The Austin City Council on Oct. 23 approved multiple items to advance the long‑planned Austin Convention Center redevelopment, responding to pleas from hotels and the tourism industry to keep the project on schedule even as opponents urged the council to pause until a voter petition is resolved.

Supporters, including Visit Austin and downtown hotel general managers, framed the redevelopment as an economic engine that supports local jobs, restaurants and arts funding. Opponents and petitioners said the city is taking on excessive debt and that voters should decide whether hotel‑occupancy tax revenue and six downtown blocks should be used for a new convention center.

Tom Noonan, president and CEO of Visit Austin, said the convention center is a driver of weekday hotel occupancy and local jobs: “This building is an economic engine for Austin,” Noonan told the council. He said the city already has confirmed bookings and tentatively held events for the new facility and warned that a delay could cause sustained economic harm to downtown businesses and workers.

Hotel executives and industry trade groups echoed that message. Jeff Donahoe, general manager of the Hyatt Regency Austin, described group business as critical to his hotel’s revenue and to staff livelihoods. Scott Blaylock, general manager of the JW Marriott, said the lack of a convention center already has depressed downtown occupancy in recent months.

Opponents at the meeting argued the city should not issue new debt or proceed before the petition is certified and, if valid, put to voters. Bill Bunch of Save Our Springs Alliance criticized the financing plan as excessive and urged the council to stop issuing bonds before a community vote. A number of speakers, including Betsy Greenberg and other petition supporters, said more of the city’s hotel‑tax revenue should support cultural investments rather than another large building.

Council action and votes

- Multiple convention‑center items (including bond authorizations and project funding) were on the consent agenda and were approved as part of the consent vote early in the meeting. The consent agenda adoption covered several convention‑center financing items that were listed on the agenda.

- Item 11, a $450,000,000 amendment to the convention‑center construction contract (described in council documents as a change to the prime construction contract), was pulled for brief discussion and subsequently approved on a standalone motion by Council Member Alter, seconded by Council Member Vela. The motion passed with Council Member Duchin recorded as abstaining; the mayor pro tem was absent. (Transcript shows the motion and the abstention at the item’s vote.)

- Other project items discussed at length in public comment included item 9 (authorizing special‑tax‑revenue bonds), item 8 (refunding bonds to retire debt from the prior facility), and item 38 (additional outreach/communications funding). Those items were acted on as part of the consent agenda earlier in the meeting; no roll‑call tallies beyond the consent adoption were recorded in the public discussion portion of the transcript.

What proponents said

Supporters emphasized two main lines of argument: (1) the convention center brings weekday visitors that sustain downtown hotels and small businesses, and (2) hotel‑occupancy tax receipts have grown substantially in recent years, enabling dedicated investment in conventions while still funding arts and heritage. Noonan cited city data showing hotel‑tax collections rising from roughly $68 million in 2014 to about $163 million in 2024, and he said that growth has increased absolute allocations for arts and heritage even while some allocation caps apply.

Hotel managers described direct economic impacts. Joe Boas (Hilton Austin), Jeff Donahoe (Hyatt Regency), Scott Blaylock (JW Marriott) and Rob Gillette (Renaissance Austin) all told the council that group business tied to convention activity supports thousands of hotel jobs and generates significant tax revenues for the city.

What opponents said

Opponents said the project’s scale and timing are wrong and that the city has not completed sufficient post‑COVID due diligence. Bill Bunch called the overhaul “not an expansion” but an entirely new center and said the project budget had grown far beyond earlier presentations. Petition organizers said they gathered more than 21,000 verified signatures to force a ballot measure and urged the council not to approve bond issuance, outreach spending or publicity until voters can decide.

Several commenters expressed concern that taxpayer risk and project scope had not been transparently communicated. The opponents requested that the city delay bond issuance and withhold promotional spending until the petition review and, if necessary, a public vote.

Clarifying details cited in testimony

- Petition: speakers said the “Save the Soul of Austin”/Austin United‑led petition had gathered over 21,000 signatures (Betsy Greenberg and others).
- Bonds and contracts: speakers referenced $650 million in special tax‑revenue bonds and $46 million in refunding bonds in various staff and public statements; item 11 was described in the staff backup and public testimony as a roughly $450 million amendment to the construction contract.
- Hotel‑tax collections: testimony cited roughly $68 million in hotel‑tax collections in 2014 versus about $163 million in 2024; speakers noted statutory caps on specific hotel‑tax categories and argued that increasing overall hotel‑tax revenue is the main way to grow funding for arts and heritage.
- Bookings: testimony from Visit Austin noted “14 definite bookings” and “65 tentative” prospects for the new center, and that additional events were moving toward contracts.

What the council did and next steps

Council members approved the consent agenda that included financing steps for the convention‑center redevelopment, and they separately approved the construction contract amendment (item 11) after pulling it for brief discussion. Council members who asked for clarification on legal implications of the petition were directed to city law staff; one council member said they would consult the law department to understand how validated petitions could affect contract authorities and bond timing.

Several council members urged transparency and additional public engagement as the project proceeds. Council Member Duchin, who had questions about the project’s long‑range implications, requested follow‑up briefings from legal and project staff. Staff indicated the city clerk and legal department were reviewing the petition validation process and that additional analysis on interest and financing would be provided.

Why it matters

The convention‑center redevelopment is a large capital project with multi‑year financing implications, direct effects on downtown hotels and small businesses, and dedicated funding tied to state rules governing hotel‑occupancy tax usage. The council’s approvals keep the project moving while a citizen petition and public debate continue, making this a point of potential near‑term legal and political conflict.

Ending note

Speakers on both sides urged the council to weigh economic and cultural tradeoffs. Supporters warned of lasting downtown economic harm if the project stalls; opponents pressed for pause and voter review. Council members approved the immediate actions on the agenda while directing staff to continue briefing the council and the public on legal and financing questions raised at the meeting.