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

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

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

Join us now as we go on the record.

With Randy Beamer.

Hi, everybody.

Thank you for joining us for On the Record this week, where you're going to start with the latest on a possible Spurs stadium downtown.

And it's part of a bigger development that would be called Project Marble.

Here to join us to tell us everything there is to know about this right, is Bexar County Judge Peter Sacchi.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Well, thank you, Randy.

Now, you were just authorized by the county, the county commissioners to negotiate a what's called a memorandum of understanding with the city, with the city and the Spurs about what would this entail, what the county would be.

I guess on the hook for and what you could get out of this.

What's the latest on your negotiations?

Well, obviously, Randy, to give a bit of context to Spurs and the city obviously started discussions about a new sports arena prior to me becoming a county judge well, within six months of my first year, I believe the media, through open records showed that there were conversations very high level.

And so when I found out as county judge, I insisted I be at the table.

So from that point on to last year, 2024, they're just very high level discussions of what a new Spurs arena would entail.

I insisted on certain stipulations.

One was a commitment to protect our county investment prospects Center, Joe Freeman Coliseum and the Coliseum grounds, and to make sure we upgrade and make sure that that Prospect Center is viable and sustainable.

If and when the Spurs should leave.

Two we needed to make sure that we wanted to see that the Spurs or the private equity was significant so that it would be a shared expense.

And finally, if there's any public financing, that there would be an ownership by the city and the county and the Spurs in regards to any arena that we wouldn't just necessarily give it over to the Spurs arena as a gift.

And there had been talk the Spurs wanted a an election on the hotel motel tax possible increase from 1.75 to 2%.

But you held off on that as a county.

So that would be in November now.

Well, to give context to our taxpayers and citizens.

Yes.

And the January meeting, the Spurs were pushing for a may election.

I had no figures, no estimates.

Know how much revenue this.

And I want the taxpayer to understand that the other stipulations in regards to a possible new Spurs arena was no home after tax.

I don't want the burden to fall on our home owners to is that significant equity that the Spurs or private equity will put in, and local ownership, and that any new arena would just not be given over to the private sector?

And so those are the stipulations we've been moving forward in regards to the election, the county venue tax that consist of, as you said, hotel tax and also rental car tax.

So it's again, not on home on a property tax.

And so the Spurs were pushing hard for a may election, which would be the mayor and council races that are currently had.

Because I did not have enough information.

I personally did not support that.

As a result, we did not call for a may election and the next open slot by law is November of this year.

When do you want to have a memorandum of understanding with the county or a city and the Spurs?

What's the timeline there?

So people would know about it before November?

Because in the February 4th meeting, I was given authority and I did not want to move forward unless I had full support of commissioners Court.

I have majority support from my county commissioners to negotiate on behalf of the county.

So the next step will be a memorandum of understanding between the city and the county and the Spurs at a very high level.

No specific.

I want to make sure that the taxpayers understand at this time there is no deal.

There is no agreement and there's no MOU memorandum standing, but it is forthcoming.

We believe that that will be addressed at our next County Commissioner court meeting next week.

That'll be addressed.

Meaning there will be a memorandum of understanding by that time.

We hope that we will have an agreement by all the parties.

And I will insist that it be made public so that the public understands that we're being open and transparent and being accountable for any public financing of this arena.

Because when you say high level meetings that had gone on with the city and the Spurs, that means behind closed doors.

So people take that as backroom deals and you don't want that image.

Correct.

But I also want to respect that the Spurs are a business and that initially when those high level talks were had, the city required a what's called a NDA non-disclosure.

So we wanted to be protective of the Spurs business interests.

But at this point, once we decide to engage public financing, it has to be open and transparent.

We have to be accountable to any public financing of taxpayer money.

Again, no burden on the homeowner property tax.

But you also want some stipulations about, developing or redeveloping, as you mentioned, the Freeman Coliseum, the, not just the Prospect Center, but that area around it, which is promised.

To be Commissioner Calvert, had two town hall meetings.

I went to one.

I was unable to go to the second one.

The east side has made it very clear one either either out of anger or fear.

They feel that they've been left out, that the promises to the East Side.

I believe there has been development, but not in that particular area.

So I've insisted that the golf course that's across the street be made part of that, so that we could put a comprehensive plan.

I got to make sure that the Frost Bank center does not become the next Astrodome.

And that golf, course across the way is right now in a floodplain.

I understand, and you would have to do some tunnel work or something to change that.

What kind of development would you be looking at?

We would want a public private partnership.

I'm not looking for public financing or again, any type of homeowner property tax to finance.

We're looking for a developer that will make that particular piece of property an economic generator.

Example J.W.

Marriott and a TPC on the north side.

It could be a Gaylord Hotel that ties in the cowboy culture and the San Antonio rodeo that will then become the major tenant for those facilities.

Guess what?

The governor now supports legalized gambling.

So there are numerous business opportunities if we put the right pieces together.

And just to be clear, the memory or memorandum of understanding would just be for the Spurs stadium and for that kind of development, but not for the rest of what's called project Marble, the convention center and all that.

The city has made it very clear that their top priorities and Project Marble is the doubling of the size of the convention center, in order that they can compete for national conferences.

Two is the arena, three is the upgrade of the Alamodome that in order to keep the NCAA finals and the other national or local events that are had at the Alamodome, those are the main.

Now, there are many other pieces of Project Marble, but the city and the county and the Spurs are focused on the development of the east side, the protection of the Frost Bank center, and then whatever is left.

What can we do to help keep the Spurs from leaving town?

And so the memorandum of understanding that I guess you will reveal next week is just about the stadium.

It's it's it will include all of what I just said.

Oh, okay.

It will have no details.

We still we have now put out I have asked the county we we understand that our maximum amount of money that we can generate from a county venue tax again hotel occupancy rental car is about $450 million over a 30 year period, low in about three quarter.

We're now going to put out figures as to what the cost for upgrade renovation of the Frost Bank center, Joe Freeman and Coliseum grounds, and then whatever else is needed for the development of the East Side.

So then still some time before a vote as to the specifics and, and some kind of PR campaign and.

Spurs would be and I hope the public will accept the fact that I'm keeping things open and transparent because I need the support of this community for the county venue tax, to take care of the county investment and to redevelopment of this site and whatever else I can do to help keep the spurs in.

Town.

All right.

Well, thank you very much.

County Judge Peter Sacchi, appreciate you coming in and explaining the latest.

Come back when we know more.

I'll I'll have much more to give.

The biggest school district in this area has just joined a nationwide lawsuit about social media.

To talk about that is Doctor John Kraft, who is a Northside Independent School District superintendent.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Morning.

Thanks for having me.

Tell us about this lawsuit and who it's against, how it works.

Yeah, absolutely.

So the it's a multidistrict litigation suit.

It originated in California.

As you've mentioned, there are several states and hundreds of school districts that have signed on to this particular litigation.

The litigation is really and, a, act of, perseverance of our, looking at damages, but then also the overall nuisance that social media has created, particularly as it pertains to students, being able to obtain an education, you know.

Tell us about the different kinds of effects.

And you're talking what Facebook, Twitter, all that kind of exactly.

The meta platforms, the TikToks, the Google searches, the algorithms have been designed and created as there's been congressional testimony of CEOs and former employees of these large, social media, mogul, mongo com companies, that have have demonstrated and articulated that there's really, deliberate indifference as to how these algorithms have been created to feed our youth, to feed our public, information that is not healthy.

It's not healthy from a mental, emotional state, but also, it creates reaction that, school districts and, and campuses have had to dealt with.

So you're not talking about just kids using it at school.

You're talking about targeting kids under 18.

And so that effect is 24 hours a day.

Absolutely.

It's been an overall targeted effort, by these social media companies, to create not only that addictive nature, but also, to fuel, a lot of societal issues that we're now dealing with that spill over into the.

So the algorithms you haven't researched those specifically in North Side, but, across the country there has been there's testimony in Washington.

Tell us about that, how you know that they what is a conflict that they fuel and give more kids that.

Yeah, exactly.

So if you really look at the algorithms and how they're designed and developed, it feeds off of a search and, or a corresponded, with students themselves, but also society and, and the world in general.

What's interesting is, is that the platforms that have been developed, for the American, platforms are very different than those that were developed for the Chinese platforms in the sense that the Chinese is primarily educational purpose.

It feeds a lot of education, information.

Whereas the social media platforms that our students, and youth are really, like, I say, really addicted to.

It's a very addictive, platform.

It's just that and, and so, as a result, it's created not only a, nuisance for districts and campuses, but it's also, really an act of being deliberately indifferent, and ensuring that this addictive nature continues, as a result of seeking profit.

And this is a multi-billion billion dollar, hundreds of billions of dollars industry every year, quickly approaching trillions of dollars.

I talked to, did a story with a different school districts, police a few years ago and they talked about how on Mondays, that's when fights increase, because over the weekend, kids have been on social media and things blow up.

Absolutely.

So it absolutely spills over into the campuses.

I would agree that at the beginning of the week, coming after coming off of a particularly a longer weekend, we see that, we see that effect.

And so as a result, our police officers, campus administrators, counselors are really having to be very reactive as to the behaviors that are exhibited.

What about phones themselves and in schools and then messages between kids.

And you can't really police that.

Well, it's interesting, there's legislation that's being proposed both at the state level as well as the federal level to, outlaw to ban school, cell phones within schools and campuses.

In our middle schools, we don't allow students to have their cell phones, during instructional periods or during instructional time.

We're piloting a high school now.

And it's really student parent buying, we're having them put them in their backpacks, put them away.

That's the ban.

And it's and it's really been effective.

Yeah.

It's not necessarily keeping them at home, but because in today's day and age of safety, as a parent, I think that it's safe to say that most parents want to be able to reach their child in the event of an emergency.

What about the cost to taxpayers?

They might wonder, okay, you join a lawsuit, you have to have lawyers.

But that's part of the the nationwide thing.

And you won't pay unless you win, right?

That's exactly right.

And that's why, really, this, particular suit, which involves multiple attorney firms.

Are you willing to pay?

We don't.

You won't pay.

We don't.

Yeah, we don't pay.

It's very much contingent upon, either a settlement, and and obviously damages assessed, which the attorneys would make a percentage, but, similar to an opioid, similar to a dual vape, class action suit.

The same.

Amount of money a few years ago.

Very much so.

Damages would be assessed as a result of the of the settlement.

Agreed.

Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, has also filed suit with some others.

Attorneys general.

Is that part of this?

Because they have to do public.

You have to do private?

Yes.

It plays into it.

Any time a school district in the state of Texas signs on to, like I say, a multidistrict litigation suit or MDL, the attorney general's office actually has to approve and sign off, for us to be able to join that suit.

How much do you think you could potentially.

And you meaning school districts could get from this and how you would spend it.

Yeah, that's a that's a great question.

And depending on the number of, districts that sign on, we're anticipating that it could be a settlement of anywhere from $40 to $400 per student.

And so with 100,000 student district in Northside ISD, you can see that it could be a pretty substantial settlement agreement.

Speaking of money, the legislature is meeting in Austin.

Now.

The big question is how much they're going to increase funding for public schools.

If they are, you haven't gotten increases since 2019.

That's correct.

We haven't had a per pupil or an increase to the basic allotment since 2019.

Just keeping up with inflationary pressures has been really challenging, really pressing.

We're operating obviously right now a $93 million deficit budget.

And that's, of course, scaled to the size of our district being the fourth largest school district in the state.

Texas, 75% of the districts across the state are operating similar deficit budgets.

It's it is, incredibly important.

How do you how do.

You budget with the unknowns, with the school voucher plan, maybe taking money away from school districts, public school districts?

Do you have any idea how much you're going to get this next couple of years?

Well, it varies, and it really depends on, the devil's in the detail, if you will.

What legislation obviously is passed.

I do think that it's safe to say that there's going to be an attempt to increase that basic allotment, as well as increase, teacher salaries, which is grossly, needed at this point.

And so we're running different scenarios and we'll be working right alongside the legislative process, in preparation for a fiscal year 2026 budget.

We had some other districts here looking at school closings while East Central was trying to open schools with a bond issue, whereas Northside and.

We're holding steady for the most part, we're seeing a slight decline on an annual basis.

Not to the degree that many of my colleagues, particularly in larger school districts, are experiencing.

But we're having to make adjustments as a result of those changing demographics.

Well, good luck with the planning with all of that.

Thank you very much for coming in.

Doctor John Kraft, superintendent of the Northside District.

Thanks.

Thanks, Randy.

On reporters roundtable this week, a look at just how much of the federal budget cuts and downsizing could affect us here in San Antonio and across Texas in a man who's done numbers on this is Sanford Nowlin, who is editor in chief of the San Antonio Current.

Thanks for coming in.

A pleasure to be here.

You had an article in the past, current, recent, current about, the numbers.

You crunched some numbers and they're pretty amazing as to how many offices are here and could be cuts.

Okay, tell us about that.

Yeah, absolutely.

The Washington Post last week, reported on an internal memo where Elon Musk's Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, was telling the General Services Administration, which is the federal government's real estate arm, that it intended to close down 50% of all of those real estate holdings across the United States, not just the vacant ones, not just the vacant ones.

And really, there aren't I mean, there are some that are underutilized, but I don't I don't think you're going to find very many just vacant, open, empty buildings in the government's holdings.

So, basically the, the GSA we found out has a, an online database, that's searchable by state, city, county, etc.

of their real estate holdings that they own and also that they lease.

And it turns out there are about 900, GSA properties spread across Texas.

And this isn't military.

This is no, no, no.

Yeah.

The Doge thing, apparently is supposed to keep its hands off of, the military.

And it would, but pretty much any other government agency, you know, is is up for, off the military also, at least for now.

For now.

For now.

Yeah.

So we found that, about there, about 900 government facilities across Texas, 50 of those in San Antonio that are GSA.

The number in San Antone is probably higher by a considerable number, because a lot of those are Department of Defense, you know, military ones that you're talking about.

The 50.

What are we talking about?

Social security, Social Security Administration, Farm Service Agency, which, you know, people who own farms deal with on a daily basis for farm loans to find out what pesticides are dangerous, you know, to get questions like that answered.

SBA office, the Small Business Administration, you know, VA facilities, and people might think there's only 1 or 2 of those offices here, but there are more because just more people spread out.

Yeah, absolutely.

And when you think about the VA as well, right.

There's a VA hospital there, VA outpatient services, there are VA services for mental health.

You know, a lot of these agencies have multiple different offices.

They do multiple different things, in fact, and talking to, some labor folks who are familiar with, you know, government employees in San Antonio, there are 70 federal agencies represented in the San Antonio metro area, and about 240,000 jobs that are directly or indirectly tied to the federal government.

Now, the Washington Post report, essentially found also that there are a number of people in GSA who seem to, think that must interest in eliminating all of these offices is essentially to make commute times longer for people, to make, you know, to sort of have more people in offices.

So it's a less hospitable work environment in hopes that that will make more people leave.

On the other hand, people would say, well, with that many offices all over, they could consolidate.

They could, get rid of some of the people that they don't need.

The actually that there was a program, during the previous administration to start corralling and figuring out what government properties we should be getting rid of.

You know, because people are working from home because of attrition, that sort of thing.

So there was already a program in place.

That program was basically supposed to study and see, you know, what what properties can we get rid of?

Whereas Musk has basically just said 50% across the board, which if you talk to people that know about efficiency, will tell you, you kind of have to study these things, analyze these things to make smart decisions rather than just, say, 50% across the board.

We're going to cut.

Now, if they say hiring freeze, then you won't need as much space.

But I understand in your article you also talked about, people who were worried about that, some of the buildings they would want to make so bad, I guess if that was the word that they used, that people wouldn't want to come in, that people would want to quit, so they would get more people to resign.

Yeah.

And I mean, that's the concern.

I mean, because when you talk to economists, they will tell you the more government workers, you know, who leave or are fired in, in a, in a metro area, the more you know that raises the unemployment, it reduces buying power.

The, the the repercussions in a local economy are not good.

And that's one of the things also, we have more federal employees here, maybe percentage wise aside from the military than people realize.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, in talking to, you know, some, some folks who have been following this, their concern is that we have a lot of veterans who live here.

Right?

So the VA, we have a lot of VA facilities.

We also have a a large, population of people who are impoverished and, you know, they rely on, on federal services.

We also are in this situation, right, where we're trying to improve housing affordability.

Right.

And HUD is the agency you want to interact with there.

So I mean, these these these things, you know, on a macro level for San Antonio, have real repercussions on an individual level, right.

This was brought home to me recently.

Actually a few years ago, I should say, I, I was going to renew my driver's license and the state of Texas screwed up the data entry and had the wrong Social Security number.

So I went in and waited an hour and a half to see somebody to get this fixed.

And they were like, well, we can't read your Social Security card.

You need to bring in a new Social Security card before we can get you a new driver's license.

So I never thought, you know, I would have to go to a Social Security office, but that's how you have to do it.

You show up, and within 15 minutes, I walked out with a Social Security card.

So, you know, these offices that people rely on, you know, they serve a function.

And if they're closed down and if I have to drive to Houston for a new Social Security card, suddenly that becomes a major obstacle.

You know, and, you know, that's a relatively easy thing to get fixed, right?

If you're a small business owner and you're trying to figure out how to get your business off the ground, and there's no SBA office in your county or even in, you know, you know, an hour's drive of you that's difficult.

Or if you're that same small business owner and you have tax questions and there's no longer an IRS office where you can sit down with someone and ask these very complex questions, you know, that's a big deal.

Social security, same thing.

Right?

You know, that's if you have, disabilities, if you're retired, all those benefits are administered through SSA and you need to go in and you need to have a conversation with somebody if it's a complex question.

All right.

Well, thank you very much for coming in.

Sanford now an editor in chief, San Antonio, appreciate your time.

Thank you.

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

You can watch this show again.

You can watch any previous shows, and you can also download the podcast at KLRN.org I'm Randy Beamer and we'll see you next time.

On the record is brought to you by Steve and Adele Dufilho