1. City Council is deciding how tightly to regulate data centers. At a Wednesday briefing, staff laid out two ways to update the city code in order to regulate data centers, and both would limit them to industrial and heavy commercial zones. Under the first plan, a project could build without a council vote if it stays 500 feet from sensitive areas like homes and schools, sets back 50 feet from its property line, adds landscaping, and stays off the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Under the second, every project would go to council, with public comment. Mayor Jones floated a hybrid: council approval on every project, plus a 45-day pre-filing notice and backup generators enclosed “as much as possible.” District 6 Councilman Ric Galvan, who wants council votes on every project and recycled water only, counts just under 30 data centers in the city, 18 or 19 of them in his district. The Zoning Commission takes it up Tuesday, and council votes October 29. We’re watching because the vote decides whether a project that meets the standards can count on a yes. Staff warned that case-by-case review means “less predictability and certainty,” the two things they said developers look for. District 9’s Misty Spears was blunter: with too many restrictions, “they’re not even going to look at us.”

2. City staff recommended a $442 million 2027 bond that can be issued without raising the tax rate, but some council members want substantially more. City staff sized the 2027 bond to avoid raising the debt-service tax rate, which has held at the same level since 2004. The bulk of it would go to streets, bridges, and sidewalks. Drainage would be paid for separately, with a stormwater fee increase to raise $175 million. On Wednesday, at least four members said they favor a $750 million bond, including Sukh Kaur, who wants drainage folded into the bond, and Teri Castillo, who wants more for affordable housing. Finance staff said that they couldn’t promise the tax rate would hold if the bond goes above $442 million. The bond matters for the arena, too: under the Spurs’ non-binding term sheet, the city’s $489 million share is subject to voters approving a bond program. A formal council vote is expected October 29, with a May 2027 election. We’re watching because council raised the property tax rate for the first time in more than 30 years just last month, on a 7-4 vote, as taxable values fell 2.7%. Staff’s number fits under the current debt-service rate but the bigger number would likely mean raising that rate too, on top of last month’s increase and another the city already plans for next year.

3. Waymo opened fully autonomous rides to everyone in San Antonio on October 14, including airport trips. Anyone in San Antonio can now download the Waymo app and hail an autonomous ride, in an area stretching much of the city core that includes downtown, the River Walk and the airport, where Waymo began trips in late March. But getting here took a while and there were some hiccups. Waymo opened to invited riders in February, then went dark after an empty Waymo vehicle was swept into Salado Creek during April flooding, and came back nearly five months later. None of it took a tax, a construction project or dedicated lanes. VIA, meanwhile, just adopted a $384 million operating budget, up more than 10% from last year’s projected spending, and its Green Line is scheduled to open in April 2028. We’re watching because San Antonio is locking in long term transit bets whose ridership is still a forecast, at the same moment a privately funded alternative is scaling up.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

Defense startup moves headquarters to downtown San Antonio (Business Journal) → San Antonio’s defense credibility lands unicorn. Defense Unicorns, a veteran founded company that builds secure software delivery tools for military systems, raised a $136 million Series B in January that valued it at more than $1 billion, and the Express-News reported in March that it had moved its headquarters from Colorado Springs to downtown San Antonio. Explaining the move, CEO Rob Slaughter called San Antonio “one of the biggest cyber capitals of the world.” The local footprint is still small, about 20 of some 200 mostly remote employees as of March, so it’s not a huge jobs story, but it’s the same lesson as Ynios Pharma in August: know the advantage you have, and play to your strengths.

Republican Marc LaHood rode into office on Abbott’s school voucher train. Now he’s struggling to defend it. (SA Report) → We aren’t concerned with the debate, but this article is more advocacy than news. When LaHood said he wanted to know how many students with disabilities had applied, the story originally claimed that fewer than 30 of the roughly 28,000 students in the program’s top priority tier had disabilities, though that tier is entirely made up of students with disabilities and their siblings. SA Report has since corrected this, but the new version says fewer than 30 received “the full $30,000 benefit for students with disabilities,” without noting, as its own source does, how few students could ever qualify for the maximum, or that the average award was about $16,000. Neither version answers his question: about 29,400 students (or their siblings) with disabilities qualified for the top tier, and students with disabilities make up nearly a quarter of recipients, per SA Report. Dunn’s line that it’s “a billion dollars that was taken away from our public education system” goes unexamined, too. The law gives the program its own account, and the ESA bill was deliberately paired with a funding bill that added roughly $8.5 billion for public schools, though districts do lose formula funding when students leave. “Lion’s den” and “struggling” are the reporter’s own characterizations in a news story, and readers deserved to know that debate co-host Raise Your Hand Texas was, by its own description, “a consistent opponent of vouchers” for many years. It’s reasonable to question vouchers as policy, but you should at least characterize both sides correctly, and fairly.

Support San Antonio’s future by backing Northside ISD’s bond, tax increase (Express News) → The premise that “the state has failed to adequately fund public education” does not match the record. The editorial rests on the premise that “the state has failed to adequately fund public education.” That’s hard to square with the numbers. State funding for Texas schools grew from $23.2 billion in 2016 to $33.5 billion in 2024, and per-student funding from all sources rose 43% during that time, 9% more than inflation. Then the Legislature added $8.5 billion more through House Bill 2 in the last session, with almost half of that going to teacher pay. The fair complaint is narrower: lawmakers steered the new money toward raises, so the basic allotment, the most flexible money, rose just $55 per student, its first increase since 2019. Ultimately, Northside’s bond and tax increase should be judged on their own merits, not on the idea that Austin failed to fund the schools.

‘All means all’: How this SAISD high school became one of the city’s highest rated (Express News) → Maybe we’re measuring things the wrong way. Brackenridge High School earned an A for 2025-26, up from a B the year before, despite the fact that 84% of its students are considered economically disadvantaged. The Express-News reports it’s the first traditional neighborhood high school in SAISD to earn an A, and credits a returning principal, consistent expectations, double-blocking for students behind grade level, and holding onto teachers (but not funding!) It is certainly an accomplishment, but 52% of its students still scored below grade level on the STAAR. The A leans more heavily on a ~96% graduation rate and the 91% of graduates the state counts as “college or career ready.” It does beg the question: if a school can earn the highest possible grade while 52% of its students perform below grade level, maybe we’re measuring things the wrong way.

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

Archaeology Adventures at SAMA

A free day of hands-on art projects, real artifacts, and local archaeologists, as the San Antonio Museum of Art marks International Archaeology Day. Kids get a scavenger style gallery guide to track down hidden treasures, and community partners run live demonstrations. Admission is free, and registration isn’t required but is encouraged. Saturday, October 17, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., at 200 W. Jones Ave.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

Since April, The Civic has filed more than 60 records requests with the City of San Antonio. Six of the 10 requests The Civic filed in its first month, six months ago, are still unfulfilled, including two the attorney general ordered be released. One request, for information about the city’s legal settlements, has been basically ignored by the city since April 28 despite several follow-ups. In total, less than a third of our requests have been answered before the legal deadline.

Most of our requests are not for arcane secrets. In fact, almost all of what we request is basic information that the city should have on hand and should be able to produce quickly: city payments to nonprofit organizations, budget information, how it counts the homes its housing bond built. It is the kind of information most people would assume the city already posts online somewhere. And yet, it doesn’t, and we are forced to obtain it procedurally and at a glacial pace.

Our experience has been so difficult that we felt it necessary to ask for the city’s records about its records requests: a single spreadsheet exported from the city’s request tracking system. A couple weeks later, the city quoted us $6,493.50. It priced the spreadsheet as 47,323 pages needing 288.6 hours of redaction. The same letter said that without the request summaries we had asked for, the data would cost nothing. Within half an hour, we told them to drop the summaries. Two months later, the city has yet to reply. Its portal still lists the request as “Waiting for Cost Estimate Approval.”

We just wanted to know whether others were waiting, too, and we’re still waiting to find out.

On the request for nonprofit grants alone, the Finance Department has extended its own deadline eleven times. The city’s automated tenth day notices arrive with a blank where the request should be described: “Description of records requested: [PUBLICRECORDDESIRED].” This doesn’t fill us with confidence that someone is actually even reading them, just relying on the software to send an extension every time the tracker goes red.

Worse still, both attorney general rulings received so far—and there will be plenty more as the city has sent around a quarter of our requests to the attorney general—found the city had not followed the law’s procedures for withholding records. In one, the city cited six legal exceptions, then never sent the attorney general its reasons for withholding or the records in question. And despite our follow-ups, the city has yet to produce the records ordered released by the attorney general. The attorney general’s office has even had to warn the city to respond on several of our requests.

Then there is the paperwork. The city misses deadlines it set for itself, and its standard notices promise follow-ups that often never come while skipping the production date state law requires. Its letters and estimates get basic dates incorrect. Its own portal mislabels where requests stand. Messages arrive with no text, or twice.

Part of this is the reality of prying records from the city using records requests, and some of the points above are just minor errors. But the result is a city that is not open with its information. Generally speaking, the city performs transparency yet lacks the true transparency required for independent checks on spending or performance.

The city’s adopted budget is more than 900 pages, yet it reports each department’s spending in several broad categories, such as “contractual services” and “commodities.” The city’s inventory of its programs is a list of buckets, with budgets rounded to the nearest $100,000, and it covers only the General Fund. The online checkbook lists what the city paid each payee by month and type of service, but nothing in it ties a payment to a contract or a program. The city’s open data portal, built on a policy that calls the city’s data “open by default,” lists a paltry 166 datasets. Given these conditions, records requests are sometimes the only tool available to get the right information.

When Councilman Marc Whyte proposed zero-based budgeting in 2024, making every department justify its spending from scratch, then-Mayor Ron Nirenberg answered in a written statement, calling zero-based budgeting, “an academic exercise that costs time and resources and produces little or no result,” saying it “would not bring added value in a stable, transparent process such as the city’s.” When the city did review five departments in depth this past year, its proposed budget credited the reviews with $12.8 million in savings over two years. There is clearly waste behind the curtain.

Much of what we have asked for is directly relevant to major decisions San Antonians are trying to make right now. Last month, the council raised the property tax rate for the first time in more than three decades. Our request for the line-item details behind that budget, filed in August, has drawn nothing but a delay letter. Voters will also be asked whether to extend Pre-K 4 SA’s sales tax for 20 years, a measure the council put on the ballot before the program briefed it on what it would do with the money.

Next year the city will ask voters for another bond worth at least $442 million, possibly much more. In May, it said its 2022 housing bond had supported “the creation and preservation of over 3,100 homes with an additional 1,100 homes under construction.” When we asked how it counts them, the city told the attorney general the request was large and claimed six exceptions, then said a week later that it had no responsive records at all. There is nothing sensitive about how the city counts the number of homes a bond paid for, it’s just a core part of governance. And with each of these decisions, large sums of public money are committed for years, meanwhile it is hard to tell how dollars are actually spent.

Most of our requests are questions the city could answer by publishing what it already has. While the delays and errors are not unimportant, the larger problem is that the city keeps asking residents for more money without showing them, in any usable form, how it spends what it has. And the same gap that forces outsiders like us to file these records requests also prevents our leadership from properly appraising the spending before they vote on it.

Making information available is not a huge ask. It is a continuation of the same principle we have been arguing for months: measure what we pay for and show the public the results. This is absolutely essential. San Antonio will not take control of its future until it can meaningfully examine how it governs itself and how it spends its money.

1. VIA just locked the first full budget including the sales tax that used to fund Ready to Work. VIA’s appointed board unanimously approved a $767.2 million budget for this fiscal year, along with a five-year, $1.1 billion capital plan. The eighth-cent sales tax that paid for Ready to Work through 2025 began flowing to VIA in January and should bring in about $51 million this year for rapid transit, VIA Link microtransit, and other projects. The Green Line, VIA’s first Advanced Rapid Transit line, is due to open in April 2028, and a new VIA Link zone is coming to Stone Oak. This scale of activity coincides with VIA's adopted operating budget rising from $339.1 million to $383.8 million, about 13%, driven mostly by the recurring cost of last year's service expansion plus higher labor, benefits, fuel, and contracted service costs. Meanwhile, the city held its general fund spending growth to 4.3%. VIA describes the budget as "a foundational reset," and the board approved it unanimously. We're watching because VIA's operating costs are growing faster than its revenue as new rapid lines approach (and have their projected costs increase).

2. San Antonio’s two largest chambers of commerce are proceeding with merger discussions. The Greater San Antonio Chamber and the Metro SA Chamber will combine in January into one organization representing more than 2,000 businesses. The two considered merging in 2023, but the effort fell through. This time both boards unanimously approved a joint committee in September to explore a formal partnership. Its stated priorities run from small-business advocacy and the cost of doing business to the downtown Spurs arena and Missions ballpark. “We see this as an opportunity to have a bigger combined voice, together,” said Paul Basaldua, the Metro SA board chair. We’re watching who is picked to lead the new chamber, whether it is more ambitious than existing chambers, and how a single, larger business lobby engages City Hall on major issues and pro-business policy. The chairmen of both chambers recently appeared on Eddie Aldrete’s Beyond The Bite to discuss the merger:

3. SAISD is asking voters for $600 million, but a forensic review of its last bond is still ongoing. On August 19, San Antonio ISD sought audit proposals from independent accounting firms for a forensic audit of the $1.3 billion bond that voters approved in 2020, about $420 million of which remains unspent. According to the Express-News, it has since hired Weaver and Tidwell for the audit, which began work September 30 and expects to finish in late October. The firm is set to present findings to trustees November 10, a week after Election Day. The district’s deputy superintendent and chief of staff have been on paid administrative leave since early September. Sources told the Express-News that the deputy superintendent had raised concerns about bond accounting months earlier, and that the chief of staff’s leave involves her hiring an outside contractor to look into them. Meanwhile, the new bond package asks for $492 million for modernization and safety, $102 million for technology and $6 million for Alamo Stadium and the Convocation Center, and a tax rate election. We’re watching because early voting starts October 19 and Election Day is November 3, a week before the audit of the last bond reaches the board.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

Trump makes last-minute pitch in San Antonio after upending the GOP map (San Antonio Report) → San Antonio is quietly becoming more politically relevant. We should embrace and leverage it. Wednesday’s rally at Freeman Coliseum, for Senate nominee Ken Paxton and congressional nominee Carlos De La Cruz, was the president’s third trip to Texas in a month. Speaker Mike Johnson calls Texas' 35th Congressional District “the whole enchilada.” Democrats have made a similar calculation. James Talarico opened his general-election campaign at the Paper Tiger in May, telling the crowd “there’s no way to win Texas without winning Bexar County,” and Gina Hinojosa rallied there in July. The administration has come too: cabinet secretaries Pete Hegseth, Doug Collins and Scott Turner have all visited this year. The last thing anyone wants is more divisive national politics seeping into our daily lives, but this is actually good news: A city both parties have to compete for has leverage.

San Antonio’s fee hikes for emergency services will hurt (Express News) → We will get more of the same without solving structural problems with our budget. Thanks to fee increases in this year’s budget, an ambulance ride now costs $1,700 plus mileage, up from $1,000 in 2024. That represents a 70% increase in just a few years. This increase came with dozens of other fee hikes in a budget that closed a nearly $158 million two-year gap with about $90 million in cuts, $34.8 million in new fees and revenue, and the city’s first property-tax rate increase in more than 30 years. Even so, the city projects further fiscal troubles in each of the next few years. Fees are the path of least resistance: they balance the books without forcing the harder question of what the city spends and why, which is why they’ll be back the next time the budget gap opens—next year! And they stack up. Unless San Antonio city council finds it within themselves to make difficult decisions, these fees will probably all go up again next year. All signs point to a city growing less affordable.

San Antonio school districts could lose $29 million under Texas voucher program (Express News) → San Antonio school districts lose funds when people move elsewhere. This only happens when they are the less compelling choice. The estimate comes from two groups that oppose the program, which calculates around $8,000 in lost state funding per each student who leaves a public school for a voucher. This is how school funding in Texas works, school funding follows enrollment. But locally, vouchers are the least of our worries. SAISD lost 450 students to vouchers when it was already expecting about 2,000 fewer students this year, part of a decline that runs back years. Statewide, only about 30% of recipients came from public schools at all. The fixed-cost argument, that buses, buildings, and teachers don’t shrink one student at a time, is not wrong. But as we wrote in June, what is a challenge for a district is just a binary choice for families. The way to keep the money is to be the school families choose.

How Louisiana landed SpaceX: Inside the secret negotiations behind a $100B project. (Express News) → This is what chasing opportunity looks like. Working under nondisclosure agreements and a code name, “Project Osprey,” the state of Louisiana assembled what the Louisiana Illuminator values at $27.5 billion in incentives, mostly a 25-year property tax exemption, and passed new laws shielding aerospace companies from certain lawsuits and public records requests. In return it gets a $100 billion launch complex and at least 3,000 jobs by 2035, averaging $92,600 a year. The price deserves scrutiny at nearly $8 million per committed job, negotiated out of public view. But the posture is: Louisiana decided what it wanted and organized itself to win it. We want to see San Antonio work with the State of Texas to pursue big things as strongly as Louisiana did.

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

Jingu Festival

A free evening in the Japanese Tea Garden for the 100th year of the Jingu House. Live music, the garden after dark, and Japanese street food for sale, put on by the San Antonio Parks Foundation. Admission and parking are free. Saturday, October 10, 5 to 9 p.m., at 3853 N. St. Mary’s St.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

In June 2021, Colorado-based Coalfire acquired Denim Group, ending the 20-year run of one of San Antonio’s leading cybersecurity companies. I was fortunate to be part of that deal, alongside my partners, Sheridan Chambers and Dan Cornell, and a talented management and technical team. Right after the sale, Mike Lynd, CEO of Kairoi Residential and co-chair of greater:SATX, asked me a simple question:

“What is the next San Antonio-based cybersecurity company that will have a successful acquisition like Denim Group?”

His question caught me a bit flat-footed. I replied simply, “I don’t know.” What Mike was really asking about was the pipeline of security companies in San Antonio. Surely in “CyberCity USA” there was another Denim Group waiting in the wings for its own acquisition, or, as we say in the business, its “exit.” But to Mike’s dismay, and mine, there wasn’t an obvious next company.

For more than a decade, Denim Group was a national leader in software security and a trusted advisor on software risk to many Fortune 500 companies. Headquartered in San Antonio, it grew to around 100 people, with a satellite office in Austin and employees scattered across the country. Within the cybersecurity industry, Denim Group was well known and a regular fixture at national conferences like Black Hat and RSA. In many ways, the company was better known in the industry outside San Antonio than here in our own backyard.

Mike’s question has gnawed at me ever since, because our city has called itself “CyberCity USA” for more than a decade. We have foundational assets like the 16th Air Force, NSA Texas, and UTSA, along with other universities and a strong contractor community that supports the military missions here. That’s an embarrassment of riches.

Yet we are not producing a pipeline of successful commercial cybersecurity companies. We should be.

Why not?

There have been commercial cybersecurity successes in San Antonio before and after Denim Group, and they offer some clues. One goes back to the industry’s earliest days. In 1995, a group of Air Force security veterans and industry experts founded a network security firm in San Antonio called WheelGroup. In 1998, Cisco acquired WheelGroup and its intrusion detection technology for about $124 million, a deal that startled many at the time. The acquisition put San Antonio on the cybersecurity map, even if most people have since forgotten it.

The success of Lee Sutterfield, Rick Jordan, Toney Jennings and the rest of WheelGroup’s founders directly influenced my decision to join Sheridan Chambers and Dan Cornell in building Denim Group.

The WheelGroup and Denim Group exits had four common denominators. Both companies focused on commercial markets despite deep Air Force roots on Security Hill. Both raised capital: venture capital for WheelGroup and a strategic investment from Wipro for Denim Group. Both had proven commercial products — WheelGroup’s NetRanger and Denim Group’s ThreadFix — and owned the intellectual property inside them. And both were led by serial entrepreneurs who had seen success and failure at previous companies. Those traits set WheelGroup and Denim Group apart from many other companies that were pure services firms, served mostly local markets, or were government contractors with a narrow set of clients.

The other truth entrepreneurs know is that building a cybersecurity startup from the ground up is hard and risky. Many talented cybersecurity operators may not have the risk appetite to start a business. I know countless former Air Force colleagues who followed a successful career in uniform with a second one at government contractors such as Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics. For many of them, the natural next step is working for someone else, not breaking the mold to start a new venture. WheelGroup’s and Denim Group’s leaders had a bigger risk appetite and the ability to execute in fast-moving environments. They could also recover quickly when things didn’t go as planned. That resilience is another common denominator of successful startups.

I’ve said publicly that quitting your day job to start a company can be borderline reckless. But San Antonio needs more reckless founders, enough to build a pipeline of cybersecurity companies, so the next time someone asks me Mike’s question, I have an answer.

John Dickson is a former Air Force officer who was a principal at Denim Group for 17 years, through its 2021 sale to Coalfire.

1. Texas job growth slows and San Antonio loses workers while other cities gain. The Dallas Fed cut its 2026 forecast for Texas job growth by half a percent, from 1.7% to 1.2%, mostly because of benchmark revisions. Meanwhile, in August, the number of San Antonio-area residents with jobs was 1,600 lower than a year earlier, and unemployment rose a fraction of a percent. Elsewhere in Texas, Austin gained 7,500 employed residents, and Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth both saw five-digit gains. That makes San Antonio the only of the state's four largest metros to lose ground. On the payroll side, the weakest sectors were information (down 7.7%) and federal government (down 6.7%), while transportation, warehousing, and professional services grew. We're watching to see whether San Antonio's losses continue and to see whether this spurs local leadership.

2. City staff wants the smallest bond in more than 20 years, but some on council want more than twice as much. City staff presented a recommended $442 million bond on Wednesday, which would allocate $261 million for streets, bridges and sidewalks and about $181 million toward facilities, housing and parks—making it just over a third the size of the $1.2 billion bond voters approved in 2022. A majority of council members are willing to look at a larger bond package of up to $1 billion, which would require yet another tax rate increase, while others back the staff recommendation. The split resembles the budget vote, with Marc Whyte and Marina Alderete Gavito outright against a larger bond and several other members seemingly in favor of exploring what a bigger bond could pay for. The discussion will return on October 14 with more detail based on council feedback, which should give a clearer picture of what a larger $1 billion package would look like. Council has until February to finalize the bond and call the May election. The city hasn't had a bond package fail since 1979. We're watching to see if that record holds when voters see a billion dollar bond package and another tax rate increase. Read Jarrett Whitener’s detailed coverage of the bond proposal below:

   ---

   ---

3. The SAWS rate increase council delayed in June is back. In June, council voted 6-5 to put off a four-year plan that would have raised SAWS rates yearly through 2029. The revised version is here, and rates will still go up. Residential rates as written would rise in the mid single digits every year through 2030, culminating in up to $17 more a month by 2030, the same high end cost as the June plan. Members who pushed for the delay cited leaks and distrust of SAWS leadership. Now, Sukh Kaur, one of the critics, says SAWS needs the money and that her question was whether they could show progress. Meanwhile, SAWS says the delay forced it to shrink its five-year capital program from $3.2 billion to $2.6 billion, dropping about $600 million in work, including new water mains. The same bill may also carry a higher city stormwater fee, which staff proposed Wednesday, to fund $175 million in drainage work outside the bond. We're watching to see whether SAWS answers the June complaints with details on leaks and water loss, and where the $600 million in dropped work was taken from.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

Mayor Jones loses big votes and divides the community. It’s time for a recall. (Express News) → Elections have consequences. A recall is not impossible, but San Antonio will have to live with choices made. A letter to the editor describes the current political climate surrounding Mayor Jones and makes the argument that an effort to recall her is warranted. The author rightly points out that a recall would require around 85,000 signatures—but to get that many signatures in six months (a signature is only valid for 180 days) you would need to have a massive canvassing operation. As a reminder, Mayor Jones won the runoff election with around 78,000 votes, so you would need over 7,000 more signatures than the votes she received in the first place just to put her back on the ballot. The negative sentiment towards her is a reelection problem down the road, but it’s not enough to force a serious recall effort. And it should be said: Mayor Jones has had her share of mistakes, and she has certainly failed to be the leader San Antonio needs, but she is only part of a broader problem with civic leadership.

City made many budget cuts while prioritizing services residents expect (Express News) → Dance around the issue as much as you want: San Antonio’s budget is up over a quarter of a billion dollars in one year. There’s nothing about that which screams “hard choices.” Erik Walsh argues in the San Antonio Express News that the budget passed recently makes hard choices AND prioritizes everyone’s preferences re: city services. No doubt that it seems that way from where he sits... Let’s look back, though: Erik Walsh’s first budget as city manager totaled $2.9 billion. In less than a decade the budget is up to $4.4 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion. It is hard to listen to the city claim that difficult choices were made when the budget is up hundreds of millions of dollars.

Spurs Finals deliver big bounce for downtown hotels (Business Journal) → Despite significant hype, an NBA finals run nets a relatively small bump in hotel revenue. The Spurs' Finals run has been sold as a significant economic boon for San Antonio. There's no doubt that it's partly true, but with revenue figures in hand it looks much less impactful than originally billed—at least in terms of hotel revenue. Downtown hotel revenue for the entire second quarter, with the playoff run and World Cup spillover included, rose 1.2%, about $2 million, over the same quarter last year, when the Final Four was in town. Swap one marquee event for another and the total barely moves. Sports tourism is important for us, but clearly has a low ceiling.

Who wants San Antonio bond money? City, nonprofits, developers seek $5.8B (Express News) → The only argument you need for fiscal restraint is the scale of our spending ambitions. Asked for requests for the upcoming 2027 bond, local stakeholders assembled $5.8 billion in total requests. That number is merely a measure of how much people can ask for when someone else is paying. A logical, hard limit is the only thing that forces prioritization—a bond sized to what the city can borrow without raising taxes forces the city to decide which projects actually matter most. A bigger bond package is a veiled push to skip that step by just funding more of the list and sending the difference to taxpayers. It's the budget fight all over again. When making the tough choices gets hard, raise the rate.

Listen: Civic Editor Philip Reichert joined Eddie Aldrete on Beyond the Bite, Aldrete’s podcast on San Antonio business and public policy, to talk about how The Civic came to be, what shrinking newsrooms mean for local accountability, Project Marvel, tensions at City Hall, and the budget vote. Episode 91 is out this week on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts (Apple, Spotify).

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

Monarch Butterfly & Pollinator Festival 2026

Citizen-science monarch tagging, plant adoptions and a migration obstacle course, with live music and more than 45 education partners. Project Bloom's festival is in its 11th year. Admission is free for all ages. Saturday, October 3, 9 a.m. to 2 p.m., at Brackenridge Park's Pecan Grove, 3700 N. St. Mary's St.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

San Antonio could be heading toward its smallest bond package in two decades at a time when the city has identified $5.8 billion in infrastructure needs.

Every five years, San Antonio puts a bond package before voters to fund infrastructure and capital improvement projects across the city. The 2022 bond reached a record $1.2 billion and funded 183 projects. For 2027, city staff has recommended $442 million.

The smallest bond voters approved in the past two decades came in 2007, when they approved $550 million. The 2027 proposal is more than $100 million smaller, even as construction and project costs have increased.

City staff presented the recommendation to City Council on Sept. 30, but several council members pushed for a package closer to $1 billion. A larger bond would require the city to account for additional debt-service costs and could result in a property tax-rate increase.

The bond process remains in its early stages. Council, community stakeholders, city staff and bond committees will continue reviewing projects and funding levels through early 2027. If council decides to put the bond on the May ballot, it must make that decision by Feb. 12.

Mike Shannon, director of the Capital Delivery Department, said staff identified more than 300 projects totaling $5.8 billion in needs. Drainage and flood control account for 43% of the total, while streets, bridges and sidewalks account for 37%. The remaining 20% includes facilities, parks and recreation, housing and other needs.

$1 billion or $442 million?

The size of the bond has emerged as one of the central debates.

Phyllis Viagran (D3) said she wants a package of at least $1 billion. Viagran pointed to the city’s growth and said a 4% to 5% increase in taxable values could allow the city to avoid a tax-rate increase while taking on a larger bond.

“We have an opportunity to take to the voters a bond that does not take us backwards, a bond that moves us forward and provides more project completion citywide,” Viagran said.

Under the city’s financial forecast, however, a $1 billion program would require City Council to vote in 2028 on a property tax-rate increase. The debt-service rate would rise from 21 cents per $100 of taxable value to an average of 23 cents, effective in 2029.

Avoiding that increase would require taxable values to grow between 3.75% and 5% annually, a level above the moderately conservative projections presented by city staff.

City Manager Erik Walsh emphasized that bond debt carries a long-term obligation. Unlike an annual budget decision, bond debt must be repaid over the life of the bonds, and the city is obligated to make those payments even if economic conditions worsen.

“We have an obligation to bondholders,” Walsh said. “So that’s an added level of complexity when we project out what we should do from a financial perspective in terms of the issuance of debt.”

Marc Whyte (D10) was among the council members cautioning against a larger package. He warned against asking residents to absorb another tax-rate increase shortly after budget and utility-rate discussions.

“If we go and we raise the amount of this bond by increasing taxes, we’re going to have something of a holy war on our hands,” Whyte said.

Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones suggested moving forward with the $442 million package in 2027 and considering another bond in 2029 if city growth supports it.

“I think what is the most fiscally responsible at this point would be going ahead with $442 million, understanding that we could all commit to looking at an FY 29 bond and understanding—with better clarity—what the size of that could be,” Jones said.

Equity and distribution

The total bond package is the umbrella over other debates. Council members from Districts 1 through 5 raised concerns about how bond funding has been distributed in previous cycles, particularly what they described as a concentration of investment in the city’s northern sector.

Those concerns have also contributed to the city’s first tax-rate increase in 30 years, as districts that have historically received less investment push for maintaining services and infrastructure their residents rely on.

Edward Mungia (D4) said his district still has underdeveloped parks, streets and other infrastructure, particularly in its poorest areas.

“The best time to plant an oak tree is 20 years ago, and the second-best time is now,” Mungia said. “The same is true for projects, right? The best time to have done all these streets and projects was 20 years ago when you could do it for a lot cheaper, but here we are.”

Sukh Kaur (D1) pointed to the number of “F-rated” streets in each council district, which showed Districts 1 through 5 having 10% or more of total street mileage rated an F, indicating city roadways in severe disrepair.

“In 2022, the entire streets portion of the bond was $471 million,” Kaur said. “District 1 only got $22 million of that. On the contrary, District 8 got $44 million and District 10 got $51 million of those streets projects.”

Walsh said the city could revisit its bond schedule before 2032 if circumstances change.

“There’s nothing that would prevent this council from, if we see a change in tide, doing something sooner than 2032,” Walsh said.

Project Marvel

Project Marvel, the proposed sports and entertainment district, has also factored into the bond discussion.

During preliminary bond discussions in May, city staff estimated that the district could receive as much as $250 million in bond funding. After the scope was narrowed, that figure fell to $35 million in the current $442 million proposal.

Walsh said the reduction was partly the result of removing an $85 million parking garage and a renovation of Durango Boulevard from the package.

Affordable housing

The 2022 bond allocated $150 million for affordable housing. Staff had anticipated another $150 million for similar projects in 2027, but the smaller proposed bond could reduce that amount by half.

Staff highlighted the previous housing investment as a success. The goal the city set in 2021 was 28,094 affordable housing units; the current total is 29,304.

Some council members nevertheless want to maintain or increase housing investment. Teri Castillo (D5), who credited the 2022 bond with helping fund more than 700 affordable units in her district, said reducing infrastructure investment could increase costs over time.

“If we fail again to invest in these infrastructure projects, whether it’s housing, streets, bridges, sidewalks, and so forth, it’s going to cost us more in the long run and we’re going to get less for more in terms of costs associated with these proposed projects,” Castillo said.

Drainage

Drainage is another major area of need. Staff identified more than $165 million in drainage projects in District 6 alone.

Ric Galvan (D6) identified drainage as one of his top priorities, advocating for citywide projects to address low-water crossings and flooding.

“We know the significant drainage needs across our city are fundamental,” Galvan said. “No matter what kind of area we’re looking at here, no matter who’s eventually impacted here, we should be making sure that no one’s at risk of drowning in our city; no one’s property is going to be destroyed by now more frequent catastrophic rainstorms that we know are the impact of our climate.”

Marina Alderete Gavito (D7) echoed those concerns, pointing to drainage needs in her district despite its lower number of low-water crossings.

Council members are also considering a potential stormwater-fee increase that could generate about $175 million for drainage projects.

Next steps

Bond discussions return to City Council on Oct. 14, when city staff is expected to provide additional information requested by council and outline project priorities.

The meeting is also expected to include a closer look at larger bond scenarios. As of the Sept. 30 meeting, several council members were advocating for further consideration of a package larger than the $442 million staff recommendation.

“There’s a fair amount of work that still needs to go on in terms of scale and scope and what those numbers and those projects mean, and that’s work that we will be doing over the next couple of weeks,” Walsh said.

Back in August, the Express-News carried a guest column by the chairs of the San Antonio Ready to Work Advisory Board. Arguing that ambitious investment paired with accountability is paying off with Ready to Work, they cited an economic impact study claiming nearly $12 billion in economic benefits from the program and a staggering 125-to-1 return.

It’s a pattern here and nationally: governments and program sponsors commission economic impact studies that produce large, flashy sums, then present them as objective validation of the spending. Few bother to stress-test the conclusions and the results are often repeated as established fact.

Take AlamoPROMISE. In October 2025, the Express-News reported that the program had “generated $1.1 billion” in economic activity and supported roughly 7,800 jobs. No one, as far as we can find, publicly asked the obvious question: how does a last-dollar scholarship program that had spent roughly $16 million through 2025 produce a billion-dollar impact and nearly 8,000 jobs?

We consulted the report and filed a records request to find out. The District commissioned the study from St. Mary’s University economist Belinda Román and supplied the underlying data. Four days after the agreement was executed, Román asked whether the District still wanted to include “construction improvements ACD (the District) has made during the same timeframe as AlamoPromise,” noting those dollars “will add to the overall economic impact.” Three minutes later, AlamoPROMISE’s chief program officer, Stephanie Vasquez, replied: “Yes.”

The final report counted bond-financed construction as one of its “two main sources of investments,” spending it says “is derived from the 2017 bond.” It seemingly counted any construction spending that took place during the AlamoPROMISE years, those “included in the 2019–2024 period.” It never says how much construction that added up to, and its executive summary calls the $1.1 billion simply “the overall impact of AlamoPROMISE.” Logically, $16 million in scholarships can account for only a small percent of that. The rest has to come from the construction and other spending counted alongside them.

But Bexar County voters approved the District’s $450 million bond in May 2017, based on its existing enrollment projections, and AlamoPROMISE’s planning didn’t begin until 2018. The construction was approved before there was an AlamoPROMISE to credit it to.

Hmmmm. Not so cut and dry.

The Ready to Work study is a similar product. It projects $7.5 billion in lifetime earnings gains for all graduates and enrollees, then adds $3.8 billion for the economic activity generated when those same earnings are spent, and tacks on roughly $500 million in assumed savings from social programs. Compare that to the program's $94 million cost (a the time of the study) and you get the celebrated 125-to-1 return. What it never does is compare participants with similar people who didn't go through the program, among other decisions, nearly all of which conveniently work to increase the total.

Then, again, in September. As San Antonio’s council cut 39 library positions as part of the budget debate, the Texas Library Association released a statewide study crediting public libraries with $3.8 billion in “economic activity and community value.” And the list goes on and on—UT San Antonio, Microsoft’s data centers, Port San Antonio, the economic impact of immigrants. If there’s a program, business, or cause, there is probably a study designed to produce a big number to make it look essential.

But by the logic of these impact studies, the most “impactful” thing we do is usually whatever we spend the most money on—which is a bad litmus test for what we should support.

Case in point: the San Antonio Police Department is the largest single department in the city budget, with the most recent budget awarding SAPD over $675 million a year. Run that through an IMPLAN model and it would show a tremendous “economic impact” every year. You could even throw in the holistic costs and savings of crime, perception of safety, and other such whimsy, but no one would take that number seriously.

It would be a mistake, though, to treat any impact study as a definitive verdict on whether or not a program deserves the money. Programs will always advocate for themselves, but any engaged citizen (or public official!) presented with one of these figures should know that healthy skepticism is warranted.

And none of this means that these programs are failures. AlamoPROMISE has, at minimum, funneled tens of millions of dollars in federal financial aid into the local community college system, supporting the whole institution. Ready to Work has helped thousands of people, even if we have argued that it wasn’t worth the cost.

San Antonio has real ambitions for its institutions, and a necessary step towards achieving them is understanding what programs actually cause versus what merely happened. So the next time a study announces that a modest investment has produced transformative economic impact, our first question must be: compared to what?

1. Elon Musk says that the Boring Company is working to connect San Antonio and Austin. Musk posted last weekend that the Boring Company is working on a “precursor” Hyperloop tunnel between San Antonio and Austin that could transport passengers back and forth at more than 200 mph. While it isn’t clear exactly what this Hyperloop would look like, be it cars in a tunnel like Vegas or pods in a low-pressure tube (likely), the project would represent the long-requested quick transportation solution between San Antonio and Austin, allowing for a rapid commute back and forth. Details remain scarce, but the company is actively hiring for managerial positions in San Antonio for the project, so Boring is seriously pursuing it. We’re watching to see what the details look like as the project takes shape—and to see whether local leadership plays ball, which is never a given: multiple sources familiar with the abandoned Boring Company airport tunnel project tell The Civic that local political leadership did not want the airport tunnel to move forward. Our column on the project can be read below.

   ---

   ---

2. McCombs Enterprises wants to fill what it calls the "hole in the donut" between Pearl and the San Antonio Museum of Art. On Tuesday, McCombs Enterprises presented a development plan regarding the 5.9 acre site next to the Pearl and the San Antonio Museum of Art. The plan puts shops, restaurants, apartments, and offices around walkways and plazas, with dining overlooking the river and a link to the Museum Reach. It also adds a pedestrian bridge and performance seating under the highway, in a space now used for parking. The first phase could be leasing as soon as 2030, with a second phase under construction. For financing, McCombs wants the city to create a Midtown TIRZ subzone, funded only by the project's own new tax revenue, to cover up to $22 million of $43.6 million in infrastructure costs. We're watching whether the city plays ball—this development could be the expansion of a real bright spot for the city.

3. The new Central Texas Alliance wants the 13 counties from San Antonio to Austin to speak with one voice at the Capitol. The Central Texas Alliance held its launch event last Friday on the Texas State University campus in San Marcos, convening around 200 civic leaders from across the region. Topics included the bread and butter of civic life, including housing, jobs, and transportation. Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros helped found the organization on the model of the North Texas Commission and the Greater Houston Partnership—the member board will agree on a legislative agenda for the 90th Legislature convening in just a few months. We’re watching because regional coordination is increasingly and inarguably essential for San Antonio going forward, and Central Texas Alliance could be the vehicle for this—but it has to be more than an organization that attaches itself to bills already moving, and more than a way for its sponsors to say “the region supports these pet projects.”

Listen: Civic Editor Philip Reichert joined Eddie Aldrete on Beyond the Bite, Aldrete's podcast on San Antonio business and public policy, to talk about how The Civic came to be, what shrinking newsrooms mean for local accountability, Project Marvel, tensions at City Hall, and the budget vote. Episode 91 is out this week on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts (Apple, Spotify).

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

OLLU enrollment dips again as university hires new strategist to bring in students (Express News) → San Antonio might just have more small Catholic universities than it has students for, and OLLU is where it shows. Our Lady of the Lake University has lost more than half of its students since 2015, falling from over 3,300 students to about 1,550 this fall. The school’s answer is a new vice president for enrollment and strategy. All three of the city’s Catholic universities face the same simple facts: there are better schools in town, better schools up the road, and the public schools have gotten cheaper. Look no further than Alamo Colleges, which has seen enrollment surge to 100,000 students, and UTSA, which is approaching nearly half that count itself—UTSA even covers tuition for Texas families making up to $100,000 for those in the top 25% of their graduating class. The question at hand is whether San Antonio can support this many small universities, with little comparative advantage, and what becomes of a heritage, 131-year old institution if it can’t.

If Texas schools must offer voter registration, why are so few teens signed up? (Express News) → You can’t MAKE people care. San Antonio has an apathy problem, not a voter registration problem. According to The Civics Center, a Los Angeles nonprofit, only 35% of Bexar County’s 18 year olds were registered to vote as of May of this year. There are outliers: in Alamo Heights ISD, the number is over 70%. The rules are the same, everywhere—what’s different is student interest. Anyone who wants to vote has ample opportunity to register. Registering teenagers who don’t care won’t make them care, and pushing apathetic voters to the polls doesn’t actually improve civic health. Teaching students what a city council or a school board actually does might move the needle. Anyone who has a reason to vote will vote.

San Antonio needs an SAPD audit for local systemic justice (San Antonio Report) → Audit SAPD, sure. The most important systemic justice that concerns us is whether our tax dollars are working for us. The author is right to cast scrutiny over the SAPD budget: overtime ran double the budgeted amount and the council just approved a huge new contract. San Antonio spends over a billion dollars per year on public safety, and any expenditure on that scale certainly has inefficiencies, or worse. That's reason enough for an independent audit, and the group says new Chief Jesse Salame supports one. So why load it up? The author also wants auditors to make sure grants don't "compromise sanctuary protections." That’s just immigration politics, and it has nothing to do with whether SAPD spends its money well. Every political agenda item bolted onto the audit gives the council a reason to say no. Keep it to the money, starting with the benefit growth we laid out in Public Union Arithmetic.

Boys & Girls Clubs of San Antonio to keep Eastside clubhouse open after donations come in (San Antonio Report) → San Antonio's philanthropic community doesn't get enough credit. Last week, the Boys & Girls Clubs of San Antonio said it would pause its Eastside clubhouse and close its Southside clubhouse for good. By Tuesday, Harvey Najim, Valero, the Malú and Carlos Alvarez Family, H-E-B, and a group of other donors had committed enough financial support to keep the Eastside doors open. In total, San Antonio’s private money maintains a very large constellation of nonprofits and deserving causes—here it even moved faster than City Hall. It can’t save everything, but the civic conversations spend a lot of attention on what our tax dollars fund and not enough on who pays for everything else. The people writing those checks deserve more credit.

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

Jazz’SAlive at Civic Park

Two stages of national, local and military jazz, with trombonist Delfeayo Marsalis and the Uptown Jazz Orchestra closing Friday at 9 p.m. and ten-time Grammy winner Arturo Sandoval closing Saturday. The San Antonio Parks Foundation's festival is in its 43rd year. Admission is free for all ages. Friday, September 25, 4 to 11 p.m., and Saturday, September 26, 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., at Civic Park at Hemisfair, 210 S. Alamo St.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

Over the weekend, Elon Musk announced that the Boring Company is “working on a simple, precursor Hyperloop tunnel between Austin and San Antonio.” Reception was optimistic: Sen. Ted Cruz, Joe Lonsdale, Michael Dell, and countless others cheered it on within hours.

A Hyperloop is a transportation idea Musk first unveiled in 2013: a capsule the size of a small bus sealed inside a long vacuum tunnel. With little to no air to slow it down, the capsule could travel between stations at extremely high speed. What exactly this project would look like, Musk didn't say. What he did say: it would travel over 200 mph, going eighty miles in under half an hour.

Meanwhile, the State of Texas is spending $3.2 billion to build a new freeway along twenty miles of I-35 Northeast. Just up the road, another $4.5 billion to rebuild eight miles of I-35 through Austin’s downtown. That’s nearly $8 billion for twenty-eight miles of highway.

When it’s all said and done, the drive between the two cities could still take a couple hours in traffic because the rest of the drive remains congested and limited by the physics of highways.

No one disagrees that more transportation infrastructure is needed. Kyle has grown roughly 1,200 percent since 2000, New Braunfels has tripled, and San Marcos has more than doubled. The combined Austin-San Antonio metro is packed full of over five million people, and it’ll pass eight million by 2050. Leaders in both cities have long said that the two economies should be better connected, but the problem of how to stitch them together remains largely unsolved. This will not get better with time, and we are still building the infrastructure of the past to keep pace with the congestion of the future.

The biggest problem is that every alternative to “build more road” has been fundamentally doomed from the beginning. The commonly proposed solution, an expanded rail connection between Austin and San Antonio or even a new high speed rail line, faces numerous financial and political obstacles.

Building a rail connection to Austin is not impossible to engineer, but it is impossible in nearly every other way. The state constitution dedicates the highway fund to roads and the overwhelming majority of all funding goes to highways, so funding is a challenge. This is a problem when a recent study showed that a new passenger rail line would cost at least $13.5 billion. The finished price tag would undoubtedly be higher. TxDOT’s cheaper option, using existing track, would be too slow to be compelling and only projected a couple thousand daily riders.

And if you can raise the many billions, building above ground still requires securing enough contiguous parcels to put track through the entire corridor. With these constraints, you can study rail projects in Texas all you want—the corridor has been studied two dozen times since 1997—but the money and the political coalition will likely never come.

So don’t wait for a rail solution that Texas will study endlessly but never fund at this scale. Help Boring build a tunnel.

Elon called this project a “precursor,” and there are no details yet as to what the tunnel would actually look like. What we do know is that a Boring project like this one would actually solve a number of problems inherent to connecting Austin and San Antonio by rail.

It doesn’t need the funding that Texas won’t and can’t spend. Boring raised $3 billion this year, its Nashville tunnel is privately funded, and when it bid on a San Antonio airport tunnel in 2022, it offered to pay for the first phase. At the cost the company claims in Nashville, roughly $20 to $30 million per mile, eighty miles would run about $2 billion. But the company’s actual price target is about $10 million a mile, which would put it significantly cheaper than even the cheapest equivalent rail project. And if the Boring pattern holds, much of this could be privately funded.

A dedicated tunnel changes what’s possible. Unlike with highways, there is no weather underground, no wrecks ahead, and no merging traffic to deal with. Unlike an above-ground rail project, there are far fewer political and property puzzles to solve. There is no incumbent rail company to reach an agreement with and the construction cost is far, far lower. Because of this, the Boring Company is probably our only realistic chance to connect the two cities—something leaders in both have said is necessary.

The pieces are almost in place to get started, too. Boring already carries passengers through several miles of tunnel under Las Vegas, is digging in Nashville, and is finishing a test tunnel with its newest machine in Bastrop, thirty miles from Austin. This project would not happen overnight, true, but rail has had four decades and we are no closer to a real solution.

Boring has announced tunnels before that never got built, in Chicago, Los Angeles and elsewhere, even the airport tunnel the Alamo RMA picked in 2022. There are reasons to think this one is different. This has the makings of a flagship program, less than thirty miles from the company's factory, over an achievable distance. Elon has even been talking about this exact idea for years. And if it isn't different, it costs San Antonio nothing. That is the difference between a private bet and a public one.

For decades, we’ve seen creative ideas waste millions and die because they ask Texas to be something it isn’t and never will be: a state that funds massive intercity rail projects. This one doesn’t.

The Boring Company is going to build something like this, somewhere. With $3 billion raised and no shortage of cities asking, it doesn’t need San Antonio’s money. Why not here? When Boring brings a real proposal, San Antonio’s answer should be yes, and how can we help?

1. City council approves a new $4.4 billion budget and a rate increase. The long debated budget cycle has reached its end, culminating in the expected $4.4 billion budget and the expected property tax rate increase of 3.9%, which we warned was basically inevitable for over a month. The budget also raised a swath of fees and restored about $4.5 million in program funding on top of raising district capital accounts from $200,000 to $1 million each, paid for with debt. Mayor Jones called the tax increase a ‘last resort’ and said other options were not adequately considered. Various amendments to delay the vote, impose across-the-board cuts, or add patrol and SAFFE officers all failed. So, as the law requires, the FY 2026-27 budget is balanced. We’re watching because the two-year plan already assumes a second tax increase next year. By 2031, the projected deficit is $136 million. Is this the new normal for San Antonio’s budget discourse? Without structural change, we could be doomed to a self-perpetuating system of tax increases.

   
   Read The Civic’s breakdown of the budget and this council meeting here.

2. Not to be outdone, Alamo Colleges also voted to increase their property tax rate. On Tuesday the Alamo Colleges Board of Trustees voted unanimously to raise the district rate for the first increase since 2013. Enrollment has surged from 64,000 students in 2021 to a projected 95,000 this fall, and the district was facing a $27 million shortfall despite the increase in students. Looking back: Alamo Colleges had a total budget of $354 million in 2017. Going into 2027, that budget has increased to $585 million—up around two-thirds in a decade. You may notice a recurring theme: budgets have increased by what seems like an impossible amount for every major public institution in San Antonio and no one seems concerned with how this is supposed to continue. We’re watching because enrollment is growing significantly faster than tuition revenue and state funding. This could become a budgetary lifestyle creep for Alamo Colleges.

3. A Night in Old San Antonio canceled for next year as a “reset” is planned. The Conservation Society’s board voted 17-10 Wednesday to pause A Night in Old San Antonio after planning difficulties and a 48% drop in attendance since COVID. The event has lost money four years running and carries about $600,000 in upfront costs, so the Society's preservation grants and student tours have been running on reserves. City staff say NIOSA is the only Fiesta event that fully reimburses the city, paying SAPD more than $383,000 for off-duty officers this year. We're watching because the Society says it would take about $600,000 in sponsorships to stage NIOSA without risking another loss, and the Fiesta Commission's response to the cancellation brought up the city's funding problems. We want to see if anyone gets asked to fill the gap, or if another event gets held in its place.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

‘Culture of sabotage’: How San Antonio’s City Council went off the rails at budget time (San Antonio Report) → It’s tempting to think things simply ‘went off the rails’ when in reality things are proceeding roughly as intended. The budget process basically ensures growth and indecision. Even in an ‘austerity’ year, our budget grows almost completely unimpeded—meanwhile the two-year plan already assumes more tax increases in the future. The city walled off the budget by classifying roughly 85 percent of police and 97 percent of fire as mandated or priority and freezing several categories as completely untouchable, which leaves behind a moderate list of cuts on library hours and nutrition centers. And our eleven council members have no recourse but to argue over a senior center, nonprofit grants, and other feelgood items while, structurally, nothing changes. A united council would get the same result. So the rate goes up, this year's spending becomes next year's floor, and the word from City Hall is that council was too broken to do anything else.

Enough studies, rail between San Antonio and Austin needs a dedicated funding source (Express News) → The author is right—any rail project between San Antonio and Austin needs a dedicated funding source. That’s the hard part. As the author rightly points out, we are not infrequently subjected to “feasibility studies” and other such yearning for a rail connection between Austin and San Antonio. Also correct, the author notes that this will not happen without a dedicated source of funding allocated by the state. It is precisely this detail, dedicated legislature funding, which is so politically unlikely. Decades of advocacy for precisely this project has resulted in nothing approaching legislative consensus, and to change that would require the entire state legislature to unite around an infrastructure project that benefits primarily the two smallest of the Big Four metros. Perhaps a rail project for the entire Texas Triangle could be considered, but the cost for it would be so extremely prohibitive (even before the inevitable cost overruns that plague such programs) that this will also likely never happen. We should invest our efforts into outside-the-box solutions that have the chance to move forward like autonomous transportation and tunnel projects.

Disinterested San Antonio council members send message to engaged public (Express-News) → Council is interested. Those speaking at City Hall are interested. Almost nobody else is. A letter to the editor explained that she waited six hours to speak before City Council on the Midtown TIRZ issue. She described a disinterested council—looking at their phones, typing, leaving the dais, and so on. That could be seen as rude. But let’s look at a different sort of math: fifteen people spoke on that issue and San Antonio has nearly 850,000 registered voters. The most recent municipal elections in May had less than four percent turnout. Meanwhile, the people on council live these issues every week (for better or worse.) The people in the chamber are almost always the same small group who show up for these issues and, until something changes, scolding a council member for checking their phone in hour five is focusing on the wrong problem.

North East ISD will present plan by end of 2026 to close up to 4 campuses (Express News) → Our school districts continue to wither as student populations drop, but a real reckoning remains distant. NEISD has named 16 campuses that use less than 60% of capacity and cost more per student than the district average. The district already closed three campuses last year and is looking to cut four more—which is managing the structural, city-wide problem one cut at a time. Elementary enrollment in the San Antonio area is down more than 20,000 in a decade. Northside, North East, and San Antonio ISD are all smaller than they were and South San Antonio ISD is down about 25% since before COVID. Meanwhile, charter campuses in the region went from about 40 to more than 100. Northside is “optimizing,” SAISD has been closing schools for years, and we still have more school space than children. To put it bluntly, the school system was built for a larger student population than we have now. Until the school system matches the population, nothing changes.

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

Charreada at the Charro Ranch

The San Antonio Charro Association, founded in 1947, puts on a Saturday afternoon of roping, riding and escaramuza at its South Side ranch next to Mission County Park. Charrería is the ranching tradition that American rodeo grew out of, and this is one of the oldest outfits in the country still practicing it. Food and drink on site. Saturday, September 19, 3–6 p.m., 6126 Padre Drive.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

San Antonio property owners will face the city’s first property tax increase in 33 years following a narrow City Council vote on the fiscal year 2026-27 budget.

The budget and tax rate passed 7-4. Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones, Marina Alderete Gavito (D7), Misty Spears (D9) and Marc Whyte (D10) voted against the increase. The remaining seven council members voted in favor.

Effective Oct. 1, the city’s tax rate will increase from 54.159 cents per $100 of valuation to 56.288 cents. City staff estimates that will add about $35 to the average homestead’s tax bill.

Due to a senior citizen tax freeze and other homestead exemptions, 47% of the city’s 257,396 homesteads will not be affected by the increase. The revenue forgone through those exemptions totals $156.4 million.

Final changes to the budget included increases to the following fees:

• Raising booting fees from $60 to $120 and the fee for parking in residential parking zones without a permit from $32 to $52

• Increasing vacant lot and dangerous premise abatement administrative fees from $250 to $400

• Increasing San Antonio River barge ticket fees for adult non-residents from $15 to $20

• Increasing HAZMAT fees for retail gas stations

• A new $30 library card fee for non-city residents

The approved budget restored about $4.5 million in program funding. Amendments also increased capital improvement funding for each council district from $200,000 to $1 million, paid for through debt capacity.

Mayor Jones criticized the budget, saying a tax increase would be her last resort and that she did not believe other options were adequately considered.

Jones pointed to funding cuts affecting programs she has flagged throughout the budget process, including the botanical gardens, Fiesta, UT Public Health and other city subsidies.

“This is a business-as-usual budget, but this time, business as usual comes with a property tax increase on our neighbors during an affordability crisis,” Jones said.

Failed amendments

Whyte offered an amendment that would have eliminated about $947,000 from the SA Tomorrow planning department, reduced additional funding from the Northeast Corridor Revitalization Plan and increased fees to fund 10 San Antonio Fear Free Environment (SAFFE) officers.

According to the city website, SAFFE officers work with residents to identify, evaluate and resolve community crime problems on particular streets or in neighborhoods. Officers are stationed at eight substations across the city.

“This is really an attempt to not grab money for my own district but to say here is, I think, a balanced and fair way to get each of our districts another SAFFE officer which I know that our residents appreciate and that I think our districts all need,” Whyte said.

The amendment failed, with only Whyte and Spears voting in favor. The remaining council members and Mayor Jones opposed it.

Spears offered an amendment to add 10 patrol officers over the next two fiscal years by reducing funding for adult programming and SAWS Plumbers to People. It also failed, with Whyte and Spears as the only supporters.

Whyte then proposed postponing the budget meeting and decision by one week to give department staff time to assess the effects of a 1.6% across-the-board cut.

The proposal followed a Sept. 16 budget workshop in which Mayor Jones proposed a 1.6% across-the-board cut for the next fiscal year instead of a tax rate increase. Whyte had proposed a similar 2% cut. The amendment failed, with Whyte, Spears and Jones voting in favor of delaying the decision.

Alderete Gavito, who also opposed the tax increase, said the council had come close to avoiding it. “We were so close to being able to avoid that burden on our residents, but you know, I respect the will of my colleagues who may agree or disagree,” she said.

Spears’ final amendment would have removed carryover costs from Districts 9 and 10 to fund two SAFFE officers. She withdrew the proposal after council members raised questions about the position’s costs, the Police Department’s needs and other concerns.

The vote

Phyllis Viagran (D3) made the motion to approve the budget and tax rate increase, citing challenges in the federal and state economies that have put pressure on the city budget.

“We have to take the moment now, while we can, and while it is imperative and necessary for the city of San Antonio to build their revenue,” Viagran said. “Jobs will come. Industries will come, but in this time, we do need to maintain our services and maintain what we provide for the least of our community here.”

Ric Galvan (D6) similarly criticized the state government.

“Instead of supporting local entities and delivering quality services to our residents with our state tax dollars, our state would rather disinvest from our residents and force cities between a rock and a hard place at the local level,” Galvan said.

Jalen McKee-Rodriguez (D2) said additional cuts beyond those already proposed would disproportionately affect Districts 1-5, which include some of the city’s most vulnerable populations.

“If we implement any further cuts, the numbers and participation levels presented show that the impacts will fall in districts 1 through 5, some of the most impoverished in our community. That is the difficult decision that my constituents asked me to make,” McKee-Rodriguez said.

Spears said her primary budget request was for additional patrol officers in her district, a request that was not included in the final budget.

“A final budget that does not reflect our priorities in District 9 is not something I can stand by,” Spears said.

Whyte, who advocated for cuts throughout the budget process, expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of reductions in spending and the resulting tax increase. He also raised concerns about whether future budgets will rely on additional tax increases to address projected deficits.

“The difference in approaches between some of us here today is the belief that in some of these programs where you give directly and you see immediate impact now, a lot of which I believe are band-aids, versus a focus on the longer term approach, which really could institute change,” Whyte said.

A looming deficit

The FY 2026-27 budget is balanced in accordance with state law, but the city faces additional budget challenges in the coming fiscal years.

The two-year plan already assumes a second property tax increase in FY 2027-28. City staff has projected a $48 million ending balance at the close of that year if the plan holds. By 2031, the projected deficit is $136 million, down from the original $264 million projection. The city will still need to reduce spending or generate additional revenue to close that gap.

Whether that balance comes through additional property taxes, economic development or natural revenue growth, San Antonio is only beginning to address its long-term budget challenges. Future City Council decisions will determine how the city responds to those pressures.

After months of discussion, Bexar County commissioners on Tuesday approved a $2.6 billion budget for fiscal year 2026-27 with no tax rate increase. The budget will reduce the county’s reserves by nearly $68 million but keep them above the required minimum.

The tax rate passed unanimously; the budget itself passed 3-2, with Precinct 3 Commissioner Grant Moody and Precinct 4 Commissioner Tommy Calvert voting against it.

Moody cited the $68 million reduction in reserves as one of his primary concerns. He has pushed for greater fiscal restraint throughout the budget cycle and said the county will still need to cut $25 million to $30 million in future budgets to avoid deficits.

“I don’t think we have a revenue problem. I think we need additional spending restraint,” Moody said.

Calvert pointed to the lack of a cost-of-living increase for county employees and the possibility that the state Legislature could limit annual growth in county property tax revenue during the 2027 session. His concerns follow Gov. Greg Abbott’s “Empowering Texas Taxpayers” plan, announced in June, which calls for changes to the state’s property tax system.

Calvert also cited concerns about checks and balances, a lack of analysis of program cuts and other process issues.

“We are operating like we’re a Blockbuster Video that we will have a tactic of holding the line as things have been, but our strategy actually needs to change because the environment has changed from one of cooperation between state and local government to one of destroying state and local government,” Calvert said.

Precinct 1 Commissioner Rebecca Clay-Flores said the budget is legally balanced and noted that county employees have received cost-of-living adjustments totaling about 23% over the past few years.

Also Tuesday, County Manager David Smith announced he will retire when his contract expires at the end of the year.

With County Judge Peter Sakai leaving office after the Nov. 3 election, a new judge and a new county manager will take on the county’s budget challenges next year. Smith said those challenges could eventually include the first tax rate increase in more than 30 years.

He said he was comfortable recommending a flat tax rate this year, even in a tough environment, in part because he expects growth in the unincorporated parts of the county to create “unprecedented demands for infrastructure to support that growth,” including roads, maintenance of new subdivisions and flood control.

The change order

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Bexar County received $389 million in federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, some of which paid for staff across various departments. The federal funding for those positions runs out Dec. 31, leaving them unfunded for the remaining nine months of the fiscal year unless commissioners move them into the general fund.

When staff first presented the proposed budget Aug. 18, it included funding through Dec. 31 for 91 post-ARPA positions. After that date, the positions would move to contingency unless commissioners shifted them into the general fund.

Moving the positions from contingency to the general fund would require the county to fund them for an additional nine months, through the end of the fiscal year, and each position carried over into the county budget creates a recurring cost.

Exceptions include Specialized Multidisciplinary Alternative Response Team (SMART) positions in the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, which are protected by a state law prohibiting reductions in law enforcement positions. The SMART program pairs mental health professionals with specially trained emergency responders to handle cases that may escalate because of mental health concerns.

Positions in the County Auditor’s Office were also excluded from the reduction plan because state law allows the office to increase its budget without Commissioners Court approval. Together, those exceptions account for 11 positions and about $1.07 million in funding.

The remaining 80 positions, totaling $5.9 million in contingency funding, were tied to six programs:

• BiblioTech Navigators: Help residents access digital resources and technology.

• Domestic Violence Impact Courts: Handle court cases involving domestic violence.

• Pre-Indictment Court: Reviews criminal cases and considers plea agreements before formal charges are filed.

• Preventative Health: Provides health screenings and services, including programs addressing domestic violence.

• STAR Program: Provides support and case management for people affected by domestic violence through the county’s domestic violence hotline.

• TX Fast Track 2: Trains participants for entry-level jobs in maintenance and advanced manufacturing.

At Monday’s budget workshop, Budget & Finance Director Tanya Gaitan said the county is funding about $2.2 million in post-ARPA positions.

Looking ahead

While the county approved a balanced budget this year, its long-term financial challenges remain. With a new judge and county manager taking over, Commissioners Court will face renewed pressure in 2027 to weigh cuts as federal funding expires and reserves decline. Those decisions could shape the county’s fiscal outlook and determine whether it can maintain current services without what would be its first tax rate increase in more than 30 years.

The FY 2026-27 budget takes effect Oct. 1.

Space may be the final frontier, but the foundations are being developed in San Antonio.

Through collaborations among Port San Antonio, Astroport Space Technologies, Inc. and the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), San Antonio is positioning itself as a hub for space manufacturing and development.

In March, Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones announced the establishment of an Economic Security Advisory Group focused on growing opportunities in artificial intelligence, quantum technology, biotechnology and space manufacturing. While the group is focused on future opportunities, San Antonio has had a space-research and manufacturing presence for more than 30 years.

The space market is very real. The World Economic Forum and McKinsey project that the global space economy will nearly triple to $1.8 trillion by 2035, up from $630 billion in 2023, growing faster than global GDP and, according to them, approaching the scale of the semiconductor industry.

Texas is moving to claim its share. In 2023, the state created the Texas Space Commission and backed it with a $350 million Texas Space Fund for launch, manufacturing, and research. Whether San Antonio captures a meaningful piece of that growth is an open question.

But San Antonio’s push for the space economy is not exactly new. Since the late 1960s, SwRI has contracted with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on research and development projects. Now, a new phase of that work is planned for the SwRI campus. A 180-acre National Lunar Research Center, developed in partnership with Astroport, will serve as a research and simulation hub for lunar missions.

The facility will allow researchers to test machinery and processes on Earth before sending them to the moon in the 2030s. The goal is to support NASA’s plans for sustained exploration near the lunar south pole, part of NASA’s multi-phased effort.

Building towards the Moon

Sam Ximenes, founder and CEO of Astroport, said the company is a subsidiary of Exploration Architecture, which focuses on architecture development for celestial surfaces, including the moon and Mars.

Astroport’s current focus is developing a machine that can turn moon rock and dust, known as regolith, into construction bricks. Rather than transporting bricks from Earth, the company aims to send the machine to the moon and use local materials, reducing the payload that must leave Earth.

“The machine right now is actually a demonstration machine to show that we can make bricks on the moon,” Ximenes said. “Once we prove that, then we start going into the larger construction.”

To simulate lunar regolith, researchers use Earth materials with similar chemical and mechanical compositions and test bricks made from them.

Creating the bricks is only one part of the effort. Researchers and architects must also determine how to lay them efficiently, transport equipment and materials, and address the challenges of operating in a lunar environment.

The National Lunar Research Center will provide a site for that testing. Through partnerships among Astroport, SwRI, the WEX Foundation and other organizations, the simulation facility is planned for construction on the SwRI campus.

Matthew Freeman, space science director at SwRI, said the lunar yard, as the center is known, is expected to be constructed in the next few years to support NASA’s moon-base launches in the 2030s.

The 180-acre site will simulate the moon’s de Gerlache Ridge and the footprint of NASA’s Artemis Base Camp. Machinery designed for lunar missions can be tested there before moving to higher-fidelity facilities for final testing. Because lunar missions will have limited human presence, Freeman said, systems must be capable of operating remotely.

How Port San Antonio is getting involved

One of Port SA’s main advantages in attracting businesses is its ability to self-permit rather than go through the city permitting office.

Earlier this year, Port SA announced that Germany-based Blackwave GmbH plans to open a location at the Port, adding to the number of companies involved in space manufacturing and development.

Jim Perschbach, Port San Antonio’s president and CEO, said Port SA can accelerate development by using its entire development enterprise to get facilities operational. Its ability to self-permit projects, he added, gives companies a significant advantage.

Having these companies on the Port SA campus also creates an ecosystem that encourages collaboration and innovation.

“By bringing these companies here, you have not only the ability to intersect with them in a procurement type of environment, you can buy from each other, but you have that very simple, often overlooked value that you get from clustering. It’s what universities build on and knowledge economies build on,” Perschbach said.

The history of Space in San Antonio

SwRI has been involved in space-related contracts since the Apollo missions in the 1960s.

One notable project is the Cyclone Global Navigation Satellite System (CYGNSS), which launched eight microsatellites in 2016 to improve tropical storm and hurricane forecasting. The mission was initially expected to last about two years but is still operating. The remaining CYGNSS satellites are expected to come down in the next couple of years, Freeman said.

The project also produced an unexpected benefit: researchers discovered that the data could be used to track surface water, soil moisture and other conditions over land.

SwRI is also conducting heliophysics research to study the sun’s effects on machinery and equipment. Unlike Earth, the moon has a limited atmosphere, leaving equipment more exposed to solar radiation.

Researchers must also account for rocket vibrations, the vacuum of space and equipment’s ability to operate independently on the lunar surface.

That work extends beyond the moon. SwRI teams are studying other celestial bodies, including Europa and comets, to understand the solar system better and identify potential opportunities for exploration.

Scott Sutherland, space systems manager at SwRI, said the research facility supports larger organizations as a spacecraft vendor and through engineering and data analysis on collaborative projects.

Current research includes a system designed to refuel equipment in orbit and another designed to capture satellites nearing the end of their operational lives, extending their use before moving them to a disposal orbit.

Sutherland described SwRI as a combination of industry and academia, focused on solving complex engineering problems.

The benefits to San Antonio

These collaborations and innovations could advance space technology while attracting additional space manufacturers to the greater San Antonio area. The industry could also help address one of the city’s persistent challenges: attracting more diverse, higher-paying jobs.

Perschbach said San Antonio does not necessarily need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to persuade companies to relocate. Instead, he said, the city can establish itself as a manufacturing hub by building on its existing industrial base and its position in Central Texas.

One advantage is the proximity of Port San Antonio and SwRI to major transportation infrastructure. Port SA can use Kelly Field as an industrial airport, giving companies access to a runway where equipment can be tested without closing airspace in busier parts of the city. That proximity could also make it easier to move equipment from the planned lunar yard to the next stage of development.

The greater:SATX Regional Economic Partnership says San Antonio is one of the three largest aerospace talent hubs in Texas, with more than 46,000 professionals working in aerospace and defense across the city.

“As the world economy evolves, we move into whatever the next generation economy is going to be: knowledge-based, energy-based, everything else. We’re going to need to be able to start getting resources, whether that’s an energy resource, a physical resource, a communications resource or just a commerce resource, utilizing space,” Perschbach said.

Space manufacturing would also build on San Antonio’s existing manufacturing base, potentially giving the city an advantage over other major metropolitan areas.

Freeman said SwRI has capabilities comparable to those of larger research facilities but has lacked the same physical footprint and visibility.

The planned lunar yard could begin to change that. Its scale, combined with access to nearby runways for transporting large equipment, could make the facility more attractive to companies and industry leaders looking to develop and test space technologies.

Spacefaring for the future

The payoff, if San Antonio can capture some of it, would not stop at the moon. Lunar missions are the industry’s immediate priority, but the technologies developed for space tend to find uses on Earth.

Perschbach pointed to spinoffs of past NASA research, including water purification systems, phone cameras and portable computers, and to what may follow. Energy is another possibility; he raised the prospect of large solar arrays collecting power in orbit and beaming it back to Earth.

So far, though, San Antonio’s record in the space industry is mixed. The Texas Space Commission has handed out grant after grant from the first $150 million of its space fund: to Houston companies such as Intuitive Machines, Starlab and Axiom; to Cedar Park’s Firefly Aerospace and other Austin-corridor firms; to Blue Origin in Van Horn and SpaceX in Brownsville; even to regional planning councils in El Paso, Midland and Abilene. Not one award has gone to a San Antonio recipient. Asked about it in late 2025, the commission’s executive director, Norman Garza, acknowledged that “none of the grantees were from San Antonio, but there were plenty of applications from the area.”

Despite this, San Antonio has landed the state’s first Texas Space Summit, which the Greater San Antonio Chamber was set to host this September at the Henry B. González Convention Center. Earlier this summer, the chamber postponed it to 2027, with its CEO saying the program wasn’t yet where he wanted it.

Still, the most promising signs are local and recent. Blackwave chose Port San Antonio for its first U.S. factory and expects to build toward roughly 250 jobs making pressure vessels for rockets and satellites. At SwRI, the planned National Lunar Research Center would give engineers a place to test the technologies needed to build a lunar base before those systems ever leave Earth. Neither project puts San Antonio in competition with Houston’s Johnson Space Center or Austin-area rocket companies, but both suggest the city may finally be turning its decades of space research into something larger.

“Even though we’ve been in space since Apollo, we’re one of the best-kept secrets, and that’s really unfortunate,” Freeman said.

For San Antonio, the challenge now is not establishing a presence in the space industry—it has had one for decades. The challenge is turning that history, along with its research capabilities, manufacturing base and infrastructure, into a larger role in the industry’s future.

1. The penultimate round of budget work sessions was held this week. The long-awaited FY2027 budget had the final of its second-to-last round of work sessions yesterday. Top-line items have not changed since the vote was taken to allow a rate increase, and we will almost certainly end up with a $4.4 billion budget which raises the tax rate in some form. Various cost-saving measures came and went, including redirecting TIRZ money and ending the Ready to Work program, but none caught on. As we have argued for weeks, there was never enough political will to prevent a tax increase, so the budget work at this point is massaging the numbers on the margins according to Council’s priorities. It is because of those competing priorities that the budget will likely look structurally similar to the one proposed in the August 13 budget proposal, and though Council could vote to adopt a rate lower than the one set in August, it would be a surprise at this moment. We’re watching to see if any of the final work session items become contentious or if there’s any newfound unity on Council regarding some cuts and programs in the final days.

2. A new agreement with the police department, and a new chief. Yesterday, Council approved a $102 million police contract which ensures substantial raises for SAPD officers each year for the next three years. The raises themselves are backloaded, with the FY2029 raise working out to a nearly $58 million total payroll increase compared to this year. This new deal helps San Antonio remain competitive with other major Texas cities, which may improve recruitment, but continues the long-running benefits creep for police and fire that has rarely been meaningfully impeded. Also this week: Council unanimously confirmed acting Police Chief Jesse Salame as the first new Chief of Police in a generation, replacing the retired Bill McManus. Mayor Jones raised eyebrows last week by skipping the announcement press conference to do “due diligence,” but voted to confirm him Thursday. We’re watching to see if new leadership and better pay translate to a meaningful dent in crime statistics, as San Antonio continues to battle a violent crime rate that, while now falling, was more than double the national average per 100k residents in 2022 and continues to sit meaningfully higher than the national average.

3. Three years after walking away, two of San Antonio’s business chambers reopen talks to collaborate. Three years ago, the Greater San Antonio Chamber and the then-North San Antonio Chamber of Commerce explored a possible merger, but talks ultimately stalled. The North Chamber would later go on to merge with the South Chamber, forming the Metro SA Chamber. Now, ahead of leadership turnover at the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, the boards at both organizations have voted to form a joint committee on a formal partnership. The Greater Chamber and Metro SA are the two largest of at least 13 chambers of commerce in Bexar County, representing a good share of the collective business interests of San Antonio. As interim Greater Chamber President Pat Frost takes temporary lead of the organization, we’re watching to see if a substantive agreement is reached. With a national study showing that 55% of chambers nationwide are considering mergers, it appears unlikely that San Antonio’s donor base will continue to indefinitely support a latticework of overlapping organizations. Closer collaboration between the large chambers could trim that overlap and give the business community one credible voice at City Hall if the partnership works out to be more than a joint letterhead over two boards and two payrolls.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

New San Antonio facility aims to boost U.S. screwworm response (Express-News) → Recruiting to our strengths, San Antonio lands a company spending tens of millions to be here. Flyttr, a biosecurity company out of Virginia with space at the Texas Biomedical Research Institute, announced that it will open a 130,000 square-foot facility on the East Side that could ultimately host over 100 employees working in research, engineering, and so on. The screwworm crisis was a major factor: the outbreak is being fought a few hours south, and the company says it will be producing sterile flies within six months. But the reasons Flyttr gave for choosing San Antonio were instructive: an 85-year-old research institute with the country's only privately owned BSL-4 lab plus a workforce shaped by JBSA and Army medicine. These are things that we can build on because the cheapest growth comes from companies that need what we already have.

$256,000 spent on mayor’s travel as city considers cuts to travel budget (News 4 San Antonio) → Travel like this is the definition of discretionary spending. The reflex to allow a quarter of a million dollars in travel spending is emblematic of the cultural problem that leads us to perpetual budget increases. Not long ago, the Mayor asked business leaders to cover the nonprofit funding set to be cut. Some of those totals were in the hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile, the Mayor is spending $2,721 on a seat upgrade. Worth noting, this is all reviewed and ultimately approved by the city. It's very easy to spend public dollars—which is why the Mayor gets upgraded seats and businesses don't cover the nonprofit cuts.

San Antonio’s housing authority has $2.5B plan for nearly 15K apartments (Express-News) → The market is already delivering the affordability we keep trying to subsidize. Opportunity Home proposes $2.5 billion in construction, acquisitions and renovations through 2037 to secure more affordable housing. Meanwhile, San Antonio's apartment-building boom and subsequent glut of supply have helped drive average rents down nearly 10% between 2023 and the end of 2025, and rents continue to fall. More apartments meant landlords competing for tenants, cutting rents, offering concessions, and so on. That is an affordable housing achievement, and we should be at least as interested in replicating that result as we are in assembling another subsidy package. Some families will still need assistance even when market rents fall, but only 500 of Opportunity Home's 5,500 proposed new apartments would serve households earning up to 30% of the area median income—the housing the article identifies as most in demand. That is where scarce public resources should be concentrated. For broader affordability, the priority should be making it easier and cheaper to build.

South San ISD draws only three candidates for three board seats (San Antonio Report) → We cannot keep demanding better leadership while leaving critical offices ignored. South San Antonio Independent School District has three school board seats up this year and exactly three candidates, including two trustees whose governing authority was suspended in the state takeover. There will be no challengers and no races on the ballot. This is actually a recurring problem, as four races went uncontested in 2024 and these races have struggled to recruit candidates for many years. Much ink is spilled about voter turnout as a sign of civic health, with the Mayor even forming a commission on the subject, but those voters need someone to vote for. Finding capable people willing to govern deserves our attention too.

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

Tour de las Misiones

Tour de las Misiones brings cyclists, runners and walkers to the Mission Reach this Saturday to explore the river trails and San Antonio’s historic missions. Organized by the city’s World Heritage Office as part of the World Heritage Festival, it’s a good excuse to spend a morning enjoying the city. The event runs Saturday, September 12, from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., starting at Mission County Park.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

When they were young, I used to give my daughters individual bags of chips. Turns out, my oldest would seize some of her sisters’ stash. This coincided with chip-makers putting fewer chips in each bag, commonly known as shrinkflation.

When I cut the number of bags I handed out, she would actually demand more from the other girls.

If this sounds too unfair to be true, that’s because it is. I made it up. The analogous situation that San Antonians are facing as the City’s budget process comes to a head, however, is real.

CoSA is staring at a projected $158 million deficit over the next two years. Back at their June 18th meeting, city staff presented the mayor and city council with a range of options: raise taxes, raise fees, cut spending, or some combination of the three.

A few on the council sounded skeptical about raising the property tax rate; whether what the city is allowed to do annually per state law, or recapturing that which it has passed on in recent years.

On August 13th, City Manager Erik Walsh answered: all three. His proposed $4.4 billion budget takes the recapture route, raising the property tax rate for the first time since 1992, which works out to roughly $35 a year on the average homestead. It raises a raft of fees. And it cuts $89.6 million over two years, more than 100 civilian positions among them. Three council members voted against setting the higher rate; it survived 8-3, and comes up for a final vote on September 17th.

The San Antonio Express-News editorial board had chimed in over the summer, recommending a “modest tax hike (and) spending cuts.” It’s “common sense” and “rational” to look at “both sides of the budget scale.”

Interesting choice of words.

Since the pandemic lockdowns, San Antonio’s population has grown 9%. The increase in its property tax take has roughly tracked the 25-30% overall inflation rate. The City’s budget, including payroll growth exceeding that of the population, has grown over 40%. The proposed budget grows the general fund another 4.1%.

Do those figures, taken together, sound “rational”? Much of what came from the dais in June was also puzzling.

District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez started by posing a thoughtful question regarding policing. Do we believe someone isn’t going to “retaliate at someone for shooting their friend or relative because the city hired 60 more officers?”

By the same token though, do we believe the “programs and social services” at risk of losing funding would prevent a crime like that?

Moreover, the new parent he sees in the mirror might object to his claim that the “root causes of crime can only be addressed” in such a way. His mere presence in his child’s life arguably does a better job.

Earlier, District 1 Councilwoman Sukh Kaur expressed a desire to shield the “minor home repair” program. It can “keep people in their homes” and prevent “them from being unhoused.” A laudable goal.

Are ever-growing property tax bills not a similar threat?

Later, Walsh suggested that some expenses could be moved to capital. As Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones astutely pointed out, that’s basically putting them on the city’s credit card.

We are the most indebted big city in Texas, by a lot. That liability is borne by citizens of what is also one of the poorest cities in the Lone Star State, also one of the poorest in the U.S.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani proclaimed in June that “we balanced the budget without asking working New Yorkers to shoulder the burden.” Do his socialist counterparts on our council share that goal?

The correlation may not be apparent, but our municipal debt is financed by property taxes. If transplants to the region continue settling beyond city limits, joined by ex-San Antonians with the means to do the same, everyone else will be left with the bill.

Surrounding counties are growing 15%-4X faster than San Antonio proper.

This is a good spot for a reminder that the council is also considering raising that portion of the property tax rate for the sole purpose of borrowing more. Earlier this month, a majority signaled they are open to doing just that down the road, to prop up a 2027 bond program whose capacity has shrunk to $450 million, the smallest in years.

Does any of this sound like “common sense” yet?

In fairness, it could lend itself to District 3 Councilwoman Phyllis Viagran’s assertion that “a city budget … is not a … household (or a) business budget.” Councilman McKee-Rodriguez seemed to concur when he said “we will not get better services with lesser resources.” By August, he was “really, really exhausted” with the “high ground” his tax-averse colleagues were taking.

Are these tacit admissions that city government is an inherently inferior organization? Sure, it’s much bigger than even the biggest household, but that excuse fritters away against large private businesses.

Unlike them, CoSA will never go out of business. Why? Because, as members of council obviously know, they can keep it afloat by simply imposing taxes on San Antonians.

Perhaps this is why many politicians barely mention “the taxpayer.” It relieves electeds of the guilt of taking more from them if they don’t explicitly acknowledge them. Rather, these involuntary benefactors exist as some abstract other.

Maybe that’s what makes it easy to force them to fund 21X more of VIA’s operations than riders do. How about “modestly” raising the baseline fare, shrink the sales tax devoted to public transportation, redirect it to the general fund, and actually cut the property tax rate?

It would be more respectable than circling “all the vendors … that line-up SW Military” like vultures, threatening them with increased permit fees, as Councilwoman Viagran implied. The proposed budget takes that approach citywide, hiking fees on everything from Alamodome parking to trash carts to overdue library books.

District 5 Councilwoman Teri Castillo put a bow on this discussion when she added that “austerity is not a realistic budget plan.” But austerity isn’t just cutting spending; by definition, it includes raising taxes.

It’s disappointing how many of them struggle to grasp reality.

It’s bad enough that they fattened up the city budget when Uncle Sam was showering dollars on municipalities. Regardless of the federal government’s penchant for regularly overspending, the lockdown flourishes were not going to last indefinitely.

But why did so few, if any, foresee the inevitable plateauing of property values? This year, the City’s taxable base is actually shrinking, down about 2.7%.

They were content, even opportunistic, to spend the spike in tax revenue. The homes I’ve owned in the Alamo City experienced anywhere from a 28% - 70% rise in values over this time. But those were effectively inflationary, unrealized ‘gains’, to use that term loosely.

Once Washington D.C. started to correct policy, poof!

After all was said and done, it seemed those bags of chips in my story were less illusory than any “common sense” and “rational”ity emanating from city leadership and establishment.

Christopher E. Baecker ran for San Antonio City Council District 6 in 2025. He is Vice President of the Bexar County Taxpayers Association, and a board member of InfuseSA. He works in financial services and teaches college economics.

1. Tesla Cybercabs launch in Texas, but not in San Antonio. Tesla registered 45 Cybercabs with the Texas DMV ahead of Thursday’s public launch in downtown Austin: the two-seat robotaxi with no steering wheel or pedals that Elon Musk unveiled in 2024 and began building at Gigafactory Texas in April. If you’re wondering why not here… Tesla is trying to, and you may have seen the gold Cybercabs driving downtown. In June the company applied to rezone two vacant lots near Pearl for a charging depot. City staff recommended to deny because the block had been zoned for high density residential that was never built, but the Zoning Commission overrode staff 8-2 in July to send it to council. Despite this, the case never actually reached council—though it was scheduled for a vote in an August 20th council meeting, Development Services confirmed that it was withdrawn. According to a person with knowledge of the decision, District 1 signaled opposition to the rezoning, and as council defers to the district member on zoning, Councilwoman Kaur’s position was effectively the vote. Her office did not respond to a request for comment. We’re watching because the apartments the city zoned for haven’t materialized in years, the lot is empty, an important customer wants to use it—and a council office decided to stop it.

2. Storm recovery: four days to restore power, two deaths, and a homeowner repair program due this week. Friday night’s storm sent damaging winds from northeast Bexar County through San Antonio, downing poles and hundreds of power lines. Over 100,000 CPS Energy customers lost power at the peak. In response, CPS more than doubled its field crews with outside contractors and Pedernales Electric Cooperative, and the last customers were restored Tuesday night. Police are investigating two deaths associated with the storm, including a woman swept down San Pedro Creek. At Tuesday’s budget workshop, City Manager Erik Walsh said staff had been working “for the last day or so” on an emergency homeowner repair program, with a proposal expected by the end of the week. We’re watching because the bill lands on CPS as it was already eyeing a rate increase. Watch what the repair program costs and who qualifies, and whether CPS's accounting of the storm becomes the argument for more money.

3. We are now in budget month and the budget vote is Sept. 17. Our likely “austerity” budget is bigger. The proposed FY2027 budget is $4.4 billion, up 8.6%, with a general fund of $1.76 billion, up 4%. It carries the first tax rate increase in over three decades, a 3.9% increase that works out to about $35 a year for the average home, alongside $41 million in cuts next year and $90 million over two years. The cuts eliminate more than 100 civilian positions, consolidate departments and defund several senior nutrition centers, among other minutiae that is still subject to change. Council member Marina Alderete Gavito argued in the Express-News on Sunday that the gap is 1.6% of the budget this year and 2% next and can be closed without a rate increase, through higher fines and less spending on travel and food. Marc Whyte wanted the rate increase killed outright, and Walsh says doing that means finding roughly $30 million more this year, but it is highly unlikely that council reaches any meaningful consensus on that front. Meanwhile, Bexar County, held its rate flat and cut spending instead despite facing the worst property-tax year since 2008. We’re watching because we’ve heard nothing but the terrible financial circumstances we face, with a rate hike and a hundred positions gone, yet the budget still comes in 8.6% bigger.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

‘Unacceptable’: San Antonio nonprofits rally against proposed $5.1M cut to city grants (Express-News) → The city betrayed the nonprofits twice. It never seriously tried to figure out which contracts work, so it couldn’t cut what doesn’t, and it never seriously tried to shrink itself, so their money is an easy target. More than 60 nonprofit leaders rallied on Wednesday over $5.1 million in cuts that council won’t vote on until next September. We’re somewhat critical of nonprofit spending, but nonprofit spending isn’t actually the problem as a rule. The problem is when we can’t tell whether we get what we pay for. A grant that helps a group make culture is one thing but a contract that pays for a specific, measurable job or service is just a transaction. The city never built the means to check whether we get our end of the deal out of those transactions: no consolidated total for what it pays nonprofits, and no outcomes audit of the contracts like the one Austin ran in July, so there’s no way to cut what doesn’t work (we don’t know!) Instead, the city cut by proximity to city-determined priorities: a spokesman said the targeted programs “do not have a direct impact on City Services.” Three-tenths of one percent of the general fund, spread across groups that nobody measured the value of, was the easiest target. And, as expected, the city refuses to shrink itself.

Pre-K 4 SA says it will increase toddler access, affordability if city funding reauthorized by voters (San Antonio Report) → Monday’s briefing was a sales pitch and the math doesn’t quite add up. In August, council put Pre-K 4 SA on the November ballot three years early and for 20 years, not the eight years that voters approved in 2012 and 2020. Monday’s case for two more decades of sales tax was toddler seats, nights-and-weekends care and a “tri-share” model with employers the San Antonio Report calls “still very conceptual” with the specifics to come later, in an upcoming voter guide. Councilwoman Gavito did the math: with a $62 million budget and just shy of 2,000 kids in four centers, that works out to about $31,000 a student which is more than St. Mary’s Hall. CEO Sarah Baray’s answer is that the budget also covers business support and training for other providers, district partnerships and wraparound services. Important to note, though, that doesn’t increase the number of enrolled kids. What does the rest of the money buy? Is it worth it? The current ask is to skip the next check-in until the late 2040s even though an eight-year approval window was working just fine and we don’t know for certain we’re getting enough out of the program.

‘Blank check’ for developers? Why city cuts can’t touch $170M in special projects. (San Antonio Report) → Good that someone at City Hall is looking for money but be realistic. The TIRZ-funded projects that council approves next Thursday is greenhouses at the Botanical Garden, an animal hospital at the zoo, a jail diversion center on the West Side and land for the arena… A.k.a public facilities paid for with captured city property tax. Most of these projects would not exist otherwise without a general fund allotment, which is why the zones are quietly popular with the members demanding cuts everywhere else. Under Texas Tax Code, the captured amount can pay for bonds and project costs inside the zone and nothing else, so the mayor’s idea of pulling it back to close the deficit is not an option. Councilman McKee-Rodriguez’s proposal, to keep the zone alive and point it at shelters and supportive housing, is just using the restricted fund for a different preferred agenda. The truly reachable money is less exciting: the general fund itself, which nobody seems to want to look through line by line. Developers are the easy villain but going after them won’t help us.

San Antonio narrows to-do list of 2022 bond projects as council mulls 2027 budget and bond (San Antonio Report) → A city that needs a standalone department to make its projects start and finish is telling you something about itself, and it’s not good. A year ago Erik Walsh split Public Works into two departments and moved nearly two hundred employees into a Capital Delivery Department whose only job is completing capital projects. Its staff, he told council, would “wake up in the morning and go to bed focused on this effort.” Delivering the projects that voters approved was already the job of Public Works and the city had almost a thousand people for it. A year later, 78% of the 2022 bond’s 183 projects “completed or started,” with 85 still unfinished as the city prepares for the next bond. But started and finished are two dramatically different stages and counting them together seems like garbage in, garbage out. Marc Whyte asked Wednesday whether the restructuring worked and the answer was that the metrics seem to say so, but the question the reorganization raised was never answered: what, specifically, was broken?

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

El Mercado turns 50 at Market Square

El Mercado's tenants association is throwing a 50th anniversary celebration Saturday morning at Historic Market Square, and it opens three days of free Labor Day weekend programming from the city: local bands, food vendors and a kids zone. Saturday, September 5, 11 a.m.–noon for the anniversary and 10 a.m.–6 p.m. Saturday–Monday. for the rest. Historic Market Square, 514 W. Commerce St. Free.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

The storm that hit San Antonio on Friday night had winds gusting to 77 miles per hour, significant rainfall, multiple deaths, and it caused significant property damage as it moved through the area. By the time it passed, well over 100,000 people had lost power. As of Tuesday morning, there are still customers waiting for theirs to be restored.

With that as a backdrop, CPS Energy’s Board of Trustees convened yesterday afternoon for its monthly meeting.

Nestled in item 10 of their agenda was a performance update, featuring the word “unrecoverable,” which is how CPS describes its reliability performance so far this year. The data was worrying: their target for average customer power outage duration this year was 73 minutes, but the year-end forecast now sits at 94.16 minutes, with the declaration that the measure “is unrecoverable and will not achieve its year-end target.”

Is that bad? Well, looking back over the last couple of years, the average power outage ran 61.8 minutes in 2024 and then 75.4 minutes in 2025. For 2026, we’re looking at a forecast of 94 minutes, meaning the typical San Antonio outage is on track to be more than 50 percent worse in two years. The ‘reliability year’ was lost even before Friday night’s storm. But the storm happened anyway, and it is only the latest entry in what has become one of the worst stretches for CPS in recent memory.

In June, then-CEO Rudy Garza moved on to the Lower Colorado River Authority, leaving CPS under interim leadership. Then, in July, CPS was ordered to pay nearly $400 million to two pipeline companies over unpaid gas bills from Winter Storm Uri, while customers were already on the hook for a surcharge for the next couple of decades. Then, last month, Governor Abbott likened the utility’s 14 percent transfer to City Hall to a “slush fund” and made it a campaign promise to break up city-owned utilities.

Even the power plants are failing, with the same board agenda packet categorizing plant availability as “Unrecoverable” too, dragged down by errors like turbine and transformer failures as well as cascading repairs.

Why would CPS struggle so much in these categories? Well, it’s certainly not funding. In January of 2022, CPS raised base rates nearly four percent, its first increase in eight years. Two years later it tacked on another 4.25 percent, generating roughly $85 million a year (with over a quarter of it earmarked for “reliability and resiliency”). Even the tree-trimming budget nearly tripled after 2022, past $20 million a year. This year? CPS has already previewed a 5.5 percent increase, with more planned every two years through the end of the decade.

Meanwhile, CPS trustees also approved the regular transfer of revenue to the city, $51.3 million, bringing the fiscal year’s payments beyond a quarter of a billion dollars. The total transferred every year is around half a billion dollars and covers nearly a third of the city’s general fund, which council is preparing to shore up with the first property-tax-rate increase in more than three decades. In this way, your CPS bill is doing two jobs: keeping the lights on and keeping City Hall open, and it seems that only one is working.

Though to be fair to CPS, some of this is unavoidable. It’s expected that a major storm would be problematic, no power company manages hurricane-force winds completely unscathed. And the delay in restoring service is also not unheard of as the restoration work is logistically challenging and physically difficult, and despite that most customers were restored relatively quickly. The board packet also documents more than one thousand miles of vegetation trimmed this year and a long list of maintenance initiatives. Even chief strategy officer Elaina Ball’s explanation, offered to trustees in April, that there have been “more storms than we forecast” is true.

But this is the second consecutive year it has been true, and at some point, more storms than we planned for doesn’t cut it. Storms are not a surprise in South Texas. As it stands, CPS keeps missing on key targets even as it pulls in tens of millions of dollars more for it every other year.

So, yes, CPS is having a tough few months. Let’s not blame the storm, though, because many of these problems are earned. The $400 million judgment is for gas CPS contracted for and then refused to pay, the surcharge is for fuel CPS bought, and the reliability deterioration is measured by CPS against CPS's own targets, managed with its own money, over two years.

Ultimately, this was a year that CPS Energy built for itself, and it is going to ask you for a raise to fund the next one. We would do well, though, to remember that this is what more money bought us.

1. Data centers: no moratorium, but a real zoning debate. At a meeting on Tuesday, city council declined to commit to a moratorium on new data centers, opting instead to keep refining amendments to the Unified Development Code, a slower but more permanent change. Only a few members have publicly backed a moratorium so that will not happen. As such, proposed changes are comparatively modest and subject to change: a proposed 500-foot buffer between data centers and homes & schools is being reworked after industry pushback, with staff looking for other ways to limit noise and light pollution. The changes would also limit data centers to commercial and industrial zones and prevent their development over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Expect it to change again before it reaches a vote—the siting and buffer rules could still get watered down along the way. We're watching because, though San Antonio should never reach for overregulation, the city didn’t immediately take the extreme path like other municipalities have. It remains to be seen if this will continue.

2. Crime is down from its 2023 peak, but “down” is still well above the national average. San Antonio’s crime rate fell to 8,986 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2025, down 13% from the 2023 peak of 10,342, per an Express-News analysis of SAPD data. Violent crime declined, including murder and aggravated assault, and a drop in car thefts drove much of the improvement. There has been a noticeable decline in crime over the last few years—SAPD credits its 2023 Violent Crime Reduction Plan. But on the FBI’s narrower standardized measure, San Antonio still runs about 2.5 times the national crime rate (5,218 versus 2,119 per 100,000 in the most recent 2024 data), with violent crime roughly 65% higher and property crime more than two and a half times higher. And not everything is falling, with various nonviolent categories up since 2021. We're watching because dropping off from an unusually high base is progress but not enough, improvement beyond historical norms will be the real sign of change.

3. San Antonio lands a major deal with IEM, the second major economic win in recent months. Industrial Electric Manufacturing, a California power-equipment maker, will build a $200M, million-square-foot plant at Brooks that the company and greater:SATX call the largest job-generating project San Antonio has landed in over two decades. It’s the second marquee manufacturing win in two months, after Toyota’s $3.6B assembly-line expansion in July. Two have now landed, a real mark in greater’s favor as it just won a $1.4M county contract. We're watching because these two deals together represent a meaningful change in the job creation & company attraction trendline, and keeping it in this direction would be a major shift.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

City pushing ahead on ambitious bike plan, despite funding challenges (Express-News) → No one bats an eye at a bike plan that will cost anywhere from 3 to 8 billion dollars? Before anything was cut from the upcoming budget, the city walled off certain categories. The budget was, in its own words, "designed to protect essential services" and to fund the priorities residents ranked in this spring's survey. But this just means that the $158 million has to come out of whatever's left, which in this case turned out to represent a medley of small changes plus a tax hike. Facing this budget problem, it seems unusual that we don’t at all scrutinize a $3-to-$8 billion bike plan, or (perhaps most importantly) the decisions that led us there. Note how, just last year, it was defended as only “$21 million to $56 million per year for 25 years” by the Express News Editorial Board as they emphasize the previous, robust $1.2 billion bond. “That doesn’t seem extraordinary” they say. How times change. It’s hard not to feel like city hall is debating minutiae while the bulk of the budget is untouched and already set, meanwhile the bike lanes ride on unquestioned. There’s no way we’re spending $21 million per year on bike lanes, but how much are we spending? What else have we failed to scrutinized?

SpaceX unveils $100B Louisiana Starbase that will dwarf South Texas site (Express-News) → Another major Musk-orbit project, San Antonio still without one. The most consequential builder in Texas just moved a $100 billion project across the state line into Louisiana, and the conversation still didn't include San Antonio. True, we were (probably) never getting a launch pad on the riverwalk, but hundreds of billions of dollars in capital has now picked basically every town in Texas & even left the state before we managed to earn a project of our own. At this point, it’s more embarrassing than anything else. We lost Tesla's battery plant to Reno a decade ago. Austin won the Gigafactory, and then the headquarters. Bastrop, Grimes, McGregor, Brookshire, Corpus Christi… Every direction except here, and now out of Texas entirely. Other cities keep picking up the phone, why not us? Our leadership should be working tirelessly to make it known that San Antonio is open for business, and we haven’t landed a single dollar from this massive economic expansion.

SA airport takes a hit as airlines ground flights (Business Journal) → Mid-construction on a multibillion dollar airport expansion, we’re leaking passengers. San Antonio International lost 4.9% of its traffic in the first half of 2026, more than 256,000 passengers. Just up I-35, Austin's airport grew 4.6% in the same window, to more than double our traffic. Though we face essentially the same macroeconomic circumstances, the traffic for each airport is moving in opposite directions. It’s easy to blame the airport, but San Antonio has a demand problem, plain and simple, and that doesn’t immediately resolve with a new, shinier terminal. The mayor herself calls carrier recruitment "critical," and that may benefit from the ongoing expansion, but the risk is a bigger terminal while the traffic it's built for keeps choosing Austin.

Behind the scenes of the biggest one-year school turnaround in San Antonio (Express-News) → The city’s biggest school turnaround didn’t come from more funding, it came from good management. A lesson, there? Pershing Elementary climbed from an F to a B in a single year, the largest jump in the San Antonio area. It’s a campus where 99% of students are low-income and nearly half are learning English. So, did they get millions more dollars, or the latest technology? Actually, the methods cost almost nothing: teachers reassigned to teach the subjects they're strongest at, a principal who checks in with kids, reading nooks built into hallway corners, multiplication drills folded into PE, and glow-stick dance parties for the students who passed a practice test—all things that "don't cost a lot but mean a lot to a fourth grader." "There's no secret," principal Shelene Livas said. "It's just hard work." It's worth remembering this at the next budget hearing, because it goes against the assumption that better results are tied to more money. And if a campus where nearly everyone is low-income can go from worst to first in a year on competence and effort, the schools that still fail can't blame poverty or budgets alone.

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

First Friday at Blue Star, and the opening of Fotoséptiembre

San Antonio's longest-running art walk continues on Sept. 4 this month, and it collides with Fotoséptiembre. That's the citywide photography festival Michael Mehl started in 1995, running Sept. 1–30 across San Antonio and the Hill Country, now in its 32nd year. Fri., Sept. 4, from ~6 p.m. At the Blue Star Arts Complex, 1414 S. Alamo St.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic

Though the ongoing budget negotiations are about the general fund as a whole, if you listen to what the majority of city council is actually fighting about, much of the time and energy spent concerns a constellation of social services. Many are provided by a city entity, but we also spend a significant sum on contracts with local nonprofits.

The reflex here is that nonprofits figure out ways to do good for the community and local government will pay. Homelessness response, workforce pipelines, early childhood programs, arts and culture, and on and on. Watch it work in real time on the Express-News opinion page last weekend: a crisis nursery, built by a coalition of local nonprofits, ran roughly eight months as a pilot on about half a million dollars the coalition raised itself, and succeeded. The natural conclusion is that it deserves public funding. And maybe it does! County commissioners are looking into a major award. The city, mid-deficit, will likely be asked next. This is how these permanent funding arrangements grow as we accumulate contracts with nonprofits.

As we consider how we’re going to manage the city finances, there are two questions. How much do we spend this way? What do we get for it?

You would think that the first is an easy question. But you would be wrong: no consolidated total for these nonprofit contracts exists anywhere in the city’s published books. We see only glimpses: Tens of millions in the Ready to Work contracts. Some $23 million in federal pass-through to housing and neighborhood nonprofits. If you add in the obvious nonprofit spending from the city’s open checkbook portal it yields over $100 million paid (including capital expenditures) to some 150 nonprofits since the beginning of last year. Roughly $6.5 million for the Botanical Garden, $5.6 million for Meals on Wheels, $611,000 for the Esperanza Peace & Justice Center, and so on. Add what you can find—conservatively well past a hundred million—and still no total, because the total is not public. San Antonio does not publish what it spends buying services from nonprofits.

And what exactly do we get for this undetermined sum? Austin has tried to answer that—for Austin, at least. In July, Austin’s city auditor pulled a sample of 25 nonprofit contracts for family and social services, looking through about $30 million of the roughly $100 million Austin spends each year with 95 nonprofits, and found the city was paying for services that were not fully delivered. In fact, 19 of the 25 contracts missed at least one performance target and, of the output and outcome measures reviewed, 44 percent went unmet. More than half of those misses were deeply below what the contract required. And of course Austin paid anyway.

Austin’s own leadership owned it as a failure of the city’s management, not the providers’. The city developed those metrics during contract negotiations and… Just never bothered to ensure it was getting what it paid for. Until now. It goes without saying: a performance target that costs nothing to miss is useless. Here in San Antonio we haven’t even bothered to check.

There is one notable exception, and we have written about it at length: Ready to Work. The entire debate was shaped by widely available public data. Sure, some argued on principle rather than that data, but nearly every public voice was able to consult the dashboard and make a determination. We knew how much was spent, why, and what we were supposed to get out of it. With most of these other programs, we don’t have anything close to that. Sometimes we don’t even have granular data, just an aggregate which must be fished out of an obscure city website. We don’t need a dashboard for every dollar, but I think we can all agree that you need to have some transparency.

Now look at the direction the San Antonio budget debate has taken. On one side, reluctance about raising the property tax rate and making life more expensive for residents. On the other, and noticeably louder among the council’s majority, alarm that funding for programs could be impacted. But is there any serious curiosity about whether the programs actually meet their goals? Or whether the goals are fair? If city council intended to maintain accountability, something we would argue is directly within their job description, this sort of thing would be step one. Yet, even now, there has been no serious push for it. The ongoing reaction of this council has been to fight over which unexamined commitments to protect.

So do what Austin did and figure out if we’re getting what we pay for. Direct the City Auditor to run reviews of the contracts for the delegate agencies that carry our human services, the economic development organizations, the workforce vendors, the incentive agreements, etc. We need a real record before the next budget is built (remember, there’s a budget deficit next year too).

A balanced budget is required by law, so City Hall will deliver that in some form. But what use is a legal requirement to balance the books if determining which dollars go where is a nearly impossible task? A balanced budget is useless if even city council doesn’t really know whether we’re getting what we pay for.

So one of two things is true. Either City Hall knows what its dollars buy and which programs deliver, and the information made public is done in such a way so we cannot check… Or it does not know and is choosing millions in cuts blind.

It’s hard to say which explanation is worse. Nothing in the record so far suggests it’s the first.

Either way, the best first step is to check. An audit of the kind Austin just completed is a small ask against spending of this magnitude and it should be the bare minimum for asking San Antonio to accept a rate increase. More than that, it’s just good governance. If we’re going to cut what fails and keep what works, we need to find out which is which and make it public.

1. Project Marvel had its day in front of council, and Project Marvel won. At Mayor Jones’ urging, city council held a Monday special session to debate and ultimately vote on whether the $489 million city contribution for Project Marvel should be put before city voters. After three hours of public testimony, and extensive rehashing of old arguments on both sides, the motion to put this funding on the ballot failed six votes to five. A narrower vote than many expected, but a defeat for the anti-Marvel advocates nonetheless. Though Project Marvel was and remains a contentious issue, this is a very predictable outcome for a proposal which surfaced mere days before the ballot deadline and was championed mainly by Mayor Jones, whose popularity has been trending downward for her whole term. Can we please move on? We’re watching to see if, with the project basically guaranteed to proceed, the Mayor and likeminded councilmembers continue to grandstand when the term sheet returns to council for final approval and the bond debate resurfaces.

2. The budget fight is now in its substantive, final stretch. At Wednesday’s budget work session, staff put the alternative to the proposed tax increase on the table: hold the rate flat for two years by cutting roughly $75 million more, eliminating 171 additional positions on top of the 101 already proposed and reaching into police and fire overtime, library hours, and parks programming. Little unity emerged over what precisely should be cut. The “fiscal responsibility caucus” of Whyte, Gavito, and Spears have been adamant that a rate increase would be a mistake, while nearly every other councilmember took issue with specific cuts, with seemingly every program portrayed as an essential service. At Tuesday's work session, Councilwoman Viagran told her colleagues that "we cannot cut our way out of this deficit." As a matter of arithmetic, that is simply false and staff later presented the $75 million cuts required to do exactly that. “We cannot” and “we should not” are two different things, both wrong. But as no one can agree on precisely what to do, no one will get what they want. It is now almost certain that the tax rate will go up, programs will get cut anyway, the council will remain at odds, and the hard structural decisions will be deferred once more. We’re watching to see if there’s any genuine movement or compromise shown between now and September 17th.

3. Most taxing entities in the San Antonio area continue to pursue tax increases. On Tuesday, Alamo Colleges trustees voted unanimously to advance a 1.75-cent rate increase—larger than the 1.25 cents floated in June, and their first rate increase in over a decade. The very same day, Bexar County presented a budget that keeps its rate flat, as University Health did earlier this month. Add the city’s proposed increase and the November tax-rate elections coming from SAISD (alongside a $600 million bond package), Northside ISD, and South San ISD, and the pattern is clear: nearly every large taxing entity in Bexar County faces the same declining property values, and the easy choice is always to ask for more. The county’s explanation for keeping the rate where it’s at is that it banked money during the good years and stopped issuing new debt when revenue slowed down. Even so, when the choice is between cutting real programs and nudging a rate, the temptation is enormous—and most of our taxing entities are not resisting it. We’re watching to see precisely what the increased burden is on San Antonians when all of this is said and done: between taxes, utility rates, and over a hundred increased city fees.

The Civic is independent, nonprofit, and nonpartisan. We are supported entirely by our readers and our Charter members. Consider supporting our work.

The Reframe

VIA board mulls bus fare increase as costs escalate for planned rapid lines (Express News) → The bus line overruns have already started and the first line isn’t even finished. The Green and Silver lines, our impending rapid bus transit lines, were pitched at $803 million. The estimate is now $878.8 million (surprise!) with the Green Line barely into construction and the Silver Line revised upward twice even before breaking ground. Anyone familiar with projects like these knows those will not be the last revisions, and that’s assuming everything goes according to plan with regard to federal funding. The city has had a lot of open public debate recently: Ready to Work, Project Marvel, taxes… We need to talk about the buses. San Antonio will not become an urban policy analyst's ideal public transportation city no matter how many rapid bus lines we add, and right now we’re signing up for years of construction pain at significant fiscal cost for—let’s face it—little benefit. We should fund what works & what we need, and this isn’t going to be either.

Study finds passenger rail route between S.A., Austin could cost $13.5B (Express-News) → Passenger rail, without a serious push from Austin’s political leadership, will always be a pipe dream. It seems like every other month there is a story about a “viability assessment” or study for passenger rail, and they all say the same thing. Rail is technically possible, but at a cost of billions and billions of dollars. The $13.5 billion for this hypothetical project doesn't even connect the downtowns, it connects Austin-Bergstrom to a terminus outside of downtown San Antonio, like the Frost Bank Center. A line that reliably links the two city cores (probably the only version worth building) would undoubtedly cost even more. And the sticker price is never the full story: look no further than California's rail project, or even VIA here in town. It’s true that a working rail connection to Austin would be transformational—but it would require a capital commitment the state has never shown any serious interest in committing. This study will join its predecessors on the shelf.

Proposed Bexar County budget approaches $3B (Business Journal) → In 2016, the Bexar County budget was $1.8 billion. The county budget ballooned into nearly $3 billion in the pandemic years, juiced by federal relief which, as it always does, became a baseline. The $2.6 billion now proposed is the result of a $200 million cut from last year, but still $800 million above a decade ago. That roughly follows inflation and growth, which is a problem. "We kept up with inflation" defends the growth rate but ignores whether the original rapid spending increase was ever really justified, or even whether we got anything from it. Meanwhile the people paying for it saw their taxable values fall and are facing significant cost increases this year, and household budgets don't work the same way. So ask the only question that matters: what did an extra $800 million buy? Are the county's courts faster, its jail safer, its roads better than in 2016?

Report finds need for homeless shelters, assistance outpacing supply (Express News) → The continually underexplored truth: we have a full-service system in place to deal with the homeless who are willing to accept help. What about those who aren’t willing? We have written about San Antonio’s comprehensive homeless services economy. The logic is simple: keep as many people as possible from becoming homeless while helping the ones who do become homeless find housing and reenter society. The idea that we can “solve” the homeless problem is misguided, however, once you account for the population that refuses help. We have almost no plan for the population that refuses to cooperate with the system in place. Every report on shelter capacity and assistance dollars measures the willing. Until someone solves that fundamental disconnect, homelessness continues (and grows) no matter how much supply we add.

The Pick

Our weekly recommendation for what’s going on in San Antonio

Congo Falls Night at the Ballpark

This Saturday, August 22nd, at Nelson W. Wolff Municipal Stadium, 5757 W. US Highway 90. The Missions host the Northwest Arkansas Naturals at 7:05 p.m. for a night with the San Antonio Zoo (recently named one of the best zoos in the world by Condé Nast) celebrating Congo Falls, its new two-acre gorilla habitat. Postgame fireworks close the night. Tickets through the Missions' website.

Thanks for another week. Follow us on your platform of choice: X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. Story tips and reader notes go to our reporter Jarrett Whitener at jarrett@thecivic.com, and my inbox is always open.

A particular thanks to our Charter members, whose continued generosity allows us to operate.

Enjoy your weekend and see you Tuesday.

- Philip Reichert
Editor, The Civic