You're watching a meeting of the Austin City Council. With Mayor Kerv Watson, Mayor Pro-Tem Chido Vaila, Council
Members Natasha Harper Madison, Vanessa Wintex, Jose Belosquez, Ryan Alter, Crystal Lane, Mike Siegel, Paige Ellis,
Joe Contrie, Mark Duchen, City Attorney, Deborah Thomas, City Clerk, Erica Brady, and City Manager T.C. Broadnax.
Good morning everybody. It's 10 o'clock in the morning on August 6th, 2026.
I'll call to order the City Council meeting of the Austin City Council. We have a quorum of the City Council present and we're meeting in City Council Chambers located at City Hall at 301 West Second Street in Austin, Texas.
Members, we have a number of items on the agenda today. What I intend to do is, and by the way, yes, there's a new proposed amendment that I'm seeking co-sponsors.
I call this the whatever it takes amendment, and we take money from wherever we can, including if it wipes out most of our other proposed amendments, so we can do that.
Anyway, having said that, what we'll do is we'll go in the order of the agenda.
Except when we get items 2 and 4, as I put on the message board yesterday, items 2 and 4 might very well.
I want to get a feeling from the council about how we want to do that before we take the amendment, and we might take it 4 before we take it 2 or 2 before we take it 4, because that deals with the ordering of the items on the agenda.
We'll talk about that in more detail when we get there. As I always do, I want to point out what our schedule is.
Today, of course, we have this budget work session. We have the other agenda items, and then on Wednesday, August 12, we will be scheduled to have the first opportunity to vote on the budget.
Thursday, August 13th, and Friday, August 14th, we will also conduct public hearing and have council discussion and the council vote on those days.
I just want to make sure that everybody is aware of what the schedule is.
Having said that, let us now go to item number 1, which is posted as a presentation and discussion of the city manager's fiscal year 2026, 2027 proposed budget, and we will start with speakers and I'll turn to the city clerk.
When the city clerk calls your names, many of you have already been here and know how this operates, but let me say it again for those that are new.
She'll call out the names and batches of 3, 4, 5, maybe more. When your name is called, please come forward when your name is called, and go ahead and take a seat if a seat is available. If a seat is not available to desk, take one of these front row seats, and that way we'll know you're here, and we can efficiently hear your testimony. So with that, I'll turn to the city clerk.
Thank you, Mayor. I have a few remote speakers for item 1, Katherine McCartell.
Good morning. My name is Katherine McCartell. I live in district 9, and I'm here today to again ask you to keep the police budget flat.
Do not give APB a penny more than required that that ridiculous text of law. No excuses about the cost of that new police union contract, some of you voted for in 2024.
Find other ways to cut APB's budget down to the minimum required.
Can be done if you all have the courage and the back going to do it, especially in the wake of yet another police killing.
Do not reward them for that.
I'm glad that there has been some discussion on using new property tax revenue to fund social services contracts.
Thank you for this initial effort. However, even if it becomes reality, it is not enough.
It is not enough because there is a greater need than to just maintain the existing social services contracts.
We need to grow social services provision in the city. We desperately need more services to support our and health neighbors.
We need more food access. We need more mental health support. We need more child care support.
I could go on, but you already know these things and you've been hearing for weeks from so many in the community about these need.
And it's so obviously, you could fund these needs by taking the proposed $25 million increase to APD and instead providing these additional social services.
The things that will actually could keep our community safe and driving rather than killing our neighbors.
And you will know that any money given to APD this year above its current budget is money that cannot be used next year for literally anything else.
And we'll be right back here next year fighting against more proposed cuts to the social services we need.
I also ask that this budget enabled moving the 911 defect out from APD and into an independent emergency communications department that can make the correct judgment called on which type of first responder defend.
We know that with 911 under APD they send police officers for so many calls where and others type of responder would be more appropriate and safer.
We've seen how damaging this police department is. Please make it just a little less damaging by keeping their budget flat and moving 911 to independent department. Thank you.
Jen Powell.
Good morning.
Today it seems to be my last day to yell about the budget and to see it in a minute, so I'm just going to keep it simple.
As everyone else who've been saying, fun to see I be in full also social services funding and full or I guarantee all the next round of yelling is just going to be people asking for a detailed education and equity impact statement before implementation.
To make sure these cuts aren't as disproportionately targeted at schools and persecuted social groups as they look on paper because it doesn't look good on paper.
Now that funding does include the funding for the safe lives in full and continuing the contract for them, which I see that you guys have done a while though we're going to appreciate that.
You can enter into a contract with brave up-and-seater partners. Well, I get that, but that should be an additional contract and not a replacement.
Now here's the main part after the murder of Antonyl. You guys know that you can't go through with the proposed raises for APD. Just keep the budget flat and in the meantime focus on two important matters.
One, moving the 911 calls that are out of APD and some sort of civilian structure. Everybody should know that pretty much the whole council supports that is just that we need whoever in the city to finish pushing to get it done.
So please finish pushing to get it done and then to require that both the police and the civilian dispatchers actually take the suicide by copper mentioned training.
It does exist. People beg them. I don't need to know how many times or how long to do it, but you definitely cannot justify in freezing the APD funding to any of your constituents until they actually take that training.
If they pay attention, they might actually reduce up to 30% of killings that can be attributed to that cause.
And last but not least, while you're in there, if you could give these civilian oversight committee actual teeth, financial teeth.
When police handle a case correctly, they can incentivize and incentivize and when they.
They're not at all.
Good morning, Mayor and council. My name is Stan help tell my position. It provides care through asking safety net health system.
I check people are unhoused, people living in poverty and people who's health and dignity are directly armed by the current.
I'm speaking here as a clinician who sees the consequences of these policies.
My patients lose their medication because of the sweets and the hospitalized with serious illness that could have been avoided.
I check for people who have lost their ideas in how they get working streets and then can't act as shelter benefits. These are our neighbors.
Our clinical and social support teams are exhausted from picking up after the disaster that these sweep cause and our patients live.
Working countless hours helping clients get new ideas and investing hours care helping people recover from preventable injury and illness due to these sweeps.
I work through the pandemic and I will say these policies pushed forward by council are causing as much moral injury to our staff that the COVID pandemic did.
The public health evidence is clear forced displacement, feeps, confiscation and involuntary relocation, worsens health outcomes increases overdose risk interrupts continuity of of share, destroy the control belonging to the drives we go further from services.
Leaps on health and do not produce durable assets from homelessness.
Beyond the human toll, sweets are discreet or substantial. They are expensive to conduct shift class to emergency care and hospital and fail to reduce homelessness.
The city budget is a moral document. As you finalize Austin's budget, you have a responsibility to invest in what actually improves health reduces harm and it answers public safety.
You have an immediate opportunity to act first, stop these harmful sweets, costly sweets that display people and destroy the fragile community of care.
Second, expand the city's safe storage program.
Faith storage reduces harm by preserving medications, IDs and housing documents when people are moved.
While storage is not a complete solution, it is a concrete time reduction step.
Our unhoused neighbors have repeatedly requested. Third, keep the APD budget flat. Do not increase funding for policing at the expense of social services and for the store and prioritize funding.
That's all the remote speakers I have for item one. So I'm going to be moving to in-person speakers.
Fill up this Gerald, Savannah Lee, Rebecca Weber, Shelby Evans, Elliott Trehan.
If anything, call please come forward and always ask is that when you begin your testimony, you state your name for the record.
Mr. Fitzgerald, begin with you.
You said we're going to start with me? Sure. Okay, fill up this Gerald district one.
So I originally wanted to come talk about more things than just this, but obviously with short time, I'll just skip with this.
Yeah, growing up, you have a coach that would always tell the stores about what's required to be a leader and he would offer reference the harming of women and children and said,
if you ever did that, he wouldn't have forgiveness for you.
But I think he also is including all folks.
And part of this budget calls for the cutting of the senior congregate meal program, which I've emailed some of you about.
It's a program that runs across our city and no other area, but district one has has more service locations than district one.
In talking with some of the staff at these locations, they feed over a hundred seniors in Austin a day.
I think this cut would be a serious attack on that area.
On an area that for far too long has had to play catch up with other districts in Austin.
You know, district one has former teachers and restaurant workers and veterans and I know a lot of you have a good understanding of what those people have given our city.
But I think it's also important to understand how little they've been given in return.
And I understand that we're we're over budget we're now to make cuts, but we cannot sacrifice our seniors.
This program offers them an ability to leave their homes and reach out and establish and maintain community, which is a warm blanket for a lot of people at a time in their life when they're often isolated.
So please take a look at this budget again and find something else to cut.
I have a little more time obviously with the news of Greg Abbott he's he's going to push to deregulate Austin energy that's going to blow a hole in our general fund.
So if people are upset about the cutting of social services now wait till we lose a hundred million dollars.
And I really would would ask that the city start preparing for that now.
And that means reaching out to people in San Antonio figure out how we're going to defend our city.
Thank you.
When we go here, we'll work down the road.
Hello council, my name is Shelby and from Hands Off Central Texas.
The community's anger at APD is justified, but this is not just about keeping APD's budget flat to be punitive.
It's about what that money could fund instead.
Data show that interactions with the incarceration system leads to worse outcomes for the person and for the community.
It is costly and ineffective to use the police as a catch all for mental health, homelessness,
poverty, substance use recovery, and crisis intervention.
This system was not built to rehabilitate these issues yet we continue to rely on violence and the threat of violence to manage them.
Police are not trained or equipped to handle the conditions that are overwhelmingly represented in our carceral systems,
but social workers are.
Social services already experienced a 10% cut last year.
Yet we are told APD's budget must be increased to keep up with inflation.
Social services don't have the resources to keep up with demand.
While APD doesn't have the community buy-in to meet the recruitment numbers.
Why must everyone else do more with less except the police?
The costs to the city are stacking up and we need better investments.
Move 911 out of APD. Keep their budget flat.
Fully fund social services and please make the changes your community is begging you for.
It is more than your legacy it is our lives.
Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Savannah Lee and with equity action and a resident of district one.
I'm here in support of the community investment budget.
I'm going to get to my written comments in a second, but I feel it really necessary to state that many of us just watched our neighbors be kidnapped outside of this building.
And I can't sit with a reality that we're sitting here asking you not to give more money to the institution that helps their kidnappers.
We're nearing the finish line.
But before we get there, I think it's important to emphasize that this process that brings so many of us here every summer when we could be with our families is really about.
We're here because you've been given the incredible responsibility of stewarding the hard earned dollars at the families that live here and deciding how to reinvest them back into our communities.
Over the past weeks, we've been very clear in how we want you to spend this money.
We've all heard it over and over, but I'm happy to say it again because the asks are quite simple.
Stop spending all of our money on APD.
If you continue in this direction, you are going to back this city into a financial corner from which it cannot escape. We warned you in 2024, and we are warning you again now.
Fully fund social services. Hundreds of people have given their time to make this ask, and it's because they know the real human cost of these cuts.
Established joint communications department and moved in 911 call takers out of APD. We have to make sure these departments can communicate, and we have to ensure that folks who are in crisis are met with professionals who know how to de-escalate.
The tragedy that happens when we do not get this right is too much to bear.
Stop funding the sweeps. We are spending millions simply shifting vulnerable folks from one place to another, while taking all of the things they value. This is a horrific waste of money and a moral failure, and we deserve better.
Throughout this process, I've heard a lot comparing Austin spending to other Texas cities, but they spend on police or social services or whatever else.
The truth is we aren't like any other city in Texas, and we like it that way.
Our community is what makes us special, and every dollar you have in front of you was handed to you by the people that live here. Please spend them wisely. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Elliott Trehan. I live in District 10, and I don't think I can say anything quite eloquently as she just said it.
So I think I'll just keep it short. I got here on bike, and as soon as I arrived and pulled up, I happened upon our neighbors being kidnapped and arrayed.
It was mostly facilitated by DPS, but I know whether it was this one of past APD has been in collaboration with these people.
I really wanted to be so so clear on the history teacher and my normal day today.
Ice is our version of the fastest secret police, and right now Austin Police Department is collaborating with them, whether it be by holding people in jail cells long enough for ice to pick them up, or by going specifically to arrest people in blue guys in northeast Austin, where ice shows up within minutes after that arrest happens.
This organization is collaborating with our version of the fastest secret police.
Like everybody said, ever since I moved back here here ago, I've been showing up for these meetings of what I keep hearing is we're dealing with less money than we were able to before their scarcity.
Now why a city that has attracted so much wealth and has so many big name companies is dealing with scarcity is another conversation worth happening or having.
But today, like everybody's saying, we need to talk about how we deal with that scarcity.
So many people who represent so many wonderful orgs are saying, we need funds working to get the funds.
There's a very clear answer. It's APD, keep their budget platform flat, please no more dollars for organizations that murder teenagers and refuse to take accountability for it.
That's all. Thank you.
Good morning. I'm Rebecca Weber, and I'm here on behalf of equity action where I serve on the board.
And in my personal capacity as a lawyer who sometimes suits this city on behalf of victims of police in this conduct, including pending cases right now.
Ms. Brenda Ramos, who's son was killed six years ago now and is still waiting for justice from the city and Samantha Lidkey, who was a police woman who was treated horribly in her tenure at APD.
I'm here in solidarity with all of the service provider employees who have been here.
I think I don't know if it's going on six meetings now, it feels like so many just they do such good work and they're here begging for the scraps to keep doing
they're really good work and so I just ask thank you for everyone who has worked on the 911 call move.
It's such a good clean, simple solution and so I'm really just grateful to everyone who has made that, who is going to make that happen and I really appreciate everyone who has valued the community investment budget and I ask you to pass the community investment budget and move 911. Thank you.
Brian Poppy, Sylvia Stinson, John Pleasant, Jeffrey Bowen, Jeff Dickerson.
Good morning, Marin Council. My name is Ryan Poppy and I'm speaking today on behalf of the United Workers of Integral Care.
I want to address the city managers August 3 at Memorandum on the proposed no wrong door coordinated crisis response program. Everyone supports better coordination for people experiencing mental illness substance use disorders or homelessness.
Integral care employees have been doing this kind of work every day.
Our concern is not with the goal but how it's being funded.
The Memorandum says the city plans to realign existing programs and dollars to create a more coordinated crisis response.
It never explains what happens to the services staff or clients we rely on those programs every day.
Behavioral health is not simply another budget line.
It reduces pressure on emergency rooms, law enforcement and our jails while improving the lives and saving taxpayer dollars.
Integral care's workforce is already stretched then and you cannot build a stronger crisis response by weakening the community-based services that keep people from reaching crisis in the first place.
As you finalize this budget, if you must, I urge you to strictly fund no wrong door with new investments, not by shifting resources away from integral care existing programs.
Protect the workforce, protect these services, and protect the people of Austin.
Thank you.
Just a moment go to you.
Thank you, sir. Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor, council members, Jeff Bowen, District 8.
Last week, I came up and talked about clarification and that's based upon going to all the different town halls on the budgets.
I attended another one last night. Well, actually, two this week can be at another one tonight.
But I want to just go back and remind about the clarification because there seems to be a lot of miscommunications at times even in the news media about some of the increases.
And I want to appreciate with Mr. Broadnax and Ms. Kerry lying about the fact that they're bringing out.
And for those of us that do budgets and those type of things, we have to look at the overhead costs which we've had some significant increases in which are then sometimes misinterpreted as an increase in that budget.
But that the fact that you had guys have started separating those and bringing out that issue needs to really be clarified so that it's not getting misconstrued with other issues.
So again, I urge to make sure that we have a lot of clarification on some of these issues where we are increasing here or taking away here.
And so that it doesn't end up into another argument, whatever you want to call it, but it turns into from a discussion into more of a discussion that doesn't go anywhere.
So please make sure that we're trying to clarify those misunderstandings so that people actually do understand what is actually happening with some of these budgets.
There again. Thanks for your time.
Thank you.
Good morning council members. My name is John Pleasant and I'm here to ask you to reject the proposed $25 million increase to the Austin Police Department's budget.
Two weeks ago, a 17 year old Anthony O'Williams was shot and killed by three APD officers in a northeast Austin park officers mistook a water bottle in his waistband for a weapon and fire 20 shots.
One officer reloading and firing again as Williams lay on the ground. He was unarmed and he was a child.
Williams isn't in isolated case. Austin has a documented history of shootings where the person killed posed no real threat, including Michael Carauthors Jr. in 2021, killed when an officer fired at the sound of unrelated gunfire.
This is a pattern and they should worry anyone being asked to fund this department at a higher level. Before we hand APD more money, we should look at how this time is spent.
A 2020 analysis of APD calls found violent crime made up less than 1% of all calls and only 2.8% of officer time.
Most calls disturbances, burglar alarms, welfare checks, mental health crises, don't call for a gun. They call for training this department isn't investing in.
According to BBC reporting, American officers spend roughly 71 hours on firearms training but only 21 hours on de-escalation, among the lowest training standards of over 100 countries surveyed.
The result, the US kills more people by police than any other developed democracy and black Americans die at a disproportionate rate.
Anthony Williams is what that gap looks like up close. We don't fix it by giving the same department more money to do the same thing.
I'm asking you to reject this $25 million increase and invest instead in de-escalation training and non-police responses for the calls that don't need a gun. Thank you.
Jepthickerson District 5. Good morning, Mayor Watson Council members. Many of Austin pure cities including Minneapolis, Houston, Seattle, Portland, Chicago have expanded spending and borrowing.
These cities did not become unavoidable overnight. They got there. One budget.
One tax increase, one bond at a time. Each one being justified as necessary. This council is accelerating Austin down the path of higher spending, higher debt and greater long-term financial obligation.
The members on this diet should learn from the peers experience, not blindly repeated.
This year alone you are proposed in the 6.6 million dollar budget increased of $311 million.
Interesting, your own city staff previously presented alternative that included delaying debt, major bond budget until 2028.
Why aren't you considering that? They also proposed 2% tax rate increase.
Council member Dungeon, you pushed that through to get a larger increase.
The question now is whether by trying to add millions of hundreds of millions of dollars, a new borrowing while taxpayers are already paying higher taxes, higher bills, and higher cost of living.
Choose restraint over expansion, choose accountability over assumptions, choose affordability over unchecked spending, choose affordability for all policies over more free for me policies.
Don't leave future taxpayers to pay for today's lack of discipline on the city council. Thank you.
Peter Hunt, Susana Almanza, Victoria Godfrey, Hans Maverick, Hans Are you here?
Is Robin Schneider here?
Yes.
Then you will have four minutes, Mr. Maverick.
Good morning, Mayor Watson. Mayor Pro Temvela. Council members, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today.
I am, I live in Council District 10 and I'm a policy and research organizer with grassroots leadership here in Austin.
I'm here to speak in favor of the community investment budget because we want the city to promote programs that help people rather than hurt people who are impacted by the criminal legal and immigration detention.
Systems. Before I turn to my plan testimony, I need to point out that recent events have further undermined our faith in law enforcement.
The murder and I believe it deserves to be classified as a murder of Anthony Williams II, the second, to me speaks volumes about how little so-called accountability and transparency actually due to keep our friends and neighbors safe.
And just this morning, just outside this building, one of our neighbors was picked up by ICE. I understand the nexus of that encounter was a person driving was the person driving the wrong way on LaVaca Street.
I don't know whether APD or DPS first saw the person driving the wrong way, but you'll forgive me if I'm inclined to think of a monolith of law enforcement as a monolith that collaborates with the Trump administration's cruel and mindless immigration policy.
Now back to my plan testimony. Every year the Travis County District Attorney Secures roughly 3,200 new felony convictions.
That's 3,200 more people every year in Travis County who will need extra help finding work, health care and a place to live and no matter how long they are incarcerated,
help readjusting to life after release. I know because I've been there. One of the most glaring problems with the criminal justice system in our country is the recidivism rate, which is roughly 60 to 70% within the first five years post-release.
There are a lot of factors beyond our city's control that impact recidivism, but there are a few that we can influence.
One is workforce development. What I wanted and what most people I met in prison wanted was a decent legitimate job after release.
Another is access to health care, including mental health care. When you are forced to work contract jobs or gig work because you have a criminal record, it's hard to get private health insurance, so you have to rely on public health care.
The final and equally important factor is housing. A affordable housing options that recognize that formerly incarcerated people are routinely excluded from the legitimate housing.
This puts former and carcerese, especially in women, especially women, in positions where they are staying in unsafe environments, where they are likely to be victims of crime.
Therefore, I would like for you to fully fund social services programs like mental health, workforce, development, and reentry, keep the APD budget flat, and make the 911 call center a separate department from APD.
Please consider all these factors in supporting the community investment budget.
Thank you.
Would you please state your name for the record?
Yes, Hans Maverick. District 10.
Thank you.
When we go here, and then we'll go to Ms. Almanza.
Morning council. My name is Peter Hunt. I'm from District 10.
I'm here in Sport First of the Community Investment Budget, and also would like to ask this council
look really hard in ways to keep the APD budget flat in this budgetary cycle.
I know that a lot of that budget is personnel, which is somewhat more complicated to cut, but there are a few places to look.
First, the allocation for this year in the proposed budget listed $500,000 for additional recruitment efforts, including new hiring.
I think that that is an unnecessary investment in APD, and also I know that some council members, a particular council member, Duchen, have found other places where up to a million dollars can be saved by making non-personnel cuts.
I think this level of attention should be paid thoroughly across the entirety of the police budget to look for ways to avoid adding another 25 million there.
I also think that it's worth acknowledging that APD is compelled in many ways to collaborate with ICE.
And if we have problems with that, we should acknowledge that more money going to APD is more money going to ICE functionally.
That's something that we just have to recognize that it's not necessarily about the individual decisions of officers, that there are legal compulsions involved, and that those are unavoidable.
And we should do something about that I.E. keeping the budget flat.
But I want to end on a slightly more positive note, and thank this council for moving to create a joint communications department.
In particular, I want to thank council member Lane for being such a consistent leader, champion, and clear-eyed individual when it comes to advocating for that.
And I hope that all of you will support the IFC that her office mentioned on the message board earlier this week, both for creating that department and then appropriately funding it.
Thank you.
Does that answer?
Good morning Mayor.
I see the council members.
I'm Sussan Almanza with boarder and also with say seniors, advocate for general equity.
We met all together.
We said hello to the city in the district.
I mean, we have the first I want to know that our residents know that DPS and ICE is in our neighbourhoods and they need to be careful.
Actually, saw them coming from a top list or resting someone.
So they are out and also like to state that for that is supported a community investment budget.
Specifically for our elders in our senior lunching program on top list was cut during COVID and never got reinstated.
So when you talk about seniors that live in poverty that are isolated, this is something that shouldn't be happening.
And I also want to recommend that you not cut any services for our children and our youth.
A lot of people can afford private camps private lessons for sports is very difficult for our community to pay 50 dollars and 75 dollars.
Just a week part of soccer or football or basketball.
So we really need to look at these issues and also want to address Natasha Harper Madison that it was Benjamin Shave is the core and the name environmental racism.
And the Dr. Bob Bullard is the grandfather environmental justice.
And you did not serve on the first people of color.
Some are adopting the 17 principles environmental justice idea.
You were not appointed by President Biden to the White House Environmental Justice Leadership Council.
You have not been dedicated your life to environmental justice.
So please respect all the environmentalists, people of color and the community to come up here to testify.
If not, I will make it my mission to be here every week to educate you.
My dear. Thank you.
Jay Jay Ramirez.
Carrie and Smith.
Alfredo Reyes Junior.
August for Luzano.
Barry Jones and Eli Cortez.
If your name's been called, please come forward.
Good morning, City Council.
My name is Jay Jay Ramirez.
I'm an organizer at Vocal Texas.
And here in a little bit, you're going to hear from more people with closer lived experience on the reasons we need storage and deposit our sleep.
But I'm going to speak on the community for our community partners as a whole as well.
We really support removing the 911 calls center out of the APD budget and keeping the APD budget flat, especially right now is struggling to find money.
So put the housing social services and housing back on our agenda to really help people and not incarcerate them.
So please, let's do that.
Let's keep that APD budget flat and I will finish my time.
Thank you.
Hello, council members.
My name is Alfredo.
I'm an organizer for Vocal Texas.
As you all know, my story, I was home for seven and a half years.
Basically, we're here to talk about is that being homeless, my medication, I was swept myself.
And my medications and everything else was thrown away.
If I had to find my help on my own to be able to find a storage and everything else,
which I basically got on a list for storage, which I wasn't a list for a year and a half and still wasn't called.
Now, the city claims that the purchase of homelessness with compassion, but over and over again,
belongings, medications, family photos and much more are going away on the sweeps that happens in our daily basis.
So to add insult to the, to the inquiry, people living with cancer are giving numbers of violent,
keeps safe, which basically, as we know, is full.
Basically, is a dead end.
When, especially when campments sweeps happen, I've witnessed it myself because I've been to several of these sweeps.
They're giving them information to call the violent storage or try again to a shelter.
Basically, some of these people that I run into, a basic time with the basic, they're giving them dead ends instead of the help that they really need.
Local Texas member asks for storage is when they are faced with, when they're faced with sweeps.
There was no safe place to store their belongings while more storage, one saw the issue with the problem.
We do so harm and help more people with some storage and some of the important belongings that they have.
Mr. Brown next, when we had our actual meeting, one on one, you have stated that homelessness with the priority to you,
because you have experienced that with a family member.
Here we are, and that's not a priority, that's how much check-up priority means to something that is very important.
Thank you.
Please go ahead.
Please begin.
My name is Barry Jones.
You all know me.
I'm a leader with local Texas.
Formerly I was homeless in Austin for 10 years.
And what I wanted to talk about today is commitment.
And as we all know, homelessness is a very big issue in Austin right now.
And we've all said that this is one of our top priorities.
However, it seems like we're not willing to commit to that priority to actually doing something about it.
And what I wanted to bring up was that bring forward is that from what I understand,
Dallas, over the last two years, has removed 60% of their homeless people from the street by getting them housing.
Okay, that's commitment.
That is commitment.
We know that this program is working.
We know that it's only causing more harm.
We know that we're just moving more people around.
You know, at least we could do as at least provide more storage for homeless people when they're swept,
so that they can have some more to put their belongings.
But this is not commitment.
If we are committed to doing something about homelessness,
we know what the answer is.
Thank you, members.
Hello, my name is Carrie Anne and I'm a little bit of vocal sexist.
I'm here today for the budget for storage.
I was hoping that you guys will consider more money going to the storage and not APD.
The storage program helps people get keep their vital documents safe and secure.
It's not just the storage, it's the stability and dignity.
And it's a pathway to happen and get back to the substance efficiency.
Public safety shouldn't be measured by how much you spend on policing.
It should be measured by how much you invest in solutions that actually help people rebuild their lives.
When we find stability instead of instability, people have a better chance to succeed.
I'm asking you today to please prioritize the funding to go to the storage and not APD.
Thank you.
Good morning, Mayor and Council.
My name is Eli Quartez and I'm a resident of district dream and organizer of vocal
Texas.
You've heard some from some of our members about the significance of expanding storage in our city today.
This is especially relevant considering estuary the ACLU of Texas and the Texas civil rights project.
We've never had a letter to the city under urging the review of the daily encampment management strategy.
Unhoused people are still residents of your districts and entitled to constitutionally protected rights.
There are concerns that the current sweep operations could conflict with constitutional rights due to the seizure and destruction of property,
especially when destroyed without sufficient adequate notice.
We continue to call for a pause to the current $1 million daily sweep plan and every day we continue to hemorrhage dollars on these operations
inflict more harm than good and do nothing real to reduce the number of people living outside.
In the face of our million dollar daily sweep plan, we hope we have your support in making a much needed and under available resource accessible to the residents in your districts,
that are facing state violence every day while attempting to continue to navigate daily survival in this overbearing heat.
If you are committed to continuing this million dollar daily sweep plan,
you also have an obligation to pair this strategy with an expansion of services in housing and shelter opportunities for people living outside.
There are people in our city that are that I speak to every day that are losing is just incredibly essential and valuable belongings.
People have lost survival gear generators, beloved ashes, important documents like social security and ID cars.
When people are doing everything they can just to survive, just if you're out where they're going to get water, just if you're out how they're going to escape the heat.
People have been promised for years or told in any chemistry to go to storage to go.
Put these essential belongings away and there's been an overyear wait list for years.
So there's a real opportunity in front of you today to really help the residents in your districts that are facing these encampments.
I really hope that you take this opportunity to support them. Thank you.
Thank you all.
I have a few remote speakers on the line.
Paul Tarty.
Paul are you there?
Hello?
Yes, we can hear you please begin.
Sir?
Hi Molly Patal?
Hello, do you hear me?
Yes, we can.
Okay, good morning, awesome to be canceled.
My name is Molly Patal.
I am an internal medicine physician in Austin, Texas.
I am here representing myself from district nine.
I came back to Austin eight years ago and I chose Austin as the only study I would return to in Texas.
Because I believe in what we represent.
My position on this budget is neutral.
I appreciate the need for a balanced budget in such economic times.
I have knowledge and support funding to Austin energy, especially supporting the customer assistance programs and their renewable energy programs.
I also support EMS and the community health paramedic program and the need to have adequate supplies to provide health care in our city.
As a physician who has sent many patients to shelters including marshalling yard, I also support funding the shelter to provide more wraparound and coordinated care.
I will always support growth of housing voucher programs and permanent supportive housing programs as well.
Shelters are only a temporary solution.
I also ask that we reconsider support for programs that sell critical need gaps and trust gaps for us.
These include programs like Caritas, Sunrise and Elbow and San Martino.
Elbow and is an organization that has built significant trust in our Spanish-speaking communities.
And it is an essential time to leverage their expertise.
Lastly, I ask reconsideration of the APD budget and to keep it flat.
APD lets sweep so far have cost $800,000.
And these evictions do not lead to long-term solution.
This money could have been routed to the aforementioned programs.
Thank you for your time today.
That concludes my testimony.
Thank you.
Janice Bookout, Lily Hughes, Ignacio.
We'll begin with you and we'll work our way down the road, just state your name for the record, please.
I'll tell you what, you need to put that microphone in front of me, please.
Yeah, there you go.
My name is Lily Hughes, I'm a social worker in the capacity building manager at Texas harm reduction alliance.
As I prepared to sit in front of you today, I thought back on all the times I've sat in one of these seats and shared the bravery, pain and resilience of the community we work with at GHA.
We have decades of data to demonstrate the return on investment in public health initiatives.
Choosing public health is choosing community safety, all while saving taxpayers money.
Despite this, I'm yet again watching the city direct dollars into policing homelessness instead of solving it.
We've had four years of investing in the police budget for recruitment, yet massive gaps in emergency calls persist, homelessness and continues to increase housing and stability continues to increase.
Police violence has increased. Why are we spending limited funding recruiting for an organization people do not want to join?
Why can't we give it an invest that money in social services that will address the social problems that police officers are not equipped to handle?
Just last week, APD responded to a 911 call from a security officer regarding a person waiting on the public sidewalk in front of our drop-in center.
There was not a crisis prior to the verbal escalation instigated by the security officer.
Teachers executive director and Maggie Luna intervened and successfully de-escalated the situation.
But the reason behind the 911 call was solved long before the officers arrived.
The organizations that reduce the financial burden on city services are facing drastic budget cuts.
All Waller City budget is reinvested into policies that have increased spending across multiple departments.
HSO leadership states that the increase in can't management initiative costs upwards of $700,000 in just one month.
HSO has maintained that this money already existed within the budget.
That number does not include the budgets of non-profits that you not have millions of dollars to move around in between departments.
Teacher A has been spending an additional $4,000 a month to replace the vital documents in survival gear of our participants that have been destroyed in the sweeps.
That number also does not include the emotional and mental health support our staff provides.
It does not include the pain myself and my co-workers carry with us as we watch the immense suffering of our participants.
We ask the president to keep the police budget flat.
This book out.
Janice Book out.
D4 I want to talk about the difference between the performance of government and public service.
First to clarify at 54 I got a master's in public health.
Due to a sponsorship inspired by my work in COVID and recommendations from the director of public health and our chief resilience officer.
I've lived in Austin for 30 years on a low income as a wife and mother of musicians who are undervalued by the very city that uses in to promote itself to tourists.
I have worked alongside diverse array of leaders serving folks at 2 a.m. to ensure that they're warm during cold weather and know about the changes that the services of services available.
I am only one of hundreds speaking on the budget that represent a collective death.
Depth of professional and lived expertise that blows my mind.
Since COVID I have seen this council and management shift away from public service evidence-based policy.
Community engagement and transparency all in the name of efficiency and the status quo.
But efficiency has a cost.
The centralized COVID vaccine hub serve many thousands but they were overwhelmingly white.
When we finally were able to work through trusted organizations, the demographics of vaccine acceptance became proportionate.
Inclusion is something is sometimes inefficient because it requires working with a diverse array of folks.
Sometimes they don't have the capacity to track all the metrics RFPs demand but that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people who would be left out without their work.
occupancy of shelter at shelters more than quadrupled between 2021 and 2026 due to outreach of organizations that sometimes never got compensation for that work.
But this administration seems to be intent on subverting that kind of work by reorganizing offices and demoting subject matter experts.
The kind that tell the whole truth with business-minded folks committed to efficiency.
Those missing voices of staff experts from the city are now muted from speaking at council meetings making pushing agendas easier.
We have seen the community recommendations subverted through the TRE which bundled community priorities into something to put before a public vote.
Now you're considering the police budget.
Thank you very much.
Please begin.
Good morning, my name is Michelle Mening Scott and I am a resident of District 7.
I am speaking today as another citizen and support of the community investment budget and for fully funding all of the social services the community depends on.
I also wish to declare my strong objection as a tax paying citizen of the city to the following.
Number one, the newest income and clearing strategy the city implemented earlier this year.
Based on information I've become aware of through multiple area nonprofit and mutual aid organizations who provide services to the low income and unhoused population of the city.
Many of whom you've already who have already spoken to you during these proceedings this month.
You've certainly unconstitutional incredibly harmful inhumane cost prohibitive and just plain illogical based on what is most needed by the population being dehumanized by this ill conceived strategy.
I also strongly object to any increase to the awesome police department budget above what is legally required by previous agreements made as part of prior union contracts unfortunately.
The inexplicable defending of programs within and the slow dismantling and undermining of the progress made by the equity division.
The equity division formerly known as the equity office was created over 11 years ago after a coalition of community members leaders and organizers request the city leadership at that time.
Finally address the well known and undocumented racial and economic disparities that exist within the populations of the city.
The conditions that created those disparities have been here since before the city was founded.
And it took decades for those issues to even be acknowledged let alone addressed.
And in this current political climate we are in right now the gains made and addressing those conditions past 11 years plus are now eroding.
We cannot afford to go backwards nor should any of us be bullied into believing top down decision making knows better than the community it serves.
Is the people in this community who are marginalized and left out of this decisions that affect them the most and who are the ones we should be listening to the hardest.
Who among you will continue to be the same. Thank you.
You're going to you're out of order and you need to leave the chambers.
You need to leave the chambers.
Thank you.
The best.
Thank you. Mayor Watson. Mayor Protembella and city council members.
My name is Pat Balstreyes and I live in district three.
I am here to again speak about animal services and specifically to ask you to restore the full amount of funding for emergency veterinary care that was cut last year.
Council member Lane. I am aware that you restored a hundred thousand dollars out of your I think it's called discretionary funds. I'm not sure.
To offset some of that cut.
Thank you very much.
I never didn't fully restore the 450,000 and Mayor Protembella.
I understand that you also helped find savings from the spare board ordinance or directive.
But that savings has not been realized so the services have been cut.
I am not here to ask you to increase general funds for restoring the cuts.
The animal services office has a donations fund that currently has a million dollar fund balance.
Part of that fund balance.
$500,000 has been set aside for a puppy play yard that I understand from this director the prior director set that aside thinking he could get a puppy play yard with $500,000
and apparently we cannot.
And Mayor Protem, I understand that you're going to be looking into general something Baseo bonds certificates of obligation to look into a feasibility study for yet a bigger shelter footprint.
And that will help with the puppy issue.
So given that there's $500,000 in the donations fund given that last year you cut 450,000 invents services.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Appreciate you being you.
Missile Ramos.
Andrea Abel.
Alicia Fish White.
Whitecher.
The Novia Joseph.
Rosa Maria Maria.
Won't we start here and we'll go this direction so she's sitting down and we'll just go down the road.
Lisa.
Hey, how you doing?
My name is Missile Ramos and before I speak, I want to bring attention that ice has detained people right outside city hall today.
These individuals will need support as their families try to relocate and find their loved ones.
We cannot let this happen on our city's land and we need to demand more.
Thank you council members for going through the budget proposal and working towards a budget that's equitable for all of us.
With the questions that have been asked and additional information provided we're seeing a public push towards money reallocation into our actual communities.
With the current budget currents we're stripping almost $17 million away from the social services that support Austin citizens from mental health housing workforce development along with many other services that help community survive and thrive.
So I ask that you please move the 911 call center out of APD.
Let's give our communities the investment they actually deserve.
And please if you can do anything to help those individuals that were detained earlier that I mentioned earlier today that you share any call of actions that the public can engage on.
We cannot let this happen on city land.
That's it. Thank you.
Please.
If you'll go next or state your name for the record.
Hello Mayor Watson and city council members. My name is Alicia Fishwiker. I'm the food access director at farm share Austin.
Farm share Austin's fresh for less is a food access program that provides fresh produce and groceries to 33,000 people in need across 25 zip codes.
Fresh for less consistently exceeds deliverables providing over 700 opportunities throughout the year for customers to access nutrient dense foods.
95% of our customers increase their fruit and vegetable consumption as a result of shopping with us.
Food access is different from emergency food.
The majority of our customers use mobile markets and home delivery multiple times.
APH metrics on contracts are geared toward providing one time services for a large number of people and penalized farm share on our reporting since we don't register customers.
We aim to eliminate as many barriers to healthy food as possible.
Farm share leverages city of Austin funding to increase impact.
This is especially essential since city of Austin contracts do not allow for cost of living increases.
We need to make sure that there are no direct expenses or equipment such as vans and walking coolers.
We could not operate without leveraging other funding.
Before the city makes cuts and eliminates access to healthy foods for thousands of people.
Please look at how you're evaluating program effectiveness.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning Mayor and council. I'm Andrea Abel. I'm the executive director of farm share Austin and a resident of D3.
And I'm here to oppose the reduction funding that supported the convenient healthy food program.
I'm also here to oppose the cuts to social services.
The first line item that I mentioned is the line item that sends the fresh for less mobile markets and home delivery.
Farm share Austin also participates in two food is medicine programs.
So I wanted to share some voices from Austinites who have benefited from fresh for less.
This is from a mom participating in our produce and pantry rx which is partially supported by APH.
We stopped doing a lot of McDonald's and eating out.
My daughter had the option to buy the groceries herself.
So she say, okay, I'll pick them up. I'll pick them out and we can cook dinner.
Now she comes home after school and we cook together before picking up my oldest.
And we all eat dinner as a family. I think the program pushed it to happen.
Here's a testimony all from our fresh for less home delivery customer.
I used to live on a farm and haven't been able to get the same quality produce and so many years with the prices of groceries these days.
I'm so happy y'all are able to deliver to my zip code.
Since I have to travel with an oxygen tank and going to the grocery store isn't an option for me.
And this is from a food as best medicine participant which is for postpartum food and secure moms.
It is meant so much. We are over the income limit for snap by less than 45 dollars and so we don't qualify.
Access to food is a real struggle for our family. This program is meant so much to us.
Honestly, I don't know what we would have eaten some days without this food.
It helped us to be able to eat and feed our kids and it was healthy too. We are truly grateful.
I'm heart and to see that council is considering a different process for evaluating nonprofit contracts with the city.
And as you develop this process, we would like to welcome the opportunity to participate and provide a perspective from a practitioner.
Thank you.
Dr. Maria.
Good morning, Mayor, and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'm going to start with my ask. Please fully find social services.
In February, Councilwoman Fuentes directed city management to undertake a comprehensive transparent evidence-based review of this investments.
Five months later, we're still waiting for that. It is my hope that today the presentation reflects that.
And as you evaluate the proposal today, please do not place one basic need against another.
Or balance the budget on the backs of our neighbors with the fewest alternatives.
Housing and food are connected. Behavioral health, workforce support, family stability and care for older adults are connected.
Children do not thrive apart from the families and communities that surround them.
Investing in youth also means investing in the parents who raise them.
The older adults who care for them. The housing that keeps families together in the food that nourishes them.
Many providers already have solved the term percent reduction in this year.
While some absorb a 25 percent. That equates to a million dollars.
Any restoration adopted today should become part of the city's ongoing base.
So next year, Council is not addressing the remaining projected reductions.
And not reopening the full $16 million that was proposed for fiscal year 27.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you. Thank all of you.
Thank you, Joseph.
Thank you, Mayor. Council.
I just wanted to start with last year's budget and with the contract with voters.
Specifically, I want to remind you that the contract with voters specified.
Order improvements and Northamara was number one.
But instead we have Eric Bailey using the bond money like a blank check.
I don't see my screen.
I don't know either.
I do now.
I'll continue.
I want you to recognize that C preliminary engineering and design is what is actually being funded in
an FY27 and so on page 317 volume 2.
You only have approximately $3 million dollars for Northamara next slide.
I want to remind you that this is what the area looks like when a mom and mom was killed.
This is the same block. Donald Norton was killed in 2016.
January 30th, he died from his injuries February 3rd. Next slide.
This is what vision zero should focus on.
Respectfully, the city manager is not sitting there.
But we pay him a base salary of $488,000.
Basically a half a million dollars to make tough decisions.
And he said that vision zero was not simply branding our policy.
But in fact, it is next slide.
This is a affordable housing development and it's in district 7.
This is where the pedestrian hybrid beacon is being placed.
And two council members, Siegel.
I just want you to know that the information you received on Tuesday was inaccurate as a release.
So affordable housing.
There are 101.
You unders our 2026.
Under score budget.
There's 101 vouchers over as barrel ruddling.
Next slide.
I don't 171 units.
My point here, Mayor, is that you're not being honest.
You made a good speech about trust on Tuesday.
But you need to put in money where your mouth is.
If you have any questions, I'll let the answer them at this time.
Thank you, Mayor Joseph.
Continuing on with one, Tracy Cornelius.
Henry Sands.
Mary Cree.
Carol Hurley.
And Brian McGiverin.
Hello.
I'm Tracy Cornelius.
A leader with central Texas in her face.
A member of all Saints Episcopal Church.
And a board member.
A capital idea.
I'm here today to ask you to support level funding for capital idea.
Capital idea helps adults in low wage jobs move into high demand.
Living wage careers.
Creating a path out of generational poverty.
Mayor Watson Council members.
You have said you prioritize programs with high ROI that address the deepest needs
and are highly impactful.
Capital idea has demonstrated 700 percent return on investment to taxpayers by increasing wages
and reducing the use of social services.
You prioritize programs that perform at a high level and are not duplicated.
Capital idea offers one of the most comprehensive long term workforce development programs in Austin.
Delivering a high level of student support program completion and job placement.
Capital idea has an 84 percent annual retention rate.
2025 graduates increase their average annual wage from 22,000 a year to 70,000 a year, a 250 percent increase.
The city wants to prioritize basics, public safety, parks, libraries.
The city wants to be open for business.
Provide a talent pipeline for employers and grow our tax base so that we can afford to do all these things well.
Capital idea helps with these goals and has another priority.
Making sure that people who have had barriers to entry get a chance to participate fully in the economic success that
contributes to making life in Austin so great.
Thank you.
What will we go next here?
Why won't we start with you and then we'll go down the road?
Is that okay?
Good morning, Mayor Watson.
Mayor Pritim Vaila.
Council members and my fellow Austinites.
My name is Mary Cree.
I lived in Austin since 1986 and in District 4 since 1992.
I'm a member of St. Johns Episcopal Church.
I'm a leader with Central Texas Center Faith.
It is my great honor today to speak to you regarding Capital idea.
Capital idea, founded in 1998, helps working adults choose new careers,
connecting them with education, training, career development opportunities,
through partnerships with local, major employers.
Capital idea provides tuition, books, tutoring, child care,
and other support to help students complete their training.
Capital idea has made it possible for thousands of Austin area adults to work their way
from low income employment to higher paying careers.
Last year, 169 students found jobs in their field of study,
earning an average starting wage of $33 per hour.
In 2023, the Ray Marshall Center at the University of Texas at Austin found
that Capital idea participants achieved an average increase of $19,924
in annual earnings.
These are life-changing results.
It also found that for every $1 invested, the city receives $7 increase tax revenue.
My son, born and raised in Austin, and a new CPA, my in-house accountant,
thinks this is a good idea too.
Thank you.
Please.
Good morning, Mayor and Council.
I am Henry Signs, a member of our Lady of Weather Loop at Catholic Church.
I am a native Austinite and I am a proud retired member of the UPS Union.
I am also a Central Texas Interfaith leader.
I have been around long enough to remember when it was Austin Interfaith.
Capital idea was founded in 1998 by the organizing work of Central Texas Interfaith.
It was built off the success of the summer youth employment program,
helping kids to get professional experience, stay in school, and get some money.
Members of the business community saw the summer youth program success
and came to us asking if we could build something similar with them for adults.
And so, Capital idea was born 28 years ago.
For almost 30 years, Capital idea has been a leader in making sure that Austin and the surrounding region
has a strong workforce that can meet the needs of our growing community.
I urge you to continue not just support this program,
but to champion it's continued work.
Champion this program secures the future of Austinites,
being able to actually afford to live and thrive here.
Thank you.
Good morning, Members of Council.
My name is Brian McGivern.
I am the Director of the Austin Community Law Center
and I'm also on the Vestry of St. John's Episcopal Church,
which is a member of Central Texas Interfaith.
And I can't tell you how many people I have helped liberate from
an abuser with a protective order who then turned to me and said,
what's next?
All two of them, people that I work with, they are young,
they have children, and they have only a high school diploma.
What's next is a very difficult answer.
One of the few raised of hope in that scenario
are programs like Capital Idea.
The other speakers are not understating it when they say
Capital Idea has a life-changing impact, not just for the individual served,
but also generationally.
I know that you have many hard decisions in this budget.
But I also know that you all know what the right thing
do is here.
I would strongly, strongly encourage you to fund
fully fund Capital Idea and our social services.
I know it's really difficult to make major alterations
to a proposed budget.
But I have faith that you have the courage and the strength to do it.
Thank you.
Please.
Good morning.
May it please the Council and Mayor Watson.
My name is Carol Hurley.
I'm a petitioner at St. Mary's Cathedral,
and I have lived in District 10 for 56 years.
I am a central Texas Interfaith leader.
I am here today to encourage the Council to prioritize funding
for leading organizations that provide long-term workforce development
like Capital Idea.
Capital Idea targets a demographic that otherwise is not served.
I am an attorney who has spent a number of years
representing children in foster care,
and I am the former foster parent and adoptive parent
of two daughters who came through the foster care system in Travis County.
These experiences have shown me how difficult it is
for this population to live independently and successfully.
This population does not have the support of typical families,
and they frequently struggle with executive functioning.
This program provides the kinds of supports and services
that facilitate success not typically available in colleges
and technical schools or community colleges.
Our homeless population is made up in large part
by individuals who aged out of foster care.
These individuals through no fault of their own
end up using public resources.
The community bears the cost to feed them provide health care,
often very expensive emergency health care,
and housing them in our jails and prisons.
Capital Idea allows the same individuals
to take charge of their lives, obtain good, stable employment,
and become tax paying residents of our city.
This is the kind of program that sets Austin apart.
This is a kind of program that makes me proud to be a person
who lives here and has something to do with changing the way the world is.
And I hope that each of you can take pride and do that as well.
Thank you.
Mother Katie Luba, Monica Guzman,
Jacob Reach, Rivas, Susan Spataro.
We'll begin here and move down the road, please.
Good morning.
Council members and Mayor Kirk Watson.
I'm Mother Katie Luba.
I'm the director at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church located in District 10.
Past Vice Chair of Capital Idea,
a board member of Central Texas Interfaith.
My mom was a single mom with three children and a divorce.
Through efforts of our extended family,
she was able to get her education,
leading to all of her children,
completing master's degrees.
That's the kind of intergenerational effect
the capital idea has.
She was our capital idea,
and I often wonder how her life would have been different.
She had had an outside organization like capital idea
to do that work even earlier.
She did that.
Adding credible job, but not all are so resilient or so lucky. Today, I am ahead of congregation at St.
Matthews. In an area where many people don't need a program like capital idea, but some still do. And the city of Austin has many that need it.
It's one of the main places people move to after graduating capital idea, getting a nursing job, working at a nearby hospital or health clinic in district ten and throughout the city.
The program is important. We strongly encourage you to support it at past levels. Thank you.
Thank you. Good morning.
Good morning. I'm Monica Guzman, policy director at GAVA. Yesterday, GAVA submitted up dated fiscal 27 budget recommendations, specifically changes to the early childhood and education recommendations.
We removed the $100,000 for the program coordinator role at Austin Economic Development, and we updated the initial bullet to 75,000 sustained funding for the Austin Travis County Family Child Care Educator Network partnerships for continued support for home base childcare.
The reasons for the updates was to clarify we're recommending funding for the FCC E network to support the network activities and partnerships in light of our understanding that the program coordinator position,
also known as the FCC E network coordinator, ended July 31 and will not be back filled.
To support existing Austin Public Health and Austin Economic Development, early childhood staff, to work with community partners, including United Way for Greater Austin, homegrown, raising Travis County and GAVA, who will be collaborating to ensure the continued positive impact and sustainability of the FCC E network for home base providers,
established by the City of Austin and homegrown BCN partnership in fiscal years 2025 and 2026 as a transition to United Way by September 28 as it sustainable organizational home.
In addition, it's good that 4.7 million has been identified for used to restore funding to social service contracts.
It's also important to fund critical social infrastructures, specifically 3 million for the family stabilization grant to economically stabilize about 225 households during this time of increased cost of living.
There are 70,000 for legal representation services and 250,000 for mental health services for immigrant support to navigate this heinous political climate while residents are being detained daily, especially in districts 24 and 5.
And well as outside City Hall this morning as well as funding the CIV coalition fiscal 27 recommendations.
Thank you.
We urge you to prioritize health and safety of Austin's vulnerable community.
Thank you.
This material.
This business material just took to eight.
I've talked a couple of times on the budget and I haven't yet said and I believe.
Thank you manager Bronex and your staff for putting this budget together and all the work, all of you counsel people have done.
It is complicated, it is not easy and it doesn't, you know, everyone doesn't like much of anything.
But I think you've done a really good job.
I would first, I'm a governmental accountant.
That's my wheelhouse.
And so I want to talk about the increase first in APD.
You know I support public safety.
I think it's the most important job of local government.
But the increase in the APD budget is simple.
And that is, it is the contract that was approved by the city and APA.
You've already agreed to that.
The next thing, it's the payment of pension obligations.
You know, you talked a couple of times about the city's bond rating.
And a couple of years ago, the city's bond rating went down because you weren't meeting the pension obligations.
But you are now and you're at a triple A.
What difference does that make?
The higher you're rating, the lower the interest you pay.
So that's extremely important.
The other primary increase is money from support services.
In a government, you have these different funds and not all government's
handle it the same.
And so you've got support services over here.
You've got other departments in the general fund here.
You chop up the cost of these and you allocate them to the departments.
So one of the big increases is the increase in social support services.
The chief cannot control that.
You can.
So do not cut the police budget.
It's an artificial cut.
And please keep looking out for the taxpayer's dollar.
When people call 911, they want the government to help them.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Please.
Rivas district nine.
Council, I'm here once again to tell you to stop the nonsense.
Pay attention to our testimonies and listen to the community.
24.6 million dollars.
That is what you propose to give APD.
24.6 million.
Here's what that amount of money could do.
Reopens saves forensic program so that people.
Raves in the city of Austin can get the care they need.
It can also restart their same nurse training program.
It can open supply and staff.
New homeless shelter here in Austin to get people off the street during this heat wave.
And we all know how much APD spends on sweeping on house,
camping on house, camps without providing any aid to those impacted.
24 million can ensure where the last generation of Austinites fighting aids.
By opening safe needle exchanges.
It can feed every child in AISD's lunch and breakfast program so they can focus on their education
and not where their next meal is coming from.
It can do so much good.
Here's what 24.6 million will do when the hands of APD.
Another dead unarmed black teenager going through a mental health crisis will lose their life.
Another trans woman of color slammed into the sidewalk while APD is responding to the call that they
made.
You know what?
24 million dollars looks like in the hand of APD.
It looks like cops putting on their brand new gas masks.
30 seconds before DPS fires tear gas canisters.
While biological weapons banned in every other donation for being, you know, horrible.
Into a crowd of protesters APD claimed that they failed to adequately control.
24 million dollars in the hands of APD looks like a pregnant unhoused woman.
A block away from a protest getting hit by downwind of set gas when she had nothing to do with it.
We have been here so many times asking for this and we want a flat budget.
We don't want like we want we want what's good for the community and it sounds like you don't listen.
So listen please hear us and do what is right for the community because no one else is
and if you're responsible for that that is horrible.
Thank you.
Good morning Mayor City Council members.
My name is Jacob.
I'm the Chief Operating Officer for communities and schools of central Texas.
And I'm also resident of district gate.
And I'm here to discuss potential reductions to our student support funding.
Students come to school every day facing anxiety to pressure and trauma.
Another challenges that affect their learning, their attendance, their relationships and their academic success.
Communities and schools of central Texas and mental health professionals on school campuses.
So students can receive individualized counseling during the school day in a trusted environment.
The services to state from CIS is other city funding agreement.
Our other contract focuses on case management, family engagement, academic attendance, behavioral outcomes.
And we are very proud of our record and exceeding all of our goals and outcomes for that agreement.
The expanding support for student program provides direct mental health counseling in behavioral health interventions to students who require more intensive clinical support.
CIS acknowledges that the program that was cut fell short of our unduplicated client target.
The short fall reflected limited counseling capacity included shared staffing and shortages.
We also did not include our Dell Valley students who live in the city of Austin and who were served and if included would have met the targets.
While the number of students served were lower than anticipated outcomes were still strong.
Overall 82% of demonstrated improved life skills and met their benchmarks.
If funding is preserved, CIS will implement a focused and accountable service model that includes dedicated counseling in Austin and L Valley schools.
Clear enrollment in outcome targets stronger campus referral processes and stronger corrective action within 30 days.
CIS understands the city's budget constraints and recognized reductions may be necessary eliminating the agreement however could remove dedicated supports.
CIS request continued support of this agreement.
We know the need exists in the services this thing. Thank you.
Thank you.
I have one more remote caller for item one. Paul Tarty.
Hi, what is all Tarty?
This year 10, I come to work with tax-signed additional items in former city of Austin Park.
Both of those roles at Washington, Cameron, Suits, failed editing public came to me and said exacerbate condition that contributed to homelessness.
APD has been tasked with assisting in slaves while life and resources education skills that could effectively bring homeless people and more stable living.
In the same way, the city is aimed at operating at ground profit service providers who are educated and trained well-sprayers of resources that have already proven their successes and doing what each household payles to a college.
Half of the 20 highest grown professions in the US and the areas of medicine, therapy and recovery.
Part of the policy is shifting and it would be wise for the city to act accordingly by discarding a multi-slung needle in the data of the police officer.
And since part of the individuals, you can act with data transmission and efficiency for long-term solutions.
Non-profit partners have unique and specific training through universities, internships, volunteerism and lived experience all on their own nine and not on the city's dollar.
The city would be failing money to keep non-profit organizations funded as they alleviate conditions which may lead to criminalized behavior and are a son's medical emergencies and even prevent deaths.
Childhood of homelessness including increased rent prices, low wages, health issues, incarceration and lack of employment opportunity.
Police do not help people of these conditions, which is why we cannot work deep-pushed in the U.S.
The report of ground loss and peat in 2008 has been steadily declining with the past four years being the lowest in two decades according to the data.
80 days have been understatement using years of low support of the current rate instead of testimony that they are needed at all times.
Public safety is home over the unhoused youth for the hungry very much attention for the health.
Thank you.
Can you continue with the last of the remote speakers for item one, Michael Lofton, Nia Shah, Terrence Hopkins, Alyssa Matthews, Mary Elizabeth and Danielle Silva.
Thank you.
Mr. Lofton, we'll begin with you.
Thank you very much.
Be in here.
Tell me.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
I'll go ahead.
Okay.
The founder and executive director for the African American youth harvest foundation and the trauma recovery center.
I want to say I'm very happy.
To be here today, in addition, I did send a letter last night to all of the city council members to share where we are at with the trauma recovery center.
But I also want to take my hat off to Austin Public Health for two reasons.
This report that they just spent months on working describes all of the work.
That's supported by the Skeleton Safety and Justice Committee and the nonprofit here in Austin.
Austin over the last three to four years, crime has gone down.
And it's due to the work that collared by another system of Vanessa Fuentes and happened to bring the trauma recovery center here.
And here because, you know, I've heard each of the council members over the last five, six, seven days talk about the need for mental health counseling.
And I agree with you.
I agree with you.
And I say that to say, but the sad reality of it is why we're talking about the need for mental health counseling.
We're about to close the trauma recovery center.
And I realize, I'm gonna say this here, I realize that the funding, this contract was scheduled to close.
But I'm also asking you this because we have identified funding for the trauma recovery center.
It's probably going to require some input and support from the city council members.
And so I'm asking for an amendment to the budget to add what is needed.
I do plan to bring all of the other funders to the table and get letters as to what they plan to do.
I plan to do because I think this here is a resource that city of Austin and Travis County cannot turn their back home.
I'll say this here also over the last three or four weeks, we have 40 plus kids to talk about suicide.
Thank you.
Why don't we start here and work with them.
Good morning.
My name is Alyssa Matthews.
I'm here on behalf of hands off central Texas, testifying an opposition of the proposed budget and in support of the community investment budget.
I'm here to urge council to keep APD's budget flat to move 911 out of APD and to fully fund social services.
As others have already discussed today, data shows that when cities invest in policing and not in community services and social services, the outcomes are clear.
It makes our community less safe, worsens the lives of your constituents and it costs taxpayers more money in the long run.
The last part is what I want to focus on today.
When council invest in policing rather than the community interactions with law enforcement increase.
And while following aren't line items on council's budget, so council doesn't seem to care so much about it as the taxpayers do.
When we increase interactions with law enforcement, we increase the cost of our jails, our court system, the cost for.
Public defense, and all these things we're coming and hiding about providing resources for now, housing, health care. All of these things we pay for it, as tax payers, we just pay for it on the back end.
I'm here to ask that city council stop passing the buck on investing in our community. We, the taxpayers, know that when you pass the buck onto the county or onto the state, ultimately it is us paying for it.
So I am here to ask you today to do your jobs to represent your community that has been very clear about what they want.
Move 911 out of APD, fully fund social services, keep APD's budget flat.
Represent your constituents. Thank you.
Good morning, Council. My name is Nihasha and I'm a resident of District 3.
So public facing city communications team approved budget summary says that below the public safety header, it's all about ensuring safety and security to fare an equitable public safety responses.
Based on the murder of 17-year-old Antoniel Williams and the fact that a few of our neighbors were just arrested outside this building by ice and collaboration DPS, I'm going to ask which part exactly is fair are equitable in what's being proposed.
All of our tax payer money that you are asking us to pay more off is going into this budget that doesn't quite frankly seem in service of public interest.
And city manager, Bronax's message to the public was, like the community members we serve, we must live within our means. Who's means exactly are you living within with this budget?
I want you to use that standard when evaluating what line items are seeing budget cuts and which ones are not.
And so that end keeping the APD budget flat would be the wise budgetary decision.
A previous commenter has called out at 98% of this proposed increase of 24.2 million is just baseline personnel and wage costs growth under the existing five year contract that this council also approved in 2024 fully knowing the consequences except for a council member cadre who called this out back then.
And what's also stark to me is that there are more than 300 positions within that contract that are authorized for not fulfilled. So again, how is this from a pure discretionary point of view, good use of public funds and especially considering the lack of accountability and the many examples that were given by previous commenters including the millions of dollars spent on daily speeds that are really not seeing a long term solution to our homelessness crisis.
How is this exactly good use of tax per money and so I'm going to talk about social services very money should go and I think on that fully thank you.
Sorry, which times up. Thank you. Yes, please begin.
As we're going to guys, my name is Mr. Terrace Hopkins, I'm a youth man, so at that for a few photos foundation.
So, and I speak it also eight different schools helping kids with the social and social learning to talk about the 60s of education, communication, collaboration, censorship, creativity, character and critical thinking.
And also work with the unhoused helping them find job opportunity housing and helping them get their social security calls versus 50s and driver license.
It's all those essential things that they may need, but I also will call many of the time.
So I had many people come to me and say, Mr. Terrace, I was going to take my life today, but you being here calls me to take a different route.
I had others come to me and say, Mr. Terrace, I actually have my gun on my pocket and I'm getting ready to kill all these guys over here.
But something told me to come over here and talk to you.
And as I begin to talk to them and just tell them about different things of life, I say all this to say,
is that most people don't care how much you know that when they say how much you care.
As at the African-American part of the foundation, we're of someone who cares for those who are in need.
They helped over thousands of people find job placement and also getting to housing.
And I say all this to say, is that within our building where I've over 30 to 2 different nonprofit organizations all under one roof.
Like a one stop shop and they said, each one teach one together, we can reach one.
And we allow for our class to understand and know that this is a victory in the mind.
Your own defeat if you believe you are.
So we're asked if you guys can continue to just allow for us to be funded as an organization as we begin to do protection.
We have provide protection for our communities, protection for our schools, protection for our neighborhoods.
And all those who are in need, we do help as well.
Thank you guys so much for your time.
God bless and have a blessed day.
Thank you.
Good morning council, good morning mayor.
My name is Mary Elizabeth.
I live in district one.
I'm here today to ask if the city budget be amended to include the establishment of an independent emergency communications department staff by civilians.
This batch is the front line of emergency response and must be able to respond comprehensively to the public needs.
911 has for so long been seen primarily as a function of the police department, which has reduced some people's interest in calling.
We're seeing in real time the need to expand this perception to include it's the system's role in accessing mental health support for Austin citizens.
An independent civilian communication system will be a factor in increasing the public's trust in 911.
Trust is low in our community when it comes to calling 911 at this time and it's getting worse.
Emergency response systems only work when people trust them enough to use them.
I hope you will follow the recommendation made by myself and many others to get the 911 system into an independent civilian operated department.
Thank you. Thank you. The silver.
Good morning Mayor and council. I'm Daniela Silva from District 3.
Before I begin I am pouring you to please use your power and political connections to seek justice for the three construction workers who are changed and kidnapped by ice a little over an hour ago just a few yards from here.
I'm also here in my personal capacity to ask you to restore funding for the conveniently healthy food program.
I'm a former employee at Farmshire Austin whose fresh for less food access program is under threat if you choose to move forward with these funding cuts.
For the record that folks at Farmshire have not asked me to be here and had no idea I was going to be here today I just really care about this program.
Fresh for less is so unique and that it brings farmers market quality produce and weed spoke quality shelf stable goods directly to communities who otherwise may not be able to access them.
The markets are held in schools, clinics, rec centers and other community spaces throughout the eastern crescent.
It was at these markets that folks would tell me or at least as are so good they remind me of the ones back at a ranch or how they love using local ingredients to make their traditional dishes.
Like when a thea brought me some tamales she made using colored greens instead of corn husks.
When the pandemic hit, the in-person markets were closed.
In order to meet the moment and continue serving those struggling with food insecurity and even more challenging conditions.
The food access program pivoted to create the home delivery service.
The service was and may still be the only grocery delivery service in Austin that not only accepts not but double up food books.
The folks at Farmshire Austin cares so deeply about the people and the land here in central Texas.
They are committed to the work of ensuring everyone regardless of zip code or socioeconomic status can have access to high quality healthy food that actually supports the environment.
This organization and the programs they run are exactly the type of thing I want my tax dollars being used for not 25 million more for the best resource city department in Austin.
Keep the police budget flat and protect services and programs provided by local organizations like Farmshire Austin.
Thank you.
Mayor all speakers right I'm one have been called.
Thank you very much members of as you've heard all the speakers have been called so I want to ask our professional staff if they'll come forward and.
Members what I'm going to suggest is that we.
We have we ask any questions we might have them and then as we indicated we're going to do is we would lay out.
Proposed amendments proposed proposed I have seen but I'm going to suggest that we do is.
I may suggest we'll see how long this part goes right but what I may suggest we do is take a 30 minute break and then come back to lay out the amendments in the IFCs and the way I would suggest we do this is just I'm going.
But unless somebody has an objection I'm just going to start with Councilmember Ellis and we'll just kind of come down the road.
And let people.
Do that I'm part of the reason I'm announcing that out loud is so that.
Staff can be prepared to put up on the screens to propose amendments.
Yes Councilmember Fuentes may or the thing on the order which we lay out our amendments by being more helpful to go by.
With staff sent us the email the packet the way we are just going through the packet sorry.
That one we take a break we'll see he just indicated that that might be helpful to him too.
I was just trying to do it in a way that was fair to the council members but if you think that's fair we'll do it that way.
I still would suggest we take a 30 minute break when after they finish their presentation.
It's all year's director.
Good morning Mayor and council carry laying director of budget and organizational excellence.
I'm going to turn it over to deputy director Eric Nelson to go through the presentation.
Good morning.
Eric Nelson deputy director budget and organizational excellence.
Based on feedback we received at Tuesday's session staff has gone back and updated its recommendation for the use of the additional $4.7 million.
We've anticipated property tax revenue that we expect to get in the general fund as a result of the certified tax roll.
We would still direct $4.7 million to be added to housing's ongoing general fund budget for the local housing voucher program.
That will bring their total funding up to $6.8 million which is nearly the entirety of the ongoing need.
And we have provisions to fund the remainder in FY27 and to get to the total ongoing need in the FY28 plan.
We would also reorganize some plan spending across several funds but the ultimate effect will be to create $4.75 million in unrestricted one time capacity that could be available for social services grants.
This is the somewhat convoluted flow of funds that's been made necessary because there are restrictions on the use of downtown density bonus revenue within the housing trust fund.
And so we've reorganized some spending to ensure that we're using those funds appropriately but again the ultimate effect is to reorganize the spending such that $4.75 million is made available for social services contracts.
Members, I want to ask a couple of questions so that we try to get clarity on what was first of all.
And I posted on the message board that we've been working to try to achieve what we're predominantly two goals that we were hearing from council.
And from professional staff on how to deal with the $4.7 million of additional funding when the tax rolls were certified.
The two primary goals were A, the concept of making an allocation of the $4.7 million for funding of social services.
And I'll pause for just a second and say the $4.7 million for the potential funding of social services where the money would be in a single allocation for social services.
And we would then have staff as we indicated.
Look at the individual contracts and if there's a performance issue evaluate what we do with that.
But the bottom line to it is is it would put $4.7 million into potential social services.
That was goal number one.
Number two was what staff was recommending to us was coming up with some better way to stabilize the housing voucher program.
And the concept there was that the housing voucher program while funded is funded out of one time money based upon the downtown density bonus program.
And the goal was to get that where it was more sustainable because it was in it would be related to recurring funding in other words general fund funding.
So those were the two predominant goals.
And I'm going to do my best to lay this out in my simple way in hopes that it makes sense.
And the public, all of us can understand it.
And I'm happy to have myself corrected.
Actually, I won't be that happy about it, but I'm willing to do it.
I have myself corrected to make sure we know what it is we're doing.
But it's to achieve those two broad goals.
The first step was that we would take the 4.7 of additional funding and go ahead and put it into the general fund.
So it would be in the general fund.
The second step was that we would take the housing voucher program the way I think of it.
Staff refers to it as an expense.
I think of it as an invoice.
Right, a bill.
The housing voucher program invoice.
4.7 million.
And move that invoice or that expense to the general fund. So now the vouchers will become a regular city program out of the general fund, which is the stabilization that professional staff was looking for, instead of being funded as a one-time expense every year.
The next step would be to move $2 million of permanent support housing expense from the general fund to the housing trust fund, because to keep in mind, we've just freed up $4.7 million from the housing trust fund, because that invoice or expense is now over in the general fund.
So 2 million of permanent support housing expense would go to from the general fund to the housing trust fund.
They would also move $2.7 million, a $2.7 million invoice or expense from the hope fund to the housing trust fund.
Again, we freed up $4.7 million in the housing trust fund. So now you would move two expenses over the housing trust fund to take care of that one-time money.
It would leave $2.7 million in the hope fund for social services.
And the next step would be to move $2 million that's freed up by moving the permanent support of housing dollars to the housing trust fund to the budget stabilization reserve fund for social services.
So what happens is you would have two million of budget stabilization reserves for social services and 2.75 million of hope fund dollars for social services for a total of 4.75 million of one-time dollars for social services to draw down as we follow the process that we've talked about on the dice.
So what that does is I think I laid that out. You get a very difficult to follow all of that.
But it does achieve the two goals that we have, I think, have consensus about.
And those two goals are A, provide greater stability for the housing voucher program by giving it recurring money.
And B, to find the, to utilize 4.7, in this case, 4.75 million dollars for social services by changing the invoices and expensing of certain things.
What that does, by the way, is for example, one of the proposed amendments that you all know I was proposing.
And I indicated I could either be for the full 4.7 or it could be for the 2.2 roughly for children and family services.
But instead, what we would do with that is what we would do is we would make that one-time allocation.
This gives us the money to do that. And so I think staff's good work on this creative work puts us in a posture where that would be the end up being part of the base motion on the budget and not requires to do some of the proposed amendments that we may even have some still shown up today, because of the work has been done since our last since Tuesday.
That I lay that out okay.
You should be right here.
I know, no, no, no, not in job I'm seeking. Yes, Councilman Reels.
I just a quick clarifying question with this budget stabilization reserve proposal is it still at 17% or has it changed?
That was the, the, uh, reserves will still be at 17%.
Okay.
It's the movement of money to that that helps us with that.
I figured that was the case. I just.
I'm glad you asked you. I should, that should be one of the points.
So.
All right. Councilman Funtus, your next and then followed by Councilman Reels.
Thank you. First and foremost, thank you so much to our budget staff for providing this alternative proposal.
It's right in line with the conversations we had on Tuesdays.
I really appreciate your hard work and helping us get to a consensus on how to ensure we are restoring the cuts to our social safety net as well as providing stability for
our local housing vouchers. A couple of questions based on our conversation on Tuesday.
We had asked if we could put together a total amount of of the proposed reductions to the social services.
How much of the proposed reductions were related to homelessness.
In other words, how many of those reductions would be eligible to be financed through the hope fund knowing it's,
it needs to be related to homelessness related initiatives?
Give me one second. What I looked at up.
Okay.
But and I'd also just like to clarify if I could that all of these one time dollars are unrestricted.
Okay.
Whether it's the hope fund or the BSRF they can be used for any purpose.
Okay. Perfect. That answers my question.
The other question I have is how.
I just want to get a flat numerical amount of how much did the city of Austin Fund and social services at the end of FY26 and what amount would we be with the restoration of the 4.7.
So the FY26 budget for social service grants was 74.2 million.
Now with the proposed budget, there's some moving around of dollars.
So as I mentioned earlier, there's about $20 million that has been moved to operating for public health and homestrategy office for our shelters.
So if you take out that that $20 million and then we moved $3 million of the silvering center over to our budget stabilization reserve fund.
And so that that gives us to about 51, 51 million total.
And that amount includes the 2 million of the new investment that was in the permanent support of housing,
our wraparound services that we just discussed moving around between general fund and housing trust fund.
So with this staff proposal for the recommended use of the additional revenue, we would the FY27 budget as proposed with this proposed amendment would have social services funded at a $51 million level.
Is that fair to say?
Very close to it yes. And the reason I say that is there is some recommendation for small amount of those contracts.
If you think about the community planning focus group, we send a memo a few minutes ago or a little while ago about some of those contracts,
but there is a little bit of duplication in addition to the community planning focus area that we would recommend looking at eliminating.
And so we'll be close to 50 or 51 million with those changes.
So colleagues just building off of our conversation on Tuesday and perhaps we can continue this conversation as we lay out our amendments and I have seen others two of them related to social services.
I think over our question that we have is a dias that we need to make clear is what is the level of funding for social services that we're comfortable at.
Knowing that right now is a $51 million investment from the city that goes towards social services.
I don't want to be in the same situation next year and so we need to provide direction to our city manager on what is our comfort level on that total amount.
I don't know if we're going to get to that level or that number during this budget cycle, but I would like for us to kind of lay out an understanding and a timeline of when we come to that direction for the city manager.
And last question on my end, you mentioned the memo you sent that talks about the $845,000 worth of funding that will be eliminated from the proposed contracts and just want to make sure I'm clear on this.
Because this staff alternative proposal is a $4.75 million investment back into the social services.
This proposed elimination of $800,000 that was a little bit above the $5.4 or that were restoring.
So we wanted to restore.
So how are these deeper cuts? How is that related to the gap?
With those reductions that would close the gap, it wouldn't be the 4.7 would be able to fully find the remaining.
I believe the remaining contracts, I think we would still go through the analysis to fully understand the performance of the remaining contracts and come back to council with the potential recommendations, but the dollars will be available.
So colleagues, I just want to make sure we're all clear in this memo that has this specific contracts that would be eliminated with this budget proposal.
The rest of the $4.7 million we're holding that investment for us to have a conversation on funding the categories of social services, not specific to the contracts that were previously listed for reductions.
Thank you.
The council member can I clarify something I was doing math in my head and so sometimes that's not good.
And so the fiscal year 27 actual social service grants amount in the proposed budget is 48.8 million dollars.
The difference is the 19.4 that is in the city on shelters that's moving into operating the 2.9 that is moving to the sobering center, which gets a full investment of 71.1.
And the difference in that is the added dollars that we as I mentioned for the sobering center, excuse me, for the permanent supportive housing wrap around services.
That's where we're that's where we're at in so 48.8 is the amount for fiscal year 27.
And in the far out of the council.
What she just said is accurate and what we ought to be looking for for the next year and in the proposal that I have seen that I've laid out.
One of the things that it says is and if you remember from the message board that we would have a single allocation of the 4.7 which we figured out a way to do that.
They would do step two of that would be a review of what contracts and what services we want to continue.
And step three was that we would do a best practices analysis of where we want to be with regard to the social safety net as you described it.
So that when we come back in 28 we would be in a position to actually deal with that in a more thoughtful way.
Council member alter also as an IFC that he's handed out a different version of it today, which incorporates some of my proposed changes to it.
That actually probably is my my IFC is is probably subsumed that that that that step that third step my I see is probably subsumed in his IFC.
Which would put us into the position of what you're talking about.
Starting to rub on that but I just want to make sure that that was clear.
We're all told by the mayor.
Yeah, I just just want to start with both thinking staff for doing some gymnastics here and working with mayor or you on on this to define that consensus because.
You know, I think as Council member point as mentioned is very important clearly to all of us to not only make the restorations that we can to the social service programs and make those investments.
In the services that are needed and also to provide that stability to the housing trust fund I mean to the local housing vouchers which.
Now according to your slide.
Starting in fiscal year 20 and beyond we will have fully resolved so that's not going to be something that we have to worry about or try to plug that gap.
Which I think is just so critical so I really appreciate y'all's work to get to that point I want to just get a clarification on.
A couple of questions that Councillor Fuentes is asking.
In the.
The proposed on you know 5.35 5.4 reduction to social services.
That number includes.
The eliminated contracts correct.
The value of the eliminated contracts.
Yes.
Okay.
And I have it based on your spreadsheet of those eliminated contracts being totaling just over 2 million dollars.
But there's a separate memo that came out that she was alluding to about 850,000 worth of that 2.1.
They're not true eliminations.
They're being folded into other contracts to still provide those services correct.
Some of them are so the community planning contracts.
If you all remember through all this conversation the community planning was the priority area that.
We're saying that the lowest level of priority.
So those that I believe 250,000 or so will be eliminated.
Okay.
If we think about the 850,000, if you're correct to think as a reduction off of the 5.4 to say that there's
really 4.5 that you had a 5.4, you take the 850,000 of eliminations that are counted in that 5.4.
But those are just being moved to other contracts that are existing.
And so there would still be around 4.5 worth of reductions or eliminations in the social service
bucket.
Am I getting that right?
I'm not following you.
Okay.
And we can, let me try one more time.
We'll, during our break, we can try to clarify this.
We have 5.35 in cuts or reductions.
So far is a good.
Okay.
That number includes the eliminated contracts.
And within a subset of the eliminated contracts, the chart that we were sent last night, the council
number of flintas is talking about is $850,000 worth of eliminated contracts.
But that are really being subsumed into other contracts somewhere else.
Just the 850, not all the cuts.
They're 24 contracts being cut, but just a portion of the cuts were outlined in this memo.
And so what I'm trying to understand is that a reduction off of the 5.35.
So just to take the 5.35, reduce $850 and say that there are 4.5 million left that are
either reduced or eliminated.
Yes.
But I want to clarify in the 850, 250 of that is not being rolled into other contracts.
Now that's the community planning piece.
That's not being rolled into other contracts.
I think that's where I get lost.
So then that's where we then we would, if you incorporate that, that's 4.7 magically
of reductions that are not unaccounted for essentially outside of that community planning.
Correct.
So through this it would be a fold and restoration of pretty much everything if we did that
blanket.
But as the mayor has put forward and I think the right approach not to just say we're going
to fund everything like we've always funded everything we're going to actually look at
the service delivery and making sure that service is being delivered for the dollars being spent
and make any kind of adjustments within that pool.
But we do have the funds available to provide the level of services comprehensively as what
was being reduced.
Correct.
Okay.
I just want to, sorry, do a little math out loud, but I want to make sure I understood.
Thank you very much.
Councillor Mayer, mayer, mayer, mayer.
Mayer, mayer, mayer, mayer.
I just wanted to highlight a comment that Councillor Mhmmm.
I just made where you should get what level of social service funding can we afford long-term
and to me, that's just the critical question that we have.
This process is not good for anybody.
In the sense that if we just save everything this year, we're really just setting ourselves
up and setting our nonprofit organizations up for an even more difficult situation next year.
Or we might be able to do that for two years, but ultimately we're going to reach a level
where we would have to have very serious and deep cuts, and I would much rather do that
in a gradual and steady way to get to a sustainable level of social service funding than to
just kind of push it off and push it off until we hit that cliff where we just have to have
very deep cuts and I don't think any have been on nonprofit boards and worked with a lot of
nonprofits. It's not good for them either. We need to, they need predictability, they need
certainty, they need to be able to plan, people don't hire because they're not sure about the funding.
People don't start programs because they're not sure about the funding. It's not good for anyone to
have this kind of level of uncertainty moving toward the future. So I just think that's the
absolute critical question. If what level of social service funding can we afford and I want it to be as
high as we can possibly make it given the funding limitations that we have. I know I want to
also kind of mention the elephant in the room that has kind of gone unmentioned, which is the tax rate
election that we had this year ago almost at this point. I supported that, I campaigned, hard for it,
we would be having a very different conversation if the TRE had passed. Unfortunately it did not pass and
we are having to deal with that reality. So I know folks are here and they're saying we should fund this and we
should fund that and I agree but we are very limited in what we can fund in the funds that we have
available and that's just the reality that we're facing. Earlier I asked staff and you know because traditionally
before the 3.5% cap we would take an average of about 6% of additional property tax revenues per year
and I asked staff you know what's the difference if we would have gotten that you know been able to take 6%
instead of the 3.5% cap that was put on us by the state legislature you know how many dollars is that
and they responded that for this year would have been about 16 million dollars. Just to give people the sense of what
we're talking about and kind of the new financial reality that the city is facing. I just that's kind of gone
and mentioned through this entire debate and I just wanted to raise that you know we're working
within the system that the state of Texas has laid out that is not the system that I would want to work
within that's not a system that I think is a good system but it is a system that governs what we can and can't do
and we have to adjust to that you know 2020 reality. So anyway I appreciate the thoughts and comments
come from member Flint this and I just wanted to highlight those issues. Mayor. Yes. I need to make a point of
clarification and I do apologize. The social service investment at proposed budget it was 48.8 million.
We added 4.7 back with this staff recommendation which makes the total investment 53.5 million.
Well then let me ask how does that how do you put the 19.4 in shelters and the 2.9 in the sobering
center that that does not include those two amounts that that if we're going to make comparison if we're going to
okay if we're going to make comparisons of last year and this year which is what councilor Flintus was asking about last year was
74.2 and this year you're saying it's 48.8 plus 4.7 then you need to add in 2.9 and 19.4 to compare apples to apples.
The compare apples to apples that would make it 75.8 and the reason for that is the investment in the public and the
permanent support of housing increase primarily of the $2 million. Right and would you now explain
and so that we can say it out loud again why is the 2.9 for sobering center in the 19.4 not counted
in our apples to apples compare. Sure so the sobering center which has I think in fiscal year 26 was
included in our social service contracts was moved to our one-time funding for fiscal year 27 as we continue
to work with our partners to identify long-term funding for the sobering center. The 19.4 that is
the city's shelter so that's our emergency and domestic violence shelters that amount has been moved
over to the operating budgets of our homeless strategy and operations office as well as our
awesome public health department and that is because those dollars are more contracting nature then what
we are transitioning social service grants to. And and apropos of what both councilor Flintus and the
member of Timmons said I want to reiterate that we have my IFC and we have councilor Braltor
IFC which I think is the broader more detailed IFC and mine is probably subsumed in that that what
it will do is precisely what councilor Flintus and the member of Timmor Highlighting which is it will put us
on a track and a process to look at the social safety net in terms of what is needed in our community
best practices for providing that what can be afforded and it should allow our social service providers
or nonprofits time to prepare as we take on this annual this year long effort so that we are not
back in the same place next cycle where we feel like people were caught by surprise that that's
sort of thing it's also very important that we emphasize again that what is happening with this 4.75
million is it is a single allocation of 4.75 million but it is not a blanket restoration it is also
not a blanket cut it is a it is the staff is going to look at the individual contracts
as we go for it as that money is set aside. Councillor Berlin. Thank you I want to start by thinking
all of the non-profits service providers the service recipients the community members who are
concerned who have shown up just so many community meetings from Austin Public Health
work sessions this council meeting other council meetings and and our offices for individual
question and answer to make sure that we as individual offices did understand more about where you work in
the city and which part of the community you serve and what your history is and what the data is behind you
so that we and I I thank you on behalf of me could have a more informed discussion about how to
approach this and thank you to my more experienced colleagues who brought forth structure that will absolutely
help with that will not repeat any of the many comments I agreed with I will move to my question
so and I think this is a question for the city manager because and I don't remember how much of
what I'm going to include in it you were in the room versus briefly out of the room I don't know
but I suspect it will be a question for you by the time I'm done so when I have asked in the past and
most recently I think was last week about whether geographic analysis had been completed as you looked at
social service contracts I think it was two weeks ago actually and the answer was no as I would call
and I asked that question in regards to two different ways that geographic analysis is important one
if we were cutting funding in across the variety of contracts that caused
contraction to disproportionately impact a certain area and so we would definitely see substantial negative
impacts by removing so many contracts of different types from a single area and that might be
reason to slow down the reductions in that area and then the other the flip side of that which I
just speak about often as it relates to many departments is in order to identify parts of the city
that the social contract service contracts we have simply aren't reaching at a level that's
feasible for the type of population that's out there and you know recognizing demographic shifts
so I've asked a version of that question to many departments in my time here and the most recent one
was of financial services as it relates to social services contracts and the answer was no and so
the question that I have for the city manager and it's going to be a nice little paragraph still okay
is are we out of place as a city where as you are doing this work that is being charged to you by
my colleagues and I as I will vote for it are you out of place at the city where you can ensure
that appropriate and effective geographic analysis of our services in their reach is part of the
analysis the paragraph that I'm going to add on is we are well into a restructuring of IT
we're well into a restructuring of communications we have some departments that have done
amazing work in this area build amazing tools I will complement transportation and public works use of GIS
and we know that the competencies that are within our city in these individual departments
this is a moment an opportunity to bring
To before a solution that is coming out of these centralization efforts, if it's possible to do it, I don't know if we're at that point and I would love to hear from you.
I can give you a TLDR if that's helpful.
Oh, come on. I'm old, everyone knows about that now, right?
I remember sharing your friends.
Councilwoman, no thank you for the question, but I'll answer it in the best way possible.
I think one, we do have staff. We do have quite a bit of information around whether demographic and or needs.
And I think we're beginning to look at that. I think more intently, particularly as we're trying to focus more on results.
I think part of the challenge with the current compilation, I think, of the 200 plus different types of nonprofit and social service contracts that we have.
This is that I think they are issue specific. And in some cases, depending on the organization, they may serve in certain areas, and obviously their mission.
And what they do, and the boundaries in the areas they serve may be more specific, I think.
I would say as it relates to our, we had a point where we can look at geographical equity and impacts down to a level to get at the results we want.
I think, at least as I see the process that I believe Council wants us to undertake, beyond just the performance issues of existing contractors, but really lay out from the amount to the service area and category.
And then ultimately the overall desire community impact we want to have.
I do believe we can factor in as it relates to our analysis and our approach going forward.
That should be one of the variables as it relates to what we're going to do, how much we're going to do, and then how do we ensure through responses that we may get.
If, in fact, we do a total reset that they can be responsive to how that is addressed based on information we may provide to them demonstrating where we believe the need is.
So I do believe that's something we can accomplish.
If, in fact, we go forward with the reset as I think Council has desired us to do and working with the collective team and resources we have putting together what that looks like.
Sharing that with the city council as well as sharing it with the individuals who would ultimately want to come and continue service and or expand their services to meet the needs of the community.
So it's something we could probably ensure is built into the new approach.
Thank you appreciate that answer.
And of course, what that looks like could be arranged from as rudimentary as a code analysis to a more sophisticated use of GIS and so I'm glad to know that that's possible.
I hope there's possible no matter what happens with centralization because I think it should be.
But I know that we can definitely benefit from the efforts that you've undertaken to get a more useful and accessible and sophisticated approach to this.
I do want to call out the very strong work that not just has been done by TPW, but our equity department.
As they put together their levers of economic mobility.
It's the first thing that I've seen come out in a GIS fashion that captures some of the demographic shifts that I've talked about frequently from the dias in the last five years.
And I will also note the group that works with the demographer who certainly advocates very effectively for building this type of data up out of census tracks.
Because political boundaries are always shifting.
I would love to be kept in the loop as as progress is made unless over the course of the next year.
Thank you very much for your joint answers and how they have played out.
I too look forward to be able to provide as a city this stability that nonprofits need in order to effectively.
Even to effectively seek private philanthropy to complement city funding.
Some really really grateful for where we have landed on this.
And I thank you for your time.
Thank you, Councillor member.
All right, members.
What I would suggest we do is at this point we take a 30 minute recess and actually 32 minute recess and we come back at 1250.
Unless there's objection we will be the city council of Austin Texas will be on recess until 1250 PM it is 1218 we're in recess.
Good afternoon it is 1251 and I will call it also city council back to order after a brief recess.
Thanks everybody.
What we're going to do now is we're going to go to a practice that we've started on an annual basis where we walk through amendments and IFCs just to get them out there so that everybody gets to see them.
I appreciate how council does this and this may not take a long time but we have three other agenda items.
But we'll start and so we have a packet and councilman pointed out that we have the packet so all we're going to do is we're also going to put up on the screen.
The items and I will just call and give the floor to the council member whose items are up and we'll just rotate that way.
And Councillor Fuentes I think you're first up.
I think you have two proposed motions.
Yes that's right colleagues amendment number one it was a previously posted amendment.
I was joined by my co-sponsors council members Harper Madison Seagull Ellis and cadre in seeking to restore.
The funding for social services at a 4.7 million as we were presented today with staff's alternative proposal.
Which I'm supportive I will be seeking to withdraw this amendment.
Great thank you very much.
And by the way and also thank you for keeping a focus on all this.
I think we have come up with something that would now be part of the base budget.
But I think I speak for everybody and thanking you for keeping focus.
Thank you.
Moving on to amendment number two knowing that while we have restored 4.7 million of our social safety net there's still a gap.
So looking to identify where we can save funds to add to our social services.
This amendment seeks to do a 10% cut to our consultant spending in the general fund.
Which would result in 114,000 dollar savings that we would that would recommend us applying to our social safety net.
Again this is done knowing that last year we cut and reallocated 10% within social services.
I think we should do the same to consulting spending within the general fund.
Great thank you anybody have questions or comments.
So this gets me back to the question that we had before based on the eliminations in the 4.7.
Do we not have the full amount of funding to restore the proposed cuts?
We do yes.
So if we did this which I'm not necessarily against I want to understand the impact.
We would just be layering on this money to do as we do the reviews to find areas maybe where we think we need further investment.
And this would be dollars for that investment.
Yes.
Very good.
I appreciate it and I'm not opposed to that.
I just want to make sure I understand the impact.
Thank you.
Further questions or comments?
Very good.
We'll now go to the Merpro 10 Vala followed by Council Member Altru.
Thank you Mayor.
I have just one amendment and this would be an amendment adding 32 million dollars to the transportation public works capital budget using a certificates of obligation to support our active transportation.
Investments, including sidewalk urban trails, bikeways, safe route schools, transit and accidents.
We made the decision the other day.
And we're finalizing it today to move forward with the bomb package that we identified the $260 million for parks and the $35 million for libraries.
But given that those active transportation programs are some of them in particular sidewalks in particular are running out of money.
I want to make sure that the cruise and that the work that we have started and have been doing continues.
So I will be moving to add that $32 million funding to the transportation public works active transportation capital budget.
Thank you.
This question is for staff.
I'm curious with this proposed allocation to those budget areas as part of our CIP planning process.
How does this work with the memo that was distributed to Council?
Earlier this month would we take of that $32 million allocation would we prioritize the projects in the staff memo or is that up to Council direction?
I would say just from one part of the conversations we've had.
They have their kind of matrix and kind of priority list and we're giving them a lot of flexibility in this to use the money kind of in the areas that need the money.
Within their prioritization matrix, I'll let Director Mendelssoff.
Thank you for the question, Councillor.
Richard Mendosa, Director, Transportation and Public Works.
Yes, we have drafted a potential two year capital project list with this $32 million across these active mobility projects.
We would work closely with all Council member districts on what the next one year project list.
It would look like to be a combination of continued design to move high priority projects forward and as well as finishing construction on some other projects.
Yeah, so I think perhaps we can have a follow up meeting just so I could better understand because the memo spoke to a $77 million spending plan over two years.
And so how would this line up?
This is a $35 million allocation.
How would those proposed projects change?
Yeah, we would work on that $32 million package as a one year program with each Council district.
But it would be a subset of that prior project list.
So you would start with those projects identified in the memo as a baseline for those funds.
Okay. Thank you.
Councillor Ellis.
Thank you, Mayor. I'm fully supportive of this. Thank you for bringing it.
I will add a little context for folks following along when we did the $460 million active mobility bond in 2020.
We allocated those buckets specifically to the program areas and staff has had those matrixes matrices for a number of years.
And so that's I think what lends itself to the success of those programs is you know keeping the teams moving that are already doing such good work in all parts of town.
So I'm just adding that context for other folks.
Thank you.
And I very much appreciate that context, especially I mean I know we're mobility and we talk about this all the time.
You're the chair of mobility.
And it is important to kind of continue to keep that work going.
And just to the kind of I know we had talked about potentially a two year plan.
I would again deal with 27 when I'm sorry, 28 when 28 is here.
But my, you know, future intention would be to continue funding these programs with CEOs until you know again.
This council, the future council decides on a transportation bond to give that kind of six year timeline.
But I don't want to halt programs kind of you know for a year.
I feel like we will really you know lose momentum and lose efficiency.
You know we've got these crews out there working and I think we need to keep them you know out in the field working adding the sidewalks and bike lanes and trails that so many folks in our community enjoy.
And Mayor, if I may have it's not quite ready but we just wanted to mention it we do have a potential budget amendment for the animal services which is a $3 million that in capital money for animal services improvements.
It's we're still finalizing it, but I will get it out as CEO.
Yes, that would be the plan.
I know that that was also a potential a bond item, but that that's a very small item for a bond.
But in speaking with animal services and city management, it's important for I think our overall management of the animal shelter.
Thank you.
Madam, I pretend can someone remind you of a question.
Am I able to take a comment?
Sure.
Okay.
I just want to thank Councilman Rivera for his detailed and consistent work on this issue and Director Mendoza for your work.
I'm figuring this out.
And with the long timeline that first of all, I'll look at your brief, but first of all we absolutely need red funding for these departments and it is a critical need and I can't agree more.
And second of all, we also need planning because we are focusing on shovel-ready projects.
We also need some planning and design on these other urgent projects that haven't had planning and design yet.
So I thank you both for figuring out how to make a plan on this area.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council member.
Council member, all to follow by Council member Wang.
Thank you very much.
My first motion is Council member Wang.
This is a $150,000 reduction out of the economy budget.
This comes from their service privatization list.
They had a $324,000 option as it were related to reducing temporary staffing.
We talked with them about what kind of savings could we have with still minimizing impact to the community.
And that's what we landed on this $150,000 number to let's get in trying to save some money to have available for some of the discussion we're having here today.
Can I ask a question about that?
So while this reads as a reduction of 150,000 and ongoing funds, it's really adding back.
No, no, no.
This is a reduction.
So on their service presentation list, this was not included in the budget.
So was a written.
But you say it's a smaller reduction allowing for, so that the reduction in the budget is 324,000.
No, there's no reduction in the budget. They proposed, as one of their service
organizations, a potential reduction of 324.
We decided not to go all the way to the 324, and we're proposing a reduction of 150.
Okay, major.
Madam, you can finish, I guess.
It was your question, Mayor. Okay, if you remove 150,000, where is it going?
No, I'm reading a smaller reduction, and I was trying to be clear if this budget already
have a 324, and I'm being told no, which I feel comfortable with that answer.
Okay, well, let me clarify, at least a couple things.
So, or ask the question, I think council member.
If I were to do this, first one, are you planning to reallocate it somewhere else?
That's one thing. Thank you. The second.
I would just say, it's bringing money.
I'm sure for the benefit of all of my directors in the room.
As we go through our budget process, and we challenge them to identify potential reductions,
reallocations, or efficiencies.
They go through that process, and oftentimes, their first statement when they sit down,
and even the last is that while we're sharing these, in many cases, they do not recommend them,
because they believe in many cases that it is a service impact.
Now, there are some that are not that, and they identify those right off about,
I actually asked them to do that in priority order.
And so, as it relates to this particular reduction, I would just say, the reason that it was not included in the budget
was because of the service level impacts that they identified would actually occur,
and that would be reduced staffing and support for key special events,
that while they've got regular and permanent staff that staff their centers,
when they have larger and more out in the community kind of activities,
and that then they may have to reduce their support for that.
So, I would just say it wasn't taken, and many of them weren't taken quite honestly,
because I thought, at least at this perspective, that the council might not support the service level reduction in many cases.
And so, this is one of those, but I just want to clarify where it might be going, should we take it, and so that was it.
So, I just want to say that for the benefit, as we start to look and we provide those sheets.
I know my directors, I don't want them in the future, to not submit worthy things to me,
because of the fact that they believe there may be taken without the level of understanding or discretion,
that I may actually go through with them and sitting at a table for an hour.
So, I just want to share that, at least on their benefits, so I at least keep my credibility with the directors.
If I may just, a clarification, and that's why we worked with the department to understand,
would there be any kind of reduction in hours or anything like that, that is not going to happen as a result of this.
And, you know, the service prioritization in its name, right, is prioritization.
So, it's an opportunity for us to decide, is this the highest priority, or could those dollars be spent elsewhere?
I will have an amendment coming later that does have some dollars attached to it.
I'm not tying these two together saying that this is to fund that.
I'm trying to, you know, let us have that prioritization conversation, but, you know, bringing some money to the table,
and potentially taking some money off the table based on the totality of these amendments.
But, you know, I have been very frustrated to be honest in the service prioritizations to, you know, your, your comment when we go talk to departments.
A majority of them don't even feel like they're real, right?
We, we say, what is this, and they say, well, actually, that's a savings three years from now, or that's not actually something we can do, because we're doing something else.
And, we have to have the ability to make prioritization decisions.
I know that's, you, you make the first pass at that, but then ultimately, in a policy making setting, deciding what is our highest priority.
And so, this is one where, you know, should it be the will of the council, we are saying that this is a slightly lower priority than something else.
And that's what I'm doing it for.
Councillor, go ahead.
And so, let me be clear.
My statement was not to make an inference as if Council did not have the discretion to look at those.
Determined and asked the questions necessary to determine whether it is a priority.
When I submit the budget, once I submit it to you, everything is on the table, and the questions responses we give.
The prioritization that we thought we had, that may not be the council, that is clearly what y'all's role is.
I just wanted to clarify, sure that one reason wasn't that it wasn't in the budget, it's because of the concern that I had thought.
Staff identified for me. If, in fact, the information that they provided to you is different.
Then what they provided to me, then I guess that's an issue that I need to work out with my departments, particularly if it's different.
I'm not accurate and whatnot, and so I think I'll work with the budget director on all of them to ensure that.
But you are correct. Most of the things in quite often, that's the conversation we have about the realness of some of them and all the impacts.
And so I appreciate the comment, but I just wanted to say that, because, you know, again, I think,
but may not have felt that there are proposals, whatever season by the day beyond my taste.
I just wanted to make that clear face. I appreciate that.
Council member Robert Madison, for all of my council members, point us in Council member Duchen.
I just wanted to say briefly that given the responsibilities that Agme's taken over from hard purview,
I'd most especially eat that at the risk of engaging in more politics.
May I have so many of my district one assets are under the part purview.
And if I could just vary immediately for your frame of reference, the millennium youth entertainment complex, we have staff shortages.
And so I wonder if there is a surplus, necessarily, because I do believe this would have impact to some of our assets
that are already short staff or otherwise need additional funds.
So my immediate reaction to this amendment is one of lack of support, but also some concerns about how that plays out,
given that so many people's responsibilities from other departments,
most especially part, we're shifted to Agme.
So our culture, music and entertainment, because it's such a broad spectrum of items that can cover
them very concerned about taking any dollars from them.
So just expressing that, I don't know originally.
Thank you.
Council member Fuentes, followed by Council member Duchen.
Yes, thank you.
I'm wondering if we can have the director for Agme.
Join us.
I want to better understand what this proposed $150,000 cut to the Agme department would do.
If you could go over specifically what cultural centers, what facilities would be impacted,
and what that impact would actually entail.
Good afternoon, Angela Means, director for the Arts Culture Music and Entertainment Department.
And I will say, while the department would work to minimize the impact to this reduction,
our temporary staff within our facilities play a critical role in our programming.
All of our cultural spaces, spaces including the Mac, the Asian American Resource Center,
the Arts Center, the George Washington Carver Museum and Genealogy Center,
as well as the African American Cultural and Heritage Facility,
would be impacted by the reduction in their camp budgets.
Now, the department relies heavily on temporary staffing, as I stated earlier,
to provide programming and support for the much needed services that we provide to the Austin community.
Our temporary staffing within our department is approximately a little over 100.
So we have a full-time permanent staff count of nearly 100 and we have the same amount in temporary staffing.
And so to reduce $150,000 of that would mean we would need to take a look at all of our programming across the department to minimize the impact.
But some of the programs that were flagged for potential that would be potentially affected,
were some of our longstanding annual celebrations throughout the cultural facilities,
such as Juneteenth, such as Celebrasia.
And so, of course, we do not want to reduce those for our Austin community,
but we would need to strategize on how best to mitigate that throughout the department.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Osir for bringing for this amendment.
I won't be able to support this amendment, especially knowing what this reduction in temporary staff could
and tell for many of our beloved community events in our city,
that is experienced by many of our Austin nights throughout the year.
So, especially if there's not a program or other service that you're looking to have these funds go direct
forward without having that identified.
Yeah, I have concerns for that overall.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor.
Thank you, Mayor.
First, I want to thank Councillor Aulter for bringing for this.
This is very similar to one of the reductions that we identified as part of how to get to a potential to an a half percent budget proposal.
And I say that in the context of recognizing that no cut and no reduction that we're ever going to have volunteer
that the manager is asked as departments to volunteer is going to be easy or is not going to involve a reduction in service somewhere.
And so, the question then to reinforce Councillor Aulter's point is it's about priorities that point we heard today.
There's a program at workforce development that might be short $400,000, which is more important than for us.
And how do we make those choices?
Funding a community service program that creates jobs and workforce development.
Or is it going to be funding one of the cuts that we might propose is the, you might from the conversation,
the diets, the fleet cut that would make take a little longer to repair fender vendors or fleet vehicles.
So we're going to have to make some potential trade-offs here as we go forward the next week with this budget.
And I think it's important that we get clarity on that. I think it's important that we get data from staff so we're not just,
because every director is going to come here and I respect the heck about directors but they're going to come here and try maintain their budget.
They're going to try maintaining their service levels and that's their job and I respect that.
I mean, they're all going to come here and say that we need this, it's essential.
But we ourselves are going to have to figure out where our priorities lay, whether they're in.
As we've very creatively done, restoring some cuts to social services or the plan to do so.
But there are going to be other priorities that we identify that are higher than the ones that are on the prioritization list.
And that's where I think the tough calls are going to be made.
So I appreciate Councilor Alter brings forward.
And I hope that we, he's not, I hope that we entertain similar reductions to have similar conversations around some of these items going forward as well.
Thank you.
Thanks, Councilor.
Question for director means you mentioned your hundred permanent staff and about a hundred terms.
What does a hundred fifty thousand dollars represent out of your temporary staffing?
It's less than 10%.
Our temporary budget is nearly two million dollars for our department.
So one fifty is it's not that.
Okay.
And you talked about, you know, some of the events that you put on obviously,
you mentioned to the marquee events, Juneteenth and others.
But you also, in your response, talked about how those are, you know, very high priorities.
I'm not asking for a perfect number, but how many events do we have on an annual basis at these facilities?
Is it, you know, just a few that we all know about or is it there a lot going on all year long?
It's quite a bit of activity within our cultural spaces where we celebrate different occasions.
But each one of our cultural spaces has what they call a signature event where the community has come to celebrate whatever that is.
And, you know, they receive quite a bit of support from the community.
And so what we would want to do is continue that.
But we would have to scale back what that looks like to stay within our budgeted targets.
And would, is the temporary staffing only for your signature events or is it for events outside the signature events?
It's for the entire operations of that.
So help me understand why if the signature events are the most important events, why would we scale back our most important events?
Instead of saying, that's our most important event.
We have still over 90% of our temporary budget to do that.
We're going to prioritize those fully invest in those and maybe have lesser events.
The impact it should we not have enough dollars to do everything we've done in the past.
Thank you for that question.
It's very, it's a difficult choice.
It's hard to say what is the most important for our community within our cultural spaces.
We have summer programs for our youth, which we did not want to touch.
Because we understand the importance of the use of our facilities for our communities.
And so that's something that was part of the 300,000, but we were hoping that would not be considered.
We have facilities that are open all day.
Our seniors rely on our facilities, and they're enjoying those spaces, and so we did not want to touch that.
The areas that we found to be the least impactful, unfortunately, is the senior or is the annual events.
But there are hard choices that we had to consider, given the use of the space and what our community has told us, that's important to them.
Well, we'll continue to work on this conversation. I would echo a little bit of what council member duties said.
I mean, if we can't come up with less than 10% of a sub-program of a sub, we will never be in a position where this budget isn't just growing, growing, growing.
So, I just...
Sure. And we're laying out the amendments for not debating the amendments today, but it's appropriate for people to say how they're feeling about them.
Ask questions, but we're not going to get in the full-born debates.
It's my understanding, the next sheet we have members says, council member alter 3.
Which one was it?
He has cut, he has cut 2.
So, if that's right, I'm correct, right?
You are correct.
So, we'll go to alter 3.
This is building on what council member Vala was mentioning as a relates to some of our investments.
The number one capital neighborhood investment that we get contacted about is speed bumps.
And I think we had a really full discussion about speed bumps when we were talking about the neighborhood or the district service funds.
And what this would do is add a million dollars towards our vision zero and traffic calming inclusive of speed bumps to have money available.
Because the answer, unfortunately, always for the neighbors, is we don't have money.
You know, great idea, but we don't have money.
And so, this would help.
It's not going to solve nearly the whole list, but it would help us chip away at that listing.
Creators.
This would also be best of you.
I'll also see us saying so.
And this would not be this would not be duplicative of the 32 million.
Correct.
It would take you to 33.
Okay.
Councilor Diction.
Thank you, Mayor.
I just had a question for staff about this one because I know we've had conversations for a little
year and I thought I recall that there is a specific fund of line item that addresses this kind of traffic calming.
And I think at one time, I recall a saying that those dollars had been exhausted.
So I'm trying to understand the current state of that, whether this is an ongoing item, or a staff can clarify whether or not there is indeed like a pot of money that's set aside exclusively for traffic calming and the staff of that.
Council member, we do have a program and speed management program.
And we have used capital projects for hard infrastructure like roundabouts, chicanes, hard asphalt, speed tables, speed humps to manage speed.
But then we also have an operating budget that we've used to put up speed electronic speed display signs until effectively slow traffic down.
And I do believe, yeah, we have exhausted the capital portion of that budget.
So this would augment that.
It is separate from the active mobility program programmatic funds that were previously posture.
Thank you.
If I can just clarify.
So if I had a neighborhood or Councilor Walters, whoever has a community that says we want.
We need some additional speed bumps in our community right now that resources exhausted and this would help replenish it.
Yes, it would we we have the resources to conduct the speed surveys and engineering studies.
To determine the appropriateness according to the municipal uniform traffic control devices, but then in terms of the hard capital.
Construction.
We do not.
Last question is don't need to write now, but I'd be curious.
No, what is the average yearly spend in that category.
Certainly.
Councillor, we can provide that.
That'd be great.
Thank you.
Councillor.
Can.
I don't know what just happened.
Thank you.
Yeah.
I had to speak.
Well done.
Good one.
Councillor.
I have a question.
I'm not sure if this is for the director or for the author.
But with living streets infrastructure be applicable for these types of dollars.
I'm thinking obviously when neighbors ask for speed reduction they think of speed bumps, but there's also other ways of working through, you know, enhanced mediums, narrowing the streets and other things that the department has done really well with lately.
Yeah.
I'm going to speak to my intention.
It is all traffic calming.
So speed bumps being the marquee.
One that we think about, but yes, there are a lot of other options for all deferred.
Yeah.
However, I do have an answer to your prior question in terms of the funding.
The speed management program was funded seven million over six years from the 2020 bond.
And then in terms of the living streets, I have we've routinely funded that through operating budget.
And those have been more along the designs of either temporary treatments.
They do have the effect of slowing down traffic, but they're typically on low volume residential streets that permit active.
You know, neighborhood use of those streets other than vehicles.
Okay, so you wouldn't use the O's to install those treatments.
We've all, we have thus far funded that those through our operating budget.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Councillor Walter, let's go to altar four.
Great.
So this is to add one time appropriation of $500,000 for what are called FY vouchers or foster youth independence.
And what we're looking to do here.
Well, first off, what those are are vouchers for individuals who have had, who've been in the foster care system.
And what we have, what has just happened is typically there's a cap for various areas and housing authorities who pull down these vouchers.
And we have basically operated at our cap.
HUD has recently removed that cap.
And now communities can apply for as many as they're able to sustain and for you to be able to pull more down.
You have to show that you have the service dollars attached to those vouchers.
What I'm hoping to attempt here is for the city to put up $500,000 as matching funds to attract outside investment to say,
we're going to match you dollar for dollar to then have a million dollars worth of funding available to pull these vouchers down.
And if you look at this on an ROI, just dollar basis, given the value of the vouchers and the matching funds, we would be achieving almost a seven to one match on these dollars.
And I think we have all seen we don't have enough dollars to go around to fund, but there's homeless services or broader social safety net.
But if we can take some of our money and leverage it in this way, I think it'd be a really, really smart move,
especially given now that this cap has been lifted.
And I think this really builds the mayor and carry of and working with the legislature on potentially increasing this funding,
and this would be our signal that we're trying to participate in that as well.
So I think this fits right into your focus on kids and youth success.
So hoping we can find a way to make this work.
Thank you. Let's go to ultra five.
Very good.
The last one, ultra five. This is to add $200,000 for a position for the electric transition of our equipment.
We have, we're building the new maintenance facility out of Zilker Park that's going to allow for us to better electrify our fleet,
which not only good for the environment, but it will save us money from an operating perspective.
And in order for us to actually get that program off and running,
there needs to be an individual in charge of that program and making sure it happens.
So I don't want us to stall out on the investments we're making in electrification because we don't have a person available to do it.
This would be an option for where some of that money could go that we talked about earlier.
I'm not trying to follow the process of not doing a cut here pay for here.
Just here the here's the dollars and we'll decide the best way to spend them.
But this is one way that I think would be really meaningful for our parks for our environment and overall to lower our maintenance costs in the long run.
Thank you. Can I just want clarification on the process?
Some of these less amendments call for additional dollars, but we don't know where they're coming from.
And I think part of my challenge of the policy maker is when I'm considering whether or not to support these amendments,
I know that the manager is going to have to pull money somewhere to fund these new programs.
And if one of the cuts is to keep to jobs and yet we're adding $200,000 for landscape equipment,
I need to know if the cut on jobs is to get us electric landscape equipment.
So how can we better go about this conversation?
And this is a job, it's not the equipment the $200,000 is a personnel.
But that's I think what we're relying on staff that we will come forward today with some of these ideas and they're going to come back with us
of here are the options of how we pay for them and that's the point at which we decide what's the higher priority.
We'll have to prioritize.
Because they've provided us with a balanced budget, so unless they can find something that we want to cut,
then some of these amendments will be able to go forward.
Thank you, Councillor Oralter. Councillor Oralter.
Councillor Oralter, Councillor Oralter, Councillor Oralter, Councillor Oralter, Councillor Oralter, Councillor Oralter, Councillor Oralter.
Okay, so thank you, Mayor.
The first amendment I'm bringing forward is to restore funding for the Community Health Navigator and Community Health Navigator for seniors contracts for the Asian American Resource Center.
Staff clearly indicated on Tuesday that the Reduction and Funding for these programs would directly result in a reduction of available services for its intended population with no alternative in place.
My district has the highest concentration of Asian Americans in the city and that a population includes many multi-generational immigrant families.
With many elderly family members who have language challenges and other barriers to accessing services.
The Asian Family Support Services of Austin and the Austin Asian Community Health Initiative have both expressed the critical need for and value of this program.
Community organizations regularly refer clients to the Asian American Resource Center because it is a trusted hub that provides thoughtful, culturally responsive and accessible support.
The services we choose to fund can only achieve their intended impact if people are able to access them.
Community Navigators play an essential role in bridging the gap that gap by helping residents connect with resources.
They might otherwise be unable to navigate particularly within targeted populations.
I understand that the budget staff has done incredible work to find a way forward that aligns with the priorities this council has expressed.
But this amendment is an insurance policy that these crucial services are fully maintained because we have no substitute service in this.
Thank you.
Councillor Caudry.
Yeah, I just wanted to thank Councillor Layne for bringing forward this item.
I've talked a lot of folks in the API community.
It's a very diverse community.
There's a lot of languages, even among, you know, certain groups.
And this is something that's been huge for the community.
You know, as someone who has one elderly grant right now, and on the East Coast, I really wish this was something that we saw more throughout the country.
So thanks for bringing it here in Austin.
Thank you, Councillor.
That's relying number two.
Thank you.
The second amendment I'm bringing forward provides operational gap funding to support new family shelter beds coming online in our city.
One of the challenges we hear consistently from our homelessness service providers is that physical space is often not the primary barrier to expanding.
Family shelter capacity providers frequently have buildings or available space that could serve more families.
But they lack the operational funding needed to staff maintain and open those facilities.
Recent reductions in federal grant funding have only widened that gap.
Last year I sponsored an IFC directing homeless strategy and operations to identify opportunities to expand family shelter bed capacity.
While we're still working toward these goals, the amendment provides the resources needed to help translate those opportunities into additional shelter beds as well as support.
The very limited number of family shelter available beds available in North Austin.
I am confident that this investment will provide providers open their doors, expand capacity, ensure that more families have access to safe shelter across our city.
And I myself, I know that y'all know this, but the value of allowing families with children who do not have stable housing to remain near their social network.
You know their school, near all of the things that provide informal support is is particularly critical when you're trying to raise children and these challenging circumstances.
So that hope you'll consider.
My amendment not favorably.
Thank you.
I have one question on this for you or director.
You use your gap funding.
And you might have laid this out, but is this this is funding for already existing family shelter.
It's not to increase the family shelter capacity.
I'll give an initial reaction then I'll pass to director Greg.
So I am aware of interruptions and service where there is private support providing the building, but they do not have operational support.
And providers that have had extremely strong success factors with the city that are experiencing cuts.
I'll pass to director Greg out onto that because you have much more knowledge.
I have an answer. Thank you, council member.
David Gray, director, office and home strategies and operations.
Council member, we do have some community partners who are in the process of constructing new
families shelter for our community. They've been able to independently raise the funding for
those capital dollars. However, they don't have not yet identified the operational funding.
So our understanding of this item would be to identify funding to help get those new shelter beds
online, which would add net new capacity for homeless families in our community.
As far as the existing family shelters go, we currently have contracts with a lot of
those providers that support those existing family shelter beds.
And so this amendment will go towards increasing the number of shelter beds available for
homeless families in our community. And is it your understanding that they need one
time start at funds or you're time at operating. So is this something that they
would need those ongoing operation operating dollars for.
Thank you, council member.
Obviously for ongoing costs, you would need to identify ongoing funding for those things.
We've been having a lot of good conversations with our philanthropic community
with large homeless services and bringing our philanthropic community along to help
sustain some of these operations. And so if this is one time funding or if it's
ongoing funding, either way we'll continue to have those conversations with philanthropic partners
to see if they're able to also provide ongoing funding for these types of shelter beds.
I appreciate the author bringing this. I think this is such a critical area.
I do just want us to be mindful of one time dollars into something that we think
might be ongoing. We'll be in a position next year where people are coming and saying,
well, if you don't fund this again, you're cutting our family shelter capacity.
And that's, as, as wide open, I just want to make sure we have eyes wide open.
So if I could just share a little bit of additional information because as Director Gray was
speaking, I knew several of the examples from what he was referring to.
But there was an example that I think he didn't pick up on that I was referring to.
And I think I know where the disconnect lies without getting too specific.
You know, this is the second year in a row that we've cut social services funding.
And the example that I'm aware of is the provider who had been providing support services.
And when that bill cuts were made and I believe in the prior fiscal year and that was my mistake.
They had to stop supporting the services provided on a church site where there is a building that is now sitting vacant.
Because so it's a mix of these things.
But I appreciate it.
Bringing out the differences.
Thank you.
Now we'll go to Councillor for Siegel followed by Councillor Layles.
Members Councillor for Siegel has him.
He has three proposed amendments.
Number one has a version two that I believe was passed out this morning.
And it's not the one that's on the screen.
Because apparently they didn't get that to put on the screen.
But it's on a very nice pink sheet.
I've never seen it on a pink sheet before.
Councillor for Siegel but goes his own one.
Now I want to thank the city clerk really taking care of me there.
I like it.
Well thank you, Mayor.
Siegel motion sheet one is a budget amendment to support the transition of emergency communications into a standalone department in fiscal year 27.
It involves the mix of one time and ongoing funds.
This amendment will follow the recommendations of the recent staff member random by funding
to support governance, operational and technology enhancements.
To improve 911 response times.
The new office of joint emergency communications will be funded for a new executive director, assistant director, and support personnel.
And after the first half of the fiscal year, the civilian call takers for 911 as well as civilians supervisor positions and expenses will be funded through the new office of joint emergency communications.
The call taker positions are already funded in the budget.
So that aspect would just be a transfer of funds representing a little over $5 million for the second half of the fiscal year.
The staffing and programmatic improvements to 911 cost a total of $1.7 million over 18 months.
1.1 million of which would be spent in fiscal year 27.
This amendment has a safety valve if for some recent city staff are unable to acquire the necessary certification to stand up.
The new emergency communications department within the fiscal year.
That said, we believe this time frame is entirely reasonable based on past efforts such as setting up an independent forensic department.
Now, in terms of why this amendment is important, there's a lot to say here.
First of all, last year during the budget process, a unanimous council directed staff to analyze how the city could form a standalone joint emergency communications department that was not under the direction of the police department.
The resolution sponsored by Councilmember Lane, which I co-sponsored and which was developed in consultation with city staff included a deadline of December 9, 2025 to present a strategic plan to council.
Unfortunately, that deadline passed and more than eight months after that deadline, we still don't have the strategic plan.
So the will of council has been frustrated by staff in action.
This sort of delay erodes public confidence and now instead of having a well studied plan and preparation for the budget cycle,
all we have is a memo that Council was sent approximately a week ago.
Even in this memo that states that staff don't—sorry.
Even though the memo states that staff don't believe moving 911 to an independent civilian department is necessary,
it still subsequently underscores the need for an independent joint emergency communications department.
And first and foremost, it's because we need to prioritize alternatives to police response.
A shift to standalone 911 is necessary to ensure that we are truly reimagining public safety as our city has declared its goal to be.
And that we are rigorously living up to our goals to divert mental health calls and other nonviolent calls towards emergency responders who are best equipped to respond effectively.
In the last year, Council unanimously prioritized restoring full funding for 247 mental health.
First response through EMCOT, we prioritize preserving our community paramedics who are called Chippers.
We unanimously passed the resolution to create a safe to call policy with working groups which met for the first time last week.
And we need to show the community that we are aware of the fundamental problem in this country that when we don't prioritize appropriate mental health response and alternatives to policing,
then we do default to a police response and the odds of injury and death unfortunately skyrocket.
Despite all the work we've done as a city, we still have a 911 system that even in the name presents police as the default.
It's called APD 911.
And it makes sense that this would happen when the call takers all report up to the chief of police.
When the city moved its forensics department out of the police department, there were similar arguments that it wasn't necessary or could be improved without such a shift,
but I believe history has vindicated that move.
And we can all agree that the department is stronger and performs better independently.
And that brings me to the second point.
911 is too important to be a sub-department.
The memo we received last week shows there critical improvements that we should make to our 911 system.
And without this memo, we never would have been presented with this information.
These improvements include, first, reducing duplicate call transfers and triage questions.
Second, strengthening quality assurance.
Third, modernizing technology.
Fourth, expanding and updating performance measurements.
Fifth, improving coordination between 911 and 911 and 911.
And tellingly, sixth, changing the leadership structure so that's not just sworn APD leadership.
The findings suggest that these improvements would shorten emergency response times which we all know could be the difference between life and death.
Why weren't these improvements identified sooner?
I believe it's because 911 reports up to the police chief whose primary focus cannot be improving synergy between call takers and dispatches and various departments.
She's the chief of police. She has so many other priorities.
Managing civilian call takers will never be at the top of her list.
If we create an independent department with a specialized director who's so focused is making our 911 system the best it can be,
we won't need another consultant contract like this to alert counsel of what we're missing.
We'll have somebody whose job it is to improve how we take calls.
An official entirely focused on improving coordination between departments and keeping up with the latest best practices, trainings and technologies.
In Austin, we're very, we're fairly unique in that we have a separate EMS department that isn't folded into another public safety department.
That's part of what makes our EMS services so good.
We have a separate department, so our EMS chief is focused on making EMS the best it can possibly be.
EMS performs some of the most important functions in our city. EMS isn't secondary.
And also forensics is not secondary and 911 shouldn't be either.
Thank you, ma'am.
Councilor Caudry, Councilor Dictioner, remember what we're trying to do is ask questions and make a comment if you want to.
We don't have all the time today to debate these.
Thank you, Councilor Caudry.
Is there.
No debate to my and on this.
I just have some clarifying questions.
What's the total cost to establish the office of joint emergency communications?
I know it's broken down, but I haven't.
I'm on the calculator.
No, so it's it's basically it's 1.7 million dollars.
One point one of which would be in the first fiscal year and that it's six months after that for the other point six.
And then and then just more of the curiosity are there other cities that have.
A is somewhere model of the office of joint emergency communications.
Well, one of the Texas examples is there's a joint emergency communications department in North Texas that several small municipalities participate in.
Great.
Thank you.
I've got a question for staff on this.
So Councilmember Seagull referred to the memo and mind understanding from that memo and I'll just go ahead and read it.
But that we're supposed to be getting a briefing next month.
About this from the consultant.
And I think it's probably important.
I put this that I get this out there because this is what it says.
A staff's going to bring the item to Council in September 22nd.
The work session for MCP the consultant to present their final report recommendations.
The support will provide a comprehensive overview of the studies evolution out on the legal and operational constraints that shape the analysis and further delineate the challenges.
And cost associated with creating a standalone joint emergency communications department.
This clarity is essential to ensure the complete understanding of the findings.
The factors that rendered certain options and feasible under current conditions and MCP's recommendations to prioritize operational enhancements of our organizational restructuring at this time.
We look forward to presenting the details at the center of the moment.
So the report.
My question for staff is does this need to be accelerated?
Can it even be accelerated if the ideas that we are voting on this next week?
How does this get to be?
I think it's enough to be very deliberative in establishing such a critically important service.
You just simply have to get it right.
My understanding of Council member and there are certain credentials and requirements that are necessary before we could have a standalone call center.
My understanding of Council member Seagull's budget amendment is that it would leave the positions in Austin police and it would leave half of the funding in the Austin police department before those call takers.
In anticipation that within six months we would have met the necessary certifications.
We would have the director for the new department established at which time those dollars could be moved over.
And if that timeline wasn't achievable, which I have to say I think that's going to be difficult to achieve.
But if it wasn't achievable, then the dollars would still be in this new department.
They could be transferred back to the police department.
So we would have the continuity of the call center.
But essentially until the call center was ready to operate at the necessary two coal operations or the department, I should say that those positions would not be moved under.
The proposal that's before Council.
So if I can just clarify quickly, it's this is authorizing essentially the funding for the new department and those and the requisite changes that are involved with that.
There's two parts of the consultant study.
One spoke to what it would take to stand up a department.
A one spoke to service and hands run technology and operational enhancements.
It could be made at the center that included additional staff positions and technology.
So this proposal from Councilmember Seagull would put money.
New money into the budget to fund those operational enhancements.
So it also put money in the budget for a director assistant director and support personnel for the new department.
And then looking over at the current police budget.
It's the last bullet on the slide up here is transferring a portion of the money that's currently in police into this new department.
Again, an anticipation within six months this new department would really be ready to take over.
And at which time the staff could be moved into the new department.
And again, if that didn't happen, they would remain in APD until that could actually happen.
Meaning that the plan would still be to get the briefing in September by MCP.
And at that point we would make whatever decision council makes regarding the recommendations.
And if that chose to fund the first the first recommendation, the 1.7 million dollar recommendation.
That would continue.
But if we made a different decision at that time to not proceed with funding a new department.
Our conversation, the legal and other things that we may not know at this moment.
This other funding would revert back as that correct.
That's correct.
Okay. Thank you.
My concern is that we may be getting ahead of our skis on this one.
Based on not yet having that MCP.
That works session with the MCP final report, the recommendations and their understanding around this item.
Thank you.
Question for APD. The chief could come down yesterday. Once she does, I do have a clarifying question.
On the first two bullets, there's the $859,000 that's edition, and then there's a separate edition.
Is the $600,000 part of the $859, or is it $859 plus $600,000?
It's plus, and a small amount in the third bullet of $37,000 is also a plus.
It was presented this week, because this is how it was presented by the consultant to staff, and then to have some rise in that memo.
The first bullet really speaks to these operational enhancements that the consultant identified that had a price tag of $1.7 million over an 18-month period,
which is how it was presented, but it's kind of, it's not very helpful to talk about 18-months when you're in a 12-month budget discussion.
So the $859 is the amount of funding that would be needed in fiscal year 27 for those operational enhancements,
accounting for the delayed timing of hiring positions, and what not, the $600,000 is the cost associated.
Again, with the delay timing of the hiring of these positions, the $600,000 is the amount that would be needed in fiscal year 27 for the new director and assistant director,
and what would be three support personnel.
Okay, so $1.46 million ongoing.
Yes.
My question for the chief is, which, this speaks to this civilian personnel, remind me the sworn personnel involved with the call center,
I know, I think that the top supervisor is a sworn person, but you should remind me all the sworn personnel involved with the 911 call center.
It's Commander Lee Davis and one lieutenant.
And so if this was moved out of PD, those two individuals would just be reassigned to some other duty.
I guess we'd have to see how it works, I think they would have to be some kind of liaison work that's done, you know, between the two, for sure.
Okay.
If I could, if I could just add, you said 1.4 million ongoing, which is correct, but there would be a cost escalation in fiscal year 28 as you move from partial year funding for those positions to full year funding.
So the full annualized cost, beginning in fiscal year 28 would be closer to $2 million.
Thank you.
Council member Segel was going to see them too.
That was a one correction because the version two that we handed out had an update.
The midyear funding transfer would be $8.8 million in the differences because the CFO correctly added the associated C tech cost that would be part of the midyear transfer.
And I guess just to the time and question to respond briefly, I know we're not too into date mayor, but one reason why we think this is possible is because previously the city was able to stand up for forensics department in similar amount of time and obtain certifications in similar amount of time.
All right.
Thank you, Mayor.
So I'll go to Segel motion sheet too.
This is for Violet, keep safe storage.
So I'm bringing to a budget amendment to add $500,000 in ongoing funding to the Violet keep safe storage program.
When our homeless strategies and operations office explain the new ramp up in camp enforcement plan.
We were told the plan involved offers of storage for people's belongings before sweeps through the Violet keep safe storage program.
However, it's now clear that's not happening.
We've spoken about HSO and the Downtown Austin Community Court which manages Violet keep safe.
And we've learned that there's a weight list of over 100 people and that demand has exceeded capacity for some time.
This means that unfortunately people are having their belongings including diables and vital documents swept and tossed away without recourse.
Yesterday the city received a letter from attorneys at the ACLU of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project outlining.
Not just the humanist of the situation, but also the fact that the city could be sued for violating the constitutional protections against illegal seats in the right to do process.
The letter I quote says,
We have received reports from community organizations that raise concerns about whether the city of Austin's current practices comply with these constitutional guarantees.
People have reported 10 sliced open by city staff and the seizure of belongings including medication, birth certificates and other government issued identification documents.
People reported that these items were then thrown into dumpsters after officials gave people only minutes or sometimes seconds to gather what they can carry.
People further reported that affected individuals are not offered ways to store their belongings and that they have been threatened with arrest during these encounters.
My office spoke with Robert Kingdom at the Downtown Community Court and he assured us that with this extra funding they would be able to double the capacity of the Violet keep safe storage program.
The organizations to provide the service in locations across the city.
Director Gray also agreed there's a great need for this enhancement due to his department's enforcement initiative.
Given all this, I believe it is our moral and legal obligation to prioritize this funding.
Councillor Harvus.
Thank you Mr. Marion.
Generally speaking, this is an item that I would be happy to support, but especially given that it was referenced during Council Member Seable's commentary.
I'd really like for the Council to have an opportunity we haven't talked about that letter, the contents of the letter or the implications of the letter yet.
So I'd feel uncomfortable with us making reference to it in relation to this amendment until we as a body have had an opportunity to be briefed and discuss the letter and its implications.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mayor.
This last item is for fair free voting.
This amendment would transfer $75,000 to cap metro one time to fund one day of fair free transit service during early voting for the 2026 general election.
This is following the resolution Council adopted in May and the African American Resource Advisory Commission recommendation in April to increase access to the polls by expanding the existing and successful program run by cap metro, which provides free transit service on election day.
This program has been demonstrated to increase ridership and the amendment builds off the staff memo of July 31 and will provide free ridership on the highest voter participation day of the early vote period.
My goal is also to connect with county officials who expressed an interest in matching the city's contribution to add one more day of free ridership during early vote and I'd love your support for this amendment.
Thank you, Mayor.
Thank you.
Councillor Ellis, we'll go to you.
All right. Thank you, Mayor.
I will flag that my motion sheet number one is partnered with the IFCs.
So I guess the question is, are we going to go to the IFCs after we do all the amendment?
That was the plan.
Okay.
We also have some other items on the agenda.
So, but I meant the will is the council.
So, however you want to do it.
Well, I didn't write a speech for this one.
Okay.
I just flag that it partners with the IFC just in case we need to reallocate dollars.
But it is to look at park security and safety.
And so we have parks and recreation department.
Security, audit, findings and recommendations report, which will be the foundational resource for it.
But it is in response to issues with crime and shootings and parks and how to better amplify our public safety response until we get parks police back.
So, that is a placeholder and I'll go over the IFC later if we get to it.
Thank you.
Okay.
Council member cadre.
I'm sorry. Yes. Council representative.
Not for today's conversation, but for next week.
If we can have staff speak to the surveillance component of investing in this type of technology and equipment.
Just flagging that for next week's discussion.
Good. Thank you.
Okay. Council member cadre.
On cadre one.
Great. Thank you, Mayor.
So, the first sheet everyone should have in front of them is to see them gather in the number one.
The amendment provides one million dollars in additional funding for critical services supporting the survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse.
This investment will help ensure survivors and families continue to have access to safe housing and crisis support and services that permit long terms stability.
Is this type of service within our bucket of social services or is this something separate?
This is separate.
Okay. That's a lot.
Thank you.
Council member cadre.
On item two.
Great.
Thank you, Mayor.
So, item number two.
For those of you who are in the council back in 2023.
I bought forward in a pilot program.
The ship safely pilot program.
Which at the time was the largest local funded driven spike in prevention pilot in the country.
Since launching in April of 2024 more than 70 bars and venues have participated.
Everywhere from rainy street to sixth street to the east side.
And it's been a valuable resource for prevention across across Austin.
So, I'm bringing forward this amendment to continue that investment and cover the relatively minimal cost of purchasing test trips.
And other supplies needed to sustain the program that the pilot itself was $100,000.
What we're looking at is ongoing funding amounting to about $20,000.
And this is a modest investment in my opinion.
And a preventative tool that APD has identified as effective, particularly given that an estimated 10 to 14 percent of reported sex crime cases have a connection to a bar or nightclub.
Thank you.
Now we'll go to cadre three.
Great.
Okay.
Last amendment.
A cadre amendment three.
I wanted it to daily in an item that we're excited to bring forward.
We learned that the amendment that is in front of y'all.
We'll have to be turned into an IFC so we're going to work on that.
But I wanted to thank council members.
And tenant representation, education and legal services, which I know is a key priority of many of us in council.
These housing related services run out of Austin's community keeping people in their homes and communities both upstream and downstream of eviction.
I remember in calls to restore ongoing funding to these services and our displacement prevention program and to evaluate the performance and impact alongside our social service contracts.
Some of these programs listed here aim to continue to fund important work, such as the displacement, navigation program,
and our upstream legal services.
Others are new programs, such as a cord-based downstream legal services contract and attacks in a state-finding program.
Both data-driven programs helpful in rounding out displacement prevention.
Lastly, all remaining funds would go towards additional relocation assistance as we see this funding bucket run out quickly every year.
The request from our community is $3 million every year and this item would get us $260,000 closer to that goal.
Our item also calls for these programs to be evaluated and prioritized in the ongoing work on social services, so that they are not overlooked as meaningful contributions to our housing and homelessness goals.
Thank you, council member.
Okay, that will take us to council reduction.
Thank you, Mayor.
I'd like to introduce.
Teaching one, which is an amendment to help the Parks Department acquire a woodchipper.
Currently our understanding is that Austin resource recovery enterprise department charges parks around $80,000 a year for similar services.
And this would allow parks to be able to acquire chipper and essentially pay for the item within two or three years.
I also understand that parks is found a partner for this that is quote unquote chipped in for the chipper.
Which is why the cost.
I was probably four years old now.
So I'll just say very quickly.
I think this is the kind of economics we ought to be investing in both in terms of leveraging other dollars as well as, as well as the quick turnaround on the ROI on this.
So look forward to discussion next week.
Thank you, council member.
Council member Vlaskers, you're recognized if you won't be as chippy.
Oh man.
See, Mayor, I was going to I was going to support your amendment for there are elevators and now I'm going to have.
Mary and colleagues I apologize, I don't have a speech for each one of my items, but we were waiting for a few answers to mine.
I don't, uh, aren't in the, in the back up, but we'll be putting up a message word poster there, but he has access to them.
I, uh, I, Belaskers number one is going to be 352, H, S, O to change the status of three full time temporary positions to full time permanent and 250 and funding to continue street and community outreach contracts with partner organizations.
Number two is going to be to parks increase, uh,
be our budget by 500,000 to maintain funding for operations and maintenance costs.
And the third one is a library allocation to APL for social worker related community support and library locations across the city as appropriate.
And I hope that was quick enough.
Yes.
Very well done.
I have everybody.
No, no, that's what I was saying is that my, our way in France, but they'll be on the message board soon.
Thank you, council member.
And members, I had that proposed amendment that we've, because of what council, I mean, what staff is doing with regard to the change in the base budget.
Any kind of going over it.
Councilor production, you want to be recognized again?
Yeah, thank you.
So I forgot to mention I know that conversation came up.
Councilor Flint has referred to it earlier about sort of how do we pay for the items?
And so I just want to briefly call the retention to review when you have an opportunity.
They, what I posted the message board yesterday afternoon, which is essentially a collection of proposals for.
They could eventually arrive at a reduced budget, even a two and a half percent budget.
I recognize we're not going to agree on some of those items being included on there.
But I do believe we could agree on some of them that could ultimately fund some of the priorities that we're talking about this afternoon.
Thank you.
We have seen amendments very briefly, we worked very hard to work with departments, get information
and trying to identify kind of the most palatable or most tolerable cuts, knowing that all of those cuts,
really any of those cuts are not easy cuts to make. I do think that there were well distributed across 20 plus departments.
I'd certainly be happy to entertain other cuts that other members would like to offer, but at this time I think other than myself and Council Member Ulter,
we don't have a lot to choose from. So I'd encourage y'all to consider that there is value in
least working through some of those items and having the appearance of considering kind of both sides
of our ledger. Because I think we're in a moment, especially now that we've got a bond in the ballot,
I think there's value in showing that we can exercise the same kind of discipline and circumstance that
pretty much every family and business and our community also has to consider that there's wisdom
in doing that. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Funtus. Do you want to say something?
Yes. I just wanted to highlight for my colleague, Councillor Rduchen, my second amendment. It
seeks to cut 10% from consultant spending on the general fund. So also providing an area where we can
save costs. Councillor Rduchen, I really appreciate you taking the time to identify cuts overall with
the city of Austin. I can tell you spent a lot of time on it and a lot of hard work and consideration
went into it and I think it would be fair. Manager perhaps next week you could offer a response
as to what those proposed cuts how they would impact city services. Instead of going line by line,
maybe we can just have a general comment on it. That'd be helpful for the conversation.
I agree. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Rduchen. All right. Members, I think we're ready to go to
proposed IFCs. And we'll go in the order of the packet. Councillor Beraltor, you're recognized first
on Alter IFC1. Very good. This is around a Parks Maintenance Study when we set our fees for
in this case when people use our parks and have to restore them. We have not just done the cost of
study analysis as it relates to both the maintenance of that space to restore it. And some of the
fees, things like load in times and just associated costs with those. So this is to charge staff
to go to the park staff to go do that study and then come back to us and give any recommendations on
how our fee structure might need to be updated as a reflection of this. And the hope is to then
use any additional dollars if there are some from that recommendation to go into a fund we established
year to provide supplemental funding for our parks, which is something we're always trying to find,
but never really able to do. So that's IFC number one. And I appreciate why I wish I had
listened to my co-sponsors. If you're, I know Councillor Ellis says I can't remember what else I'm
sorry. But I appreciate you very much. Yeah. Well, you've read the love. And part of what
can happen with the layout of these is if somebody wants to sign on to an IFC, we now it's laid out there
and let us know or let staff know and we'll get that get that done. And I do want to just make one
clarification on the update. We worked with Councillor Harper Madison's office to make sure that
we're recognizing that some this funding and the study should look at some of our parks like
Walter Lone that have not been invested in and we should be doing that. So I really appreciate your addition
there to that. I see two. Number two, this is looking at the fiscal year 2728 social service
conversation. I really want to thank you, Mayor Watson, for your starting this process as it relates
going back and looking at our social services and figuring out what's the right framework for that.
And then through this budget being figuring out how we can make the smartest investments in the
most prudent investments in the current budget. And I think this is hopefully intended to build on that.
And as you mentioned in your IFC, we're going to you're asking the manager to come back and work with the
council and it's just kind of lays out some additional metrics or parameters for that work so that we can
be part of the process and understand what exactly is going on so that we're not caught at the end.
And I know manager you always intend to keep us well informed. So this is not an indictment of that.
But I think utilizing our committees as a potential space to do that and we have listed here
some of the categories where it makes most sense with the committees. And so I think that's going to be a
good all. This venue for us to have that discussion before we do any kind of resolicitation
as part of the social service reset. And I appreciate my co-sponsors council member Velasca's
point as cadre and the mayor. Thank you. Let's go to all of your three. I actually three.
This is a marketing on the discussion I had with APD just having them go look at their KPIs and figure
out are they really the type of outcomes focus targets we want rather than just looking at
some of the front end of the system. Let's focus on what results we want to see and so this will
have that study occur that review and then go to the Public Safety Commission committee where I know
chair Velasca's will pick it up and make it happen. And that's it. Okay.
Then we'll go to council member Fuintus and then she'll be followed by council member Ellis.
Thank you colleagues my I've see it relates to adding and emphasizing micro businesses these
are businesses with 20 employees or less into the city's economic framework they've developed
a map that has a number of new economic development tools and really just want to underscore
and emphasize micro businesses you're true small mom and pop shop so direct staff to
look at creating a fee waiver program for those emerging businesses and it provides direction around
that program. Thank you. Okay let's go to council member Ellis. Thank you mayor.
So my first resolution is going to be the one that I had alluded to earlier and it is for our
park security items. Approva resolution directing the city manager to develop the security
implementation plan. I've had a really really great conversation with Chief Davis yesterday and so we're
going to keep working through some of those details but it does specify that it would be in full compliance
with the trust act and also makes reference to I think we're going to update the language to say city
parks with a history of violent crime we had started with crimes against persons and the reasoning
behind that is specifically around we know that you know different parks different users different neighborhoods
have different desires about how park safety is going to work for them but I know that I have had a murder
on my side of Barton Springs. Ryan has had a murder on his side of Barton Springs and we just need to
make sure that our parks are not a free for all for crime and they aren't the places where people go to
commit crimes because they don't think anybody's around so that is what this item aims to tackle and
I appreciate my co-sponsors Chris Elaine Ryan Alter, Mark Duchen and Tito Villa and then should I move on to
the police going to this is I have seen number six yes 10th anniversary we all come to my
relatives would you accept an amendment that basically precludes artificial intelligence powered cameras
the intent is not to use AI or cloud storage or anything like that thank you yeah that that's perfectly
in line with what I'm hoping to achieve and and because we have the trust act and what she and as she laid it out she
indicated that the trust act would be followed the council passed the trust act with the idea that it would be
what we could then utilize to create guardrails for these sorts of things and and so now that we have that
people can have confidence and then you know I want to make sure that everybody understands that
thank you thank you can's been relis and this next item is to solve a very interesting problem in
circle C which is that we have an amazing circle C metro park which is soon to get its phase one dog park
and we have the hillster tracked green belt and there's about 250 feet that separate connecting the
trail into the metro park but what is next to it is water quality protection land that's
vents off and a little pocket HOA within circle C and so we're just trying to fill that 250 foot gap
talking with Austin water and talking with parks and recreation to help figure out how we can all be
team players and achieve the goals of connecting parks and trails together while also being able to
keep and maintain our water quality protection land standards thank you questions and thank you to the
co-sponsors all right that will take us to council member lane on what is IFC seven in your packet
and I see eight will be can a member pretend they will so council remain thank you bear
I would like to speak to my budget resolution creating an office of joint emergency communications
within the management services department I'd like to thank my co-sponsors on this council number
of Alaska's what's hope I do not forget someone council member of Alaska's council member altering council member
SQL thank you very much for helping me bring this forward the IFC allocates resources
I'm sorry the office the IFC directs to create is our first step towards creating an independent nine one one
department it allocates resources towards those efforts and allows city staff to determine the best
path forward while ensuring that council stays engaged in the process I I am not bringing a budget amendment for the
IFC and so I know we have council member SQL's budget amendment I think in form has been very helpful
but because of the difference I would like to ask a couple questions myself of staff I think that they'll
primarily be for ECM Batista but feel free to talk to me if you need to
thank you thank you for coming forward ACM Batista welcome to Austin
so my first question have you had the opportunity to review the IFC that I'm bringing forward and
it's entirety good afternoon smear mr mayor pro ten council council member laying yes I have
okay do I think do I have staff support for the IFC and it's entirety or do I not you do have our support
and moving this forward thank you and when you say that I have staff support in the IFC
contemplates a couple of different stages I have comments related to his comments the IFC
contemplates stages the first stage in your one being the creation of an office of joint emergency
communications when you say that I have staff support I'd like to understand what level of first
higher for that department is supported is it a director level higher is it a
some form of manager or coordinator level of higher what level of higher are you supportive of
we're supportive of a director level higher with the caveat of course that we have indications
from the the consultant that this is not the preferred method but at the end of the day if this is
the way the council wants to go we're prepared to go in that direction another major caveat is the amount of
time that it would take in order to be able to complete this transfer in a safe way because unlike
the forensic science area which is vitally important 911 is the entry point to all emergency
communications with the city and are response to those calls so it is vitally important
do we get that right and that's what requires more time and more staff work in order to get it off the ground
safely thank you if the intention of my IFC is to ultimately create an independent department of joint
emergency communications what do you believe to be the most effective first higher
this director level higher or something different I would tend to go with the recommendation
from the consultant but if the wish is to start with a director we can start with a director
and begin to lay the path frame the path towards creating a joint emergency communication center
my next question is for a director laying sometime within the last week or so I asked for the cost
difference between if we think of the memo that lays out alternative A with a 911 communications manager
an alternative scene with a director and a system director and support staff and as I asked
a week or two ago to understand what the what the cost difference is and the salaries for three levels
the director the assistant director and this 911 communications manager that you're more supportive of
if you were given a choice I assume it's to and so have you been able to find the answer to that
I can hear that answer council member thank you Mr. Renew the but we're estimating for the
these are all fully loaded you know salaries benefits retirement contributions that everything the
director position about 284,000 annually assistant director 240,000 and the like a manager level civilian
leadership position for the center hundred and ninety thousand dollars and then
None of the fully loaded figures you just provided.
I don't have them in front of me, but we absolutely have them and could get them to you.
Thank you. You know, take about 35% off of those, you know, about 35% of that total number is probably for, you know, benefits and retirements.
But we can provide you that information and, you know, pursuing to the consultants report it's that civilian leadership position and what the consultant recommended was a manager level position.
If we went with the standalone department and had a director and an assistant director, you wouldn't need that position. Those would be duplicative.
Can either of you describe the difference in skills and experience that you believe would come from this level of manager versus a director level higher?
My experience is that a manager of this level would be able to work in order to address the outlying issues regarding call processing times.
The acquisition of technology and bringing expertise from the communications world into the communication center. Yes.
So years of experience, type of experience, any difference for this manager versus the director?
I think the director would bring those things that would just be obviously at a higher level with a higher expectation in their mind of what their responsibilities would be in the long term.
Okay. So as I said, I haven't brought a budget amendment. I haven't found a source of funds.
We have stated that you are as staff recommendation fully supportive of my IFC which would preserve fully preserve the possibility of the efficiently establishing an independent joint emergency communications department.
So with that in mind is to bring their recommendation of a source of funding for alternative A with the exception that a director level higher is made as the first higher of the office.
And I know that yes, the answer is yes, but we also you know we have a number of resolutions from council members requesting us to identify different fund this and so that's what we're going to be working on over the course of the next week is looking at your proposals and how they might be funded and what opportunities or recommendations we can come back with here is just one of those videos we will do that work.
Well, so director, I mean, would you be able to provide me as follow a draft of some sort of outline or is it better to just wait until you consider all of them.
And outline for the funding sources or is it funding?
I can't do that right now because we're going to be looking at if there's anything on the revenue side we're going to be looking at other reductions it could be you know potentially made at the end of the day the budget has to be balanced.
There's a difference between one time funds and ongoing funds capital funds so we're going to be looking at all the recommendations and trying to come up with a way to get you where you want to be when we come back to you.
Next week hopefully with some type of omnibus package but you know it's kind of a complex equation so I don't have right now for you with the outline for how we're going to get there.
What that will be but we'll be fair and that out over the remainder of this week over the weekend and leading up to next Wednesday's budget option hearing.
Okay, this is where I need to think council member Siko for.
He was not an original co sponsor when I brought this IFC last year.
And he came to me and asked if he could join in co sponsorship in order to help with finding sources of funds.
And I was very grateful for any assistance in that department and I.
I'm going to continue this thought in a moment I have one more question first which is council member alter asked about the ongoing costs of.
My IFC with council member singles amendment okay and you provided an answer.
I have an estimate of the ongoing cost if a director level higher is made and.
Alternative a is implemented and full and if you don't I would love to have that as follow up.
So you're saying the consultants recommended alternative a but with the director level position.
We'll provide the number for you in response as well but click that would be about 1.25 million.
Okay.
And I ask for that ongoing cost because one I know that some of the financial mines up here really want to know about recurring costs.
I do as well.
And I'm certainly aware of the possibility that a consultant report comes in and staff makes recommendations and all this and then and the director level higher is made.
And then an ultimate conclusion is presented to council that perhaps passes and that does not form that independent department instead it sticks with this office.
I myself need to have a director level higher is the first higher to preserve the possibility of the independent department, which is the intent of the IFC in order to.
To support anything other than council member singles amendment so saying that in public.
And now I am returning to questions.
Council member.
Um, I'd like to be called on again if I might not have time.
That's what we'll have to do.
Okay. Sounds good to me.
Um, I have what last question in that case.
Thank you for letting me know.
Actually, I'll return. Thanks.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Council member will go to council member to Mayor Potembaela. He is two proposals.
Thank you very much, Mayor. The first one is.
And just to be frank.
The result of the horrible flooding that we saw in the Hill Country both last year.
And then again this year.
The and in just discussion with watershed.
We really need to invest in our flood control in Austin.
We have many, many low water crossings.
We have many different small spots that will flood that do flood.
And even sometimes a moderate rain.
And our just capital needs for flood control in watershed.
Just so far outpace the dollars that we have available.
I know that the staff is proposing an increase to the drainage.
Utility, the charge that everybody pays on the on there as part of their utility bill.
And and just to make a point that that charge is a authorized by state statute.
That that this was I think a response decades ago to major flooding that it give us an avenue for investing in flood control.
I just there's an urgency to that right now.
And so I'm proposing an IFC to direct the city manager to go back and look at the amount of the increase and see if it's sufficient.
And if not to raise it and to dedicate that additional money that's brought in from the increased surcharge.
Specifically to capital improvements that that's really where.
I think we need to to get the money and again we're not going to solve this in one year when I could solve this in two years.
But we just need a steady and sustained investment in our watershed and flood control systems over a matter of decades.
To in order to protect for you know people and property here in Austin Texas.
So that's my first one.
Very good. Yes, can we refer to this.
A customer.
Mayor.
This.
I see that we have in our that I'm looking at and I don't know if there's been some updates sent to us via email.
Says it's an increased by nine percent within this year's budget and it's directing supporting an increase nine percent.
Yeah, and I there's going to be a version two of this that is going to leave it up to the manager and staff to look at that number and come back to us with.
And number right now the increase was I think it's about a six percent increase year over year and my thought would be.
Again to bump it up to a nine percent increase, but I'm going to leave that.
I'm going to give that to staff to pause with and see what what they would recommend.
But it would be separate from our budget conversations, but it would affect this year's fiscal year.
So my understanding is that.
There is a publication notice where they have to give a 30 day notice before any adjustment to the increase.
And I will turn it over to the director.
What at this to go through the detail of that.
Good afternoon, council.
What is the record of watershed protection.
So yes, that's part of this budget.
We're proposing a six point two increase to the drainage utility fund.
And if we want to go higher than that, we definitely would have to do as thick and posting and come back with a different public hearing for that.
Okay.
So we couldn't just you can just offer an amendment to increase it due to posting requirements, which is why we're considering and be a IFC.
That was my preference would have been a straight budget amendment, but in conversation with staff, we realize that that's not that wouldn't be appropriate.
The conversation for next week, but I just want to have more a better understanding as to the rationale of adding an additional 3% how you got to that number.
Director, what else of that at six point two percent increase, what proportion will go to capital and what proportion will be for operating.
Yeah, so that roughly would be about 3.5 million increase to the 25 million that we're proposing this year.
Okay, and you know, in terms of an and of that amount of what goes toward capital versus operating like what's because I know we've had that conversation before and again,
I believe that the drainage utility fee essentially, at this point funds most of the watershed department.
And I present funds the operation and the CIP, so the 25 million we're speaking of is CIP specifically.
So this would increase that specifically as you requested to CIP.
Okay, and that would be the increase would largely my suggestion again to the manager and staff would be to to boost that.
Yeah, but especially given that my other concern, I know we couldn't get watershed into the the bonds that that you know for 2026, but when was the last watershed bond 2018 bonds for the last funds.
So that that was my other concern is that they do have some, you know, capital funds through the the the the the death there,
but they're not going to have any additional capital money until presumably watershed gets included in a 2028 bond and even then, you know, that's going to be a little bit of a lifetime.
And so that's also driving my concern is that they don't only have a lot of capital funds to make the improvements that I think we badly need.
Thank you very much. I mean just to clarify we do have an annual cash transfer to the CIP, but as we've been presented through the various bond conversations, there's a lot of needs.
And so this additional CIP just gets us to increase that annual cash transfer.
And thank you, and I just to to that I know that the additional million dollars or so that and a, you know, a further increase is not going to in and of itself solve the problem.
I don't think we're going to do that in the next five years. This is kind of over the next 20 years though.
In that that slide increase, I think we'll be able to to make improvements that that we would otherwise not be able to make again like that's not going to help a bunch in, you know, 27 per se, but down the road.
And again, to relaying a conversation that direct and what else and I had.
We've been lucky that that rain didn't hit the Austin metropolitan area.
And if it had and again, please direct and what else correct me if I'm wrong, we would have seen catastrophic flooding here in Austin.
Yes, that's correct. Generally speaking, we've got flash flood alley here in Austin as we're discussing so that we have many systems that are undersized.
Thanks.
Yes, I'll go to my next one relates to the G file, which as part of the vote to approve the police contract back in 2024 now.
The contract included the full opening up of the G files both, I guess, the Austin police oversight act and the contract in combination essentially opened up the G files.
Unfortunately, it's it's been very difficult, I know a lot of G files have gone out, but comprehensively speaking, it has been difficult just kind of administratively to get those documents out.
This, my resolution would first ask for a list of the G file information in terms of the officer, you know, the allegation and the outcome.
And then also ask staff to prepare a cost estimate, if we were to go through there, because there's going to be a lot of work involved in pulling scanning, redacting what not, you know, potentially thousands of pages of documents, what would be the cost estimate for that.
All right, thank you. I would just like to be added as a co-sponsor of I have seen.
I'm going to make sure that I get listed. Okay, thank you.
All right, the next one is mine and what this is what we've been talking about with regard to the allocation of the 4.7.
It also goes into the second step, which is the evaluation of the contracts. It has a third step right now, and that is the longer term.
But the amendments that I offered to council member, alters, I have seen that he's already laid out.
As I indicated earlier, probably what I'm doing is subsumed in that.
So, count on me to make a couple of amendments to this, I have seen so that it's more in harmony and not there's no conflict between the two.
Yes, Councillor Fuentes.
And this, I see, and you have it here directing the manager to notify council and the providers of any changes to their contracts.
Yes.
I just want to make sure that we get to a process that allows us to provide direction on that overall funding amount, because, you know, is this your laying out here?
Does that give, like, when does that happen?
And does that give us enough time to provide direction to the manager on the category?
And I've talked to the manager about that, and he wants specifically enough time to make sure that we have input.
And so, I'll make sure that I see list that, and if you have an idea, feel free to share that, and we'll make sure it be corresponds.
Clearly, clearly the goal, and I've said this over and over again, and I know you agree with me, is that the audit that was done, the concept for performance, whatever strategic alignment was, those sorts of things.
Don't necessarily say we don't want the service.
If we have a contractor that is not providing the service, we may very well want the service.
And so that's why this talks in terms of making sure that we deal with it holistically, and the council priorities are there, and in some instances, there may be money goes to another provider in order to make the example I gave you,
because there was food for kids and one might be failing in the other one pick it up, so we're going to need to have appropriate amount of time to make those sorts of evaluations.
But ultimately, we're going to have to have a recommendation from the manager based upon what the contracts do, what they were supposed to do, what they've indicated is a performance issue, or what they've indicated is outside of strategic alignment, something like that.
Thank you, anything else on that? Okay, then council member, I don't have any other IFCs, let me make sure I'm correct on that.
I think that concludes all of the IFCs that were filed, so with that, I'll go back to council member lighting.
Thank you, Mayor. I stopped for because before my time was up, because I learned alumni at some of the things, some of the questions and the things that I was going to say, and I have done that.
And so therefore, I don't have any more questions for ACM Batista, I will, I've come to every single meeting that I've been on the dios with at least one different example of why this is needed, why this changes needed.
And I will share those examples with you offline during our next meeting at CM Batista. I am skipping running through them now, some of them are quite compelling.
I will note that there are examples relating to mental health response, active fire incidents, and wildfire evacuation, and any form of staged evacuation that may be needed.
I know that that last one is near and dear to your heart, council member to do tune as it is to mine and council member Ellis and much of this dios.
I cannot, I cannot, I cannot stop talking before I have shared that.
The only reason that this report is coming next month is because staff did not follow the unanimously passed guidance.
I also would like to have the benefit of reading a report before I am in the second budget cycle in which I am bringing this forward, but I don't have that benefit.
Not because I haven't been deliberative and careful and thoughtful and how I have approached the process of bringing this IFC forward.
I have been nothing but that. I have had countless meetings.
I won't ask you to raise your hands now leadership, but you might not ask a leadership meeting at some point city manager.
How many of your staff have been in meetings with me on this topic individually to then within the last month still be hearing comments from people unnamed.
Who I hope by the end of this will not agree with the statement anymore thing, but aren't we already doing this the thing you're concerned about?
No we are not and I have been working on this since the day I arrived because as you all know, there are very real problems in my district relate that this IFC is designed to solve for and now I need to return to my thank you to my colleague council member Seagull.
Because I've done my very best as a newcomer to the political game as a newcomer to city politics city dynamic city council all of these things my district we don't get down here that often.
I came here as I have said to work for change and I mean change in city services that are more effective and more efficient for all of us and I've worked my hardest but you know what.
My colleague council member Seagull has a lot more experience with this than I do and I knew that if I couldn't come up with sources of funding I ran the risk of this getting delayed even more because despite very clear guidance to council that we wanted to report back.
At by the end of last year despite my many attempts to get this on the agenda of the public safety committee as vice chair, but no we're not ready yet.
Finally to have a special call meeting about one month ago that I chair.
Thank you very much for everything you do on public safety committee my fellow chair and post funds on this council member Velasquez.
We're not for some of these things I've said for the dias we wouldn't be getting a report next month.
I feel quite confident because I have seen plenty of signs that a good faith.
I won't say that.
I have seen plenty of signs that insufficient effort has been put forth.
To follow the guidance in that unanimously past IFC and so now I return to the difference between the IFC that I am now bringing forward.
Thank you very much with staff support I do very much appreciate that shift and that it has come in the last couple days.
But I will tell you this.
I don't feel like I have been treated.
I don't know.
I don't believe that sufficient effort has been put forward and I can tell you uneclavically that lives are lost in my department I'm in my district over this.
And I can also tell you that I believe we wouldn't be here today even talking about an IFC related to this.
support, we're not for Council Member Seagull. And we're not for all of you who have sat through
this meeting for this long to get to the point that you hear what is said about the joint
emergency communications office or department and the amendment and what the funding will be and
and how much we are suggesting that the IOC with or without amendment that passes will do.
I thank you for coming because it's challenging representing a district that is only
outlined areas. I know the same experiences are happening that I give examples of from my
district all around the outline areas of the city. I actually have a few of them at this point.
But you know what else I know even with me working in the most appropriate ways and I know
that this what I'm doing right now may not be viewed as appropriate. But even with me working in
the most appropriate ways, but you're my professional experience and demeanor and the way that I look
and where I come from, this so would have failed. We're not for the very many advocates who began to
show up to public safety committee meetings asking for an update. So I've shown up time and time again
and while I did not coordinate with those of you who are in the room whatsoever when I put together this IOC
Please note that I appreciate you. I hear you. I appreciate you. It is time to move past the things
that are buying us down in this city or job as council members is to have the tough conversations
in public and transparently and that does mean doing things differently within public safety. It means
at least bare minimum that IOC that is not supported. I look forward to seeing funding sources.
But here's the thing, if I already feel borderline like I haven't been treated in good faith,
I can't imagine how all these advocates feel. Because it's one thing to stand up here and say that the
outlying areas of our city haven't received the same focus and resources regardless of the color of your
skin or your religion or any of the other things that just things will or income or any of these things.
It's one thing to say that. And it's another thing to hear the pain and the heartache
in the suffering that comes from delaying action on these matters.
That's what I'm going to see what was not at all involved in my original IOC when you're ago.
But there's it's not a coincidence that we've ended up on the same side this time.
And so I think everyone in this room and outside of this room and all of my colleagues,
every single one of you who have helped to bring this through. I also think staff,
because I know even though I just had some criticisms, I will say, I am a big fan of our city manager
and the many hires he has brought in including ACM Batista and some others,
as well as longstanding staff who do very important work very effectively like Mr. Vanineau
and Director Lang. However, I will say this. This is the difference between my IOC and my IOC
combined with Council Member Seagulls Amendment. The difference is whether we trust that the city will
work in good faith for the next year and put sufficient early effort into this matter that didn't
happen last year so that we do have the ability to make decisions fully informed and without delay
because these matters impact everyone in this city. And so thank you for allowing me to give a few
comments. I again extend my thank you to my co-sponsors and mayor. This was a legitimate oversight
and I apologize but thank you also for joining me last year in supporting this measure because I know
the work that you do to try to bring resources and comfort and improvement to this city. I believe this is
an important part of that so thank you. Thank you. Thanks Mayor. I just have a very quick
question for either Chief Davis or really request for Chief Davis or PCM Batista and while they're coming
up there I'll just ask you to save time. It's probably been six or nine months since I read the
very dumb report. I'm just curious if between now and when we take this up next week you'll
can share any information that's in there about this particular issue. The very done recommendation
does not recommend that we remove police from communications. Well can you send the report in any
details that's gotten there about context around this issue? That's really what the request is between
now and next week. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor member. All right members.
I think that completes item number one.
I'm in clients just a journalist but so that'll take us to items two, three and four
obviously and so we have three items that all relate to elections and we have people that are
signed up to speak. What I think I'll do is go ahead and have the speakers called and then I want
to before we start on the items. I want to have legal come up so we can talk about what we need to do
because there are some legal aspects to what we need to do to call these elections. But we do have
people signed up to speak and so I'm going to turn to the city clerk and ask that you call those people.
May you're my calling for all items or may you know that let's do it that way because we have three items
and there is one I think I know how the council is going to want to go on the order we do that
there is a question about that so why don't you call two three and four.
Okay thank you sir starting with item two I have a remote speaker Pamela Vance.
Good afternoon there, Fiti Manager and council members. My name is Pamela Hall Vance and I'm calling
today at the Member of the George Washington's Carver Ambassador. I want to remind this
town folk that the citizens live bond election advisory task for the equity department and the city's
own professional staff all explicitly recommended that the cover needs and expansion be added to a bond
package. They recognize the outstanding promises to the citizens of often who overwhelmingly
staff pops the in 2022 which will mandate the expansion of the George Washington Carver Museum
Culture and Genealogy Center. With that in mind I have a direct question.
Council Member Chris Delay and Council Member Natasha Hartford, Madison. Is it possible to amend
opposition B to revise our spending and finally complete that 2022 voter approved mandate?
The Carver's expansion is still waiting on the completion of phase 1 and phase 2, through
the hyper-inslication and massive fights and local construction costs that voter
promise that it's solved and understanding in the architectural phase. While we fully understand
and respect indeed for your important new project, we cannot leave this historic youth
often and the structure, called in-limbo due to cost inflation. Can we reallocate these
funds so that the Hampton Library, Polynie Park and the Carver extension, all, receiving crucial
support by adjusting the flip to 10 million for Hampton, $15 million for calling cars, and
10 million can finish the carver. That way we create a fair revenue, neutral solution,
under the existing $35 million tax.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I will now go into the person's speakers for item 2, fill up this Gerald, Barbara Scott.
Barbara, are you here?
Yes.
Brian Dolazal here.
Galizo.
Yes.
Four minutes from Miss Scott, Jeff Diff, Dickerson, Zenovia Joseph, Monica Guzman and Bill Bunch.
If your name's been called, please come forward. Miss Scott will begin with you and you'll have
four minutes.
Good afternoon. I'm Barbara Scott. I'm representing the Colony Park Neighborhood Association.
I'm here today to thank the Council members who voted to include Colony Park Library Project
and the proposed November 2026 bond as well as those who voted to advance the resolution.
This project represents more than a new building. It is an investment in the Colony Park community
and the eastern crescent.
Bringing educational opportunities, access to technology and a gathering place for families and
residents of all ages.
It is a step toward addressing years of disinvestment.
And we hope that items 2, 3, 4 on today's agenda will continue to move forward.
I would also like to offer a special thank you to Council Member Natasha Harper Madison.
Your support for Colony Park has always met so much because it comes from lived experience.
You grew up in our community, attended our schools and understood firsthand both our challenges and our potential.
You have never forgotten where you came from and you have never stopped advocating for the people of
Colony Park and Lakeside. You have made sure our voices have been heard and you have fought to bring
long overdue investments to our neighborhoods.
Your support for this library will leave a legacy that will benefit our children, families and future generations.
Council Member Harper Madison, we want to thank you for your leadership, your partnership,
and your unwavering commitment to our community.
We wish you every success and every blessing on your next journey.
Thank you, Council.
Thank you, Ms. Scott.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. I'm Monica Guzman, Policy Director at Gava.
Go Austin, Vimal, Austin.
Gava resident leaders living in the runberg area, the community with increasing urban heat,
and existing urban canopy deficit and limited access to Walnut Creek Metropolitan Pool
have been advocating for a splash pad at the Garcia Recreation Center for almost four years.
Four years. Over the past five months, they advocated at the Bond Advisory Election Task Force
and Parks Forves meetings as well as sent emails to Austin Parks and Recreation, APR, requesting updates.
We received confirmation that APR heard the residents.
They agree the runberg area is a priority that extreme heat, urban canopy deficit, and other factors make it a priority.
Unfortunately, it is unclear if they agree that it is a priority now since they view it as new.
Contrary in aquatic facility such as a splash pad is an amenity from the original 2008
Gus Garcia Vision Plan almost 20 years ago.
How can APR consider it to be new?
Director Aguirre, Mayor Watson, Mayor Protem Velah and Council.
We urge you to add this amenity, specifically a Gus Garcia splash pad,
to APR's extreme critical needs priorities for the Austin 2026 Bond Package.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Velah Fitzgerald district one.
Sitting here all day, I find some of the conversations to be quite discouraging.
When I look at the services that were cut to meet this budget,
and we're told that we just don't have the money and understand money's tight.
But we always seem to be able to lock in higher raises for the police.
We can't find money for the parks, so we have to have this bond election to support our parks.
And I'm fully in favour of it because our parks are a huge draw for our city and they get people outside.
But the reason we're having to have this bond election is because we don't support our parks year after year.
So the small cracks that you may see at a pool, or a tree falling down on the park,
is not addressed year after year.
So 10 years down the road, we have to do a major overhaul.
So if we want to avoid the bond elections, then we should be funding these services year after year.
But it also goes back to, as member,
a doucheon said about priorities and what's been clear to me because I come week after week.
And I hear people speak and I hear people advocate for funding these services.
What's clear to me is the priorities of the city council is not to fund these services.
And in fact, a lot of you believe that the only reason you're up here is to advocate for business and to fund the police.
And that's the way we're going to solve our problems is just by giving more money to the police.
So we splash them more money, we give them 5% 6% raises.
That's higher than inflation.
That's higher than the 3.5% property tax increase.
You know, every time we give them more and more increases, that's locked in by the state.
We can't cut it.
So we have to cut services year after year.
And I think frankly, a lot of dollar okay with that.
You want private businesses to step up and you're just going to divert our money to them.
But what we're seeing year after year is those needs are not being met.
You have to be more aggressive in your vision and aspire to do more.
Thank you.
Please.
Good afternoon Mayor council members.
I wonder if you heard how many times my job dropped on the table when I heard about spending reductions.
No.
Council members, you still have a spending problem and still have not learned the lessons of property.
Council member decision.
You supported an increase in tax rate.
That is a permanent increase in the base tax rate.
Council member Bella.
I disagree with your spend spend spend mentality.
There is a reason the TRE was sadly rejected but a majority of taxpayers.
We cannot afford all the grand products, projects and visions that you like.
It does not help low income.
Bits then come unemployed with the affordability mantra that I keep hearing and reading about.
What you guys are doing doesn't address this issue.
Let's talk about the go bond and 26 bond.
You see.
Yes, it's 32 million dollars.
But let's be basically honest.
The total repayment will probably be 50 million dollars.
Oh, yeah.
We forgot about the $18 and $22 million in bond interest payments that come out of the general bond.
Catscare is paid for that.
The 295 million bond package is geared for SIP.
This is a go bond masquerading at the SIP because you guys did not put it in budget.
At 4% the total cost of this will be $428 million.
We're at the $295 million.
That's fiscal insanity.
To use a popular phrase by many speakers, why don't we flatten the spending budget?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Dickinson.
I also have you signed up for item three.
Would you like to speak to item three?
Mr. Dickerson.
Would you like to speak to item three?
Yeah.
Give me a paper.
While we wait for him to get his paperwork together.
Ms. Scott, I just wanted to say, of course I had to use the restroom at the moment that
somebody says it's a nice of me today.
So I just really appreciate your heartfelt thank you and I would just say boomerang.
Thank you very much for your leadership and your guidance and for the opportunity to work alongside you to do the work that we've gotten done so far.
And it's just so far.
Thank you.
Yes.
Please Mr. Dickerson on item three.
Mr. Dickerson.
District five.
Mayor.
Council members.
City units are written for the public.
But many are written in a legal style that makes them difficult or ordinary residents understand.
Hereby adopt their pursuit to ask specify in incorporated in part of this.
Really, this is not pretty average citizens and I'm talking about charter as well as ordinance.
That's simple about this.
This creates three problems.
They've reduced public understanding where's it and should not need legal training.
It offers less transparency.
It offers lower participation.
If you guys have some concern about wardeness of charters and length of charters.
Why I came to you simple by these ordinances and what you say and what you've.
provide for the public.
Future ordinances.
Proclamation.
Charters.
You shorter citizens.
Define the technical terms.
Explain the legal action.
Explain action before getting into legal jargon.
Government documents should be precise.
But they should be written so that people.
They sure can understand what is before them.
Thank you.
For item four.
Jeffrey Bowen.
Jeff Dickerson.
Susana Almanza.
Luis Gonzalez.
Zenobe Joseph.
Monica Guzman.
And Bill Bunch.
After new ladies and gentlemen Mr. Mayor.
Council members.
Jeffrey Bowen.
District.
On item four.
I just would like to remind everybody that.
We need to make sure that are.
That the language on these.
Meet the Secretary of State requirements.
We want to make sure that they're very clear.
Hopefully we don't want to go through the process that we went through last year.
So just just a friendly reminder to make sure that our ballot language.
And I have to also endorse what Mike.
Call it over here.
Mr. Dickerson just said about making him very clear.
So that people are understanding exactly what they're voting on.
I just wanted to make sure that we're getting that word out.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
This time.
Thank you.
Mr. Bowen.
Please.
Good afternoon.
My Watson.
Good afternoon.
Council members.
My name is Luis Gonzalez.
The resident of district 10 and the current share of the independence
Citizens of District and Commission.
Before I begin my written testimony, I just want to commend everyone today for their
time and their testimony.
This is how democracy works.
And a reason why I applied to be on the ICRC.
I support keeping the APD budget flat.
And let's please prioritize support for mental health, food security.
And our neighbors expressing experiencing homelessness.
As established by the city charter, the ICRC has the low seat of sole legal standing to create
and adopt maps for our city council districts.
While maintaining strict independence from influence by city council.
The city council will vote to approve a proposed amendment to the city charter that would
directly impact the work of the ICRC.
And we'll help the next group of commissioners in 2031 accomplish their go of producing a new
map that prioritizes equal representation, resident input.
And takes into consideration the rapid growth.
Our city is experienced over the last decade.
While this amendment may appear small today, the proposed new city charter language
will define independent as free from city council influence.
The free that utilize necessary city resources.
The language will specify an effective date for future maps.
The new language will increase the number of qualified applicants eligible to serve on the commission
and clarify the method in timing for filling vacancies.
These changes appear minor, but speaking from direct experience, they will provide efficiency and clarity
to future commissioners as they focus on the work of redistricting and prioritizing public testimony
rather than worry about administrative red tape.
While I have seen concerns that this proposed charter amendment will change definitions and rules that
keep our commission independent.
I would say someone who helped draft the proposed amendment language that is not its intention.
The ICRC is and should always remain independent with a capital I.
Our but the fact is that our meeting just last week would not have been possible without staff support city expertise and communication.
And for one clarification, a student commissioner is already.
Parliament for the ICRC. However, clarifying eligibility, eligibility, language is a good thing. Thank you.
Thank you. This is Joseph.
Thank you, Mayor Council. I'm going to be a Joseph. I just wanted to mention as it relates to the independent redistricting
citizens' commission. I just wanted to call to your attention that when this committee met previously the chair had
had some problems and that was in the news. And so I'm not quite sure why you would amend the guidelines
to ensure that the chair is able to speak to staff off the record. I know Ms. Greenberg gave you testimony as well
in this report. And I would also ask you to recognize it is problematic that you would not have the rules that govern the
court that you do in the charter. And so it is difficult to trust the court that you do as you are well aware
whether we're talking about the bond or whether we're talking about the budget. And so it has to be transparent and
to recognize the need to ensure that that does not change. And so that is my opposition.
I did want to tell you however, as it related to some of the opaque decisions that you've made.
I would just give you the example of the Marshall and Yard, for example.
We were told that that was an emergency temporary solution back in 2023. Now it's permanent.
As it relates to the vision zero, I mentioned that before. The city manager said that it wasn't simply a policy.
But in fact, it is. And you've not used the data. You've been told that in 2023, 2026. And here we are today.
And so it is difficult to understand why you would want to have more leniency when we the taxpayers don't even know what you're doing now.
And so that is my opposition. If you have any questions, I'll go ahead and answer them at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Joseph.
Mr. Dickerson.
Jeff, Dickerson District 5. Why are we throwing up more barriers in less protection for current petition
bringers? Why was the wording changed from, it just isn't generally preceded in it,
but they all, they must wait until the next November election.
The impact of this is longer delays. You were electioned long await for voters to decide citizen petition.
This isn't unnecessary barrier. There's no justifiable reason or evidence for doing this.
The other thing is campaign reimbursements.
The original restrictions that office holders should not accept or solicit political contribution while in office.
However, somebody changed the wording and myths or things in here. They met campaign debt reimbursement, reimbursement,
a personal campaign spending, office accounts and future campaign fundraising all together to make this obtuse.
It is not understandable by the average voters.
This amendment also removes the barrier of accepting political contributions in the current
and creates the pathway for office holders to raise money for unpaid, campaign, future expenses.
This is on that behalf, and this should be reviewed, looked at again,
and should be retained back to the original wording. It is done, fundraise while you're in office.
Thank you.
Mayor all speakers for these items have been called.
Thank you very much. Members, all the people that signed up on items 234 have now had an opportunity to speak.
I'm going to ask legal staff to come up so that we can deal with a couple of items and get some clarity on a couple of things before we go to taking motions and discussion.
The first thing I want to ask about is whether there are any legal requirements on how these items are supposed to appear on the ballot,
and whether legal staff has looked at that from the perspective of how we organize those items on the ballot.
Good afternoon, Mayor, council members. I'm Neil Falgud, Deputy City Attorney.
I have Wajihah Resby, Assistant City Attorney, and Matt Hines, our outside bond council who's been working with us on the bond matters.
Mayor, you're correct. There is a new law that went into effect after the 89th legislature, SB 506,
and that legislation requires that ballot propositions, like the bond proposals and the charter amendment proposals,
be submitted to the voters with, quote, such a definiteness, certainty and facial neutrality, that the voters will not be misled.
And so we've worked very diligently to drop these amendments in the ballot language in a way that the voters can understand,
while also meeting the legal requirements that the ballot language reflect what is actually being amended in the charter.
Along those lines, so that if you look at a mechanism for placing items on the ballot and the order they might appear on the ballot,
so no one can come in and say, oh, you didn't have a good reason for doing it that way, you manipulated it,
or you're acting in a political way, anything like that, you have a recommendation in that regard.
Yes, Mayor, so like I said, the propositions have to be presented neutrally.
And again, we believe that the order that they are presented and also has to be neutrally, just for point of interest.
There are 10 ballot propositions that are being presented.
That means there would be about 3.6 million different variations on how they get presented to the voters,
when you calculate that all out, so we have to settle on one.
And the one that we have settled on for the charter amendments is to just list them in the way that they appear in the charter,
with the final amendment being the non-substantive edits to the entire charter.
So in other words, the first item that we would put on in terms of the charter amendments,
would be something that would appear highest in the charter if you were reading the charter.
The second would be the second, and then we'd go that way.
That's correct.
And so that means all through the eight charter amendments in that order,
that was the last one being the non-substantive changes.
Now that would include not only those that were approved last week that came from the charter commission or a staff recommendation,
but that would also be the petition.
Correct.
Yes, the petition item is listed in the order that it also would appear in the charter.
Okay.
Thank you.
Does the council have any discretion?
We've got three items on the agenda today that we will vote on to determine whether we're going to put it on the ballot.
Does the council have any discretion in what order those go on the ballot?
Yes, they do.
With the caveat that the election for council offices has to be first, after that you can either do the bond or the charter amendments for purposes of not misleading the voters.
We recommend putting the bond propositions together and then the charter amendment propositions together.
Okay.
I want to say this back, just to make sure we're right, or that I understand.
We have three election items.
We are required to put the election for council members first.
Correct.
Then we have discretion, but the recommendation of council is, and by council I mean legal council, is that we go with the bond propositions first and then the charter propositions.
I think you could either do the bond propositions first or second, but we recommend.
First or second after the election for official.
Correct.
Yes, Mayor.
But you're making a recommendation.
Yes.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Now on the determination of letters, if we go with the bond proposition.
Well, let me ask you this way.
We made it.
We know and we're reminded frequently during days like today.
We made it all the way to cute.
And so as I learned that the next letter is or correct.
There may be dispute about that.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
But we've probably got going to agree.
So that, that good.
So the next letter is or however it's my understanding that if you have a certain number.
You're allowed to start over.
Would you describe this?
Yes.
So the next letter in the alphabet alphabet available to us is R.
Between R and Z, there are nine letters.
We have ten ballot propositions.
So we could either do R through Z and then double A or we could just start at the beginning of the alphabet again.
So our rules do allow us if you're going to go pass Z, you can just start over again.
Well, the city code says that if there are more propositions than letters remaining in the alphabet, then you go back to A.
Got it.
Okay.
The ordinance has been provided in our backup.
It has blank spaces for all the letters.
Why do you do it that way?
Yes, Mayor.
Because we wanted to allow council to have the flexibility to decide which order the bond and charter amendments you wanted to go in.
Okay.
Members.
Council.
Thank you, Mayor.
And I appreciate the back of fourth of law.
And I just wanted to kind of subject my motion to the same scrutiny.
And so colleagues, I before the mayor posted his motion.
I posted a motion that kind of presented a way to organize the letters for the ballot measures.
And basically, I proposed that we would present the ballot measures to the voters in three chunks.
First, we will list the spending items, the two proposed bonds.
Second, we would present the city initiated charter amendments as a chunk.
Then third, we would present the petition initiated charter amendment.
And so my understanding was this would also be consistent with state law.
That it's with definite uncertainty and face neutrality.
And I also believe it would avoid voter confusion by not mixing in the petition initiated charter amendment with the city initiated charter amendment.
I want to ask Mr. Gallagher the same question.
Do you think that is a facially neutral way to present the ballot measures?
Council member, as you have laid it out, I believe that would be a defensible, facially neutral manner.
Thank you, Mayor.
So with that, what I'm going to ask us to do is go to the items.
Unless somebody else has a question.
Okay.
We'll go to the items.
And legal staff is recommending that we put the bond propositions before we put the charter provisions.
Unless there's disagreement on that, then we will go to item two.
If there's some disagreement, I want to hear about that because we might go ahead and take up item four first.
Fair enough, which question?
When we vote, an item four, are we voting for them?
No, we have a single ordinance to call the special election.
However, the motion that I will ask for is that we give guidance to legal staff on what the lettering will be.
So for example, if we go, if the council, the city council, is of the opinion we go with the bond propositions first.
I guess we have two questions.
Question one is, do we want to start with R or do we will start with A?
And then if we start with A, for example, the bond propositions would be A and B.
Then that would take us, when we get to item four, that would take us to that.
And we would need to give guidance about the order we go.
If we follow the legal recommendation that they've offered to us, it would be C through I guess J.
And so I would ask that we do that as part of the motion so that when they start drafting things, they'll be able to do it.
But it's just today is just a vote on approving the ordinance calling the election.
Thank you.
If I may, I think we would like to have council adopt the ordinance ordering the general election for council offices first.
So that then we can move on to the proposition ordinances, the two proposition ordinances.
Although we're legally required to do that anyway, regardless.
And y'all of the ones that wrote the agenda.
Just point that out.
Okay.
All right. Well, he's added to his own agenda.
So now we're on item number three.
Item number three is to approve an ordinance ordering a general election to be held in the city of Austin on November 3rd,
226 for the purpose of electing city council members for district one district three district five district eight and district nine.
And I'll note single member districts for those districts and then providing for the conduct of the general election authorizing the city clerk to enter into joint election agreements with other local political subdivisions is maybe necessary for the orderly conduct of the election and declaring an emergency.
That being the case.
Yes, something else you want to add? Okay. Is there a motion? Councilmember Segel moves approval? It is second by Councilmember Deution. Is there a discussion? Hearing none, without objection, item number three is adopted unanimously. Now that will take us back unless I hear the scent. And we'll have a discussion about it. We'll go back to item number two, because
this will be to put item number two on the agenda, which is the bond, the
bottom general obligation bond election. And the motion that I, well, I'll ask for a motion,
y'all can modify it if you want to. The motion would be to approve an ordinance ordering a general
obligation bond election to be held on November 3rd, 2026 in the city of Austin, Texas on a proposed
bond issue for Parks and Recreation and Library Improvements. The funding would be debt service on
the general obligation bond programs and be funded through an annual property tax levy. And
the items would be listed on the agenda as item A and item B, not on the agenda, on the ballot,
items A and item B. Councilmember Segel moves approval at a second by Councilmember Harper Madison.
Is there a discussion with regard to that motion? Mayor May I please? I would assume it's following
the order that's presented in the ordinance with A being the Parks and B being. That is my
assumption as well since that's the way we've listed it in the ordinance. But I'll ask for Council,
if anybody on the city council has dispute about that, item A would be Parks, item B would be library
improvements. They're being no further discussion without objection. Item number two is adopted
unanimously. That will now take us to item number four. For clarity purposes, I'll read what the
motion will be and provide a recommendation and then when we get the motion, we'll know where we have that
motion. The motion would be to approve an ordinance ordering a special election to be held in the city of Austin
on November 3rd, 2026 to submit to the voters proposed charter amendments, including a citizen initiated
charter amendment, certified sufficient on June 22nd, 2026 providing for the conduct of the special
election, authorizing the city clerk to enter into joint election agreements with other local political
sub divisions as may be necessary for the orderly conduct of the election and declaring an emergency.
The funding is available in the fiscal year 2025, 2026 operating budget of the city clerk. The motion
would be to approve that ordinance with the assignment of the charter amendment proposition letters
in the following manner. Proposition C through Proposition J with based upon the recommendation
of legal staff. Is there a motion? Motion's made by Councilmember Harper Madison. Is there a second?
Second by the Mayor Pro Tem. Is there a discussion on the motion? Councilmember Seagull.
I guess, Mayor, I would prefer that we move forward to see what the motion I filed that
the city amendments be placed first and then the citizen initiated amendment be placed after that.
My only concern about the weather. I have a number of concerns about that, but one of the concerns I have
about that is that I think if a petition, whether I agree with the petition or not, and before we vote,
I'll say I don't agree with that petition and I have publicly said I don't agree with the petition.
But if the citizens bring us a petition, I'm not sure we should relegate the citizen's petition
to something after what the council has decided to put on the ballot.
With that being said, is there any further discussion? The motion has been made and seconded.
The motion would be to approve the ordinance providing the letters proposition C through Proposition
J and those would be in the order that has been recommended by our legal council.
They're being no further discussion without objection. The motion is adopted.
Councilmember Seagull, how do you want to be shown voting? It's councilmember Seagull's vote.
So it passes unanimously. Members, first of all, did we cover everything that you guys need cover?
Yes, Mayor. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Appreciate all the thought and time you've put into this and thank you very much.
Members, we moved quickly to these items and probably did not say enough of a thank you
to our professional financial staff. I saw them leave, but I want them to know that we really do appreciate
them particularly when it comes to items like we first discussed what we're dealing with that $4.7 million
and they put such creativity and innovation into helping us get to where we wanted to get in a variety of ways
that appear to be in conflict and they figured out a way to help us with that and I appreciate all the time
they gave me in those discussions so that we could get to that point. So I want to say thank you to them.
That being said, there's no further business to come before the Austin City Council at this meeting of the Austin City Council.
We will meet again on Wednesday, August 12, Thursday, August 13 and Friday, August 14
that we will conduct another public hearing. We will have Council discussion and we will vote on the budget at that time.
They're being no further business to come before the Austin City Council at this meeting of the Austin City Council.
Without objection, the Austin City Council is adjourned at 321 PM Thursday, August 6. Thank you very much, Council.
Thank you for all members of the public that attended.
Thank you very much.