Formal procurement records

No currently-active master agreement in the city’s Active Contracts dataset names this vendor. That’s common and doesn’t mean the money is untracked — large payments are often made via delivery orders under a master agreement that has since expired (the city only publishes active ones), by a joint-venture / related legal entity different from the contracting firm, or they’re a transfer, debt-service, grant, or direct disbursement with no procurement contract at all. To chase the scope, search Austin Finance Online Contracts and the Council records for “BANK OF NEW YORK-EFT” using the links below.

How the City books these payments

The City department & division that cut these checks — this is why one vendor can show up under several programs and funds (each program on the Overview is a department). Rows marked transfer / non-operating are money moved through a budget line (citywide transfers, debt service) rather than a service performed here — a balance-sheet flow, not a purchase.

Verify at the source

Every check to this vendor (raw checkbook feed) →
City checkbook dataset (8c6z-qnmj) →
Austin Finance Online — search solicitations / contracts →
Search City Council records for “BANK OF NEW YORK-EFT” →

Reading the source-doc column below: a CT number is a contract (it links straight to the contract record). A DO (delivery order) is an internal payment reference against a master agreement — those numbers are not searchable in the solicitations portal, so to find the scope, search Austin Finance Online by vendor name (“BANK OF NEW YORK-EFT”) under Contracts, or use the Council-records search above.

Debt Service$210,000 · 1 check