Hot Topic regarding San Antonio/Austin owned Utilities vs Investor-owned Utilities. Please stop believing in the noise that Investor-Owned Utilities is working for or benefiting the people of this Metro City or Austin.

Nearly two weeks before today’s vote, enough San Antonio City Council members had already publicly opposed Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones’ attempt to put the City’s proposed contribution toward a new Spurs arena on the November ballot. Today, that opposition held, leaving Jones unable to secure a majority for a separate citywide vote.

But the result may be less interesting than what the fight revealed about how San Antonio is governed. Jones’ argument has remained fairly consistent: Bexar County voters approved the County’s separate arena funding in 2025, but San Antonio voters never directly approved the City’s proposed contribution of up to $489 million. The opposing Council members argue that another election is not legally required, that elected council members are responsible for making major municipal financing decisions, and that reopening the issue could create additional uncertainty around the project.

That creates an unusual political divide. San Antonians elected Jones citywide, but they also elected 10 individual district representatives, and the mayor still has only one vote on an 11-member Council. Today demonstrated what happens when those mandates collide. It also did not constitute final approval of the City’s $489 million contribution. The existing arena term sheet is nonbinding, and final project agreements and financing decisions still have to return to Council.

So if the votes against another election were already there, what do you think Jones accomplished by forcing the vote anyway? And on a commitment this large, should the citywide mayor’s mandate carry additional weight, should the Council majority make the decision it was elected to make, or should San Antonio voters have received the final say?

Texas Public Radio | By Andrea Drusch | San Antonio Report

This story has been updated.

San Antonio City Council rejected calls to hold a public vote on its $489 million Spurs arena contribution on Monday, voting down a proposal to put it on the Nov. 3 midterm ballot.

The move means that last November’s election approving $311 million in Bexar County venue tax dollars for the arena, known as Proposition B, could be both the first and only time voters are asked about a public investment that totals more than $800 million.

Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones called Monday’s meeting knowing she likely lacked the support from colleagues to get a city vote on the ballot.

Now that the council is facing a ballooning budget deficit, Jones said that investment of this scale deserved its own public hearing.

The majority of her colleagues disagreed, saying it was bad for business to invite the public to weigh in on major spending decisions that don’t legally require it.

“We should be very careful about establishing a precedent that every significant revenue bond decision requires another election simply because the dollar amount is large,” said Councilwoman Misty Spears (D9), one of the nonpartisan panel’s two most conservative members.

During public comment, the packed chamber was split between those who said voters are being shut out of the process and those who believe a county vote last year should suffice.

The 5-6 vote marked a slight decline in support since the council approved its tentative agreement with the team last year.

At that point, Jones wanted to pause negotiations so that the city could get an independent economic analysis on the sports and entertainment district. Five council members who supported the deal went around the mayor to put it on the agenda anyway, moving the project forward with a 7-4 vote.

On Monday, Councilman Edward Mungia (D4) was the only member to change sides, aligning with Jones’ call for a November election.

Mungia and the council’s progressives, Jones, Jalen McKee-Rodriguez (D2), Teri Castillo (D5) and Ric Galvan (D6), accounted for the five “yea” votes.

The six “nays” included the more business-centric members: Spears, Sukh Kaur (D1), Phyllis Viagran (D3), Marina Alderete Gavito (D7), Ivalis Meza Gonzalez (D8) and Marc Whyte (D10).

City vs. county funds

The concept of a new arena originated with city leaders, who spent years quietly exploring the possibility of how it could anchor a major downtown redevelopment effort known as Project Marvel.

But the $1.3 billion arena’s biggest political hurdle was securing money from Bexar County, which owns the team’s existing Eastside home, and was expected to put up $311 million of the $800 million in public funding.

County leaders came on board with the idea after negotiating an agreement to renovate the team’s existing home at Frost Bank Center, and helped secure support for both proposals on the November 2025 ballot, known as Propositions A and B.

Now nearly nine months later, the city is the one rallying support for its own deal, while the county’s East Side plans also seem to face some headwinds.

The San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo — expected to lead the redevelopment of the Spurs’ East Side home — has cast doubt on whether the vision voters embraced will ever come to fruition because private developers were promised some of the rodeo’s parking lots and barns.

Many changes have also been made to the City of San Antonio’s development vision surrounding the new arena site, including canceling plans for a new convention center hotel and scrapping a land bridge that lacks the originally expected federal funding.

This week City Manager Erik Walsh sought to tamp down on those concerns with a letter slamming “misinformation” circulating in the media, and insisting that the overall vision remains similar to when it was first proposed.

“As with any major project as complex and multifaceted as the sports and entertainment district, the initial plan is preliminary and has been, and will continue to be, subject to further evaluation, refinement, and potential modification as feasibility is assessed and additional information becomes available,” Walsh wrote.

Meanwhile, Bexar County Judge Peter Sakai said the county hasn’t started collecting the venue taxes expected to fund its portion of the arena funding because its still determining whether it’s “protecting the public’s interest.”

Sakai also told KSAT this week that the county could face litigation if the city doesn’t produce its portion of the arena funding.

On Monday, San Antonio Spurs Sports & Entertainment CEO RC (RC or R.C.) Buford said the council vote was a reaffirmation of support to a project years in the works.

“We can now turn our full attention to delivering on that shared vision and the transformational opportunity ahead for our city,” Buford said.

A ‘do-over’ vote or ‘voter suppression’?

Unlike the county’s venue tax, San Antonio’s arena contribution comes from sources that don’t require the city to hold an election.

In a nod to the high emotions surrounding the project, however, about half of the packed council chamber on Monday believed that not holding one amounts to “voter suppression.”

The other half said that a city election would be anti-democratic, aimed at repeating last November’s Prop B vote in hopes of achieving a different result.

As the deal was presented to council last year, the city’s $489 million is set to come from a combination of state business taxes captured in a Project Finance Zone, property taxes captured in a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone and ground leases on city-owned property in the sports and entertainment district.

Since those sources don’t need voter approval, the council made its term sheet with the Spurs dependent on the results of the county election, in which about 51.7% of San Antonio voters approved of Prop B.

“The voters have spoken,” said Martin Gutierrez, director of governmental affairs for the San Antonio Board of Realtors, who signed up to speak at Monday’s meeting. “More than 178,000 registered city of San Antonio voters voted for Prop B in 2025, therefore we do not believe another election is necessary.”

Leading up to that vote, however, critics point out that a PAC aligned with the Spurs spent $9.2 million on a campaign that only described the county’s portion of the money — giving voters a warped perception.

Monica Cruz, who signed up to speak in favor of a city vote, said the Spurs’ campaign specifically told voters that the money wouldn’t come from property taxes, only taxes on tourists.

“In the 10 community conversation meetings that the Spurs had across the city … all of those slides said that it was only paid for by visitor hotel occupancy taxes, which is a half-truth,” Cruz said. “I think that’s important to know.”

Mary Cabral, a retired high school teacher, said that voters were hit with a “massive propaganda” campaign on the part of the Spurs, and that if the deal is truly as good as it sounds, it shouldn’t have a problem passing again this November.

“Why are you afraid to let us vote?” Cabral asked the council on Monday. “Do you know that that is called voter suppression?”

Supporters of the arena deal said they also felt the other side was cheating by using the second vote to go back on a deal they never liked in the first place.

“The mayor wishes that this project would just go away, that something would kill it — an election, an economic study — so she wouldn’t have to manage it,” said Aram Meraz, whose LinkedIn says he’s a management analyst at City of San Antonio. “… I speak for a lot of San Antonians when I say that there is an election that we would like to get a do-over on, and it’s the election of the mayor.”

Politics aside, many business interests in the chamber stressed that the unusual nature of this arena deal wasn’t great for a city trying to attract investment.

Bartlett Cocke General Contractors, for example, brought a group of nearly 50 people to speak as a group on behalf of the construction industry, which the company’s Chairman and CEO James Anderson said can’t execute big projects when the funding and political will is up in the air.

“Those of us in construction understand something very practical about projects of this scale: Uncertainty has cost. Companies plan for years in advance. … People are hired and trained. Design teams are at work. Material and equipment decisions are made,” Anderson said.

“When the path moving forward changes, schedules and costs change along with it, and businesses become cautious about bringing on people and resources, and will begin to look for other opportunities to pursue.”

Another vote to come?

Despite Monday’s vote, residents in the city of San Antonio could still see another sports and entertainment district-related measure on their ballots in 2027.

The city projected last year that the arena would require between $220 million and $250 million in surrounding infrastructure, expected to come from the city’s bond program.

Some council members want those projects to appear in a single line item that voters can approve or reject, while city staff is proposing spreading them across bond proposals with other city projects.

Bond programs require voters’ approval, and they typically involve careful project selection and expensive political campaigns aimed at bringing enough of them on board.

Jones has been warning that Project Marvel could consume as much as half of the bond capacity, leaving little budget for parks, libraries, drainage and other projects residents want.

Last week Walsh said in a budget briefing that Project Marvel’s infrastructure requirements would come in lower than the initial estimate, but the city’s bond capacity has also been shrinking with slowed economic growth.

He’s counting on the council approving an increase to the debt service portion of residents’ tax bill to allow enough money for projects outside of downtown — in addition to a tax increase staff is already proposing to cover day-to-day operations.

This story first appeared in the San Antonio Report.

Madalyn Mendoza, Josephine Walker

Texas could pay an estimated $23 billion toward President Trump's mass deportation push — about $2,500 per taxpayer — according to a calculator from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

Why it matters: The estimate fuels debate over whether billions of federal dollars devoted to deportations should instead fund other public priorities, such as health care or housing.

How it works: EPI estimated each area's share of federal income taxes to calculate how much taxpayers in each state, county and city would contribute to deportation spending.

Context: The $269 billion the administration is slated to spend on deportations over the course of Trump's second term comes from a combination of money from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, regular appropriations and other repurposed funds.

• The Department of Homeland Security told Axios in July that the government spends roughly $18,000 per non-voluntary deportation.

Zoom in: Bexar County taxpayers would contribute $1.13 billion, or about $1,786 per taxpayer, according to the calculator.

• That amount could instead fund about 4,615 teachers or 4,653 firefighters locally, the calculator shows.

Zoom out: American taxpayers would broadly pay about $2,358 each for Trump's mass deportation push, per EPI's tool.

The other side: A DHS spokesperson told Axios that the Biden administration ignored the costs of illegal immigration and said the department's self-deportation program saves taxpayers roughly $13,000 per removal compared with traditional deportation.

by Michael Karlis

Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa is accusing Republican Gov. Greg Abbott trying to retaliate against San Antonio and its city-owned electrical utility, CPS Energy.

During her campaign’s Latinas for Gina launch party Thursday at San Antonio’s Woodlawn Theatre, Hinojosa — an Austin state rep — said her rival’s pledge to break CPS Energy’s regulated-monopoly status is less about saving Texans money than it is about enriching his wealthy donors.

Abbott’s comments about his desire to “end the monopoly control that cities like Austin and San Antonio have over electricity services” came about a month after a state district judge ruled against CPS Energy in a lawsuit filed against two gas companies that CPS Energy accused of charging it exorbitant prices during 2021’s Winter Storm Uri.

“Your electric company, CPS Energy, took that gas company to court to defend you, so that your prices wouldn’t go up because of what they did to us,” Hinojosa said. “CPS Energy did that to defend you. They didn’t win in court. And now Greg Abbott has come back — as payback, as retribution — to try to take away your energy company and jack up profits, guaranteeing that you will pay even more for your electricity bill. That is an example of the Greg Abbott corruption tax.”

In July, State District Judge Laura Salinas ordered CPS Energy to pay nearly $400 million to two Energy Transfer subsidiaries.

During Uri, which left millions without power, CPS Energy spent some $850 million on fuel. Nearly half of that went to the Houston Pipeline Company and Oasis Pipeline for natural gas delivered during the storm’s price surges.

CPS Energy paid about $52 million to the two companies, but ended up disputing the charges and refusing to pay the remaining $264 million.

In the end, Judge Salinas ruled against CPS Energy.

A month after that ruling, Abbott announced he’s calling on the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature to break up CPS Energy during its 2027 session.

If lawmakers follow through, many worry the breakup would worsen the Alamo City’s already precarious financial situation. San Antonio faces a $158 million budget deficit, and roughly 30% of the city’s $1.7 billion general fund budget is made up of CPS Energy revenue.

In a statement to the Express-News, CPS Energy said “any threat to the not-for-profit municipal model is a threat to all customers.”

During a town hall last week, San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jonessaid Abbott’s comments about breaking up CPS Energy are concerning.

“The fact that we own [CPS Energy] means we pay the lowest in electricity and gas rates in Texas,” Jones said. “You tell me the last time was something fully privatized and passed on those savings to you.”

A cat my wife rescued had kittens and we really need homes for them. I know shelters are full and we've asked everyone we know if they'd like a sweet little cat with no luck!

Bored in San Antonio what’s goin on??

By Andrea Drusch | San Antonio Report, Joey Palacios

San Antonio City Council is headed for another heated debate over its plans for a new downtown Spurs arena.

On Monday, just hours before the state’s deadline to add measures to the Nov. 3 ballot, the council will hold a special meeting to decide whether to seek voters’ support for a $489 million contribution to the overall $1.3 billion basketball arena.

The move isn’t legally required, and most council members considered the spending a done deal after voters approved Bexar County’s portion of the funding in Props A and B last November.

The Spurs' owners spent more than $9 million campaigning for that election, and the arena funding reached just under 52% support among voters who live within city limits.

But Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones says the county vote was taken before taxpayers had a clear picture of the city’s tough financial straits and put her call for a separate city vote on Monday’s agenda.

A draft of the potential ballot language was posted online Tuesday evening.

“Last November was the county’s vote on the county’s $311 million [arena contribution], but the city’s separate contribution, I think, is also deserving of a vote by city voters,” Jones said on TPR’s The Source this week.

“… Last November we were not talking about raising property taxes, and now we are, with $158 million dollar [budget] deficit,” Jones said. “We are looking at raising property taxes not just once, but potentially twice if we also want to raise the bond capacity, and that is top of mind for folks.”

In order to put the idea before voters, Jones would need six votes from the council. At least six of 10 members have already expressed opposition so far.

Previously Jones had requested another ballot initiative for the meeting, one that would shift funds from Ready to Work, the city’s voter approved job training program, to other portions of the city budget, which is in a deficit.

But this week a letter from city staff indicated that only about $4.5 million of the program’s $120 million could be reallocated to the city budget, and Jones said the council should consider reimagining the program instead.

That issue is not on the agenda for Monday’s special meeting.

Jones’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday evening.

A third potential city ballot item for the November ballot, extending the funding for Pre-K 4 SA, will be voted on at the council’s regular meeting on Thursday.

by Michael Karlis

Three San Antonio City Council members issued a memo this week calling for a temporary halt on new data center construction within city limits.

The document signed by District 5 Councilwoman Teri Castillo, District 6 Councilman Ric Galvan and District 8 Councilwoman Ivalis Meza Gonzalez requests a special meeting on the issue no later than Aug. 31.

Specifically, the memo calls for council to discuss a moratorium on all applications for concept plans, site development plans and permits for data center construction, in addition to a pause on the issuance of any site permits for the massive computing facilities or projects classified as “office data processing and management.”

The three-signature request comes as both Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and his Democratic challenger, state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, have publicly raised concerns about rampant development of data centers.

Abbott on Monday froze new data center approvals and ordered the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to audit all centers waiting to connect to the state’s power grid.

Weeks before the governor’s announcement, Hinojosa called for a statewide pause on new data center construction until a special session of the Texas Legislature can be convened to address the matter.

“What is happening with data centers is an example of the fight of our time, and it is the fight to decide: Is this going to be a Texas that is by and for the people, or is this the billionaires’ world, and we just live here,” Hinojosa said.

Developers and tech-industry officials maintain the facilities create good-paying jobs while supporting services essential to the modern economy. The facilities are used to process and store information used in artificial intelligence, web browsing, streaming, digital banking and more.

However, data center opponents argue the massive computing facilities’ large-scale consumption of power and water strains finite resources and endangers the state’s stand-alone power grid. Residents have also complained about the noise, light and air pollution the sites emit.

During a press conference last month aimed at raising awareness of the growing pushback against data centers, Granbury resident Tom Weeks told reporters he’s concerned that Bitcoin mining in his North Texas community is causing health issues ranging from high blood pressure to seizures. However, he said local and state lawmakers have blown off constituents’ concerns.

“We’re getting the middle finger, and I’m ready to snap it off,” Weeks said.

The three San Antonio council members who signed the memo plan to hold a press conference this Friday.

Texas Public Radio | By Joey Palacios

The San Antonio City Council approved the creation of a 33-member community advisory committee to offer suggestions on how to use $75 million the San Antonio Spurs are committing to the downtown sports and entertainment district.

The committee's creation was proposed by council members Sukh Kaur of District 1, Teri Castillo of District 5, and Marina Alderete Gavito of District 7 using a “three-signature memo.” It’s a process available to council members who want to bring an issue to the floor for discussion.

But that approval didn’t come without another public disagreement among council members, similar to those that have come up during multiple discussions and votes over the proposed Spurs arena and surrounding district known as “Project Marvel.”

Thursday’s disagreement was between San Antonio Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones and District 3 Councilwoman Phyllis Viagran, with Viagran saying statements made by Jones were misrepresentations or lies.

Thursday’s argument

Early in the discussion, Jones said a presentation by city staff on the committee’s creation appeared to be outdated.

“It sounds like we may have had an older version that was presented as the term sheet is not executed,” Jones said.

The mayor was referring to a term sheet between the City of San Antonio and Spurs Sports & Entertainment that was considered by council in August 2025. At the time, Jones had pushed to delay the term sheet multiple times before it was approved by council.

Councilwoman Viagran called for a point of order shortly after Jones made the claim.

“The term sheet was executed. It was voted on by the council. The contract has not been decided upon,” Viagran said, triggering an argument between the two.

Jones said it was not finalized. Viagran said Jones’ statements were misrepresentations.

Jones then turned to City Attorney Andy Segovia.

“Andy, please correct the councilwoman,” Jones said.

“Mayor, this is an argument, semantics, only a law school student would appreciate. The term sheet was approved by the city council,” Segovia said. “We can use executed, approved, we can use whatever term we want to use. It was approved by city council.”

Jones thanked Segovia for his answer while adding, “we will vote on the final version.”

Viagran challenged Jones again.

“We will vote on a contract. We will not vote on a term sheet,” Viagran said. “Could we please not lie?”

Jones then repeated “no one’s lying” several times.

District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez attempted to stop the argument.

“Let’s move on, let’s move on,” he said.

“You’re being more than inaccurate,” Viagran said.

“No ma’am,” Jones replied.

“Yes, you are,” Viagran said.

The disagreement ended after Jones said, “it’s a non-binding term sheet.”

The committee

The $75 million from the Spurs as part of a Community Benefits Agreement is spread out over 30 years. The three-signature memo calls for creating a Community Advisory Committee made up of council appointees with expertise in artistry, labor organizations, small businesses and neighborhood groups.

The committee’s makeup of 33 people would allow each council member to appoint three members.

“The benefit of being able to do 33 members is you get a really wide opportunity to do a wide variety of voices,” District 1 Councilwoman Sukh Kaur said. “Sometimes for some of our committees, if we only have one representative each, we may not be able to truly hear from a general representation of the population.”

District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez said he was not likely to vote for the committee, but his mind could be changed. He offered two amendments to the ordinance. The first was a requirement for members to sign the city’s ethics code, which passed.

The second would require the three chairs to include members from specific council districts.

“What matters to me is that the districts who are most impacted, which will be districts one, two, and five, have an elevated voice in this discussion,” he said.

The amendment didn’t pass. It failed on a 5-6 vote.

Kaur was one of the no votes along with Viagran, Marc Whyte, Teri Castillo, Alderete Gavito, and Misty Spears.

“I selfishly want to say yes to this because it means that a District One individual gets to be a chair of this,” Kaur said. “But I am also conflicted because I do understand that there might be someone from a different district, District Six or District Four, that wants to be able to step up and be chair and is qualified to do so.”

The council approved the committee in a 10-1 vote. District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez was the lone dissenter. After the vote, he said he believed engagement like this should have come earlier in the sports and entertainment district discussions.

“In this instance, I feel like the creation of this committee is performative. I don't think it meets the true intent of what the community is asking for, and it doesn't take into account all of the impacts that those who live in and around the district will face,” he said.

Selection for the committee is expected to begin in the coming weeks, with the goal of having it filled by the end of September, Kaur said.

Viagran is scheduled to hold a press conference Friday morning on the steps of City Hall with several council members, business groups and community organizations to discuss the city’s economic development investments, annual operating budget and long-term financial health.