Sunset Valley City Council

Dear Mayor Bruner and City Council Members,

I’m writing regarding Agenda Item #4, the FY 2026–2027 Budget, and to offer my thoughts about where I believe some of our priorities should be.

I support the recommendation under Item #4 to remove the $300,000 Brodie Lane Pedestrian Improvements engineering project and the $90,000 City Hall Backyard improvements from this year’s budget. I’m not opposed to improving safety on Brodie Lane, including better lighting where it’s needed. I just question whether replacing existing pedestrian infrastructure or adding more park amenities should be priorities right now.

I would much rather see us put our resources toward infrastructure that may become increasingly important in the coming years.

Water is at the top of that list. Sunset Valley owns two municipal groundwater wells, and I understand they may currently be used for irrigation. What I don’t know, and would like the City to determine or clarify, is whether that water is potable and whether the wells could be used to supply our public water system in an emergency if our supply from the City of Austin were interrupted. If they cannot, I would like us to understand what would be required to make that possible.

This isn’t just a hypothetical concern. The Texas Water Development Board’s January 2024 Travis County Water Supply Planning: Information & Resources report identifies “Groundwater wells and other” as one of the recommended strategies for meeting Sunset Valley’s future water needs (page 11). The report also discusses the vulnerability of small water systems during drought or a loss of supply and the value of alternative sources such as local groundwater wells (page 5).
https://www.twdb.texas.gov/waterplanning/rwp/outreach/doc/travis.pdf

Since we already own these wells, I think it makes sense to know exactly what we have and whether they could provide a meaningful emergency water supply before we need it.

Central Texas is growing rapidly, and future demands on both water and electricity are hard to predict. The growth of data centers throughout the region is another potential source of very large demand on both. We may never need our wells in an emergency, but I’d much rather spend money preparing for a problem before we have one.

I feel similarly about our electrical infrastructure. After experiencing extended power outages during severe winter weather, I would like the City to explore with Austin Energy the feasibility and cost of burying our power lines, perhaps gradually as other infrastructure work is done. If this has already been investigated, I’d like to know what was learned.

Sunset Valley is fortunate to be in a position where we can make choices about how we spend our money. I’d simply like to see us give greater priority to water security, reliable power and other essential infrastructure before spending substantial amounts on improvements that would be nice to have, but aren’t particularly urgent.

Thank you for considering my comments.
Sharon Drinkwine
Sunset Valley resident since 2007

At the September 1 City Council meeting, our community strongly disapproved of wasteful City plans. I hope that Council responds appropriately at the next meeting in: formally saying NO to 1) the Brodie Initiative (presently deferred), 2) the City Hall swings (presently deferred) and 3) increased charges to residents for water, waste water and sold waste… and YES to 1) keeping utilities affordable through subsidies and 2) capping the 2027 budget at or below anticipated sales tax revenue.

The challenges to our financial stability are writ large “on the wall” as well as prominent in the Budget and Finance Committee recommendations to the Mayor, Council, staff and the community.

And to the Mayor and Council members, please don’t “defer” the $2.9 million Brodie Project and $90,000 swings so they can be dropped in later. If you were to reconsider the Brodie initiative at a later date, it’s silly to spend any large chunk of money, i.e. a $300,000 engineering report, before establishing the possible use with seasonal surveying of the proposed pedestrian and bicycle path. Thank you, City Manager Matt Lingafelter for considering that suggestion made earlier.

I urge the City of Sunset Valley to oppose any sale or swap of the Uplands property for the purpose of repurchasing land associated with the closure of Sunset Valley Elementary School.

The Uplands property represents one of the city's limited opportunities to expand public amenities and recreational space for residents. As Sunset Valley continues to evolve, preserving land for community use is increasingly important. This property is planned to build amenities such as pickleball courts, additional parkland, trails, expand the farmers market , or other recreational facilities that directly benefit residents and enhance quality of life.

While the potential sale of the former school property by AISD to a private developer may be concerning, sacrificing the Uplands property is not the right solution. Publicly owned land becomes more valuable over time as population grows and opportunities for acquiring new recreational space become more limited. The City should instead explore alternative funding sources, bond funding, or other financing mechanisms if it wishes to pursue acquisition of the former school property. Additionally, the City retains tools such as zoning, development standards, and land-use regulations that can help ensure any future development of the school site is compatible with the character of Sunset Valley and does not result in disruptive uses.

The choice should not be between protecting the school site and preserving the Uplands property. The City should pursue solutions that maintain community assets rather than exchanging one public asset for another. I encourage the City Council to keep the Uplands property in public hands and preserve it for future parks, recreation, and community amenities.

Thank you for your consideration.

I am writing to express my support for the planned Brodie Lane pedestrian improvements. One of the joys of living in Sunset Valley is the ability to walk or bike to nearby shops, restaurants, and grocery stores. Vehicular traffic continues to increase every year on Brodie Lane, making these walks and bike rides less joyful and, unfortunately, more dangerous. I believe making our city safer, more accessible, and more beautiful is well worth the funds laid out in the proposed budget.

Thank you to the council for your consideration and public service.

Brandon Shackelford
36 Lovegrass Lane

Please do not include any of The Uplands property, other than The Triangle, as a portion of your proposal to purchase Sunset Valley Elementary School from AISD.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Valerie Loomis
Sunset Valley resident

I believe Sunset Valley should borrow the money to purchase Sunset Valley Elementary, rather than participating in a land trade involving the portion of The Uplands that would provide access to HWY 290.

Over time, the portions of The Uplands that would provide access to HWY 290 will increase in value much more than the school property. That The Uplands property is an important emergency nest egg for Sunset Valley, particularly if sales tax revenues were to decline. To avoid the city having to pay a lot of interest on the loan, the school property could be put up for sale immediately. Even if the City did not get all of its money back in the sale, retaining the much more valuable 290 access property would still be financially prudent.

Before selling, Sunset Valley could place deed restrictions on the school property to control the potential uses of it. I believe that the deed restrictions would provide robust protections in the courts, guaranteeing a desirable use of the school property.

If AISD were to get control of the 290 access portion of The Uplands, our ordinances controlling construction on the property would be difficult to uphold, because of the commercial value of that property. There is a danger of The Uplands taking on characteristics similar to those of the multi-use developments lining South Lamar that have multiple stories of apartments over retail space. If parking were to be built behind such structures, as on Lamar, with the 290 access road being one-way, the resultant traffic increase on Jones Road could be significant. Most traffic from the East and South going to these commercial areas will use Jones Road to access the parking lots on The Uplands. A traffic light may need to be installed on Pillow at Jones, and depending on the time of day, old-town residents may have difficulty accessing Jones Road.

With reasonable calm and careful consideration, we can guarantee a desirable use of the school property, retain the financially valuable Uplands 290 access and reduce the potential traffic increases on Jones Road as much as possible.

Sincerely,
Burton Pierson
Resident

We fully support the city pursuing a land swap with Austin ISD for Sunset Valley elementary with the Uplands property. It makes sense for the city to own the SVE property instead of the Uplands so we can to control the land that is physically closer to the residential areas of our city, provided that appraisals and financial due diligence are thorough.

I have reviewed the Budget & Finance Committee's recommendation to remove the interest income from the annual operating budget and do not think that is financially necessary or realistic.
The City's funds are already invested in a conservative short-term government fund. Rates of course fluctuate, but over a long period they have not averaged anywhere near zero. A reasonable estimate of the long-term average is roughly 2.5% to 3% and no less than 2%. Even if we budget only a conservative 2% return on approximately $23 million in savings (over 2 years of operating expenses), that represents about $460,000 of recurring investment income. Just like our sales taxes will also fluctuate, we can budget for fluctuations in interest income.

The proposed FY26/27 budget is disappointing and quite frankly an insult to the residents of this City. One has to question is the priority of our local government the welfare of our City or is it frivolous spending?
At least we can draw some solace that when our sewage system does not work , our fire hydrants are not effective and our trails and roads are in disrepair, we will be able to bicycle to City Hall on our new Brodie bike trail and enjoy playing on the new swings and slide.

I oppose non essential spending at the expense of current critical infrastructure repairs and maintenance.

Yet another executive session to discuss the SSV school purchase? When are they going to clue us in on "their" intentions. I would like to know if I need to go ahead and sell my property before it's value drops.

City council agreed that Flock was untrustworthy and let our contract expire in February. Proving that decision was correct, Flock has still not removed its surveillance cameras 6 months later, and they are currently scanning 300K+ cars a month for Flock and its customers. Some cameras have been taped over, but not all. Please complete the action you took and cover them all up.

I believe Sunset Valley should borrow the money to purchase Sunset Valley Elementary, rather than participating in a land trade involving the portion of The Uplands that would provide access to HWY 290.
Over time, the portions of The Uplands that would provide access to HWY 290 will increase in value much more than the school property. That The Uplands property is an important emergency nest egg for Sunset Valley, particularly if sales tax revenues were to decline. To avoid the city having to pay a lot of interest on the loan, the school property could be put up for sale immediately. Even if the City did not get all of its money back in the sale, retaining the much more valuable 290 access property would still be financially prudent.
Before selling, Sunset Valley could place deed restrictions on the school property to control the potential uses of it. I believe that the deed restrictions would provide robust protections in the courts, guaranteeing a desirable use of the school property.
If AISD were to get control of the 290 access portion of The Uplands, our ordinances controlling construction on the property would be difficult to uphold, because of the commercial value of that property. There is a danger of The Uplands taking on characteristics similar to those of the multi-use developments lining South Lamar that have multiple stories of apartments over retail space. If parking were to be built behind such structures, as on Lamar, with the 290 access road being one-way, the resultant traffic increase on Jones Road could be significant. Most traffic from the East and South going to these commercial areas will use Jones Road to access the parking lots on The Uplands. A traffic light may need to be installed on Pillow at Jones, and depending on the time of day, old-town residents may have difficulty accessing Jones Road.
With reasonable calm and careful consideration, we can guarantee a desirable use of the school property, retain the financially valuable Uplands 290 access and reduce the potential traffic increases on Jones Road as much as possible.
Sincerely,
Burton Pierson
Resident

In my opinion, Sunset Valley should not trade the portion of The Uplands that has highway access, in order to reduce the cost of purchasing the Sunset Valley Elementary School property. Development of The Uplands would degrade our city’s environment, including dramatically increasing traffic along Jones Road.

Please look at other options with a keen eye.

Thank you.

Valerie Loomis
Sunset Valley resident

I believe Sunset Valley should consider other means of developing income to purchase Sunset Valley Elementary rather than participating in a land trade. A land trade involving The Uplands highway access property would negatively impact important characteristics of our city. We should carefully consider multiple possibilities and relevant consequences.

Many municipalities sell a municipal bond to develop cash for important projects. Has Sunset Valley throughly explored this possibility? Our sales tax income has been steady enough to guarantee a level of revenue. Most entities that increase their wealth take on some debt at some point. For example, people often take on debt, with no real guarantee of future income, to buy a home and that act begins their wealth accumulation.

For those concerned about needing income for a future emergency, The Uplands, due to the highway access, will increase in value more than the school property. Money depreciates from inflation, while land appreciates.

Development along the highway on The Uplands property could very well take on the characteristics of those multi-use developments lining South Lamar that have multiple stories of single-family apartments over retail space. If parking is built behind these structures, as it is Lamar, with the 290 access road being one-way, the resultant traffic increase on Jones Road could be significant.

Let’s not panic and rush our beloved city into a very bad situation!

Sincerely,

Burton Pierson

My name is Christine Allen and I live at 12 Reese. I am writing to request that the city take action to remove or disable the the Flock-operated cameras located around the city. Similar to what has unfolded in other cities, even after city council voted to cancel the contract earlier this year, Flock has made no move to remove the devices. They have no incentive to do so--their cameras continue to collect data for sale to marketers and government agencies.

If the city needs help to cover the cameras or (even better!) remove them, I am more than happy to volunteer my time!

Please take this experience into consideration when the next shiny, AI-driven product promises to make us safer, smarter, and save us money. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

My name is Ross Ponder. I'm a Sunset Valley resident. I'm writing in my personal capacity as a resident in support of granting the variance requested by Jacob and Sabaa Ruiz at 4450 Stearns Lane, and I want to explain why I think the applicants have made their case on each of the five findings Council must make under Section 150(A). There is no staff memo engaging with the applicants' findings, just a categorical denial recommendation.
On the first finding, reasonable and economic use, the applicants have done something most variance applicants don't bother to do. They have documented the actual pattern of development on their street. Pools, a pickleball court, an outdoor spa, and batting cages already exist at 4460 and 4470 Stearns. 4400 Stearns has a house built within the Critical Water Quality Zone. Their own property currently has impervious cover limited to a driveway and the house. Denying the variance would leave 4450 as the one property on its block prevented from doing what every neighbor has already done, and the requested cover of 20.8% is modest compared to what surrounds it.
On the second finding, substantial property right, outdoor recreational use is plainly customary residential use in Sunset Valley. The neighborhood evidence proves that.
The third finding, no detriment to public health, safety, or welfare, is where the applicants' evidence is strongest and where I'd gently push back on a denial. 4470 Stearns has had a pickleball court, pool, and spa in place since 2024, over the 18% cap, two houses away. The applicants represent that there have been no complaints, no enforcement actions, and no adverse impacts in that time. The applicants are right not to argue that one violation justifies another. But the practical evidence from a nearly identical installation, on the same street, with the same drainage patterns, is exactly the kind of direct evidence Council should weigh. The proposed court has no commercial use, no lighting, no public access, and the adjacent neighbors at 4460 have given their consent on the record.
On the fourth finding, orderly development, this is a single-family accessory improvement that does not change the development pattern of the neighborhood. It conforms to it.
On the fifth finding, water quality equal to or better, the applicants have responded directly to staff feedback dated May 6. They have added a water filtration system to the project plans, they have committed on the record to making approval contingent on that system, and they have submitted a Project Narrative and Drainage Impact Statement from Austin Greenery describing a catch basin, water swale, and four-inch solid flex drain pipe routed to a designated outfall. The supporting site plan confirms the drainage routing. The applicants have also offered to add native landscaping around the court as additional natural filtration. I would also note the unresolved factual question in the packet itself. The staff background describes the court site as within the Water Quality Transition Zone, but Exhibit 1, which the applicants note was provided by City Staff, shows the property in Zone X with no Critical Water Quality Zone overlap. If the staff map is right, the water quality risk that underlies the staff recommendation is meaningfully smaller than the background paragraph suggests, and the applicants' mitigations clear it.
I want to acknowledge what a denial would protect. Sunset Valley's impervious cover rules exist because Williamson Creek is a real resource and incremental cover decisions add up. I take that seriously. But the structure Council adopted under Section 150(A) is not a categorical rule. It is a five-part findings test designed to let Council approve well-mitigated projects on well-suited lots when the evidence supports it. The Ruizes have given Council that evidence. They have engaged with staff, incorporated feedback, hired a contractor who produced a drainage plan, and offered to make their mitigations a condition of approval.
I would respectfully ask Council to approve the variance, with the water filtration system and drainage plan made express conditions of the approval, and to enter findings under Section 150(B) supporting each of the five factors so the record is clean.
Thank you for your service and for the careful work that goes into these decisions.
Ross Ponder

Tgyyy

I wish to end the surveillance contract in question. Thank uou

This is Lauren Petty at 9 Sunset Trail. I would like to support my fellow residents that are opposed to the City of Sunset Valley contracting with the Flock camera service. From the research I have done and that has also been presented by friends that I have who attended the public safety meeting, Flock corporation can not properly secure our information or be depended on to not compromise our information, Hacking is a giant concern as well and information has been presented this has previously occurred. I have great trust our in our Police Department, our Public Safety Staff and our City Council, but having a third party company jeopardizes our private information and our community and the very people that are set out to protect us. Please consider our concerns when renewing their contract and let’s see if we can find an alternative way that protects us from the danger Flock has presented in addition to making things work for those protecting us.

Respectfully,

Lauren and Phillip Petty
9 Sunset Trail

This is Mickie Powers from 23 Sunset Trail. I want to say that I am opposed to the City of Sunset Valley contracting with the flock camera service. From the research I’ve done and what has been presented at the public safety meeting, the corporation cannot be depended on to do the right thing with the information, nor does it seem that they can secure it properly from being hacked. I thoroughly trust our public safety staff, and the city Council, but it sounds as if there are things that could be out out of their control and jeopardize private information. If these cameras were available for our use totally inside the city I would have no objection. I do not know if there are other companies that can be researched as a possibility to provide this service, but this company does not seem worthy.








information either because of their own doing or because they might be hacked by others who have nefarious intentions. I thoroughly trust our police department and our council members. However, even in spite of their own diligence to do the right thing, it appears from what I have learned that the corporation running flock cannot guarantee the security of their system, nor can they guaranteed their intentions with regard to the materials that they might share outside of our community.