young with mental disorder. I have to go to the ARD. I have to go to the child support office. I have to meet with the probation officer. I have to go to the food same office. And she yelled and screamed and she says, I am not a case to be managed, but I'm gonna lose my job because I'm trying to fulfill all of my requirements. And yet, every time I do, nobody understands that the assessment that the school gives is not the one that CPS gives. So we took that input. We formed a pilot project, had to pass a bill called Bear Cares, which means that your school district, CPS, the mental health authority, the juvenile justice, the state child welfare, the Medicaid department, everybody would work together. And guess what? It has worked tremendously with having one portal. Guess who is the missing link in that? The county participates, the city doesn't. First of all, I think that you gotta have a seat at the table with the people who are doing the work now to understand what is needed. And as mayor, I would make sure that the city is included in this Bear Cares so that we can understand what's happening to our families and all of you who work in those systems. Commissioner, let me let you in here. Well, I think that this is a world of specialization and it's abundantly clear to me as a 16 year commissioner that the county has done healthcare primarily, not all of the metro health is cities, but they've seated over all of their, almost all of their clinics to us and we are the major healthcare provider, including mental healthcare provider. I suggest that we have, that we collaborate with the city, but we work with, let the county work on that sort of thing. Let the county move on that and we can jointly collaborate over it, but the county has the funding mechanisms through the Center for Healthcare Services. The county has the expertise and I think that the city should be able to collaborate with them. The city does the library, except for Bibliotec, the county does the jail, the city doesn't. I mean, we've various areas of specialization that we're into and I would suggest that the county as the major mental healthcare provider in this community step up to that plate and do it and not replicate it at the city. Probably won't come out any better. Right, okay. Good. At the interest of time, I think rather than have everybody jump in, we'll just let you all just have a jump ball here. We'll call on one person with each question. Anybody else who wants to get in, just make that note, don't have to answer if you don't want to. Leslie Palmer from City Here is here. Let's have that next question please from Leslie. Thank you. As a city that has significant educational issues, what does each candidate see as the best pathway to improve student and school success at each school level and to have our students graduating from high school on track, thus performing at grade level and on time, fully prepared for college and or career success? Representative Virial, why don't you take that one first? The theme that I'm gonna be maybe preaching in multiple questions is this idea of being a collaborator and being a funder of programs that really make a difference. And I want the city to play out that role. I want us to be a partner. We don't need to be the spearhead. We really need to be a support partner. I believe that there probably are education programs that already exist that the city needs to support those that are making a difference. And there are a number that are making a difference. As mayor, I'm going to bring oversight on pre-K for SA, make sure that we get the most out of those dollars so that we can do right, not just by the parents and the children who are involved in that program, but also by the tax payers. So we can make the case for another round of investment in our children. That's very important. There are a number of things that I'd like to retool. As I said, my kids go to a public school later with the after school challenge program. I would like to work with school districts to see what we can do to increase the quality of that, have it not just be a babysitting exercise, but a time of enrichment. We know that a lot of our kids have lost access to art classes, music, drama, things that makes going to school fun and meaningful. And I believe that after school time can be a time for many kids who wouldn't get it otherwise. So those are a few areas. But here's the thing, the police and firefighters contract. We're not gonna be able to do any of this. If you care about education, if you care about parks, if you care about arts, you got to have a mayor that represents all of our interests in getting that contract right. And there is a choice to be made here. My opponent, Senator Van Pute, former Senator Van Pute, has received the endorsement of the police union. We learned from the media that was because of her willingness to have the city step back from its challenge of its evergreen clause. Now that's fine, that is the policy difference between the two of us. In the end though, I think the role of the mayor is not to pick a side. It is to try to advance the agenda of public safety and financial sustainability in the entire city's interests. Mayor, let Senator Van Pute respond. Sure. And then we'll come back around to you. Senators, Representative Villarreal, characterizing your position on the police contract accurately. No, but let me respond first to her question. First of all, City Year, thank you, you had a great fundraiser. I really love how our students and our City Year core members really get back and a lot of them do end up staying in San Antonio. So this is one example of a not-for-profit that has lasting effects long after that program supposedly ends because those students, those great young minds are energetic and a lot of them stay in San Antonio, so thank you. I think the question was about that education. I authored the Better Jobs Act, along with Mayor Peake, who really wanted and bought into what I viewed as the city's job is capital infrastructure, right? The bricks, the mortar, the highways, the drainage system. But what about if you wanna invest in the human capital? And so we passed the Better Jobs Act in my early term in the Senate to allow local communities to tax themselves for anyone of five criteria. It included quality early childhood education. After school mentoring programs at the middle school and the high school area, drop out recovery to bring those teens back into the school system and also long-term job training for those who may have left the school system but not adequately prepared. It took me 10 years to get a mayor to take me up on the offer. And luckily this community voted for pre-K for SA. I would have told you I would have structured it very differently, because what we did, we built more bricks and mortar and their quality childhood education centers full-day pre-kindergarten. But I would have first structured it to work with current school districts in their programs because it doesn't serve taxpayers well to just have students in that program that would otherwise be qualified to be in your local school districts full-day pre-kindergarten program. And so we need to evaluate that and make sure it's the most efficient. We're in year three of that eight-year commitment and I'm hoping that San Antonio will have a discussion. So that's that question. So let me answer mine. Let me tell you, I am very proud, very proud to have the endorsement of the men and the women who put their lives on the line for this community and anybody who has worked with me like many of you in this room, whether it's been child fatality routine, whether it's been child advocacy centers, whether it's been to fight for the Children's Health Insurance Program, the Cancer Research Institute for Children, lead testing for children, all efforts that I led, and the business community that recognizes that I've been the leader in the toughest of negotiations at the state side with the Telecommunications Act, the insurance industry, the alcohol beverage industry, that I'm the person who gets it done. And the reason I got the endorsement not was because of any promise on anything. The promise that I have is to treat people with respect to adhere to the process, to make sure that we stay within the parameters that the city council has set of 66% of the general fund because we need to make sure that the men and women who are on the streets are well-paid. We want to attract the best talent that they are exceedingly well-trained and they have the best equipment to do the job because when your father gets that heart attack, when your daughter is involved in the car accident, when your house fills with smoke or there's an intruder, you're dialing 911, you want people to come and the citizens of this community deserve the type of law enforcement and first responders. And so I haven't promised anything other than to make sure that we get this deal done within the parameters that we can and make sure that we treat people with respect. That's it. Mayor, you want to say a word about education? Sure, of course. Well, we have to have a multitude of approaches of course in relation to education but what I believe the city can do is to be more strategic in aligning the various investments that we make instead of just looking at things discreetly but seeing how they tie together. So looking at health and human services, our investments there and economic development in particular workforce development and then tying that all in with education I think so we can have a cradle to career approach to education. And though I know, I think the question was specifically around K through 12 as mayor what I also have talked quite a bit a lot and have been focusing on is how do we also educate those San Antonians who've already passed that K through 12 pipeline because they are not living up to their full potential and many of them don't have the literacy and numeracy skills in order to fully engage in the ways and in the jobs that are being created. So certainly I know that you all are on the front lines of doing that work but I believe that we can be more creative. I know some of your organizations are faith based but I think there are opportunities for churches specifically to help us in addressing the educational needs of that adult population in a way that it's hard for a case worker or a government worker to do. Now I would be remiss because I am currently in the mayor and I've been working on this issue that they've been talking about if I didn't just very, very briefly weigh in and then we can get back to your questions about nonprofits. Certainly resolving the contract between the city and the police force, police union is a top priority because it will impact our city's long term fiscal health as has been articulated the expenses in particular healthcare. I'm sure most of you all know that from the nonprofits that you run it's very hard to meet the needs of your employees and so those costs have been rising at a rate faster than our revenues and so we have to adjust that and we've established some parameters. At the time when I became mayor there was really no negotiating going on just everybody had drawn their line in the sand and that's it and so I worked very hard to get everyone back to the table since basically the end of last summer and just a couple of weeks ago we were very close. We had had some very strong proposals made on both sides that allowed us to achieve the key objectives with the number one being to rein in those healthcare costs and we had a meeting on March 31st but before that meeting Ms. Vanipute accepted the endorsement of the union. Now when I announced that I would be running for mayor I made it clear that I would not be seeking nor would I accept an endorsement from the police union because I don't think that settling the police contract to the benefit of the taxpayers is something that should be within the political arena and I have worked very hard to keep it out of the political arena. However, it has been kicked squarely back into that arena and I want you to know that that is exactly what has happened and I want you to think about whether you want leadership that's focused on self-interest or leadership that's focused on community interests because it is in the long-term best interests of our community our taxpayers for us to resolve this contract and to resolve it now. Do you think you've now been set back in your ability to get this done because of the mayor's rights? I believe that it will take longer now. The police union has backed away from the negotiations they have communicated to the city that they're gonna try their hand at the election. Senator, do you wanna come back at the mayor on this? Do you wanna suggest to the police union that they forget about the pending election and come back to the table? You wanna have a point of view about it? I was hoping and for really all of the election I have not said anything about the contract because rule number one, you don't negotiate through the media and that's been the problem for the last year really on both sides. These talks needed to happen and I'm thankful that they came back to the table. I hadn't had any discussions with any of the leadership that's negotiating or anything on what all I wanted to do was to make sure that they got to the table and I knew that they were really close. I made no promises and I was really hoping that they would come back. So would you encourage them to come back to the table now? Absolutely, I think that they are so close. I think we can get this done. Evan, look, Leticia, Respector, Liker, wonderful State Senator on this issue, she's wrong. It is not right. This is a policy difference. If you want your organizations to receive proper funding we gotta get this contract right. The media has reported that to receive the endorsement she had to commit and she did. And this is your position that you will remove the lawsuit that challenges the evergreen clause that puts in place for 10 years the rich benefits. Now the city is willing to pay for the healthcare costs of our firefighters and police officers. It's the dependents that we want them to pitch in for co-pay. I think your quote was family does not sue family. That is a policy difference and it is fair to distinguish us on that front. Senator, you get a chance to come back. Yes, I have said that the healthcare plan for our first responders because it's both police and fire. It's luxurious. It was set long time ago before any of us and our public service. But with regard to an evergreen contract what does that mean? Well, anybody who has a union if you don't have a new contract people go on strike. Police and fire cannot go on strike. So what the evergreen clause means and they're in all of the first responder contracts is that if there is not a new contract that it stays status quo for X amount of time. The current one is as it stays in effect for 10 years. Well, that won't work on either side because what that means is that our firefighters and our police officers would stay at the same pay scale for 10 years. We know that that's way out of line on both sides. I would not. I mean, I hate it when people have to run to the courthouse whether it's a family member, small business to small business. But what happened is the city chose to sue on the evergreen clause when they did sue. It became part of those negotiations as a leverage point. And guess what? The city had every right to use that as a leverage point. But all I know is that all of our officers know that that needs to be reduced. But really, do you not think that if a contract runs out that you ought to have something that says that the police and fire stay at the current level until you can work it out because they do not go on strike. And that's what's at real here. And I support what the city has been doing at least to try to bring it into a negotiation. But not the lawsuit. But the lawsuit itself? I think you should have worked it out ahead of time. We should have never gotten to this point. So you should have never been put. So we're clear. You're opposed to the lawsuit. You're for the lawsuit. I'm for using this lawsuit to get the parties to the table to negotiate. You're obviously for the lawsuit. Yes. Yes. Commissioner, do you want to get in on this? You want to just let them have all the fun. We just sit over here and play peanuts. I can just do that if you want the rest of it. You get it out, man. All right, good. All right, very good. As much as I would love to talk more about this, Doug Watson from the Healy Murphy Center has a question. And Doug is not able to be here, so I'll go ahead and field that question for him. The nonprofit community as delegate agencies offer many invaluable services to the citizens of San Antonio, especially those obviously that are most vulnerable. How, as mayor, would you ensure that funding to delegate agencies is not the first item to be cut nor reduced and that human service funding be seen as a priority in the city? Commissioner, you've been patient. Why don't you take that one? OK. Let me see if I understand it. Would you just run that passage? I've got it right here. As mayor, will you ensure that funding to delegate agencies, many of them represented in the nonprofit community members here today, are not the first ones to be cut or reduced? How do you maintain that human services funding is a priority, as mayor? Well, by running your budget properly, and one of the things that I've been curious about when I look at what I have in the way of information is that the fire and police budget is 52% of the general fund, not the 70% that's been bandied about. So I think we have to work on getting our numbers correct and then based on sound information, we do have a human services and a social safety net function at the city that must be honored. If we don't, then things start coming apart at the seams. We've seen that. I mean, I saw it when I was at UT at Austin. But I guess, commissioner, what the questioner is asking, and I suspect more than just the questioner in his absence is interested in the answer to this, how do you protect? May I weigh in on that? Mayor, go ahead. I think part of, at the top of the list, in order to ensure that that's not the first thing we go to to cut, is to ensure that everyone understands that you all are part of the bigger picture of what our goal is as a community. As mayor, I've been focused on creating opportunities for San Antonians. And that's what I want to continue doing, ensuring that we have options for folks to be able to fully participate in the economy, to be safe, to be healthy, and to be strong citizens, to live in safe neighborhoods. And so the work that the folks in this room do, the delegate agencies, helps us to achieve that. And while there are many folks who really want to focus squarely on those core services that we, as a city, provide, and I agree that those are our priorities, I also understand that we end up paying in other ways when there are San Antonians who don't have the opportunities to have the education and the skills and the ability to thrive and succeed. And so we have to look at it from an investment perspective. But also if we've got outcome measures that hold the delegate agencies accountable and can be easily articulated to the community, I think that the community will rally around ensuring that we provide the funding for those critical services. Senator. There's always a struggle for funds. I've participated with many of you on your galas, on committees, on grant writing, because all of our nonprofits every year struggle. They start a program. It has great success. The funding dries up, and then families are left without those services. Let me tell you what your city can do. We can't be a primary funder of all of the needs of this community, but we can readily admit when this community has a problem. So I'm going to pale back right into this very ugly scab. Folks, we lead the state in child abuse cases. Over 6,000 in this community last year, 8,000 in our region. We lead the state in removals of children. We lead the state in placements back again. And where does it start? First of all, I would, as mayor, install with the county an interagency child abuse network so that we've got law enforcement, prosecutors, child protective services, our service providers, people who are at the table serving all together to have that discussion. Just like I was proactive in passing legislation that created child advocacy centers, like our child safety, just like it was tough for me to pass child fatality review teams. Why? Because we needed the data to find out why our children were dying so we could implement strategies that would keep them alive. We had 10 deaths last month in the crib, including two homicides, I think two or three SIDS, and the others were rollover. Folks, at your city level, we can coordinate something that is on the preventative side rather than constantly fight for the dollars. We're going to make sure that you have a city government that's effective and efficient. But right now, we're not even playing that role. And yet, we have the police department. We've got work with the county to do. And I would suggest that we do this again and concentrate and look at ourselves in the eye. And we're never going to have safety and in the streets unless we take care of the violence in our homes. Representative, you want to jump in? Yes, I would. Thank you. As a state legislator, I not only carried lots of legislation and passed legislation, improving educational opportunities, addressing social concerns, creating a task force that was specific to Bear County to rethink and redo how we intervene early with truants and take a more social worker approach than a criminal justice approach. Not only did I do these things as a policymaker, I also played the role of partner in helping our nonprofit organizations be better advocates for themselves, for our community in the legislature. As your mayor, this is what I want to do for you. I want to make sure that we open up the budget process. By administration, there will never be a time when the city adopts a policy that puts a gag order on you, prevents you from visiting with your elected representatives to advocate for your causes. That is wrong. I want to also feel free to applause whenever I'm talking. Amen's are welcome also. We really do need to change the budgeting process. We need to be able to have adult conversations, and that means starting the budgeting process with an honest assessment of what revenue is available. I am tired of seeing this pony and dog show where the process starts with a cry of revenue shortfall. Council members are given a very short list of what their priorities should be and ask to rank them. At the 11th hour, the city manager comes in and says, we found some money. We can afford some of the things that you want. And then the budget gets passed. We need to have an honest assessment of what revenue is available, evaluate whether we got it right the last time. We estimated what revenue is available, and then have an open collaborative discussion on what our priorities are, what programs are working, which ones are being leveraged well, and which ones actually do need our help at the city level more than they're being able to find outside of city government. These are all very thoughtful answers. I think we're going to need to move on with more questions and have shorter answers with great respect for the candidates, otherwise we're going to be bringing in dinner here pretty soon. In fact, we're in the fourth hour of the Today Show already. Mike Gilliam from Lighthouse for the Blind. Your question next, sir, please. Let's, as many people who want to get in, but let's try to do short answers if we can. I'll give you a question no one wants to answer. How about that? Easy, then. That's great. Recognizing San Antonio is an incredible retirement destination, not only for the military, but really for anyone. And with retirement and aging comes the challenges of disabilities and mobility and accessibility. So while the Lighthouse has 1,000 San Antonians who are blind, there are hundreds of thousands of San Antonians who face the accessibility and the mobility challenge. What would you say are to enhance the accessibility, whether it be audible, pedestrian signal, or anything else for our community? Mayor Taylor, I want to ask you to take this one. Sure. Certainly, I'd ensure that as we invest in our infrastructure that that is something that we think about. In 2017, we'll have another bond election that will allow us to invest significantly in the infrastructure throughout our community. And I think that's something that we definitely need to think about. We are also right at the front end of revising the Unified Development Code, which guides some of those things. And I think sometime without getting too far into weeds on the technical aspect, I think sometimes we have folks who are used to designing things for suburbia and we can probably be a little more thoughtful and sensitive to pedestrians, those foot. So I think that would definitely be a big starting point that would allow us to have the biggest bang for our buck. In addition, of course, we'd like to strengthen partnerships. We have a disability access office with the city, and we try to vet any policy through that office. But if there are areas where we could improve, I'd certainly be open to hearing that. OK, Senator. Let's do a quick answer. Right now, we have communities that don't even have sidewalks. On El Paso Street, four blocks away from the Texas Diabetes Institute in the zip code that has the highest number of amputations. And if you drive through that community, you know it because a lot of the houses have ramps. We have the opportunity with the upcoming 2017 bond issue to make sure that we've got those sidewalks and accessibility. I met Mr. Sanchez, who fell out of his wheelchair just getting a sidewalk trying to get to his home. That's happening in San Antonio every single day. So we really focus on what those needs are and to make sure that those sidewalks get done. The safety, I think the city has done a really good job of those audible signals in high traffic areas. But there's other intersections that needs to be implemented. Representative, no verbs. Just only nouns. Just nouns. Very fast answers. Go ahead. I can be able to do that. One of my priorities is transportation. More options for us. I want to make San Antonio a place where there are more safe places to walk and ride a bike. We need to not just have more sidewalks. We need to change the way we construct them. They should not be up against the curb where it's dangerous. They should be wider so that two wheelchairs can be able to pass each other. There should not be utility poles in the middle of the sidewalk. These are some really basic things. I could go on and on, but I have a whole agenda. You can find it on my website on how to make San Antonio a more walkable city. How about I give you the first one and the next one? OK, Commissioner, good. Jessica Weaver from CIS. Next one, please. And Commissioner Atkinson will take that one. First of all, thank you for allowing us to ask questions and to get your feedback. Going back to the funding of delegate agencies. We had a break with Mike. In the past few recent years, we've been aligned. Delegate agencies have been aligned to SA-2020 priorities for funding. And so if elected mayor, our question is more what would you continue on that focus or would you have a different alignment or benchmarks that you would see delegate agencies follow for funding? Commissioner? Would we? Well, I think I'd look to a group, an inner group, of the delegate agencies to sit in judgment over that. I wouldn't want to dictate to them how it ought to happen. And I wouldn't want to endorse what the current policy is because it may not be suitable to me. You have to bear in mind this is a city council that has been underpaid in terms of their time, so they're all under stress. They may not admit it, but I know this because I've been in this business for a long time. And at the county, the least paid county commissioner is making 113 today, 113,000 a year. The county judge, 135. They're not on their knees financially. And that determines the caliber of quality and the ability of these public policy makers to sit in judgment and give you a decent response to an intelligent question. And I think this is the sort of thing that takes lots of time. And it's just one of about 25 different issues that have equal gravity and equal significance, though they may not seem to you. The reality is they've got a lot of different things going on. So I would look for a committee to give guidance on that. And let's just do the right thing. I'll jump in real quick and say that I'd certainly be open to a conversation about what would make the most sense while we certainly embrace the SA 2020 vision. And I know that so many San Antonians participated in developing that and those goals for our community. And I see that as kind of a basis and a starting point for our planning effort with our comprehensive plan, I think in relation to strategic, there have been some concerns about the way some of the outcomes have been articulated and how you tie that to the work that you're doing. So I'd love to have an informed conversation about what would make the most sense for our community. The 2020 process was engaging and it was very successful. However, I think that the work product was visionary and non-reachable. In transportation, the goal was to triple via ridership within 10 years. Folks, I mean, that is unreachable. I would like to look at what the reachable goals are. And particularly with your delegate agencies, if you go by SA 2020, those of you that work in intervention and prevention, it's really hard to prove up those outcomes when you're working with families and you're working with really young ones. Because how do you prove up that you have done this in X number of years? So I really think that all, it's well-meaning, but it actually puts the delegate agencies at a disadvantage when you can't prove it up, when you're doing the preventative work. And that's what so much of our work is in the nonprofit, is intervention and prevention. So I think we absolutely need to get something that is doable and hold that accountable rather than lofty goals. I'm for lofty aspirational goals for our city. I think it's absolutely necessary. We have so much unmet potential. And I believe that we need to, and this is advice I give my children, it's important to have dreams and a vision for yourself in the future. And go after it, chase it. You may not get there, but if you give it your all, you're gonna get pretty close. And so I'm for the process that SA 2020 represents, bringing us together, developing a visionary, aspirational future for San Antonio, putting in place measurable goals and then more refined objectives. A system that allows us to be held accountable. Are we reaching these objectives? I think that that is a very good framework. And I think it can enable our nonprofit sector. Okay, Annette Rodriguez from the Children's Shelter. Actually touched a little bit on this topic, go get them. Yes, you did. Again, thank you for spending the afternoon with the nonprofits. And I am gonna talk about child abuse and domestic violence. We have a lot of great things going on in San Antonio and a lot of great things to be proud of. But I strongly believe that the foundation of the city is broken if we can't keep our children safe and we can't keep our families safe. So as leaders of the community, if you were mayor, what would you do to move the needle on child abuse and domestic violence? Senator, we've heard you talk about this issue. It's pretty well articulated. And the data for this community is shameful. And I think I've answered that with what I would do as mayor, first thing. Representative. We were at a forum at Valero and somebody said, well, these are all great ideas, but how are you gonna pay for them? That's really what it comes down to. And so I come back to it. It's like being back in the legislature. Yeah, so that's where it's easy to make promises, but how are you gonna pay for it? Here's how I'm going to pay for my priority in investing in social and health services that address domestic violence and child abuse. And that is I'm gonna get the police contract right. I'm gonna get those costs under control. Right now a senior police officer costs the city $124,000. All in benefits, salary. We want more public safety in order to add more officers. And right now we have about more than a hundred spots that are vacant. That's the only way to keep costs under control is to not fill these spots. That makes us less safe, not more. And so we need to have more public safety by making it more affordable. And when we do that, we're gonna be able to sustain that public safety budget and not let it eat up the rest of the pie. For a candidate to serve your interests, you need to make sure you elect one that is strong on this issue. That is looking out for all of our interests. Commissioner. I didn't believe in family violence or any of that stuff until I became a family lawyer. And I started seeing it come front and center with the kind of beatings. And actually the only lawyers being shot and judges being shot in Texas were family law judges and family lawyers. That it's a very world that some people have to live in. And I suggest that the mental health care funding of the state is probably the greatest impediment to when a person called on me, he says the only place my 23 year old daughter can get help is at the Bear County Jail. I can to increase whatever we could our funding. And so I think the system is flawed from the standpoint of funding. And we've talked about it before. It's shameful what the state does. Just very briefly what I've worked on during my time as your mayor has been organizing what we're calling a criminal justice coordinating council working with Judge Wolff to try to bring together all the various entities and leaders with folks that touch the criminal justice system because that's where we end up seeing many of the domestic violence and child abuse cases so that we can make stronger connections with the nonprofit and faith based communities that can provide the type of support that will allow us to hopefully intervene. All right. Okay, we're about at the halfway point I think. Kevin Downey from Crosspoint. We have a substitute. Wow, okay. I'm Kathy Fletcher with Voices for Children and I'm the non expert in this area standing in for Dr. Kevin Downey. And his question is what can the city of San Antonio do to ensure that its citizens who work for hourly compensation have the opportunity to earn a living wage? We're hearing a lot more represented by income inequality. Wall Street Journal has a story out two weeks ago that showed the largest income gaps in the major American cities. Texas had four cities out of 50. This is obviously a problem in the state and it's a problem in San Antonio. I think we can address this issue by leading by example and making sure that our city employees are compensated at a level that does not require them to be on food stamps or other government supports. We're able to throw your question back at you. How are you gonna pay for it? Can you guess my answer? Yes. We gotta get that contract right. Let me tell you how much we have. Oh my God. I'm tempted to ask you how much are you paying police if you're gonna solve the entire problem of the city. Let me tell you, our revenue is growing at a healthy pace, 4%. That is about on track with our growing population. The way we ultimately need to grow our public revenue is by strengthening our economy and diversifying it. Improving and increasing the way you do that is by increasing the productivity of our people. And the way you do that is through education. And so that is my commitment. In my book, Economic Development is Education and Workforce Development. That'll be my priority as your mayor. Mayor, why are city employees not paid more and is it possible economically to pay them more and to try to get a handle on the problem identified by the question? We were presented with a proposal, a request by a community-based group to raise the wage level for city employees. And of course it has a multiplier effect because you have various levels of employees. And it's not economically feasible for the city of San Antonio organization at this time. Though I do believe that we've led by example to a certain extent in raising many of the salary levels of city employees. But as costs continue to rise, what I believe is the solution is for us to focus on providing training and education for our citizens so that they can move up the ladder. You may start out at a job that pays 10 or $12 an hour, but you shouldn't be there for 20 years. You should at some point gain skills and education to be able to allow you to advance to a job that would pay more and allow you to more comfortably support your family. City's budget right now, I think we have 1147 as our entry level. And really the city has led not as big as the county. The county has really been forceful on the wages that give people a life of dignity. What the proposals before, I think have been moving to ease into from 1147 up to 1341, but it does have that effect. And we need to look at what does it cost us? It's not the city's bottom line. Is it in the county dollars? Is it in the state dollars? But what happens is we measure what the cost savings are within our siloed budget of the city. And so maybe that's where we need help from the nonprofit community, from the business community to look at what is that multiplier effect for us. If we're just forcing folks and that I'm calling city employees not a wage level for the entire city of San Antonio, but really just within the city and those that receive tax abayments, what is that? We really have to have a serious discussion and find ways maybe to ease into that salary. Before the commissioner, the senator is paying the county a compliment saying that the county has been more aggressive and maybe more successful as a result in dealing with this wage issue. What's the secret sauce here? Brother of local government, quite frankly stated. We have four year terms. We have respectable salaries. We have seniority. I think Paul Alizando probably has 25 years on the court. I had 16 years on the court, plus four years in the legislature. I mean, we've become a repository of the longest standing, really quite successful, though not always agreeing on our various things, but still a very successful group of elected officials and the city is heading in that direction. They're just kind of on the beginning rungs of the ladder. And so you don't see the capacity. So the answer is dynamic leadership and awesome talent on the commissioner's court. And some seniority. Okay. And some seniority. Okay, good. I've been told we have time for two. We're going to go in order, take the last two, the next two as the last two. Yeah, we can do, let's do Dennis Knoll and then we'll combine 10 and 11. Okay, very good. Dennis Knoll, please. You're not Dennis Knoll? I'm not. This thing was invalid. Yeah. He's known so well. I can roll with that. That's fine. Dennis Knoll, substitute. Good afternoon. I'm Susan Thompson. I am with the area of foundation and Dennis is away out of town. In San Antonio, we currently have 40,000 people on the waiting list for low income housing through Saha. How would you as mayor address the issue of affordable housing? Senator Vaniput. First of all, if you look at the data, there are 40,000 folks. But the income disparities and where people live is really quite striking. Part of the reason that we don't get those available funds, of course, from the federal government is sequestration. And they haven't been coming in the dollars. But we also aren't maximizing. You know anybody that heard you in call? My good buddies, right? If the state level, state may a really historic shift and how it would apply tax credits for affordable housing. Deciding that because of the inequities, particularly in metro areas, that cities had to show that affordable housing was placed throughout the community, not just where poor people live already. It was a big step for the state. The city has not aligned that policy. Choosing instead, and maybe it's because of the discussion to only focus on those areas that are already blighted. Okay, that's where we need to take care of. But your state policy and your city policy are incongruent. Therefore, we can't maximize those tax credit. Number one, we all have a policy at least that tries to address so that your hard-earned tax dollars get back into our community with more of the affordable housing options. I have to jump in on this. Many people in the room know that I started out on this journey because I was focused on affordable housing and worked for Merced Housing, Texas for five years, and was the city's home program coordinator for five years. So I have a little bit to say about affordable housing. What I learned in those more than 10 years that I was focused on that issue is how important it is to think from a broader perspective about all the other connections. Because when I was a social services coordinator at an affordable housing community, I realized that even though I was working in partnership with many of you in the room to provide services and support, we provided a great apartment at a low cost that our residents were still not moving ahead because of the situation that they were in did not allow them to actually even benefit from the support that we were providing because their lives were so chaotic and unstable. And so that takes us back to what we talked about earlier, which is investing in our people and ensuring that they have the skills and the opportunity to be able to have better jobs because hey, if you're making $12 an hour, we may be able to provide you an affordable product today, but if you're still making $12 an hour five years from now, guaranteed your rent is not going to be the same. So we can't look at it as just about supply in relation to having low cost housing. We have to think about how we can provide ladders of opportunities for those families so that they can be able to keep up with the marketplace. Now we know that there will always be people who are vulnerable, who will be on limited incomes, whether they be seniors or disabled or some other special circumstances. Yes, we can be more creative in stretching our dollars and resources. We can't rely on the federal government because those dollars are shrinking. I like to invite everyone here in this room to come out on May 15th. We are having a housing policy conference where we can have more specific discussions about how we can better utilize our funds right here in San Antonio to address this issue. Mr. Vester. I will tell you, I led the process to declare a moratorium on section eight housing in part of my precinct and precinct four because the crime was so absolutely rampant. And what I have found over my many years, almost a half a century now, of deserving of public housing is that middle America licensed housing. And when they see things that they don't like, they're gonna work against it. They may change the majority, as they did in the, I think, the mid to late 70s and really go after public housing in a big way, or they may allow more of it to be funded. But to me, I think properly maintain section eight housing, for instance, and dispersing it. If you'll look at where the section eight housing is in this community, you will find a very discriminatory pattern of not putting it in certain protected communities. And I'm not suggesting where it ought to go or not go, but you can't do for one and not the other. You know, public housing can always use more discipline in its execution. And it can't be a lifetime entitlement. It has to be a moving to work sort of thing that San Antonio Housing Authority proudly adopted. It's one of the few in the state. And that gets the attention of middle America and says, yes, that's my kind of housing. Representative. A safe and stable home is a really important element in seeing our families grow and succeed, whether it's improving student outcomes or helping our parents who are having a hard time making ends meet be able to go back to school to increase their skill levels and earn certifications that are in demand locally. And so I see housing as a really important element. Mayor, I would like to work with our nonprofit housing sector in a way that cuts across some silos, education, housing, health, so that we can not just deliver one item, but get more out of our investment by breeding other social services together. In terms of funding, I believe we have an opportunity with the upcoming 2017 bond issue to dedicate some of our capital investment in a fund that they could be leveraged to increase access to affordable and workforce housing. I think also wherever we have tax abatements in place to incentivize housing development, I think that's an opportunity to have a conversation with the developer to set aside units for workforce housing or affordable housing. I finally see my role as not just confined to city government, but it's really a partnership with our state. And there are laws on the books today that I believe need to be changed. One in particular. The city should be able to experiment with this idea of density bonuses. It takes place in Austin. Many cities, I'm sorry, many cities in California use this concept of empowering a developer to increase the number of units they bring to market in exchange they set aside certain units for affordable workforce housing. That currently is not possible by our statutes. I will work with our legislature to make those changes. One last question, number 12. Okay. That's okay, Laura, go ahead. Good afternoon. With our population expected to double by 2050 when your children and grandchildren and their generation are leading our city, what do you expect to happen during your tenure, one outcome of your leadership of the city that you want the nonprofit sector to help with? That's great. Assuming we can't help you negotiate a police and fire contract. Right. So don't say that. So this is the legacy piece. What do you want the one big takeaway to be as it benefits the generation that will be the happy and productive residents of this community in 2050? Give us one good, short legacy piece and we'll go down the road like this, Mike. I want our children and our adults to learn by doing. This is what I mean by that. In our city, I want us to work across traditional lines of employers and educators to create internships, summer jobs, co-op programs that allow our students who are learning to ground those learnings in their local economy, in hands-on experiences, in projects that also expose them to role models. We have some examples of this taking place here locally. I was at the Cybersecurity Academy at Holmes High School. Got to visit with students there, so optimistic about the future. They're graduating from high school. They've already acquired many certifications. Some of them are choosing to go straight into the workforce, getting employed at Rackspace, earning more than $60,000 a year. Others are choosing to extend their education into four-year institutions. What is wonderful about that experience is that they have choices. And so my legacy will be creating a talent pipeline that allows our students to have choices as they move up the education ladder. Excellent. Senator. In 2050, I'll be 96 years old. And hopefully my grandchildren will have found those opportunities here. Just as five of our six children have come back to San Antonio to build their careers and to build their families. I think what I would like as your mayor, if you look at legacy, I wanna say she got it done and she got it right on infrastructure. An infrastructure in both that capital sense of the transportation and the drainage and what we need there and the infrastructure in the human capital. That's what I would love and that's what I would work for. Great mayor. It's too hard to pick just one topic of course or one thing and say that has to be it because as we've been talking, everything is interconnected and interrelated and one thing impacts the other. So for me, and especially the way that you posed the question, Laura, you talked about all those new people that will be coming and how our community is growing. Right now we have a tremendous opportunity to plan for the future of our city. Now a plan is not just about putting some pretty maps and some goal statements and you put the stickies on the wall and all that. It's about the process of all sectors of the community coming together to articulate a vision, believing in it and then holding decision makers accountable. So when it comes time for that 2017 bond, when it comes time to make decisions about funding for delegate, when it comes time for strategic partnerships that may require additional funding that we can then point back to that plan that will address all these various issues such as transportation, housing, economic development, workforce development and parks and tie us all together so that we ensure we have a great quality of life for our city. Finally, commissioner. That we would have neighborhoods that are strong enough to whether they are rich, middle or poor, they would look decently, they would look orderly, they would act respectively with each other, neighbor to neighbor, that they would actually know each other and they would look back on their time in that neighborhood the way I do. What a great place I was fortunate to be raised in by my wonderful parents. Those are the things that I think are intangible but they're achievable and as your next mayor I'll look forward to doing that with you. All good answers. It is four o'clock, we landed the plane safely on time. A little bumpy. It was touch and go there for a while but I asked for it, somehow we did it. Let's thank our candidates for their time and their thoughts and the sponsors of the forum. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. Yeah. Very well done. Very good. Thank you. I don't know how you're doing it. Eight million today. Good job. Very good.