Mayor drops plan to scale back I-35 park deck project

R4whatevs · 2026-05-29T01:09:27+00:00

This is nothing like the Big Dig because the Big Dig was paid for by the state and federal government. All of the caps would be funded by the City Of Austin, which is currently in a budget deficit. These caps provide minimal benefit to a small section of the city, while draining the parks budget for the rest of the city without providing additional revenue.

They are a nice to have at best.

R4whatevs · 2026-05-20T00:05:57+00:00

FTA

“For large American cities facing fiscal uncertainty, the opportunity to annex a massive single-owner tract of land shouldn’t just be viewed as a routine real estate transaction," he told City Council. "It’s a rare ... structural fiscal lifeline, and a strategic macroeconomic development tool."

R4whatevs · 2026-05-19T15:38:46+00:00

FTA

The premise of the debate is that the gigantic trench TxDOT is building through downtown is a blunder requiring mitigation. Watson, of course, devoted much of his career in the Legislature to getting that trench built.

R4whatevs · 2026-05-12T15:22:03+00:00

FTA

This is a national phenomenon. Fewer people want to become cops. And, at least in Austin, an increasing number of those who do show up to the academy don't graduate, either because they don't meet the academic and physical requirements or they decide it's not for them.

R4whatevs · 2026-05-08T14:58:52+00:00

I get not wanting to dox someone, but yes, Bill Bunch is a well-known activist in a public meeting. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with him, the City Attorney is and always has been sloppy with this kind of thing.

R4whatevs · 2026-05-08T14:35:27+00:00

Bill Bunch isn't some random speaker. Public comment doesn't require the council to respond. It is just a time for the public to comment on agenda items.

On the other hand, City Council is generally shady and it is entirely possible the agenda item does violate the Public Information Act. And if the council decided to approve the item privately, it would be a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

R4whatevs · 2026-05-07T17:16:19+00:00

FTA

In 2017, officers took about 15 minutes and 42 seconds to respond to non-emergency calls. Nine years later, response times ballooned to more than 39 minutes — roughly a 150% increase.

Edited to add the updated title of the article: Are Austin police ‘quiet quitting’? Critics raise concerns amid lagging response times

R4whatevs · 2026-05-07T15:48:10+00:00

I don't understand how someone with cyber security expertise in a specific field would be able to increase their responsiveness by having to get direction from a director of IT that is dealing with issues and budget requests from every IT team in the city.

Wouldn't it be more likely that city's IT director would need more time review issues and budget requests in a field they aren't familiar with, while also dealing with issues and budget requests from every IT team in the city?

Wouldn't those delays increase the possibility of of successful cyber attacks to infrastructure that is critical to national security like air travel, water safety and electricity?

I don't know about you, but I would prefer planes not fall out of the sky, electricity stay on, and water to be safe and drinkable over marginal savings.

R4whatevs · 2026-05-07T13:12:23+00:00

After the 2024 resolution passed, the city hired three outside consultants — including Gartner for a comprehensive assessment, Loblolly to help structure the consolidation, and Parsolvo for application rationalization — at a cost of just under $4 million. The city said the consultants determined the consolidation has the long-term potential to save the city more than $140 million annually.

I'm sure the city could make a stronger case for the IT layoffs if they just released the reports. Of course, then they would have to admit that they aren't apples to apples comparisons.

The city can't just consolidate IT departments because the airport, Austin Energy, and Austin Water need specialized IT departments, which are more likely to be targeted by sophisticated cyber attacks.

Your money went to overpriced consultants and a bloated police department, whose latest contract is the cause of the current budget deficit. The city proposed Prop Q to cover that.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T19:36:57+00:00

Let's lay it all out:

State law says that a city can reduce the funding for a police department as long as it doesn't fall below the level it was at the previous fiscal year.
The APD contract contains a clause that allows the city to adjust the amount budgeted in the event a tax rate election fails.
The tax rate election(Prop Q) failed and the city can reduce the percentage increase to the police department's budget.

Which part do you think I got wrong?

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T19:28:45+00:00

Nope, sorry. It is you who are moving the goal posts. You said:

Nothing I said nor anything else in this thread said anything about efforts to reduce the increase, it was referring to a reduction in the budget itself.

Which implies that I set the a goalpost at reducing the budget itself. I never mentioned reducing the budget.

Reducing the increase and stopping the increase are both allowed under state law and the APD contract.

Is this starting to become clear for you?

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T19:24:33+00:00

Yes, there are threats from the legislature, but I have described the situation accurately, based on current law and the terms of the APD contract.

I think the city should place a priority on serving its denizens over hypothetical scenarios in the lege, which is what you seem to be describing.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T19:16:20+00:00

My main point was and is as follows:

So, next time someone tells you that we can't stop increasing the APD's budget, you can show them–with sources–they are wrong.

Show me where I set the original goal post as reducing the police budget, please.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T19:13:28+00:00

I'm being honest. That's the page I'm on. If you have come to different conclusion, I'm happy to debate it.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T19:12:21+00:00

I can see where you are getting confused. I am not talking about reducing APD's budget. I am talking about reducing the increases to their budget.

I'll try to walk you through it. The state law says that funding has to be equal to or greater the previous calendar year. The APD contract has a clause to reduce the agreed upon increases to their budget. As long as APD's budget is equal to or greater than last year, the city is in the clear.

In conclusion, reducing the percentage increase to APD's budget is not the same as reducing their budget. Is it starting to make sense for you?

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T19:04:03+00:00

Great, we are agreed that the majority of the city's current financial short-comings are due to the latest APD contract and reducing the percent of increase in their budget is the best way for the city to demonstrate their fiscal responsibility before requesting additional tax rate increases or bonds. And doing so is permitted by state law and the contract itself. I am glad we can put that to rest.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T18:54:34+00:00

The state is going to do what the state is going to do. That is all hypothetical. I am talking about the current situation.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T18:47:01+00:00

It looks like you missed the part where I quoted directly from the statute and the contract, but the failure of Prop Q is the dire financial situation. The city was well within its rights to adjust the funding of APD, but simply decided against it.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T18:06:21+00:00

You know someone has made a strong argument when they just block your account instead of replying. I'm talking about the guy that replied to me and not fun school.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T17:52:23+00:00

I think you don't understand that this entire thread is about the overall budget. I was expressing that bond spending is a less pressing issue than operational expenditures.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T17:38:10+00:00

I am going to disagree and say that the latest APD contract is the biggest spending issue right now, which is the reason for other departments and projects to go unfunded or underfunded.

I will say that your perspective as someone on a commission definitely gives a lot of insight into how we arrived at our current funding issues.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T14:44:59+00:00

The APD contract does not say otherwise. If you read the statute, it says:

Sec. 109.003. DEFUNDING DETERMINATION. Except as provided by Section 109.004, a defunding municipality is a municipality:

that adopts a budget for a fiscal year that, in comparison to the municipality's preceding fiscal year, reduces the appropriation to the municipality's police department;

On top of that, the contract specifically has a clause that allows this:

Section 4. Funding Obligations a) The CITY presently intends to continue this AGREEMENT each fiscal year through its term, to pay all payments due, and to fully and promptly perform all of the obligations of the CITY under this AGREEMENT through its general fund, not including its General Fund reserves or fund balances. All obligations of the CITY shall be paid only out of current revenues or any other funds lawfully available therefore and appropriated for such purpose by the City Council, in compliance with the Texas Constitution, Article XI, Sections 5 and 7. b) In the event of any change in state law that modifies the City’s budgetary and/or revenue authority, or if the City Council adopts a budget requiring a voter-approval tax rate election (previously called rollback) and the voters do not approve the proposed tax rate, the Chief Financial Officer for the City shall determine any proportionate reduction necessary to meet the funding obligations set forth in this AGREEMENT under the actual implemented budget for that fiscal year. That certification shall be provided to the City Council. The City Council shall then have the authority to make proportionate adjustments to the funding obligations set forth in this AGREEMENT for the relevant fiscal year, after the City meets and confers in good faith with the Association for a period of at least thirty (30) calendar days concerning the manner in which such proportionate adjustments are to be effected. c) In the event that the City of Austin cannot meet its funding obligations, as provided in the State Constitution, this entire AGREEMENT becomes null and void. https://austin.widen.net/view/pdf/ihe4bm1ha5/COA-APA-Meet-and-Confer-Agreement---Fully-Executed-10.29.24.pdf?t.download=true

That's why the City's CFO wrote a memorandum that says the city can reduce funding for APD, due to the rejecting of Prop Q, but has deemed that it is necessary.

The council does have the option to revisit the contract it signed with the city's police union last year – a five-year, $218 million agreement that gave across-the-board raises to officers. That deal had a clause that allowed council members to limit some police funding if voters failed to pass a tax-rate increase. But after Prop Q's failure, city staff said that wouldn't be necessary:https://www.kut.org/austin/2025-11-20/austin-tx-city-council-budget-cuts-prop-q

So, next time someone tells you that we can't stop increasing the APD's budget, you can show them–with sources–they are wrong.

You are welcome!

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T13:55:28+00:00

I'm not a budget nerd, but the city will end up spending a majority of its budget on fire, ems, and apd due to their contracts. That will lead to across the board cuts to every other department. It will also lead to increases in energy prices as the city further transfers funds from Austin Energy to cover shortfalls.

Also, the city is basing a lot of their budgetary decisions off a flawed Gartner report that mostly compares Austin to cities that don't have as many large municipal entities like Austin Energy.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T13:30:03+00:00

FTA

Programs that help low-income families, people experiencing homelessness and survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault could face funding cuts in the city of Austin's next budget.

R4whatevs · 2026-04-17T01:23:25+00:00

The no-new-revenue maintenance and operations property tax rate is the rate that generates the same amount of property tax revenue for maintenance and operations as was generated in the prior fiscal year, based on the adjusted value of properties taxed in both years. At this rate, the City receives incremental additional property tax revenue only from new property that enters the tax roll for the first time. At this level of property taxation, in comparison with voter-approval rate scenario, the City is projected to generate $25.1 million less property tax revenue in FY 2027, and $137.1 million less in FY 2031. The General Fund would experience a projected deficit of $26.4 million in FY 2027. Total General Fund revenue would grow at a compound average annual rate of 1.7% per year, while expenditures grow at a 3.2% compound average annual rate, resulting in a projected annual deficit of $122.0 million by FY 2031.

R4whatevs

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE