Austin City Council passes new police contract

Austin City Council approved a five-year, $218 million contract with the city’s police union Thursday. The deal passed on a 10-1 vote.

The approval came after hours of impassioned testimony from scores of Austinites. Supporters argued the contract is necessary to stem years of attrition at the police department and address crime throughout the city. Opponents argued the five-year deal would likely siphon off money from other city services and could undermine recent strides to increase accountability at the department. All told, nearly 300 people signed up to speak on the contract, with testimony lasting more than eight hours.

The approval came after a last-minute effort by nonprofit Equity Action to delay the vote. The group filed a request for a restraining order on Wednesday to halt Thursday’s vote, claiming the contract didn’t comply with the Austin Police Oversight Act (APOA). That voter-approved measure expanded access to the Austin Police Department’s so-called “G-files,” allowing previously confidential police files to be released to the public. A state district judge dismissed the challenge by Equity Action Wednesday evening, and the vote went ahead.

City staff reiterated the contract would not violate the APOA and that the city will no longer keep police employment files confidential.

Council Member Zo Qadri was the lone “no” vote on the contract. Qadri’s district includes downtown Austin, and he said the process was rushed and that the $218-million deal would be “chipping away” at city-funded social services over the five-year term.

“At the end of the day, I don’t believe this contract reflects the values of the majority of Austinites, and agreeing to the contract is prioritizing the police department for all other city services and employees for the next five years,” he said.

Many hope the new contract will help address the department’s staffing shortage

Dozens of downtown workers, business-owners and real estate professionals testified in support of the contract, saying the incentives to attract and retain officers would mean more police presence in the city’s central business district where the lack of patrolling officers has led organizations to try and fill the gap. The department has more than 300 vacancies in patrol positions.

George Scariano, owner of the Royal Blue Grocery chain, said the contract — and staffing the department up — would address the crime he’s seen at the grocer’s locations downtown. He added that while he supports programs to divert people from jails and increases in mental health access, those haven’t yet been actualized.

“Our homeless neighbors need help. Permanent housing and diversion centers are absolutely critical, but those are realistically, still quite a ways off,” he said. “APD is severely understaffed and rebuilding it to appropriate levels simply cannot happen without stabilizing our police department through a new contract.”

Reggie Diggins, who works with the Downtown Austin Alliance’s ambassador program, said he supports the contract because of that possible increase in police presence.

“I’ve been assaulted, chased with pepper spray, chased with knives and spat on as well out here,” he said. “When we do call the police, it takes a while for them to come out here, which is a big issue, because we deal with this every single day and every single morning.”

The vote on the contract comes after more than a year of back-and-forth between the city, the police department and criminal justice advocates who have pushed the department for more transparency.

Michael Bullock, president of the Austin Police Association, asked the council to push aside the “rhetoric and misinformation” from opponents and said the contract complies with the APOA.

“We are in a public safety crisis right now, and we need long term stability in order to get our city back on track,” he said. “Safety is the core function of government. If people don’t feel safe here, it makes attracting businesses and people to our city even more difficult.”

Police transparency and longterm funding took center stage during public testimony

City staff told council members Tuesday that the projected cost of the deal would likely be more than the $218 million price tag. Opponents say that could trigger a tax-rate election down the line to fund APD, along with the rest of the city’s services. State law caps the amount a city or county can raise property taxes in a given year — requiring an election to approve a raise. State law also bans cities and counties from lowering police budgets. Austin’s police department currently has a record-high budget.

Ben Suddaby, a Travis County employee and member of the local chapter of the American Federation of State, City and County Employees, said the contract doesn’t account for those state-imposed guardrails on future budgets and that it could whittle down funding for social services programs.

“I don’t envy you [being] in the place that the state has placed us: painted into a corner with caps and unfunded demands that are loaded upon our local governments,” he said. “But I really ask you to look at the crises that our community is facing and realize that this large amount of transfer to the police department — which is permanent … is not what your constituents are asking for.”

Council Member Chito Vela said he believes the contract will expand police transparency — specifically by eliminating the city’s G-file provision — and that the city will likely need tax-rate elections in the near future.

“Whether this contract passes or not, we will need a tax-rate election to maintain our current level of city services — much less, make additional investments in infrastructure and to our social safety net,” he said. “We will eventually, sooner than later, need a [tax-rate election].”

Kathy Mitchell with Equity Action told the council ahead of the vote that the contract doesn’t adequately guarantee police misconduct files will be made public — and that the city’s legal department hasn’t effectively vetted the language.

“I understand that city legal wants you to believe our concerns about the G-file are not serious, she said. “But city legal has been more interested in keeping the G-file in place, than giving you good legal advice, which is why we had to sue you in the first place.”

The contract now goes back to the police union for a final approval via a majority vote from its membership.

This story was produced as part of the Austin Monitor’s reporting partnership with KUT.

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.