City Council Work Session Transcript – 10/22/2024 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 10/22/2024 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 10/22/2024 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [9:00:48 AM] >> Morning, everybody. I'll call to order the Austin city council for the work session that's scheduled for today, which is Tuesday, October 22nd, 2024. It is 9:01 A.M. We are meeting at Austin city hall, which is the council chambers, which are located in Austin city hall, located at 301 west second street. And we have a quorum of the Austin city council present members. The order that we're going to go in today is we're going to three items have been pulled and for this work session, and we will go in the order of 4748. And then 42. Then we will go to briefings and it's my understanding that briefing be to the manager's office has indicated will come to us at another date. So we will just have briefing on item number B, item number b1. With that being said, I'm going to ask the maager's office if it has any quick comments. And then we will go to people who have signed up for public comment. And if they [9:01:49 AM] for public comment. And if they if they don't have any comments, we'll just go directly to public comment. >> No, mayor, we do not. >> Okay. Very good. Then what we will do is we'll go directly to public comment and I will turn to the city clerk. I'm sorry. Okay. I'll turn to the city clerk to navigate us through the public comment period. >> Are we starting with item 47? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Start remote speakers first. We have Fran netcher. >> Hi, my name is Franck and I am, of course, a union here in Austin, Texas. And what I'm calling about is I'm about to go tour a subsidized daycare for my child so that I can afford to keep her in school. But with this police contract coming up, from what I understand is that [9:02:50 AM] from what I understand is that as the budget continues to demand more and more money for our APD, we can never take money out of. We're going to be having to take cuts from everywhere else. So I guess my question is like, should I just not bother? And just kind of move out of Austin where I can afford child care? Because that's a genuine question. When I spoke to mayor Watson's people, they said that we were at the beginning of the process and that the budget had the money for this year, which is surprising to me, considering that we were told that there was a deficit earlier. But that seems to not have been the case. It was secretly built in and there's not like any transparency involved in this, if that's what the issue is or if that's the truth, then I guess my question is all the other things that you've [9:03:50 AM] other things that you've promised us in the budget, what's still there, what's available? Today is the anniversary of my friend's death. And she died because she was sexually assaulted. And I know that APD didn't do anything about it and has continues to have a backlog. And that's a particular crime that they don't address. And yet we're going to be giving them more money. I'm just a regular guy working in Austin. I'm middle class. I haven't had a particularly traumatic life, but these are incidents that have really made my life a lot harder. And if we are to give Austin's budget, what, 40%, 35% to APD, what else are you going to take from us? Okay. Thank you. >> Next speaker is Sarah Rigdon. >> Hi. My name is Sarah, and I'm [9:04:55 AM] >> Hi. My name is Sarah, and I'm just calling to testify against items 47 and 48. I think basically what the previous speaker said says it all. And it's just not clear what return on investment we're getting for giving APD this much of the budget, which we're not going to be able to reduce in the future. It's really permanent, and it takes away budget from everything else in the city, which requires money. So I'm I'm against doing that. Thanks. >> Next speaker is Peter Kim. >> Hi there. Can y'all hear me? Yes, I am coming through. Okay. So yeah, like the other two people that went before me, there's a lot of things that can be said about this proposed [9:05:56 AM] be said about this proposed budget, but I just want to talk about the money again. So I'm not against people getting paid fairly for the work that they're doing, but the APD already takes in a whopping $500 million a year, which is 35% of the city's entire general fund. I want to emphasize this more than fire, ems, parks and rec, and public health combined. And now we're talking about slapping an extra $44 million a year that because of state law, we are legally not allowed to take back. Once that goes into effect. So before we pull the trigger on what could be a very expensive gun, I just want to know that I, the taxpayer, is getting what I'm paying for. Is this 44 million really best spent irreversibly beefing up police salaries or are there other programs we can invest in? We're always told with endless hand- wringing and clutching of purse strings, that when it comes to increasing the stock of affordable housing or broadening services and support for the poor and homeless, that there just isn't enough money [9:06:56 AM] there just isn't enough money for such pie in the sky in la la land ideas. But right now, the strategy, the homeless strategy office only requires $37 million a year. Our housing affordability programs only cost the city $11 million a year. And now we're being told that we somehow found $44 million in the couch cushion somewhere, and we just can't spend a single red cent of that on any of these other services. I just I just simply don't believe that. I know that the council is sick of dealing with this contract, and from hearing from people like me who are mad about it. I don't know what it's like to be you guys, but honestly, that's not my job. It's your job to be in my shoes and to tell the police how I really feel about this whole thing. And I just feel like I'm getting swindled here, and I'm being forced to make a decision that I don't want to make. So I'm asking you, please vote no on this contract and drafted one that will actually be work, that will actually work in line with line up with what we voted for back in 2023. Thank you. >> Next speaker is Orlowski Shaw. [9:07:58 AM] >> Next speaker is Orlowski Shaw. >> Hi. Hello. My name is Orlowski and I am a member of the united workers of integral care. We oppose the tentative police contract and urge city council to vote no unless key changes are made. First, the police must release any secret files and stop this practice to ensure transparency and accountability. Austin voters overwhelmingly supported the police oversight act, reflecting the need for accountability, which must be honored. Additionally, the proposed contract would allocate an additional $220 million to the police over the next five years, exacerbating the already disproportionate share of the city budget allocated to law enforcement. This investment comes at the expense of vital city services like parks, libraries and the non carceral mental health crisis response team, such as the mental health 911 call responders on the c3 [9:08:59 AM] 911 call responders on the c3 team and the responders in the field on the Escott team. These integral care teams provide trauma informed, person centered care, diverting individuals from incarceration, hospitalizations, and psychiatric emergency detention. The city, however, struggles to fund these essential services. The city has also not been able to adequately fund vital harm reduction and homelessness services. These services are critical in addressing the root cause of crisis, substance abuse and poverty, offering compassionate, evidence based solutions that reduce harm and support long term stability. Policing, on the other hand, often escalate situations and criminalizes those most in need of help and divert resources from services that can truly make a difference. Harm reduction strategies provide lifesaving care such as overdose prevention and disease prevention. Homelessness services offer housing case management and mental health support, which have proven to be more effective in improving outcomes and reducing costs to the city. Policing is not the solution to these complex issues. Comprehensive services are. City [9:09:59 AM] Comprehensive services are. City council recently awarded 1.5 million and one time funding to expand the integral care crisis team, but this is not enough with the police contract. This funding will likely be one of the first to be cut, jeopardizing efforts to expand these teams and for them to go 24 over seven. Currently, c3 cannot fully staff overnight shifts through low wages and inadequate shift differentials, and even with these challenges, these teams have been highly effective. 86% of clients serve were diverted from psychiatric emergency detention, 96 were diverted from emergency department admission, 100% diverted from incarceration, and 100% experiencing suicidality did not complete suicide. Meanwhile, the police continue to demand more resources, already taking up 40% of the city's budget. Around 500 million. The integral care crisis teams have operated on a fraction of that amount, just five 5 million annually, split between the city and county. Expanding these mental health teams is not only more cost effective, but also life saving [9:10:59 AM] effective, but also life saving mental health. Police officers only receive 24 to 40 lifetime hours of mental health training, and they frequently do not respond adequately, adequately and escalate situations. Whereas integral care clinicians have years of specialized education and healthier. Thank you. Speaker. >> Crisis intervention. Thank you. >> Reece Armstrong. Reece Armstrong, please unmute. We'll try calling Reece in a bit. Loki or last name Muniz. >> Hi. Good morning. >> My name is Lonnie. I live in district nine. I'm also a working mother with one six year old son. I live alone, I spent a lot of time all over Austin with my son by my side, and mostly [9:12:00 AM] my son by my side, and mostly alone. So I'd say I value safety a lot. However, I don't believe that this proposed police contract offers that and actually undermines safety in Austin. Defunding public services and not actually increasing ways in which folks access services that they need leads to more crime. I appreciate that Austin has alternative ways that austinites can seek get the public safety that they need, and I believe we need more of that. I don't like that this proposed contract undermines police transparency and the accountability, ultimately undermining the police oversight act. I was also shocked to find out how much funding will not go into other services, like the city not adding funding to assist formerly incarcerated people with housing and jobs. This past summer, and that it will not increase any of that funding. The city failed to fund the ems alternative mental health first response so that it can respond to calls 24 over seven. Police [9:13:00 AM] to calls 24 over seven. Police are not the right first responders to these calls. The city launched an emergency rental assistance program three years ago at the budget level of about 7 million, with the program barely off the ground. And it got the funding got cut to 3 million, and it's struggling to serve the needs ever since. I mean, this list goes on and on, just like the former caller was listing. And. And it needs to increase these budgets instead of cutting and cutting these the funding into these public services that people need. When I'm out in these neighborhoods and like friends neighborhoods, different parks around Austin, walking downtown, the biggest threat to safety that I see and experience like and this is with my son, with me most of the time alone, are folks that are experiencing homelessness or folks that need much needed mental health services. This and with this new [9:14:02 AM] services. This and with this new proposed budget not allowing to be for these other public assistance to be funded, I would urge city council to not pass this new proposed budget. So as a mother and an austinite, I would ask city council to not approve this new police budget and please do better for our families and the children of Austin. Thank you. >> Reece Armstrong. Reece Armstrong, please unmute. Sage west. >> Hello, my name is sage west. I am part of. I reside in city council district two. I am [9:15:06 AM] council district two. I am against the amended budget increase for APD. The new increase, the increase of over. $16.5 million reduces. Public services and doesn't allocate. Doesn't allow for the allocation or increase of much needed services like have been mentioned. Our current budget for the proposed budget has our homeless strategy at 0.2%. Our housing initiatives have 0.8% of our general fund. We have social services at only 4.4% of the budget. And are these the funds [9:16:13 AM] budget. And are these the funds that are going to be taken from and added to the APD budget? It doesn't say anywhere. And our approved by vote of the city of Austin have. Still yet to receive the police oversight act to be instated. I understand that that has been under litigation, but we need to address the unacceptable use of funds and lack of transparency with within APD. The proposed increase without this amendment is a. I apologize. The with the [9:17:15 AM] is a. I apologize. The with the amendment, the increase would be. Third would make it 36% of the total general fund, which is a $35 million increase over the fiscal year end of 2024. That is absolutely unheard of. I mean, and unacceptable, as have been mentioned, where and we're unable to remove these funds at any point because our governor has has enacted the inability. >> Liana Hernandez. >> Hi there. You can hear me, right? [9:18:17 AM] right? >> Yes. >> My name is liana Hernandez. I'm a resident of district seven. I'm speaking along with the speakers before me in opposition to items 47 and 48, because I want to prioritize public safety and fiscal responsibility. If this contract passes, we're looking at spending approximately 3 billion on police over the next five years. Between this contract, APD expenses year over year and the seemingly inevitable payments to the victims of wrongful death and police brutality. A CBS poll showed 79% of people in Austin oppose this contract. The exact same percentage of people who supported the Austin police oversight act. Not only does this contract undermine police oversight, but the enormous cost would come at the expense of city workers across the board. APD already receives 40% of our city's budget. Why aren't the firefighters, emts, parks, [9:19:18 AM] firefighters, emts, parks, workers, library workers, social workers, other city workers treated with the same coddling and ability to bargain for raises? Why do countless programs that have, unlike the police, shown great success in keeping our community safe, routinely struggle for a tiny fraction of the resources city council is willing to offer? APD the city of Austin has been a trailblazer nationally in piloting alternative and more effective methods of addressing nonviolent crises, such as establishing a new option for 911 calls that dispatches social workers and substance abuse specialists when appropriate. The backroom deal that produced this police contract ignores the priorities your constituents have made clear at the ballot box, and it doubles down on outmoded strategies for ensuring public safety. We can continue to be a trailblazer. We can do better. We can use data, data backed methods to keep people safe. Police do not prevent crime. We know what does. I urge [9:20:21 AM] crime. We know what does. I urge you to oppose the police contract in your vote on October 24th. Thank you. >> Doris Adams. >> Good morning. My name is Doris Adams, and I'm a resident of district five. I'm speaking against your approval of the police contract. As a former member of a working group of the reimagined public safety task force, and as someone who has made it a point to be informed about this topic, increased funding for police does not keep the public safer and avoids addressing the underlying issues that lead to violence or crime. At a time when crime rates are diminishing, I would find it irresponsible of the council to address this. Police contract or to approve this police contract. This is the time to be investing in solutions to the underlying issues. Poverty, lack of access to food and necessary resources [9:21:22 AM] to food and necessary resources and shelter and affordable housing for the working class, to name a few. This council has given such a small part of the budget since 2021 to address the recommendations of that task force and the community investment budget that followed, the $218 million that signing this contract will commit us to spend on police over the next five years will jeopardize the other spending priorities already in the 2025 budget, raise taxes and move Austin further from the multicultural, multi- class, diverse community that I had grown to love as a taxpayer, I want my tax dollars spent to stop the slipping away of that community and instead spent on building a place where a militarized police force is not prioritized over meeting the diverse and growing needs of the whole of our community. Thank you. >> Stuart Ford. [9:22:25 AM] >> Stuart Ford. >> Yeah. Hello, this is Stuart Ford, a long time resident of Austin over 50 years, lived in east central Austin for over 20. I'd like to start off with saying that, hey, 40% of my budget does not go to security, and I think I want you guys to think about that. Also, when you go home, do you look at your bills and you say, hey, you know what, I want to spend 40% of my budget is going to be on locks and doors and sirens and guns and cameras. Nobody does that. Don't do that with my city either. I appreciate the chance to talk today in our growing city should not be focused on the window dressing that APD represents. Police presence in cars, not not policing neighborhoods. Not being a presence. Not coming up and being friendly with people, sticking around and hiding [9:23:25 AM] sticking around and hiding basically and waiting for response is not what I want to spend 40% of my budget on. I've never locked my doors and I live in east central Austin. Now, if you can tell me why I need to spend 40% of my budget again when I don't even lock my front door, please help me out. I walk all over my neighborhood. People are safe. We have tons of tourists around this area. I don't hear any problems right. And these police, they all they are, are reactionary force. They're not going to be out here in the neighborhood, patrolling, looking around, talking to people. They just wait for a911 call and then come blazing sirens. And normally it's not even the person's gone. Property crime has gone up, but then it's already stolen. Do they follow up and solve the crime? No. So please, let's focus our money on things that matter to this city. [9:24:28 AM] things that matter to this city. Mental health of our of our residents, the homeless problem, the housing problem which the city is getting more and more expensive and we're forcing people out. And that's not the inclusive community that I lived in and grew and grew up in. So please, no more accountability than they ever had before. The community has already reached out and voted on this and they said, hey, we don't want to spend more money on the police, we want to spend less money, and we want to focus that money that we used to spend on this police force into other community organizations that help residents get to what they need, not, hey, I need more police patrolling the streets to write tickets or to show up after the crimes happened. So please do not fund this the way that you're trying to. And it's also a subversion of what the will of the people is, which we've [9:25:29 AM] the people is, which we've already voted on this. Please respect our votes. Thank you very much. >> Cole weaver. >> Hi. Hi. My name is Cole weaver. I am a employee at integral care. I'm a peer support specialist. I'm also a member of united workers of integral care. I spoke at the work session. I think it was two weeks ago. Yeah, it was two weeks ago. And I want to try to somewhat say the same thing, but also make a little different, a few different points. I support everything that everyone just said before. Everyone that has spoken before me on this, in this meeting and I want to reiterate that. Speaking as someone with not only lived experience, but also being a [9:26:30 AM] experience, but also being a black man in a black male body, having police held un accountable is threatening to me. Especially. And you know, even if we increase police presence supposedly, if that's what people some, some people want, that would actually put fear into me and wanting to work in the city and provide mental health service because I know throughout the country, especially with the history, that the way policing has treated black Americans, that if something goes wrong, if I don't comply, you know, the right way or it's even someone else that's also autistic, like myself has is nonverbal and they don't comply. They get shot and killed. And it's happened so many times and I don't want a police force [9:27:31 AM] and I don't want a police force having so much power and funding that takes away from doing the work that I feel called to do, and so many others that care about Austin residents and the people that are struggling to get by and get their ends, make their ends meet. So I urge city council to vote no on this contract. If you have to, you know, rethink, you know, go back, send it, send the contract back, replan it, find something that's actually better than this so that you know it does not heavily or even remotely cut into city services. And especially my, you know, ems social workers, you know, public library, public parks. Because I actually I even like to go hiking and in many other [9:28:31 AM] hiking and in many other beautiful parks in Austin. And that's something that I value, too. And zilker park and Barton springs, those are things that I value too. Thank you. >> Yasmeen Smith. >> Hello. My name is Yasmin Smith. I am vice president of justice and advocacy for the Austin area urban league. Born and raised Austin knight. And we stand in coalition with all the members that have spoken beforehand asking you, urging you to vote no on this police contract. Now we do believe and we respect and we honor all of our first responders and our police officers that do their job with diligence and honor and empathy. However, and because two things can in fact be true at the same time, we believe that a 218 allocation to a budget line that reflects a 28% [9:29:32 AM] budget line that reflects a 28% increase to one of the highest police departments in the state of Texas. Where that money was put in that bucket cannot be reallocated is negligent. It's especially in light of the multitude of city services that need to be funded, like our parks, like our libraries, like our inclement weather, like our unhoused system. It's almost like a family budget, right? A family with multiple kids and different schedules who year after year, pour money into a car that they think that they need. However, they must also prioritize ensuring that there is food in the fridge for those same children to eat. We ask you, as our elected officials, our per se guardian, to prioritize our budget correctly and ensure that all of the members of our Austin family are fed. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. [9:30:34 AM] day. >> Edwin Bautista. >> Good morning. Council members. My name is Edwin Bautista and I'm a resident of district seven. I'm speaking today as both a community advocate and a concerned citizen to voice my deep concerns regarding the proposed police contract and the broader implications it has on it has for transparency, accountability and the financial future of our city. First and foremost, I want to make it clear that I hold a deep respect for the people who serve in the Austin police department. Public safety is essential, and I believe our city needs a strong, well supported police force. However, support for our police should never come at the expense of transparency or fiscal responsibility. And unfortunately, this contract seems to do just that. Let's talk about transparency or the complete lack of it. This contract is shrouded in the same lack of openness that has plagued our city's handling of police oversight for years. We are still grappling with the consequences of the G file. The secret of police misconduct records that were meant to be [9:31:35 AM] records that were meant to be abolished under the voter approved police oversight act. Yet the proposed contract includes provisions that would allow some of these records to remain sealed or be shielded in the future. This is not just a breach of trust. It's a violation of the will of the people. Transparency is not negotiable. And yet the deceptive tactics surrounding the G file and oversight issues mirror the kind of behavior we have seen from the Austin police association before. Austin voters overwhelmingly supported prop eight and rejected the Apa's attempt to confuse voters and undermine police accountability. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. It's a pattern of deception, of deception designed to undercut the will of the voters. Let's not forget the city has already paid out more than $22 million in lawsuit settlements related to police misconduct from the 2020 protests. Where is the accountability for that? Financially, this contract is an anchor around our city's neck. We're talking about 218 million commitments over five years, locking the city into into an [9:32:35 AM] locking the city into into an inflexible financial burden with little room for adjustment due to house bill 1900, which limits our ability, our ability to reduce police funding. Meanwhile, this year's budget cycle, we saw council members fighting for scraps. We had council members advocating for critical services and in a last minute scramble, managed to free up only 4.7 million by reducing the emergency reserve fund money that was sorely needed for rental assistance and public services. It's unfortunate and extremely disappointing to remember mayor Watson and mayor pro tem pool attempt to quash these community driven initiatives by prioritizing rainy day funds over urgent needs. Our community deserves better. And speaking of financial obligations, where is the pay parity for our other first responders? While police officers are being offered significant raises, our ems workers were once insulted with a 14% raise. Are we really okay with sending the message that only one group of first responders deserves to be valued? Our firefighters, our ems workers, they are out there risking their lives every day. [9:33:36 AM] risking their lives every day. We cannot keep asking them to do more with less. Mayor Watson, I must address the elephant in the room.we are mere weeks away from election day, and this contract feels more like a campaign maneuver than a genuine commitment to reform. >> Darrell Malone. Darrell Malone, can you guys hear me? >> Yes. >> Hey, I'm Darrell Malone. I'm a long time resident of Austin. Just recently actually moved back into district nine after being here after being away since 2014. I'm the founder of the national police data coalition, and here to, I guess, join the chorus of voices that are opposed to this new contract. Two things that I'll kind of highlight, which have been stated before, but I think are really important to emphasize. [9:34:37 AM] really important to emphasize. Number one is the irreversibility of the money that would be transferred just because of the laws in Texas, because of the way that things have been set up by the governor's office. This is this is a transfer of funds that will never be brought back, which will never be available to serve any of the needs that the city is going to have going forward. So just something to consider as we look at, you know, how we want to position our city for the next ten years. I'm a big fan of a lot of the things that are talked about here. One of my big bugaboos is transit. And I would love to see more money put into some of these other areas. The second big thing I'll highlight is that this the issue of transparency. You know, as was mentioned before, is something that was voted on affirmatively by the people of Austin just recently. So it would be really a terrible message to have the council then [9:35:40 AM] message to have the council then go and put a hole through those efforts that are really long and hotspot. By the citizens of Austin. So that's my $0.02. Thank you for your time. >> Mary Chisolm. Mary Chisolm. We will try Mary in a little bit. Douglas Greco. >> Hello, I'm Doug Greco. I'm a candidate for mayor. I oppose the vote for the police contract on Thursday for two reasons. And I urge the council to take the time to get it right. First, the [9:36:40 AM] time to get it right. First, the language regarding the G file should be rewritten to make it clear that the G file is eliminated for cases before, during, and after the contract signing. Voters in the court decided there should be no G file, but the current language has led to widely different interpretations by key stakeholders. The language of the contract should be rewritten to put to rest concerns about voter approved transparency. Not leave them open to future court or legislative decisions. The second issue involves the budgetary impact. We need to pay our officers well and at the top of our peer cities, and we need to make sure that we are making the community investments that contribute to safety, like addressing homelessness, economic stability, harm reduction, and to invest in competitive compensation for our city staff that provides these services. Given that the city budget department has provided widely different five year budget predictions through the course of this year alone, we should budget cautiously and not [9:37:42 AM] should budget cautiously and not proceed until we can be assured that non public safety spending can grow at the same rate as public safety spending, and do so within our budget constraints. These contract negotiations stalled over the past two years. The mayor and council shouldn't rush it for the sake of an election or during an election. We need a contract, but not until these issues are worked out. Thank you. >> Myra vedros. >> Hey. Good morning. Mayor Pedro pronouns and Burt Boston dsa 1624. I love talking to you all. I hope one day maybe it's for something positive, but until that time, I'm asking you to not ratify the police contract. They've been without a contract for a while now, and I think it's okay that they continue to sit with that and think about their actions. As previous speakers have said, hb [9:38:42 AM] previous speakers have said, hb 1900 makes any police budget increase permanent because of state law. That is money that could be going to basically anything else. And most of the time when I see police around Austin, they're not really doing anything. They're just sitting in their cars. I distinctly remember a road closure near my house where I called 311 and I said, hey, look, this is down to one lane. There's cars going in both directions. It's not flagged. It's unsafe. There could be a wreck. They said, please call 911. I called 911 and they said, okay, we'll get an officer out. And I watched two cop cars pass right by. It and not address anything at all. And there have since been two wrecks on that road. So if they're not like we know, data shows that it's not a budget problem. It's a recruitment problem and a culture problem. And if we want to reform that, then maybe we should work on what they're actually doing on the job rather than just throwing more money at the problem and thinking that it [9:39:44 AM] problem and thinking that it will solve it. I yield my time. >> Heidi Sloan. >> Hey. Good morning. My name is Heidi Sloan. I am a resident of district four, and I organize with Austin dsa. I'd like to remind council that we, the people of Austin, secured the G file. We wrote the petition language. We knocked the doors counter canvased the liars. We won. We took it to court and we won again. We did that. Opoa is law. We don't have to buy these rights. We didn't elect you to do the dirty work of the right wing state lawmakers, and we didn't elect you to pay more than we can afford for a city department that we come to understand more daily as having been derelict in their duty and unwilling to incorporate recommendations for improvements to that point. We cannot afford this contract. First of all, what a slap in the face of departments that have done their [9:40:45 AM] departments that have done their due diligence and serve this community who have been told that the budget they are allowed to beg scraps from is different and entirely set apart from the budget that you negotiate with the police from. Even with the more rosy projection, we're still looking at an $11 million shortfall in year five of this contract, but we won't be able to renegotiate. We're locked in. So what you're planning now to cut other city services, to negotiate other contracts with that deficit in mind? And what is sales tax? The most volatile income stream, as per the memo, turns out to be, I don't know, volatile. You're already in over your heads here. You already didn't fully fund ems. You already pushed back on climate change mitigation and homelessness services. Now you say we'll have a tax rate election saw do a tree, but do it specifically for the police. How much do you think voters would approve? Would it be 218 million? Are you willing to stake on that? I know you won't [9:41:46 AM] stake on that? I know you won't do that. You'll go back to the earlier budget and the deficit will be back at 59 million. And you'll tie the need for funding to something beautiful like child care and decarbonization. Why? Because the people of Austin continuously invest in the infrastructure of care and repair. We all know that. That's the winning tree. I stand in solidarity with afscme, with the united workers of integral care, ibew and the clc of Austin. And I ask you to vote this contract down, fund our real priorities. Thank you so much. >> Reece Armstrong. >> Hi. >> Mary Chisholm. [9:42:54 AM] >> Mary Chisholm. >> My name is Mary Chisholm. I am from district four and I would like to ask council or I'm asking or telling the council that I'm against items 47 and 48, because crime rates do not align with police staffing. We know this. This contract also undermines the police oversight act, which we all voted for in the city of Austin. I agree with all the speakers before me that make points. I was going to make about money. That's taking away from services that help to ensure public safety. So I'd like to talk about the staffing. I'd like to ask the council to take into consideration the amount of money in contracts with special events that the city has. You say we have no staffing for public safety. Yet every time I'm at Q2 or anywhere else, I see a gaggle of police [9:43:55 AM] else, I see a gaggle of police officers on their cell phones making jokes, doing nothing. I worked out at Q2 for a minute, and once a coworker was assaulted, the police officer told her, do not file a complaint because nothing will happen. Another time, a two people had their backpacks stolen with their cell phones and asked the police officer for help and the police officer told them they couldn't help them because they worked at Q2. So I don't understand why the police need any more money when they do not do anything to help, you know, stop crime or fight crime or anything for that matter. We need we all know that housing, mental health care and poverty are issues that would prevent crime, not more money for the police. Thank you. And I yield the rest of my time. [9:44:56 AM] the rest of my time. >> Marina Roberts. >> Hi, my name is marina Roberts. I'm a mother of community organizer. I live in district four and I'm opposed to the proposed police contract. I will express my utter disgust that anyone in city leadership felt it appropriate to use our tax dollars to compensate the law firm that represented uvalde cops to bargain on our behalf, which has resulted in a sweetheart deal to a police force that persists in evading accountability at every opportunity. In defiance of what voters have resoundingly demanded. I will also share how infuriating it is to me that city leaders would even entertain a contract that isn't crystal clear in ensuring the G file is made public retroactively, as well as moving forward, is that it's a slap in the face to the victims and families of victims of police brutality who have led the fight for accountability. I don't know how you can see the toil of these people and consider a contract that remains ambiguous on this point, but I will use my time to really emphasize on this [9:45:58 AM] time to really emphasize on this call that we live in a city, in a country that has so much potential to be better, and every single thing we might dream of achieving is in tension with the money you all are considering handing to the police. I recall very recently you all were telling equity action that there simply wasn't the money to support the myriad of ideas that were bringing to the table with their community investment budget, but somehow you all scrapped together over 217 million for this contract. Every dollar you give to APD is a dollar that could be spent on immigrant legal defense funding, child care, greening our city, or an infinite number of other things. There used to be people in this council who had the clarity to see that, and the backbone to stand up to the police union. I am waiting and watching to see what you do now, because my son's future here hangs in the balance. Thank you. I yield my time. >> We will move to in person speakers on item 47. I'll call five names. Please make your way down to the podium and state your name for the record. Michael ward Jr. Chaz Moore, [9:46:58 AM] Michael ward Jr. Chaz Moore, Daniella silva, Sam kirsch, Lauren ortel. >> Hello everybody. My name is Michael ward junior. I'm the president and CEO of Austin urban technology movement, also known as rmhc. Today, I want to address a critical issue that affects not only our communities, but the very fabric of our society. The intersection of workforce development, economic needs, and crime reduction. I am here today because as a member of the equity action coalition, we saw that several of our priority issues that submitted to the council were not supported in the city of Austin budget, such as tenant reduction and stabilizing support for community based agreement, street outreach services for case managers and prayer support, reentry navigators for jobs and housing, immigration legal services for low income families, early childhood education and development. Our very own equity office. But also our resilience office. None of [9:48:00 AM] our resilience office. None of these priorities received funding, but yet they directly support the reduction of crime and increasing safety in our communities. More importantly, from my vantage point, we also did not provide any funding for workforce development, which is directly tied to economic stability and safety in our communities. First, let's consider the power of economic opportunity. When individuals have access to quality education and job training, they are more likely to secure stable employment. Studies consistently show that gainful employment is one of the strongest predictors of reduced criminal activity. A job provides not only financial security, but also a sense of purpose and belonging. When people are engaged in meaningful work, they are less likely to turn to crime as a means of survival. Moreover, investing in workforce development programs creates a ripple effect through our communities. These programs can target vulnerable populations, providing them with skills, training and resources necessary to thrive. When we empower individuals with the tools to succeed, we reduce their dependency on social [9:49:01 AM] their dependency on social services and decrease their likelihood of engagement in around crime activities. Not only should this be important for the city of Austin, but this is also important for the state of Texas because the Texas workforce commission also sees the importance of workforce development, upskilling and reskilling our our communities. There are 2023 to 2027 strategic plan. Prioritize expanding training opportunities, preparing skilled workforce, supporting individuals, addressing the middle skills gap and expanding apprenticeships across Texas. That's when the that's when the Texas state that also aligns with the workforce solutions hire local plan to provide apprenticeships, upskilling and reskilling opportunities for our communities. When I look at this, police contract and I look at all the many other line items that were not funded through through the community investment budget, I have to wonder, are we aligning ourselves with the city of Austin with workforce solutions, one of the largest workforce boards here in Texas, [9:50:03 AM] workforce boards here in Texas, and the Texas workforce commission? When it comes down to providing economic stability for our community? So today, as president and CEO of Austin urban technology movement, I urge you to think about workforce development as a way to solve and reduce our safety. Thank you. >> Thank you. If your name's been called, please come forward to the microphone. If your name has been called. >> Good morning. >> My name is Sam kirsch. I'm a resident of district one. I'm speaking in opposition to the police contract 2020. I was shot in the eye by a pd with a beanbag round. I want to just kind of bring us back in the big picture for a moment and just talk about who this is. A tentative contract between this is between the Austin police association, who purposely misled voters with voters for [9:51:04 AM] misled voters with voters for oversight and police accountability, where 80% of voters in Austin rejected their lies and supported police oversight, where a supermajority of voters in Austin rejected raises for police for the city. We have negotiators from a law firm literally called rampage law, dent, Navarro wrote. Santa and zeke is rampage law. Sarah griffin, Lowell Denton come from a law firm that represent police and municipalities in cases of police brutality and wrongful death, including representing the city of uvalde after families of 19 children were massacred. Okay, when I've told this to people, everybody was utterly shocked. They thought I meant that they were representing the Apa there who y'all hired. It was under [9:52:06 AM] y'all hired. It was under Spencer cronk, but they've stayed on and you can vote no on this contract. You can fire rampage law and you can hire new negotiators who will stand up to the Apa, not work alongside them because they are their future clients. This budget, these budget projections, these five year projections are just a fantasy. And you all know this okay. So we need clarity across the board. We need clarity on the budget. And we need new negotiators. You can you can reject this contract. We can start over and as a community as a council, we can all go forward together. Thank you for your time. >> The next batch of speakers is Patricia Forbes. Jen Margulies, Jen Ramos, Catherine Mcardle and Thomas downing. >> If your name's been called, please come forward so we'll [9:53:06 AM] please come forward so we'll know you're here and then feel free to just state your name for the record. Okay? >> My name is Lauren ortel. I'm here to join the community in opposing this terrible police contract. As we have been working through this issue over and over again for years. You have already heard how police do not keep us safe. A city is safe when the people who live there have their needs met. This means things like affordable housing, good jobs, mental health services and spaces where kids, teens and adults can play. Be creative and thrive. That means places like parks and also libraries. We know that libraries are one of the few places where people can exist without having to pay to be there. As a writer, I'm very reliant on libraries to support my career through access to their books. I have noticed a significant change with the library and their ability to provide enough copies of new books. In previous years, librarians would purchase a few copies of highly anticipated books, and then once a couple dozen people placed holds on those, they would purchase more copies. And that's how the wait [9:54:07 AM] copies. And that's how the wait times would come down to reasonable times. This year, there have been numerous books coming out expected to be bestsellers that the library wasn't even able to purchase on the publication date, and if they do purchase them, most of these extremely popular books only have one copy available. The hold times have become so excessive that instead of measuring them in weeks, it says the wait time for that book is several months long. So anyone who wants to read a new book and talk about it with other readers, or use it as a reference for writing or school projects would have to wait several months to get access. This has to be a budget thing. It looks like the library is only getting a $200,000 increase in this budget. For materials. Last year, the library reps said they needed $2 million to keep up with the new books they need to purchase and bring down those wait times. I believe for next year, the city is predicting no increase at all. With the rapidly growing base of customers and a budget that is a fraction of what's needed, we can expect wait times to keep getting longer, and we need to consider all the other programs and community offerings Austin [9:55:08 AM] and community offerings Austin libraries provide as well, which will be in jeopardy. It's tough to talk about library books when the biggest concern is APD hurting or killing people, but I want to provide an example of how this proposed contract and the outrageous cost of it, will be at the expense of crucial city services, including libraries. Say no to this contract and say yes to our libraries. I can guarantee you librarians are not shooting anybody, and they certainly don't have a G file. >> The next batch of speakers will be Phyllis Thomas, Michael Sara, Elizabeth Gonzalez, William bunch, and aj dabrowska. >> Good morning. My name is Catherine Mcardle. I'm a resident of district nine. I'm here today to voice my opposition to items 47 and 48 related to the proposed police contract. There are several reasons why I oppose this contract. First, it keeps past police conduct records secret, which violates the Austin police oversight act that was passed with nearly 80% of the vote a [9:56:09 AM] with nearly 80% of the vote a year and a half ago. I voted in favor of that ballot measure back then, and I also had many, many conversations about it with my friends and community members in the weeks leading up to the vote, and in the time since, like the final vote margin, the consensus in those conversations was overwhelmingly in favor of the oversight and transparency provisions. So it has been incredibly frustrating to watch the city over the last year and a half stall and fight implementation of the opoa to the point where the city lost a lawsuit over their inaction. And now the city negotiators on this police contract have continued their trend by trying to get you council members to vote for a contract that continues to violate it. Once again, in the conversations I'm having with my friends, we're left scratching our heads over why the city is willingly going against the results of the opoa ballot measure vote. Many of these people would be here testifying alongside me if they had their flexibility in their schedules to do so. So on the grounds of the police conduct records provision in this contract, I [9:57:10 AM] provision in this contract, I urge you to vote against it. But there are several other issues with the contract, too. There are provisions that allow the police association to use petty grievances to weaken the oversight system. We've seen this approach before, and such provisions have destroyed our past oversight systems. We cannot allow that to happen again. It's abundantly clear that austinites want strong oversight of the police department, despite the police association's best attempts to prevent it. Please do not pass the police contract that allows for a grievance process that can upend the opoa. And finally, this contract costs too much as many other speakers have alluded to today. How was it that the city's budget staff, just a few months ago, said there is absolutely no money for community services services that many in the community, including myself, would love to see supported and now all of a sudden, it's totally fine to add in an extra $40 million per year to support this contract. Not only am I very concerned about the impact of this contract on future community services, as well as on other city's [9:58:11 AM] well as on other city's employees, other city employees ability to get the fair wages that they deserve. But conflicting information like this from city budget staff breaches our trust and additionally, APD is already one of the highest paid police departments in the country. If they're still having staffing issues. Despite this, throwing more money at them isn't going to change that. So for these reasons and more, I urge you to vote against items 47 and 48 on Thursday and not support this contract. Thank you for your time. >> Mayor, we've been informed people aren't able to hear their names. So I'm going to repeat some of the names and go a little bit louder, a little bit slower. Daniella silva, Patricia Forbes, Jen Margulies, Jen Ramos, Thomas downing, Phyllis Thomas or I'm sorry, Phyllis Thompson, Michael Cyrus, Elizabeth Gonzalez, William bunch, aj Derosa. >> Thank you. Please just state your name for the record. Thank [9:59:12 AM] your name for the record. Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Tricia Forbes, and I'm a longtime resident of district four, and I am here today as a survivor of sexual assault to speak about the G file, we now know what it means. If an internal affairs investigation is closed administratively, it means that potentially the officer was allowed to resign or retire in lieu of discipline. We also know that there's at least one serious allegation of sexual misconduct by an APD commander. That's hidden in the G file, because the officer resigned. We don't know how many more things are hidden. How many more things APD is hiding, and I would like to tell you that as a sexual assault survivor who knows that the city was sued on behalf of people like me who have suffered [10:00:13 AM] people like me who have suffered sexual assault, this contract would be failing survivors. Again, the cost of it is shocking to me. When I found out about it, I could not believe it. In addition to being a sexual assault survivor, I am someone who's been part of the nonprofit sector for more than 30 years, and I know how important housing is, how important mental health services are, how important all of our community based prevention services are. I believe in public safety, and I thank all of our first responders for the incredibly difficult jobs that they do. But they should not be the only part of keeping our community safe. You all have heard it all from previous speakers. You know how important our community based prevention services are. And I am begging you, as a survivor, to please [10:01:14 AM] you, as a survivor, to please reject this contract and instead make sure that people like me are safe and that you are respecting the will and the voters. So thank you for your time. Please do the right thing. I know that we can do better. >> Good morning. >> I'm Tom downing, resident of district five, co-chair of the racial justice task force of university united methodist church and a member of advocates for social justice reform. I've been an observer of the contract negotiations between the city of Austin and Austin, police association since the office of police oversight was gutted in 2021. I watched the ups and downs of the negotiations, the walkaways, the lawsuits and the maneuvering which eventually resulted in the Austin police oversight act. After the previous contract expired, I [10:02:16 AM] previous contract expired, I supported interim pay raises for sworn officers who would otherwise have lost a great deal of money, as they did when they last served without a contract. At the time I said this, I believe that the vast majority of our police officers put on their badges each day, bravely seeking to protect and defend our community in spite of a dangerous environment filled with more and more guns, it's imperative that these courageous public servants should be paid enough to afford to live in the city they protect, should receive benefits to keep their families comfortable, and should have enough fellow officers supporting them to keep them safe and able to take time off to be with their families. I still believe this, but in spite of two interim raises, I watched police association negotiators continue to fight increased oversight until the court upheld the current Austin police oversight act and forced them back to the table. Now we have, as we did in 2018, another contract which seems to promise increased oversight in exchange for increased pay. I'm concerned that the vague language in the [10:03:18 AM] that the vague language in the new contract offers loopholes, which will allow the police association to grieve and invalidate portions of the oversight act while keeping the increased pay and benefits. Just like in 2021. I'm also concerned that the financing of these ever larger permanent raises will be at the expense of other needs of the city, from increased pay for fire and ems personnel to funding for affordable housing and climate crises, we've been assured by our city staff that these funds will be available without massive tax increases or loss of services, but the assumptions made in those forecasts about tax revenues, energy earnings, personnel needs and overtime requirements are questionable. They assume the economy and growth of our city will remain on an even keel. Those of us who remember the bank crash of 2008, the pandemic of 2020 and the wildfires and floods of the past few years doubt that many five year plans will survive the future. Mr. Mayor and council, before approving the proposed police contract act as any prudent legal client would get a second opinion about the stability of [10:04:20 AM] opinion about the stability of the oversight provided and the actual cost of the plan. Thank you and god bless you and your work for our city. >> Good morning, city council. I know y'all remember me. My name is Elizabeth Gonzalez and I hope that y'all vote against 47 and 48 and start holding the police accountable for what they do to innocent people like me, because I'm a victim and I'm still a victim. And I think that y'all don't deserve it. The city, the city deserves it more than y'all do. Y'all been threatening people. Oh, we're going to quit. Ain't nobody quitting yet. Oh, we're going to do y'all ain't. Nothing's happened to the. Y'all are doing good. You are doing great. You are misleading the community that you are doing so bad. But y'all ain't you're not responding to the calls and you are not. And you are not going out to visit the community like you're supposed to, like city council people or finding out [10:05:20 AM] council people or finding out what's going on. Remember, elections are coming up and you best bet guess who's going to win? Hope you bet. You deal with the best and deal with this, right? Because I'm not going away. I'm not going to disappear. I will be here the city is going to remember who I am, and y'all got to go with the city and vote for no against it and help the community. Because if y'all don't, then you are misleading the community also. And after all, y'all got big headed instead of not thinking about us anymore. You know, because we're down here and y'all are up here, remember? Who put you up there? Remember? Remember who put you up there? Becaus we could take you right out the community can. Okay. Doesn't matter what kind of whatever you got, I will never let you forget that they murdered my son, Gabriel Gutierrez and Luis Serrato murdered my son. You will not forget me. You will not forget my face. I'm going to set a mark here in Austin because of what y'all did was wrong. And y'all are still not letting them cops be accountable for. So y'all need to do your job and do it right. But y'all want all this money. Come on now. Who's fair and fair? What about the [10:06:21 AM] and fair? What about the community? What about us? There's no us. It's only y'all. So y'all got to vote against it. Y'all got to vote. What the community wants, which is we got I got the community. Best believe. Don't don't try me because best believe. I got a lot of people backing me up. So what y'all do from here on? We're watching the comedians. Not just me, everybody. What y'all doing? Okay, so don't forget who put you up there and how you got up there. Because we believed in y'all one time. So make us believe again that y'all are good and going to help the community, the poor community. Okay? Because my god, y'all forgot about me. But like I said, I'm not going nowhere. And I would not never let y'all forget who I am. Okay? Okay. Got you. Thank you. So much and for letting me speak. Listen to the community because they don't want this to go through. So let's listen to the community. Thank you. >> Good morning. Members of the [10:07:25 AM] >> Good morning. Members of the council and city manager Broadnax. My name is John Ramos and I'm a resident of district three, one of the council districts disproportionately affected by the overpolicing that resulted with the backroom deal made by mayor Watson with dps, I notably came to council chambers to speak in opposition to the proposed police contract. In 2018. And I'm here again asking you to please think about the vote that you are going to make and to not give in to the bullying by the Austin police association for millions of dollars that we cannot afford in the long term. As a woman of color and the older sister to a 22 year old brother who has looked older than his age since he was 12, I've had to have the talk. The talk that involves being careful and to be safe around cops. It's because of trayvon martin that I have had to tell him to never wear a hoodie after dark. It's because because of ahmaud arbery, I've had to tell him to remain vigilant when walking in our neighborhood and hanging outside the apartment. It's because of officers like Justin berry and Daniel Perry, and the fact that they were never held accountable for their misconduct, that I'm worried about him simply existing while being brown. Justin berry is not only still [10:08:26 AM] Justin berry is not only still employed by the Austin police department, he has provided security for these council chambers and made a mockery of the accountability austinites have, not only loudly and increasingly asked for, but that we voted for and courts have ruled we are entitled to. While it might be the M.O. Of mayor Watson to throw money at the problem to make something go away, $218 million is increasingly expensive, impractical, and does not address the issues of police shortage or an increase in oversight. $218 million over five years could help reinstate the low cost reproductive health care at Austin clinics that help find precancerous cells in my cervix. It can help the spay and neuter animals that emancipate and bring Austin pets up to code with a microchip in compliance, it can offer free covid 19 boosters with Austin public health that because the federal government is now charging for many, cannot afford to get. We can provide rental assistance for austinites who are still struggling to make ends meet in an increasingly expensive city. So instead of padding the budget of a department and spending more money settling cases of brutality, instead of fixing their work, culture and recruitment problems with the overinflated budget they already have. I ask that you please reject this police contract, so that way more families can stop having the talk with their [10:09:27 AM] having the talk with their children and parents. Lastly, I remind this council, including the mayor, trying to shove this contract through, that voters this week are making their way to the ballot box with 96% of a registered electorate in the city. We vote and we will remember this. >> Good morning, mayor and council. My name is Daniela silva. I'm a resident of district three and I also work at workers defense. So I am here asking y'all to vote no on this police contract. Speaking from the experience of our members, the things that make our members feel safe and supported and cared about in our community are ensuring that the parks are well maintained so their kids have places to go after school, that there is child care and resources for their kids to succeed, that there is readily available and reliable public transportation. Because many of our members don't have cars and they aren't able to drive. There [10:10:29 AM] they aren't able to drive. There are so many other things that our community needs to have investment in, and the one thing that our members really do not rely on for a sense of safety and security is policing. So they're really concerned with the way that this contract has been pushed through. We're also supporting all of the unions who are calling for transparency in this contract, having been a part of the community investment budget, where we were told that there's not enough money, although I know that many of y'all worked, you know, really hard and did the best that you can to advocate for many of our items, it just felt like a complete 180 when we were told there's no money, but then suddenly there's $218 million. So we really are asking for transparency in that, that we I know people have said it time and time again, but it bears repeating that any increase that is done due to state law cannot be decreased. And we want to take into consideration the future projections for sales tax, which is the reason that we were told that there was no [10:11:30 AM] were told that there was no money for the community investment budget thing. So if we're concerned with income and we're also making it to where, you know, more than 30, 36% of our budget is going to be locked in into an area that cannot be moved around like that is a serious concern for other departments and other areas. Additionally, there is a major concern around the G file. The transparency and accountability needs to happen not only after the moment that the contract is signed, but all time previously because, you know, any misconduct that happened before the contract is still relevant. There are possible cases that are still involved in them. Folks deserve to know what officers have done, what in their history, not just from the moment of the contract, but all time previous to that. So those are kind of the three main concerns that you've been hearing time and time again, the dollar amount is too high. There's been very little transparency. And the wording around the G file is very, very concerning. So please listen to your constituents, to the people who voted for you, for some of [10:12:31 AM] who voted for you, for some of the folks who might be planning to vote for you and the people that you're supposed to represent, thank you and have a good rest of your day. >> Good morning. My name is Jen Margulies. I'm in district one and thank you for letting me speak here today. I'm coming to you. It's hard to add to the speakers that have come before me who've been so powerful. I just have three viewpoints that I want to share with you. One is, as a parent, I have raised my child in this city. I'm a parent who wants to see money for parks, who wants to see money for pools, who wants to see money for all of the services that the city can provide. When we're not robbing Peter to pay Paul in this police contract. And when I say robbing Peter to pay Paul, what I mean is we are robbing our city. We are robbing our residents of Austin by giving this massive percentage of our city's funds. We are stealing from our children. We are stealing from the people that we are supposed to be taking care of. By giving all of this money to the police. [10:13:32 AM] all of this money to the police. Secondly, I would like to speak from the viewpoint of someone who did serve on a work group with the reimagining public safety task force. This city and many of the members of this council came together with a really strong vision about what public safety in Austin looked like. We had ideas about housing. We had ideas about mental health response. I cannot tell you the helpless frustration with which I watch those dreams stay. Dreams and the tiny, tiny increments of implementation we actually put into place because we are continuing again to funnel money into the police contract, which means we will not be able to do the things that we have spent time and effort and endless hours of testimony from affected community members that have told us what safety looks like and where we're stealing it from ourselves. All of that work. And third, I want to speak just to someone who believes in democracy. Council members, I want y'all and city staff informed by our community members to be the ones making [10:14:33 AM] members to be the ones making decisions about our city budget, and instead, you are also being bullied and a backdoor police negotiation is making a determination about what our budget is going to look like. For so long, the state has said we can't roll back increases that we give to APD, which means that you all are tying your own hands in terms of building a sustainable budget for this city. If you vote yes on this contract. And I understand that they have put you in a terrible position, all you have left is up or down. But y'all, it needs to be down. We need to say no to this contract. Thank you. >> The next batch of speakers is Cathy Mitchell. Amy zisman, Gerda rey, Alicia Castillo, and Amanda Weems. If your name has been called, please make your way forward to the podium. >> Hi, my name is Cathy Mitchell and I'm with equity action. You all received a letter from us [10:15:33 AM] all received a letter from us yesterday with the specific amendments to the language that we believe would eliminate the ambiguity that you've heard a lot about today. So I'm going to jump to other reasons that we have concerns. You've heard a lot about the cost you have received a memo from somebody that I know you know, Julio Altamirano, who made some really important commentary about the new budget forecast. And I want you to pay attention to that, please, if you haven't read that memo, please pull it out, find it in your inboxes. I want to speak to the assumptions that are in this about officer vacancies. I think that you've heard a lot from supporters of this contract that it is going to help us fill the vacancies. A close examination of the existing pay structure for [10:16:36 AM] existing pay structure for officers tells us that it is already designed to hold officers who are more senior, who might be threatened. You know, attempting, thinking about leaving and it's designed to encourage people up front with very, very significant raises in the first few six months, 12 months, 24 months, our staffing structure is already designed to address the retention problem that we have, and it isn't working. So if we have a staffing, a pay structure, thoughtfully designed to address what appears to be our both retention and recruitment problem, and in this document, there's a section that says we're going to get around to retention and recruitment at a future date. Look for our ideas later. Then what is it that we are gaining here? We are gaining giving existing officers a raise [10:17:37 AM] giving existing officers a raise on top of the other raises that they're already getting. And I don't know why we expect that to address our vacancy problem. I meanwhile, we had a Kroll report last year about the culture of policing that spoke to a lot of reasons why people leave, regardless of the pay, and we need to take a look at that and we need to continue to improve our police academy with transparency so that the community knows that those changes are actually occurring. I think that the last thing I want to say today is that this deal, it's remarkable to me that we're having this conversation in Austin while Dallas is fighting ballot measures that would increase the cost of policing. There. Thank you. Okay, I guess I don't get to talk about that. >> Next we have Andy coco with [10:18:39 AM] >> Next we have Andy coco with time donated by Chaz Moore or Andy and Chaz both present. >> Okay, maybe coco. >> Andy will have six. Andy will have six minutes. Next will be jj Ramirez, bill Wallace, Kate Graziani and Laura Ann Martinez. >> Andy coco district one against 47 and 48. Thanks, Chaz Moore for your time in the long silent since March 2023. While APD has nearly completely stopped disciplining officers, I wonder, are officers any better? Are we to believe two disciplinary recommendations and an 18 month period indicates scary, dangerous police use of force is just no longer a problem here in some other year, and a half, there may have been 20 to 25 disciplinary actions. There's mixed information interpreting the G five factor in the proposed contract, but your constituents are telling you with certainty if we can't [10:19:40 AM] you with certainty if we can't see problems, the most interested party, the public, cannot address problems. Let's remember that this is the sole public sector job with guns and other maiming devices and training with the express purpose of controlling the actual bodies of austinites. So this ain't like, say, the library getting to seal their performance improvement plans by the numbers across history. And today, police are most likely to harm and kill disabled people, people of color and poor people. But let's color in the outline of the risks here with a tiny tour of recent incidents, we actually do have access to for now, edited for brevity and clarity, and any renewed G file factor, any loopholes to hide historic and future incidents would keep the public eye away from things like January 2024. Officer mark lake's off duty in his personal vehicle in the San Marcos area, waiting, waiting in a drive through line at sonic. His vehicle was struck by [10:20:42 AM] His vehicle was struck by another vehicle. The other driver was miss M. Please note she had a child in the car. Miss M didn't stop after striking off officer lake's vehicle and flipped him off as she drove away. Officer lake's pursued miss M in his personal vehicle. He admits he cut her off and blocked her vehicle several times, again in his personal vehicle off duty, miss M drives away and calls 911 as she drove away. Officer lake's struck the rear driver's window with his right hand during officer lake's final obstruction of miss M's driving path. Miss M is on the phone with 911 and says, I have somebody telling me they are a police officer. However, they're in an unmarked vehicle and they've been following my car. They hit my vehicle, they slam the door on it. I don't know, I'm shaking. They have shown me an identification. They're just in a white vehicle. Is that not suspect? He's trying to cut me off on the roads. He's trying to take a picture of me. I don't know, he's just showing me a picture of, like, I don't know, he doesn't have any [10:21:42 AM] he doesn't have any identification, and he's trying to ram me over on the roads. Right now. He will not let me go while miss M was on the phone with 911. Officer lake's proceeded to open her driver's side door. Miss M repeatedly requested that officer lake's allow her to close the door. Still, officer lake's physically prevented her from doing so, forcing miss M to exit her vehicle on the passenger side. Miss M can then further be heard on 911, making the following statement I'm having to get out of my vehicle because he's not letting me close the door. I don't know what kind of police officer he is, but he's really scary. I had to leave my vehicle. Wu though off duty officer lake's didn't call them the victim. Civilian did. So San Marcos police department came on scene after dealing with the collision. Part of this San Marcos pd referred to hays county district attorney's office with officer Lakes as the subject. Offenses included official oppression, unlawful restraint, and endangering a child. The hays county da declined to prosecute. Prosecute? What are you going to do? December 2023, 2023 first of two incidents in December 2023 [10:22:45 AM] two incidents in December 2023 involving officer Kaba, who rolled up on two gentlemen near the reported scene of a gunshot, reports officer Kaba asked one of the gentlemen, Mr. P, to get on the sidewalk, please. However, Mr. P remained in the street, looking somewhat bewildered. Officer Kaba asked again. Sir, get on the sidewalk and Mr. P responded, why? At that time officer Kaba pushed Mr. P to the ground and a brief scuffle ensued. Officer Kaba detained Mr. P for not leaving the crime scene. Mr. P had an injury to his face because of the incident. Second incident involving officer Kaba responding to a domestic disturbance with a man and two women. Upon arrival, the officers located and detained a male subject who was later identified as Franck G. Officer Kaba same guy as above, handcuffed Mr. G and escorted him to the back of his patrol vehicle, where he attempted to place Mr. G in the back seat without the assistance of his associate officer, Mr. G displayed what officer Kaba stated were increasing levels of resistance to the detention. Mr. [10:23:46 AM] resistance to the detention. Mr. G continually questioned, as is his right officer, about why he was being detained, and without answer, Mr. G refused to place his left leg and foot into the back seat of the patrol vehicle as Mr. G grew louder in his speech, officer Kaba struck Mr. G in the face with a closed hand. That sounds like the second punch from the same officer in a one month period. These are but two officer and three examples we have for what are probably a hell of a lot of complaints warranting discipline under the new proposed contract. How could we, the public, know 80% of voters insist you must fully implement opoa, including and especially not recreating the brutality hiding G file. We must keep showing up for the will of the will of fellow austinites. I will, and so should you. >> Good morning, city council. [10:24:46 AM] >> Good morning, city council. Mayor. My name is jj Ramirez. I'm an organizer of vocal Texas, and I'm sure most of you all know me. But if you haven't, like our city manager, we are an organizing project comprised of members and leaders who are directly impacted by and to end the war on drugs. Mass incarceration, HIV, and homelessness. And I'm speaking today against this police contract because we kind of shocked, honestly, during the budget process, we had a lot of conversations about how we were having trouble finding money for permanent supportive housing services, not even the housing, just the services. We're struggling about finding money to make sure our shelter systems are staying open. We're having a hard time finding money for a lot of things. But now the first thing when we do find some extra money is to fund APD with, like has been said, so much here already bloated budget. But specifically I want to talk about rapid rehousing because there's a member leader who is not here today named Sam Duong, who's met some of y'all who help [10:25:48 AM] who's met some of y'all who help us fight to win that program, to run that two year extension, that bridge to permanent housing, but is in the category of people who are outside for a long time, for years now, but don't score high enough to get in. And that was with the arpa money. That was with the program that was funded. He is still having problems getting in and that money is going away. Right. It's gone. It's not coming anymore. And we're already hearing that that's going to be a lot smaller program that not that many people are going to get in that that there's, you know, there's just not enough. So why are we putting money into a, into a department that's 35%, right? We love the library. Many of us here love the library. But the library gets more money for the housing than housing. People who are outside. Right. What are we what are we doing? Like, please. Like let's prioritize. Help us. Work with us. Right, mayor? Convince the people who are safe that they are safe. And let's put some money into the people who are outside. You're [10:26:48 AM] people who are outside. You're going to hear from people today, right? I was outside a long time ago. So my experiences are different. But you're going to hear people today who who are going to tell you what it's like, right now and how APD is not is not helping. So please vote no. Re refigure out an actual place that helps people to put this money. Thank you. >> Howdy y'all. My name is Amanda Cavazos Williams. I live in district one and I'm in speaking in opposition to items 47 and 48. I'm also a trustee on the Austin central labor council. Last week, our central labor council joined our union siblings afscme 1624, united workers of integral care workers defense, and ibew 520. In calling for greater transparency, equity and fairness in the city budget with regards to this contract, it is unusual for so many unions to oppose a contract like this, and [10:27:50 AM] oppose a contract like this, and that is because we are extremely concerned about the financial impacts of this proposed agreement on other city workers that provide vital services. You all have already heard from many people who have reminded you how overwhelmingly austinites have rejected past proposals to raise the funds that we give to APD, and how overwhelmingly we have called for greater oversight and accountability. Mr. Mayor, I supported you last cycle because my union brothers told me that you would be better on police accountability. I've come to regret that decision because I have been extremely disappointed in how you have handled this matter. In particular, like as a labor movement, we have an obligation to stand up and say, this contract is not fair to other city workers, and we have an obligation to stand in solidarity with our community of colors and our racial justice organizers who are saying that this contract isn't it for all the reasons you all have already heard. So you know, this contract takes us back in time [10:28:51 AM] contract takes us back in time to a less equitable Austin. And the folks here are speaking tonight are here to tell you we're not going back. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. You don't need to wait on someone else. >> Good morning, mayor Watson city council members. My name is Laura Ann Martinez. I'm a leader of vocal Texas and a resident of district two. Thank you for your time today. I was unhoused for about 5 or 6 years. Recently, and I was arrested a very long time ago. Finally, when I was assaulted a couple of years ago, I and I had to go to the er via an ambulance. The police refused to take a report because I was unable to give them a last name of the perpetrator. I did tell them her first name, the her [10:29:52 AM] them her first name, the her place of employment and her job title at her place of employment, and they said that that wasn't enough information to determine who she was and that they wouldn't take a report. That, to me, is not good police work at all. Their job is to figure out who the person is. It's not my job to figure out who she is anyway. I want you to know that I've been unhoused for a or I was unhoused for a long time. It's the thing that I want you to know about that is that it's difficult and uncomfortable sleeping on the ground under a wheelchair, not to mention that it's now illegal to do so, too. It's hard to take showers to keep clean, and several other things that unhoused that housed people take for granted. I've waited between 4 and 5 years to receive my hakka services, which I'm now on, and I'm currently housed in permanent housing. [10:30:54 AM] housed in permanent housing. It's not the permanent supportive housing that I would have liked, but that wait list was even longer and I got the hakka first. I believe that I should have received any services sooner than I did. It should not be a 4 to 5 year waiting list, and I do believe that it is shorter now, but it's still too long. I think that receiving the supportive services would have helped me in many ways, because I'm trying to navigate all the services that I need alone. We need to have shorter wait lists by putting more funds into the rapid rehousing for permanent supportive housing and the bridge to supportive housing programs, not into the police department. The homeless crisis in Austin receives only a minuscule amount of money in comparison to the huge 35 plus percent budget for the police. [10:31:55 AM] percent budget for the police. We need for you to seriously focus on the benefits that the increased funding for the permanent supportive housing would create. The more that it would we increase that funding. The fewer the homeless people out there, which thank you. Okay. Thank you. >> I appreciate you being here. Let me go right back. >> Good morning. My name is aj jurassica and I live in council member qadri district where I attend Austin presbyterian theological seminary. I also have a master's in public health. And so I'm thinking about this from a public health perspective. I don't have a polished speech because I'm in seminary and working, and so I'm just an average citizen, and it's intimidating to come up here. But I feel really strongly about this contract. So I wanted to make sure I took the time to do this. So in terms of public health, we think about things in [10:32:57 AM] health, we think about things in terms of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, as you may know. So primary prevention is preventing an issue before it starts. And this contract does not allow us to do primary prevention because it's just responding to problems that already exist. Secondary prevention is preventing a problem from getting worse. This contract is taking money away from things like the emergency rental assistance program, which was launched three years ago at a budget level of 7 million but was cut to 3 million by former city manager Jesus Garza. And it's struggled to serve the need ever since. And so it needs to be funded better to address that secondary prevention problem. Additionally. Additionally, the city has added no funding to assist with formerly incarcerated people with housing and jobs. And we know that people who don't have jobs and who don't have housing are much more likely to be involved in the police. And so we want to make sure that we're preventing [10:33:59 AM] make sure that we're preventing those things rather than just being responsive with the police, which can lead, as we've heard, to violence and other issues. The police is really a tertiary prevention where we're we're kind of addressing the problem in a less cost effective way because we're looking at it at the end of the cycle. And instead of investing up front and with this police contract, my understanding is that over the next five years, it would be 40% of the city budget and spending 40% of the city budget on something that's responding to a problem that already exists is really not the best way to prevent problems from happening in the first place. So I hope that you will please reject this contract. I know, like someone else said, it's a difficult position to be in, but I still think that it's just the right thing to do from an ethical perspective. Also, speaking as a seminarian to make sure that we're supporting the people and not just siding with special interests like the police [10:35:01 AM] interests like the police contract. I just also want to say that I'm really disappointed that ems and the fire department don't get the same treatment that the police department get. They are also doing really important work, and we need to make sure that we're funding mental health services and mental response services in this city, not through the police, but through appropriate trained personnel and the police are not that so. Thank you so much for listening. >> Good morning, city council. Mayor, my name is Kate Graziani, one of the co-directors of vocal Texas, resident of district four. And I'm here to urge you to renegotiate this contract and vote no on Thursday. Just a few months ago, we mobilized our leaders who you'll hear more of today. And alongside a number of community based organizations. And we are pleading with the city to invest in real solutions for homelessness, overdose [10:36:03 AM] for homelessness, overdose prevention and many other life saving needs in our community. But we were met with a dire financial forecast, right? We were told we were going to see a $13 million deficit just this year. 60 million over five years. And we listen, we tried to work with your offices to say, okay, what can we fund? Where are the biggest needs? And now, just a few months later, to hear that we have $218 million available for a police contract is devastating. And as others have mentioned, it questions. You know, our ability to trust, you know, what the city is telling austinites about our budget. I think another piece of this is the arpa dollars, right? We heard over and over again during the budget process that we were going to be losing millions and millions of arpa dollars. These funds went to homeless services, life saving services, and there was no plan [10:37:06 AM] services, and there was no plan for the city to replace those funds. And we were going to return to pre- pandemic levels, which for a program like rapid rehousing, means serving very few people. And yet during the pandemic, our unhoused population has skyrocketed. And so the city's plan is to go to pre- pandemic levels on one of our most utilized homeless services program. 218 million to police in the face of the arpa cliff and feels like a real mismanagement of money. And the decision to prioritize police over these life saving services has, like a real human impact. Just this weekend, one of our members was kicked out of shelter at 11 P.M. On a Friday. A few days prior, APD actually had sent her on a bus to the marshaling yard. But the marshaling yard turned her away because, as I hope you all know. But I don't think the community fully realizes that we have zero [10:38:06 AM] fully realizes that we have zero open shelter beds right now. We are on a freeze. No one can access shelter. And so Susie slept in the alley that night. She lost belongings. The shelter staff actually dumped belongings into a trash can. And APD was called on scene, and in this instance, did assist her in retrieving her belongings from the trash. But they didn't have any options for either, because police aren't real solutions. We need housing. We need. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good morning. My name is Alicia Castillo. I'm here as a resident of district three, a mom of two young children, and I work at the Texas civil rights project as our associate director of policy. At Texas civil rights project, we value [10:39:06 AM] civil rights project, we value the dignity and safety of all Texans. And so that's one of the reasons we're here today, especially on this national day of protest, to stop police brutality. I just want to note today that police have killed 1069 people so far this year, 2024. So last work session, I got to listen in and I heard from my neighbors, not not my direct neighbors, not that many district three folks that I know of came out, but my wealthier neighbors, property owners come out and talk about why they want to see more police and I heard them when they said that it's because they didn't feel safe. But a lot of the time, what I heard, you know, the reason they didn't feel safe is because of people who are unhoused existing and people who are unhoused exhibiting behavioral or mental health illnesses. And I trust, after so many conversations with each of your offices over the years, that you don't believe that police response and jail is the solution to that problem, to the issue, the social issue of mental illness and behavioral [10:40:08 AM] mental illness and behavioral health needs. So y'all may have heard that the great Angela Davis has said that prisons don't disappear. Social issues, they disappear. Human beings. It's the same with police. And so it's really frustrating to know that so many of you are considering allocating so many more of our dollars. So much more of what is already the lion's share of our resources towards a police contract that will only serve to disappear more human beings, then spit them out of the criminal legal system with more barriers to success. After having, you know, a longer rap sheet on on a criminal record. The other fear that my neighbors expressed was fear of property crime. Things like crimes of survival. But I think you all know that fewer people struggling to survive means fewer crimes of survival. So if we fund the social services that people need to thrive, we eliminate the reliance on the inhumane practice of just locking them up. So it's also, frankly, insulting to the group of over [10:41:09 AM] insulting to the group of over 40 groups of people who work together night and day to offer and advocate for modest social services, increase through the community investment budget that you all turn around months later and say that that austerity budget that we were working with was wrong, and suddenly we have more than enough. I want to just briefly touch on the G file issue, because I also have the privilege of serving on the board at equity action. And so I know a little too intimately the challenge we face in implementing the opoa of this police contract goes into effect. As you all know, the Apa has fought the Austin police oversight act every single step of the way. They even stated recently, and I quote, it's pretty straightforward that this contract serves to grandfather the G file, and we would reject it on those grounds alone with without even the money issue. But I do want to remind that the most recent police contract we rejected before this was a 40. >> Thank you. >> The next group of speakers on item 47, Barry Jones, Anna Duncan, Chris torres, marika Smith and Sarah Reyes. [10:42:11 AM] Smith and Sarah Reyes. >> I was in the last group. >> That's fine. If your name's been called, please just state your name for the record and the podium is all yours. Go to rey. >> Mr. Mayor, city council. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to express my opposition to the proposed contract. I'm a homeowner in district three. Before retiring, I was a professor in the departments of history and criminology at the university of Missouri, Saint Louis. I've published research on the history of police and in particular the history of police unions. I admire the work of the Apa and the police officers of Austin. It is the responsibility of a collective bargaining unit to push hard. The Apa has won impressive economic gains for its members. The responsibilities of the mayor [10:43:13 AM] responsibilities of the mayor and the city council, however, are much broader. You are responsible for the well-being of the city as a whole. Its businesses, residents, visitors, overall safety and people's perception of safety. All of this with the time pressure of an overdue contract. I'd like to address two aspects of the current proposal erosion of accountability and fiscal irresponsibility by erosion of accountability. I'm referring in particular to the practice of delaying the interrogation of officers 48 hours and to the inappropriate confidentiality of many disciplinary and grievance records. The G file. I use the term erosion, despite the fact that these are long standing practices. I do so to emphasize that the direction of successful police reform, as in other [10:44:13 AM] police reform, as in other professions like medicine, is that of improved accountability. Departments that do not improve accountability are in fact falling behind. Accountability is a hallmark of effective policing, not an obstacle. It enhances police morale because it makes community respect possible. It makes possible the communication that successful policing requires. It rewards effective work and highlights inappropriate procedures. Cities with robust institutional accountability have better policing outcomes. Improved accountability will give the city more information for realizing its primary function. The well-being of everybody across myriad activities not limited to policing, economic [10:45:15 AM] limited to policing, economic expansion, public health, the built and natural environment. >> Thank you ma'am. Thank you for being here and for your comments. >> Good afternoon council and mayor. My name is Barry Jones and I'm a leader at vocal Texas. I wanted to I've been recently completed a period of almost ten years homeless on the streets of Austin, and I wanted to tell you about the services I received from APD. About three years ago, I was at Westgate transit center and I wound up exchanging words with one of the bus drivers. He immediately squared off with me and wanted to fight. I did not want to fight because I knew what would happen if the police showed up in that situation. Eventually he grabbed me by the body, threw me to the concrete and started kicking me [10:46:17 AM] and started kicking me repeatedly in the in the ribs. When I got up and recovered, I asked a one of the other drivers to call APD and eventually they arrived. They immediately went over and started talking to my assaulter. I objected to that and after some dithering around, the police officer came and talked to me. She told me that they wouldn't be able to file an assault complaint, that I would have to go somewhere else and file a complaint there. There's also a witness to the situation that he wanted to get his statement in. As you heard my friend Susie Beason, who is here today. I found out last night that she had been turned out of her. The city shelter. At 1130 at night. Apparently because some emotional turmoil that she [10:47:18 AM] some emotional turmoil that she was having, I still don't know the exact reasons. It's difficult to believe that someone who is five foot two and an elderly single woman with no family in Austin, no resources, is an imminent threat to health and safety. I suggest that you all ask her if she feels safe. I feel like it's not responsible to increase the police funds by 218 million. At this time, I want to point out that in the most recent proposed city budget, the share of the police of the budget for the police was 35%, 35%. The share of funds for the housing strategy office was 0.2%. That's what they're trying to do. Something about the [10:48:18 AM] to do. Something about the homeless situation with. And I think that reflects on city council, frankly. Currently there's about 150,000 homeless people in California. If Austin winds up looking like los Angeles, I think it's going to rest on your shoulders. >> Thank you. So very. >> Yeah. >> Good morning, city council. My name is Christopher torres, and I'm a member of vocal Texas. Thank you for your time today. I'm a Texas native and my family has lived here for many generations. We have been devastated by the law enforcement, police state and their failed policies. Growing up in the streets, in a cesspool of toxicity, I acquired some aberrant behaviors. By the grace of god, I've been able to overcome the bad habits that keep many trapped in hopeless [10:49:18 AM] keep many trapped in hopeless situations. It's been really discouraging because I was expecting. I was expecting life to get better. When I make better decisions. But despite my best efforts, my living conditions continue to worsen. I obey the law. I avoid drugs. I don't look for trouble. I keep to myself and I don't bother anyone. Today I'm more scrutinized and watched than ever before, as if I was living out a Paige in an orwellian nightmare, being scrutinized by a big brother who doesn't have my best interests at heart. I don't feel safe around police officers. I don't believe they are here to protect me or my children. In fact, we are more in danger today because of their failed policies. If I was in trouble, I wouldn't call the police for help because I just don't trust them. I'm being engaged as if I was the enemy. I feel very much like a second class citizen who doesn't get the same freedoms, the protection and the privileges that middle class and rich people have. The justice system, the police they create victims [10:50:20 AM] the police they create victims out of nonviolent criminals. They are profiting from the unnecessary suffering of other people. It's a scientific certainty that negative reinforcement punishments are not an effective strategy to mitigate crime or correct people's behavior. The rate of recidivism is proof that what we are currently doing is obviously not working. It's imperative that the government influences the city in a healthy and constructive way, builds them up instead of tearing them down. This is the only way to build trust with the public. This is common sense. People. Many people are coming out of the prison system worse than they went in. This council recently said that we don't have enough money to fund programs. But here you are doubling down on failed strategy to eliminate crime. The police contract is a misallocation of resources. Wasting a billion dollars on failed policies is not a solution. Nothing compels people to break the law more than being forced to live in deprivation. It's imperative that we invest in communal wellness and policies that are built to [10:51:21 AM] policies that are built to succeed. Things like public restrooms and showers. Because many businesses are no longer opening their bathrooms to the public. Right. And so many people are losing hope, and they just give up on themselves and the communities in which they live, because there's no meaningful changes or hope on the horizon. Right. And so the law enforcement correctional complex is becoming an effective catch all for people with mental disorders. I urge you to vote no on this police contract. It's a must that we improve the living conditions that create that create criminal, criminal behavior and mental instability. Thank you. >> Good morning. Council mayor. Good morning. My name is Anna Duncan, and I'm a local Texas leader. I am currently unhoused and I am staying at the mercy yard. I have been there for about ten months now. Prior to the marshaling yard, I have been [10:52:21 AM] the marshaling yard, I have been staying out wherever I can find a place to sleep. I've been told many times by many people. To move and if I didn't move, they would call APD on a trespassing charge. Having nowhere to sleep and being told that I would be ticketed for lying down was terrifying for me. I never got a ticket in my life. It really sucks that you're putting money into APD, and now that I'm staying at the marshaling yard, I now have that fear of being ticketed. There are things that need to be done. There needs to be fixed at the marshaling yard. For instance, the women's bathroom, 2 or 3 stalls are that are getting clogged. And if this floods the whole floor, the [10:53:22 AM] floods the whole floor, the whole bathroom and both both bathrooms, I don't know, maybe we just need more toilets. And that's not it. The water pressure. It sucks. It really do sucks. It's extremely low. When I try to. When? When I try to take a shower after work, hardly any water comes out. It never. It's never hot water. Not even kind of hot water. What happens when winter comes? But hey, that's even if I take a shower. I work at night as a security guard. The marshaling yard turns off the showers at 7 P.M. I have to sleep dirty until 6 A.M. The next morning. Like I said, I'm happy staying at the. I'm happy that I'm not getting a ticket or getting a fear of ticket. [10:54:22 AM] getting a fear of ticket. Sleeping anywhere but putting more money into APD when one. You haven't made sure where I'm going to stay after where I'm staying is going to be open, and for two, let alone fix the things that need that are broken. I think you should vote no on the contract and put more money to make sure that our shelter are a place to where I could be happy instead. Thank you. Thank you. >> The next group of speakers is Shelby Bohannon. Jay Popham, Maggie Luna, and Ruth moonesinghe. >> If your name's been called, please come straight to the microphone or take a seat. And when it's a free microphone, it's all yours. Please go ahead. >> Okay. Sorry. >> I hope I didn't skip anybody. [10:55:23 AM] >> I hope I didn't skip anybody. >> State your name for the record. >> I'm Shelby Bohannon. Good morning. Council. My name is Shelby Bohannon. I'm a resident of d9, and I'm here to speak in opposition of item 4748. I actually met my council member, zo, while working on the Austin police oversight act. I canvased and campaigned for him because he kindly helped to gather signatures for the opoa while working to get on city council, and I hope that he will hold strong to his values and not allow the police to use the promise of accountability to extort the city for endless money, city services and city workers will inevitably, inevitably become collateral damage as our police budget continues to bloat. Austin voted overwhelmingly to adopt the opoa. They also voted against the police's phony attempt at a watered down apoy. We want strong oversight, not half hearted promises of accountability. Austin did not vote to pay the police more. To achieve this, we want it outright. If you vote to add the 218 million to the nearly 3 [10:56:25 AM] 218 million to the nearly 3 billion already being spent unnecessarily on policing, you will be tarnishing your legacy on council. Council needs to have a better understanding of why APD claims to need this money, when they say they are short staffed. I have to say they seem pretty well staffed. In April when they mobilized to beat up and arrest over 100 students and community members sitting on the lawn at UT protesting the genocide in palestine. Myself included, I saw an APD officer trying to break a girl's wrist after she was already in handcuffs. I witnessed an APD officer body slam somebody's head when they were already face down. That same person was later locked in my cell block, and I watched as they were wheeled out of their cell. After they were seizing because of the head trauma, and the police ignored them and locked them in their cell for nearly a day. If they can do that, we have to ask ourselves if they truly can't respond to austinites when they call for help, or if maybe they're choosing not to. The city also [10:57:26 AM] choosing not to. The city also needs to end their relationship with rampage law, the disgusting organization whose client list includes the officers who stood by while children were slaughtered in uvalde and who, unbelievably, are in charge of negotiations with the city. Vote no on this police contract. Thank you. >> Good morning, city council mayor. My name is Marica Smith, and I'm a member of vocal Texas. Thank you for your time today. A bit about my situation is this I've been unhoused for about a year and a half, and honestly, it has been hard as hell. It's been so hard to find where to go, where to find resources or to get any real information on the services here. The shelters here have given me the runaround. I've been told to call different numbers and even [10:58:27 AM] call different numbers and even been told to show up and sit outside for a lottery system to get a bed. Imagine the mental stress and mental deterioration that causes when you have to sit around and hope you get to feel safe for the night. Have you ever slept on a bus bench? I have. And let me tell you what it's like. It's scary. It's uncomfortable. And you really don't get any sleep because you have to stay up all night on high alert, praying that you don't get harmed or your things stolen from you. I have medical issues and have to take medication, and I need to lay down to prevent my legs and feet from swelling, and it's hard to do that on a bus bench. It is so humiliating and demoralizing to have everyone drive by and see you. But being the survivor that I am, the strong woman that I am. [10:59:30 AM] I am, the strong woman that I am. I saved up enough money to get a tent. And let me tell you how good that was, just to feel a little safe to have a little peace of mind. The only challenge was that with that is to find somewhere to set up, only to be kicked out. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been kicked out from outside? Where do you go from there? Where do you find a place to hide? Well, that's what my wife and I did until we got swept. We woke up early one morning and saw APD driving around. Not even realizing what was happening behind us, and that we were being encircled. The officer got out of his vehicle, came up and said, time to go. So we started packing. As I was pulling up my tent stakes, he ripped the entire tent out of my hand and said, we got to take this and [11:00:30 AM] said, we got to take this and gave it to the garbage truck that was also encircled around us, and they put it in the back, and we watched our only form of safety get crushed. Then he had the nerve to tell us not to go down the road because that's where the drugs are. But you just took our only form of safety. Then he asked if we ever tried getting into a shelter. Of course. >> Thank you. I'm sorry your time has expired. Thank you very much. >> Hi, y'all. My name is Jay Popham. I'm a resident of district two, speaking against 47 and 48. I'm involved in community groups, helped out as a volunteer deputy registrar this year. I'd love to get out and knock doors and talk to our neighbors about local issues, but I'm here today as a regular guy. I first visited in 2012. My beautiful, brilliant girlfriend from Austin and moved here in 2021 with the same person who is now my beautiful, brilliant wife [11:01:31 AM] now my beautiful, brilliant wife from Austin who I love so much to be closer to our wonderful family from Austin. The first big thing I did here in the community after moving was participate in the campaign for police oversight in 2023, and was proud to see the values and priorities of our neighbors reflected in the outcome. My hope was and remains, that with greater transparency and accountability, we can get a real sense of what we're collectively dealing with as a city and how we choose to respond. In contrast to many of the speakers at the last work session, we love our place in dove springs and have always felt safe there, and I can tell you why. I can describe a few scenarios where we've interacted with the public safety system here in Austin since moving first is a dog bite. We were bitten, reported and handled by animal welfare as a very minor thing. We were certified not rabid by the city last year. I do appreciate that. But not something the police are really set up to handle. Still, this is public safety. Second was a car crash. This happened at Woodward and saint Elmo. Kathleen. My wife, our niece, and our nephews were all in the car and thankfully unharmed during this hit and run. They are my whole [11:02:32 AM] hit and run. They are my whole world and 100% of the reason why I'm here today. An officer showed up to take the report and told us there's nothing they can do. Camera footage was two resolution, two low resolution and would not be useful in the investigation. There's a million things that went wrong there, but we know that statistically, a uniformed officer wasn't going to stop or prevent that crime. Safe street design would better driver registration and education would a better transit system would. This is public safety. Third, our neighbors. This is not quite public safety, but we love our neighbors. We talk and check in and take care of one another's dogs and cats and trash cans. If we have a problem, we can ask and work together to find a solution to our problems. We keep us safe. Our council member, Vanessa Fuentes, has been a leader in promoting public safety through investments in public health, family stabilization services for our unhoused neighbors, and safe, reliable transit. This is public safety where we eliminate the root causes of crime instead of disappearing the people responsible for them. This is what we're sacrificing with this bloated and non-strategic spend. What I mean to point out, council members, is that this public safety, that public safety is a lot of things. And this contract locks us in to [11:03:33 AM] this contract locks us in to public safety being just one thing. More uniformed officers forever. We know stability is the biggest component of public safety, and this budget commits our city to nothing less than an act of generational theft. To assuage the concerns of the powerful police lobby here in Texas. A budget is a moral document, council members, and this budget represents a dereliction of your duty of care for your residents, our neighbors, the voters of the city of Austin vote down this contract, and let's build the public safety that we need. >> Hey, y'all. My name is Sarah Reyes. I'm speaking against items 4748. I'm the youth justice policy director at the Texas center for justice and equity, and I've also been a resident of Austin for the last 8 or 9 years. I did both my master's and my undergrad here at UT. And today I want to speak to you in the capacity as a young professional in Austin. I want to tell you about a time that I felt most safe here and had nothing to do with police officers. I've lived in district [11:04:33 AM] officers. I've lived in district seven for a few years now, and I love to run, and I usually run in the brentwood area, and the brentwood park has become one of my favorite places to stop and grab some water during my runs. And because I was pretty consistent in going there, I was able to make some friends that I have come to really love and to lean on. The park has become a place that I looked forward to going to. I built a little community in that park and has become, and has made me feel more safe here in Austin than any police interaction ever has. I also want to give an honorable mention to the metrorail at the midtown common stop, as we know, Austin is ever growing it. It's hard to park. Ubers are expensive, and the rail has provided me and my friends with a safe and inexpensive way to get to places like downtown or Austin fc games, non-police infrastructure such as parks, transportations, library, the arts, programing for community members in general is what me and my community community are concerned with being funded. These resources deserve to be funded now and for future generations. The youth here in Austin deserve to feel safe and not policed. They deserve to have a place that they can grow, [11:05:34 AM] have a place that they can grow, feel safe and build community just as I have. But if we continue to throw money at the police department, I fear that Austin will become unrecognizable and will no longer be a place for youth and young professionals to create a community and feel safe. I urge the council to stop funding the police and fund what we know keeps the city safe, and that's the people of Austin and not the police department. Thank you. >> Good morning, mayor Watson, Mr. Broadnax and members of the city council. My name is Ruth minnesinger and I'm a resident of district three. I'm here today to speak out against the current police contract as it is written. As many of you know, my youngest son, Rajan, a tech entrepreneur, was murdered by an APD officer on his front porch on November 15th, 2022. What [11:06:36 AM] on November 15th, 2022. What followed was a string of lies and cover ups from the then police chief and police union. Luckily for us, the ring camera Rajan installed on his front porch captured how the entire incident actually played out. You know, it's almost two years since I lost my son, but let me tell you, the pain has not lessened. I miss him terribly and feel his absence daily. This horrible tragedy has motivated my family to donate to non profit nonpartizan charities that advocate aggressively for implementing common sense gun safety measures, survivor advocacy and police accountability. My sons, mark and Johan have been participating on panels and testifying at public hearings [11:07:39 AM] testifying at public hearings about the prevalence and indiscriminate nature of gun violence. We are partnering with members of the public and private sectors to develop long term solutions through our family business, to drive down gun violence statistics, particularly in underserved communities. In addition, we support public representatives and appreciate the pressing need and advocate for police transparency, accountability, and better training concerning the current proposed police contract. Article seven, section nine wages and benefits. The contract for shots of laying out or including any incentives to ensure we have a well-trained police force in Austin, pay specifically to encourage de- escalation that rewards [11:08:39 AM] de-escalation that rewards training geared to address officer sensitivity when dealing with marginalized communities. The state of Texas has mandatory training for cadets on implicit bias, but the APD has no incentives that encourage ongoing and updated training for existing officers. Education would help save more lives. Now, when dealing with police misconduct, the contract provides a framework. >> I'm sorry, but your time has expired. All right. >> Thank you. The next group of speakers on 47 is Liliana Ortiz. Shane Johnson, Mary Elizabeth, Alfredo Reyes junior, and Philippe Basa. >> If your name has been called, please come forward. Please go ahead. Hello. [11:09:40 AM] ahead. Hello. >> Mayor Watson and city council members. My name is Maggie Luna and I am the executive director at Texas harm reduction alliance. We are against giving $218 million to APD. I use drugs actively for 20 years. >> I experienced homelessness and I personally have had many interactions with law enforcement, which changed my life for the worse. >> I was imprisoned multiple times for charges that were all nonviolent and drug related, but none of these interactions with law enforcement made my community any safer, nor did they allow me to get the help that I needed. Instead, these interactions cost the public money, delayed my seeking help, and got my children removed from my custody. My family and I are still healing years later, but what ended up helping me was finding supportive services that allowed me to escape survival mode and access the resources I didn't even know existed. The community I found didn't shame [11:10:40 AM] community I found didn't shame me or criminalize me for using drugs, and instead they helped me access basic needs and gain confidence in myself. I see myself in our community every single day, and I know that there is hope. If Austin can commit to funding supportive services for its citizens. But the one thing that will not contribute to safety is more law enforcement interactions. Our team at Texas harm reduction alliance is small and dedicated. We are made up of people with lived experience of drug use and incarceration. We provide life saving supplies, education, and a safe space for people who use drugs and may be experiencing homelessness. And our need increases daily. We have reached 21. I'm sorry, 2181 people at risk of overdose through our drop in center and outreach team, which is currently running on a seven person staff. In addition, [11:11:42 AM] seven person staff. In addition, we're working with people who are currently incarcerated on overdose education as overdose is the leading cause of death for people being released from incarceration. We do this work because we have been there, and we work to keep our community alive and connected. Due to the trust that we've built with our participants, we are able to de-escalate situations in a trauma informed way. We have had requests from people all over the city to improve access to our drop in services and expand the reach of our outreach team. I've seen the staff at hra divert our participants from spending time in the streets just trying to survive. Our drop in allows people to come in and feel safe to learn about available resources. Without the guilt and shame, no matter what the status of their drug use is. Since April, 27,000 syringes have been brought to us for disposal. That's 27,000 syringes that were not left in the streets for our community to find. We urge you to vote no on Thursday. [11:12:43 AM] Thursday. >> Thank you for being here. >> Hello. Thank you all for listening to me. >> My name is Liliana Ortiz and I wanted to start with a few facts. >> The American police force as we know it today. >> It directly comes from slave patrol. >> The word patrol is still being used to this very day by the organization. It's even still on the vehicles. >> With that being said, it's no surprise to anyone in this room that 90% of arrests are black and brown in Travis county. >> That's 90. >> We don't have to be rocket scientists to see what's going on. It's heartbreaking and it affects my mental health daily. Just like I know it does. So many other people. We see it every day. It's systemic. It's insidious, and it affects all of us. My ex-boyfriend, white male, hung himself in a jail cell two years ago, and I swear to god, I am still dealing with the effects of that to this very [11:13:44 AM] effects of that to this very day. What's beautiful and incredibly intelligent about the city of Austin is we have made it very clear where we want our money going. In regards to arpa. We've made it very clear what type of oversight and accountability is necessary for us at this time to truly progress. We have new mental health facilities and programs that are being rolled out. It shows possibility and willingness to use our resources in other ways. Founded on intelligence, reason, and logic. We don't have to lock up poor people of color and poor whites for days on end to the detriment of not only them, but also us, the taxpayers. Might I add, Travis county is also barely, and I emphasize, barely implementing council at first appearance, meaning people weren't even being given their constitutional rights here in this city. Most do not know [11:14:44 AM] this city. Most do not know that. Please do not approve this contract. It's a step backward. Keep in mind the origins of these institutions. Facts. Once again, and the intelligence and the compassionate nature of the people in Travis county. Thank you. >> Hello, council. My name is Mary. First name Mary. Last name Elizabeth. I sure hope you are listening. You've heard so much information. So many details. >> I don't know if you're going to remember most of this. >> I want you to go over this video and listen to these people again. People who have spoken the people they are representing [11:15:46 AM] the people they are representing are are not aberrations. They they are experts on the realities that people face here in Austin. I don't know who else you've consulted with regarding the police contract, which I'm against, but these people are the consultants. You should listen to the most. $218 million to the police force is not going to help any of what's been brought up. You've heard about the wrongdoings, the going back on the police oversight. Heard some. I'm overwhelmed. You can tell that. I had no idea. I knew [11:16:46 AM] tell that. I had no idea. I knew things were bad, but now I've heard stories that are just outrageous. That people are going through. And I have to say that giving APD $218 million is outrageous. There are so many needs here that, that, that, that would undermine that money needs to go to real people who are having serious problems, not of their own making. Thank you. >> The next group of speakers, Carolyn Williams, Chris Harris, Monica Guzman, Pam Madeira, Robert Clark. >> Good afternoon. Mayor and council members. My name is [11:17:48 AM] council members. My name is Carolyn Williams and I am a vocal leader at. I am a leader at vocal Texas. A little about me. I was unhoused for eight months, but now I have permanent housing. It's terrible. It's terrible to be unhoused. I was diagnosed 25 in 1999 with HIV, and I was walking down the streets of Austin, Texas, being homeless with HIV. I would have different bowel movements that would happen to me, and I would be a mess on the streets until I got into the Salvation Army. I want you to know what it feels like to be unhoused. It's so unsafe. It's insecure. You don't have food. You don't know where you're going to wipe your butt. You don't know where you're going to pee. You don't know. Know where you're going to eat. [11:18:48 AM] Know where you're going to eat. What are you going to do? Okay, so for me, it was terrible because I was a person with an illness. You know, I couldn't take the medicine when I would take my medicine, it it would just run right out of me. So I'm walking the streets with booboo all over me. A person of stature that I am. I never thought this would happen to me, but it happened to me because my son and I were evicted. Because my son had schizophrenia and they evicted us. We couldn't find a place to stay because my son had misdemeanors. And in Texas, it's hard to find a place when a person has misdemeanors. Okay, so it's very hard. So I want to tell you how well I just told you how hard it was. Okay. So rather than spend $2,000,018 on more policing, I would urge you to spend money on housing and harm reduction and mental health care. I want to tell you one thing. My son was shot five times by the police because he had schizophrenia and it was trying to tell him to come here [11:19:49 AM] trying to tell him to come here when he was not on his meds. So he did not follow through. So they shot him five times, all upper body shots, not lower body shots to stop him to warn him, but all the upper body shots to kill him. But today he's alive. We need. And rather than spending $218 on on policing, we need more case management. When they told my son he needed, we went for him to get case managed. They gave him three months and within them three months my other son was dead. He was dead. We need more case management. We need more caseworkers, more more caseworkers and again, again, more harm reduction. What would it mean to you if our community had funding for these things? Could you list above instead of police? Instead of policing? Can [11:20:49 AM] police? Instead of policing? Can you think of some other things that you can do to help us? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, mayor and council. I'm Monica Guzman, district four resident and for transparency purposes, I am a candidate for city council, district four. I stand here with many others opposed to items 47 and 48. I have spoken against increasing the police budget for months this year, going back as far as at least July, and it's not the first year I've spoken against this. You've heard the people talk about the needs. The police cannot help people who are experiencing housing instability and homelessness, but investing in permanent, supportive housing, emergency rental assistance, tenant relocation assistance, that's what helps people. They cannot feed the hungry. You need to invest money in social services and programs. We need to invest in the community. The basic [11:21:51 AM] in the community. The basic needs, the critical needs. The more money that is put into the police budget is less money for the community, as was stated earlier. And I'm sorry I did not catch her name, you as a whole are responsible for the safety of this city. Safety does not equate the Austin police department. Safety does not equate law enforcement officers. Safety is about having homes that we know are not going to fall down around us thanks to negligent landlords. Safety is about knowing we can stay safely in our homes when we're experiencing climate stressors. Safety is access to food, to parks, urban canopy. We need to think holistically and so do you. Thank you. >> Biggest height difference and speakers today? >> Pretty significant. >> Good morning y'all. My name is Chris Harris. I'm a resident [11:22:52 AM] is Chris Harris. I'm a resident of district nine. I'm here today on behalf of equity action. As many of you know, I'm one of the coauthors of the Austin police oversight act. Passing this contract, this deal undermines not just our ballot measure, but the values of truth, democracy, transparency, justice, good governance and the public good. The people pushing this deal can honestly claim this deal upholds any of these values and have a history of being very publicly wrong. City legal has been wrong about the G file for a generation at least. Okay, may has meant may for as long as that law has existed and we could have had more transparency in this city, it took our ballot measure, a lawsuit and a court opinion to finally open that vault. And that just happened last week. You yourself know this. You tried to replace them. You put something on the ballot for this November that would have allowed you to get your own legal counsel. You cannot rely [11:23:52 AM] legal counsel. You cannot rely on their interpretation of whether or not this deal is in compliance with our ballot measure. And as the authors were here to tell you, that no, it is not. You've heard about all of the conflicting advice from city budget and why these budget projections strain credulity. So I won't continue there. But I do want to take a minute to talk about the negotiators. You know, in 2017, we came here with a campaign called better before more, and the deal on the table then had very few improvements around oversight and transparency. And it was a five year deal for $82 million. The following year, this council with our support, passed a police contract as well as a corresponding ordinance that created the office of police oversight with new powers. And that deal was for four years and $44 million. Okay, just last year there was a proposal, of course, intended to preempt our ballot measure and it was for [11:24:54 AM] ballot measure and it was for four years and $74 million. Okay, last year, four years, $74 million. And now a year and a half later, you're being told that you have to spend $218 million over five years. What changed in a year and a half? Okay, now some might say, well, our ballot measure passed and we have to pay them for that. Well, let's remember in June, the police association came out with these wild demands for salary. Our lawsuit had not been decided. The city was not implementing our ballot measure, nor had it deemed it necessary to do so in the contract. And yet, our city negotiators were prepared to accept those demands. This is not about our ballot measure. So what is it you've heard from people directly impacted by police violence today? Sexual assault survivors, all in opposition to this contract. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Please oppose. Thank you. [11:25:56 AM] Harris. Please oppose. Thank you. >> All right. Afternoon, Shane. Or morning, Shane Johnson, d7, as are my parents and two brothers. He him pronouns. I'm an organizer who helped the community beat the terrible contract in 2018. Chris just talked about that would have blocked all accountability and nearly bankrupted the city. This council, however, seems poised to undo all of that organizing. Undo the will of the people by blocking the Austin police oversight act with this contract, not only can the city not truly afford this contract, not only is it now illegal to lower a police budget, not only is it physically impossible for APD to fill all of their vacancies, meaning they have more budget right now than they can literally spend, but like many others who spoke before me, this would undo key accountability and oversight issues. Additionally, this contract would mean we fail to [11:26:56 AM] contract would mean we fail to fund smaller dollar, but important requests like family stabilization, aisd parent parent support specialist, expanding mental health first response you must vote no on this contract. Now, as an organizer, I want to make sure that one you all understand the intersections of policing with the issues. I work on energy and climate change and two have a history lesson about our story in mayor Watson. First of all, this dais knows me for working on Austin energy, and we all know that arco is financially struggling and they may not even be able to continue the 11.6% general fund transfer. Many folks refer to as the city's piggy bank. And now I know this absurd increase in the contract would would come primarily from increasing taxes that people can't afford right now and from defunding other city departments. But a third way is to increase transfers from Austin energy. Right now, Austin energy and other city leadership want to pollute our air with a new gas plant for financial reasons. The pressure this contract would [11:27:57 AM] pressure this contract would cause in the next two years would make increasing transfers from appealing. The problem with that approach is that, based on the current actions of much of city leadership, they would use this as even more reason to throw away our climate goals for more fossil fuel infrastructure, to make more money. Second of all, I need this dais and the public to know that we are here today in large part fighting for police oversight because of mayor Watson's first term in 2001, when the very first police contract was crafted, Watson in a closed door meeting, removed the oversight and transparency measures that that would have been better than what we've had recently. Just one year later, he was endorsed by the statewide police unions for Texas senate. We need to know that history, and we cannot just fall in line with pro-police politicians. So council, are you going to repeat history? Are you going to take us back to 2001 by falling in line with mayor Watson, or are you going to be the brave 2024 leaders? We need you to be and vote no. Thank you. [11:28:58 AM] vote no. Thank you. >> Good morning. >> Council, mayor and city manager Pam for district ten. >> As I sit here and listen to all of the testimony today, I feel like the contract is being confused and a lot of the issues with the contract are being conflated with other issues that we are struggling through here in Austin and with any growing city. >> Things like homelessness, social services and other needs and we're here today and on Thursday to talk about the contract. And I appreciate all of the work that this council and the city has done over the last many, many months and incredibly hard work to go through and look at the numbers to evaluate the budget and to figure out what works for this community. I ask for your support of the police contract. I ask for your support of the budget that's within the police contract, and that it not be cut. And thank you for your service to our community. >> Good morning, mayor, city [11:30:08 AM] >> Good morning, mayor, city manager and city council, Robert Clark from the central Texas public safety commission. It's my honor to be here before you again this morning to stand in solidarity with the women and men who work in the Austin police department. I recognize the pain backwards. I've listened to it this morning, but I also recognize the opportunities in moving forward. This contract provides us the substantive opportunity to move forward, to establish and solidify the operations within the Austin police department, to provide the new chief with the tools and resources that she needs in order to bring solidarity to the entire city, not just the police department. The foundation of public safety is to make sure that the women and men who do the job every day are supported and receive the support and resources and tools that they need to do the job that we've asked them to do that the calls ask them to respond to many times in the face of danger. I recognize that there is still more work to do in moving forward with this contract, but the approval of this contract provides us with the opportunity to stabilize and [11:31:09 AM] the opportunity to stabilize and solidify the police department for the next five years, so that we can focus on many of the problems and issues that I've heard here this morning and that I've witnessed in the 90 plus days that I've been here in Austin. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I am a 39 year law enforcement professional from all around the globe, and I recognize these issues to be very indicative of a relationship that needs to be built, needs to be solidified, and needs to be cooperative and collaborative in order for us to bring true public safety to the city of Austin. So I ask for your approval, and I thank you for your work and your courage. Thank you. Justice for Alex Gonzalez, Alex Gonzalez, christianity I was part of the please. >> You're out of order. You're out of order, and we're not going to do that. >> The last group. >> No, not that's not the reason why we're going to act with decorum. >> And now they will not allow me to talk. >> Please, please go ahead and call the names. Ashley Copeland, I ask you to leave the Tim [11:32:11 AM] I ask you to leave the Tim Saxton. Control yourself. >> Susan Spataro, if your name's been called, please come forward. >> Good morning. My name is Ashley Copeland and I'm with the central Texas public safety commission. And let me begin by acknowledging the unimaginable hurt and heartbreak that the city has faced. We've heard it today, and like so many growing cities, Austin continues to feel the result of violence in many forms. No family, including the residents of our city, the first responders that support them or our children should have to endure the fear or the hurt that I believe that we are speaking to today. But that is the very reason why this contract is so important to pass. It's why it's so critical by providing officers with the tools that they need, whether it's better training, mental health support of our officers, improve data collection mechanisms to help enhance accountability and safety, we can create a safer environment for everyone and we [11:33:13 AM] environment for everyone and we want to invest in a police force that is more equipped to protect and to serve all members of our community with compassion and with care. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and thank you for your service, Mr. Mayor. >> I think the mic is still at Chris Harris height, so it's difficult to hear everybody else. >> So if we could just have them lower. >> Sorry about that. If you're not about six 5 or 6 six you might want to lower the microphone. >> Does that work? >> That's better. Thank you. >> Good morning. >> My name is Kim Saxton and I'm a lifetime resident of Austin, Texas, 60 plus years, and I grew up in an Austin that a lot of you may not know or have any idea what it was like, but it is a remarkable town. And in order to keep that community the same as it's always been, where you just are proud of it and you feel safe and you just feel very blessed to live in such a place like this. You need a strong police force. So I am in support of the contract, I am in support [11:34:13 AM] of the contract, I am in support of the budget and I'm asking that you not take any funds away from the police, because we need that strong police force to have the Austin that I remember. Thank you. Good afternoon. Susan Spataro and I'm a resident of district eight, and I want to kind of talk about a few technical things, since this is kind of a work session. First of all, we are in a crisis. Public safety situation. I mean, you heard it. The last work session. Businesses that are having problems. People don't want to work at those businesses. And we're having problems with visitors. That's serious. We need to look at that. When you look at money coming in, those businesses provide money coming in and we need that as a city. Some one of the I have a lady friend that lives in one of the condominiums downtown, and I was horrified, to be honest, to find out that her property taxes were $87,000 a year, pay $87,000 a [11:35:15 AM] $87,000 a year, pay $87,000 a year in property taxes, you ought to be able to walk out on the streets, be safe, go to a restaurant, go listen to music, or go to a play. You can't do that anymore. So it's a serious situation. The police department has the largest vacancy of any other department that you have, and they've been negotiating in good faith for two contracts. And I think it would be a real disadvantage to suddenly, again, have them negotiate. They negotiate hard and you don't do a contract with them. One of the some of the things that have been said today are kind of I've gone to a lot of the campaign meetings and things like that. People are concerned about public safety. They just are. And if you're running for office, you know that. And to get a police department that's good and to get people to stay, you need a couple of things. First of all, they need to be well paid and they need to be appreciated by the community. [11:36:15 AM] appreciated by the community. And the truth is, some of the attacks on the police and the way they've been treated here by abolitionists would discourage people from coming here. And we're probably going to have to pay more money. The next thing is, the cost of living here is really high. And, you know, many officials in this community are the highest paid in Texas because of our our cost of living. The other thing is that we I'll never forget this, but when we were having those terrible protests in may 2020, people were throwing were spitting on our police. They were throwing bottles at them and horrible things. And in the in the group that was doing that was our mayor in a council member with their fists up like this. And I couldn't believe it. And I thought, you know, I had 82 people working for me before I retired. And I thought what would ever cause me to allow people to spit in the face of my [11:37:16 AM] people to spit in the face of my employees and stand with the people that are doing that, the police got that message. They got that message. It's one of the reasons we're having trouble recruiting. The other thing question since I'm an accountant, people were questioning the budget and I want to compliment your staff. I think they've done a good job on the budget. Thank you. Mr. That concludes all speakers on item 47. We'll move on to item 48. >> Thank you. >> First, we have sage west remote. >> Literally like neighbors in a community meeting unhoused neighbors in some kind. >> Apologies. I am opposed. To item 48. And. This. I apologize. This is because the verbiage in [11:38:21 AM] This is because the verbiage in the proposed agreement does not, does not, is not. Doesn't have specifics on how the oversight will be added. It just says that it is and that is unacceptable. Our police force needs to be held accountable by an independent. Commission. And it isn't. Police can't police themselves. It's a conflict of interest. And frankly, this budget increase is a gross [11:39:22 AM] budget increase is a gross misuse of funds, as has been stated and the police don't take care of our community. They don't act with compassion to those of us who have been unhoused or are food insecure, or have mental illness and can't can't necessarily communicate effectively to our officers, and also they refuse to take the initiative when they are presented with incredible. With requests for assistance, I watched my neighbor take her last breath after her ex shot her multiple times after she had [11:40:23 AM] her multiple times after she had reached out to APD requesting help, and not only did they refuse her the ability to have a restraining order or something, there was no reasonable response time. She died because there was no response within 15 minutes or so. It took so long and. The amount of the increase. >> Thank you. Speaker. >> Unconscionable. >> Thank you, Rachel Shannon. >> Good morning, Rachel Shannon. I'm a 25 year resident of Dion. >> I'd first like to say thank you to the many speakers today [11:41:24 AM] you to the many speakers today who shared their testimony of being unhoused and struggling in this city. >> Insight your testimony offers is a gift to this conversation. I'm not sure what else our representatives need to hear, but I'm going to proceed with my prepared comments. I'm here today imploring you to vote no on this police contract. It blatantly violates the will and needs of Austin voters to have an accountable police department and a city with adequately funded, if not well funded services. Where is the funding for resilience hubs and an improved extreme weather emergency response? We're coming up on another winter wondering what challenges we as a city might face, knowing it will likely be incumbent on the communities ourselves to provide the needed support systems to each other. Because an improved %-response system has still not been prioritized. There's no reason a city like Austin, with the amount of resources we have, should be operating in this manner. It is shameful and inexcusable. Our health and safety at the most basic levels, must be prioritized, over inflated and irresponsible police funding. The police [11:42:24 AM] police funding. The police cannot respond to an overwhelming portion of our needs, and we should stop funding them as if they can. The proposed 218 million would be spent at the expense of the safety net we have built for austinites and housing and shelter crisis disposing of the kinds of support service denigrates our notion of community and puts all austinites at risk. Police cannot be a patch for underfunded community services and housing crisis. We will not create public safety by neglecting the needs of citizens and trying to police that way. That has never worked as well. Austin has a harrowing record when it comes to dangerous and often lethal police response to mental health emergencies. While some steps have been taken to redirect the process of police response to mental health needs, we are massively shorting funding for critical ems and integral care crisis response services, setting the stage for continued dangers to our residents, failures of care and an even larger crisis. This is insulting to our citizens as well to our frontline providers who are working hard to respond to these crisis on scraps, and [11:43:25 AM] to these crisis on scraps, and to austinites who deserve to have this kind of basic care funded for the well-being of all. Additionally, Austin is a city built around a beautiful park system, something everyone enjoys and a standout feature of our city. Yet this contract is willing to continue to neglect that system with underfunding. We cannot risk the long term stability that elected officials have attempted to build in the last two budget cycles, locking in something as irresponsible as this contract for the next five years. We cannot go on with outsized funding for a police budget that does not honor the will of the voters for increased transparency, accountability and oversight. We deserve better. We have asked for better. What does it take for us to be heard? We need you to stay this course. We need to uphold our city values. We need you to fight for us and say no to this proposed decimation of our budget. Thank you. >> Reece Armstrong. >> Hi there. [11:44:30 AM] >> Hi there. >> I'm Reece Armstrong, the co-chair of the young democratic socialists of America. >> I'm calling today on behalf of our membership. Our high school is located in district three, and we want to strongly oppose this police contract. This police contract undermines the oversight we passed with 80% support from voters. This contract is illegal. It undermines the G file, and it tries to legislate it back in using the contract. I additionally would like to implore the city to negotiate in good faith openly in front of our public instead of trying to hide behind closed doors and then presenting a contract out of thin air that sends $218 million on the cops. When we can't fund city services, I just want I just want to say that our membership strongly opposes this. >> Thank you. >> Moving to in person, I'll call the first five speakers. Michael ward, junior, Charles Moore, Daniella silva, Sam [11:45:32 AM] Moore, Daniella silva, Sam kirsch, Lauren audel. >> If your name's been called, please come forward. Okay. Please go to the next list. >> Patricia Forbes Jen Margulies, Jen Ramos, Catherine Mcardle, Thomas downing, Phyllis Thompson, Michael Sarris, Brianna Callery, Elizabeth Gonzalez. William bunch, aj jiraskova. >> Please come to the microphone. Thank you. Just identify yourself, please. >> Hi, I'm Brianna Cleary from district five. I chose this item because it was more specifically addressing the budget. I'm speaking against items 40 and 47. >> I believe Austin police are already overused, and that accepting this agreement is both premature and a poor use of public funds. >> It is not necessary to add [11:46:33 AM] >> It is not necessary to add even more money to the police budget, especially considering that raises are irreversible. It is also unreasonable to accept an agreement that different groups do not actually agree on because they're reading the contract differently, as in the case of grandfathering the G file. >> Every time I've had to report something to the police, like when my car was stolen and I had to file official statements for insurance, I've wished I could go through another agency that was better suited or less taxed. That process was completely unintuitive and a waste of everyone's time. >> Since I wasn't in town, officers declined to show up until a neighbor mistakenly called 911 on my friends who were helping clean up in many minor cases, like finding large debris on the highway. >> I've called 311 thinking I would be speaking to an agency outside of the APD. The police department has more responsibilities than it should, and this should be addressed before adding more budget for them to do those jobs. As much as I would prefer to see police directing traffic than escalating at nonviolent protests, neither needs to be their job. The police prevents crime. In fact, this fantasy [11:47:34 AM] crime. In fact, this fantasy leads to reckless spending and entitlement from residents who think they're simply paying the police as private security. Starting today, Travis county voters are weighing in on propositions to raise taxes to cover childcare, after school programs and workforce development. That's exactly what our taxes should be used for. Why are we unable to find the budget for those initiatives in what we already have? I strongly prefer to support things that help families improve public health or support creatives like the red river cultural district, which is always fighting for more funding. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Kathy Mitchell, Amy krasin, kriseman, Gerda rey, Alicia Castillo, Amanda Weems, Andy coco, when your name has been called, please come forward. >> Hi, I'm just going to take this opportunity, unexpected opportunity to finish what I was going to say a few minutes ago. [11:48:35 AM] going to say a few minutes ago. Quickly, in response to some of the folks who came in today to continue their comments about what they believe this contract will do, it does not address police training. To Ruth Munson's comment, it will not improve de-escalation. That is not what a police contract is done. It's not what it does. We all know this. I think that people, you know, believe that it's somehow going to address homelessness. It does not do that. The reason you are paying $218 million for this police contract is because it will give officers a very significant raise, and we can debate about whether they should or shouldn't have that significant of a raise. But the real debate should be about does that in any way address the issues both at the police department and in our city that we want addressed with the limited dollars that we have? [11:49:37 AM] the limited dollars that we have? And this is what I was trying to get to in my previous comment, this debate, how should we spend our limited dollars to the best end result for our community, and is it policing? Or is it everything else is exactly the debate that voters are facing in Dallas, right now, where they have not one, not two, but three separate ballot measures, all designed to bring more dollars to police at the expense of everyone else. This is no accident. This is a plan. And you all are aware that for many, many years there has been a plan to squeeze democratically controlled cities between a rock and a hard place. You are facing revenue caps and spending mandates, and the only spending mandate that the other party is interested in making in every democratically controlled city [11:50:38 AM] democratically controlled city is more police and bigger jails. Even their own base doesn't support this. This is a political strategy. It's about the election. And it's not where all of you in this town should be. Considering your space to work. It makes no sense. It's not what your voters have demanded and it's not what your voters are demanding. This November. So I just, you know, this is a crazy time. But when we see what is on the table, we should act in accordance with our values. And in this town, our values are the values of sharing and caring. And that's where we need to be heading with the money that we have to spend. Thank you. >> My name is Alicia Castillo. [11:51:40 AM] >> My name is Alicia Castillo. I'm here representing Texas civil rights project and against items 47 and 48. Oh, what? I was saying earlier, I'll just finish my comments. Is that the most recent police contract that we ended up before this proposal voting down was a $44 million increase over four years. And again, this this contract proposal is $218 million increase over five years, which is just a drastic, unwarranted giveaway. And in addition to one that would weaken the voter mandated police oversight system because it will allow us to introduce the petty grievances once again, which is how we originally lost our once functional police oversight system in Austin. So I know that many of you are are not many of you, but a few of you are probably really excited to offer this much money and a show of support to the police. But I know that some of you feel that your hands are tied and that we're stuck in this position because we've been back and forth with the Apa for so many [11:52:40 AM] forth with the Apa for so many years. But as someone personally who has been in battle with the Apa for several years now, I'm asking you to please not give up at this moment on being the city that we could be by giving the lion's share of our resources over to the police, when we really don't have to. We won oversight. We won accountability because the voters said that we get that and we don't have to pay for that anymore. It's no longer a bargaining chip that has to be on the table. So we're asking, you know, if it's true that our budget is so Rosie, thank goodness. And I hope that we can use that opportunity to become the most innovative city in the nation by fulfilling all the social service needs and funding all that we can to address root causes of safety and crime concerns and naturally reduce our reliance on the inherently racist and violent practice of reacting to harm once it's happened by police. So asking again that you reject this contract, head back to the table and with a new law firm not rampage law firm. I'm also asking you all to fire them. Thank you so much. [11:53:41 AM] Thank you so much. >> Hello. I'm still professor rey. You're still the honorable mayor and council. I spoke before about enhanced accountability to promote police professionalism, but also to provide the city leadership with the information that it needs. And it's here that we encounter the problem of fiscal irresponsibility. What's the right size for our police budget? It must be an amount that acknowledges the funding needs of all city functions and the compensation of all city workers. It's not the job of the Apa to formulate demands that weigh in balance. Competing fiscal demands. It is the responsibility of the city's leadership. This already difficult task is made even harder by the state mandated, one way ratcheting of future [11:54:41 AM] one way ratcheting of future departmental budgets. Best practices of community safety are changing rapidly, and Austin's changing by the minute. Contemporary policing demands a variety of skills and resources. Will all of these resources in the future be best administered through a police department? The proposed contract locks in a rigid commitment that does not leave room for the entirety of city functions. It undermines the accountability that strengthens police professionalism and effective policing. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. >> Jj Ramirez, bill Wallace, Kate Graziani, Laura Ann Martinez, Mary Jones, Anna Duncan, Chris torres, marika Smith, Sarah Reyes, Shelby Bohannon, Jay Popham. Maggie [11:55:44 AM] Bohannon, Jay Popham. Maggie Luna, Ruth. Moon, Singh. >> If your name's been called and you wish to speak, please come forward. >> Andrew. Alamo. Lily Ann Ortiz, Shane Johnson. >> Hey, y'all. My name is Sarah Reyes. I wanted to yield the rest of my time to Chris Harris. So his name hadn't been called yet. >> But if you want to donate time, you need to go over there and let them know that we have a process for that. >> When we call Mr. Harris, we'll give him. >> We call him, we'll be able to donate that time. Please come forward. If your name has been called and you want to talk. >> My name is Andrew Alamo. I'm a resident of district seven. I speak to you today in opposition to items 47 and 48, because I believe we can prioritize public safety and fiscal common sense if this contract passes, we're [11:56:46 AM] if this contract passes, we're actually looking at 3 billion over the next five years in spending due to the police. Whether it be this contract APD's year after year expenditures, as well as payments made to victims of wrongful death and police brutality which do not come out of APD's budget because of qualified immunity. This tentative agreement is not representative of the people of Austin whatsoever. Just last year, the Austin police association purposefully misled the people of Austin, spent $287,000 to create the front group voters for oversight and police accountability, and then lied to austinites in order to get their prop B on the may 2023 ballot. And if I recall correctly, it was actually council member Ellis who caught them red handed doing this. These people don't play fair or negotiate in good faith and do not deserve a contract approved on their terms. That brings me to the city of Austin's negotiating team. The city's negotiating team consists of lawyers from rampage law, specifically Sarah griffin and Lowell Denton. Rampage law typically defends police against victims of wrongful death and [11:57:47 AM] victims of wrongful death and police brutality, and also defended the city of uvalde after 19 children were massacred by a school shooter while their police and dps stood by doing nothing. These are the same attorneys whose word you're taking that this contract respects every clause of the Austin police oversight act. Austinites deserve better than to have hired foxes guarding the hen house. Not only does this contract represent a complete conflict of interest for the lawyers who negotiated and negotiated it, but it's also deeply unpopular with austinites. A recent CBS poll showed that 79% of the people of Austin oppose this contract. Probably not. So conveniently. Coincidentally, the same percentage of Austin voters who voted for the real Austin police oversight act last year. As if it weren't enough for this contract to just undermine oversight, the enormous cost would also come at the expense of fire, ems, parks, public pools, libraries, social workers and city workers across the board. Previous projections by the budget office are optimistic to the point of pure delusion. I urge this council to look closely at previous five year [11:58:48 AM] closely at previous five year budget projections and demand more realistic budget forecasts. I also urge this council to remember that APD budget increases are permanently locked in. Forget defunding the police. We're asking you to stop the police from defunding us. Council should not only reject this contract, but also sever ties with rampage law. A vestigial appendix left over from Spencer cronk's time as city manager and hire new new negotiators who will stand up to the Austin police association, not collaborate with them. I stand with afscme 1624 united workers of integral care, ibew 520 and the Austin central labor council in opposing this contract. Thank you. And free palestine. >> Mary Elizabeth Alfredo Reyes Jr, Philippe Basa, Caroline Williams. >> Now. Oh good morning. Thanks. City council Shane Johnson, he him d7. I'll just elaborate a [11:59:48 AM] him d7. I'll just elaborate a little bit more and reemphasize some of the things I said. So you know, in one you know, first of all, vote no on the contract. That's the only reasonable and financially responsible decision you all can make. I mentioned I'll reemphasize that, you know, first of all, we shouldn't ever increase the police budget again. It's illegal to lower it. We cannot. That's not financially sustainable. But with the vacancy, the number of vacancies, the I can't remember the technical number, but the rate at which potentially new officers, cadets drop out of the, the academy, the attrition rate, things like that. It is not physically possible for APD to fill all of their vacancies. That is extra budget money that, you know, in terms of allocating things from the general fund and increasing that percentage. We [12:00:49 PM] increasing that percentage. We cannot and should not do that. It doesn't make any sense. So please don't don't do that again. You already did this last year and that was a major failure on y'all's part. I'll also reiterate, you know, in what we should be funding are special requests from council members. So as I said earlier, the family stabilization grant that councilmember Fuentes requested, as well as rapid rehousing and parental support, Jose Velasquez requested councilmember Ryan also requested expanded mental health. First response. Councilmember zo qadri mental health diversion pilot program. And many of these are one time expenses, but we said, you know, we didn't have the money until it was for the police. And so that's the stuff that we need to it. And like several speakers said earlier, that's what public safety needs to look like. We already have a bloated police budget and they don't meet our needs. They can't you can't arrest your way out of [12:01:50 PM] you can't arrest your way out of mental health crisis. You can't arrest your way out of poverty, out of out of all of these other social problems and, and defunding other city departments to then overfund the police. That's what systemic racism looks like. So please vote against this contract and, you know, and I know, like I was saying earlier, Austin energy general or transportation general fund increasing that is not currently on the table. But that can be a very real possibility when, you know, if something like this or another, maybe a state law passed again that partially defunds the city, the city budget, like the property tax cap, we're not planning for further state action that could harm our, our, our funding and the general fund if we if we pass a police contract like this, that's going to give too much money. We already don't have. Thank you. Vote no. >> Chris Harris with time [12:02:54 PM] >> Chris Harris with time donated by Sarah Reyes, our Sarah still here? Yes. Okay. Six minutes for Mr. Harris. And everyone's name has been called at this time for 48. >> Hi. Council. Mayor. Thank you again for the time. So I left off talking about about some of the previous most recent deals and how unprecedented this current deal is from a financial perspective. I also want to talk about those deals as it relates to the oversight piece, because I think that's important context for this conversation. And notably that in 2018, we came I stood here even though police contracts invariably include many things that I personally don't agree with, I stood here and I encouraged the council at that time to vote for that deal [12:03:54 PM] that time to vote for that deal and to do so alongside an ordinance that was passed that same meeting that created the office of police oversight, set up the stronger system that we had all, including the police association that sat around the table for months deliberating and creating. And unbeknownst to us, that deal had a poison pill inserted inside of it. Restriction on the police oversight office conducting investigations, which the police association took to mean that the new powers granted in the law, in the ordinance for the police oversight office to conduct preliminary reviews were actually in violation of that contract. And they proceeded, you know, in the months and years to come, to file dozens of grievances against the police oversight office, culminating in the December 2021 arbitration decision that that overturned those powers that weakened our police oversight system and then directly led us to write and pass the police oversight act. Right. So this is the history. It's a history that that shows, [12:04:57 PM] It's a history that that shows, one, that we've dealt with poison pills and contracts before, and they've been used by our police association sneakily after they've agreed to a system to then come in and take down something they they claim to agree to. And two, that that we are agreeable and we can come to a deal and we can actually stand up here and, and support a police contract. And so in that, in that mind frame, and also given the context of some of the supporters of this deal who we're not talking about anything concrete, that this police contract will do more concepts about moving forward. Let's move forward and let's talk about what moving forward looks like, because to us, there is an obvious path forward. And that path involves postponing the vote on this deal today, sending it back to the negotiation table with direction. Direction firstly to get rid of these poison pills as we see them, these tools that will be used by [12:05:58 PM] these tools that will be used by the police association once again to file grievances and tear down yet another law that this city has passed. And now not just the law that you all passed, but a law that our voters passed. And two, to look at the dollars. Right. Again, we're talking about a deal that is unprecedented in its cost with respect to police contracts in the city's history. And to question why that is. And so what is the right number? Well, let's talk about a number that that allows you to give the same at least the same raises to all of your other city workers and assume some growth in city services, the growth that will be needed to serve this growing city, as well as to address one underfunding that we know exists across a number of services, and two, the ever growing climate needs that we have evidenced by the now almost annual major disasters that we face that upend the city and put many people in crisis mode. So, so this is the path forward there. [12:06:58 PM] this is the path forward there. It doesn't even need to have a vote on Thursday. We can postpone this deal yet again, send it back to renegotiate for a fair deal in line with the contracts that this city has passed in its history, contracts that, again, people like me have stood up here and supported and to ensure that it doesn't include the poison pills that we've seen used, not just in 2018, but even all the way back to the very first police contract. Also shepherded by a current mayor that has torn down police oversight systems co-created by not just community and other stakeholders, but that involved the police association. So that's that's our request to you here today is to is not to be time bound rushed because in reality you could have had this conversation six months ago, 12 months ago, after this ballot measure initially passed. You could be having this conversation six months from now or 12 months from now. There is no rush. You've figured out ways to continue to compensate [12:08:01 PM] to continue to compensate officers in periods when there hasn't been a deal. Obviously, we would like to see a deal done, and like this is not a thing that you have to do today, tomorrow or Thursday. And so again, there's a path forward and we look forward to being up here again like we were in 2018, supporting a comprehensive deal that ensures that our ongoing needs can be met, that we can address the crises that face our city, including housing and the increasing weather disasters that we can actually pay our other city workers who are not the best paid in the state, like the police department as much, or more in raises over time, and that we can meet the growing needs of this city and we can finally, finally create a sustainable system of oversight that now not only has your backing, but has the backing of 80% of this city's residents or this city's voters. With that, I yield my time. Thank you so much. >> All speakers for items 47 and 48 have been called at this time. >> Thank you very much, members. [12:09:01 PM] >> Thank you very much, members. That concludes the public comment on items 47 and 48. I'll recognize members of the council if anybody wants to ask questions of staff at this point in time, I they can do their presentation first and I that's why I ask whether or not they had a presentation. I'm unclear about what the status of that is. So thank you. >> So yes. So Kerri Lang budget officer for financial services department, we've received several questions over the last couple of days. And so we did present good. We did prepare a presentation in in preparation in advance for those questions and understanding that council had some questions for us today hoping to misunderstood your silence before. >> So why don't you go ahead and do that presentation? >> Yes. Thank you. So, so in preparation for today, we want [12:10:07 PM] preparation for today, we want to really start by talking and reiterating that when we when we got through our proposed budget, our approved budget for fiscal year 25, we went through the approved budget and we had a balanced fiscal year 25, a balanced fiscal year 26 with the updates from our certified tax roll changes in in that additional funding from the certified tax roll that updated our financial forecast and resulted in a balanced financial forecast through fiscal year 29 with a $1 million deficit beginning in fiscal year 28 and $1 million deficit in fiscal year 29. This is the updated financial forecast as of the approved budget. And what I want to reiterate, as is as we go through our forecasting, each each year, we start with a [12:11:08 PM] each year, we start with a financial forecast in April. That financial forecast is very high level based on the information that we have at that time. We begin in April with information with about four months of data, sales tax data estimates from our appraisal districts. And then we begin with that, that high level forecast, we give an updated forecast at the proposed budget and then another updated forecast dialed in based on our approved budget. This is what you see in front of you is based on the approved budget. At each iteration of our forecast, we do include assumptions. We include our assumptions with our base rate increases, our base level increases for things that we discussed throughout our our budgeting, such as base rates increases and health increases. Our wage increases, we include [12:12:09 PM] Our wage increases, we include assumptions for the contracts at every level of every iteration of our of our forecast. And so when we talk about this contract, we already included assumptions for the contract at every iteration of the forecast. It was part of the conversations that we were having when we talked about the forecast at proposals. And also when you're seeing the forecast at the approved right here, we move forward to the forecast with the contract as of the tentative agreement. And you see the increase in the cost of the, which includes the tentative agreement, you see that as of fiscal year 26, you see the $2 million deficit in the memo that I sent out on last week, it talks about the $14 million difference between the approved budget and the cost of the contract. And so you see that 2 [12:13:11 PM] contract. And so you see that 2 million starting in fiscal year 26, there's an additional 2,000,000 in 27, 6 million. And 28 and 6,000,000 in 29 for the full 14 million. And that is the full cost of the contract above what we projected or included in the in the budget or in the forecast period. And then there were some questions that we received over the last several %-days of when we think about looking at the police budget with the contract, the police budget increases to 36% of the general fund. This slide here asks is answering the question of what would it look like to increase the general fund so that the police budget stays at 36% relative to the rest of the general fund? What would the [12:14:13 PM] general fund? What would the general fund have to increase to? This slide shows that increasing the general fund would then increase the deficit to $4 million in fiscal year 26. If we look out to the forecast period by fiscal year 29, that deficit increases to 33 million. And so we're increasing the general fund as a whole proportionately, where you see the police budget staying at 36% of the total general fund. So the rest of the departments would increase so that the police budget stays at 36%, with the contract included in the police budget. Yes. >> Councilmember Fuentes, thank you. >> Because I think this is I appreciate that you included this slide because I think the commentary that we just heard from our community talking about how if we approve this tentative agreement, the impact that that would have on the other parts of city services, because it [12:15:14 PM] city services, because it assumes no, the forecast on slide three assumes no new added ftes for homelessness, for parks maintenance, for fire paramedics. >> But with this slide for what you're giving us is a forecast that assumes growth in all the other areas of our city budget is that correct? >> My understanding that correctly, this forecast would assume that there would be growth that would yes, it assumes growth in the other areas. >> And this just shows what the deficit is. It assumes the growth and expenditures, and it shows the deficit that would be caused if we showed showed that growth in expenditures, correct. >> This is more realistic forecast. If we were to continue to make the investments needed to maintain city services at the level that they are currently, while recognizing that we're a growing city, that we anticipate the need to continue to add ftes to our budget, this forecast on slide four, would you say is a more realistic picture of the financial outlook? [12:16:15 PM] financial outlook? >> We were really just trying to answer the question of how could we maintain the growth of the general fund as a whole to keep the police budget at the same percentage of 36%? We didn't look at where the funds would go across the general fund. So that would be a conversation where we would dial in to see exactly where the funding would go. We would just this is just showing how the general fund would have to grow holistically to remain so that that police's budget will remain proportionate to where it is today. With the tentative agreement. >> Thank you. And I appreciate that. And I think, you know, that we as a council and I understand the history of trying to reduce the proportion of the overall police spending as part of our general fund. And I remain committed to ensuring that we maintain that level of proportion. >> So thank you. >> Can I just make one [12:17:16 PM] >> Can I just make one observation? >> Councilmember alter chart. >> So even though that has some growth, if you just compare like the 4 million for next year versus the slide three that has 2 million, you're only getting $2 million of growth in other things next year. >> I mean, so you're not getting like that slight underestimates how much growth you might want if you wanted other things to grow. >> And this slide speaks to the property tax increases relative to the previous slide. That would be needed in order to fund that increased growth in expenditures over the forecast period to fund that increased growth and the increased growth in expenditures. So when you [12:18:16 PM] in expenditures. So when you look at the tax rate increases. So you're looking at the potential trees that that would be needed is 4%, 5%, 5% and 4% to cover the cost of that up to 33 million by fiscal year 29. Now, there are multiple ways that you could fund that. This is just one scenario that we want to show you at. How could you fund this if we needed to fund that increased cost based on keeping police at 30, at 36% over the life of the forecast period? And then there were some questions about the sales tax revenue and this slide here looks at our sales tax trends over the last 20 years for the city. And so when you look at the sales tax of the ten years [12:19:17 PM] the sales tax of the ten years prior to covid, it was averaged at 5.9% of the of annual growth. And then the ten years projections for future projections is 5.9%. Now in our memo last week, we spoke to our ten year compound average through fiscal year 23. That was actually at 7.3%. And then there was a question about the collections, excluding the 2019 through 2022 distortion. That is 5.7%. If we exclude that distortion period of covid and then and what we're projecting out for the out years beginning in fiscal year 26 is 4% okay. Looking at our sales tax update for the remainder of fiscal year 24 through 11 payments for [12:20:19 PM] 24 through 11 payments for fiscal year 24, we're at 1.7% growth, 2 million below our fiscal oh, excuse me, 0.2 million below 200,000 below our fiscal year year end estimate. We are 1.8% growth, showing 1.8% growth year to date. We are showing a 0.5% for October of 2024. So this month we are currently showing a 0.5% growth. We really expect to be about, I think, 200,000. When we look at our our year end. So we are right at what we anticipated for year end closing, the year we have another payment to come in. So we're looking at ending the year right around what we anticipated for year end. And then we're anticipating three and a half is what we budgeted for fiscal year 25. And then we received a question about how [12:21:24 PM] received a question about how much did we fund in one time for contracts for fiscal year 25. And this is just looking at how much do we have contracted. We went back and looked at our contracts and our one time for in our budget stabilization reserve fund or many of our one time contracted funds. This slide just shows a list of the types of contracts that we have. It ranges from rapid rehousing to reproductive health, logistical support, our collective collective sex crimes response model, as well as our food insurance premium subsidies. And so there are several programs that we have that we funded at one time in fiscal year 25 for you all to be reminded of and identify things that we funded in the approved budget this fiscal year. And then finally, there were some [12:22:26 PM] then finally, there were some questions about our arpa funding. We received $188.5 million in total appropriation in arpa. Many of those programs were one time programs, or there were some capital programs that were funded through arpa. These are the funds that we have identified with departments that we anticipate having some ongoing needs. But we all know that arpa will be ending by the end of 2026. And so when we talk to the departments, our homeless strategy office have has about $15.4 million of what we anticipate is annualized ongoing costs around rapid rehousing and emergency shelters that includes rapid rehousing around hill the hill initiative, as well as emergency shelters for the marshaling yard and camp Esperanza, and the other ones. [12:23:27 PM] Esperanza, and the other ones. Foundation Austin public health has about $3 million of expected ongoing cost in their it support, and then expanded services. They have general funds funding in in in these programs, but these are expanded services that they expanded during covid with the health equity line. Their communications programs, as well as their sti mobile outreach and community mobile immunization and then economic development department has their community navigation services, as well as their expanded workforce development, which includes rework now a triple C skilled trades and nursing program, as well as their childcare programs related to their workforce, childcare support. >> Mayor pro tem. >> And this is just for those numbers are just for this fiscal year. [12:24:30 PM] year. >> Is that right? Those are the annualized costs. So that's what they would need annually to continue these programs. Once arpa has completely ended some of these programs, they are ramping down for example, Austin public health is ramping down these programs at the end of this year. And some of these programs are ramped down through the end of 25. And so they're ramping down at different moments. >> And this represents continued funding of an array of programs that we have put into social service contracts and homelessness. Over the last I mean, just even four years since the pandemic, right. And we have a total estimate total of how much that has been over that time. >> I'll have to give you the total. I don't have it. I don't have it with me. >> That'd be great. Thanks. >> Councilmember Fuentes, thank you. >> And I really appreciate that. >> Staff is now, you know, out [12:25:30 PM] >> Staff is now, you know, out of the 188 million that we have injected into our community using our federal relief dollars of that staff is recommending about 31 million of ongoing need of those programs and services as it continued need for the homelessness one for 15.4 million. >> It says emergency shelters. Does that include the continuing operation of the marshaling yard and or the relocation of it? >> Yes. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Can I go on to my other. Sure, sure. Great. Thank you. So I guess I wanted to if we can take it back to the sales tax projections. >> So I really appreciate that you walked us through the average rate before covid at a 5.9%. You you're forecasting a 4% because I know some of you know, on first glance, the 4% sales tax growth seemed optimistic. [12:26:30 PM] optimistic. >> And but in your in your recommendation, a 4% is on par based on our historical trends. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And colleagues, I really appreciate that. >> We're deliberating this. >> As you know, we're considering a contract that is rooted in transparency. >> And as part of that, I think it's important that we have these public conversations. >> Staff has been super responsive in sending us memos, you know, throughout the course of the deliberations. And we've been reading those memos as they come in. But this is for a lot of our community. >> This is the first time they're hearing about it. And this is our opportunity to share out the information we are receiving with the. There was one portion of the contract that I want to dig into regarding overtime, but I will hold that until we or I guess I can go now or okay, the overtime part of the contract you have at a 20 million over the five years of the agreement. Can you talk us through the rationale on maintaining it at 20 million for each of the five years we know we ended last year with about a [12:27:32 PM] we ended last year with about a $50 million expenditure on overtime. Can you provide some context as to the 20 million projection? >> So we left vacancy savings and overtime static on the projected on the memo because we had not done the analysis on the out years on how the police department would be hiring in those out years. We don't know their staffing plan when they're academies will be hiring, how fast they will be able to hire to project out how that overtime and the vacancies will be, how the vacancies will be filled to impact both the overtime and the vacancy rate. So as their vacancies are filled, the vacancy rates will go down, which means the overtime costs will go down. And so without knowing that that information, [12:28:36 PM] knowing that that information, without doing that full analysis, we just left those numbers flat. And we put an asterisk at the bottom. A note at the bottom and say these, these numbers will fluctuate as staffing levels change because we know that as the department makes those changes, they will that will play with all those levers. All those variables will change over time. And you'll see those differences in those three numbers, whether it is the staffing numbers, the overtime numbers and the vacancy savings, you'll see those variables change in the actual budgets. But we just left those variables, those variables the same in the assumptions and made the notations at the bottom. >> Okay. >> I guess I would have hoped for. >> I mean, a little bit of modeling there, just knowing that there's a certain amount of cadet cadets that were graduating with each academy. We know the amount of academies we do per year. We kind of have an average of our retirement attrition rate. But I think you know, you sharing that context is helpful. And then last but [12:29:37 PM] is helpful. And then last but not least, on my end for the financial questions, colleagues, I just wanted to highlight, you know, staff has recommended or suggested at the very least that there's $31 million of ongoing need for us to continue in our services around homelessness and mental health and other social services. We know that just last year, we funded a number of programs at a one time allocation of 11 million. There's clearly a need for us to continue to maintain these investments. I know at our last work session, we talked about how this contract would not necessarily put us into a tax rate election, just on on its own. But I do want to surface that. That is the reality that we're heading into. And I'm prepared and continue to and continue will support us making the necessary investments and know that our community and believe that our community would support us in making the necessary investments so that we can continue to move forward on the progress that we're seeing [12:30:38 PM] the progress that we're seeing with these initiatives. So also, just wanted to surface the tax rate election is likely on the horizon for recognize just to highlight. >> And you have highlighted that well councilmember. But but we have talked about a number of times and I appreciate you bringing it up again, the cap and the arpa funding have created an unusual set of circumstances with regard to budgeting, and that we're coming out of the cap has created, in some instances, an austerity program that doesn't necessarily need to exist, nor has it existed when you had arpa money playing the role that it's played. As as this council has said, more than once, we are going to have to look at the horizon and what it would mean to do something beyond that, that that cap to address the multiple needs. It's too often said, and maybe way too often [12:31:41 PM] said, and maybe way too often said, and certainly today it was said many times that we seem to be in a zero sum game. We don't have to be in a zero sum game and so I just want to highlight what you just said, council member, because I think we do need to pay attention to where that leads us. Council member Vella, followed by councilmember Ryan and then council member harper-madison. >> Thank you very much. I could we get the G file language up on the screen? >> I can't remember which page it was, but the that provision related to the G five. >> Some questions on that this morning. >> They got it. And I keep coming back to this because it's such a critical part of the contract. If we it's kind of a red line where we know we've got to get the transparency and accountability that Austin voters have demanded. If we're not getting that, I think we're done here. But if we are getting [12:32:41 PM] done here. But if we are getting that, then I think we go into the more kind of the budgetary analysis and those kinds of things like that. So I just want to let me flip over to on the first hold on, just a second. I'm sorry. And I just want to go through the language again right quick. And make sure that we are okay on that. And again, this is where we are describing what the rules are going to be around ag5 accessibility and again it's kind of separated into two parts. And again please jump in if I'm misstating anything. But for prior for records that are not part of this contract, that first sentence of section four, a says that for complaints of alleged misconduct, which occurred prior to the effective date of this agreement, the department shall follow Texas [12:33:42 PM] department shall follow Texas local government code section 143 .089. And could you explain, miss Stephens, just a bit about what that 143 .089 covers? >> Yes, absolutely. Roxanna Stephens, a deputy labor relations officer for the city of Austin. So when we're looking at the contract and we're negotiating the contract, the contract only touches a certain time frame. In this instance, it's five years. We call that the contract time frame. In negotiating this contract and ensuring compliance with the Austin police oversight act for the so that G files or anything that would be in a G file is public. We looked at to what we had to deviate from 143 in respect to the G file in order to accomplish that and be in compliance with prop eight. So when we look at 189 as a whole, that's not only the G file that [12:34:43 PM] that's not only the G file that includes the a file, which is the personnel file, and it also includes a section B that states what cannot be in the a file. So we wanted to make sure that we addressed each of those items in 089. Within the contract. We also wanted to make clear that before the that those provisions relating to what the contract is going to address started with the effective date of the contract, and anything before that would be subject to that entire section 089 of the Texas local government code. And whatever a court tells us that means, and that was made very clear on the record by the city of Austin and also by the Austin police association. >> Okay. >> And that structure that you're talking about is actually the second sentence where we're looking at the effective upon execution of this agreement, the city shall not maintain a confidential police department personnel file under G. And that instead, what we're going to do is place the G file records in [12:35:45 PM] is place the G file records in the a file, which is the a file is the presumptively public portion of the of the law essentially is that is that correct? >> That is absolutely correct. >> For those five years, regardless of what a court says, regardless of whether the legislature makes a change in the law per contract, those G file records will be public. Yes. >> That's the provision that was agreed to within the contract for the contract time frame. >> Okay. Got it. Now with regard to prior to that, we're just please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but we're just defaulting and we're saying apply state law for any records that existed prior to the agreement. Right. And currently state law. Again, it says that a city may create a G file and make those records confidential. [12:36:47 PM] make those records confidential. The city of Austin via the Austin police oversight act, that was passed in 2023, has chosen to not maintain a G file anymore. So again, the reference to state law includes the decision by the city. It has to include the decision by the city because the state law is discretionary. You know, so you couldn't just look to 143 .089, you'd have to actually look at also what the city's internal decision was. And we've made that decision. And that has been confirmed by the, the district court decision that we recently had. >> Yes, the ruling stated that there shall no longer be G files. The city attorney has issued an opinion that they're going to follow the ruling. And so it the understanding for this provision is that whatever the court has told us, that law is, will be followed outside of that contract. >> Got it. And so we our interpretation, being the city attorney and the counsel's view [12:37:48 PM] attorney and the counsel's view at this point is that within the term of the contract, per the contract, no G file outside of the term of the contract were defaulting to state law, which also says that the city does not maintain a G files right now, I know that Mr. Bullock from the Austin police association came up here and mayor, you asked him questions to clarify that this is their understanding of the G file. And Mr. Bullock did confirm that they agree with that interpretation of the G file. And could we pull up the transcript for the discussion? And I appreciate very much that you sending me this because I think this is really helpful. And in the transcript, let me get my glasses. >> There's if you can read that. [12:38:48 PM] >> There's if you can read that. There it is. >> And so here where and again this is just a transcript from the negotiations at the bargaining table where the labor relations officer, miss griffin, is saying that we looked at it and we absolutely believe that during the term of this contract, it 100% complies with prop a. And this is what she says, that this provision does. It removes the G file during that entire time frame. It does not take anything away from anything created prior to or after the contract. We are not dealing with the time frame prior to or after the contract. The law is what it is and the courts will tell us what the law is. We are only dealing with the time frame of the contract. That is what our prior temporary agreement agreed to, to remove the G file during that time frame and that is the position that we are going back to. And with that in mind, we are withdrawing our language. So that is our position. And then essentially she asked the Austin police association attorney, you [12:39:49 PM] police association attorney, you know, what they think of that. And they come back and they they say again, Tyler Latham from the Apa says, all right. Yeah, we are good with that. Thanks. And the reason that I highlight that is just I you know, there's there were some concerns about well we don't have a meeting of the minds. We don't have clarity around the G file. But I think the language of the contract is relatively clear. The police association president came up and said that he agrees with the city attorney's interpretation of the contract. And now we have also the transcript from the labor negotiations, where they are at the table agreeing to the same interpretation that the city attorney has again echoing what Michael bullock mentioned. So I just wanted to highlight that because I know there's been a lot of concern about the G file. I know that there were problems last time with the apo, and again, once bitten twice shy. And I think we should be [12:40:50 PM] shy. And I think we should be very, very careful about the language that we agree to and make absolutely certain that the G file is public. But I appreciate the work that that you all have put into it. The city attorney as well. But I'm comfortable with this language that it does lock in transparency and accountability. I'm putting aside the other provisions that I don't think anybody has any concerns with, with regard to the statute of limitations for police misconduct and a couple of other things. But ultimately, I'm I'm comfortable with this language. And then finally, the city attorney. I just wanted to ask, I know that we have had multiple requests for G file information for a police officers and my understanding, just from conversations that I've had with various people is that we are now releasing. We are now responding to those requests and releasing previously confidential G file information. Is that is that correct? >> Yes. Council member that is correct. >> I really appreciate that. I think that's a huge step forward. The reference I know [12:41:52 PM] forward. The reference I know someone some of the speakers earlier were referencing some of the disciplinary findings of the office of police oversight that have also been publicly released. And again, I know that's very troubling. You know, when we hear those descriptions of police abuse, of misconduct, those kinds of things like that. But I am so glad that that documentation is out in public now because if we don't have that level of transparency, we're not going to be ultimately able to hold our police officers and our police department accountable. And I just I really appreciate that that we have taken these steps. It's a major, major win. I do not want to underestimate how important of a win it is to actually have these records out in public. Finally, and I don't want to discount how important it would be to lock in these gains for transparency and accountability as a part of the contract. Thank you, mayor. [12:42:54 PM] contract. Thank you, mayor. >> Thank you. Council member, council member Ryan followed by council member harper-madison. >> Thank you very much. >> I want to pick up on the conversation that councilmember Fuentes and the mayor had a little bit earlier. >> When we look at the projection, whether it's the whole pie growing at the same rate as the police department or, or not, you know, we are under the restraints that we're under because of an artificial limitation put upon us by the state. I think that just has become so clear in the past five years that we've been under this, this limit in that inflation has outstripped that by itself. So let alone the fact that the city has been growing, let alone the fact that we have to meet increased service demand, pay our workers more, just keeping up with inflation. We're already at an imbalance in [12:43:55 PM] We're already at an imbalance in our budget. And so to have the conversation that it has to be this or that, you know, that is that is the artificial limitation we've been put under. And we don't have to play just within those parameters. We have the tools to provide the level of service that our community needs should we decide to put that to them, to decide themselves at a tax rate election, looking at the arpa slide, I want to look specifically at the homeless strategy office item or figure. I went back and I looked at the presentation that the public health committee got on rapid rehousing a few months ago. And in that presentation, we saw that the city had $42 million allocated from arpa funds for [12:44:59 PM] allocated from arpa funds for rapid rehousing, that $42 million was spent over a two year period last year and this year. So at an annualized rate of about $2,021 million, what is in this number? The 15.4 is only 4 million. Of that 20 million. So if we want to continue any level within that, it's going to potentially be a higher number than even the 15 million that we're seeing there. So I just when we talk about what, you know, what is the reality? I think the reality is it's unclear what exactly that number is, but the reality is it's going to be a large number that we are going to have to make decisions about of how we address where those services fit into the priorities of this city. And ultimately what the voters would like to see provided to them from a service delivery perspective. I do also want to highlight here. Sorry, I [12:46:03 PM] want to highlight here. Sorry, I have a couple tabs open on the sworn vacancy savings question versus overtime. Overtime costs are a multiple of salary, right. If we're paying overtime it's just 50% greater than the current salary cost. Is that correct? Okay. And so fair to assume that as we are paying officers more over the next five years, that multiplier for overtime is going to be a larger number, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Now working against that, as you also talked about, you guys kept the vacancy savings number flat. If we have a position that is open today, but start paying that position more, the vacancy savings element of that will also grow because the underlying position is now getting a 28% raise over [12:47:06 PM] is now getting a 28% raise over the five years. Correct. So there will be some balance between the two of them. But looking historically last year, 47 million, the year before that, I think it was 30 something million. It is likely that 20 million overtime alone is probably not going to be sufficient. But how the vacancy savings matches with that kind of a we'll see. And that's why colleagues I asked for in the resolution that we're going to be considering on Thursday for us to get quarterly reports, not only of just kind of what the department's expenditures are as it relates to their approved budget, but specifically around overtime. So we can really keep a close eye to understand how spending is actually going so that as we get to a budget process, there's no surprise where, you know, shoot, we're 10 million or 15 million over that [12:48:07 PM] million or 15 million over that we didn't know about. We have the ability to act, to be proactive. And so I think that is really important. I also completely shift gears here. Have a question for the city attorney as it relates to the investigations element. I'm a little out of my depth of knowledge on this one. So I was hoping you could help illuminate a an officer's Loudermill hearing, which is when my understanding is before disciplinary action is taken. Not just a police officer, but public employees have the right to basically have a hearing and present their side. Is that a that's correct. Okay. And that essentially is you have an investigative process that has completed. We then get to that hearing and then there's a decision about whatever the outcome is of that case, whether it's firing or reprimand or [12:49:10 PM] it's firing or reprimand or otherwise that. Correct. Okay. So I'm trying to understand the interplay of that with, you know, we heard here from representatives from equity action and they have a concern about that being excluded from the investigation. And so my take of the situation, what I'm trying to get clarification is that the investigation happens separate. And so that's why we say that when the officer shows up to that hearing, what they say is not part of the investigation because the investigation has already happened. Is that correct? Okay. And so is that the reason why it's left? Why the language in in article 16, section six a says questions posed at the Dr. Is the department review hearing, do not constitute an investigation as defined in section two H is that's correct. Okay. [12:50:11 PM] Okay. >> Now the office the office of police oversight can still ask questions. It's just not part of the investigation. >> Okay. And then the and under the opoa, the office of police oversight still has the authority to make a recommendation as to what they think the outcome should be. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Very good. Let me just double check my ten tabs that are open here. I think this last and not least, as we look forward, you know, we had so many things that have been offered by colleagues here about how we make our community safer, that are separate from this. And this is just a piece, whether it's community violence interrupters that I know councilmember Velasquez has been a great champion of addressing social determinants of crime and homelessness. That that [12:51:13 PM] homelessness. That that councilmember Fuentes and others and I know councilmember alter has done so much work as it relates to the academy and the work we still need to do there to make sure that the officers we do bring in are going to be providing the type of service and safety that our community needs. And so this is just a piece, and I think that sometimes gets lost in the broader conversation. We have to address this piece as part of the broader work. And so I look forward to continuing that holistic conversation beyond the contract. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember harper-madison, followed by councilmember Allison alter. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to say that I think most of my questions have been addressed, and it just brings me back to so councilmember Vella touched on some of my questions. Councilmember alter did also. But to bring it back to councilmember Fuentes line of questioning and miss Lang, your answer about, you know, remaining flat, I wanted to ask, is there any way in terms of [12:52:14 PM] is there any way in terms of analysis to determine what the rate of completion is for the academy? >> Because that's one of the things that I found, you know, there's no way to determine how many cadets complete academy and so I just wonder if there's any way for us to get some sort of projection, some sort of sort of, sort of general percentage of, of candidates that actually complete academy, because that has a lot to do with vacancy considerations. >> I think that's a question that's been asked of the department. So we'll check in with the department and see if we can get a response. I'd appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Allison alter thank you. >> I want to just throw out some thoughts on the budget part of this. >> This is going to be something that those of you who will be on the dais next year for budget are going to have to deal with. And I think there's some confusion in the public. And so I want to try and go through a [12:53:15 PM] I want to try and go through a couple different things to address some of that confusion. But at the same time really want to emphasize that budgeting is an art as much as it is a science. And we have to make assumptions so that we can forecast. And those assumptions sometimes are right, sometimes they're wrong. We've been really, really fortunate in Austin that we are often above our assumptions in terms of revenue, etc. We are at a particular point in time where we may be seeing some changes to that. And we need we need to be cautious. So, you know, we've had a discussion in the public about, you know, how did our forecasts change. And I appreciate the work that our staff did to present that in a memo that is available online. If you want to see it. And we had a forecast in April. We had the proposed budget that had a five year forecast, and we have sort of the approved budget. And then we also have what is the approved budget? Look like with the contract and there's a [12:54:15 PM] the contract and there's a couple of things that changed, some of which we've paid attention to and some of which we haven't, that I, that I do want to surface. So one of the things is that there was in the forecast, always a bucket of money. That was, I think, in management services that was set aside for paying what we thought we would be paying in the contract, assuming that we all wanted to get to a deal, would have been imprudent if we just suddenly got to the end of budget and we hadn't budgeted for it. So from the get go in April and all the way through this process, until you actually can see what it was tpid we had a pot of money. That's why you have number 48. We have to move that money from one part of the budget to another. And so when you look at some of the charts, what we see is that we pretty much anticipated where we would be for this year. We're higher over time for where we landed with the contract. And, Carrie, [12:55:19 PM] with the contract. And, Carrie, if I get any of this wrong at some point, please correct me so you know it didn't bust the budget this year because we had planned for it. It was just somewhere else, and we chose not to raid that money, to spend it on other things so that we could keep our commitment to our officers, that we were going to be bargaining in good faith. Then you have things that happen with budgets all the time, where you have assumptions that change. You make assessments of what your property taxes come in. So we had gotten an estimate of what our property taxes would be in April. They had the estimate that they had for the proposed budget. And then there was a shift when they got the actual numbers. And because of a quirk of the 3.5% cap, we ended up with more money in taxes, even though we had less property value on our rolls, which still boggles the mind, but is how we got there. So we had more money when we went into the budget [12:56:19 PM] when we went into the budget from the property taxes than we had originally anticipated. So that closed some of that gap in April. Our city manager at the time made an assumption about the transfer from Austin energy, and this is when we haven't talked very much. And I don't know if any of us noticed it in April. There was an assumption in April that we were going to cap that transfer, about 2% growth basis. That was shifted over time to be our actual policy, which is 11.6% there. And so that was an $18 million change. We then had sales tax. And sales tax has been very volatile for us. And we it's always somewhat volatile because we have the spring festivals and we have acl. And so we have some months when we have huge amounts of growth, etc. And so we've been lower in our sales tax growth than we have in previous periods. We had a concern that we would be below where we were with budget, and we landed where we re-estimated it, which was [12:57:22 PM] we re-estimated it, which was about 2%. Then we make assumptions moving forward about what that sales tax would be. And those assumptions are higher than maybe I'm comfortable with or whatever, but they are historically reasonable guesses. But that's all that they are. But each of those percentages difference is only about $3 million, which in a $5.9 billion budget is not that much money. So and we make assumptions on health care. I bring all of this up because if you actually interrogate the different charts, you can understand how we got there. And some of this is just the art of budgeting, and you have to make assumptions. You get different information at different times in the process. So just because things change doesn't make it nefarious. Now on the other side of that, because two things can be true at once, is that the budget forecast never assumed growth in some of the things that we want to see us spending money on, it never assumed that [12:58:22 PM] money on, it never assumed that we were adding firefighters to address the need to address overtime and mental health for fire. It never set out that we were going to make permanent ftes for the ems that we all clearly in budget, wanted. It never put in more money for libraries. It didn't add to, you know, we set out that we wanted to address parks maintenance. It didn't set out to add more people. It just said we were going to retain it. And it's working off a tail end of a bond that when those things come on, that we will fund those, but we're about to do another bond and none of those things are funded in terms of ongoing either. And then today we were presented with the numbers that we all knew were there with respect to arpa, which is $31 million. Just if we wanted to do ongoing and there's some really, really good things in there, whether it's homelessness services or child care or workforce. Austin civilian conservation corps public health, a lot of really good things in there, as well as the one time funding that we did [12:59:22 PM] one time funding that we did with the with the contract. And so both things can be true. On one hand, the budget forecast process is this art, not a science. And you know, it can be balanced, but then it's also true that it didn't ever give us any more investments in those things. And I think that's what we have to sort of decide is, you know, what do we want to assume about our ability now? Now it's been mentioned, this is not a zero sum game. And we want to we want to lay blame on the 3.5%. I'm not a big fan of the 3.5%, but I do think we have to say that, you know, it's only not a zero sum game. If we tax somebody more money. And I don't know about you, but I'm really hearing from folks that they can't handle too many more taxes. And we have propositions which I hope will pass right now that are going to add taxes to folks for worthy things in our community. And we can't just keep adding the taxes and so we can hope that our sales tax goes up. We can hope that our [1:00:24 PM] up. We can hope that our property tax goes up, but we also can cut something and we can have a budget process that gets us to be able to fund these other things. If we cut something, we can, you know, we may need to do some of that stuff. So if we want to fix the overtime expenditures and fire, we may have to spend some money to do that. So we do have tools, but it's not just going and taxing people that's going to going to fix it because they have budgets too. And we have to be be careful that that we can't just go to this cash machine and say that we're we're going to we're going to we're going to do that. So I appreciate that opportunity. I think this this to explain this at least out loud for myself or for others, I'm just hearing a lot of confusion. And I wanted to make sure that people understood that, that we were taking seriously the questions and the concerns. But both of those things can be true, and I think that's part of the decision making that we have to make on [1:01:25 PM] making that we have to make on the sort of financial side. And I've heard some colleagues say, well, yeah, we got the G file and it's great that we got the G file and now it's released. Well, guess what? Only some of it gets released. It only gets released if there's not a criminal activity. So some of the cases we most want to get, we're not going to get released. So we're going to have spent all of this money and in some of the most important cases, we're not going to get the transparency. Other cases we are. But it's not this panacea for oversight. You know, I remain that there's a lot of good things in here. And I'm still figuring out and listening to folks. But I do think we have to be clear about what the choices are there that we have. I did want to just understand this is going to switch gears to the legal part. And I don't know if this is Deborah or the negotiating team, [1:02:25 PM] Deborah or the negotiating team, but I'm trying to understand there's a there's a part of what the community is asking about with respect to grieving cases. So when we did the contract in 2018, we had the investigations with apo and they were able to grieve that provision. And so then we lost our ability for apo to have teeth. And I believe that they are arguing that there is a similar poison pill in here. But I'm not really understanding what the argument is and where I think we have clarity on the G file piece, although even with the G file, if it's pre or post, it's up to state law, and state law can change. So where is this? Where is the issue that the community is coming and telling us? Is there Roxanna Stephens, deputy labor relations officer when we negotiated this contract, one of the first things we did was [1:03:29 PM] the first things we did was review thoroughly review the opoa, look at each provision and one of them was specifically was the grievances and we looked at that and we negotiated this specific part because the contract was not a solution for the entire opoa Wright opoa on most of it stands on its own. >> And pursuant to the statute, the only things that we needed to address were the things that needed a deviation from 143 that were subject to the authority of being bargained in the contract. So what we did with this language is the things that we agreed to that complied were in full compliance with opoa. We inserted into the contract. That's a provision that is consistent with what we agreed to within the contract. If we exercise that provision such as releasing the G file under the contract, doing issuing the chief, issuing discipline within the 365 days items like that, [1:04:30 PM] the 365 days items like that, the language and the grievance provision prevents prevents any kind of grievance on those that are those actions that are consistent with opoa as it stands today as 215 and with with the provisions in the contract. They can't we can't agree to it. And then they later on they agree. They disagree and file a grievance. They have said we have negotiated and written the language to say if it's consistent with what we agreed to. It's not agreeable. I am unsure there may be confusion about what can be agreeable. The only thing that can be agreeable is a provision in the actual contract, something that is included in here. The portions of the opoa that are not in the contract are not subject to this grievance procedure. That, subject to an entirely other process to challenge, whether it be through litigation or any [1:05:31 PM] be through litigation or any whatever is available for that. But the grievance procedure only only applies to the words in this document and only specific words in this document. And then it's further limited by saying, if we are in compliance with what we agreed to, especially with the items that are in compliance with the Austin police oversight act, that cannot be grievable. So I believe that a lot of the issue is based on confusion as to what that grievance process is for, what it applies to. And we have negotiated this very carefully and discussed this on the record in order to all be of accord, that the items that we included in this contract to obtain the city attorney certification, that it's in compliance and to ensure compliance with prop eight, cannot be grieved as we agreed to them. >> Thank you. I appreciate that clarification on that. >> Thank you members. >> That's all I have of people [1:06:35 PM] >> That's all I have of people that want to members of the council that want to ask any questions or make any statements. Thank you all very much for the presentation. Thanks to the public for its comments. Members. Unless there's an objection, what I would suggest we do is we recess until 130 and we come back and we take up at that point item 42, and that will be immediately followed by a briefing on item b1. But without objection, we will be in recess until 1:30 P.M. It is 1:07 P.M. And so good afternoon, [1:31:42 PM] And so good afternoon, everybody. I'll call back to order the Austin city council for this city council work session. It's October 22nd, 2024, and it's 1:32 P.M. We have a quorum of the council present. We're meeting in the city council chambers at 301 west second street. We will now take up item number 42. I think what we'll do is I'll first ask the city clerk to let us know if we have. We, as I understand, we have someone signed up to speak. We'll get that public comment and then we will. I'll ask council members to please let me know if you would like to be part of a discussion. >> We have one speaker, Ricardo Guerrero. >> Ricardo Guerrero. Ricardo Guerrero. Ricardo Guerrero, all right. Let me recognize any members of the council that would like to speak on item number 42. Yes. Council member Ellis I did. [1:32:43 PM] Ellis I did. >> I had a brief introduction and some questions. I did see director Mendoza was here earlier. Thanks for recognizing me, mayor. Council members qadri vela, Ryan alter and I had talked about item number 42, so I wanted to pull it. It's actually a good news pull. So I wanted to make sure that was clear. This is authorizing the acceptance of a 4.9, $47.9 million EPA grant for the climate pollution reduction grant. This program is part of the federal inflation reduction act and an investment unprecedented $5 billion in fighting climate change and air pollution across the country over the next five years. So it's a rare and exciting opportunity for us to move the needle on our climate goals. I know that I and some of the other, all the other delegates for campo have had conversations a lot over the past year or two about emissions reduction planning and what are the federal grants coming down, and how are the different agencies involved in these conversations together? So given the size of this one, almost $50 million, I [1:33:44 PM] this one, almost $50 million, I wanted to share a little more detail about it. Director Mendoza had put together a memo. I'm not sure if you have that available. I know that it's in backup, but wanted to address some of the questions that we had sent along briefly. >> Council member thank you. Mayor and council. Richard Mendoza, director for transportation and public works and our department is really excited about this grant award from the EPA. The purpose of the grant is to develop and implement ambitious plans for reducing greenhouse gases emissions and other harmful air pollution. And the really nice thing about this program is we understand to be impactful as a region, we cannot do this alone. So we need regional partners. There's a big component of working across multiple agencies to affect this pollution reduction for our region, that this $48 million is going to really provide that shot in the [1:34:45 PM] really provide that shot in the arm to move our strategies forward quicker. And so to speak, to your questions, council member, the first of which is provide a breakdown and how of how and when these dollars will be spent on each strategy and the timeline. And so there's three primary strategies that we are going to implement with this money over a five year timeline to effect this pollution reductions. The first of which is service improvements. So these service improvements are going to involve $17.5 million. And this is enhanced service from our transit area agencies. Those partners include capmetro service carts service as well as private shuttle services. The third the second strategy is invest in mobility infrastructure. This is a [1:35:45 PM] infrastructure. This is a program for $7,140,000. And what this will entail is the creation and establishment of mobility hubs around strategic places throughout our community. So these mobility hubs are centralized locations that provide a mobility mix of alternatives to include transit, to include bicycle shared bikes, micro mobility, shared ridership like Uber. And so we're really excited about that strategy. The third major strategy is probably the most important one. Oh, I'm sorry, the key implementers for that second strategy are the city of Austin, cap metro and our cap cog, our council of area governments. The third strategy again is behavioral change. So we have to affect a change in how people feel about getting around differently rather than [1:36:45 PM] around differently rather than single occupancy vehicles to affect a reduction in pollution. So we have proposed and provided a work plan to the EPA of $22.6 million with enhancing our transportation demand management platforms in marketing, education and providing direct incentives for our populace to choose alternative modes, key implementers for this strategy are the city of Austin, our partners at movability, as well as txdot, and in coordination with our campo partners. And so those are the three strategies and the amounts over a five year period. You know, what outcomes and goals do we aim to accomplish with this program? Over five years? The key outcomes and goals include. First, congestion relief, providing additional options for our travelers, supporting transit use, and priming the [1:37:45 PM] transit use, and priming the region for increased adoption. Adoption of the additional transportation options that will come online over the next decade, including light rail, bus rapid transit, HOV lanes, and new active transportation routes. You know, the award of this money could not come more timely. We all understand that in the next ten years, we're going to have quite a bit of construction in our mobility infrastructure through project connect and I-35. And so to mitigate those effects, this grant will greatly enhance our ability to provide these alternatives for our public to help lessen the impacts of that impending construction number four, how will council be kept involved throughout the implementation? Well, we will be keeping council informed throughout this cppcg process, and we'll be bringing forward several items as we work through the details of the work plans [1:38:45 PM] the details of the work plans with our partner agencies. This. These will require intergovernmental Islas agreements as well as funding agreements, so they can partner with us on rolling out these objectives. And then five, how can council support this implementation over the next five years? Council will be a key part in advocating our community to be involved in this. These pollution reduction grant programing and initiatives. So there will be changes in construction schedules, there will be impacts on neighborhoods. This grant will help improve services and incentives. And so that folks can choose alternative ways to move around our city. So that's just a broad overview. I want to thank my staff for working on this grant application. They're here to answer any additional questions you may have. >> We thank them too. Councilmember Peralez, you have the floor. >> Thank you. Mayor, I appreciate that. I was also going to express my appreciation for their work. The dpw [1:39:46 PM] for their work. The dpw department has been able to bring down millions and millions of dollars through federal grants, and it's really exciting to have the trust of the federal government that when they do apply these grants and give them to the city of Austin, that they're going to be well executed and that the end users of the products are actually going to be able to have the safer mobility improvements and cleaner air and water quality as a result of that. I do have a question, because campo already has some regional funding allocated to them for tdm. Can you talk about the conversations? How are you working with them to make sure there's no duplication of services? I know there's a handful of agencies that may take on similar topics. Are you in communication with them to make sure you know who's covering what, what services? >> That's a great question. Council member. Actually, our grant application process started with the work that campo had already laid on the ground. They were afforded a $1 million contract to develop a regional pollution reduction strategy and [1:40:50 PM] pollution reduction strategy and plan. And so the projects that our team worked on as good candidates for this grant were vetted within the framework of that campo prior work. Okay. >> So that helped launch this application from the city. That's great to know, because one of the favorite things that I had learned about through campo was that the school district has something called school pool, and it's helping parents who are driving their kids to school to eliminate some of those fewer occupant vehicles. So it's not one parent, you know, taking one child. There's ways to tag team with your neighbors and make sure we're eliminating additional pollution that might be on the road there. On one of them, txdot was listed as a key implementer for $23 million in behavior change funding. Do you do you know how they plan to incorporate that work or where we could find those resources? >> So another program that we're currently in partnership with txdot and other agencies are the construction partnership program. And part of that will be supported by these strategies [1:41:50 PM] be supported by these strategies in terms of informing the public of impacts to their daily commutes as a result of the impending construction. So txdot is putting together the software and the applications that will be able to roll out the construction partnership program and that that will dovetail directly with this behavioral change. And education, because part of that is, is, you know, making our public feel comfortable with accepting alternative modes of getting around town. >> I appreciate that, thank you. And then on measure number two, the mobility infrastructure, what extent do we have discretion over rebalancing funds? I haven't seen the exact application, so I wasn't sure how specific the details got or if some of the money could be moved around like bicycle infrastructure versus pedestrian infrastructure. I know our sidewalk program has also been [1:42:50 PM] sidewalk program has also been hugely successful, and we need to make sure that it has proper funding. Can you talk me through some of those details and how flexible some of the projects might be? >> Most certainly. So. There's a grant administrator with the EPA that we've been in almost weekly conversation with. They're requiring a 21 day turnaround for executing on the grant agreement. That's why we're here. This week. And we've also had to provide the draft or beginnings of a work plan. And so they're going to be heavily involved in not just on how we plan to roll this out, but also how do we measure the outcomes and the successes and the desired levels of pollution reduction. So while I anticipate if we want to make some adjustments and to across these three strategies, they would be open to that. But for right now, in terms of planning processes, they need to see how we intend to invest these monies across [1:43:53 PM] to invest these monies across these three strategies. But we're always, you know, working with them and we can work with them if we make any adjustments going forward. >> Okay. That would be great. And then as far as the greenhouse gas reduction portions of the grant, do you know exactly what options are available like wood, shade trees, be part of the reduction of greenhouse gases, or is it some other angle of trying to eliminate the pollution? >> The primary angle for reducing pollution that this grant anticipates achieving are just the reduction in the vehicle miles traveled? If you look at studies done across the country, many large metropolitan areas, the largest contributor to greenhouse emissions are vehicle emissions. And so while shade trees certainly could be one component of that because they do clean the air, the bulk of and the grant will also [1:44:53 PM] of and the grant will also provide for monitoring devices. So and data extraction. So we can measure very precisely how this these programs are improving our air. But shade trees may be one component of that. But we're still finalizing the work plan with the EPA. And with our partners. >> Okay, that that'd be great. I'd love to keep my eye on that. As things progress, I know the conversations will be robust. I remember that the climate equity plan talks about greenhouse gases, and so I want to make sure we're using the opportunity to co leverage the work happening with dpw and the sustainability office to help make sure some of those are done. Those are all the questions I had for this one. So I'll turn it over to if any colleagues had any questions. But appreciate you taking time to put that memo together. It is in the council q&a report. >> Thank you, councilor Lewis. >> That was my question. Where can I find the memo. So it's in the Q amp a report. >> It's in the council Q amp a okay, great. [1:45:54 PM] okay, great. >> I'll look for that. And then director Mendoza, thank you for this information. Thank you, councilmember Ellis, for pulling it. Incredible news for our community. I'm excited for what's to come. And it couldn't come at a more perfect time, given the level of activity will be in as a as a community, I would like to request a follow up meeting and if I can, if I can review the application itself, I think that would be helpful just to better understand what staff had in mind with these funds. And then I would like to talk through the carts piece as a partner is of particular interest to me in our Dell valley community, and wanting to ensure that we leverage this opportunity to provide more transit options for our southeast neighbors. So would love to have a follow up meeting. Thank you. >> We certainly will. Happy to do that. Council member. Council member Ryan alter, thank you very much. >> And I know the I think it's the memo or the fiscal note. One of the documents references, you know, this is just some of the broader strategies that were solicited by the sustainability office. And so just as we continue to build out our regional infrastructure, would [1:46:56 PM] regional infrastructure, would love to understand other opportunities where we have, whether it's applying for additional grants to fund some of those things or just making us aware of some of those ideas so we can try to incorporate them in whatever projects that we are undertaking. >> Thank you. >> We'll do anything more. Council, thank you very much and congratulations. And on behalf of everybody, thanks for the good work. >> Thank you for your support. >> Members that will take us to item b1, which is an update. Proposed updates to the Austin Austin's water forward plan. >> Good afternoon, mayor. Mayor pro tem council members. I'm Shea Ralls roalson and I'm the director of Austin water. And I appreciate the opportunity to brief you today on our updates to the water forward plan, the water conservation plan, and the drought contingency plans. These [1:47:57 PM] drought contingency plans. These items will be coming forward for your consideration at your November 21st council meeting. So appreciate the opportunity to brief you on them today. Okay, and I have a clicker. >> Oh yeah okay. Kind of fast on the clicker there. >> All right Austin water forward is Austin's 100 year integrated water resource plan. And the really important words on this slide are that this plan needs to be adaptive to growth, drought and climate change for the future of our community. And so to understand water forward, it helps to understand Austin's water. We get all of our water from the Texas, Colorado river. We take water out of Lakes Travis and Austin, treat it, deliver it to our customers, collect it back from them, treat it again, and put it back in the Colorado river. A portion of [1:48:59 PM] Colorado river. A portion of that highly treated effluent is sent back through our purple pipes for non drinking water uses. In our community. The amount of water that we have available to our community is based on our very senior water rights in the Colorado river, as well as contracts with the lower Colorado river authority for stored water. And when we talk about stored water, we're talking about the combined storage of Lakes Buchanan and Travis. This graph shows you how those storage levels have varied over time. Back to the beginning, when the dams were constructed. And you can see that the lake levels vary seasonally. We had two very significant droughts in the 50s and 60s, and then a long period of seasonal changes where the Lakes would fall and fill over the course of a year or so until the drought of 2008 to 2016, which was longer and deeper than any we had experienced before. [1:50:01 PM] any we had experienced before. And that was the impetus of the water forward plan. So our guiding principles for this plan are really rooted in resiliency in our community values, in protecting the Colorado river, in equity and affordability. And they're also well integrated with all of the strategic planning that the city does. All of these plans are really founded on the three legged stool of environmental sustainability, climate equity, affordability and reliability. And resiliency. So when we talk about being adaptive, we're really talking about planning for uncertainty. We know that Austin is going to grow, but we don't know exactly where or when that growth will happen. We know that climate change is affecting our water supply, but we don't yet know the severity of climate change. In our 100 year time step that will we will experience and we know we'll experience droughts. But again, [1:51:02 PM] experience droughts. But again, when and how long is something that we need to be ready to adapt to. So this plan is founded first and foremost on conservation and reuse, because every drop of water that we don't use or that we reuse is a drop of water we don't have to take from the Colorado river. And then layered on top of that is stretching our water supplies through strategies of storage and developing new supplies beyond the Colorado river. And then we are not the only community that depends on the water from the Texas Colorado river, where we have very strong partnerships in the basin. And those partnerships are an important part of planning for the future. So about three years worth of work went into the development of this one slide. I have about 50 backup slides that I that I won't put you through, [1:52:03 PM] I that I won't put you through, obviously, but fundamentally what we did was we projected our demands. We developed projections of our available supply. We modeled those how we would meet those resulting needs. And then we identified strategies to meet those needs. And if you look at the boxes on the right, that's really that layer that I was layered approach that I was talking about. That top row is reducing our overall water use. That middle row is stretching our supplies and reusing the water that we have. And then the bottom row is adding new supply to our portfolio. So we did a highly technical and complex evaluation. We had a lot of partners in this work from the consulting and academic community. And, and we tested a million literally of strategies and portfolios against the various possible futures that we [1:53:04 PM] various possible futures that we may face. That graph on the left shows you in the X axis is the performance relative performance score of these portfolios against each other. The Y axis is the relative cost. And so we pulled out ten portfolios where they for any given cost, they had the best performance. And we compared those portfolios to one another. And on the right you can see that all ten of those portfolios used the full suite of conservation and reuse strategies, and then differed in how they incorporated water supply and new water storage and new water supply strategies. So the recommended portfolio is again on the left. You can see the full suite of conservation and reuse strategies. And then top right is our water supply storage stretching our Colorado river supplies with aquifer storage and recovery. A new off [1:54:06 PM] storage and recovery. A new off channel reservoir at lake Walter long and indirect potable reuse, and the new water supplies. At some point in our future, we would begin with brackish groundwater desalination. So that is what is in this recommended portfolio of what we would do in the first 50 years. And then after that, we have strategies for adapting this plan will be updated every five years. And that allows us to incorporate the latest science and projections and, and make incremental improvements to our to our plan. So on the topic of conservation and drought planning, we really have two plans that are required by our state agencies to be submitted every five years. The water conservation plan is how our community uses water all year round, and the drought contingency plan is how we will ratchet down our use of water in response to drought conditions. [1:55:09 PM] response to drought conditions. These plans were due to the state agencies in may. This council approved them and at the same time we committed to working with the water forward task force to continue to revise these plans. In collaboration with the updates to the water forward plan, so that we could bring them all back to you for consideration together, which is what we'll do on November 21st. So a little bit about how why we agreed to keep working on them. Our plan, our 2029 water conservation plan had proposed conservation goals in gallons per capita per day. So what gallons per capita per day is our we take all of our overall water use, and we divide it by the million or so people that we serve, and that is our gallons [1:56:10 PM] serve, and that is our gallons per capita per day. So it's a very broad metric, but it gives us a snapshot of how we are doing in water use. In 2019, we were coming down our gallons per capita per day had been declining steeply over the last several years as our community really leaned in to conservation. Following the drought, and we thought we could continue that trend. And so we set a goal for our five year goal of 119 gallons per capita per day. However, our baseline stayed about the same over the last five years. So what we did when we developed this plan was we looked at what are the things that we have planned, can do to continue to bring down our gkd numbers. And you can see the kind of high level summary on the right there of the kinds of things that we were that are included in the water conservation plan. So you might ask, well, why why did the why [1:57:11 PM] ask, well, why why did the why did our water use stay about the same over the last five years? And as you can imagine, it's a pretty complex picture. There are a lot of factors associated with that. The water loss we had expected to reduce the water loss out of our system more significantly than we were able to do, but we've now completed our water loss study and will be implementing those recommendations. We had post pandemic changes in the way our our customers used water. We had previously anticipated that our rollout of the of my water, our automated metering system would get done faster than it actually did. And so there just were kind of a lot of factors that that were at play here in the last five years. So over the last several months, we've we've really dug into this and we've identified some additional activities that are now incorporated in the water conservation plan. Those include restricting drip irrigation, the [1:58:13 PM] restricting drip irrigation, the go purple program, which you all approved in March and went into effect April 1st, that's now fully implemented or included in the water conservation plan. I mentioned the water loss external review of that program that we will now be implementing those recommendations. We are completing the rollout of our automated meters now, and we're seeing a lot of success from that program in communicating with our customers. And achieving water reduction use reduction. And then I really want to draw your attention to the quarterly and annual reports. So we've identified not just our strategies, but all of the sub strategies. And we will be reporting out on those on a quarterly and annual basis. So in a so that we can check on our progress and see where we need to focus in on implementation so that you all will have a more transparent view of how that's going. And so that our customers and our community can see the ways in which their activities [1:59:14 PM] ways in which their activities and their participation in our programs can help our community meet our goals. So here's a visual of how all that fits together. You can see that very steep decline from 2011 to 2015. In our communities water, water use. And then you can see it kind of leveling off with some noise in the data there through through 2023. The green line is, is was our goal in our 2019 water conservation plan. And then the Orange line is our updated goal. So we are we are still very committed to water conservation. This is as I have said throughout this presentation, foundational to meeting our goals for water forward. And so we continue to commit to do the things that we need to do to drive down water use and to report to you on a regular basis of how how we're doing. So I'll just wrap up with an update on all of the stakeholder engagement that [2:00:16 PM] stakeholder engagement that we've had. This only goes back to mid-july, but we have been very engaged with our water forward task force, with public workshops, with water and wastewater commission, and resource management commission. Those three bodies will be voting on these plans in November and then and making a recommendation to you on whether or not to approve them, and then we'll bring them to you for consideration on November 21st. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Council members questions. Comments? Yes. Council member Ellis I've got some. >> It's been brought to my attention. Some folks are asking questions about the drip irrigation. Can you talk about that conversation? How would there be limits on drip irrigation? And what's the purpose? Is it about timing? Is it about people not knowing that they have a leak? Can you talk me through some of those issues? >> Sure. And we have division manager Kevin kluge of our water conservation division that can help me with the details. But the generally we have previously not had restrictions on drip [2:01:18 PM] not had restrictions on drip irrigation, whereas automatic spray irrigation and hose end irrigation are restricted to one day a week and two days a week. Drip irrigation is can be it should be a more efficient irrigation system, but it can also be inefficient if it's not installed and maintained correctly. And so we are recommending that we implement restrictions on drip irrigation. That would be two days a week. We worked extensively with the landscaping community on those proposed limitations, and we feel that we've struck a balance of recognizing that that's a more efficient system and that we still need to have some guardrails around the use of drip irrigation to make sure that it's being used effectively. >> Okay. And will there be outreach to people who are currently using irrigation systems just to make sure they're aware that there could be some changes coming? >> Yes, we have we have communicated already with tnla, [2:02:18 PM] communicated already with tnla, which is the landscape architect association, and we will have communications to our customers on the on the outcome of the changes to the water conservation plan as well. >> And so this might just be for anyone with a hose drip irrigation irrigation system as opposed to new, you know, newly constructed irrigation. >> It would it will apply to anyone who has drip irrigation now. So you may have spray irrigation in your yard. You may just water your yard with a hose. You may have drip irrigation regardless of what kind you have there will be. There will be time and day restrictions for the irrigation. >> Okay. Sounds great. I look forward to having more information. I want to make sure that the folks in my district, at least are aware that these changes might come and have a chance to ask questions. >> Absolutely. We welcome the questions. And in fact, we've we've made through the course of the conversations that we've had so far, we've, we've we've taken [2:03:19 PM] so far, we've, we've we've taken that feedback and we've made changes to what we're recommending. So we, we believe we've struck a balance, but we welcome the feedback. Okay. >> Thank you for the info. >> Mayor pro tem, I just wanted to ask a little further on what council member Ellis was talking about the drip irrigation and bubblers and so forth. Another group of people that you might make sure are included in, in the education and the updates would be real estate agents. >> Okay. Great idea. I don't know if we've talked to real estate agents. Maybe a little bit, but we will. We'll take that into consideration. Thank you. That's a great idea. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember alter, you had your light on for a second, and that's what I meant for it to be on. Okay. Well it's off now but okay. >> When I push whatever. It's a little counterintuitive for me. I'm not sure why. So I wanted to ask, is there someplace where we can see where the portfolio [2:04:21 PM] can see where the portfolio changed from the first version of water forward, and now I would like to ask Marissa flores-gonzalez, who is the supervisor of our water resources team, to talk to you about the differences between the 2018 plan and the 2024 plan. And you're welcome to go through the details. I was I haven't read the new plan, so I was sort of hoping that you could point me to where I could could read it. >> But you're welcome to make a comparison. >> Sure thing. We actually have exactly that table. So, Marissa flores-gonzalez, I'm the supervisor of the water resources team at Austin water. We have a comparison table in some materials that we presented to the Waterford task force at their previous meeting on October 20th, October 18th, I believe it was. And we can provide that comparison table to you in summary, there's a slight downshift in the volumes from some of the strategies. The biggest change between [2:05:22 PM] biggest change between strategies from 2018 to today's plan 2024 is that rather than building a new off channel reservoir in the 2070 time step, we're proposing to use lake Walter Lang as an off channel reservoir and a and using that reservoir in such a way as the lake level would remain largely constant and would only fluctuate up to a maximum of five feet during drought conditions. >> Thank you. And I don't know which of you this would be for. You know, we've been looking a lot at energy efficiency for city buildings and, you know, trying to have solar and other things and, and although we have a water treatment type reuse at the pdc, we talk less about that with our buildings. I know when I first came on council, we were talking about it with respect to our pools because our pools were leaking. Can you talk about how Austin water is working with our [2:06:23 PM] Austin water is working with our city facilities broadly defined, to make sure that we are good stewards of the water that's coming through our systems? >> So we. I'm thinking about how to answer that. I think we have made ourselves available to our to the other departments to assist them with their questions and concerns about water efficiency. And we have some strategies identified in, you know, continuing to do that work. And do you have something to add? One of you? Okay. >> I'll just add so after the adoption of the water for 2018 plan, or as a part of that, one of the kind of directions from council that we received was to engage with other city departments about things like pool efficiencies and other opportunities for efficiency and conservation, as well as reuse. [2:07:25 PM] conservation, as well as reuse. So we have been having ongoing engagement with other city departments, including parks and recreation, as well as Austin energy and others, about opportunities for them to connect to our centralized reclaimed water system to make use of reuse water, and then also opportunities for further conservation. Actually, in the in the work that our staff was doing to put together recommendations for the kind of recent proposals related to the kind of climate projects that was happening in the spring. We worked with Pritchard and other departments to put together some recommendations for further efficiency. So we have some we have that ongoing conversation happening with other city departments, and then we have efficiency improvements that are also planned for our own facilities within Austin water and ways that we can reuse water within our own facilities as well. [2:08:25 PM] well. >> Do we have any requirements for our own facilities to go through? >> I believe that city of Austin buildings have to achieve certain standards in terms of, you know, Austin green building standards, which are also relates to Leed requirements for buildings that we own, and also potentially for buildings that we lease and we have participated in the kind of updates to those standards in the past to try to encourage water reuse as well as conservation and efficiency within those standards. So I believe that there are efficiency standards that are required for city of Austin facilities. >> Okay. Thank you. And then my last question has to do with the water main leaks. We've seen, I think three major water main leaks in the last week or two with millions and millions of gallons of water. And I don't know if this is the appropriate time or at a walk, but would really like to better understand and have you speak to those leaks. And if it's more appropriate to do it at a with a prepared presentation, that's [2:09:25 PM] prepared presentation, that's fine too. But but I do think we need to have some conversations, and we need to understand if this is just folks inadvertently hitting a pipe when it was all signed and whatever, and they made a mistake, or if it's shifting climate issues that are contributing to leaks or, or and exactly how much water we're losing and, and what have been the environmental impacts, I'll say broadly that it's generally a combination of factors. >> So we haven't had rain in several weeks. And so shifting soils will definitely cause our main breaks to, to spike. And then we do have a lot of contractors out working in our system that that do occasionally hit hit our, our pipes. We you know, we respond. We have a very rapid response program to get out and dechlorinate that water before it reaches waterways with fish, we don't always get there, you know, in time to prevent the [2:10:26 PM] you know, in time to prevent the initial fish being impacted. But we can maybe discuss with your office the kinds of information that you'd like to see so that we can prepare that more completely. But it's certainly a, a broad and complex situation that we face in the field. >> Okay. Thank you. And mayor pro tem pool I think we asked for that to be on the agenda. So that would be be great if we could do that there. Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions or comments? Council members. >> Mayor, are you able to hear me? Yes, I do have just one question to pick up. Where councilmember Allison alter left off. >> There you have the floor. >> I was hoping you. And if it is at the oversight committee, that's fine. As well. But if you could expound upon what we're doing, either through water forward through our conservation plan or just altogether [2:11:27 PM] plan or just altogether separately as it relates to the water loss in our system. >> So we a couple of years ago, we or maybe about a year and a half ago, we brought on a consultant to review our water loss program. And they that report was just finished and we sent out that report and our implementation plan and a memo to mayor and council earlier this month. And so we've we've identified a cross-departmental team that will be focused on implementing the recommendations of that report. They're pretty varied. They're going to touch pretty much every part of our organization. And we're going to use those that roadmap to be highly focused on reducing water loss out of Austin water system over the next, you know, one to five years. [2:12:29 PM] five years. >> All right. Well, I appreciate that. And I just didn't know if there are opportunities for you to identify if anything is scalable. For instance, I know our pipe replacement. You know, we do a certain amount the study has recommended, you know, potential amounts. But if that factors into water forward or a separate decision, just if you all can can kind of show us, you know, if we go forward, let's say with a 2% replacement, this is how much water we think we're going to save. A 2.5% would might yield this that, you know, and at what cost. It would just be helpful in making some of these decisions. >> You know, to the to the point about main replacements. We implemented the renewing Austin program about 12 or 13 years ago, and now our main breaks are actually, well below what's the average? And even below what's considered to be an optimized utility. So from a main break perspective, we perform very well where we what really came [2:13:29 PM] well where we what really came out of this water loss study? There were a number of there were there's lots of recommendations that we're going to implement, but one big takeaway was that we have higher rates of breaks in our service lines. And so that's we have programs now to replace poor performing service lines. And that will definitely be an area where we will look to scale those efforts. >> I appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> Council members. Anything more? Thank you very much. >> Thank you all very much I appreciate. Thank you for the time, members. >> Without objection, the work session of the Austin city council on October 22nd, 2024 will be adjourned. It is 2:14 P.M. We are adjourned.