PROP I · AUSTIN · NOVEMBER 3, 2026
YES ON PROP I.
Put independent, recurring scrutiny of City spending in Austin’s charter, where only voters can take it out. Here is the case, the numbers and the questions that still need answers.
120
days for the City Auditor to hire an independent reviewer through competition
1 yr
to finish the first review after the contract starts
5 yrs
maximum between reviews, plus one in the year before any M&O tax-rate election
9 votes
is all Council needs to amend or repeal today’s audit ordinance
Yours
is the only vote that can change a charter amendment
SOURCES: Petition text, proposed Article VII §18 · Adopted Ordinance 20260226-050, Section L
The official November 3, 2026 ballot identifies the Independent Affordability and Efficiency Initiative as Proposition I. It is a charter amendment. It is not a direct property-tax cut, and we won’t pretend it is.
SOURCES: Official election notice, p. 3
What Prop I requires
-
An independent contractor selected competitively by the City Auditor within 120 days; completion within a year of engagement.
-
Review of affordability, performance, staffing, contracts, spending and internal-control risks across City assets, revenue and expenditures. Certain enterprises may be reviewed in later phases.
-
A completed review every five years, and within the year preceding a City maintenance-and-operation tax-rate increase election.
-
A contractual commitment to identify savings exceeding the contractor’s fee, with drafts received by the City Auditor and information gathered available on request.
What it does not promise: identified savings are not automatically realized savings. It does not itself lower tax rates, reverse the Convention Center project, or require an election for every annual tax increase.
SOURCES: Full petition text
Why the charter and not an ordinance?
Council already adopted an outside efficiency-assessment program in February 2026. Good. But an ordinance belongs to Council. A charter belongs to voters.
Who controls changes?
Existing ordinance: Nine council votes to amend or repeal. Prop I: A public vote.
How often?
Existing ordinance: At least three years between assessment cycles. Prop I: At least every five years, plus one in the year before a tax-rate increase election.
Who picks the reviewer?
Existing ordinance: City process. Prop I: City Auditor, by competition, within 120 days.
What to watch
Existing ordinance: Implementation, published recommendations and follow-through. Prop I: How the City reconciles overlapping reviews and measures actual savings.
SOURCES: Adopted Ordinance 20260226-050 · Petition text
Austin’s recent tax rates
City Hall adopted a higher property tax rate this year than last. Prop I would require an independent review before the next time the City asks voters to approve a maintenance-and-operation rate increase.
A rate is not a bill. Your bill depends on your appraised value and exemptions. Rates below are per $100 of taxable value, as posted by the City.
City of Austin rate
Adopted property tax rate
No-new-revenue rate
Voter-approval rate
FY 2025-26
$0.524017
$0.483319
$0.524017
FY 2026-27
$0.579948
$0.535466
$0.579948
SOURCES: City of Austin tax rates · Austin Tax Rate Archive
The Convention Center deserves scrutiny.
2002
expanded center opens
2025
torn down
22 yrs
old when the City demolished it
2029
planned reopening
The City tore down a 22-year-old building. Who benefits, what does it cost, and what did we give up? Those are fair questions about demolishing and replacing a major public facility.
The City says redevelopment uses hotel occupancy taxes and Convention Center revenue, with no reliance on property taxes. Our criticism is about priorities, forecasts and accountability, not a claim that those restricted dollars can simply pay any General Fund bill.
Our argument: A project this big should stand up to independent scrutiny. Ask for the full costs, credible demand forecasts and measurable public benefits.
SOURCES: City history and financing explanation · City redevelopment procurement
And No on Prop G. Here’s why they’re connected.
Prop I is on the ballot because Austinites gathered signatures and forced a vote. That is the petition process, and it is protected by the City charter. Prop G would require citizen-initiated elections to wait for the next November of an even-numbered year. Depending on when a petition is turned in, that is a delay of up to two years.
Delay has a history here. In 1992 Council refused to put the Save Our Springs petition on the ballot until it lost in court; the three-month delay gave developers time to file plans covering thousands of acres in the watershed. In May 2023, 79 percent of Austin voters approved the citizen-initiated Police Oversight Act. Under Prop G, a vote like that would have waited 18 months.
Our argument: If City Hall wanted fewer petitions, it could earn them by listening. Instead Prop G makes the public wait. Democracy delayed is democracy denied. Vote NO on G.
SOURCES: Official election notice · Texas Local Government Code, chapter 9
Questions about Prop I.
Isn’t the City already doing this?
It has a separate efficiency-assessment program. The campaign’s argument is for voter control through the charter and the amendment’s particular requirements. Pretending no other review exists would weaken that argument.
Could two reviews cost more?
Yes, overlapping requirements are a legitimate concern. Austin Current reports that City officials raised the possibility of parallel processes. Our position is to demand a public implementation plan that avoids duplication while honoring both requirements.
Does the savings requirement bias the work?
Critics argue that requiring savings greater than the fee could pressure a contractor’s conclusions. Supporters see a value-for-money test. The campaign should insist on disclosed assumptions, evidence and a clear distinction between recommendations and achieved savings.
Will Prop I lower my taxes?
Not by itself. It requires an independent review and public findings. Lower bills depend on what Council does with those findings, and on your appraisal and exemptions.
SOURCES: Austin Current comparison and opposing arguments
Our ballot guide
Yes on I. No on the rest of the charter amendments. State law lets Austin amend its charter only once every two years, so every charter election should be spent on something that matters. This year that is Prop I.
PROP A · BOND
YOUR CALL
$260 million for park and pool improvements.
The City has nearly $1 billion in unspent bond money. Ask whether it should borrow more, and whether you trust it to spend this wisely.
PROP B · BOND
YOUR CALL
$35 million for the Hampton Branch and Colony Park Branch libraries.
Same question. Parks and libraries are easy to say yes to; more debt on top of unspent bonds is not.
PROP C · CHARTER
NO
Changes the rules for the Independent Redistricting Commission.
The commission’s whole value is its independence. Prop C lets it talk with any of the City’s 13,000 employees and strikes the ban on discussion outside public meetings.
PROP D · CHARTER
NO
Removes the requirement that Council meet weekly.
Council already doesn’t meet weekly. A charter change with no effect is not worth one of the City’s rare charter elections.
PROP E · CHARTER
NO
Lets Council set its meeting rules without an ordinance.
An ordinance means public notice and public comment. Council cut speaking times before and lost in court. Keep the rules where the public can see them.
PROP F · CHARTER
NO
PROP G · CHARTER
NO
PROP H · CHARTER
NO
PROP I · CHARTER
YES
PROP J · CHARTER
NO
Moves the annual update of campaign contribution limits to January 1.
Harmless housekeeping, but not important enough to spend a charter election on.
Pushes citizen-initiated elections to the next November of an even-numbered year.
Petitions are how voters put Prop I on the ballot. Prop G could make the next one wait almost two years. Our full argument is above.
Gives Council, not the City Manager, the power to hire and fire the City Attorney.
Council already recommends and the Manager follows. Not worth a charter change.
Requires independent affordability and efficiency audits, on a schedule and before any tax-rate election.
Puts accountability where Council can’t repeal it without a public vote. Our case is above.
The City says it only corrects typos and removes language superseded by state law or court orders.
The City is lying about this proposition. The changes are NOT minor — non-substantive — changes.
READ MORE ON PROP J
The ballot language: “Shall the City Charter be amended to make non-substantive corrections of typographical errors, punctuation, and sentence structure, and to change or remove language that is moot or unenforceable because it has been superseded by state law or by a final court order?”
Bill Aleshire’s reading:
First, the change to the Charter regarding the requirement that a petitioned ordinance containing a “caption” must be used as the ballot language, to say that language has to be used “or” other language as “permitted” (not required) by law. In effect, this is a substantive change that guts that provision and allows the Council to make up its own ballot language, which is what the Election Code permits.
Second, the change striking the language from the Charter that revenue bonds must be approved by the voters is a substantive change and that requirement has not been “superseded” by state law. State law allows certain revenue bonds to be issued without voter approval, but those laws do not include any provision saying the voters of the city cannot have a more stringent requirement in the home-rule Charter to require voter approval.
SOURCES: Official election notice · Texas Local Government Code §9.004
Make a voting plan.
Oct 5 · Last day to register
Oct 19 · Early voting begins
Oct 23 · Mail-ballot application must be received
Oct 30 · Early voting ends
Nov 3 · Election Day, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Registration information · Check registration and polling information · Austin election resources