A resolution aimed at prioritizing youth homelessness funding failed at City Council on Thursday following extended debate over budget process and policy flexibility.
Staff from the Homeless Strategy Office expressed concern that the proposal, even softened from its original form, could restrict their ability to adjust investments based on the needs shown by real-time data and trends across homeless populations.
At the heart of the debate was a provision directing city staff to “target” 15 percent of new homelessness spending to serve youth, in line with their estimated proportion of the local unhoused population. While the resolution’s sponsor, Council Member Ryan Alter, described the language as a flexible “target” rather than a mandate, both Watson and staff said the phrasing could carry binding effects.
The measure received five votes in favor, with “no” votes from Mayor Kirk Watson and Council members Marc Duchen and Chito Vela. Council members Paige Ellis and Natasha Harper-Madison abstained and Council Member Zo Qadri was not present for the vote.
“I’m very uncomfortable with a policy of us going through a lengthy budget process, a detailed budget process, and then literally at the very next meeting of the Council, we’re taking up budget items again, many of which were items that were part of the budget process,” Watson said. “We utilized that budget process, I thought, really well to actually get to a kind of consensus on where we wanted on the budget. And, right out of the box, we’re looking at items again.”
Homeless Strategy Officer David Gray said his office is already prioritizing youth in current spending plans, citing $6.3 million in contracts with LifeWorks since December and additional coordination through a working group on foster youth homelessness.
He warned that even a soft target could limit the city’s ability to pivot resources as conditions evolve.
“If Council gave us the direction to prioritize 15 percent of the fund for youth homelessness we would make good on that commitment, but that does hinder our ability to be flexible and be truly data-led and data-informed,” he said. “If youth homelessness declines but another group like veterans or seniors sees a surge, we wouldn’t necessarily be able to shift in response.”
Gray added that creating proportion-based directives for specific populations could inadvertently pit service providers against one another for limited funds.
Alter pushed back on the suggestion that the resolution was overly rigid or premature. He argued that it was crafted specifically to fit within the adopted homelessness strategy framework. He said the 15 percent figure reflected the known share of youth in the system and would apply only to net new funding instead of existing budgets.
“I’m pretty disappointed that when you and I worked together, you told me something very different than what you’re telling the body today. You told me that using the word target would give you the flexibility you needed,” Alter said to Gray. “You told me this works. And I hate to do this right now, but how can I bring something forward if you’re gonna tell me something different than you’re telling this body?”
Alter also argued that bringing the resolution after the budget process was necessary due to procedural deadlines that preclude filing such measures as amendments once a certain date has passed.
Supporters emphasized that the resolution wasn’t just about youth homelessness. It also reaffirmed Council support for the Housing Trust Fund and HOPE Fund, called for new grant programs serving LGBTQIA+ individuals and directed the development of a non-sworn public safety response pilot.
Council Member Krista Laine, who represents District 6, acknowledged that homelessness is rising among multiple vulnerable groups in her district and said it was important that Council not lose sight of subpopulation-specific needs.
Prior to her abstention, Ellis asked whether removing the specific 15 percent figure from the text would ease staff concerns, while Vela described the measure as well-intentioned but too prescriptive.
“You always kind of want to go after the low-hanging fruit. And I just want to make sure that y’all are able to do that if there is an opportunity to target a population that may not be set out as a policy priority, but the opportunity is there,” he said. “I want to make sure that, that y’all have the flexibility on that.”
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.