TipSheet: Austin City Council, 2.27.25

Austin City Council will meet today for their regular meeting and, looking over the agenda, it promises to be a shorter meeting, for the most part. 

As for the other part, Council is poised to consider, if not adopt, new regulations for short-term rentals today. Mayor Kirk Watson (who usually gets his way) has suggested that Council put off changes to the city’s regulations today, given pending action by the Texas Legislature that remains a significant unknown. However, we’re still expecting a discussion and public testimony and a possible associated vote on Hotel Occupancy Tax collection, which has the possibility of taking up a chunk of time for sure. 

Speaking of Hotel Occupancy Tax, Council will also consider awarding more than $32 million in Preservation Fund grants today. (Here’s our rundown from the Historic Landmark Commission.)

From Council Member Ryan Alter comes a resolution that would require the city to conduct public safety contract negotiations publicly recorded and broadcast and make the documents exchanged during negotiations public too. The resolution would require Council approval to deviate from this practice. 

And, though we aren’t really invested in it at the moment, today appears to be a housekeeping day for cleaning up the various building codes, with updates to the Property Maintenance Code, Energy Code, Mechanical Code, Plumbing Code, International Building Code, Residential Code, Swimming Pool and Spa Code, Fire Code, and Wildland-Urban Interface Code up for public hearings today.

In terms of zoning, we’re keeping an eye on a vacant lot on Bruning Ave., an eastside historic zoning on Spence Street that faces opposition by its owner, a PUD at 200 East Riverside, and proposed historic zoning for the Fannie Davis Gazebo.

In other development news, developers of a site on 290 west of MoPac are seeking an exception from the Save Our Springs Ordinance that Save Our Springs (the group) is, predictably, opposing. If granted, the exception would allow for a sand filtration pond instead of the required water quality pond, which environmentalists say could impact water quality. 

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.