Arlington approved changes to the controversial extension of the Dallas Cowboys’ lease of AT&T Stadium over concerns about how bond money will be used.
The council voted 7-2 to approve the changes, with Council members Nikkie Hunter, representing District 3, and Bowie Hogg, representing District 7, voting against. Hunter and Hogg voted against the original lease extension, as well.
The agreement, while approved by the council, has not been finalized. The city still needs to meet “all closing conditions” and get the Texas Attorney General’s Office to sign off on the deal, according to Tarrant County civil court documents.
A lawsuit filed in June hoped to see the agreement ruled illegal.
The city attorney’s office declined through a spokesperson a request for interview about the changes made and whether those changes are related to the lawsuit.
City Manager Trey Yelverton told the council that the changes came after consultation with bond attorneys and the Texas Attorney General’s Office. The amendments clarify what the city and Dallas Cowboys are agreeing to with the lease extension.
“Our dollars go to maintenance and operation dollars, and the team’s dollars go into improvements,” Yelverton told the city council ahead of the vote Tuesday. “Of course, all to keep our economic impact here for the next 30 years, with an extra 15 years on the transaction so that we can not only lower the tax burden but also create impactful benefits for the community in the future.”
Nobody signed up to address the council during the public hearing ahead of the vote.
The city announced in August 2025 it was paying off the original loan it took out for the stadium’s construction a decade early.
But special taxes to fund the stadium, approved by 55% of voters more than 20 years ago, are still in effect.
That’s one reason it raised concerns from Arlington residents when the city approved the football team’s lease extension in April.
The city approved the use of $273 million of those previously authorized venue taxes to reimburse the Cowboys for improvements to AT&T Stadium. Just ahead of the city’s elections for mayor and several council members, it became a talking point for Mayor Jim Ross’ opponent, Steve Cavender.
He and swaths of Arlington residents took to social media to decry the decision as a move that bypassed voters.
“I hear you with your concerns. There’s nothing more I agree with that this is something that the voters need to have a say in this,” Ross said at the time. “I’m just confident that they’ve already had that say.”
Council members Nikkie Hunter and Bowie Hogg voted against the extension.
Ross and council members Mauricio Galante, Raul Gonzalez, Andrew Piel, Rebecca Boxall, Long Pham and Barbara Odom-Wesley voted in favor. Piel and Odom-Wesley left the council after the May elections because they reached their term limits while Boxall was unseated by Brittney Garcia-Dumas.
But some voters disagreed with Ross’ assessment.
A lawsuit filed against the city claims the deal isn’t aligned with the tax items previously approved for the stadium’s construction and sought an injunction to block reimbursement and a subsequent ruling that the deal isn’t legal.
It was filed by Warren V. Norred, an Arlington-based attorney who opposed previous votes on the stadium, on behalf of Voters’ Voice of Arlington.
The unincorporated non-profit Voters’ Voice of Arlington was created ahead of the filing. The suit names Ross and City Manager Trey Yelverton as defendants.
Ross, Yelverton and the city responded to the lawsuit with a motion to dismiss, claiming the suit had no footing because the issue is not “ripe.”
That means the city argues the suit has been filed too early and thus the issues brought to the court fall outside its jurisdiction. The deal, while approved by council, has not been finalized. That would require “all closing conditions” to be met and for the Texas Attorney General to approve the deal, according to the city’s response filed in court.
The suit is not mentioned in the city’s staff report detailing the changes; it notes the amendment “clarifies the use of the City’s contribution, specifying that the City’s contribution is for the actual costs to maintain, operate, and manage the Stadium. The Cowboys remain obligated to fund and complete the improvements specified in the Master Agreement by 2043.”
The deal approved by council in April would see the Cowboys’ lease of the city-owned stadium extended to 2055, with a commitment from the city to reimburse up to $273 million in improvements to the stadium.
That money comes from a mix of sales and other taxes created by the city and approved by voters in 2004, the same taxes voters reapproved in 2016 for the construction of Globe Life Field.
“The voters have already been heard on it, and they overwhelmingly said, ‘Sell the bonds and pay this thing back by 2048,’ ” Ross said ahead of the April vote.
While the city says those taxes are approved until that time and can be used for specific ongoing expenses, the suit alleges the city needs to have another vote because the final payment on the original bond ended Arlington’s obligation to pay for maintenance and improvement under the master agreement.
The suit argues that the money from those taxes should be returned to voters by placing them into the maintenance and operating budget of the city.
The city says it has the right under state law to use the special venue taxes for maintenance and operating costs even after the bond has been paid off, creating “additional capacity to allow the contribution into the Stadium M&O account.”
Court records show the city’s attempt to have the case dismissed in the response filed with the court was unsuccessful and 141st District Court Judge John Chupp has scheduled the first day of a non-jury trial for May 31, 2027.
Got a tip? Email James Hartley at jhartley@kera.org. You can follow James on X @ByJamesHartley.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
Copyright 2026 KERA News