After two months of emotional public testimony and mounting opposition, Dog’s Head moved a major step closer to reality Thursday as a divided Austin City Council approved a critical financing agreement needed to help the developer build the 2,600-acre project in Southeast Austin.

The council voted 7-3, capping months of intense debate over one of the city’s most divisive development proposals in recent years. City leaders describe Dog’s Head as essential to Austin’s financial future, but critics say the project moved forward too fast with too little public input and too few environmental safeguards.

“I came in here ready to vote no, but I can’t do that without considering that this could also be a transformational moment for the city,” said Council Member Marc Duchen.

Thursday’s vote wasn’t the final decision on the future of Dog’s Head or what will be built on the property bounded by the Colorado River, US Highway 183 and State Highway 130. There will be more votes about different parts of the project in coming months.

Instead, Thursday’s vote approved a financing mechanism that city leaders say is essential to making the massive development possible. It created a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone, or TIRZ.

Under the agreement, Endeavor would build infrastructure, such as water and sewer lines, and the city would reimburse much of those costs over time using the new property and sales taxes generated within Dog’s Head.

Public pushback

The financing debate drew roughly six hours of testimony from residents who both opposed and supported the project. The crowd remained boisterous for hours, and tensions occasionally flared.

When Richard Suttle, a lawyer representing the developer Endeavor, spoke about the project, audience members responded with disapproving noises.

Mayor Kirk Watson interrupted the crowd.

“Let’s act like we support our democracy and we allow the people to speak without interruption,” he said.

People hissed.

“You can hiss at me all you want,” Watson said.

“Democracy is dead here!” someone yelled.

While the overwhelming majority of in-person speakers opposed Dog’s Head, some residents urged the Council to approve it. They pointed to the promise of new housing, jobs, expanded public access to the river and Endeavor’s efforts to fill in abandoned quarry pits left by decades of mining.

David Sides, who has lived in Dog’s Head for 47 years, strongly supports the project because basic city services have never reached his home. His family provides its own water, sewer and trash service.

“Over those years, I’ve watched this property mined, disturbed, and used for a variety of industrial purposes,” he said. “I’ve lived through the dust, the heavy equipment, the trespassing, and the challenges that have come along with an area that has never had a comprehensive vision.”

Endeavor will bring that vision to the land, he said.

Data centers remained a sticking point during testimony and council discussion.

“Can you make a clear verbal commitment that this property will not be developed as a data center for at least the next decade?” Council Member Krista Laine asked.

Suttle said Endeavor does not intend to pursue standalone data centers. However, he said some data centers are tied to other businesses and the company did not want to “inadvertently take them off the table.”

He also said Endeavor would follow whatever local data center policy the city ultimately adopts.

Laine, who voted in favor of the financing plan, said she was happy with that answer. Dog’s Head neighbor Lisa Levins was not.

“No standalone data centers,” she said, “is not the same thing as no data centers.”

Council Member Natasha Harper-Madison said that while much of the audience opposed Dog’s Head, the speaker signup sheet reflected broader support.

Of the 2,144 people who signed up to weigh in on the Dog’s Head agenda items, most of whom did not speak, 1,478 supported the development. Another 645 registered against it, and 21 were neutral.

Before the vote Harper-Madison, who voted for the TIRZ, chastised audience members for interrupting speakers during the meeting.

“Democracy means that every voice in the room gets the right to be heard,” she said. “I watched people’s testimony get compromised by the way (people were) clapping and screaming well into their time, and that’s not fair.”

Why Dog’s Head became divisive

After months of planning outside public view, the city unveiled the proposal in May when Dog’s Head was added to a City Council agenda. The city planned to annex the property and approve a development agreement that gave the company broad latitude over what it could build, including data centers.

The project could include as many as 12,000 homes and 4 million square feet of industrial space.

The city did not notify nearby neighbors about the vote. It was not legally required to.

In late May, just days after some neighbors learned about the proposal, scores of people headed to City Hall to protest the development. They criticized the lack of public process, raised environmental concerns and argued the city was giving Endeavor too much freedom over what could be built. They also said the agreement did not provide strong enough environmental oversight.

City leaders say they need a project like Dog’s Head to strengthen city finances and broaden the tax base. They argue a state cap on property tax revenue and the loss of COVID-era federal funding have left the city with less money to pay for services.

City staffers have described Dog’s Head as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, estimating it could generate as much as $3.5 billion in property tax revenue over the next 30 years.

Council Member Mike Siegel said he could not support creating the TIRZ because the city and developer failed to adequately involve the community before quickly moving the project forward.

“We didn’t involve the people who make Austin strong,” he said.

More votes are still to come, including a regulating plan that will establish additional development standards and oversight for Dog’s Head. But Duchen said Endeavor will have to do a much better job engaging with the public if it wants to keep his support.

“If I don’t see better, accurate information and robust engagement the next time you’re here,” he said, “I’m voting no on your next request.”