Council Members Can Oppose Another Election, but the 2025 Ballot Did Not Authorize San Antonio’s $489 Million Arena Contribution
“Toxic.” A “lie.” “Misrepresenting the facts.” And, from Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones asking critics herself, “Why would some be so scared?” The proposed second Project Marvel vote has quickly become another contentious City Council debate, drawing pushback from council members Misty Spears and Phyllis Viagran, as well as former Bexar County Commissioner and current Centro CEO Trish DeBerry.
For all the controversy, the central question is simple: Jones is not asking voters to repeat the 2025 county election. She is asking for a citywide vote on funding that was never placed before city voters.
San Antonio voters are being told they already voted on the City of San Antonio’s $489 million contribution toward a new downtown Spurs arena. They did not.
Bexar County voters went to the polls Nov. 4, 2025, and approved two county propositions connected to the larger Sports and Entertainment District formerly known as Project Marvel. Neither proposition asked voters whether the City of San Antonio should issue bonds for its own contribution toward the arena.
That distinction is not an opinion or an attempt to overturn an election. It is established by the ballot language, the City’s term sheet with the Spurs and the separate funding responsibilities assigned to the city and county.
Jones is not asking voters to vote again on the county’s money. She wants San Antonio voters to decide whether the city should issue up to $489 million in bonds for its portion of the approximately $1.3 billion arena—a question that has never appeared on a city ballot.
What Voters Actually Approved in 2025
Bexar County’s November 2025 election included Propositions A and B. Proposition A authorized county hotel and rental-car tax revenue for approximately $191.8 million in improvements to the Frost Bank Center, Freeman Coliseum and other San Antonio Stock Show & Rodeo facilities.
Proposition B authorized Bexar County to use county hotel and rental-car tax revenue to contribute up to $311 million toward the proposed downtown Spurs arena. The official language repeatedly identified Bexar County, the county venue project and county hotel and rental-car taxes.
Also Read: When Public Money Serves Private Power: What the Spurs Vote Says About Us
It did not ask voters to approve City of San Antonio bonds or authorize the City’s $489 million contribution. It did not place the City Council’s financing decision before city voters.
Because the City’s term sheet made county voter approval a condition of moving forward, the county vote affected the entire project. That does not transform it into a vote on every participant’s separate financial contribution.
Who Voted Is Not the Same as What They Voted On
District 9 Councilwoman Misty Spears argues that San Antonio residents already decided the matter because 178,176 of the 248,658 ballots cast on Proposition B came from registered City of San Antonio voters. According to Spears’ analysis, city residents represented 72% of the electorate, and 51.72% of those city voters supported the measure.
Those numbers may accurately identify where the voters lived, but they do not change what Proposition B legally authorized. San Antonio residents were voting as Bexar County voters on a county proposition concerning a county venue project and county taxes.
They were never presented with another question asking whether the City should issue bonds for its arena contribution. Saying most ballots came from city residents answers “Who voted?” but not “What did they vote to authorize?”
Spears has also argued that the projected $158 million two-year budget shortfall and the Sports and Entertainment District involve separate funding sources. That is true, and the $489 million could not simply be redirected to erase the General Fund shortfall.
But the arena would still involve City-issued debt, City-controlled revenue and long-term financial obligations. The issues are not the same account, but they remain responsibilities of the same city government.
The City Council, Not City Voters, Approved the Term Sheet
On Aug. 21, 2025, council voted 7-4 to approve a nonbinding term sheet between the city and Spurs Sports & Entertainment. Mayor Jones opposed the agreement.
Under the term sheet, Spurs Sports & Entertainment would contribute at least $500 million, plus construction cost overruns; Bexar County would contribute up to $311 million, subject to county voter approval; and the City would contribute up to $489 million through one or more bond issuances. The document does not establish a similar voter-approval condition for the City’s contribution.
That difference partly reflects how the governments plan to finance their shares. Bexar County sought voter approval to use venue taxes under state law, while the city’s financing relies on different revenue sources and did not require an election before council could proceed.
A council vote may be legally sufficient, but it is not a vote of the people. Jones argues that a commitment this large should receive direct voter approval, and City Attorney Andy Segovia previously confirmed that council can legally place the bond question before voters.
On this specific point, Jones is factually correct. San Antonio voters have never been asked to approve the City’s separate contribution of up to $489 million.
The County and City Contributions Are Separate
The county’s contribution is tied to county hotel occupancy and short-term motor vehicle rental taxes. The city plans to issue bonds supported by operating rent paid by the Spurs, ground rent from private development on city-owned property, revenue from the Hemisfair Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone and revenue from the city’s Project Finance Zone.
The term sheet contemplates issuing the bonds in 2028, subject to final agreements, Spurs and county funding and other financial conditions. The financing also relies partly on future Hemisfair development, including approximately $1.4 billion in projected taxable development over 12 years.
The City says its contribution would not come from existing General Fund dollars and would rely largely on tourism revenue, development and lease payments. Those restricted revenues cannot simply be redirected to police, streets or libraries, but the City would still issue the bonds and commit City-controlled revenue to repay them.
A City Vote Would Not Reverse the County Vote
A citywide election would not invalidate Proposition B, cancel the county’s approved venue taxes or ask voters to reconsider the $311 million county financing plan. The county vote would remain the county vote.
The city election would answer a separate question–Should San Antonio authorize the city to issue bonds for up to $489 million toward the arena?
Calling it a “re-vote” is misleading because voters cannot repeat a vote they were never given.
Council members may oppose an election or believe the 2025 vote demonstrated sufficient support for the overall project. They may call another election unnecessary, disruptive or harmful to negotiations, but those are political positions from both sides of the aisle.
Council Faces an Aug. 17 Deadline
Jones is holding a public listening session from 7 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 12, at Blanco BBQ, 13259 Blanco Road. The session will allow residents to discuss a potential city vote.
Jones has requested a special City Council meeting for Aug. 13 to consider placing the $489 million contribution on the Nov. 3 ballot, along with a separate Ready to Work proposal. Council must act by Aug. 17, but most members currently oppose doing so.
The issue is not whether Bexar County voters approved Proposition B—they did. The issue is whether San Antonio voters should make a separate decision about the City’s $489 million contribution, and until that question appears on a city ballot, no one can truthfully say city voters approved it.
