South Padre Island council approves $671,186.84 venue-tax budget amendment amid public concern over transparency

The South Padre Island City Council on June 18 approved a budget amendment of up to $671,186.84 to allocate venue-tax funds for architectural and professional services already rendered for the proposed expansion of the South Padre Island Convention Center.

Joni Monivere, a resident property owner on the island, told the council that the city previously paid Gignac and Associates approximately $1,400,000 for earlier invoices and that additional invoices 4, 5 and 6 were “unaccounted for” in council packets. “For a project of this scale and public importance, transparency is not just expected, it is essential,” Monivere said.

Council members questioned the invoices and asked staff for clarity on specific line items. The council discussed environmental services by Haff and Associates (described in the packet as wetland delineation and cultural-resources work, a step toward determining whether new parking areas would affect wetlands and whether U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits would be required). Councilmember Kerry asked for clarification about “DD” line items; staff and the architect identified that as design development (60% submittal) work and said backup documentation is available in the packet online.

Councilmember Kim raised concerns about prior budget requests, noting a recent request for a $3.6 million budget amendment that was reduced to the current $671,186.84 item; Kim said there was insufficient breakdown in the packet for her to support payment absent more detail. City staff and the mayor responded that the action before the council on June 18 was a budget amendment to cover services rendered under a previously approved contract with Gignac and Associates and that invoices should be reviewed by finance against the contract. The mayor said the original contract approved by council was for a fee basis roughly in the $7.3 million range.

After discussion, a council motion to approve the payment amendment was called and the council approved it by voice vote.

The public comments and council questions also touched on broader concerns: whether venue-tax funds were being used in line with the ballot language voters approved, the prospect of county land ownership affecting project siting, and the lack of a final, approved site plan. Speakers asked for public workshops and clearer documentation of the project’s scope and costs before larger commitments.

Council members said some documentation (including design development submittals) is in the online packet and that the architect is responsible for certifying the level of completion for consultant invoices. Staff noted that wetland delineation and cultural‑resources reviews are necessary if the project expands parking into an area that could be wetlands.

The council’s approval covers the current requested amendment; council members said further approvals or larger budget amendments would return to the council for review.

Notes: the council discussed but did not adopt any changes to the overall project scope at the June 18 meeting. Public commenters and several council members asked for additional transparency and public input on future steps.