Cameron County commissioners deny current South Padre Island convention center expansion footprint after public outcry over habitat

Cameron County Commissioners Court voted Tuesday to deny the City of South Padre Island’s current proposed footprint for an expansion of the South Padre Island Convention Center, after more than a dozen residents, birding experts and environmental groups urged the court to protect mature native habitat on the site.

Speakers — including long‑time residents, ecotourism organizers and nonprofit advocates — told the court that the wooded area directly south of the convention center is a year‑round birding destination that supports rare and migratory species and generates significant tourism revenue. After public comments and an internal discussion, Commissioner Garza moved to deny the footprint as presented; Commissioner Benavides seconded and the motion passed with two ayes and one nay (County Judge Armando Trevino).

Why it matters: The convention center grounds were described repeatedly as a high‑value stopover for migratory birds and a generator of ecotourism dollars for the Rio Grande Valley. Commenters said the plan, as drawn, would remove mature native trees and understory that cannot be quickly replaced and would undermine decades of habitat restoration work on county and island lands.

During the public comment period, Brad McKinney, who said he represents the local birding community, told the court, “this issue is a win win. This is one where we can have a theater expansion, and we can also save the habitat.” McKinney cited statewide and regional birding revenue figures and said the site is “one of those premier birding locations” that draws repeat visitation.

Roberto Gaetan, another resident, said volunteers originally planted much of the mature vegetation and that the small patch of woodland supports a disproportionate share of the Valley’s bird species. “What will it mean if this commissioner’s court decides to cut down the trees and shrubs at the convention center?” he asked.

Justin LeClaire, a biologist and vice president of the Rio Grande Valley Birding Festival, told the court the site “has more species seen from it, from the property than anywhere else in all of Texas,” and that more than 2,000 eBird lists have been posted from the property this year. He said an online petition had gathered more than 5,000 signatures representing all 50 U.S. states and at least 37 countries.

Other speakers — including Karen Nussbaum, Valeria Caballero, Josette Angelique Nojosan, Becca Hinojosa, John Trahan, Kenneth Saxon and Bill Berg — also urged the court to require a redesign that preserves the mature canopy and to use bird‑friendly construction practices if expansion proceeds. Several speakers noted prior county investments in native reforestation and the economic value of birding tourism.

Commissioner Garza framed the court’s position as a request for a new plan rather than an absolute denial of expansion: “Bring us a footprint that we can all live with,” Garza said, adding that the court is willing to allow an expansion so long as the design preserves the area the public has emphasized. Judge Trevino said he would vote against denying the city the opportunity to revise plans but noted the court would not look favorably on the current footprint if the city refuses to engage with community concerns. After the vote Trevino stated, “I’m gonna vote nay for the reasons that I set forth earlier, because I told the mayor that I would give them the opportunity to do that.”

The record shows the court received a letter from the South Padre Island mayor earlier on the day of the meeting; the letter said the city had spent about $3,000,000 in public funds related to the project. Commenters disputed the project scope announced to the public and asked the city to hold additional workshops and to use ornithologists in planning, citing a 2013 Johnson Consulting recommendation that previously preserved the memorial garden and habitat in its proposed footprint.

The court’s action was procedural: it denied approval of the current footprint as submitted and asked the City of South Padre Island to return with revised plans that address habitat preservation. Commissioners also said the court will hold a public hearing if the city does not provide its own forum.

The item had extensive public engagement: dozens of speakers signed up and more than 80 additional written comments were added to the record. County staff and commissioners emphasized they must act within state and federal rules and that some permitting and environmental review fall under state agencies.

What’s next: The City of South Padre Island may revise the expansion plans and return to the court. The county said it will require the city to address the habitat concerns as part of any future submittal. The court did not adopt a specific preservation ordinance or binding protections for the site; its vote simply rejected the proposed footprint and directed the city to produce a plan the court can approve.