Editor’s note: This article was updated to include Councilmember Zo Qadri’s statement regarding the vote after it was released.

Austin City Council approved a controversial new police contract in a 10-1 vote Thursday. The city confirmed Council chambers reached maximum capacity as the Council heard hours of public comment on the five-year contract’s adoption amidst scrutiny over cost and police transparency.

According to city records, nearly 500 people, some of whom spoke at the meeting, registered for or against the contract. Additional speakers registered in-person at City Hall. The meeting lasted nearly 10 hours.

The agreement between the city and the Austin Police Association, Austin’s police union, still needs to receive final approval from the Association before it takes effect. Councilmember Zohaib “Zo” Qadri was the lone dissenter in the vote.

“I opposed this police contract because I believe it is too expensive and does not protect the oversight and transparency that Austinites voted for,” Qadri said in a statement. “I would have gladly supported a contract that enshrined those protections while filling staffing vacancies at a lower cost.”

The contract has been criticized for its projected cost of $218 million over the next five years and ambiguous wording around public access to officers’ personnel files. There are concerns that misconduct allegations filed before the contract takes effect may not be publicly available following the contract’s implementation.

The Austin Police Oversight Act, passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2023, requires the city not maintain secret files on police conduct. While the proposed contract adheres to that standard for alleged misconduct taking place after the contract is adopted, it states that conduct occurring prior to the contract’s adoption would adhere to the state code and not the Act. This has led some to voice concerns that the transparency provisions included in the Act may not apply retroactively, or “grandfather in” allegations of misconduct against officers made prior to the contract’s adoption.

Equity Action, an Austin advocacy group dedicated to police transparency and responsible spending, filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking a state judge to prevent the Council from voting on the contract Thursday. They cited ambiguity around the law’s adherence to the Oversight Act as a central concern. However, the judge denied Equity Action’s attempts to temporarily stop the vote late Wednesday, stating the group didn’t have standing prior to the contract taking effect. 

Chris Harris, Equity Action’s co-founder and board president, said the potential for the contract to keep prior misconduct hidden from the public presents a large concern for the organization.

“We think that this is a major infringement of both the spirit and the letter of our ballot measure, and keeps hidden and keeps buried a lot of police misconduct,” Harris said.

Equity Action authored the Austin Police Oversight Act and filed a suit against the city for failing to adhere to the Act’s mandate, which led a court to rule the city must comply. They began doing so last week, over 16 months after the Act was approved by voters. 

Austin Mayor Kirk Watson cited concerns over the Act’s potential to contradict state law during a mayoral forum in early October and said they needed clarity from the courts before fully implementing it, which they received in the ruling.

Harris also raised concerns over the contract’s approach to grievances filed against officers. He said the contract’s wording could lead to a situation similar to the one that led the Oversight Act to be passed, where the contract could supersede the Oversight Act similar to the manner in which an arbitrator ruled a previous contract superseded a council-approved measure.

“To us, this is literally opening the door to repeat history and once again see our oversight system weakened in a place that’s very favorable to the police, which is in front of an arbitrator,” Harris said. 

The Austin Police Association did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Ryan Alter, City Council member for Austin’s district 5, said he believes many of the public’s concerns have been addressed in the contract. He added the contract provides robust accountability and oversight both in regards to public officer conduct files and by extending the period of time reports of misconduct can be filed. 

Under the new contract, reports can result in action from the department up to a year after the incident occurred, as opposed to the previous limit of six months. 

“(This contract) has the most oversight and accountability that you will see anywhere else, in any city in the country,” Alter said.

Alter said that as of now, officer conduct records from before the contract’s adoption will continue to remain public, but some believe its phrasing limits the Oversight Act’s ability to make those records available once the agreement takes effect. 

“Could a subsequent court come in and overrule that?” Alter said. “That’s always a possibility. But as of now, that’s not something that’s happened, and so for any time period before the contract, those files are publicly available.” 

Misconduct allegations filed going forward will likely not be affected by any future court ruling, and will remain available to the public as long as this contract remains in effect, Alter said. 

Concerns over the cost of the contract are related to the wage increases it provides officers, beginning at an 8% increase the first year it takes effect, with subsequent increases over the contract’s five-year term. Speakers Thursday voiced concerns that the high cost would affect the city’s ability to invest in other initiatives, like diversion programs for those battling substance or alcohol abuse or alternative response infrastructure for mental health or homelessness related 9-1-1 calls.

Alter echoed concerns about the $14 million deficit between the expected costs set aside by the city and actual cost of the agreement. He said that money can be reworked within the budget over five years, but that the forecasted budgets don’t account for any new projects or initiatives. 

If new programs or updates to existing projects were to be introduced in the next five years, Alter said there’s the potential voters could be asked to increase funding to cover the cost, meaning a potential rise in taxes, pending voter approval. 

To limit the impact the cost of the contract has, Alter introduced an agenda item Thursday creating additional Council budgetary oversight over the police department. It also directs that the council receive reports on the potential for the city to utilize non-sworn personnel to respond to calls relating to mental health, vehicle crashes and more.

“We don’t want to be caught either flat footed or unaware if costs are exceeding what we have budgeted for the police department,” Alter said. “If you get in a crash, do you really need someone with a badge and a gun to write up the report of what happened when a non-sworn individual could do that? There are methods where we could be smarter in our response and utilizing the police force that we do have.”