San Antonio leaders picked the three public faces to help promote the city’s next bond program Thursday, but not unanimously, as the mayor and council engaged in another minor power struggle.
Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones was on the losing side of a 9-1 vote Thursday to name Anita Fernández, Kevin Dinnin, and Sandi Wolff as the tri-chairs of the city’s 2027 bond and storm water program. Ivalis Meza Gonzalez (D8) was not present for the meeting.
And while the mayor painted her questions about the appointees’ connections to possible bond project beneficiaries as being in the interest of transparency, another councilwoman believes it was based in an opposition to anything Spurs-related.
San Antonio typically puts a bond program in front of voters with large, expensive infrastructure projects — and more recently, affordable housing — every five years.
The tri-chair positions provide some oversight over the community input committee process of refining the recommended list of bond projects. However, their bigger role is promoting the program and helping sell it to voters after council adopts a final project list.
Though the mayor has typically appointed the tri-chairs in the past, a majority of the council members wanted to have a say this time around. They voted 7-3 on Oct. 21 to ask Sukh Kaur (D1) and Phyllis Viagran (D3) to recommend finalists for the full council to approve instead.
The trio who pushed the idea — Teri Castillo (D5), Marina Alderete Gavito (D7), and Marc Whyte (D10) — have repeatedly butted heads with the mayor. However, they said it was about good governance.
“With the limited bond capacity, it’s never been more important to have a strong representation at the table, and getting there is a collaborative effort,” Castillo said ahead of an Oct. 21 vote to require the full council approval. “Bringing the tri-chair appointments before the full council makes sure every district has a voice in how these decisions are made.”
Jalen McKee-Rodriguez (D2), who voted against the change in process, said he had “a hard time seeing what else this was about” when KSAT asked him afterward if the change had been about sticking it to the mayor.
The Oct. 21 vote to change the process came two days after the mayor announced her picks for the job: Port San Antonio CEO Jim Perschbach, SAWS Board Chairwoman and Center for Health Care Services President and CEO Jelynne LeBlanc Jamison, and San Antonio Food Bank Chief of Government & Public Affairs Mario Obledo Jr.
None of them made the cut for Kaur and Viagran’s recommendations, though, whom council approved Thursday.
Fernandez is a co-founder and partner in the OCI Group, a social purpose consulting firm, and OCI Development, a real estate development firm. Dinnin is the president and CEO of FirstDay Foundation and the board chairman of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce. Wolff is a vice president of community engagement and advancement at Hallmark University.
“Those selected demonstrate sound judgment, strategic vision, community awareness with genuine commitment to represent the interests of our entire diverse community,” Viagran said.
Asked afterward about the decision not to use the mayor’s choices, Viagran pointed to SAWS’ recent appearance at council for a rate increase, Port San Antonio’s request for bond money, and how stretched she says the Food Bank leadership is.
As council members discussed the tri-chair’s appointment Thursday, Jones pushed for the appointees to state whether they had any clients on the list of proposed bond projects, saying she believed the Spurs owners were an OCI client.
The consulting group had helped facilitate the Spurs’ community conversations earlier this year, but a Spurs spokeswoman said they aren’t currently working with the firm.
“What we want to avoid, for example, is a circumstance where an entity in the community says, ‘Well, my project may not have been selected or is not going to be selected because I’m not a member of the right chamber,’ right, or ‘Because I don’t have the right contract with the right lobbyist,’” Jones said.
City Attorney Andy Segovia said there was nothing staff were aware of that would disqualify any of the three appointees, whom he said had been given an orientation on the city’s ethics rules and been told “if they do feel, or if we see, that there’s potential conflicts, obviously we’ll help them navigate through that as we have through every other tri-chair selection — members that are serving under the tri-chair.”
Viagran ultimately cut Jones’ comments short by moving to force an immediate vote on the appointments, to which the rest of the council — minus Jones — agreed.
The councilwoman told KSAT after the meeting she believed the mayor wanted to get one of the appointees to say there was a conflict of interest somewhere and “create something.”
“I think there is a pattern, a clear pattern, and we’ve seen what she (Mayor Jones) is not happy about, and so anybody that has any affiliation with the Spurs, she’s not going to be for,” Viagran said.
A planned Spurs arena is not part of the proposed bond program itself, but the list of possible bond projects includes about $35 million worth of nearby infrastructure projects, which staff have indicated are necessary for the arena and wider sports and entertainment district.
Jones pushed unsuccessfully last week to have the projects either paid through another pot of money or separated into their own bond proposition, but council members voted her down.
They remain in the list of recommended projects, which bond committees will refine, though it will be up to council to approval a final list.
“I look forward to reviewing what comes forward, but I’ve been very clear about what is guiding how I think about this major investment,” she told KSAT.
Asked about Viagran’s comment about being against anyone affiliated with the Spurs, Jones said through a spokesman her position was “purely about integrity of the process and public trust.”
Jones’ picks for tri-chairs weren’t free of possible conflicts either. Port San Antonio, for instance, had a $40 million bond request for various improvements, though Perschbach told council members he didn’t think that created an “inherent conflict” to him serving as a tri-chair.
“In my review of prior bond programs, these committees have always included people who are deeply involved in San Antonio through businesses, nonprofits, and civic organizations,” he said in comments read by Mayor Jones at the Oct. 21 meeting.
Jones also told KSAT that Port San Antonio’s request and a jail diversion center Jamison has been championing were both for the public good and council members had known about them, too.
“At this point, we don’t know the full list of clients that a bond tri-chair has. And so we want to make sure that the public has as much trust in the projects that are being reviewed and proposed.”
But Eddie Aldrete, a public affairs consultant and former IBC Bank executive who served as a tri-chair in the 2017 bond program, told KSAT the tri-chairs don’t have the power to steer pet projects into the bond.
It’s the committees who determine the projects, he said, while the tri-chairs’ role is more about helping them with the process.
“I don’t want to diminish it as being ceremonial, but it’s not like they hand you a gavel and you can make major decisions,” Aldrete said. “You’re really there to help guide, advise, and sell.”
Jones said she believes all bond committee members, not just the tri-chairs, should have to disclose “if there are other interests that are guiding their recommendations other than the public benefit.”
The proposed $650 million bond and storm water program is a little more than half the size of the $1.2 billion 2022 bond program.
Council members decided to stick with a $442 million bond program to avoid raising taxes, though the current plan is to increase a stormwater fee on residents’ SAWS bills to help pay for an additional $208 million in drainage projects.
Unlike the property tax-backed bond propositions, which require voter approval, the drainage projects would just need a City Council vote.
The program is being developed as together, though, with the current breakdown expected to be:
A portion of the program would be spent on public art funding.
The city is aiming to put the program in front of voters for the May 2027 election.
Read also:
