San Antonio City Council Briefing on 2027-2032 Bond Program and Data Center UDC Amendments

The San Antonio City Council met in a briefing session on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, from 2:08 p.m. to 5:38 p.m. The meeting covered two items: the proposed 2027-2032 bond program and unified development code (UDC) amendments for data centers. No formal votes were taken; staff received direction for follow-up reports on October 28 and October 29.

Bond Program: Staff Proposal

• Staff proposed a $442 million voter-approved 2027 bond plus a $175 million stormwater utility fee increase, for a combined $617 million investment.
• Proposed category split: $300 million for streets, bridges, and sidewalks; $175 million for drainage and flood control (28%); $40 million for parks, including $10 million for greenway trails; $52 million for city facilities; and $50 million for affordable housing (about 12% of the $442 million bond).
• About 9% of city streets are currently rated failed. Two allocation options for $100 million in failed-street funding were presented: Option 1 used a roughly proportionate formula (50% network size, 50% condition); Option 2 targeted bringing all districts below 10% failed streets.
• The city has roughly 1,500 miles of sidewalk gaps within about 6,000 miles of sidewalks. A $25 million safe-passage-to-schools and bus-stop sidewalk program was suggested by Councilmember Corra.
• Staff showed a drainage project list totaling about $200 million, with $175 million assumed fundable. The initial list included no drainage projects in Districts 2 and 6; staff said they would adjust it so every district receives at least one drainage project.
• The state flood plan includes 17 San Antonio regional projects, but the city’s top-ranked project, Concepcion Creek, is roughly $200 million alone and was not included in the current list.
• About $35 million was identified for sports and entertainment district infrastructure. Approximately $21 million is eligible for an assumed 80% TxDOT / 20% city split; the remaining $14 million covers Durango and Nueva Street projects. PFC eligibility was confirmed by staff, with financial capacity to be briefed on October 28.
• A stormwater fee increase was discussed: five annual increases would add about 84 cents per month to the average residential bill by the fifth year, reaching an average bill of roughly $4.94 today plus the increase. The average nonresidential impact was estimated at about $19 per month.
• Financial staff reported negative taxable assessed valuation growth of 2.7% in the current fiscal year. The $442 million bond was designed to avoid a debt-service tax rate increase if growth projections hold. A $750 million bond would require roughly a 1.5-cent debt-service tax rate increase over three years based on current projections; larger bonds would require more or longer increases. If growth falls short, even a $442 million bond could require an increase.

Council Feedback on the Bond Program

• Mayor Jones supported $442 million plus the $175 million stormwater fee, using PFC funds for qualifying sports district projects, prioritizing city-owned facilities that do not charge fees, and directing housing funds to households below 30% AMI. She said the city could revisit another bond in FY28 if conditions improve.
• Councilmember Mickey Rodriguez presented three scenarios and supported scenario A ($442 million) first, with $750 million as a compromise. He recommended four committees, district flexibility to shift allocations, and at least one drainage project in every district.
• Councilmember Viagran supported a $750 million to $1 billion bond, preferring $750 million, and criticized the $442 million proposal as the lowest since 2007 and as dividing the city. She supported community members on committees, facility replacements over renovations, and the 1.5% public art allocation.
• Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez supported scenario A and moving $100 million from parks/facilities to streets. She asked to round the combined package to $650 million by adding stormwater fee capacity to ensure Districts 2 and 6 receive drainage projects. She also asked for the nonresidential fee share and reported that without the fee increase, drainage bonding capacity would be about $9.8 million.
• Councilmember Castillo supported a $750 million bond with a larger housing component, housing commission recommendations, the stormwater advisory board for drainage, a merged parks/facilities committee, and failed-street option 1. She also proposed a council subcommittee and ordinance for tri-chair selection and sought funding for a diversion center in partnership with the county.
• Councilmember Galvan supported $442 million or $750 million, emphasized District 6 needs including French Creek drainage, older facilities, and streets, and supported a deep-affordability housing focus. He noted that major drainage projects like French Creek were omitted because of cost.
• Councilmember Corra initially supported $442 million and proposed $250 million for streets/sidewalks, $75 million for housing, and $75 million for parks/facilities, including $25 million for safe passageways. Later she proposed an alternative: eliminate the stormwater fee increase, set the total bond at $750 million, and split it as $275 million streets, $175 million drainage, $150 million housing, and $150 million parks/facilities. She stressed that all council members must support the final package.
• Councilmember Alderete Gabito supported $442 million and scenario A, opposed property tax increases, supported the stormwater fee increase, and called for using vacant properties for affordable housing.
• Councilwoman Spears supported $442 million, preferred moving the $50 million housing allocation into streets, parks, and facilities, and called public art a place to cut. She was unsure about the stormwater fee increase and supported the $35 million sports district infrastructure staying in the bond.
• Councilmember White supported scenario A except for moving the $50 million housing allocation into streets. He opposed tax increases, supported the tri-chair subcommittee, sidewalks to schools, leverage projects, and drainage projects in every district.
• Councilmember Munkia supported option B at $750 million and asked staff to present both option A and option B project lists so the council could compare trade-offs. He noted that deferred projects become more expensive over time.

Data Center UDC Amendments: Staff Options

• Development Services Director Amin Tomaz reported that the city received a council consideration request in October 2025, held four stakeholder meetings between May and September 2026, and held an August 25 special council session after a proposed building permit moratorium. Council declined the moratorium and asked for specific use authorization on every data center case.
• Option 1 would allow data centers by right in C3 commercial and industrial districts if they meet minimum requirements: a 500-foot separation, a Type D landscape buffer (minimum 25 feet), a 50-foot setback, and no location in the Edwards Recharge Zone. Data centers not meeting those requirements would require specific use authorization.
• Option 2 would allow data centers in the same zones only through a specific use authorization approved by city council on a case-by-case basis, with no data centers in the Edwards Recharge Zone.
• Mayor Jones introduced a hybrid Option 3 requiring an S Code designation and council action. It would add a 45-day pre-filing notice, a 1,000-foot separation, an explicit 63 dBA daytime noise limit with a -7 evening correction, Type D landscaping, replacement of twice the green space removed within city limits, air quality monitoring/reporting consistent with TCEQ, and a request for consent to public disclosure of energy and water usage. Legal staff noted that requiring green-space dedication for nonresidential use would be unusual and would need further review.
• Dr. Dyer presented survey findings: more than 1,100 responses across all 10 districts, more than 80% opposition to data centers, top concerns including water use, energy/power grid demands, and environmental impact, and about one-third of respondents categorically opposed. A handbook for elected officials is being drafted.

Council Feedback on Data Center Amendments

• Councilmember Galvan opposed Option 1 and supported Option 2 or Option 3. He said District 6 contains 19 of San Antonio’s roughly 28 data centers and that residents have lived with impacts for 15 years. He argued specific use authorization is necessary for public input and council accountability, citing the Vantage data center air permitting controversy.
• Mayor Jones supported Option 3 because it would require consistent information from applicants, public review, and council action while preserving economic and national security benefits.
• Councilmember Viagran supported Option 2 as a workable case-by-case framework, expressed concern about state preemption, and requested district-specific data and a handbook for elected officials.
• Councilmember McKee Rodriguez supported any option requiring final council approval, including Options 2 and 3.
• Councilmember Alderete Gabito leaned toward Option 1 for consistency, opposed a moratorium, and asked for a clearer definition of data centers based on size or megawatts so server rooms and accessory telecommunications equipment are not regulated.
• Councilwoman Spears favored the least restrictive approach, saying data centers are an economic opportunity and overregulation could push them to surrounding counties. She supported case-by-case negotiation.
• Councilmember White supported Option 1 with strong neighborhood safeguards and certainty for industry. He noted CPS Energy contributes about 14% of city general fund revenue and proposed narrowing the data center definition to exclude telecom central offices, cable head ends, and accessory server rooms, using language similar to Boston’s.
• Councilmember Castillo supported Option 2 or 3 because both require specific use authorization.
• Councilmember Munkia supported a position between Options 2 and 3 and called for more diverse stakeholder participation in future meetings.
• Councilmember Corra thanked Councilmember Galvan for leadership, said she wanted more education on the issue, and suggested a possible hybrid option: Option 1 for industrial districts and Option 2 for C3 districts.
• Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez supported Option 2, saying residents in District 8 raise data center concerns at every HOA meeting.
• Mayor Jones also asked staff to analyze whether data centers have affected property values in surrounding communities; staff agreed to look into it.

Key Outcomes and Next Steps

• Staff will prepare an October 29 bond update centered on the $442 million bond and stormwater fee approach, with an adjusted drainage list so every district has at least one project.
• Staff will follow up with council offices on bond committee structure and timeline before October 29.
• Staff will provide PFC capacity and sports district financing information on October 28.
• Tri-chair names are expected early next week. Some councilmembers requested a subcommittee or ordinance for council involvement in tri-chair selection; the mayor said she would announce the names and council could act on an ordinance.
• The data center UDC amendments will be presented to the Zoning Commission on October 20 and return to council on October 29. Staff will incorporate council feedback, including definitional changes and further review of Option 3.