San Antonio City Council Special Session on Downtown Arena and Project Marvel – July 25, 2025

The San Antonio City Council held a special session on July 25, 2025, to discuss the proposed downtown arena (Project Marvel) for the San Antonio Spurs. The meeting focused on the financial structure, community benefits, and next steps for the project, which includes a new arena and an entertainment district near Hemisfair. The Mayor opened by emphasizing the need for transparency and community input, noting that 47 people had signed up to speak. City Manager Eric Walsh presented an overview of the city's objectives: to manage risk, avoid using existing budget resources, secure community benefits, and retain the Spurs long-term. The current framework involves a $500 million equity contribution from the Spurs, a potential $311 million contribution from the county (subject to a voter referendum), and city contributions through a Project Financing Zone (PFZ), Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) funds, and state hotel tax (PFC). The Spurs also proposed $60 million in community benefits focused on early childhood education, transportation, small business and local vendors, and community tickets. The council heard extensive public comment, deliberated on the terms, and provided direction to staff to continue negotiations while incorporating feedback and awaiting additional reports.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Opposition: Numerous residents and community organizations spoke against using public funds for the arena. Steve Restig (Government Hill Community Organization) called for critical analysis and expressed uncertainty about Spurs' commitment. Father Richard Aguilar argued the plan does not make economic, spiritual, or moral sense and noted that other cities' arenas have not delivered promised benefits. Father Jimmy Dronen (St. Margaret Church, CUPS Metro) stated that Spurs owners (including Peter Holt, Michael Dell, and James Leininger) have combined wealth of $140 billion and should pay 100% of the cost; he urged the council not to put the project on the November ballot. Mike Felips (CUPS Metro) highlighted that San Antonio is the third poorest big city in the U.S. and that other projects like Hard Rock Stadium in Florida were privately financed. René Oren (Macedonia Baptist Church) pointed to a $170 million deficit and $5 billion in unmet needs, and emphasized that 13 people died in recent floods. Graciela Sánchez (Esperanza Peace & Justice Center) said the project would displace low-income residents and create low-paying jobs; she accused the city of not listening to affected communities. Philet Adcock urged rejecting billionaire pressures. Jeff Webster (Chamber of Commerce) supported the project as a long-term investment, similar to the River Walk and Hemisfair. René González called for more information and noted the city has huge infrastructure and housing needs. Lupita González argued the project contradicts the city's 2020 racial equity resolution and called for a racial impact assessment. Jessica Casares (San Antonio Association) urged moving forward to create a sports district. Jessica Palacios (Hispanic Chamber of Commerce) and others expressed support for the economic opportunity. Yasmin Herrera read a statement from Cameron Blood opposing the project. Hewitt Sanders (UTSA professor) contended that other cities' sports districts (Kansas City, Atlanta, Milwaukee) involved more private investment and that the city should negotiate for at least 50% Spurs contribution. Kayla Miranda and others spoke about housing insecurity and the need for affordable homes over entertainment. Mary Cabrero listed Spurs' billionaire owners and questioned why taxpayers should pay. Leticia Sánchez (West Side Historical District Association) listed past broken promises and called for a halt. Cristina Ballí (Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center) urged a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA). Leticia Vela argued the city has made similar promises before and that the proposed education benefit is just a tax write-off. Robert García supported small businesses. Katherine Cisneros demanded an environmental impact study. George Cisneros questioned the $60 million community benefits figure and the $500 million development guarantee. Ryan Cole (Prosper West) called for a binding CBA. Rebecca Flores was the final speaker.
• Support: Several business leaders spoke in favor. Jeff Webster (Chamber of Commerce) called the project a long-term investment. Joe Linson said it would put San Antonio in competition with Dallas and Houston and create jobs. Luis Rodríguez (San Antonio Chamber) and Jessica Palacios (Hispanic Chamber) emphasized opportunities for small businesses. Graciela Sánchez (San Antonio Women in Film) noted the sports industry's track record of generating revenue and supported the arena.

Discussion Items

• Mayor's Opening: The Mayor explained the special session was called to ensure sufficient time for public comment and to align with the previous council's framework. She emphasized asking not just "how will we pay" but "how does the community benefit?" She noted the city's projected $141 million budget gap for FY2027, potentially growing to $220 million. She also mentioned $490 million spent on drainage projects since 2015, and highlighted specific district needs. She stressed the importance of understanding the value of what the city is giving up (concessions, parking, naming rights) and that negotiations should consider both financial aspects and community benefits.
• City Manager's Presentation: Eric Walsh reviewed the process since April: an MOU with the county, community engagement in June and July, and multiple meetings with Spurs. The proposed financing includes $500 million from Spurs equity, $311 million from county (conditional on voter approval), and city contributions through a PFZ, TIRZ funds, and state hotel tax (PFC). He explained that the city's share would not come from its general fund but from growth-oriented revenue sources. He presented a term sheet with key provisions: Spurs would maintain the NBA franchise, operate and maintain the arena, and be responsible for design and construction. The city would create a legal entity and acquire property. He outlined a timeline: July 25 public hearing, August 14 budget presentation, and potential council action on August 21. He proposed continuing negotiations under the current structure and updating the council on July 31.
• Council Discussion: Council members generally supported continuing negotiations but asked for more details.
  • Councilwoman Cor emphasized community engagement and the need for a CBA, and asked about timing for the community involvement report.
  • Councilwoman Alderete Gavito also supported continuing negotiations and stressed the need for community benefits including early childhood education and transportation.
  • Councilman White expressed initial frustration but now sees a clear structure that avoids general fund dollars. He cautioned against treating Spurs as an "ATM" and urged treating them as a community partner. He supported continuing under the current structure.
  • Councilman Spears agreed with continuing and emphasized transparency, clear economic impact, and community benefits. He asked for details on job creation and small business inclusion.
  • Councilwoman Castillo questioned whether the city is getting the best return on its investment. She called for a CBA that prioritizes affordable housing and for a study on environmental impact and displacement. She wanted more clarity on the $500 million Spurs contribution (including guarantees) and asked about the impact on the general fund.
  • Councilwoman Munguía asked about the structure of TIRZ funds and whether they could be used for general fund needs. She expressed concerns about precedent if TIRZ funds are redirected.
  • Councilwoman Calván supported a CBA and emphasized that no one wants the Spurs to leave. She noted the city must continue investing in affordable housing and public goods.
  • Councilman Villagran asked about the possibility of using TIRZ funds from other districts to contribute to the general fund, and wanted clarification on that for the next session.
  • Councilwoman Maki Rodríguez argued the city has leverage and must be firm in negotiations to protect her district from displacement. She disagreed with the idea that the city's negotiating position is weak.
  • Councilwoman (unidentified) and Councilman White debated the use of TIRZ funds for general fund purposes, with White warning against setting a dangerous precedent.
• Mayor's Clarification: The Mayor asked for direction on whether to continue negotiations under the current structure but also explore ways to generate additional revenue for the general fund from the project. She emphasized the need to understand the value of the city's contributions and the financial risks the Spurs are assuming.

Key Outcomes

• Direction to Staff: The council provided direction to continue negotiations with the Spurs under the current financial structure, but to incorporate feedback from the meeting, including exploring opportunities to direct a portion of project-generated revenues to the general fund to help address the city's budget gap. Staff was asked to await the completion of the economic impact analysis and community engagement report before finalizing a revised term sheet.
• Next Steps:
  • July 31: Council to receive an update on economic impact analysis and community involvement report.
  • August 6: Council will hold a B session to discuss the proposal, including the legal entity, property acquisition, and service agreements.
  • August 21: Target for council action on the term sheet and related agreements. This date is flexible based on information received.
• Community Benefits Agreement (CBA): Several council members called for a formal CBA, which would be negotiated with community coalitions to ensure benefits such as affordable housing, transportation, and small business support. The council signaled that the Spurs' $60 million community benefits proposal should be further detailed and tied to community priorities.
• Transparency and Public Process: The council acknowledged the need for more robust public engagement, including a potential environmental impact study, and for making all relevant financial information available to the public before any final vote.
• No Vote on Ballot Measure: The council did not vote on placing a county-backed bond initiative on the November ballot; that decision rests with the county commissioners, who have until August 18 to act. The city's contribution structure is separate from the county's potential referendum.

The meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m.