Matthew Becker, an outreach assessor at Sunrise Homeless Navigation Center, right, gives supplies to Barbara Leggett, an Austin resident experiencing homelessness, left, in East Austin on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025.
Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman
Cash-strapped Austin got some good news this week: The city will have an additional $4.7 million to spend in its proposed budget because of higher-than-expected property tax revenue.
The city budget office announced Thursday that certified property values from the Travis, Williamson and Hays appraisal districts added $3.3 billion to Austin’s tax base — slightly more than the $3.2 billion increase assumed in the proposed budget. A small adjustment to the property tax rate also contributed to the additional revenue.
Article continues below this ad
Endeavors driver Bryan Rader, left, helps Cecil Strickling board a van outside Central Presbyterian Church to the Marshalling Yard, a city-owned homeless shelter, on Thursday January 11, 2024.
Jay Janner / American-Statesman
The unexpected money quickly set off a scramble over how to spend it. City staff recommended directing it toward housing programs, while a coalition of five City Council members proposed using the full amount to avert most of the roughly $5 million in proposed cuts to social service contracts.
Council Members Vanessa Fuentes, Natasha Harper-Madison, Mike Siegel, Paige Ellis and Zo Qadri filed a budget amendment Thursday night that would use the money to offset cuts affecting nonprofit organizations that provide food assistance, housing support, health care and other services.
The proposal is likely to stir some controversy as a recent audit, executed separately from the decision to cut social services, found that a sampling of social service nonprofits missed a significant share of their performance targets.
Article continues below this ad
The debate comes as the council weighs how to close a projected $26 million budget deficit while preserving core services and limiting the financial burden on residents.
City financial staff, working with the Travis County tax assessor-collector’s office, calculated an official property tax rate of 57.9948 cents per $100 of taxable value for the coming budget year, up slightly from the 57.953 cents projected in the proposed budget.
Together, the higher certified values and adjusted tax rate are expected to generate $4.7 million more for the city’s general fund than staff initially anticipated.
City staff recommended directing the additional revenue to Austin Housing to support the city’s local housing voucher program. Under that plan, the city would use $2.25 million from the House Our People Endowment Fund for emergency rental assistance and make a one-time, $2.5 million contribution to the Housing Trust Fund.
Article continues below this ad
Fuentes challenged that recommendation during the council’s budget discussion, saying residents in her district were deeply concerned about the proposed social service cuts. She suggested using the additional revenue to restore funding to those contracts instead.
Harper-Madison, Siegel, Ellis and Qadri later joined Fuentes in sponsoring the amendment. The five council members would need one more vote to constitute enough votes to pass the proposal if they remain united and no council members are absent.
“I’m proud to stand with my colleagues in our efforts to restore the lifelines that keep Austin families housed, healthy and safe,” Fuentes said in a Thursday night statement. “While this amendment is a step in the right direction, we must continue to assess every line of our budget and make sure it’s held to the standard Austin deserves.”
Austin attorney and former Travis County Judge Bill Aleshire said the extra money should be used to cut property taxes, offsetting the 3.5% rate increase baked into the budget proposal council is considering.
Article continues below this ad
“Of course, the council majority would never think of reducing the tax rate when they have ‘extra’ money,” Aleshire said. “I don’t know any taxpayers who think that is ‘extra’ money when it just means the city will take that much more from their household budget.”
Editor’s note: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated the vote threshold to pass a budget amendment. It is six council members, not five. The story also has been updated to include comment from Bill Aleshire.