Good Thursday evening --
We have a few updates for you today:
AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES MAXIMUM 3.5% PROPERTY TAX INCREASE WITH $6.6 BILLION BUDGET BY 9-2 VOTE
Yet again proving they DO NOT CARE about affordability, yesterday the Austin City Council passed the FY 2027 budget, which includes another maximum 3.5% property tax increase. The budget passed over the opposition of Austin Mayor Kirk Watson and courageous taxpayer advocate Council Member Marc Duchen.
From the Austin American-Statesman story about the budget:
By Chaya Tong, Austin Sanders, Staff Writers
Aug 13, 2026
Austin American-Statesman
A divided Austin City Council approved a $6.6 billion budget Wednesday night that will raise taxes and fees while preserving most social service funding and adding money for homelessness programs, public safety and a new emergency communications office.
The council adopted the 2026-27 spending plan on a 9-2 vote, with Mayor Kirk Watson and Council Member Marc Duchen opposed. Both argued the council was asking residents to absorb too many additional costs at a time when many Austinites are struggling financially.
Article continues below this ad
The budget relies on the maximum 3.5% property tax increase allowed without voter approval and raises several city service fees, including electricity, water and trash, to help balance multimillion-dollar budget shortfall. Council members also voted to authorize additional borrowing for transportation projects and animal services, further increasing the amount residents will pay.
For the average Austin homeowner, with a property valued at $471,603 before the city’s 20% homestead exemption, the budget’s property tax increase will cost $113.76 annually. Combined with higher utilities, including power and water, and service fees, the typical homeowner will pay $285.84 more to the city than they did last year. The approved transportation and animal services financing will add another $5.10 once the debt is fully issued.
“Good government is more than just a vision of what a person desires. It needs to be able to execute and function well,” Watson said in a statement Wednesday evening. “It needs to be sustainable. It needs to be responsible and responsive to our residents and ratepayers. And it needs to set us up for long term success. I do not believe this budget accomplishes those goals.”
Council Member Paige Ellis said she had reservations about parts of the budget but ultimately supported it because of the investments it makes in public safety and the inclusion of a 3% cost-of-living raise for city employees.
“There are maybe bits and pieces of this that I don’t necessarily love, but I think all in all we have to move forward with a budget that stretches as far as it possibly can to provide the services that our residents desperately need, and that appreciates the people who work for the city of Austin everyday,” she said.
What changed?
During Wednesday’s meeting, council members substantially revised the budget City Manager T.C. Broadnax proposed in July, adding funding for several priorities while reducing spending elsewhere and using reserves to help cover the changes.
Members added about $1.5 million for homelessness programs, including three new positions for the Homeless Strategy Office, foster youth vouchers, family shelters and a homeless storage program.
They also approved about $1.4 million for a new Office of Joint Emergency Communications; $6 million for overtime at the Austin Fire Department; $500,000 in additional overtime funding for Austin-Travis County EMS to help cover ambulance shifts when paramedics are out for training; and $79,000 for the Austin Police Department to hire a new recruiter.
Council members separately authorized $36 million in potential new debt through certificates of obligation, including $33 million for transportation and mobility projects and $3 million for animal services. The borrowing, which does not require voter approval, would add about $5.10 a year to the tax bill for the average homeowner once the debt is fully issued.
Council members also formally approved a compromise reached earlier over social service funding, restoring $4.75 million in one-time money for contracts Broadnax had proposed cutting and moving $4.7 million for housing vouchers onto ongoing city funding. The arrangement preserves the affected services for the coming year, though some of the funding will again have to be addressed in next year’s budget. Council Member Ryan Alter also won approval of a resolution directing Broadnax to develop a process for evaluating the performance of social service contracts before next year’s budget.
The compromise came after voters last November rejected Proposition Q, a tax-rate increase that would have raised money for housing and other social safety net programs. Its defeat prompted the city to make cuts to those services, leaving council members to struggle to find funding for programs that the measure was intended to address.
Council additions strain the budget
To offset some of the new spending, council members cut funding for department travel budgets, Development Services Department fees and waivers, consultant contract spending and the arts culture music and entertainment department. They also drew from the city’s rainy day fund.
After council members were done making the changes, city budget staff informed them the amendments had put the budget about $2 million out of balance. Staff later presented options for closing the gap, forcing council members to choose between reducing programs and using reserves.
Broadnax cautioned council members against adding spending without identifying corresponding cuts, telling the council that reducing some of the new initiatives or finding savings elsewhere in the budget would be preferable to relying on reserves.
Ellis also raised concerns about drawing down reserves and using one-time money for ongoing expenses, particularly when social service contracts could require additional funding again next year.
The council ultimately voted 7-4 to use reserve money to help balance the budget rather than make additional cuts, including a possible reduction to library spending suggested by staff and Duchen. Watson, Ellis and Council Members Natasha Harper-Madison and Duchen opposed the use of reserves.
Staff said the decision would leave reserves at 16.98%, just below the city’s 17% target.
(the story continues)
Duchen pushes for smaller tax increase
Council members rejected a proposal from Duchen to limit the property tax increase to 2.5%, though they adopted a scaled-down version of his plan to reduce departmental travel spending.
Duchen, the council’s most consistent critic of recent tax and spending increases, said he had been prepared to support the budget this year but was frustrated that council members did not give more consideration to proposals aimed at reducing spending.
“The City Council let Austin down tonight,” Duchen said in a statement after the vote. “Utility rates, county taxes, and the cost of living are all on the rise, and the last thing residents can afford right now is a big property tax hike. Sadly, that’s what they got.”
But Council Member Vanessa Fuentes defended the final spending plan, saying the additional money would support services residents rely on.
“To be able to deliver a budget that truly prioritizes and provides sustainable services for everyone in the city is something incredible,” Fuentes said.
- - -
SAVE AUSTIN NOW VIEW: Nine members of the City Council refused to meaningfully cut wasteful spending or even seriously review city spending, before passing the largest tax increase without voter approval that is allowed by law.
There can be no doubt that these nine members not only do not want to make affordability better (as they often claim), but they are consistently and measurably making it worse.
The budget is indefensible, outrageous, immoral and unserious.
And it makes even more urgent the need to pass our Outside Audit Charter Amendment (Prop I) this November.
- - -
» RELATED
Statement from Mayor Watson After Voting Against the Budget
Yesterday, the Council passed a budget for the next fiscal year. I didn’t vote for it. This budget bothers me. It goes back on some of the actions we’ve taken over the past year to strengthen city government and put affordability first. Just last week, The Council voted to have a bond election in November. I voted against that, too.
Yesterday, Council voted, as part of the budget, to add even more debt by using Certificates of Obligation or “CO’s”. Those are debt instruments that add tens of millions of dollars of debt without voter approval.
That’s only one reason I voted against the final version of the budget. Another is that it increases the average Austinite’s annual city bill by over $400— that’s just the City’s portion of taxes, fees, rates, and debt.
I don’t feel like the budget takes into account the struggles of so much of our community when it comes to being able to afford to live here.
There are some good parts. This budget invests more in our EMS and Fire departments. It puts more money in parks maintenance, forensic sciences, and animal services, and stabilizes our local housing voucher program. I believe that these are good investments that focus on providing basic city services.
But a value of mine—a principle, I guess—is that leadership requires being able to say no. Responsible government doesn’t only ask whether something is worthwhile. It asks whether this is the right time and the right way to pay for it. Compassion should be measured by the lives we improve, not simply by the dollars we appropriate.
Our commitment to Austin requires stewardship.
Good government is more than just a vision of what a person desires. It needs to be able to execute and function well. It needs to be sustainable. It needs to be responsible and responsive to our residents and ratepayers. And it needs to set us up for long term success that looks beyond one or two budget cycles.
I do not believe this budget accomplishes those goals. I voted no.
Statement from CM Duchen After Voting Against the Budget
The City Council let Austin down tonight.
Utility rates, county taxes, and the cost of living are all on the rise, and the last thing residents can afford right now is a big property tax hike. Sadly, that’s what they got.
I prepared 15 amendments designed to reduce city spending and the burden on taxpayers, but most of my colleagues refused to discuss them and instead passed the maximum tax increase allowed by law.
Their budget requires the use of reserve funds meant only for emergencies, and it saddles City Hall with new debt. Mayor Kirk Watson and I were the only members to object.
I fought against today’s proposal in an effort to preserve affordability, protect Austinites at risk of displacement, and address our structural deficit.
If we fail to fix these problems, we’ll threaten Austin’s financial stability and make this community even less affordable for struggling families and small businesses.
Last fall, my colleagues pledged to tackle this city’s spending problem after voters shot down Prop Q. We need to start living up to that promise.
Our constituents are making increasingly tough decisions when it comes to their own expenses, and it’s time we did the same.
ACTION ALERT: Please re-post his statement and thank him for his courageous fight for taxpayers here.
As the only incumbent City Council Member up for re-election this year who OPPOSED Prop Q and VOTED AGAINST this immoral and outrageous tax increase, I hope you will consider financially supporting Marc’s re-election.
SIEGEL-LED DSA MAJORITY INTENTIONALLY HARMS APD
As bad as the budget is, the Siegel amendment is far worse.
Here’s how the Austin American-Statesman summarized it:
Among the most divisive proposed changes was a proposal from Council Members Mike Siegel and Krista Laine to establish an Office of Joint Emergency Communications. The measure, which ultimately passed after an hour-plus of heated debate, provides $1.4 million to fund preliminary consultant recommendations, including additional staff, technology and operational changes to Austin’s 911 call center aimed at improving emergency response times. It also lays the groundwork for a call center independent of the Police Department.
Supporters said that putting the 911 call center under direct control of civilians would allow for better coordination and collaboration between the three emergency response agencies and mental health clinicians. They also said the move would allow for more focused work on improving issues at the call center, such as duplicate call transfers and triage questions, inconsistent quality assurance practices and outdated technology systems.
But Austin’s police, fire and EMS chiefs all opposed creating the office before the consultant delivers its final recommendations in September, warning a standalone operation could create inefficiencies in 911 call-taking. Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis said the move could add bureaucracy without improving response times.
“What problem are we trying to fix?” Davis said. “To remove that from the Austin Police, I don’t see the benefit in that.”
Broadnax backed the three chiefs but the proposal still passed 6-2, with Watson and Duchen opposed. Council Members Chito Vela, Harper-Madison and Ellis abstained.
Money for the initiative would come from reductions in information technology consulting contracts, city reserves and funding originally set aside to support Austin Police Department recruitment campaigns. Under the plan, those costs would instead be paid from the department’s asset forfeiture fund. The amendment did not cut funding for the department’s new recruiter position.
SAVE AUSTIN NOW VIEW: Let’s be very clear. Red diaper baby and admitted socialist Mike Siegel first attempted to cut $19M from the police budget as part of the budget review. Thankfully, he failed. But he succeeded in harming APD by needlessly pushing to move the 911 call center out of APD, which all three first responder Chiefs (Police, Fire and EMS) publicly opposed, as well as the City Manager opposed.
» ACTION ALERT: Please read and share the response from Austin Police Union president Michael Bullock here.
- - -
Why is the Siegel amendment bad?
- The Siegel amendment undermines chief’s ability to rapidly address issues.
- In a time where contract work is under scrutiny, council paid for a study then acted before they even had the results. Defeating the purpose of the study.
- The City hires Police, Fire and EMS Chiefs for a reason, because they are the professionals. It makes no sense when all of your Chiefs and city management say something is a bad idea but Council imposes its ideological will anyway.
- This creates another layer of government between someone calling 911 and the actual first responders. And starts a path where those responsible for the call are being removed from the equation when it comes to evaluating calls as they come in.
And response times have been decreasing, and are now below the national average.
There was no legitimate reason to do this, except to weaken APD, take something away from them, and eventually dictate what kinds of calls APD can respond to for his own radical ideological reasons (which is his actual goal).
The six DSA (Democratic Socialists of Austin-backed) Council Members who voted for this amendment:
Mike Siegel (D7, up for re-election in 2028) **authored amendment
Jose Velasquez (D3, up for re-election in 2026)
Zo Qadri (D9, up for re-election in 2026)
Krista Laine (D6, up for re-election in 2028)
Vanessa Fuentes (D2, term ends in 2028)
Ryan Alter (D5, up for re-election in 2026)
Voted No:
Mayor Kirk Watson (term ends 2028)
Marc Duchen (D10, up for re-election in 2028)
Abstained (an absurd move):
Paige Ellis (D8, term limited in 2026, collecting signatures to run again)
Chito Vela (D4, up for re-election in 2028)
Natasha Harper-Madison (D1, retiring, open seat in 2026)
Stay tuned. MUCH, MUCH more to come on this.
CORRECTION ON ITEM FROM LAST EMAIL (ITEM & CORRECTION RE-POSTED FROM MACKENZIE KELLY’S SUBSTACK)
A quick correction: Monday's post described a city budget memo as showing two nonprofits, Foundation Communities and The Other Ones Foundation, being paid twice for the same service. That wasn't quite right, and I've corrected it on the original post. After Chris Baker at The Other Ones Foundation reached out to me directly with context not in the memo, I learned something different from what I had published. TOOF's contract turned out to fund a distinct service being consolidated, not overlapping payment. Based on that same conversation, it sounds like Foundation Communities' contract works similarly, though I haven't confirmed that directly with them yet. The rest of my post still stands. I appreciated the chance to get closer to it, and I always welcome that opportunity. That's it, that's the correction. On to today's piece:
AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR OUTSIDE AUDIT CHARTER AMENDMENT
Late last week, the Austin City Council approved ballot language for all of the charter amendments for the Nov. 2026 ballot.
We have been given PROP I.
We will be encouraging all Austin voters to VOTE YES ON PROP I.
This is our ballot language: Proposition I: Shall the City Charter be amended to require an Independent Affordability and Efficiency Initiative on a regular basis and before any tax rate increase election and requiring the independent contractor to identify annual and multi-year savings that exceed the cost of the contractor’s service?
Our view is this ballot language is simple, fair and transparent and WILL NOT need to be challenged legally. We expected biased language, as we experience twice in 2021 on Prop B and Prop A. Thankfully, they did not play games here.
BIG WIN: LAWSUIT CHALLENGING PROJECT CONNECT WINS IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL RULING ON PROJECT CONNECT
The City will appeal to the new 15th Court of Appeals.
Congrats to attorney Bill Aleshire on this important initial victory!
UPDATE: City of Austin Partially Releases List of Nonprofits That Failed City Audit!
After more than 400 Austinites joined Save Austin Now in demanding the release of the list of nonprofits that failed the city audit when we sent out the action alert last week, the City partially released the list (14 of 19 nonprofits identified).
The city released a list of 14 nonprofits that failed to deliver (not the full list of 19).
» Read the city’s released list here.
» Share our post about it here.
Background
As local media reported recently, an internal city audit found that of 25 local nonprofits who were fully paid their taxpayer-funded contracts with the City of Austin, 19 did not deliver the services that were required.
For some inexplicable reason, the City Council has refused to release the list of nonprofits.
If you have emailed the council, THANK YOU!
If you haven’t yet, we are asking all Austinites to join us in demanding the City Council release the list.
ACTION ALERT: You can easily email the Mayor, the entire City Council, the City Manager and the City Auditor by clicking this link. Please make the email your own before you send it. This will take you less than 30 seconds.
83 DAYS TO GO UNTIL ELECTION DAY!!!
FINANCIAL SUPPORT NEEDED: PLEASE DONATE TO OUR EFFORTS
We absolutely need your financial support.
The campaign to pass the Outside Audit Charter Amendment (Prop I) begins immediately!
Ways to Give:
ONLINE: You can securely contribute online here.
BY CHECK: You can make a check to “Save Austin Now PAC” and mail it to:
807 Brazos Street
Suite 306
Austin, TX 78701
VENMO: @saveaustinnow
WIRE: If you wish to send a wire, please email Matt.
As we have said before, WE HAVE ONLY BEGUN TO FIGHT!
THANK YOU.
-Save Austin Now PAC
Pol. ad. paid for by Save Austin Now PAC. Leland Bickers, Treasurer. SaveAustinNowPAC.com
Save Austin Now substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.