San Antonio Special City Council Meeting on Downtown Arena and Project Marvel - July 25, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Antonio Special City Council Meeting on Downtown Arena and Project Marvel - July 25, 2025
On July 25, 2025, from 12:02 PM to 5:44 PM, the San Antonio City Council held a special session to discuss the proposed downtown arena and the broader Project Marvel (Sports and Entertainment District). Mayor Jones called the meeting to provide time for public input and to address outstanding questions about financing, community benefits, and revenue sharing. The city manager presented a financing framework, and the council heard nearly 50 public speakers. The meeting concluded with direction to staff to continue negotiations but to delay submitting a revised term sheet until after receiving an economic impact analysis and community engagement report.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Opposition Speakers: Many residents, activists, and community organizations (e.g., Cops Metro, Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Historic West Side Residents Association) spoke against the public subsidy for the arena. They cited the city's $141 million budget gap in 2027, $5 billion in unmet infrastructure needs, poverty (one of the poorest large cities), lack of affordable housing, and the risk of displacement. Speakers argued that the Spurs' billionaire owners (e.g., Peter Holt, Michael Dell, Joe Gebbia) could fully fund the arena. They also noted that previous arena deals (Alamodome, Frost Bank Center) failed to deliver promised economic benefits to surrounding neighborhoods. Several asked the council not to put any public vote on the ballot in November.
- Support Speakers: Representatives from the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and some residents spoke in favor. They argued the project would transform downtown, create jobs, attract investment, and help San Antonio compete with other cities. They cited the 1968 Hemisphere and Riverwalk as examples of long-term visionary investments. Supporters also emphasized the Spurs' history of community partnership and the $500 million commitment from the team.
- Mixed or Neutral: Some speakers called for a legally binding community benefits agreement (CBA) with clear accountability, affordable housing, living wages, and local hiring. Others requested more data on economic impact and environmental effects before making a decision.
Discussion Items
- Mayor's Opening Remarks: Mayor Jones explained that the initial city charge was focused on financing the arena, but she asked the council to consider whether to also explore revenue sharing (e.g., a cut from concessions, parking, tickets) to help the city's general fund and address the projected budget deficit.
- City Manager's Presentation: Eric Walsh presented the financing framework: the city's potential contribution of $350–$500 million (illustrative) would come from guarantees by the Spurs/developer (arena lease, ground leases, taxable value guarantees) and the state's Project Financing Zone (PFZ) funds. The Spurs committed $500 million plus cost overruns and another $500 million in guarantees for private development. The county is considering a $311 million venue tax (subject to voter approval). The Spurs also proposed a community benefits package worth $60 million, with $35 million for early childhood education over 20 years.
- Council Member Comments:
- Several council members (Via Gran, Corr, Aldrete Gavito, Spears, Mungia) expressed support for continuing negotiations under the current financing structure, emphasizing that the project can proceed without using general fund dollars and that the city can address both this project and other needs simultaneously.
- Council Members Castillo, Galván, and Mickey Rodriguez raised concerns about the lack of transparency, the need for more detailed financial information from the Spurs, and the importance of a robust, community-driven CBA. They also asked about revenue sharing, lease terms, and the potential for TURS funds to contribute to the general fund.
- Council Member Mickey Rodriguez gave a strong statement against the deal as presented, calling for the Spurs to contribute more, including revenue sharing, and outlined specific demands for the CBA (affordable housing, local hiring, climate sustainability, public art, etc.).
- Mayor's Clarifications: The mayor noted that the PFZ funds are state money restricted to specific uses (like the arena) and cannot be used for general city infrastructure. She also explained that the $500 million contribution from the Spurs is a direct contribution, while the other $500 million is a guarantee of development value; if the development generates less than expected, the Spurs would cover the gap.
Key Outcomes
- Council Direction: The majority of council members (including Via Gran, Aldrete Gavito, White, Spears, Mungia, and Corr) indicated they want to continue negotiations under the current financing structure, without modifying it to include revenue sharing for the general fund. However, some members (Castillo, Mickey Rodriguez) urged exploring revenue sharing and other terms to benefit the city's budget.
- Next Steps: City Manager Walsh will continue negotiations with the Spurs, focusing on answering council questions about the CBA, the $500 million development guarantee, and other terms. An economic impact analysis and community engagement report (from Able City) are expected to be presented to the council on July 31, 2025. A revised term sheet will not be submitted to the Spurs until after the council reviews these reports. The timeline for a final vote (previously August 21) may be adjusted.
- County Considerations: The county must decide by August 18 whether to put the venue tax on the November ballot. The city's actions are separate, and the council will continue its own deliberations regardless of the county's timeline.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. The time is now 12 02 p.m. on Friday, July 25th, 2025, in the City of San Antonio special session is called to order. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Councilmember Corps. Councilmember Mickey Rodriguez. Present. Councilmember Via Gran. Here. Councilmember Mungia. Present. Councilmember Castillo. Here. Councilmember Galván. Here. Councilmember Aldorete Gavito. Here. Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez. Councilmember Spears. Here. Councilmember White. Mayor Jones. Here. Thank you. Mayor, we have quorum. Great. Okay, thank you. Well, before we got get started, um, I wanted to just kind of lay flat why we are having this special session and certainly making sure that there is sufficient time for public input. Um so while initial discussions uh regarding a downtown arena began in 2022, uh the first real CBA or draft of a CBA I became aware of over the weekend. And so that's why I had a discussion with uh a discussion Monday morning and then Tuesday decided to call uh for the special session as as soon as we feasibly could, right? So hence we are here this afternoon. So my thanks to to those of you that are here and have taken the time to uh to show up and and ask questions. I understand we have 47 people on the list to do that. Um I think it's also really important um for my colleagues and for this body uh to understand the presentation you'll hear today is in line with the charge from the previous mayor and the previous council. Um and that charge was uh based largely around financing this project. Um of the questions I have asked since being in the seat have had to do with not only how do we pay for it, uh, but certainly how does the community benefit, right? And that looks at revenue sharing potentially, or at least understanding why that may or may not be a possibility, as well as looking at the strength of a community benefits agreement. Okay. So I would ask my colleagues when you look when you're listening to the presentation today, understand it is based on the original charge of how do we pay for this thing? Okay, there may be an opportunity uh as we look at um again moving forward in light of the new membership on this body and what we have been charged to do as newly elected officials if we now want to weigh in and provide the staff different guidance. Um in part, again, more of a an emphasis on on part of that revenue sharing. Um how do we pay for it versus how do we pay for it and potentially help ourselves with contributions to the general fund, for example, those are two very different approaches and will yield a very different terms agreement, right? Terms sheet, excuse me, as well as community benefit agreement. And so why is something like that? Why is that important? Well, as our team continues to do well, uh, we may see the cost of tickets increase. And wouldn't it be nice to get a cut? Right? As our team does well, um, the cost that folks may be willing to pay for the naming rights to the arena, that may increase in value. Wouldn't it nice to be would it be nice to get a cut, right?
openpublica.com