Arlington Approves Stadium Lease Amendment Amid Legal Fight |
Council clarifies venue tax reimbursement as a stadium financing lawsuit heads toward trial |
Arlington's City Council voted 7-2 Tuesday to approve amendments to the city's lease extension agreement with the Dallas Cowboys at AT&T Stadium. Nikkie Hunter and Bowie Hogg cast the two no votes, the same pair who opposed the original lease extension in April.
The changes narrow what city dollars can pay for, limiting Arlington's contribution to the actual costs of maintaining, operating, and managing the stadium. The Cowboys remain responsible for funding and completing the broader slate of improvements outlined in the original agreement by 2043. City Manager Trey Yelverton told council members the split was intentional: "Our dollars go to maintenance and operation... the team's dollars go into improvements," following weeks of consultation with bond attorneys and the Texas Attorney General's office.
The underlying deal, approved in April, stretches the Cowboys' lease at the stadium from 2040 to 2055 and commits up to $273 million in venue-tax-funded reimbursement for stadium upgrades. Arlington voters approved special venue taxes more than two decades ago to help build the nearby baseball stadium, and renewed them in 2016; those taxes remain authorized through 2048. The city paid off the original football stadium's construction loan in August 2025, a decade ahead of schedule. |
 Illustrative image, not Arlington's council chamber. Photo by Héctor Berganza on Pexels |
The lease extension has not gone unchallenged. A lawsuit Voters' Voice of Arlington filed in June names Mayor Jim Ross and Yelverton personally, arguing residents deserved a direct vote on a deal of this size. A district court judge recently declined to dismiss the case and set a non-jury trial for May 31, 2027. City attorneys have declined to say whether this week's amendments were crafted with that pending litigation in mind.
The deal still requires the city to satisfy a list of closing conditions and win sign-off from the Texas Attorney General's office before it becomes final. Ross has defended the broader arrangement by pointing to voters' 2004 approval of the taxes behind the stadium. For now, the amended terms move forward alongside the broader 2055 lease, with final approval still pending state sign-off and the legal question of whether voters should have had the final say unlikely to be settled before next football season. |
18 Comments
Join the conversation
Hunter and Hogg voted no again, and I'd like to hear more about why. Seven votes in favor doesn't settle every concern for me.
rick_76Agreed. I'd like to hear which parts of the revised deal they still object to.
That’s a fair question. Hunter and Hogg also opposed the April agreement, but this report doesn’t establish their reasons for voting no on the amendments.
Does anyone know what happens after the venue taxes expire in 2048? The lease runs another seven years past that.
The venue taxes are authorized through 2048, while the lease runs through 2055. The article doesn’t establish what, if any, funding arrangements would apply after the taxes expire.
Lena MartinezI had the same question. The city should explain how stadium costs are covered from 2048 to 2055.
I remember when paying off the stadium loan seemed so far away. Getting it done early was great, but 2055 is a long commitment.
Paying off the construction loan in August 2025, 10 years early, was a milestone. You’re right that extending the lease to 2055 is a separate, long-term commitment.
Tom B.Paying the loan off early was a relief. I still wonder what the city could be responsible for over the next 29 years.
Good to see the Cowboys are still responsible for the improvements through 2043. Hope the city holds them to that deadline.
The amendments leave the Cowboys responsible for funding and completing the improvements in the original agreement by 2043. We’ll keep an eye on that deadline.
Keisha R.I hope they give regular progress reports. 2043 sounds far off, but those projects can take years.
Up to $273 million is a lot of venue tax money. A clearer split helps, but I'd like regular updates on the spending.
Dave ThompsonQuarterly spending reports would help. That is too much money to leave residents guessing about.
That’s a reasonable request for a commitment of up to $273 million. The new language narrows what city dollars can reimburse, and regular spending details would help readers see how it works in practice.
Glad they clarified that city money is for maintenance and operations. I still want to see exactly what gets reimbursed.
We agree that the details matter. The amendments limit city reimbursement to actual stadium maintenance, operating and management costs. Which expenses are submitted will be worth watching.
Maria G.Same here. A public list of reimbursed expenses would make that distinction easier to trust.