Public lines up to oppose police contract

The Austin City Council sat through hours of speeches from the public on Tuesday, mostly from citizens who oppose the proposed five-year contract with the city’s police union. A few spoke in support, but the vast majority of the 236 speakers said they were opposed to the $218 million contract and wanted Council to instead spend the money on services such as libraries and parks or to help the homeless. Council is scheduled to vote on the contract on Thursday.

In addition to the cost of the contract, people who have been watching the issue for some time expressed concerns about APD’s lack of transparency concerning when or if the public will have full access to what is known as the G file.

Representatives of Equity Action, including Kathy Mitchell and Chris Harris, urged Council not to approve the contract this week, but to take more time and go back to the bargaining table with the Austin Police Association. In a letter to the mayor and Council, the group said they were concerned not only about the contract but also about the city’s negotiators, the Rampage law firm.

Harris reminded Council that he had stood before them in 2018 supporting the police contract at that time, even though the contract contained some things he did not agree with. Part of the reason for his support was the creation of the Austin Office of Police Oversight. Later, he and everyone else learned that “unbeknownst to us, that contract deal had a poison pill, a restriction on the police oversight office.” It turned out that investigations by the OPO were a violation of the contract and the Austin Police Association began to file grievances against the office for doing the job they were designed to do.

Late Tuesday, KXAN reported that Equity Action filed suit seeking to stop Council from voting on Thursday. The group is seeking a temporary restraining order which, if granted, would at least postpone Council action.  Equity Action also filed suit in 2023 after voters approved the Police Oversight Act because the city did not immediately release police records.

Other opponents of the contract include AFSCME Local 1624, which has said they have “serious concerns” about the agreement “due to the potential significant impact that could have on future budgets and the ability to adequately fund other essential city services.” In a statement released on X earlier this month, the union said, “the proposed $218 million police contract raises significant concerns regarding transparency and equity for the rest of Austin’s workforce. While we support competitive wages for our police officers, we must also address the need of the essential services that keep our city running.”

Local 1624 President Pedro Villalobos said, “It is only fair that all workers are treated with dignity and respect. Yet, we have concerns about how this proposal will impact every other essential service that keeps our city alive – public health, water services, parks, and so much more. The city cannot invest $218 million into one department while expecting the rest to operate with limited resources. That is not how you build a just and equitable city.”

Among those few urging Council to approve the contract were Susan Spataro, former Travis County auditor, and Robert Clark of the Central Texas Public Safety Commission.

Budget Officer Kerri Lang made a brief presentation on projections for police salaries as well as the rest of the budget. If the contract is adopted is expected, APD will account for 36 percent of the General Fund budget. If that number is to continue to be 36 percent, Lang said, the rest of the departments will also have to grow. That could mean a deficit of $4 million in 2026.

Several Council members asked questions about future budgets, and how the city might fund its needs, especially in light of the 3.5 percent tax increase cap imposed by the state. One major reason the city has not faced a deficit is the fact that the federal government provided millions of dollars in funding under ARPA, the American Rescue Plan Act. But most of that money has already been spent and the rest is encumbered.

Mayor Kirk Watson and Council Member Ryan Alter both pointed out that the city does not have to stick with the 3.5 percent cap but can ask voters to raise taxes.

Ryan Alter said, “We are under the restraints we are under because of an artificial limitation put upon us by the state. I think that has just become so clear in the past five years that we’ve been under this limit in that inflation has outstripped that by itself. So, let alone the fact that the city has been growing, let alone that we have to meet increased service demands (and) pay our workers more just keeping up with inflation, we’re already at an imbalance in our budget. And so to have the conversation that it has to be this or that, that is the artificial limitation we’ve been put under and we don’t have to play just within those parameters. We have the tool 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.”

Council Member Alison Alter pointed out that she will be retiring at the end of this year, but had some advice for her colleagues who will still be on the dais next year. She urged them to remember that budgeting is more of an art than a science and that they should be cautious in their proceedings.

She warned that sales tax growth is unpredictable, adding that she is not a fan of the 3.5 percent cap. “We do have tools” besides raising taxes, she said, noting that taxpayers have budgets too.

Alison Alter concluded, “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.” In addition to current taxes, both Travis County and the Austin Independent School District have propositions on the Nov. 5 ballot that will raise taxes for property owners if approved by voters. “We can’t just keep adding taxes,” she said. “We can’t just go to this cash machine and say that we’re going to do that.”

 

Photo made available through a Creative Commons license. This story has been updated to clarify Alison Alter’s support of current propositions.

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.